Theology Club: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?

[Stripe]

1. Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (We are spiritually lost)

2. Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (We deserve to be punished for our sin)

3. Romans 5:8 - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Gods invitation for a relationship)

4. Titus 3:5 - He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. (No personal actions can save)

5. Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Salvation is a gift)

6. Romans 10: 9 - because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (How to respond to receive Christ)

7. 2 Cor. 5:21 - For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (Gospel in one verse)

This is the gospel, man's choice in the matter included, and the Spirit works as the passages describe.

Here's an idea: We — Calvinists and openers — both hold the Bible as the final word on theology. If you wonder what we think of the Holy Spirit, read the Bible. If we wonder what you think of Him, we will do the same. :thumb:

 

[patrick jane]

This is the gospel, man's choice in the matter included, and the Spirit works as the passages describe.

Here's an idea: We — Calvinists and openers — both hold the Bible as the final word on theology. If you wonder what we think of the Holy Spirit, read the Bible. If we wonder what you think of Him, we will do the same. :thumb:

i don't wonder what calvinists and 'openers' think - atrol:

 

[Stripe]

i don't wonder what calvinists and 'openers' think - atrol:

Then butt out. :up:

 

[Stripe]

I am making an assessment based on the published open-view literature (Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and Rice).

In our other thread, you asserted something about these authors that was not true and failed to respond when called on it. Why should we trust your assertion about their ideas here?

 

[Lighthouse]

I have posted plenty of Scriptures in my posts with platypus and my other responses, supporting God's monergistic work in salvation and man's inability to respond apart from the Spirit's work of regeneration. So, I haven't ignored your request, I just figured you would be able read my other discussions on that subject, using the verses to support that statement.

Your discussion with him is not your discussion with me. Try again.

 

[Cross Reference]

By grace alone thru faith alone plus nothing

. . and only if one continues in it by being faithful to it otherwise the love of God is not in him. Why?, because "the just shall live by faith".

 

[TIPlatypus]

Paul says we were by nature children of wrath; How are we by nature children of wrath?

Because we naturally sin. It in our nature to sin. I still feel that I am missing your point though.

Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

Thanks.
So you said : "Paul says that man cannot submit." Paul says in Romans 8:7 for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Here I draw the distinction between submitting to the spirit and submitting to God's law.

Care to demonstrate?

Here is an argument purely for the sake of analogy.
I like fish because fish tastes nice and fish is healthy.

What is more likely: that you understand what I am saying, or that you know which words I am trying to emphasise to make my actual main point more clear?

So, are you saying you don't believe that the God of Scripture is Triune?

Yes, I am saying that. I am not saying that there is anything unchristian about the idea of the trinity. I just think that the idea of the trinity lacks reason, logic, and common sense.

According to what you said, I understand this to mean then that Paul did not really have a choice then, for God made up his mind that he wanted Paul to be an apostle.

No, to elaborate, God did everything he needed to to convince Paul to follow Jesus. If he had done less, Paul may have thought "I must be imagining things." If he had done more, then he could be accused of being an evil puppet master.

No, she was a worshiper of God. She was very religious, not one who was born-again.

And this you know for certain right? Besides, not knowing Jesus was probably not good enough for David, Or Solomon, or Abraham, Or Samuel, or Daniel. They all had hearts of stone right and definitely aren't in heaven right.

Again, man's heart needs to be changed by the Spirit so he can respond to the gospel; i.e., submit to God's law

Yes.


I believe that the spirit does an awful lot in you after you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour. I got the impression we were arguing about in what order things happen during conversion. How can the Spirit do anything to your heart if he isn't inside of you.

I never said it did; however, one who is born-again becomes repulsed by his sin and is sorrowful toward God for his sin.

No. One is sorrowful to God for his sin. Then you accept Jesus as your Saviour.

It seems like you are supporting my perspective here, which agrees with John 3:3-8.

If I happen to be supporting your perspective, then that is serendipity. We may come to an agreement one day.

John 3:3-8 doesn't. The 1 Corinthians 12:11 shows how the Spirit gives gifts according to his will. I was trying to show you that the Spirit does works of regeneration and gifting according to his will, showing that we can only do anything in obedience and service to God by his will and working in us first (Philippians 2:13).

Yes except this whole regeneration thing. I understand that the Spirit regenerates everyone who asks, because he wants to.

Again, do a word study on the 'called' in the NT. It's an eye-opener. My ideas come from what I see in the Scriptures.

Maybe you should start a thread about this whole NT word study thing. And I am hoping to see these scriptures.

God does the converting; we proclaim the gospel.

Yes.

Do you find insects revolting?

I have also been thinking, about our nature. Where does it say anywhere that it is impossible to do things contrary to our nature? I would argue that this happens all the time.

 

[Desert Reign]

Allow me to interject here. It is some while since I last said anything.
Mr Orr: You made a clear statement that scripture proclaimed that mankind had fallen.
TIP asked you for substantiation of that.
You didn't give him a single scripture that supported your claim.
You showed lots of passages describing man's present nature.
None of these passages told a story of being fallen.
TIP seemed to have agreed largely with your interpretation of those scriptures, namely that man was by nature sinful.
The fact that he has agreed with you shows that he understands your point and that you still do not understand his.

I'm just trying to bridge an obvious communication gap here.

I mean for example, I can think of where the scripture talks about Satan falling. I can think of Jonathan's lament over the death of Saul 'How the mighty have fallen...' but I really can't think of anything that explains that mankind itself has fallen.

You seem to be making an assumption: that because mankind is sinful by nature therefore he must have fallen into it. You seem unable to escape from your assumption and be self-critical. So you simply assume uncritically that everyone else assumes the same thing you do.

This is what I like about the Bible. Bad translations apart, everyone can read it and there is just so much that anyone can do to convince his neighbour of some particular interpretation of it because the raw material cannot easily be dispensed with or glossed over. If you presented someone with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and told them it was the Bible, they would quite likely disbelieve you.

At the moment it seems like you are having a hard time convincing TIP that mankind has fallen just by quoting from the Bible. Perhaps I can help you to achieve your aim? You could start by remembering that he too can read the Bible and you should assume that when you quote a text or a reference in support of your view, that he will read it and not just assume that it supports your argument. I appreciate that this is unusual and that you are more used to other people just accepting that your use of the scripture you quote is valid without actually reading it for themselves. And of course even a lot of people who do actually get round to reading it, will simply read it as if it supported your view because they assume you know what you are talking about. But I suggest you don't assume this of him. He probably has no theological education (though he seems to have some fairly developed views) and that he is otherwise an ordinary young person (by the sound of it) looking for direction from you about where in the Bible it says that mankind has fallen. So to re-establish good contact with him, you could probably find a few passages that just make this simple statement. I am sure that someone with your expertise in scripture is able to find a few pertinent passages, no? And there doesn't need to be a big argument and discussion about it even. Just a couple of Bible passages will be more than sufficient I daresay. I am also guessing that TIP has not been brought up to believe that mankind has fallen so his question to you to substantiate this from the Bible would be quite natural to him and not at all provocative. It's a shame. It's so much easier to convince people who have this kind of thing already taught them in Sunday school! He might even be one of these modern phenomena who are taught that they are actually valuable - I mean how short-sighted can you get? I am sure you can put him to rights.

He also seems to have some trouble with your view that man cannot change his nature. What he is saying doesn't seem to be an issue over the Bible at all. This is why (I assume) he has asked you if insects disgust you. Even evil people can do good. That might be a rare event, but it is surely possible. By the way, my apologies to TIP for taking your name in vain and if I have misunderstood anything or spoken out of turn. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens here as it is a public forum - you are having a polite conversation with someone and along comes some busybody poking his nose in. Anyway, I was just trying to help and I hope you won't take offence. If so, just tell me to shut up and you can manage quite well on your own...

I had sort of bowed out of this discussion but I might pop in at some point to see if you and TIP have a better understanding of each other. And I am kind of intrigued about this fall of man business myself...

Cheers,
DR

 

[intojoy]

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (*Romans‬ *5‬:*6, 12‬ ESV)

 

[Nang]

Allow me to interject here. It is some while since I last said anything.
Mr Orr: You made a clear statement that scripture proclaimed that mankind had fallen.
TIP asked you for substantiation of that.
You didn't give him a single scripture that supported your claim.
You showed lots of passages describing man's present nature.
None of these passages told a story of being fallen.
TIP seemed to have agreed largely with your interpretation of those scriptures, namely that man was by nature sinful.
The fact that he has agreed with you shows that he understands your point and that you still do not understand his.

I'm just trying to bridge an obvious communication gap here.

I mean for example, I can think of where the scripture talks about Satan falling. I can think of Jonathan's lament over the death of Saul 'How the mighty have fallen...' but I really can't think of anything that explains that mankind itself has fallen.

You seem to be making an assumption: that because mankind is sinful by nature therefore he must have fallen into it. You seem unable to escape from your assumption and be self-critical. So you simply assume uncritically that everyone else assumes the same thing you do.

This is what I like about the Bible. Bad translations apart, everyone can read it and there is just so much that anyone can do to convince his neighbour of some particular interpretation of it because the raw material cannot easily be dispensed with or glossed over. If you presented someone with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and told them it was the Bible, they would quite likely disbelieve you.

At the moment it seems like you are having a hard time convincing TIP that mankind has fallen just by quoting from the Bible. Perhaps I can help you to achieve your aim? You could start by remembering that he too can read the Bible, that he probably has no theological education, though he seems to have some fairly developed views, and that he is otherwise an ordinary young person (by the sound of it) looking for direction from you about where in the Bible it says that mankind has fallen. So to re-establish good contact with him, you could probably find a few passages that just make this simple statement. I am sure that someone with your expertise in scripture is able to find a few pertinent passages, no? And there doesn't need to be a big argument and discussion about it even. Just a couple of Bible passages will be more than sufficient I daresay.

He also seems to have some trouble with your view that man cannot change his nature. What he is saying doesn't seem to be an issue over the Bible at all. This is why (I assume) he has asked you if insects disgust you. Even evil people can do good. That might be a rare event, but it is surely possible.

I have sort of bowed out of this discussion but I might pop in at some point to see if you and TIP have a better understanding of each other.

Cheers,
DR

Your challenge against evidence of the fall of man in Adam, must assume you have evidence that Adam did not fall, but he and humankind remain as "good," "upright," innocent apart from sin, and in unbroken fellowship with God.

Is that your claim?

Where does the bible teach that? What is your scriptural evidence that proves man is not fallen and the doctrine of Total Depravity is false?

Nang

 

[Desert Reign]

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Irrelevant.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (*Romans‬ *5‬:*6, 12‬ ESV)

This doesn't answer the question. This says that the world changed when man sinned. It does not say that man changed. In fact the way I would read this is that man brought sin with him when he entered the world.

I am not sure that I even agree with TIP here (about man being sinful by nature - it's just a historical fact that man sinned and the explanation for that sin is given in the narrative, namely that the serpent tempted Eve and Eve convinced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. There is no mention there of Adam being naturally inclined to sin as the cause of him sinning). But I hardly think anything so far presented here even remotely suggests that man has fallen from something.

Care to try again?

By the way, happy Easter everyone, I hope you will all be having a good few days of holiday and that are uplifted in your service of the Lord.

 

[intojoy]

Done talking to you.

Your approach to studying scripture: irrelevant

 

[patrick jane]

for brian orr or anyone that doubts all of mankind Was fallen - Genesis 6:6 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV, 1 Timothy 2:4 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Genesis 3:1-24 KJV, - atrol:

 

[BrianJOrr]

Allow me to interject here. It is some while since I last said anything.
Mr Orr: You made a clear statement that scripture proclaimed that mankind had fallen.
TIP asked you for substantiation of that.
You didn't give him a single scripture that supported your claim.
You showed lots of passages describing man's present nature.
None of these passages told a story of being fallen.
TIP seemed to have agreed largely with your interpretation of those scriptures, namely that man was by nature sinful.
The fact that he has agreed with you shows that he understands your point and that you still do not understand his.

I'm just trying to bridge an obvious communication gap here.

I mean for example, I can think of where the scripture talks about Satan falling. I can think of Jonathan's lament over the death of Saul 'How the mighty have fallen...' but I really can't think of anything that explains that mankind itself has fallen.

You seem to be making an assumption: that because mankind is sinful by nature therefore he must have fallen into it. You seem unable to escape from your assumption and be self-critical. So you simply assume uncritically that everyone else assumes the same thing you do.

This is what I like about the Bible. Bad translations apart, everyone can read it and there is just so much that anyone can do to convince his neighbour of some particular interpretation of it because the raw material cannot easily be dispensed with or glossed over. If you presented someone with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and told them it was the Bible, they would quite likely disbelieve you.

At the moment it seems like you are having a hard time convincing TIP that mankind has fallen just by quoting from the Bible. Perhaps I can help you to achieve your aim? You could start by remembering that he too can read the Bible and you should assume that when you quote a text or a reference in support of your view, that he will read it and not just assume that it supports your argument. I appreciate that this is unusual and that you are more used to other people just accepting that your use of the scripture you quote is valid without actually reading it for themselves. And of course even a lot of people who do actually get round to reading it, will simply read it as if it supported your view because they assume you know what you are talking about. But I suggest you don't assume this of him. He probably has no theological education (though he seems to have some fairly developed views) and that he is otherwise an ordinary young person (by the sound of it) looking for direction from you about where in the Bible it says that mankind has fallen. So to re-establish good contact with him, you could probably find a few passages that just make this simple statement. I am sure that someone with your expertise in scripture is able to find a few pertinent passages, no? And there doesn't need to be a big argument and discussion about it even. Just a couple of Bible passages will be more than sufficient I daresay. I am also guessing that TIP has not been brought up to believe that mankind has fallen so his question to you to substantiate this from the Bible would be quite natural to him and not at all provocative. It's a shame. It's so much easier to convince people who have this kind of thing already taught them in Sunday school! He might even be one of these modern phenomena who are taught that they are actually valuable - I mean how short-sighted can you get? I am sure you can put him to rights.

He also seems to have some trouble with your view that man cannot change his nature. What he is saying doesn't seem to be an issue over the Bible at all. This is why (I assume) he has asked you if insects disgust you. Even evil people can do good. That might be a rare event, but it is surely possible. By the way, my apologies to TIP for taking your name in vain and if I have misunderstood anything or spoken out of turn. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens here as it is a public forum - you are having a polite conversation with someone and along comes some busybody poking his nose in. Anyway, I was just trying to help and I hope you won't take offence. If so, just tell me to shut up and you can manage quite well on your own...

I had sort of bowed out of this discussion but I might pop in at some point to see if you and TIP have a better understanding of each other. And I am kind of intrigued about this fall of man business myself...

Cheers,
DR

DR, I take your post here as genuinely charitable and with some helpful observations.

Happy Easter

 

[Cross Reference]

Your challenge against evidence of the fall of man in Adam, must assume you have evidence that Adam did not fall, but he and humankind remain as "good," "upright," innocent apart from sin, and in unbroken fellowship with God.

Is that your claim?

Where does the bible teach that? What is your scriptural evidence that proves man is not fallen and the doctrine of Total Depravity is false?

Nang

C'mon Nang. Why don't you try to explain the Cain and Abel account as a way for everyone to understand what you mean by total depravity? Go for it.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Your challenge against evidence of the fall of man in Adam, must assume you have evidence that Adam did not fall, but he and humankind remain as "good," "upright," innocent apart from sin, and in unbroken fellowship with God.

Is that your claim?

Where does the bible teach that? What is your scriptural evidence that proves man is not fallen and the doctrine of Total Depravity is false?

Nang

Firstly, we are not under the burden of proof. When you say something, it is you who needs to back it up. I could say that I have blonde hair. If you say "Prove it" and then I say "You have no evidence to the contrary" then I am not fulfilling my obligation to prove that I have blonde hair. Do it properly.

Secondly, denial of the fall does not mean that we think that we are still innocent and childlike etc. Just because Adam stopped being innocent and childlike does not mean he fell from anywhere. There is no evidence for this. It does not make sense.

Thirdly, you are trying to use the Bible to prove a doctrine. That is stupid. We shouldn't say, here is an idea I have got, let's see if the Bible agrees with it. We should think, what does the Bible say. Is there anything we can conclude from this?

Your approach leads to mistakes.

Saying things like "What does the Bible say about God" or "what does the Bible say about killing people" is the wrong way. We are trying to fit the Bible in with what we believe. We should try to fit ourselves into what the Bible says.

 

[Cross Reference]

Because we naturally sin. It in our nature to sin. I still feel that I am missing your point though.

It is not the nature of the Christian to sin.

 

[Cross Reference]

I have not seen much work regarding the doctrine of the Spirit in open-view circles. In fact, I don't recall seeing any real treatment whatsoever.

So, do we really need the Spirit, according to the open view? Is the role of the Spirit different in the open view than in the classical or Reformed perspective?

Is the Spirit needed for illumination and sanctification if our wills cannot be changed by the work of the Spirit? Sanctification is the process of our hearts and minds being conformed into that of Christ's. Fallen man's will is enslaved to sin. Paul says Christians minds are set on the Spirit because the Spirit of Christ dwells in us; those who set their mind on the flesh don't have the Spirit; therefore, they cannot submit to Gods law (Romans 8:7-9). The Spirit has to change our hearts, which are willed toward sin and hostile to God's law, in order to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

Question: Since you are using Paul's words in Rom.8:7-9 to make you point, can you explain why his conversation with the Greeks on Mars Hill (Acts 17:18-23) was along a different line?

 

[TIPlatypus]

It is not the nature of the Christian to sin.

It is in the nature of man to sin.

I believe this because everyone who is grown up is grown up because they have sinned before. Only small children and babies are innocent. I also believe this is hereditary in a way. Everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Cross Reference]

It is in the nature of man to sin.

Unregenerate man.

I believe this because everyone who is grown up is grown up because they have sinned before.

Is that how Jesus did it?

Only small children and babies are innocent I also believe this is hereditary in a way..

Heredity does not play a part in blamelessness. Paul was blameless until the law revealed/made alive, sin..

Everyone makes mistakes.

Mistakes are correctable. Sin isn't. I must be canceled out. In the eternal of things, by the Will of man and purifying love in Christ that by Gods Grace, empowers man to perform it, is the WAY. See Gal 2:20 KJV. KJV ONLY HERE