Is Open Theism Heresy?

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:02 am

What then are we to make of what God said to Moses; "I will have mercy upon whom I shall have mercy"?
I think He has given a couple stong hints about what we should make of it:

Deuteronomy 5:9-10 (New King James Version)

9. you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10. but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments

Matthew 5:7 (New King James Version)

7. Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.

Perhaps this helps identify those who will receive mercy. Good place to start, anyway.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:18 am

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

"If this is a true evaluation, what then did Paul have in mind with the following exposition, in Romans 1:18-32 ?"

Romans 1 does not discuss the state of every man (to the shock of all those, both Calvinists and Arminians, who have missed Paul's whole argument in Romans 1 through 3). Most seem to think that Paul is writing Romans for the purpose of giving Christians a "Romans Road" for witnessing—namely, chapters 1-3 are a description of the universal sinfulness of all men (Jews and Gentiles, considered separately), followed by chapters 4 through 7 demonstrating the impotence of the law to remedy the sin problem, followed by chapter 8 with its "no condemnation to those in Christ."

It never occurs to most commentators that Paul actually had something to say to the church in Rome, concerning a local problem in the attitudes between the Jews and the Gentile Christians. Because they come to Romans looking for a systematic theology, teaching the doctrines that they want Paul to address, they fail to notice that there is not one verse in Romans 1 that indicates that Paul is describing every unsaved man. It was not a part of his purpose to discuss every man, but a certain class of men (my lectures on Romans bring this out in detail, which I cannot give here). The people that Paul describes are specifically limited to "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (v.18). He speaks of no others.

Of course, the Calvinist goes into this study assuming (entirely without scriptural warrant) that no other kind of unbelievers exist, and so Paul's diatribe is taken to implicate every man since Adam! This is as reasonable as taking Paul's description of Cretans as being "always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" (Tit.1:12), and concluding that every non-Christian man is thus described! Why not allow Paul himself to tell us who he is discussing, rather than forcing artificial doctrinal constructions on his statements?

You wrote:

"They do serve an example nevertheless of man's natural tendency toward rebellion and in this sense, its trans-generational."

Yes, every case of totally corrupt individuals can serve as a sobering warning of what can happen to any of us who lets this natural tendency govern our lives—whether we are Christians or not. However, that is irrelevant to the point of whether any of these verses take even a baby step toward proving the Augustinian doctrine of total depravity. Every generation has its exceptionally wicked men, as well as its specimens of every other category of men. We are seeking to find verses that support the specific Calvinistic assumptions about human nature. We can cite case after case of ruined derelicts to demonstrate what drunkenness may do to a man in its grip, without telling us anything about the general population's propensity to drink.

You wrote:

"Also, I do not think it entirely unreasonable to conclude that "all who have not recieved special mercy from God" not only remain in their "hardness of heart" but are ultimately lost. If one has not recieved "regeneratiing grace", i.e, "a new heart", then what else can you conclude? What then are we to make of what God said to Moses; "I will have mercy upon whom I shall have mercy"?"

Your statement speaks of all unsaved people "remain[ing] in their 'hardness of heart,'" as if the hardening of the heart is the default condition of all unsaved men. The Bible does not indicate that all unsaved men have hearts that have been hardened (where do you find support for this assumption?). The case of Pharaoh is a specific and exceptional case of God hardening a man's heart, whose prior wickedness was as much as God was willing to bear. Are you prepared to defend the proposition that Pharaoh's hardening was actually merely a case of the universal, default state of every sinner? Why then was it not Pharaoh's birth condition? Why was special action from God needed to bring this about in his case?

In Romans 9, I do believe that Pharaoh's hardening is mentioned as a parallel of the judicial hardening of many of the Jews of Jesus' generation, whereas Moses' favor in the sight of God is given as a parallel to the faithful remnant in Israel, who have believed in Christ. That is, after all, the point of Paul's discussion in Romans 9. God has made from one lump of clay (Israel), a vessel of honor (comprised of the elect of Israel), as well as a vessel of dishonor (the hardened in Israel)—see this distinction in Romans 11:7, as well as the discussion in Romans 9, leading up to the mention of Moses and Pharaoh.

The flaw in Calvinistic exegesis of Romans 9 is exemplified in the comments James White made in attempting to critique my treatment of that section: He thinks the context of this passage is actually Romans 8 and 9 (because both chapters have passages that Calvinists can misconstrue for support of their doctrines). If there was no tendency to make the Calvinistic points the defining concerns of the book of Romans, he would be more in the position to see what objective students of the word can easily recognize—namely that the context of the passage in Romans 9 is actually Romans 9-11 (it is not a continuation of chapter 8, but the beginning of a new section)! Romans 9, as an integral part of chapters 9 through 11, is concerned to discuss the reason why most Jews are in unbelief, despite the Old Testament promises to Israel.

Calvinists want every passage to be about election. However, the Bible was not written to accommodate their preferences. The obvious concern in the opening verses of Romans 9 is the matter of Israel's division into two segments.

I would recommend to Calvinists (and all people, but especially Calvinists and Dispensationalists), that they begin to ask themselves what they would have found in the scriptures had they never been taught their present novel doctrines by their teachers. Such inquiry should be followed-up by a careful re-studying of the whole Bible with the express purpose of seeing whether their favorite proof texts might actually have a more likely meaning in their contexts than the meaning that they have been taught to see in them. If they would do this, I believe it will greatly repay their trouble. If, on the other hand, they do not think they have the time to engage in such a fresh and disinterested study (or they find the suggestion too threatening), then they would have occasion to wonder in what sense they differ from those who "suppress the truth," in one of their favorite passages.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:14 am

Interesting thread, but a few mistakes need to be addressed.
My present understanding of salvation is not that it is a single act whereby we get saved from eternal hell fire (my belief as a Calvinist).
See, here is the problem. No Calvinist believes that, so how can you say you were a Calvinist?

and we had this from Steve,
That man is fallen is clear enough, but to suggest that nothing of the image of God remains in him in his fallen state is to go beyond (and, indeed, against) scripture (James 3:9).
I think you have Calvinism confused with Orthodox Lutheranism there. Calvinism does not deny the image of God in man. I do not get my theology from Wikapedia but even they know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_Dei

http://www.theopedia.com/Image_of_God

and again from a friendly person,
Now I am not of the Calvinist opinon that man has lost entirely the "Image of God". Indeed we all still bear our Creators Image.
That is not Calvinism and I would at the very least expect Steve not to misrepresent what he has spent so much time studying? So Traveller, Steve was wrong there, ok brother?
That man is fallen is clear enough, but to suggest that nothing of the image of God remains in him in his fallen state is to go beyond (and, indeed, against) scripture (James 3:9).
No student of Calvinism would ever say what Steve said above.


Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:16 am

Paidion wrote:
From all eternity God knew they would repent, but used His declarative threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.
This is a prime example of the contradictions of Calvinism.

1. God knew from all eternity that they would repent.
2. If God had not warned them, they would not have repented.
3. But if they had not repented, then God did not know from all eternity that they would repent.
4. So since God knew from all eternity that they would repent, the could not have chosen not to repent.
5. Therefore it was unnecessary for God to warn them what would happen to them if they chose not to repent.

I'm sure the Calvinist will answer that warning them was the "means" by which God got them to repent. But why bother with a means, when they were predestined to repent anyway?
I just want to be pointed to where I have given a contradiction, and if not, why make such an accusation?

I have little desire to interact with your logic above for that should be plain to most people where you err, but you have accused me of contradiction, so where is it exactly?

Also, if you want to so easily do away with God working through means, then why accuse Calvinism of having a God that does not interact with us as you have said in the past?

You cannot have it both ways.

And given your careless comment below, it seems that whatever version of Calvinism you previously embraced, it was somewhat aberrant.
Did you not hold to the reformed Ordo Salutis?

Quote:
My present understanding of salvation is not that it is a single act whereby we get saved from eternal hell fire (my belief as a Calvinist).


Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:45 am

Mark,

You wrote:

Quote:
Awareness, Desire, and Choice

Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to aware.

Fore example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature. Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.


So you are saying that the gospel is impotent to make an unregenerate sinner aware of his condition and that if he would but call on the name of the Lord he might be saved? What do you make of the statement that "The gospel is the power unto salvation?
Where do I say that?

It is precisely the power of the Holy Spirit that makes impotent unregenerate man, regenerate. Why twist that to say that the gospel is impotent?
Are you saying that YOU have the power as an unregenerate to savingly believe the gospel? Yes that is exactly what you are saying, but scripture refutes that faith precedes regeneration.

The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.
And you said:
Quote:


Compatibilist free will
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires


So if a person is, for example, a drunkard, unless he is regenerated he can not possibly decide to quit drinking and cease to be a drunkard no matter how hard he tries. This example would necessarily apply to all sinful practices, would it not? Yet we know unbelievers are able to decide to cease a sinful practice. It is not unusual. How do you explain this? Remember, you say he is a slave to his nature and can make no choice contrary to it.
It is not in mans nature to desire the true God of scripture, that is the simple Biblical point.

A man may very well desire to stop drinking and that is because a greater desire to stop, overtakes the desire to continue. Man has no desire whatsoever for the God of the Bible, so my point holds.

He certainly has desires for religion and false God's, that much is certainly true, but never for the God of Scripture, The Lord and Jesus Christ.
With man, this desire and ability is impossible. Mat 19:26

Notice I am using scripture there and in context too!

Who then can be saved? With men, "impossible", say's the Lord!

So much for men being disposed to believe and all that nonsense......

Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:15 am

Hello Haas,

Homer was not suggesting that a person can be saved by his good works. He was responding to Mark's statement about compatiblism: "Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires."

In fact, this statement is entirely too simplistic. To say that a man "cannot choose contrary to [his] nature and desires," may mean that man cannot choose what it is his nature not to desire.
Eh? Same thing, right!
But what are the limits of a man's desires?
I think Genesis says a little about that.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

And that was before the fall!

When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.
Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).

then we read about man,

Romans 3:9-10 and 18. ( Despite what Steve Gregg says) "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."

And verse 19 says, "But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God,"

I cannot believe Steve wants us to read Romans 3 as if it is not relevant to us and all men in every age, it is simply amazing.

Yes there are those who come to the light -- namely those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked by God. Apart from this gracious work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come to him lest their evil be exposed -- this is total rebellion. "No one seeks for God...There is no fear of God before their eyes!" John 3:20-21 (Piper)

In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Think about that statement and its ramifications.

In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good.

It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit.

So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
Can't a man desire to be more than he is capable of becoming on his own? If he is told that the power of God unto salvation is available to him through the Gospel, so that he can become what God intends for him to become, why could a man not desire this?
Of course I am answering this objection using scripture, and using it as if it is actually relevant to us today and not just for some Jews a few thousand years ago, but I digress,

For example, 1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
See Romans 8:7, 1 Corinthians 1:18,

"he is not able"
How clear a scripture do you need Steve that explicitly says that the natural man does not have the ability to receive the things of the Spirit of God?

Surely, your traditions are not that powerful my friend?
Calvinism says he has no capacity for such desire, but the Bible does not define this limitation.
It most certainly does Steve, why are you not seeing it?

The "mind of the flesh" is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God ("You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you," Romans 8:9).

So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself.
If Pelagianism is said to overrate man's freedom of choice, it can be said with equal justice that Calvinism underrates the image of God in humanity. That man is fallen is clear enough, but to suggest that nothing of the image of God remains in him in his fallen state is to go beyond (and, indeed, against) scripture (James 3:9).
Hopefully you have already accepted correction on that matter. Therefore the so called imbalance has vanished.
To underrate the powers inherent in the divine image (for example, to say there is no spark of the divine remaining in man that may induce him to seek union with his Creator), is, arguably, to diminish the glory of that image, and with it, the glory of the one imaged.

Augustine was the first to teach your doctrines of grace. He was the first to exalt sin to the great honor of being more potent than the image of God in mankind. The devil, through sin, was able to effect the total annihilation of the divine spark in God's chiefest creation! If one wishes to say such outlandish things, he had better be ready to face God with a lot of clear scriptures in his defense. Has Calvinism got these? To make sin and the devil more powerful than God seems to me to be a specie of idolatry--or at the very least, a dishonorable diminishing of God.
Steve, please do the right thing.

This rant has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism, and if you cannot know what Calvinism teaches, from the mountains of literature freely available, why should I go so many steps back to your interpretation of Augustine, who in fact did teach the image of God in man, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove!

The very firstbook and first verse of His confessions affirms the image of God in man! (Confessions I, 1,1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:03 am

Hello Steve,

Quote: "It never occurs to most commentators that Paul actually had something to say to the church in Rome, concerning a local problem in the attitudes between the Jews and the Gentile Christians".

Fair enough. But why do you restrict its application to Paul's immediate
audience? The broader context includes "all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth-by their wickedness"
IMO, regardless of degree, all the wickedness of men "suppress the truth".
Paul gives us a 'since when' application in vs 20, "since the creation...". I see nothing here to indicate Paul was addressing a particular problem between Jewish and Gentile Christians either. Apart from a relationship with Christ, (which he gets into) Paul is describing 'every man'.

I am not trying to find "support" for any theological system, Steve.
I am trying with my limited knowlage to understand what the text is saying. Not to sound crass, but opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. Just go into any Christian bookstore and look at how many commentaries there are for Romans. There is no 'universial' opinion about it. Everybody has a favorite 'proof text' in support of their doctrines.
As you can tell, I've grown pretty cynical of all the various 'interpretations'
we find people giving to the Bible. Maybe its just every man for himself and trust the Lord for the results?

In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:33 am

tartanarmy wrote:
My present understanding of salvation is not that it is a single act whereby we get saved from eternal hell fire (my belief as a Calvinist).
See, here is the problem. No Calvinist believes that, so how can you say you were a Calvinist?
So that I'm clear on this, you don't believe that God, in a single act foreknew me? Isn't that what begins the "golden chain": foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified? Is not the first act the cause of ones salvation? And without that single act there can be no salvation can there? Unless God foreknew you, salvation is not possible. If God has then "foreknew" you, salvation is thus assured, correct? Or can the chain be broken?

tartanarmy wrote:
Now I am not of the Calvinist opinon that man has lost entirely the "Image of God". Indeed we all still bear our Creators Image.
That is not Calvinism and I would at the very least expect Steve not to misrepresent what he has spent so much time studying? So Traveller, Steve was wrong there, ok brother?
That man is fallen is clear enough, but to suggest that nothing of the image of God remains in him in his fallen state is to go beyond (and, indeed, against) scripture (James 3:9).
No student of Calvinism would ever say what Steve said above.


Mark
How can you know what all Calvinist would say? :)
It would help to read the context (the context you left out):
In fact, this statement is entirely too simplistic. To say that a man "cannot choose contrary to [his] nature and desires," may mean that man cannot choose what it is his nature not to desire. But what are the limits of a man's desires? Can't a man desire to be more than he is capable of becoming on his own? If he is told that the power of God unto salvation is available to him through the Gospel, so that he can become what God intends for him to become, why could a man not desire this? Calvinism says he has no capacity for such desire, but the Bible does not define this limitation.

If Pelagianism is said to overrate man's freedom of choice, it can be said with equal justice that Calvinism underrates the image of God in humanity. That man is fallen is clear enough, but to suggest that nothing of the image of God remains in him in his fallen state is to go beyond (and, indeed, against) scripture (James 3:9). To underrate the powers inherent in the divine image (for example, to say there is no spark of the divine remaining in man that may induce him to seek union with his Creator), is, arguably, to diminish the glory of that image, and with it, the glory of the one imaged.
The context explains his objection (see underlined portion above).
Yet you only quoted the part about God's image in man and failed to acknowledge his clarification of that statement. Your arguing against a straw man. Maybe you were just reading to fast and missed it!
tartanarmy wrote: If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.
Giants of faith? The Nephilim wrote Christian history?! :D

There was an entire thread about this subject. When we answered the scriptures you presented, and supplied other scriptures that contradict "regeneration preceding faith" you stopped debating the issue and never responded to the scriptures presented to you that contradict this.
tartanarmy wrote: In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Think about that statement and its ramifications.
Were reading this in context right?
tartanarmy wrote:For example, 1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Way out of context to get that meaning. The Corinthians were carnal, acting as "mere men", yet they were babes in Christ! (1 Cor 3:1)
tartanarmy wrote: In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good.
Romans 7 is interesting.

Paul says:
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.


So the law can show a man who is "of the flesh" what is good. That man, who is "sold under sin" can "desire to do what is good"! Lets not get this wrong, Paul plainly states that "in the flesh" he has the desire but not the ability to carry out what is right. This is why Paul continues in Romans 8 saying:

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


People get tied up over weather or not Paul was speaking in Romans 7 about if this is his pre-conversion life or post-conversion. Paul's not talking either way! Paul's explaining what "the flesh" is like, the law's effect on the flesh (teaches and condemns but does not give power to overcome sin), and the overcoming power that comes through the Spirit.

It's noteworthy that Paul says that although man is dead in sin, he is able to desire what is good, even though "in the flesh" this desire cannot be carried out. The evil his does not want to do, this he keeps on doing, in the flesh. Romans 8:4 Paul uses the reverse language when speaking of the Spirit filled man "who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit".

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

I'm sorry but this is not the Christian walk! Is a Christian made "captive" to the law of sin in "his members"? Exactly what improvement would there be over the non-Christian? The desire to do good can come from a man captive to sin, even the desire to believe the Gospel. The receiving of the Holy Spirit breaks the captivity to sin so that man can live pleasing to God:

Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.


This is why when Romans 3 says: "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" it means just what Paul goes on to discuss in Romans 7.

It's also interesting that Paul says:
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

In what way was Paul "alive" before he "died"? And what kind of death did Paul mean?
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:46 am, edited 4 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:35 am

I have little desire to interact with your logic above for that should be plain to most people where you err, but you have accused me of contradiction, so where is it exactly?
Here are two of your statements:

1. From all eternity God knew they would repent.

2. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.


Statement 2, suggests to most people that God, having free will, might have chosen not to warn them. But if He had, they would not have repented (according to statement 2).

However, if they had not repented, then statement 1 is false.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

__id_1887
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1887 » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:55 pm

Hey Steve,

The mid-term is complete and I have a little bit of time at the moment to post.


A couple of quotes I found scanning over some old threads:

You wrote:
I have not had the time to read all of these threads on Calvinism. My impression is that, for some people, this is their big issue, and they can justify spending hours each day talking only about this one thing. I have many other interests, and responsibilities, so I often get around to some of these threads several days after the last posting (as was the case today).
We are all pretty busy people and occassionaly have more time than others. It appears to me that your views on Calvinism are not a "little issue."

and

My interest is in the whole counsel of God, and I attempt to understand the biblical teaching on many subjects not impacted by the Calvinist debate. Calvinism is one of the least important topics in my hierarchy;

The more I read your comments here the less I believe the above underlined statement. Have you changed your mind since you wrote that?


Switching gears now.

You wrote:
The reason I challenged any Calvinist to post scriptures that support their view of total depravity is because I already have looked at all the passages Calvinist writers and debaters have used—and I have also done something they apparently have not bothered to do—I have looked at their contexts as well.

Wow! You and I both know that there are men today that have spent as much time (or more) as you have studying the word verse by verse in its context. Umm......hmmm? John MacArthur. Let's see...John Piper. Go back through history. Many great reform theologians spent there whole lives doing this. Surely you are not denying this?



From Piper's website:
The Complete Romans Series
The Greatest Letter Ever Written: 1998-2006
After 18 years of preaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church, John Piper felt the time had come to preach through Paul’s letter to the Romans. “The glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4), seems more glorious to me now than it ever has. And there is no greater exposition of the Gospel of God than the book of Romans… I have a deep confidence that the best way to be lastingly relevant is to stand on rock-solid, durable old truths, than jumping from one pragmatic bandwagon to another. Romans is as solid and durable and reliable and unshakable as truth can get.” Come and worship through the Book of Romans with us!
http://www.desiringgod.org/


I do hope to listen to more of your series on Romans.

Abundant joy in Christ,

Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”