Theology Club: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

[Jerry Shugart]

(1) I've already said that God's existence isn't subject to created time, only that God experiences some kind of before and after

Do you believe that we should take literally the verses which speak of the "foreknowledge" of God?

Do you think, as the Calvinist do, that before the world began the LORD chose some people to salvation? Today one of the chief spokesmen for the Reformed view is Dr. R.C. Sproul and his following statement of his sums up the belief shared by most Calvinists:

"When someone mentions the term 'Calvinism,' the customary response is, 'Oh, you mean the doctrine of predestination?' This identification of Calvinism with predestination is as strange as it is real and widespread...In summary we may define 'predestination' broadly as follows: From all eternity God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice--he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven, and he chose others to pass over, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their sins, eternal punishment in hell" [emphasis added] (R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?[Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005], 141).​

Sproul also said this:

"The grounds of our election are not something foreseen by God in us but rather the good pleasure of his sovereign will...Reformed theology insists that God's election is based on nothing foreseen in the individual's lives, this does not mean that he makes the choice for no reason at all. It simply means that the reason is not something found in us" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 146-147).​

If these things are true then a person's eternal destiny is determined before he is even born. Therefore, those who are not elected have no ability to believe the gospel and be saved.

This is what might be described as "closed" theology because a person's eternal destiny is determined before the world began and there is nothing which a person can do to change his eternal destiny.

Do you believe that the future is "closed" in regard to the eternal destinity of people?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

Do you believe that we should take literally the verses which speak of the "foreknowledge" of God?

Do you think, as the Calvinist do, that before the world began the LORD chose some people to salvation? Today one of the chief spokesmen for the Reformed view is Dr. R.C. Sproul and his following statement of his sums up the belief shared by most Calvinists:

"When someone mentions the term 'Calvinism,' the customary response is, 'Oh, you mean the doctrine of predestination?' This identification of Calvinism with predestination is as strange as it is real and widespread...In summary we may define 'predestination' broadly as follows: From all eternity God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice--he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven, and he chose others to pass over, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their sins, eternal punishment in hell" [emphasis added] (R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?[Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005], 141).​

Sproul also said this:

"The grounds of our election are not something foreseen by God in us but rather the good pleasure of his sovereign will...Reformed theology insists that God's election is based on nothing foreseen in the individual's lives, this does not mean that he makes the choice for no reason at all. It simply means that the reason is not something found in us" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 146-147).​

If these things are true then a person's eternal destiny is determined before he is even born. Therefore, those who are not elected have no ability to believe the gospel and be saved.

This is what might be described as "closed" theology because a person's eternal destiny is determined before the world began and there is nothing which a person can do to change his eternal destiny.

Do you believe that the future is "closed" in regard to the eternal destinity of people?

Thanks!

Jerry, I think what you're saying is that the only way for God to have literal foreknowledge is for Him to decide ahead of time what He is going to do and what everybody else is going to do, thereby eliminating freewill.

But what Muz is saying is that God has foreknowledge of what He is going to do, and other things have to play out, to some degree. [MENTION=81]themuzicman[/MENTION]: correct me if I got that wrong.

You're proposing that if everything happens at the same time, it somehow allows freewill more than Calvinism (I don't see how yet), but it eliminates literal foreknowledge. Since there are verses that talk about God's foreknowledge, what do you think that means, if it's not "literal"?

 

[themuzicman]

Do you believe that we should take literally the verses which speak of the "foreknowledge" of God?

Yes. There are 5 things that are foreknown in Scripture:

Christ's death (Acts 2)
Being conformed to the image of the son (Romans 8)
Israel (Romans 11)
Election (1 Peter 1)
Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1)

None of these require eternal foreknowledge. Only one has the potential to include human decisions (Acts 2), but not any one specific choice.

The idea of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge simply isn't supportable in Scripture.

Do you think, as the Calvinist do, that before the world began the LORD chose some people to salvation?

No. 1 Tim 2:4.

Do you believe that the future is "closed" in regard to the eternal destinity of people?

No.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're proposing that if everything happens at the same time, it somehow allows freewill more than Calvinism (I don't see how yet), but it eliminates literal foreknowledge. Since there are verses that talk about God's foreknowledge, what do you think that means, if it's not "literal"?

I am not talking about everything happening simultaneously for us since our experiences are set in time. Please allow me to quote these words again:

"Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).​

According to this there is no "foreknowledge" with God. Therefore, the events which we see as prophecies in the Bible are actually what the LORD sees happening as they are happening. Therefore, no one is boxed in.

In other words, if the Lord sees things in the future then those events which He foresees will happen no matter what. Let us look at this verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

If the LORD's choosing for salvation is based on His foreknowledge then the eternal fate of all men is determined beforehand. Therefore, since their eternal fate is determined beforehand then there is nothing a man can do or not do in order to gain salvation. His hands are tied from the very moment when he comes into the world.

On the other hand, since the LORD sees all things as they are happening at one glance then man's fate is not determined beforehand.

I believe that the verses which speak of the LORD's foreknowledge is a literary devise to help us understand "cause" and "effect" in the LORD's dealing with man. And that literary device is based on this figure of speech:

"Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes. There are 5 things that are foreknown in Scripture:

Christ's death (Acts 2)

If the prophecies are set in stone and while He walked the earth the Lord Jesus knew the meaning of the prophecies of His sufferings and He knew that there was no possibility that He would be spared that agony then why would He pray the following to the Father?:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

If the Lord Jesus understood that the things foretold about His sufferings were set in stone then why would He pray that He might be spared that suffering? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

The idea of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge simply isn't supportable in Scripture.

I will present to you the same thing which I presented to Derf. Let us look at this verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

If the LORD's choosing for salvation is based on His foreknowledge then the eternal fate of all men is determined beforehand. Therefore, since their eternal fate is determined beforehand then there is nothing a man can do or not do in order to gain salvation. His hands are tied from the very moment when he comes into the world.

On the other hand, since the LORD sees all things as they are happening at one glance then man's fate is not determined beforehand.

I believe that the verses which speak of the LORD's foreknowledge is a literary devise to help us understand "cause" and "effect" in the LORD's dealing with man. And that literary device is based on this figure of speech:

"Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).​

 

[themuzicman]

If the prophecies are set in stone and while He walked the earth the Lord Jesus knew the meaning of the prophecies of His sufferings and He knew that there was no possibility that He would be spared that agony then why would He pray the following to the Father?:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

Just because one knows what is coming doesn't mean one has to like it.

If the Lord Jesus understood that the things foretold about His sufferings were set in stone then why would He pray that He might be spared that suffering? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

Actually, it does, given human nature. Facing death, the human body and brain begin to search for ways to survive, and these kinds of things happen.

I will present to you the same thing which I presented to Derf. Let us look at this verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

If the LORD's choosing for salvation is based on His foreknowledge then the eternal fate of all men is determined beforehand. Therefore, since their eternal fate is determined beforehand then there is nothing a man can do or not do in order to gain salvation. His hands are tied from the very moment when he comes into the world.

On the other hand, since the LORD sees all things as they are happening at one glance then man's fate is not determined beforehand.

No, it's determined at the moment God chooses to create.

But those aren't the only two options.

I believe that the verses which speak of the LORD's foreknowledge is a literary devise to help us understand "cause" and "effect" in the LORD's dealing with man. And that literary device is based on this figure of speech:

"Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).​

That's nice, but it doesn't get you away from the problem of the "eternal now", which I described above.

You're assuming that 1 Peter 1 is speaking of individual election, and that isn't the necessary conclusion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just because one knows what is coming doesn't mean one has to like it.

You miss the whole point. The Lord asked if it were "possible." If the prophecies concerning his suffering were set in stone the Lord would know that it wasn't possible.

That's nice, but it doesn't get you away from the problem of the "eternal now", which I described above.

Let us look what Loraine Boettner said here:

"Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).​

According to this there is no "foreknowledge" with God. Therefore, the events which we see as prophecies in the Bible are actually what the LORD sees happening as they are happening. Therefore, no one is boxed in.

In other words, if the Lord sees things in the future then those events which He foresees will happen no matter what. Let us look at this verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

If the LORD's choosing for salvation is based on His foreknowledge then the eternal fate of all men is determined beforehand. Therefore, since their eternal fate is determined beforehand then there is nothing a man can do or not do in order to gain salvation. His hands are tied from the very moment when he comes into the world.

On the other hand, since the LORD sees all things as they are happening at one glance then man's fate is not determined beforehand.

You're assuming that 1 Peter 1 is speaking of individual election, and that isn't the necessary conclusion.

Do you think that this verse is referring to anything other than individual election?:

"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).​

Or this one?:

"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).​

 

[Derf]

You miss the whole point. The Lord asked if it were "possible." If the prophecies concerning his suffering were set in stone the Lord would know that it wasn't possible.



Let us look what Loraine Boettner said here:

"Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).​

According to this there is no "foreknowledge" with God. Therefore, the events which we see as prophecies in the Bible are actually what the LORD sees happening as they are happening. Therefore, no one is boxed in.

In other words, if the Lord sees things in the future then those events which He foresees will happen no matter what. Let us look at this verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

If the LORD's choosing for salvation is based on His foreknowledge then the eternal fate of all men is determined beforehand. Therefore, since their eternal fate is determined beforehand then there is nothing a man can do or not do in order to gain salvation. His hands are tied from the very moment when he comes into the world.

On the other hand, since the LORD sees all things as they are happening at one glance then man's fate is not determined beforehand.

So you're saying that God did not first decide to create man, then follow with a act to create man? If God sees "all things" as happening at once, then the first "thing" (His decision to create) was not followed by the second thing (His creation), nor did Jesus' death result from man's sin, but was coincident with man's sin, as well as with God's decision to create, as well as the creation act itself.

If the foregoing is not the case, then you have to allow for a cause/effect at least of God's deciding ("Let us make man in our own image" Gen 1:26) and the act of creating ([Gen 1:27] So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.) The emboldened "so" is so very important, don't you think?

Do you think that this verse is referring to anything other than individual election?:

"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).​

Or this one?:

"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).​

How in the world can the words "us" and "our" and "we" in those verses be referring to an individual?????

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you're saying that God did not first decide to create man, then follow with a act to create man? If God sees "all things" as happening at once, then the first "thing" (His decision to create) was not followed by the second thing (His creation), nor did Jesus' death result from man's sin, but was coincident with man's sin, as well as with God's decision to create, as well as the creation act itself.

There is no reason to doubt that the LORD can remain outside of time but interact with His own creation.

How in the world can the words "us" and "our" and "we" in those verses be referring to an individual?????

Simple!

Paul's words were directed at "individuals" and since he identified himself as receiving the same promises he would naturally use plural pronouns.

If I am talking to you, a single individual, and we had both received the same promise then when I talk to you about that promise I would say, "We have been given that promise."

 

[Derf]

There is no reason to doubt that the LORD can remain outside of time but interact with His own creation.

I suppose, but there's no reason to presume that He always does remain outside of time when he interacts with his time-bound creation.

Simple!

Paul's words were directed at "individuals" and since he identified himself as receiving the same promises he would naturally use plural pronouns.

If I am talking to you, a single individual, and we had both received the same promise then when I talk to you about that promise I would say, "We have been given that promise."

But you concede my point that Paul was talking in the plural, so he could only have been talking about "individuals" plural, not a single individual. And if plural individuals, then eh could only have been refering to a group of individuals. So to suggest that those verses MUST mean that individuals are elected from before time. (There's that pernicious description again--"before" there was a "before".)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Greetings Derf,

I said:

There is no reason to doubt that the LORD can remain outside of time but interact with His own creation.​

Here is your response:

I suppose, but there's no reason to presume that He always does remain outside of time when he interacts with his time-bound creation.

Just because He can interact within His own creation does not mean that He has to subject Himself to the constraints of time when He does interact in that way. And why would He want to subject Himself to the constraints of time when He interacts in that way?

But you concede my point that Paul was talking in the plural, so he could only have been talking about "individuals" plural, not a single individual.

I said that when Paul used the plural he was speaking to individuals and at the same time including himself in the things of which he was speaking.

And if plural individuals, then eh could only have been refering to a group of individuals. So to suggest that those verses MUST mean that individuals are elected from before time. (There's that pernicious description again--"before" there was a "before".)

Do you think that these words of Paul are referring to a "group of people"?:

"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).​

It is "individuals" who are saved and who are called, not "groups" of people.

Now, since you seem unconvinced that the LORD lives a "timeless" existence why don't you give me your view of the realationship between the "prophecies" and "time."

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

Greetings Derf,

I said:

There is no reason to doubt that the LORD can remain outside of time but interact with His own creation.​

Here is your response:



Just because He can interact within His own creation does not mean that He has to subject Himself to the constraints of time when He does interact in that way. And why would He want to subject Himself to the constraints of time when He interacts in that way?

1. How do you know the bold text is true?
2. Why would he do it? Love, perhaps? The fact is that Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the constraints of time, even though He didn't have to. I don't know what else to say about why, except that He did and it seems to be because He loved us.

I think you will have to admit that God DID subject Himself to time in the person of Jesus.

I said that when Paul used the plural he was speaking to individuals and at the same time including himself in the things of which he was speaking.



Do you think that these words of Paul are referring to a "group of people"?:

"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).​

Yes and no. Paul was speaking "of" a group of people--at least 2--when he used the plural pronouns. Paul was not speaking "to" a group of people. His letter was addressed to Timothy, and Timothy only. We are left with a bit of a conundrum as to how far-reaching his plural pronouns need to be. It could be that he was speaking only "of" himself and Timothy--nothing in the text precludes such a reading. It could be that he was speaking of a group of people that does not include everybody that is saved, like the elect Jews, for instance (of which both Paul and Timothy would be considered members). Or it could be that he was referring to all the elect, right? I think you ascribe to that last option.

It is "individuals" who are saved and who are called, not "groups" of people.

Was Paul talking about salvation? "Who hath saved us" and "which was given us" don't seem to be talking about the same thing--the noun-verb agreement isn't there. I'd venture to suggest that the "which" in "which was given us" is referring to "grace" (a reasonable antecedent), but not necessarily to salvation.

But neither is your statement only about salvation. You talk about those "who are saved and who are called". Are they one and the same? Maybe, or maybe not. Can groups of people be saved? Obviously the answer is "Yes". Can groups of people be called? An even more emphatic "Yes". In fact, Paul talks, just a chapter later, in the third person (after so adeptly using the first and second person forms) about a group of people that were called.

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [2Ti 2:10 KJV]​

Note in that verse that "election" doesn't mean the same thing as "salvation", as Paul is hoping that the elect will be saved.

Now, since you seem unconvinced that the LORD lives a "timeless" existence why don't you give me your view of the realationship between the "prophecies" and "time."

Thanks!

That seems like a rather involved question, one which I doubt I have time to answer fully. But I've noticed over the years that prophecies have a purpose, and one of those purposes is to provide a warning about what MAY happen if a certain path is taken or not taken, for instance, Jonah's warning to Nineveh. Such prophecies can't be set in stone, but allowed to change based on the response of the target audience.

Jesus' death seems to be of another type, somehow set in stone from the foundation of the world (or "before"), yet not necessarily required. I'm not sure that the timing on it was as firm as we pretend it was, either. Hard to say. I think it's possible that God and Jesus could have walked away from all mankind without breaking character or sinning, if God's promises and covenants that required Jesus' death were conditional in some way on the behavior of His people. I think Muz's explanation due to Jesus' human nature is a pretty decent one (and one I've heard a lot), but I don't know that it's the only option.

That needs a better fleshing out, perhaps, but does it start to answer your question?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How do you know the bold text is true?

If the LORD actually looks into the future then I cannot see how it is possible that He is constrained by time in any sense.

Why would he do it? Love, perhaps? The fact is that Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the constraints of time, even though He didn't have to.

That is right but notice that when He came to the earth he was made like man in every way. His mission was to do the will of the Father and to die in a flesh and blood body to redeem the sins of men. It is for that reason that He subjected Himself to time. I see no evidence that the Father ever came to earth so I see no evidence that He was ever subject to time.

Yes and no. Paul was speaking "of" a group of people--at least 2--when he used the plural pronouns. Paul was not speaking "to" a group of people. His letter was addressed to Timothy, and Timothy only.

Since that is correct then when Paul used the plural pronoun he was obviously just referring to Timothy and himself i.e. "individuals."

Or it could be that he was referring to all the elect, right? I think you ascribe to that last option.

Yes, all the "individual" believers. It is "individuals" who are said to be ordained to to eternal life (Acts 13:48), not "groups" of people.

Was Paul talking about salvation? "Who hath saved us" and "which was given us" don't seem to be talking about the same thing--the noun-verb agreement isn't there. I'd venture to suggest that the "which" in "which was given us" is referring to "grace" (a reasonable antecedent), but not necessarily to salvation.

"Grace" must have an object and this case the object can only be "salvation."

You talk about those "who are saved and who are called". Are they one and the same? Maybe, or maybe not. Can groups of people be saved? Obviously the answer is "Yes". Can groups of people be called? An even more emphatic "Yes". In fact, Paul talks, just a chapter later, in the third person (after so adeptly using the first and second person forms) about a group of people that were called.

In the OT there are instances of the LORD dealing directly with groups, specifically the nation of Israel. But in the NT it is "individuals" who are called and who believe and who are baptized by One Spirit into the Body of Christ.

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [2Ti 2:10 KJV]​

Note in that verse that "election" doesn't mean the same thing as "salvation", as Paul is hoping that the elect will be saved.

I believe that Paul uses the word "elect" in that verse to describe them who are said to be ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Even though the ones to whom Paul refers as "elect" are not yet saved does not forbid the idea that Paul can call them "elect" since they are ordained to eternal life.

That seems like a rather involved question, one which I doubt I have time to answer fully.

Early on this thread you listed several different options so pick the one which comes close to matching your beliefs and we will go from there. OK?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

If the LORD actually looks into the future then I cannot see how it is possible that He is constrained by time in any sense.



That is right but notice that when He came to the earth he was made like man in every way. His mission was to do the will of the Father and to die in a flesh and blood body to redeem the sins of men. It is for that reason that He subjected Himself to time. I see no evidence that the Father ever came to earth so I see no evidence that He was ever subject to time.

Now you're quibbling with semantics. If God the Son came to earth, and was made like man in every way, then God indeed subjected Himself to time, by the very definition of "man". He was conceived, grew in Mary's womb for 9 months, was born a little baby, waited until He was 12 to go to the temple with the men, grew older, waited another 15 years or more before starting His ministry, was in the grave 3 days, etc. If you can't see that in that way God subjected Himself to time, I don't know what to do for you.

I suppose if I somehow showed that the Father acted in time, too (which I believe I did with the creation of man reference), then you might very well point out the the Holy Spirit never subjected Himself to time. Ah, the dance of the defeated.

Since that is correct then when Paul used the plural pronoun he was obviously just referring to Timothy and himself i.e. "individuals."

Sadly, you missed (or ignored) my swipe at your grammar. You said Paul was speaking to individuals (plural), which was obviously not true. But thanks for changing it to say he was "referring" to individuals, of which I agree, yet...

Yes, all the "individual" believers. It is "individuals" who are said to be ordained to to eternal life (Acts 13:48), not "groups" of people.

Tell me, when Adam was first created was it just he that was ordained to live in the Garden and eat of the tree of life? Or did that ordination extend to Eve and to their progeny? Or was there no ordination of Adam/Eve/descendants to the Garden and to life at all?

If no ordination to life, were they ordained to death? Seems like you need to pick one.

Btw, I'm not trying to say that God doesn't save individuals. He does. The several "whosoever" passages confirm to me that God saves individuals. But does He also ordain individuals to salvation? Is it possible that He ordained the whole human race to eternal life, but some would not have it, and all lost it? Is it possible that Jesus' death on the cross was the vehicle for each man to be punished for his own sins (or saved from them) rather than suffer the fate of death due to one man's sin? I'm still thinking through a lot of this.

"Grace" must have an object and this case the object can only be "salvation."

"Salvation" isn't a fitting object of "grace". Jesus doesn't bestow "grace" on "salvation", because salvation, like grace, is a concept, or a thing to be bestowed, rather than an object. Would you like to pick another object?

In the OT there are instances of the LORD dealing directly with groups, specifically the nation of Israel. But in the NT it is "individuals" who are called and who believe and who are baptized by One Spirit into the Body of Christ.

In the New Testament there are also instances of the Lord dealing directly with groups. Two instances are the Jews (Matt 24 and like passages), and Gentiles (to whom Paul was sent). Possibly those can also be divided into the elect subsets from both larger sets, or an elect subset that pulls members from both groups.

I believe that Paul uses the word "elect" in that verse to describe them who are said to be ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Even though the ones to whom Paul refers as "elect" are not yet saved does not forbid the idea that Paul can call them "elect" since they are ordained to eternal life.

I'll grant you Paul's meaning for now. Hopefully that doesn't require my own dance later.

Early on this thread you listed several different options so pick the one which comes close to matching your beliefs and we will go from there. OK?

Thanks!

If you are talking about the three choices of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism (all as defined earlier), I lean toward the Open Theism view at the moment, but as per my profile, I don't like labels, probably because they all have baggage.

Let me explain another problem with God being outside of time. When He told Hezekiah, when he was sick, that he would die (Is 38:1), then Hezekiah prayed, and God sent word that he would NOT die of the sickness but that 15 years would be "added" to his life (Is 38:5), was God telling something that was happening at the same time for Him (thus giving contradictory present-time accounts), or was God telling something that He already knew the final version, and He didn't tell Hezekiah the truth the first time?

(And a side question--when God made the sun dial shadow go back 10 degrees in Is 38:8, was God making time go backward, to reverse, perhaps, the progression of Hezekiah's sickness?)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If God the Son came to earth, and was made like man in every way, then God indeed subjected Himself to time, by the very definition of "man". He was conceived, grew in Mary's womb for 9 months, was born a little baby, waited until He was 12 to go to the temple with the men, grew older, waited another 15 years or more before starting His ministry, was in the grave 3 days, etc. If you can't see that in that way God subjected Himself to time, I don't know what to do for you.

When the Lord Jesus came to earth He emptied Himself in some way from what He had before when He existed in the "form of God":

"Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

In that sense He subjected Himself to time. But God, when in the "form of God," is not so restrained by time. After all, it is obvious that is true because He knows what will happpen in the future. While on the earth as "Son of Man" the Lord Jesus was limited in that regard (Mt.24:36).

Sadly, you missed (or ignored) my swipe at your grammar. You said Paul was speaking to individuals (plural), which was obviously not true. But thanks for changing it to say he was "referring" to individuals, of which I agree, yet...

Let us look at this verse again:

"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).​

This is obviously speaking of "individuals" because it is individuals who are baptized by One Spirit into Christ (1 Cor.12:13).

And once a person is "in Him" or "in Christ" he is saved:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim.2:10).​

It is only by believing that a person can be "in Christ." So how could the LORD say that a person is chosen "in Christ" before the foundation of the world since in "time" the same person hasn't even believed?

Since the LORD lives in the "ever present now" then from His perspective the moment when a person believes (in time) is the same moment which existed before the foundation of the world.

Tell me, when Adam was first created was it just he that was ordained to live in the Garden and eat of the tree of life? Or did that ordination extend to Eve and to their progeny? Or was there no ordination of Adam/Eve/descendants to the Garden and to life at all?

Their being ordained to life was conditional on their having access to the tree of life.

Btw, I'm not trying to say that God doesn't save individuals. He does. The several "whosoever" passages confirm to me that God saves individuals. But does He also ordain individuals to salvation?

Is it possible that He ordained the whole human race to eternal life, but some would not have it, and all lost it?

I think that the following words indicate that all who were ordained to eternal life believed:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

So I would say that I do not think that the LORD ordained the whole human race to eternal life since all men do not believe.

"Salvation" isn't a fitting object of "grace".

I beg to differ. Here is what Paul wrote:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8-9).​

In the New Testament there are also instances of the Lord dealing directly with groups. Two instances are the Jews (Matt 24 and like passages), and Gentiles (to whom Paul was sent). Possibly those can also be divided into the elect subsets from both larger sets, or an elect subset that pulls members from both groups.

As you mentioned the following words of Paul were directed to only Timothy. So when Paul uses the plural pronoun here it is directed at both him and Timothy but not any "group":

"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).​

If you are talking about the three choices of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism (all as defined earlier), I lean toward the Open Theism view at the moment, but as per my profile, I don't like labels, probably because they all have baggage.

OK, please tell me your views in regard to Open Theism as to how that theology relates to the fact that the Scripture which says that people were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world.

Let me explain another problem with God being outside of time. When He told Hezekiah, when he was sick, that he would die (Is 38:1), then Hezekiah prayed, and God sent word that he would NOT die of the sickness but that 15 years would be "added" to his life (Is 38:5), was God telling something that was happening at the same time for Him (thus giving contradictory present-time accounts), or was God telling something that He already knew the final version, and He didn't tell Hezekiah the truth the first time?

I think that all of this is in regard to ascribing to God what belongs to man. That literary device is based on this figure of speech:

"Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).

I will have to give some more thought to your last question, Derf.

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

All very good questions and comments, Jerry.

When the Lord Jesus came to earth He emptied Himself in some way from what He had before when He existed in the "form of God":

"Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

In that sense He subjected Himself to time. But God, when in the "form of God," is not so restrained by time. After all, it is obvious that is true because He knows what will happpen in the future. While on the earth as "Son of Man" the Lord Jesus was limited in that regard (Mt.24:36).

I'll just count this a victory and move on.

Let us look at this verse again:

"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).​

This is obviously speaking of "individuals" because it is individuals who are baptized by One Spirit into Christ (1 Cor.12:13).

And once a person is "in Him" or "in Christ" he is saved:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim.2:10).​

It is only by believing that a person can be "in Christ." So how could the LORD say that a person is chosen "in Christ" before the foundation of the world since in "time" the same person hasn't even believed?

I think your comments above are right on target. The "in Christ" part is the part that gives us a picture of how we could be chosen before the foundation of the world without being specific individuals in God's mind. His thinking might have gone something like this: "All who believe in my Son will be granted eternal life." Thus, the group of individuals represented by those who are "in Christ" were chosen from the foundation of the world. That makes everybody happy, right?

Since the LORD lives in the "ever present now" then from His perspective the moment when a person believes (in time) is the same moment which existed before the foundation of the world.

I think you've messed up here. If our decisions within time now affect something that happened "before" time was created/started, then now God is subjected to a time and world that He hasn't even created yet, thus not only binding Him within the constraints of time, but for all eternity. That doesn't help your cause any.

Their being ordained to life was conditional on their having access to the tree of life.

You probably have a good point you're making, but I'm not getting it.

I think that the following words indicate that all who were ordained to eternal life believed:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

Again, you are binding the Lord outside of time with something that happens within time--no help to your argument.

So I would say that I do not think that the LORD ordained the whole human race to eternal life since all men do not believe.

Is it possible that something the Lord ordained could be violated?

I beg to differ. Here is what Paul wrote:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8-9).​

That's a good verse to help explain what I'm saying. "Saved" has an object in the sentence. Can you tell me what it is? If "saved" has an object, then it cannot itself be an object, can it? Curiously enough, "grace" is used as an object in the sentence, but not salvation. (you gotta remember back to all that diagramming of sentences you had to do long ago--and you thought it would never be useful!)

As you mentioned the following words of Paul were directed to only Timothy. So when Paul uses the plural pronoun here it is directed at both him and Timothy but not any "group":

"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).​

I don't think it is as obvious as you say. Whether he was speaking OF a group that extended beyond just him and Timothy is not clear in the passage, and probably doesn't matter. If even only he and Timmy are in the "us", it doesn't say one way or another that they as specific persons were being considered before the foundation of the world. To make it say so is adding to the passage. You might be able to come to that conclusion by bringing in other passages along with this, but this one alone doesn't do it.

OK, please tell me your views in regard to Open Theism as to how that theology relates to the fact that the Scripture which says that people were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world.

I think I laid that out fairly clearly and concisely (which isn't always my strong point) above, when I stated that the plan was that whosoever believes in Christ is chosen before the foundation of the world. Then Open Theism presents a rather remarkable answer to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate that has been raging for so many years.

I think that all of this is in regard to ascribing to God what belongs to man. That literary device is based on this figure of speech:

"Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).

I don't have a good distinction for what was granted to man when he was made "in God's image", but something was. Are you telling me you know exactly what those attributes were that man was given? I'd love to see your list.

I will have to give some more thought to your last question, Derf.

Thanks!

It's a bit off topic, but interesting to think about.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You probably have a good point you're making, but I'm not getting it.

Let us look at the verse again in that case:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

First of all, the word "ordained" means appointed. So we can see that before some people believed they were appointed to eternal life.

And every single one who were appointed to eternal life believed. The verse says that as "many" of them were appointed to eternal life "believed." So if there were 1000 people who were so appointed then all 1000 of them believed. If 2000 of them were appointed then all 2000 of them believed.

Therefore, the fate of those who were appointed to eternal life were going to believe no matter what and as a result receive eternal life. And those who were not appointed to eternal life were not going to believe no matter what.

Only the LORD can appoint anyone to eternal life. And if this appointing came as a result of the LORD's foreknowledge then the fate of all these people was determined beforehand. Therefore, their fate was sealed at a time before they even believed. And the same can be said of those who were not appointed to eternal life. Their fate was also sealed before the LORD appointed others to eternal life but passed over them.

Therefore, if this appointing of the LORD was done according to His foreknowledge then it is obvious that this idea does not support Open Theism. But you say that you favor the idea of Open Theism.

Please explain why you think that Open Theism is compatible with the things which I presented in regard to those who were ordained to eternal life.

Thanks for your time!

 

[Derf]

I think you misunderstood my question. Let me revisit the conversation:
I said:

Tell me, when Adam was first created was it just he that was ordained to live in the Garden and eat of the tree of life? Or did that ordination extend to Eve and to their progeny? Or was there no ordination of Adam/Eve/descendants to the Garden and to life at all?

If no ordination to life, were they ordained to death? Seems like you need to pick one.

You replied:

Their being ordained to life was conditional on their having access to the tree of life.

I wasn't sure you answered my questions, so I retorted:

You probably have a good point you're making, but I'm not getting it.

Finally, you said (your most recent post):

Let us look at the verse again in that case:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

First of all, the word "ordained" means appointed. So we can see that before some people believed they were appointed to eternal life.

And every single one who were appointed to eternal life believed. The verse says that as "many" of them were appointed to eternal life "believed." So if there were 1000 people who were so appointed then all 1000 of them believed. If 2000 of them were appointed then all 2000 of them believed.

Therefore, the fate of those who were appointed to eternal life were going to believe no matter what and as a result receive eternal life. And those who were not appointed to eternal life were not going to believe no matter what.

Only the LORD can appoint anyone to eternal life. And if this appointing came as a result of the LORD's foreknowledge then the fate of all these people was determined beforehand. Therefore, their fate was sealed at a time before they even believed. And the same can be said of those who were not appointed to eternal life. Their fate was also sealed before the LORD appointed others to eternal life but passed over them.

Therefore, if this appointing of the LORD was done according to His foreknowledge then it is obvious that this idea does not support Open Theism. But you say that you favor the idea of Open Theism.

Please explain why you think that Open Theism is compatible with the things which I presented in regard to those who were ordained to eternal life.

Thanks for your time!

If the first couple were presented with eternal life that was conditional on their eating of the tree of life, and the New Testament believers were presented with eternal life that was conditional on their believing in Jesus Christ, is there a difference in terms of how God interacted with them in time and in eternity past? Were the first couple ordained to life? or to death? upon what condition?

Were (are) New Testament believers ordained to life? or death? upon what condition?

If God ordained the New Testament believers to life in Christ from before the foundation of the world (or before time was created), then He must have ordained the first couple to death, right? in order for Christ's death, which was also ordained before the foundation of the world (or before time was created), to have any meaning.

But God gave them the tree of life, of which they could eat freely, and provided access to the other tree, commanding them not to eat.

If the only real choice that was allowed, in order for the rest of the plan to work, was for them to eat of the wrong tree, then God must have ordained death for them, right? This is totally in line with Calvinism, as I understand it. This is also totally in line with Loraine Boettner, from what I read today. But you said this about Calvinism:

Paul's words at Romans 1:18-20 prove that the Calvinist idea is wrong because he says that the unbelievers are "without excuse"! If the Calvinists arev right then the unbelievers would have a very good excuse.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Were the first couple ordained to life? or to death? upon what condition?

Let us look at this verse again:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

The word "ordain" means "destine, foreordain" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary).

The word "destined" means "predetermined" (Ibid.).

From this we can understand that when the LORD destines or foreordains something to happen then it will happen no matter what. Besides that, the Scriptures will be searched in vain for any evidence that the LORD destined (predetermined) that Adam and Eve would live forever.

So according to Acts 13:48 the Lord predetermined that some would inherit eternal life. And that pretermination came before they believed. Therefore, since what the LORD predetermines will happen no matter what so those who were predetermined to eternal life will believe no matter what.

That also means that those whom the LORD did not predetermined to receive eternal life will not believe no matter what.

You say that you favor the idea of Open Theism. Please explain why you think that Open Theism is compatible with the things which I presented in regard to those who were ordained to eternal life.

Thanks again!

 

[Derf]

Happy Lord's day to you, Jerry!

Let us look at this verse again:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

The word "ordain" means "destine, foreordain" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary).

The word "destined" means "predetermined" (Ibid.).

From this we can understand that when the LORD destines or foreordains something to happen then it will happen no matter what. Besides that, the Scriptures will be searched in vain for any evidence that the LORD destined (predetermined) that Adam and Eve would live forever.

So according to Acts 13:48 the Lord predetermined that some would inherit eternal life. And that pretermination came before they believed. Therefore, since what the LORD predetermines will happen no matter what so those who were predetermined to eternal life will believe no matter what.

That also means that those whom the LORD did not predetermined to receive eternal life will not believe no matter what.

So you are Calvinist. Ok, I misunderstood what you had written before.

You say that you favor the idea of Open Theism. Please explain why you think that Open Theism is compatible with the things which I presented in regard to those who were ordained to eternal life.

Thanks again!

I don't really think Open Theism has to be compatible with the things you presented, but with scripture. That particular scripture, by itself, is not the most favorable to Open Theism. That's why we talk about other scriptures along with it. Calvinists and Arminians do the same, of course, as any scripture out of the context of the whole council of God's word is potentially misunderstandable.

So in the context of people being predestined to eternal life, in Christ, I asked you whether you thought Adam and Eve were predestined to death (even the more limited death of their bodies). I don't think you answered the question. But the consequences of what you wrote above are that Adam and Eve were predestined to eat of the fruit of the wrong tree and were predestined to die from it DUE TO THEIR SIN. It wasn't conditional according to what you wrote above, it was mandated and predetermined and out of their control. Because if they didn't eat of the wrong tree and die, they and we wouldn't need Christ's sacrifice**, and wouldn't need to be predestined to life in Christ from "before" time/the world began.

You've made your Calvinist bed, now lie in it. God (according to you) is the author of sin! And because this happened "before" time/the world began, it can't be because of their own sin--it was predestined "before" they were created. Christ's death, and our eternal life "in Christ", which were determined "before" Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, is only possible because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. No ifs, ands, or buts (in a Calvinist world). That's why the Westminster divines had to add the contradictory clause about God NOT being the author of sin--it's the obvious conclusion from their other statements. They knew, but didn't know how to get around it, so they threw in the contradictory clause.

If you'll respond to that first, then I'll try to respond to your question about Open Theism's compatibility with your single verse.

**If you skip Adam's sin and jump straight to our own, since we would still need Christ's sacrifice due to our own sin, the problem remains (and becomes worse)--if we were predestined to life in Christ from before time/the world began, then we were predestined/predetermined/preordained to sin, by God's own wisdom and power--God decreed our sin. I have a thread I started on this topic. It didn't go very far, but the first comment (by [MENTION=15467]Truster[/MENTION], bringing a Calvinist perspective, click here to see) confirms what I said above and for the same reason. The one other commenter, [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION], brought an Arminian perspective.