ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

Until you get the basic principles down, the rest of your arguments are not addressable.

Of course I knew that you would give an excuse not to address my points and I can see why. After all, what could you possibly say?

Let us again look at what God said prior to the verses which you say demonstrates that God really considered destroying man off the face of the earth:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15).​

If there was a possibility that Genesis 3:15 might never had been fulfilled then how would it be possible for Abel to be saved despite the fact that he was righteous in God's eyes?:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

How would Abel's sins ever be remitted by the death of the Lord Jesus if mankind was wiped off the face of the earth? If that happened then how could the Lord Jesus have been born of a woman and die on the Cross for the sins of men like Abel?:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Ro.3:24-25).​

I am interested in hearing what other excuses you are going to make up so that you can continue to refuse to address these points.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Let us again look at what God said prior to the verses which you say demonstrates that God really considered destroying man off the face of the earth:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15).​

If there was a possibility that Genesis 3:15 might never had been fulfilled then how would it be possible for Abel to be saved despite the fact that he was righteous in God's eyes?:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

Abel's salvation is not dependant on the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, it is dependent on Abel's faith. Abel's name was written in the book of life because of his faith.

How would Abel's sins ever be remitted by the death of the Lord Jesus if mankind was wiped off the face of the earth? If that happened then how could the Lord Jesus have been born of a woman and die on the Cross for the sins of men like Abel?:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Ro.3:24-25).​

Jesus was not given the book of life until after he was slain. Abel's name was already in the book of life because of his faith.

Of course I knew that you would give an excuse not to address my points and I can see why. After all, what could you possibly say?

I am interested in hearing what other excuses you are going to make up so that you can continue to refuse to address these point.

I can say that you are ignorant of the scriptures and the power of God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abel's salvation is not dependant on the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, it is dependent on Abel's faith. Abel's name was written in the book of life because of his faith.

You have a shallow understanding of exactly how a person is justified in the eyes of God. One part of that justification is dependent on one's faith, as you rightly observe. But no one can be justified apart from the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

Jesus was not given the book of life until after he was slain. Abel's name was already in the book of life because of his faith.

I can say that you are ignorant of the scriptures and the power of God.

It is you who is ignorant because the following verses make it plain that it was only through the death of the Lord Jesus that anyone's sins were redeemed:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (Heb.9:15-16).​

So you are teaching that Abel was saved apart from the death of the Lord Jesus Christ!

And then you say that I am ignorant of the Scriptures.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You have a shallow understanding of exactly how a person is justified in the eyes of God. One part of that justification is dependent on one's faith, as you rightly observe. But no one can be justified apart from the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

It is you who is ignorant because the following verses make it plain that it was only through the death of the Lord Jesus that anyone's sins were redeemed:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (Heb.9:15-16).​

So you are teaching that Abel was saved apart from the death of the Lord Jesus Christ!

And then you say that I am ignorant of the Scriptures.

You proved you are ignorant of the Scriptures.
Abel was not under the first covenant (made with the children of Israel before the crossing of the Jordan river), nor was he under the new covenant (promised in Jeremiah, confirmed by Jesus).
Justification and salvation are not the same thing.

I just realized that you may be thinking that the verses about the new testament refer to the theological covenants that Reformed theologians seem to believe in. Those are not covenants made by God with mankind. The covenants made by God with mankind are the ones that are actually written in the Bible.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You proved you are ignorant of the Scriptures.
Abel was not under the first covenant (made with the children of Israel before the crossing of the Jordan river), nor was he under the new covenant (promised in Jeremiah, confirmed by Jesus).
Justification and salvation are not the same thing.

I quoted these verse to show how those who were under the law received the redemption of their sins. But I guess that you are saying that those under the law were justified in a different way than was Abel.

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (Heb.9:15-16).​

And of course I did not expect you to even attempt to explain why Abel was not justified by the blood of the Lamb as we are:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

According to your twisted ideas Abel was saved and his salvation did not depend on the death of the Lord Jesus in anyway.

You prove that you will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to defend the fable called Open Theology!

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are wrong as we read the following definition for "space":

"the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur."​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space

In the Bible the upper reaches of "space" are referred to as "heaven" and it is described as being created:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

One of the meanings of the Hebrew word translated "heaven" is "all the spaces of heaven, however vast and infinite" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Since the universe and its "space" are created it is certain that the word "eternity" here is not speaking of "space":

"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones" (Isa.57:15).​

There are "things" in heaven so I doubt that it refers to space. If things don't exist neither does dimensionality or space.

Einstein "If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."​

Notice that God dwells in a "place" that implies space.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

"...moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through..."

What God has is freedom. Time exists because God is free to do, or not do, what ever he wants. A God who can do nothing--pure actuality, is no more free than a God who must do everything all at once--eternal now. Do you think God is free? How would you explain it?

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There are "things" in heaven so I doubt that it refers to space. If things don't exist neither does dimensionality or space.

Of course you just ignored the ecvidence which I gave to support my view and you failed to provide any evidence to support your ideas.

We read the following definition for "space":

"the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur."​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space

In the Bible the upper reaches of "space" are referred to as "heaven" and it is described as being created:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

One of the meanings of the Hebrew word translated "heaven" is "all the spaces of heaven, however vast and infinite" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Since the universe and its "space" are created it is certain that the word "eternity" here is not speaking of "space":

"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones" (Isa.57:15).​

Notice that God dwells in a "place" that implies space.

In many instances it is impossible to convey ideas about the eternal state because that state is unimaginable to us. Therefore figurative language is empoyed in those cases. Do you really think that the Father is really sitting upon a throne in heaven?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev.3:21).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I quoted these verse to show how those who were under the law received the redemption of their sins. But I guess that you are saying that those under the law were justified in a different way than was Abel.

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (Heb.9:15-16).​

And of course I did not expect you to even attempt to explain why Abel was not justified by the blood of the Lamb as we are:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

According to your twisted ideas Abel was saved and his salvation did not depend on the death of the Lord Jesus in anyway.

You are trying to create a patchwork quilt of false beliefs in order to avoid believing what the Bible actually teaches.
:wave2:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Of course you just ignored the evidence which I gave to support my view and you failed to provide any evidence to support your ideas.

We read the following definition for "space":

"the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur."​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space

In the Bible the upper reaches of "space" are referred to as "heaven" and it is described as being created:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

One of the meanings of the Hebrew word translated "heaven" is "all the spaces of heaven, however vast and infinite" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Since the universe and its "space" are created it is certain that the word "eternity" here is not speaking of "space":

"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones" (Isa.57:15).​

In many instances it is impossible to convey ideas about the eternal state because that state is unimaginable to us. Therefore figurative language is empoyed in those cases. Do you really think that the Father is really sitting upon a throne in heaven?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev.3:21).​

I quoted Einstein, that's enough support for me, but I guess it was over your head. Space can only exist if "some-thing" or "something" exists that distinguishes the something from "no-thing" or the "nothingness" of space.

The depiction of a throne could be a metaphore, but "I dwell in a high and lofty place", we can take literally because heaven is a literal place.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are trying to create a patchwork quilt of false beliefs in order to avoid believing what the Bible actually teaches.

It is you who says that the death of the Lord Jesus had nothing to do with the justification of Abel. You say that despite the fact that we know that our justification is absolutely dependent on the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

According to you the Bible actually teaches that Abel was justified before God but the death of the Savior had nothing to do with his justification!

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is you who says that the death of the Lord Jesus had nothing to do with the justification of Abel. You say that despite the fact that we know that our justification is absolutely dependent on the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

According to you the Bible actually teaches that Abel was justified before God but the death of the Savior had nothing to do with his justification!

The Bible teaches that the justification by the blood of Jesus is the way God fulfilled His part of the new covenant promised in Jeremiah and confirmed by Jesus before the cross.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

Abel was already accepted before the new covenant because of his faith.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.​

We now have a better way of being accepted than Abel had.

Hebrews 12:22-24 22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I quoted Einstein, that's enough support for me, but I guess it was over your head.

Einstein did not believe in a personal God so his conclusions were not based on the evidence found in the Scriptures.

Space can only exist if "some-thing" or "something" exists that distinguishes the something from "no-thing" or the "nothingness" of space.

So if God exists in space then space must be infinite. If we were to travel through space in the right direction then sooner or later we would arrive at the abode of God. Is that what you believe? But how do you explain that Stephen could see the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God with His naked eyes?:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).​

I think that the abode of God exists outside of space as we know it and that existence is in a compltely different dimension that the one in which we exist in our flesh and blood bodies. That explains how Stephen could see what he saw.

Paul also says that men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead...It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body...And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:42,44,49-50).​

But you cannot seem to be able to understand the differences between this three dimensational state and one where God exists, a God that is said to be a Spirit:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (Jn.4:24).​

Now I would like to move on to something else. A literal reading of the following verses reveal that at one point God actually considered wiping man off of the face of the earth:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.6:5-7).​

If the Lord really considered doing this then it would be impossible that the Lord Jesus would have ever been born of Mary and He would have never died on the Cross. So how would it be possible for Abel to be saved and be declared righteous in the sight of God?:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

Are not all the saved dependent on the blood of the Lamb for their salvation and their justification?:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

If the verses at Genesis 6:5-7 are to be taken literally then God really considered destroying mankind. If that happened then the Lord Jesus would have never come in the flesh and would have never died on the Cross. Then how in the world could Abel have been found righteous in the sight of God and therefore be saved?

Are you willing to argue that men can be saved and declared righteous apart from the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abel was already accepted before the new covenant because of his faith.We now have a better way of being accepted than Abel had.

We know that Abel was said to be "righteous" in the sight of God:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

We can know that it is through Jesus Christ that justification is made possible to "all men":

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).​

No one is justified and therefore declared righteous in the eyes of God apart from the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

You are teaching a most dangerous doctrine, the heresy that a person can be saved APART from the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No one is justified and therefore declared righteous in the eyes of God apart from the blood of the Lamb.

You are teaching a most dangerous doctrine, the heresy that a person can be saved APART from the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are you sure?

Spiritual Death and Regeneration by Jerry Shugart

Here Paul says that it is the doers of the law who shall be justified:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified." If it is not theoretically possible for anyone to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandements then the Lord Jesus certainly would not have told anyone that they could inherit eternal life by keeping the law. But He did!

If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you sure?

Spiritual Death and Regeneration by Jerry Shugart

Here Paul says that it is the doers of the law who shall be justified:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified." If it is not theoretically possible for anyone to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandements then the Lord Jesus certainly would not have told anyone that they could inherit eternal life by keeping the law. But He did!

If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?​

Of course I said over and over that this only represents a possibility in "theory." The fact of the matter is that all men have the ability to keep God's laws perfectly but at some point in time they all choose to go their own way and not God's way.

And we know that the possibility only exists in "theory" because of what Paul said here:

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal.2:16).​

Abel was already accepted before the new covenant because of his faith.We now have a better way of being accepted than Abel had.

We know that Abel was said to be "righteous" in the sight of God:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

We can know that it is through Jesus Christ that justification is made possible to "all men":

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).​

No one is justified and therefore declared righteous in the eyes of God apart from the blood of the Lamb:

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Ro.5:9).​

You are teaching a most dangerous doctrine, the heresy that a person can be saved APART from the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course I said over and over that this only represents a possibility in "theory." The fact of the matter is that all men have the ability to keep God's laws perfectly but at some point in time they all choose to go their own way and not God's way.

And we know that the possibility only exists in "theory" because of what Paul said here:

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal.2:16).​

We know that Abel was said to be "righteous" in the sight of God:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

Abel was not under the law and made no attempt to be justified by the works of the law.
Abel was justified by faith.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abel was not under the law and made no attempt to be justified by the works of the law.
Abel was justified by faith.

Of course you conveniently failed to address this verse which teaches that no one can be justified in the sight of God apart from the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).​

This forum has reached a new low because you are arguing that some people can be justified and saved apart from the work of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course you conveniently failed to address this verse which teaches that no one can be justified in the sight of God apart from the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).​

This forum has reached a new low because you are arguing that some people can be justified and saved apart from the work of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross!

You are trying to apply the New Covenant to the Old Covanant.

In the past, the wicked were not justified.

Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.​

After the cross, the ungodly can be justified through belief in Jesus.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are trying to apply the New Covenant to the Old Covanant.

In the past, the wicked were not justified.

After the cross, the ungodly can be justified through belief in Jesus.

Again, you failed to address this verse which teaches that no one can be justified in the sight of God apart from the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Ro.5:18).​

The first use of the words "all men" are referring to "all men" since Adam, and the "context" proves that fact:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

Again, this forum has reached a new low because you are arguing that some people can be justified and saved apart from the work of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross!