ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

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:

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?

Because it is a literal 'before' for us. When God enters the time stream as-it-were, He experiences these things with us. At this point, I simply suggest that we acquiesce the truth of scripture and recognize its communication to us in our created reality and also recognize it is not the only reality for God.
Again, when Dave interacts with his fish, he is wet, no question, the 'wet' applies to him to a much much lesser degree than to his fish. In fact, the fishes' wet only applies to Dave in-as-much as he interacts with his fish. After that he goes to a totally different water and uses soap. God interacts with us so time is only consistent with Him in-as-much as He literally acts with us. My paradigm, again, is relational to (involved) but unconstrained (cannot be thought as bound in His creation in any way) by time.

More specifically

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 christian...existed...

Because, as you rightly said, there is no time for God except (my qualification) that He became relational to it when He created and His communications to us are within the time-line. He entered it and is still with us Colossians 1:16 ff

 

[DFT_Dave]

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:

I already have the qist of your God, who is, as you say, the constuction of a timeless infinity. He just is not the Biblical God who created the world and made man in his likeness to share eternity with him.

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]

Lon, I asked you:

"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?"

To this you answered:

Because, as you rightly said, there is no time for God except (my qualification) that He became relational to it when He created and His communications to us are within the time-line. He entered it and is still with us Colossians 1:16 ff

The problem with your answer is you take the things that belong to the "divine, eternal" sphere and apply them to the "mortal, time-bound" sphere despite the fact that they are as different as apples and oranges.

If you are right then Christians were saved before the world began, before any of them believed the gospel despite the fact that the Scriptures make it plain that believing the gospel is essential to salvation:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

If you are right that certain men were saved before the foundation of the world then when they come into the world they are already saved and therefore there is no need for them to believe the gospel.

We are supposed to "reason out of the Scriptures" but in order to believe your view we must stand reason on its head.

Could you give me an answer as to why you think that a person can be saved before he even exists and before he believes the gospel despite the fact that the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that the gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"?

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

The Scriptures also say that the eternal things are invisible:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (Tim.1:17).

The things in the eternal state are "invisible" in the sense that we are not equipped to see those things. Now a question for you:

If someone sees what he thinks is God then does that mean that in His essential nature He is not really invisible to man?:

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness" (Ex.24:9-10).

If these men really saw God then how can the following words be explained?:

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (Jn.1:18).

God has a way of communicating with man where His essential nature is not compromised. In this case the men saw a "vision" of Him. Is it not possible that He can speak to man in a similiar fashion as a "vision" and in such a way that does not compromise His timelessness?

After all, with God all things are possible.

 

[Lon]

I already have the qist of your God, who is, as you say, the constuction of a timeless infinity. He just is not the Biblical God who created the world and made man in his likeness to share eternity with him.

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.

Uhhhggg, hence "relational to." Dave, if you want to bow out of the conversation because you got nothing left, that's fine but don't jump to lame conclusions simply because....

When the word's came from heaven, "This is my beloved Son", God was speaking in sequence just like we do.

Absolutely, Dave! Relational to, unconconstrained by.

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

Look back above, Dave. IF we both say God is relational to yet unconstrained by time (albeit for whatever different reasons) we are playing the same color.

Go back and look at my Dave and the fishbowl analogies. They have Dave outside of his fishbowl yet dwelling with them in the same house. Do you remember Solomon repeating what God told His father? That no house could hold Him? Yet God also said that He dwelled with Israel. Work through this passage and listen to what God says:
2 Samuel 7 1Kings 5:1-5 1 Kings 8:27

 

[Lon]

Could you give me an answer as to why you think that a person can be saved before he even exists and before he believes the gospel despite the fact that the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that the gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"?

Thanks!

My simple answer: When God created, the time-line is set in place. We don't do anything before we do them, but God knows without the time constraint.
We believe because He enables us to believe in Christ. So, He knows without time restriction, yet we know when we reach that point in time appointed.

When an author writes a book, they often know what the end is already. We read the books and find out along the way as we wait for each successive book.
For the author, it is already a completed story in their head. For the reader, it has not yet been completed until the last book is written then read. This may be a poor analogy but it helps us understand our "before's" and "after's" in relation to God's perspective. One is God's perspective, and the other is our's. For us, there is only the time-line except as God gives us glimpses of past and future in revelation (scriptures). God, the Creator and Author of us, is not bound by our necessary time increments. Similarly, an author may include peeks from things that aren't present in the books we read both from before the first book took place, and even beyond the last book. They know the world they created implicitly and are unconstrained time-wise, as you and I in their thoughts travelling their. We have to read in order to travel there.

In the world God created, we must traverse time to see God's fulfillment and intentions for us. We are travelling, from our perspective, where God has already been.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

For the author, it is already a completed story in their head. For the reader, it has not yet been completed until the last book is written then read. This may be a poor analogy but it helps us understand our "before's" and "after's" in relation to God's perspective. One is God's perspective, and the other is our's.

Lon, the perspective of which you are referring to when you speak of an author writing a book is the divine, eternal perspective. In that sphere all things with God are simultaneous and there are no sequences of events. But the verse which you say is in regard to the divine, eternal sphere reveals a sequence of events:

"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).

The word "before" can only be in regard to events which happen in sequence so the sphere being described in this verse is not the divine, eternal sphere but instead the mortal, time-bound perspective.

This is clearly a case of Paul employing a figure of speech called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

Paul is taking the things which belong to the divine, eternal sphere and applying them to the mortal, time-bound sphere. He is taking things which belong to an existence where all things are simultaneous and without sequence and imposing them on an existence where there is a sequence of events. This is a clear case where Paul is ascribing the things of God to that which belongs to the mortal, time-bound sphere and that is a perfect definition of the figure of speech callled anthropopatheia.

You cannot take the "time element" in these verses literally. But that is exactly what you are doing. In order to illustrate this more fully let us look at the following two verses where figurative language is being used and which speak of God's choosing men for salvation:

"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).

"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 both verses Paul speaks of the actions of God, which belong only to the eternal sphere where there are no sequence of events, and applies them to the time-bound sphere where events happen in sequence.

However, the second verse tells us exactly how God makes His choice, and that is by "belief in the truth." Since that action belongs to man it is in regard to the mortal, time-bound sphere and therefore we can know that in "time" God chooses is when a person believes. Not before, as you assert.

With what is said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in view is it not clear that in "time" God does not chose anyone for salvation until he believes?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My simple answer: When God created, the time-line is set in place. We don't do anything before we do them, but God knows without the time constraint.
We believe because He enables us to believe in Christ. So, He knows without time restriction, yet we know when we reach that point in time appointed.

When an author writes a book, they often know what the end is already. We read the books and find out along the way as we wait for each successive book.
For the author, it is already a completed story in their head. For the reader, it has not yet been completed until the last book is written then read. This may be a poor analogy but it helps us understand our "before's" and "after's" in relation to God's perspective. One is God's perspective, and the other is our's. For us, there is only the time-line except as God gives us glimpses of past and future in revelation (scriptures). God, the Creator and Author of us, is not bound by our necessary time increments. Similarly, an author may include peeks from things that aren't present in the books we read both from before the first book took place, and even beyond the last book. They know the world they created implicitly and are unconstrained time-wise, as you and I in their thoughts travelling their. We have to read in order to travel there.

In the world God created, we must traverse time to see God's fulfillment and intentions for us. We are travelling, from our perspective, where God has already been.

Yup.

God’s relationship to free agents is in some respects like the relationship of an author to his characters. Consider to what extent God’s relationship to human sinners is like that of Shakespeare to Macbeth, the murderer of Duncan.

Grudem uses the Shakespeare-Macbeth illustration in his Systematic Theology. That said, I disagree with Grudem on one point. He says that we could say that either Macbeth or Shakespeare killed King Duncan. I would agree that both Macbeth and Shakespeare are responsible, at different levels of reality, for the death of Duncan. But when one carefully looks at the language that we typically use in such contexts, it seems clear to me that we would not normally say that Shakespeare killed Duncan. Shakespeare wrote the murder into his play. But the murder took place in the world of the play, not the real world of the author. Macbeth did it, not Shakespeare. We sense the rightness of Macbeth paying for his crime. But we would certainly consider it very unjust if Shakespeare were tried and put to death for killing Duncan.

Oddly, traditional Arminians agree that God is omnipotent and can prevent sinful actions. So one wonders how they can object to this argument. If God could prevent sin but chooses not to, must we not say that he has ordained it to happen? :AMR:

There are two "books" of which God is the author: creation (general revelation) and The Book (special revelation).

AMR

 

[Lon]

This is clearly a case of Paul employing a figure of speech called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

▲Read AMR ▲

Paul is taking the things which belong to the divine, eternal sphere and applying them to the mortal, time-bound sphere. He is taking things which belong to an existence where all things are simultaneous and without sequence and imposing them on an existence where there is a sequence of events. This is a clear case where Paul is ascribing the things of God to that which belongs to the mortal, time-bound sphere and that is a perfect definition of the figure of speech callled anthropopatheia.

I agree to the definition but you cannot apply it across board. God literally interacts with us.

You cannot take the "time element" in these verses literally. But that is exactly what you are doing. In order to illustrate this more fully let us look at the following two verses where figurative language is being used and which speak of God's choosing men for salvation:

"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).

"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 both verses Paul speaks of the actions of God, which belong only to the eternal sphere where there are no sequence of events, and applies them to the time-bound sphere where events happen in sequence.

However, the second verse tells us exactly how God makes His choice, and that is by "belief in the truth." Since that action belongs to man it is in regard to the mortal, time-bound sphere and therefore we can know that in "time" God chooses is when a person believes. Not before, as you assert.

With what is said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in view is it not clear that in "time" God does not chose anyone for salvation until he believes?

Q1: Did you experience a literal day yesterday or a figurative one?
Q2: Was God with you?

My answer: God is relational to, unconstrained by time.
Where OV tends to object to the second part, you are objecting to the first, hence, I'm unsure how it is supporting the OP.

What is the mainpoint you are trying to nail down here?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Oddly, traditional Arminians agree that God is omnipotent and can prevent sinful actions. So one wonders how they can object to this argument. If God could prevent sin but chooses not to, must we not say that he has ordained it to happen?

AMR,

What I object to is the way that Calvinists portray God. According to them our Maker makes us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Q1: Did you experience a literal day yesterday or a figurative one?
Q2: Was God with you?

Of course I experience a "literal" day every single day when I live on this earth and god is with me in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But now the Lord Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father at the Father's throne in the eternal state.

Now a question for you. Since with God all things are simultaneous then can it not be said that the same moment with Him that is described as "before the foundation of the world" is also with Him the exact same moment that occured when you believed the gospel?

After all, William Ames, one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers, said the following:

"Thereis properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John,Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153).

With that said then can we not understand that the moment in "time" when God chose you for salvation was the moment when you believed the gospel and not before the "foundation of the world"?:

"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).

You just ignored that verse and then you took the things which belong to the divine, eternal sphere and apply those same things to the mortal, time-bound sphere as if they are one and the same sphere.

My answer: God is relational to, unconstrained by time.
Where OV tends to object to the second part, you are objecting to the first, hence, I'm unsure how it is supporting the OP.

What is the mainpoint you are trying to nail down here?

The point that I have made is that no one is saved until he believes the gospel so no one was literally chosen for salvation before the world began. Therefore the Scriptures do not teach a settled view.

The following verses reveal that even those who are "lost" and "believe not" could believe the gospel if it were not for the fact that the god of this age has blinded their minds to it:

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

Therefore the future is not settled because no one is chosen for salvation until he believe and all men have the ability to believe the gospel.

 

[Lon]

Of course I experience a "literal" day every single day when I live on this earth and god is with me in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But now the Lord Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father at the Father's throne in the eternal state.

Now a question for you. Since with God all things are simultaneous then can it not be said that the same moment with Him that is described as "before the foundation of the world" is also with Him the exact same moment that occured when you believed the gospel?

After all, William Ames, one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers, said the following:

"Thereis properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John,Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153).

With that said then can we not understand that the moment in "time" when God chose you for salvation was the moment when you believed the gospel and not before the "foundation of the world"?:

No, we understand it how God communicates it to us. From our frame of mind, it was before it was all created.
You seem to me to be jumping back and forth between and open view and the omniscient view. I can't nail down jello.
An open theist does not believe God is timeless.

"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).

You just ignored that verse and then you took the things which belong to the divine, eternal sphere and apply those same things to the mortal, time-bound sphere as if they are one and the same sphere.

Why is this feeling like 3 steps forward/two steps back? We covered this ground, whether you acquiesce I addressed it or not. You are making belief a command rather than a process whereby we are saved. You believe in a synergist view of salvation, I believe it monergistic.

The point that I have made is that no one is saved until he believes the gospel so no one was literally chosen for salvation before the world began. Therefore the Scriptures do not teach a settled view.

That's because you believe you have something to do with your salvation.

The following verses reveal that even those who are "lost" and "believe not" could believe the gospel if it were not for the fact that the god of this age has blinded their minds to it:

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

Interesting, I read that completely opposite than what you are trying to show.

Therefore the future is not settled because no one is chosen for salvation until he believe and all men have the ability to believe the gospel.

I have no idea whether you are an open theist or just confused.

Ask Patman, Dave, or Godrulz. If you believe God is timeless, you are not strictly an open theist.

Until this thread, I would have labelled you a confused Arminian.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Lon, Earlier I quoted the following verse and then made a comment on it:

"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).

You just ignored that verse and then you took the things which belong to the divine, eternal sphere and apply those same things to the mortal, time-bound sphere as if they are one and the same sphere.

Then when you were given another opportunity to actually deal with this verse you decline again, saying:

We covered this ground, whether you acquiesce I addressed it or not. You are making belief a command rather than a process whereby we are saved. You believe in a synergist view of salvation, I believe it monergistic.

I know what you and the Calvinists believe and that is regeneration precedes faith. So I will give you more evidence from the Scriptures which you can ignore. Here we see a verse which the Calvinists admit refers to "regeneration":

"even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph.2:5).

Those who are described as being dead in their transgressions are said to be "made alive TOGETHER with Christ." This speaks of a "union" with Christ and the "life" which we receive when we are regenerated is described here:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

John Calvin certainly understood that "life is found in him" and "that no other way of obtaining life has been appointed for us by God the Father":

"But the Apostle, that he might keep us together in Christ, again repeats that life is found in him; as though he had said, that no other way of obtaining life has been appointed for us by God the Father. And the Apostle, indeed, briefly includes here three things: that we are all given up to death until God in his gratuitous favor restores us to life; for he plainly declares that life is a gift from God: and hence also it follows that we are destitute of it, and that it cannot be acquired by merits; secondly, he teaches us that this life is conferred on us by the gospel, because there the goodness and the paternal love of God is made known to us; lastly, he says that we cannot otherwise become partakers of this life than by believing in Christ" (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 5:11).


Therefore when those who are dead in sin are "made alive TOGETHER with Christ" they receive "eternal life," the life which is in the Son. And no one receives this eternal life until they believe:

"Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life" (1 Tim.1:16).

The following words of John are speaking about the same eternal life and he makes it plain that it is as a result of believing that a person receives eternal life:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

The Calvinists have been deceived into thinking that when one is made alive TOGETHER with Christ they receive a life that is less than eternal. But there is no life in the Son which is not eternal. And no one is regenerated or made alive TOGETHER with Christ until they believe. And that directly contradicts the Calvinist teaching the regeneration precedes faith.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

What I object to is the way that Calvinists portray God. According to them our Maker makes us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

Sigh. You really think the word "made" here means they were created thusly? Dig deeper, please and save the "God is a tyrant" anti-Calvinist canard for the unlearned you are attempting to appeal to with this nonsense.

AMR

 

[Lon]

Sigh. You really think the word "made" here means they were created thusly? Dig deeper, please and save the "God is a tyrant" anti-Calvinist canard for the unlearned you are attempting to appeal to with this nonsense.

AMR

Hear, here.

The Calvinists have been deceived into thinking that when one is made alive TOGETHER with Christ they receive a life that is less than eternal. But there is no life in the Son which is not eternal. And no one is regenerated or made alive TOGETHER with Christ until they believe. And that directly contradicts the Calvinist teaching the regeneration precedes faith.

Jerry, you are a one-trick-pony, which is why I tend to avoid conversing with you altogether. This thread is about open theism. Because you have no topic on this forum but "I hate Calvinism," You should definitely not venture out of that room on your own. You don't sing in English class or mathematics. Take your guitar back to your own threads.

 

[Zeke]

God did not create moral evil. He also did not create Apple computers or Ford cars.

Let your god out of the "condescension box," views based on figures of speech don't unlock Romans 11:33-35. Adam, adam where are you, adam this isn't funny anymore where are you? :nono: open veiw God knew where adam was.

Grace, Zeke.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sigh. You really think the word "made" here means they were created thusly? Dig deeper, please and save the "God is a tyrant" anti-Calvinist canard for the unlearned you are attempting to appeal to with this nonsense.

AMR, it is you who needs to dig deeper. In the very article which you cited we read:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).

So when we read the following we can know that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for man coming out of the womb corrupted and "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil":

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you are a one-trick-pony, which is why I tend to avoid conversing with you altogether.

Lon, it is not me that you try to avoid but instead verses that prove that your mistaken view is in error. You continue to avoid actually addressing 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" (2 Thess.2:13).

I then said:

"The point that I have made is that no one is saved until he believes the gospel so no one was literally chosen for salvation before the world began. Therefore the Scriptures do not teach a settled view."

Here is your ridiculous answer:

That's because you believe you have something to do with your salvation.

Do you deny that when a person believes then the believing is something which he did so therefore he does have something to do with his salvation?

You reach a point where you really do not want to answer so you just throw out nonsense like that. You avoided actually dealing with the following verse because what it says contradicts your mistaken views:

"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).

Hear, here.

The Calvinists teach that all men come out of the womb corrupted and I say that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for that. Do you disagree with the following in view?:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Scriptures also say that the eternal things are invisible:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (Tim.1:17).

The things in the eternal state are "invisible" in the sense that we are not equipped to see those things. Now a question for you:

If someone sees what he thinks is God then does that mean that in His essential nature He is not really invisible to man?:

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness" (Ex.24:9-10).

If these men really saw God then how can the following words be explained?:

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (Jn.1:18).

God has a way of communicating with man where His essential nature is not compromised. In this case the men saw a "vision" of Him. Is it not possible that He can speak to man in a similiar fashion as a "vision" and in such a way that does not compromise His timelessness?

After all, with God all things are possible.

It's not possible for God to be timeless and in time in the same way that it is not possible for God to exist and not exist.

If God is the cause of a "vision" that occurs in our time then there must be a time in God when he caused it or else the vision is still occurring. Since the "vision" or "words" have come and gone in our time I would suppose that they have also come and gone for God, right?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Uhhhggg, hence "relational to." Dave, if you want to bow out of the conversation because you got nothing left, that's fine but don't jump to lame conclusions simply because....

Absolutely, Dave! Relational to, unconconstrained by.

Look back above, Dave. IF we both say God is relational to yet unconstrained by time (albeit for whatever different reasons) we are playing the same color.

Go back and look at my Dave and the fishbowl analogies. They have Dave outside of his fishbowl yet dwelling with them in the same house. Do you remember Solomon repeating what God told His father? That no house could hold Him? Yet God also said that He dwelled with Israel. Work through this passage and listen to what God says:
2 Samuel 7 1Kings 5:1-5 1 Kings 8:27​

The issue is God and time not God and relationship. That a timeless God can be relational to a world in time is not possible. When God speaks in "sequence" in time he is not, at the same time, speaking non-sequentially/timelessly.

If time were a thing or place, and God is "outside" of "it", then God and the world would be in different places and you could not say that God is infinite in size because he would be excluded from the place of time and space. God is not in the "fish bowl". If God is in the fish bowl/world and outside of it at the same time then God is timeless and in time at the same time. This would be a "huge contradiction".

Logical conclusions are not lame, irrational propositions are. Scriptures and analogies that do not apply are of no help.

--Dave​