Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Yeah, you're probably right. They probably just picked the name Calvinism because it sounds so cool and is easy to spell.
Originally posted by godrulz
Reformed people like creeds and catechisms. They are sola scriptura in principle, but influenced by the writings of men (as we all are to some degree).
Lee: Yes, but there's still responsibility, even for a possibility.
Clete: Are you just dead set on blaming God for sin or what?
Clete: God … knows what He is doing now and He knew what He was doing when He created us. I can promise you that things will end up better because He created us than they would have been had He not done so. God has not taken such a great risk that He could possibly end up as anything but the absolute victor in this battle between good and evil. If this were not so, He would not have done it.
Lee: I don't think I've ever read any Calvinist saying explicitly that God ordains and decides all motives and even thoughts. That's where I drew back!
Clete: The other four points of Calvinism are wrong for the same reasons. They are logically inconsistent and unbiblical.
There was never any question as to whether or not God was just.
But if God overcomes one's free will then testing is meaningless. What would He be testing if your reaction was predestined by the one giving the test?
Lee: Then God is in complete control, where he makes predictions, and that's definite knowledge of the future…
Clete: What? Where did you get this out of what I said? … The point is that when people have a free will, there are things that are not knowable, even by God and thus there are things that simply cannot be predicted with absolute precision.
And God expect for Israel to repent several times and each time was met with disappointment and He reacted appropriately as Jer. 18 sets forward.
Which specific group of people are you referring to that Paul speaks of?
Lee: Or "There will be no more pain." What if people in heaven decide to sin? Couldn't free will ruin it all, and spoil even these … guesses?
Clete: Again, these are not guesses. Man that really burns my backside when you say that.
You do understand that if I am right that you aren't simply making emotional points by casting the debate in such terms but that you are insulting the God you serve.
If God says that there will be no more pain then I cannot but believe Him. And I suspect that we will remain perfectly sinless in spite of our free will in the same manner that God Himself does.
The point is we cannot know how; we'll simply have to wait until we get there to find out what God has in store for those who love Him.
Lee: But I'm wondering if we have solid footing here…
Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them ... They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people' …
Maybe not? Maybe this won't happen?
Clete: So you are willing to sacrifice the ability to truly love on the altar of your desire for a feeling of solid footing? You know what? Trust God and let the chips fall where they may. Then you won't need solid footing; you won't even need feet.
The point being that if it doesn't happen, it will be because a just and righteous God changed His mind in accordance with changed circumstances that justly warranted such a change of mind. It doesn't make God a liar…
God is a real person and He really is specifically interested in having a genuine personal relationship with you and me and anyone else who would like to have such a relationship. He really does desire to call us friend.
Lee: … but you all are holding that God gave enough control up, for his will to be crossed, thwarted and frustrated.
Clete: Only to a certain point. God will not be ultimately defeated, that much we can know for certain. In fact, if His ultimate defeat was even a possibility then He would not be absolutely sovereign.
Lee: Being able to control it all does not make someone absolutely sovereign, any more than David was absolute king over Israel…
Clete: Control doesn't make you sovereign, authority makes you sovereign. The ability (power) to control, whether that ability is exercised or not, is certainly part of what makes you sovereign, but control and sovereignty are not synonyms.
The world could very well have been "a world without any evil, ever". That's just the point. We chose to rebel against God. God cannot be held responsible for our rebellion unless He caused (i.e. predestined) it to happen. In that case it is we who cannot be justly held responsible for the rebellion which we did not willfully choose.Originally posted by lee_merrill
I just don't see how the Open View avoids this dilemma, either, that's all I'm saying. God created the world, allowing evil, even terrible sin, because he had a greater good in mind, than just a world without any evil, ever. He made that conscious decision, I think we are both saying that. Now the implications have to be worked out! But that's a different question.
What exactly is it that you think the Open View teaches that is in conflict with what I've said? No OV theologian I've ever read has ever said that God might end up defeated. On the contrary the Open View presents a God who wins in spite of not knowing every detail of the future, a God who doesn't win because the game is fixed but because He is wiser, more powerful, and more skillful than His enemies.Well, where is that in the Open View, though? The verses that could be mentioned have to be interpreted rather oddly, "No overall or ultimate plan of yours can be thwarted." But that's Job saying that! Maybe he was wrong, as the Open View holds Job was in error in saying God brought the trouble on him.
I do not see any possibility that a Calvinist type God who punishes sin that He Himself ordained to happen could be considered just.Yes, I should have said the question was whether, in the Calvinist view, God is just.
If God knows the outcome then it is not a test.I agree, for believers, the tests involve real decisions on our part, though God knows the outcome! That is how God could make an unconditional promise to Abraham, and yet also say "Because you have done this," in offering Isaac, I will multiply you.
Because part of the promise was conditional and the other wasn't. I'm not trying to be flippant but that really is the answer. Part of God's deal with Abraham included an agreement on Abraham's part and the other was all on God and had nothing to do with what Abraham did.How would the Open View explain these two aspects of God's promise to make Abraham a great nation, conditionally, and also unconditionally?
Ah! Defining terms is always helpful.Here is why I said this:
Lee: Then how can God make predictions that involve human choices, if human free will is left fully intact?
Clete: Same way you can only a lot better because He is not only smarter but has access to a lot more information.
Now I meant real predictions, where you know what will happen. If a prediction will certainly happen, then that's definite knowledge of the future. I really think the Open View tries sometimes to have it both ways, with the "invincible chess master," who can still predict, and fail. I really think if God can be invincible, then … he cannot fail when he steps out and makes a firm prediction.
It certainly can! Salvation is predicated on grace received THROUGH faith, if there is no faith, there will be no salvation. Thus as Jer. 18 says, if Israel does evil in God's sight then He will not fulfill the promise He has made to them.Well, then "only a remnant will be saved" and "all Israel will be saved" can fail, too?
Yeah sure you can interpret it a hundred different ways. I prefer to take it at face value and except it for what it seems to be saying. There is no reason to do otherwise.There are other ways to interpret the verses where God seems to speak of expectation and disappointment, for example, "I thought" could be "I said" in Jer. 3:7, for instance, well, that's even more literal, and can be taken as a prediction, instead of an expectation, for indeed, Israel will return…
Jeremiah 31:18 "I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: 'You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God.'"
He can't and He hasn't. You cannot seriously believe that every single individual Israelite will be saved.I believe "all Israel" means all the Jewish people on earth, at some point in the future, they will all, some day, believe. Now how can God predict this, if free will is always to some degree unsure in outcome?
Very well, I probably read more sarcasm into your statements than was called for. How about we call them what they are - Prophecies.Well, what are we to call them, Clete? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, let's say "estimates" or something.
I'm not insulted if someone says I'm guessing, when I'm not sure, and I say what I think might happen. I say "Right! I'm not sure."
Which map would you suggest?Well, we can check and see which view draws the map the furthest, and fits best with the above statement, that's what I would ask here.
What you can be sure of is God's righteousness and His justice, His truthfulness etc. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting simply is that if you require prophecy to be prewritten history in order for you to trust God, you are indeed on sandy soil. There are many prophecies that God has made in the Bible that very simply did not and will not come to pass as stated. The point is that there is a very good, very just, very righteous reason why.This doesn't work, though, Clete. If I don't have solid footing then I may not need it, but I don't have it!
Now how can I not need solid footing? I think you are saying I don't need a full explanation, and I don't, but I do need to know what I can be sure of, when God says it.
I agree completely. I didn't not intend to suggest otherwise. I should have been more clear.Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.
Yes, he will! With no heeltaps.
2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Amen!
That simply is not the case.Well, I must disagree. If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.
I encourage you to keep focused on the paradoxes but don't be content to have them remain paradoxes. Keep at them until you figure them out. The places where things don't make sense are usually land marks that lead to the truth. Just ask Johan Kepler .Yes, he does. I believe God's children can really choose, and the more obedient we are, the more real freedom we will have. A paradox! But I think it's Scriptural:
Luke 19:17 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
Yep! It sure was!Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?
Yes, as I said, power and being in control (at least to some degree) is part of being sovereign. But to say God is sovereign does not mean that He totally controls every last detail of existence. It just simply does not mean that. In fact, I like the way your dictionary definitions read. God is the highest authority that exists. He is, therefore, sovereign, period.No they are not! But they are similar-nyms…
Similar enough, that I believe you can't have one without the other.
From dictionary.com:
Sovereign:
- One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
Supreme, and permanent, and authority is not just a title...
Lee: God created the world, allowing evil, even terrible sin, because he had a greater good in mind …
Clete: God cannot be held responsible for our rebellion unless He caused (i.e. predestined) it to happen.
Lee: Well, where is that in the Open View, though? The verses that could be mentioned have to be interpreted rather oddly, "No overall or ultimate plan of yours can be thwarted."
Clete: What exactly is it that you think the Open View teaches that is in conflict with what I've said? No OV theologian I've ever read has ever said that God might end up defeated.
Clete: I do not see any possibility that a Calvinist type God who punishes sin that He Himself ordained to happen could be considered just.
Lee: I agree, for believers, the tests involve real decisions on our part, though God knows the outcome!
Clete: If God knows the outcome then it is not a test.
Lee: How would the Open View explain these two aspects of God's promise to make Abraham a great nation, conditionally, and also unconditionally?
Clete: Because part of the promise was conditional and the other wasn't. ... Part of God's deal with Abraham included an agreement on Abraham's part and the other was all on God and had nothing to do with what Abraham did.
Clete: every single prophecy falls into one of four categories.
1. It has been fulfilled.
2. It will be fulfilled.
3. It has been justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.
4. It will be justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.
Lee: Well, then "only a remnant will be saved" and "all Israel will be saved" can fail, too?
Clete: It certainly can! Salvation is predicated on grace received THROUGH faith, if there is no faith, there will be no salvation. Thus as Jer. 18 says, if Israel does evil in God's sight then He will not fulfill the promise He has made to them.
Lee: "I thought" could be "I said" in Jer. 3:7, for instance, well, that's even more literal …
Clete: Yeah sure you can interpret it a hundred different ways. I prefer to take it at face value and except it for what it seems to be saying. There is no reason to do otherwise.
Clete: You cannot seriously believe that every single individual Israelite will be saved.
Clete: It's not that I'm trying to say that God is no better at this than Nostradamus or anything remotely like that.
Clete: Very well ... how about we call them what they are - Prophecies.
Lee: Now how can I not need solid footing? I think you are saying I don't need a full explanation, and I don't, but I do need to know what I can be sure of, when God says it.
Clete: What you can be sure of is God's righteousness and His justice, His truthfulness etc. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting simply is that if you require prophecy to be prewritten history in order for you to trust God, you are indeed on sandy soil.
Lee: If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.
Clete: That simply is not the case.
Matt. 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Now did that come true as stated or not?
Clete: In fact, if His ultimate defeat was even a possibility then He would not be absolutely sovereign.
Lee: Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?
Clete: It sure was!
But to say God is sovereign does not mean that He totally controls every last detail of existence.
There is no difference.Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
Clete--rather than condemn other people, why don't YOU find yourself a system of doctrine you can defend from scripture, rather than falling back on your "reasoning"?
You are a liar. This statement is proof.Too many times I have seen you reject the words of scripture even though you were not able to show from scripture itself why the interpretation you condemn is wrong.
This is also a lie, and I believe an intentional one.Any time you DO make an effort on the basis of scripture, you just throw up some fanciful misinterpretation that CONTRADICTS the other scripture.
On the contrary. We simply find a way to interpret all of Scripture in such a way that God is not made the author and perfector of our sin.It seems that Arminians and open viewers think that if they can find a verse that they THINK contradicts another verse, then the verse they like is the one that is correct.
Hypocrite.You will get nowhere as long as you rely on verses that SEEM to contradict because seeming contradictions are only so because of the IGNORANCE of those who resort to them.
On the contrary. You do not even understand what Open Theism teaches and thus make yourself look foolish.You can condemn the Reformed faith ONLY by refusing to acknowledge that God's motivations are always holy and pure in all His decrees and following providences--even those which involve the evil deeds of those whom He uses as instruments.
I have never ascribed evil intent to God, never, not even one single time. It is you who do that, not me (although, perhaps in ignorance).You people have a real blasphemous practice of ascribing to God the same evil intent that drives the wicked as God uses them as instruments in the fulfilling of His ever holy decrees and providences.
On the contrary, I confess exactly that! It's just that I do not confess that God decreed evil. If He did, then He is evil. Evil is as evil does.It is never acceptable to YOU to confess that God is holy and just in all His decrees.
No, you do that not me. God does not decree evil. Never has, never will. You say that He does and if that is true then God is evil. God is not the Father of lies, Satan is. Evil was not God's idea, but He definitely does use the evil intent of men's hearts against them to accomplish His own goals. It is a good thing to manipulate one's enemies and God is a master at doing it. He constantly frustrates the intentions of evil men and causes them to use there own resources to thwart their own plans. Sun Tzu would be proud.Instead, just because He fulfills His holy purpose by men whose intent is only evil, YOU INSIST IN SMEARING GOD WITH THE SAME EVIL WHICH RESIDES IN THE HEART OF THE WICKED AS HE USES THEM FOR HIS JUST PURPOSES.
On the contrary, I openly and boldly confess with no hesitation whatsoever that God is totally sovereign.Your Arminian heresy will not allow you to confess the truth, because you must hang onto your fantasy that God is not sovereign.
If you do not study Calvin then you should not call yourself a Calvinist and should renounce the beliefs associated with it. If you are not prepared to do that then don't be ashamed to wear the label, it won't kill you, I promise.When someone says that they don't believe in or study Calvin, it is not your place to contradict them.
There is probably nothing you could tell me about Calvinism that I haven't been told a hundred times. I was a Calvinist for a very long time before I ever heard of Open Theism.Your ignorance of the terms they use does not justify you.
If this is true, then you would have dropped Calvinism like a hot rock the first time you heard it. It is unbiblical, illogical, and untrue. I don't know how many times I've proven this but I suppose I could do it again if you'd like.We don't study Calvin in the sense that we don't look to him for the meaning of scripture. There is NO man whose ideas are accepted as authority against the word of God, NO man whose doctrinal statements are not weighed by the Word of God itself. In that sense, we believe in NO man, we STUDY NO man.
Give me a break. You made a rash statement and I called you on it with a bit of mild sarcasm and you fall to pieces of it. Give me a break. If you think I was harsh with you, you should have a talk with Z Man, or Freak. I've handled you with kid gloves compared to them. Grow up.Continue with your screeds. Condemn and ridicule the statements of men before you even have the courtesy to ask for a clarification. We don't expect anything else from you.
Originally posted by lee_merrill
Well, I must disagree. If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.
Game set match!!!Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
That simply is not the case.
- Matt. 16:28 [Jesus]Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.[/Jesus]
Now did that come true as stated or not?
Did Jesus lie? Of course not! He said what was absolutely the truth based on what God has planned to do with Israel at the time Jesus made this prophecy. Israel, however, hated the One who was to be their King and so God repented of the good with which He intended to bless them and He did not do it. Instead, He cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and thus Jesus' prophecy did not come to pass.
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
Your use of Mt.16:28 is not valid. It is NOT that what Jesus said did not come to pass. Not at all. If your mind cancomprehend the possibility that you might be mistaken in what He was speaking of rather than Jesus making a mistake, this post is to inform you that what Jesus was speaking of took place between His ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Don't be so lazy!! Study a little bit before you have the gall to pontificate concerning scripture.; especially concerning those things Jesus said that YOU, IN YOUR IGNORANCE, THINK DID NOT QUITE COME OUT RIGHT!! The arrogance of the ignorant can be
unbelievably outrageous!!
I quote Scripture verbatim and you insist that it doesn't mean what it clearly says but instead that it is somehow referring to the destruction of Israel is 70 A.D., and then you say that I don't use Scripture!Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
Your use of Mt.16:28 is not valid.
Are you seriously suggesting that Israel being destroyed by the Roman Empire is Christ coming in power? Is that really what you are saying?It is NOT that what Jesus said did not come to pass. Not at all. If your mind can comprehend the possibility that you might be mistaken in what He was speaking of rather than Jesus making a mistake, this post is to inform you that what Jesus was speaking of took place between His ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
This is funny! Really! It is funny!Don't be so lazy!!
You are reading more into what I say than I've actually said.Study a little bit before you have the gall to pontificate concerning scripture.; especially concerning those things Jesus said that YOU, IN YOUR IGNORANCE, THINK DID NOT QUITE COME OUT RIGHT!! The arrogance of the ignorant can be unbelievably outrageous!!
Sure. Things have slowed sufficiently to justify my taking the time to watch yet another Calvinist bite the debating dust.Clete--It was only about a month ago that we agreed to hash out your claims to have refuted the reformed faith, and it was not long before you were excusing yourself, saying you were too busy at work to deal worth the issue. Do you have some time now??
NoTell me, Clete--did god decree what Joseph's brothers did to him??
NoDid God decree the rejection of Christ by the Jews?
YesDid God decree the atonement of Christ?
NoDid God decree Absolam's adultry with David's concubines in the sight of Israel??
All that is rational has standing before the Word of God. God is rational and logical, and so is the Bible, as is all truth. If you cannot defeat my logic then just say so. I will not accept anything you present that is illogical, whether it is from the pages of the Bible or not, the fact that it is illogical is proof that the Bible does not teach it.Don't give me any of your rationalizations. They have no standing before the word of God.
Again, I use scripture as much or more than you do! It's just that I take God at His Word and you continually explain how it can't mean what it clearly and plainly states.If you can't respond with scripture, it means your storehouse of Bible knowledge is exhausted.
What? Evil is evil, at least in part, because of its effect on the people who were sinned against. I don't understand your point.I was actually responding to the objection to the effects of evil on people, though, the effects on people who are being sinned against, not to the question of whether the sinner is responsible.
God is invincible because He is sovereign. All power and authority has been delegated by Him and He retains the absolute right, and ability to recall that authority at any time. His ultimate defeat is not possible.Yes, I know, but I'm asking how the Open View would defend this by using Scripture, since the Scriptures I think you might turn to would have to be interpreted rather unusually: "No overall plan can be thwarted," and so on.
You don't get it. Calvinism teaches that your motives were predestined too.Clete: I do not see any possibility that a Calvinist type God who punishes sin that He Himself ordained to happen could be considered just.
Lee: He can be, if people get involved in their motives. If I see a crime being committed, and I'm glad about it, then I have sinned, even though I wasn't a source at all of the actual deed.
That isn't the sort of knowledge that Calvinism claims that God has. Their claim is that God knows precisely how well Kobe will do, how many points he will score, when he will score them, how he will score them and how many time the ball with hit the floor in between each point. And yes he would be bound by God's knowledge or else God wouldn't know it. If God or anyone else for that matter knows absolutely what he will do then he is not able to do otherwise.Lee: I agree, for believers, the tests involve real decisions on our part, though God knows the outcome!
Clete: If God knows the outcome then it is not a test.
Lee: But I am pretty sure Kobe Bryant will do well on the basketball court. And it's still a test, he's not bound by my knowledge, nor would he be, if I knew for sure Kobe would do well in a given game.
It's not a common promise. There are two different sets of descendants talked about. One was the nation of Israel, the other the Body of Christ, one of law (conditional) the other of promise (grace).Well, both Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 22:16-18 mention God giving to Abraham's descendants, though, and the first passage is unconditional, God passed through the midst of the divided calf alone, meaning he was the only one being required to uphold the covenant, yet the second passage is conditional.
So I don't think we can separate the promise into two distinct parts, in both cases, we have a common promise, yet it is both conditional and unconditional, implying, I think, that God knew the outcome of Abraham's test. Which sheds light on the statement, "Now I know," in Genesis 22:12!
Unconditional prophecies would fall into category number 2.Clete: every single prophecy falls into one of four categories.
1. It has been fulfilled.
2. It will be fulfilled.
3. It has been justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.
4. It will be justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.
Then there aren't any unconditional prophecies? I do think there are, such as when Jesus said "Surely, surely" in reference to Peter's denial, and then again in reference to the way in which Peter's death would glorify God.
Couch it in whatever terms you like but Jeremiah chapter 18 makes it super clear and God is specifically referring to the nation of Israel in this chapter. Here, I'll just quote the whole thing so you can see it for yourself….Lee: Well, then "only a remnant will be saved" and "all Israel will be saved" can fail, too?
Clete: It certainly can! Salvation is predicated on grace received THROUGH faith, if there is no faith, there will be no salvation. Thus as Jer. 18 says, if Israel does evil in God's sight then He will not fulfill the promise He has made to them.
Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will most probably be saved and Israel will, I expect, some day, live in safety. This is the name by which he will, very possibly, be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
No, this won't do, Clete…
Psalm 69:13 But I pray to you, O Lord, in the time of your favor; in your great love, O God, answer me with your sure salvation.
Well yes, of course, the Scripture must be taken in context which includes other passages in the whole of the Bible. The way you know that the particular passage you mentioned from Job is a figure of speech is that there is story after story in the Bible where it is clear that God wanted one thing and got another. Further, if one insists on interpreting the Bible in such a way as to preserve the Calvinistic idea of what it means to be sovereign then you sacrifice the possibility of anyone truly loving God, because as I have said many times now, you cannot love God if you do not have a free will.Clete: Yeah sure you can interpret it a hundred different ways. I prefer to take it at face value and except it for what it seems to be saying. There is no reason to do otherwise.
Lee: Well, there is a reason if we have other Scriptures that indicate otherwise. Why are you not also insisting on taking the face value meaning of "no plan of yours can be thwarted" in Job? So we have to make a synthesis, and discuss which meanings are best, given all the teaching of Scripture.
No offense but, you are delusional. The only way this might even possibly be the case is if God goes in and kills all the unbelievers which doesn't make it that impressive of a prophecy, does it.Clete: You cannot seriously believe that every single individual Israelite will be saved.
Oh, I seriously do believe that. Some day it will indeed be true, every Jewish person will believe in Jesus.
God is totally doing something different! Nostradamus and others like him are con artists, liars. They weren't even guessing or even trying to make educated guesses! There is a book you should read. It was written in the 1800's by a Christian guy named Charles Mackey. It's called, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It spends a whole chapter on futurists and how they could say anything at all and turn it into a prophecy that practically everyone would believe. What Nostradamus was doing has nothing whatsoever to do with a God who demonstrates His superior power, authority, intelligence and skill by declaring the end from the beginning without having to force people to do what they don't choose to do of their own free will and without peeking into the future to see what happens.Clete: It's not that I'm trying to say that God is no better at this than Nostradamus or anything remotely like that.
I do think the Open View is saying that what God is doing is similar to what other predictors, pagan, futurists, etc. are doing, though. God may be better than Nostradamus, but not essentially doing anything different. In fact, in several instances, God seems to predict wrong, and people predict right! Like when Jonah ran, because he thought the Ninevites would repent, and God, apparently, did not.
My use of the word 'prophecy' is Biblical and so I will continue to use it. You call it what you like.Clete: Very well ... how about we call them what they are - Prophecies.
Well, we can't, because "prophecy" means different things in these different views. I say "estimates" etc. to make it plain that the sense in which I mean prophecy is different than the sense in which the Open View would use that word.
These promises are conditioned upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, for we are in Him, and so they are quite certain indeed.Clete: What you can be sure of is God's righteousness and His justice, His truthfulness etc. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting simply is that if you require prophecy to be prewritten history in order for you to trust God, you are indeed on sandy soil.
Then what about these verses, that we seem to have agreed are sure and certain?
Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.
Aren't these promises conditional, like all the rest?
I knew what you meant, that's why I used the quotation that I did.d have been more clear, I meant "X will happen, for sure."
Come on Lee! Give me a break will ya? Do you really consider this to be proper exegesis? Jesus was plainly speaking of a kingdom for the NATION OF ISRAEL with Him as its King. That's what the entire Old Testament prophesied, that's what Jesus was talking about here and that's what the apostles taught after the giving of the Holy Spirit and so they weren't confused.Clete: Matt. 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Now did that come true as stated or not?
Lee: Yes, it did!
1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
He is reigning now! And people saw him coming into his reign, coming in his kingdom.
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor…
Because it would not have been a complete defeat, that's how! Even if every last single soul that God ever created went to burn forever in Hell, that doesn't change the fact that God is God. He is supreme, holy, just, and good. All the demons in Hell and a million times more could never change that in a billion eternities.Clete: In fact, if His ultimate defeat was even a possibility then He would not be absolutely sovereign.
Lee: Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?
Clete: It sure was!
Then I don't understand how it can be held that God is absolutely sovereign, if he could have been defeated completely like this…
While I'm happy to hear that you concede at least this much, it seems to me a bit like saying a woman can be more and more pregnant. We are either free or we are not. If we are not free, then God, who punishes the wicked, is unjust.But to say God is sovereign does not mean that He totally controls every last detail of existence.
Yes, I agree, I believe that God's children can really choose, that God gives them real freedom, more and more…
I simply don't agree that the Scripture doesn't mean what it says.Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
DEARDELMAR: apparently you did not even read my post, or else you would have had better sense than to ask that. As long as you are so disconnected from what others are saaying, there is no point in responding to you because it apparently will not even register in your mind.