New meaning for old verses

Well I said you would not see it webdog..... I personally don't think you CAN see it.

1. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2. in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

No, it is God's Word.

I never said "truly free." I said we are free to act according to our nature. We are not free to act differently than our nature. Of course you will not believe it. You need to support your doctrine of libertarian free will.

 

You don't see it the way I do....... go back and read more carefully. You think your decision caused you to be born again.

 

RB, I can see it if it's there. What you just posted is NOT it. None of that says the "how", what you describe as being in bondage to the will.

If we are "free to act according to our nature"...that statement in itself is not free.

 

Genuine faith in Christ caused me to be born again. I did reread it. I agree with all of it as you have written it.

 

Where did that "genuine faith in Christ" come from Web? You? Or God?

 

Since I didn't create myself...ultimately God

I'm no different than any man, though.

 

Not entirely true. Allowing true freedom does not diminish God's sovereignty.
If my son want's to see a movie, and I drive him to the theater, pay for his ticket, pick him back up...while allowing him to choose the movie he wants, he cannot claim to be sovereign over me for choosing a movie to see.

...yet millions perish daily for doing this very thing.
How does this explain those saved very lat in life who have rejected Christ continuously thoughout their life?

 

No, you are right on Amy. When we *see* God is the key. The unregenerate can not see God in His true light... they are blind to the truth. It is not until the Holy Spirit removes the blinders that they can see. :thumbs:

 

Thanks, Amy. My prediction was correct. Does that mean that I have the gift of prophecy? :laugh:

 

To piggy-back, to ask why one is saved and another not, or one is saved early in life, and another is not is for God to answer--if He will. Why is one person born to poverty and another to wealth? Why is one born in perfect health and another with deformities? Why do some creatures fly and others never see the light of day? Why were you born in this time and not 500 years ago?

What answer can we provide? Unless we understand the Providence and absolute Sovereignty of God, IMHO, we will fail to answer adequetly or else fall into stark atheism.

RB

 

I was saved pretty late in life (around age 33), from being a hard-core anti-Christian card-carrying evangelical atheist.

By the way, you guys can fight over Amy all you want, but I can tell you right now who wins. God.

 

Amen. :thumbs:

 

Exactly, and this is similar to God giving his creation real choices while remaining totally sovereign.

Now you are taking on the calvinist straw man of open theism. It's not an "either / or", Amy. God does give each and every one of us real choices (the option between two or more things...accept Christ / reject Christ) without open theism being true.

 

1. Here's a quote from an avowed Open Theist:

"In the Christian view God knows all of reality—everything there is to know. But to assume He knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s free activity is already there to know—even before he freely does it! But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions" (Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity [Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries, 1994], 30, emphasis mine).

2. No one is making up anything that the Open Theist hasn't already setforth.

 

That's called deism. I think Ben Franklin was a deist.

I don't think that's quite an accurate way of putting it. He changes our nature, and our will follows. To put it in terms of food (one of my favorite topics), one day we hate healthy food and therefore we eat nothing but junk food. God tweaks our heart. Then, the next day, we love healthy food, but we still struggle with our old addiction to junk food. Either way, we eat what we're inclined to eat, which means we do our own will. But our inclination has changed, and the acting out of our will changed with it.

Yes, that is scriptural.

It's the disposition of our heart that He changes, and our wills follow the change.

 

The open theist bounds God to within time. I don't buy that. God is omnitemporal, something our minds can't wrap around fully. Open theism is not the only conclusion to non calvinism. This is like saying hyper calvinism is the only conlcusion to calvinism.

 

Glad to know that you have no sympathy for Open Theism. There's something we both agree on (Are you keep check of what we agree on? :laugh: ).