Not Closed Theology

[Van]

Scripture teaches the lost are responsible for their choices to sin, to reject what seems consistent with God's law, or in its absence, natural law, the dictates of an unseared conscious. So, to say the lost can only choose to sin, and have no ability to choose what God seems to desire, is to make the sin of fallen humanity the responsibility of God. Then to say God punishes the lost for the sin He authors destroys God as just.

The claim of a totally closed theology, where everything is predestined by God, is an absurd, laughable nonsense.

So while we were not totally free to go with God, we were not totally compelled to go against God either. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Van]

A significant fraction of believers think God has exhaustively predestined whatsoever comes to pass. We are all like actors on a stage, simply mouthing our words and doing our foreordained actions. But the fly in the buttermilk is that such a viewpoint means we are not responsible for our sinful thoughts and actions as they were foreordained by God and we cannot resist His power to compel.

Thus any system of theology that hold humanity responsible for sin is not a closed theology, but an open, at least partially, theology.

The good news, the gospel of Christ, declares we can be forgiven all the consequences of "our" sin, whether volitional or inadvertent.

Thus to embrace "closed theology" is to deny the very foundation of the gospel.

 

[taisto]

You miss the obvious all the time. In either case they could have freely chosen to trust in God for their salvation. That is what free will means. Using your examples actually shows free will, they chose to reject God.
The only other view is that God caused them to choose what they did, so no free will. Is that the option that you are going with?

What can free will mean if not free will?
Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.

The question of the lawyer to Jesus is "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" This is the question of all unbelieving theists. The question is directly viewing salvation as an action that "I" do to secure my eternal destiny.

How does Jesus answer the lawyer?

He tells him the story of the good Samaritan to teach the man who the good neighbor is.

In understanding the story, we need to acknowledge that Jesus is the good Samaritan and we are the person who has been robbed, beaten and left half dead by the robbers of salvation (sin).

Notice that the robbed and beaten man could do nothing to secure his salvation. The religious leaders who preach salvation by works both went by and could not help him, indeed would not help him. Jesus, the one that legalists despise and hate, comes along, sees us dying in the road, cares for our wounds and brings us to a place to heal while paying for all the debt of healing.

Now, what free will is displayed by the half dead person whom sin has robbed and beaten on the road?

 

[Silverhair]

The question of the lawyer to Jesus is "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" This is the question of all unbelieving theists. The question is directly viewing salvation as an action that "I" do to secure my eternal destiny.

How does Jesus answer the lawyer?

He tells him the story of the good Samaritan to teach the man who the good neighbor is.

In understanding the story, we need to acknowledge that Jesus is the good Samaritan and we are the person who has been robbed, beaten and left half dead by the robbers of salvation (sin).

Notice that the robbed and beaten man could do nothing to secure his salvation. The religious leaders who preach salvation by works both went by and could not help him, indeed would not help him. Jesus, the one that legalists despise and hate, comes along, sees us dying in the road, cares for our wounds and brings us to a place to heal while paying for all the debt of healing.

Now, what free will is displayed by the half dead person whom sin has robbed and beaten on the road?

@taisto you are missing the import of what Christ was saying. You need to look at the context if you want to get the correct understanding of the exchange between Christ and the lawyer. Luke 10:25-37

First you must remember that Christ was speaking to a Jew who would think that keeping the law was the way of gaining one's salvation. So to the question of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" the lawyer is in effect asking what works must I do. So the parable of the Good Samaritan is illustrative of someone doing good works.
We see that the lawyer knew the scriptures by his use of Deuteronomy 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18 for his answer to Christ's question "What is written in the law?" Christ then used the parable of the Good Samaritan to show what the law required and how the Jews had failed to even show any compassion to the injured man whereas the non-Jew had gone well beyond that.

{Now if the lawyer had been honest, which he was not, he would have said, "Master, I've sincerely tried to love God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind, and my neighbor as myself. But I can't do it. I've miserably failed. So how can I inherit eternal life?"} McGee

Christ was not telling the lawyer this is how you can be saved, by your good works, He was pointing out that he had not and could not do enough good works to earn his salvation. If someone that the Jews thought of as a heretic and a breaker of the ceremonial law and thus were not saved could surpass the goodness of the Jews what chance did the Jews have.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

However, when people hear Primitive Baptists proclaim the Doctrines of Grace (election, predestination, etc.) they sometimes assume that Primitive Baptists are some branch of the Calvinist family.

You follow the Calvinist philosophy and claim not to be calvinist. How does that work?

It involves history (no kin to the RC or the Reformed movement) and practice and different beliefs… for example the “P” in Tulip to us indicates Preservation, not Persistence. We also are not total predestinarians but you can review Mike Gowens explanation for yourself.

 

[taisto]

@taisto you are missing the import of what Christ was saying. You need to look at the context if you want to get the correct understanding of the exchange between Christ and the lawyer. Luke 10:25-37

First you must remember that Christ was speaking to a Jew who would think that keeping the law was the way of gaining one's salvation. So to the question of "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" the lawyer is in effect asking what works must I do. So the parable of the Good Samaritan is illustrative of someone doing good works.
We see that the lawyer knew the scriptures by his use of Deuteronomy 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18 for his answer to Christ's question "What is written in the law?" Christ then used the parable of the Good Samaritan to show what the law required and how the Jews had failed to even show any compassion to the injured man whereas the non-Jew had gone well beyond that.

{Now if the lawyer had been honest, which he was not, he would have said, "Master, I've sincerely tried to love God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind, and my neighbor as myself. But I can't do it. I've miserably failed. So how can I inherit eternal life?"} McGee

Christ was not telling the lawyer this is how you can be saved, by your good works, He was pointing out that he had not and could not do enough good works to earn his salvation. If someone that the Jews thought of as a heretic and a breaker of the ceremonial law and thus were not saved could surpass the goodness of the Jews what chance did the Jews have.

Silverhair, the lawyer asks the identical question that every theist from other religions asks. "What must I do to inherit eternal life." Every Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, who believes in a God, asks that very same question.

Indeed Christ was showing the lawyer that no one can earn salvation. He was showing the lawyer and all humanity that we are the traveler whose sin has beaten them to near death. He is showing us that no one but the God Samaritan (Jesus) will ever care for your wounds and pay the price for your healing.

Again, I ask you, what free will did the half dead man exhibit in his salvation?

 

[Silverhair]

It involves history (no kin to the RC or the Reformed movement) and practice and different beliefs… for example the “P” in Tulip to us indicates Preservation, not Persistence. We also are not total predestinarians but you can review Mike Gowens explanation for yourself.

I understand why you do not like to be called a Calvinist but you admitted that you do hold to the DoG even though you use different words to explain it. But I have found people on this board that range from what they call moderate all the way to what seems to be hyper Calvinist. They all hold to the DoG so it seems you just do not want to be called Calvinist because of the negative image that it presents but at the same time you want to hold to the Calvinist view.

If someone holds to the DoG for me it just makes sense and it is easier to lump them all under the Calvinist heading. I have been called a number of different things on this board except for what I am which is a bible believing baptist. Labels are just a shorthand way of pointing to what the reader sees as the theological view that is being presented.

 

[Silverhair]

Silverhair, the lawyer asks the identical question that every theist from other religions asks. "What must I do to inherit eternal life." Every Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, who believes in a God, asks that very same question.

Indeed Christ was showing the lawyer that no one can earn salvation. He was showing the lawyer and all humanity that we are the traveler whose sin has beaten them to near death. He is showing us that no one but the God Samaritan (Jesus) will ever care for your wounds and pay the price for your healing.

Again, I ask you, what free will did the half dead man exhibit in his salvation?

And I tell you again that you are reading into the text what is not there. This parable was used to teach the lawyer {and by extension us} who his neighbour was, who should he care about. It is not about whether the injured man had free will or not although he did exhibit free will when he chose to travel in a dangerous area. Plus we see free will in the Levite and the priest and even the Samaritan. The parable is not about the injured man but how the various people reacted to the situation. You are focused on the injured man and missing the point of the parable which Christ even told us.
Luk 10:36 "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"
Luk 10:37 And he said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

The message of the parable is that we as Christians are to be more like the Samaritan. It is not about good works will save you but that as a follower of God, Jew or Christian, we should be a good neighbour to all

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I

I understand why you do not like to be called a Calvinist but you admitted that you do hold to the DoG even though you use different words to explain it. But I have found people on this board that range from what they call moderate all the way to what seems to be hyper Calvinist. They all hold to the DoG so it seems you just do not want to be called Calvinist because of the negative image that it presents but at the same time you want to hold to the Calvinist view.

If someone holds to the DoG for me it just makes sense and it is easier to lump them all under the Calvinist heading. I have been called a number of different things on this board except for what I am which is a bible believing baptist. Labels are just a shorthand way of pointing to what the reader sees as the theological view that is being presented.

It has nothing at all to do with persecution and everything to do with practice. Calvinism is a means to reform Roman Catholism into something better. They create various practices and theology to clean up what was considered corrupt religion. We do not start out that way but claim JESUS CHRIST as our savior, teacher, mentor… right from the beginning. In that way, there is no connection , no inherited baggage to modify and reform. If you see any commonality then you will need to look again.

 

[Silverhair]

I

It has nothing at all to do with persecution and everything to do with practice. Calvinism is a means to reform Roman Catholism into something better. They create various practices and theology to clean up what was considered corrupt religion. We do not start out that way but claim JESUS CHRIST as our savior, teacher, mentor… right from the beginning. In that way, there is no connection , no inherited baggage to modify and reform. If you see any commonality then you will need to look again.

You said "If you see any commonality" but you don't have to look far to see that commonality. You pointed it out yourself, the DoG.

That is a mainstay of Calvinism and you hold to it. You may use different words but it still leads to the same end, determinism.

Even if you only hold to Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, & Irresistible Grace which you indicate that you do then you are at the base Calvinist. You still have limited salvation. If you are not part of this select group then you are doomed form the start.

Your theology has made the offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus moot. Salvation that is limited by the determined rejection of the vast majority of humanity by God for no other reason than He chose to reject them.

The heart of the issue is the character of God. Is he truly a God of love who is perfectly good? You cannot claim this with any plausibility if you believe God determines people to damnation, people He could just as easily determine to salvation.

Man either has an actual God given free will or he does not. If he does then he can make the real choice to trust in or reject Christ Jesus and is responsible for that choice. If he does not as your theology would indicate then he does not have the ability as all has been determined and he can not logically be held responsible for his choices.

 

[Van]

John 6:28 (NET)
So then they said to him, "What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?"

John 6:29 (NET)
Jesus replied, "This is the deed God requires - to believe in the one whom he sent."

Beware all those who seek to deny this truth, the claim that placing our faith in Christ is impossible or the "works of the Law." Both claims are utter nonsense.

Faith is in accordance with grace and is not "works." Romans 4:16

 

[taisto]

And I tell you again that you are reading into the text what is not there. This parable was used to teach the lawyer {and by extension us} who his neighbour was, who should he care about. It is not about whether the injured man had free will or not although he did exhibit free will when he chose to travel in a dangerous area. Plus we see free will in the Levite and the priest and even the Samaritan. The parable is not about the injured man but how the various people reacted to the situation. You are focused on the injured man and missing the point of the parable which Christ even told us.
Luk 10:36 "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"
Luk 10:37 And he said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

The message of the parable is that we as Christians are to be more like the Samaritan. It is not about good works will save you but that as a follower of God, Jew or Christian, we should be a good neighbour to all

The message is: Who is your neighbor?

The answer is: Jesus is our neighbor. He is the good Samaritan. We are the half dead person who cannot save himself.

Jesus is looking right at the lawyer and telling him that he is dead in his sins and he needs Jesus.
Jesus reveals himself as the good Samaritan and then tells us that we are to go and do likewise. This is a great commission parable where we become the hands and feet of Jesus. We are to go and share the balm of healing that Jesus provides.

Now, you may reject this understanding of the parable since it conflicts with your free will theories, but this is the correct understanding of the parable.

The point is that God gives us a lot of slack in the rope to make generic decisions. That, to me, is not actually free will. It is governed will. Also, we see in scripture that such will is always self-centered and self-seeking. It always focuses on "How do I..." It seeks to place ones self in control and fit a slot in for God somewhere to the side. It never "willingly" gives over authority and control to God.

 

[tyndale1946]

Jonathan Edwards wrote a book (The Freedom of the Will) that offers an adequate, and eloquent, rebuttal of the idea of predestination and free-will being mutually exclusive.

No offence Jon but I do believe scripture trumps Jonathan Edwards... Brother Glen

Romans 9: 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Btw... I got have half way thru the online book Freedom Of The Will and was so confused at Edwards explanations, I never finished the online book... Good thing I never bought it!

 

[JonC]

No offence Jon but I do believe scripture trumps Jonathan Edwards... Brother Glen

Romans 9: 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

I agree (I'm not a Calvinist....I wasn't advocating that Edwards was an authority). That said, Edwards would have agreed with you here (as do I).

 

[tyndale1946]

I agree (I'm not a Calvinist....I wasn't advocating that Edwards was an authority). That said, Edwards would have agreed with you here (as do I).

Me neither, 3rd generation PB... And like EWF said, we are not Calvinist... But we do believe!

Matthew 19: 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Brother Glen

 

[DaveXR650]

Btw... I got have half way thru the online book Freedom Of The Will and was so confused at Edwards explanations, I never finished the online book... Good thing I never bought it!

Yep. That's Edwards. If you got half way through you are alright in my book!

 

[JonC]

Me neither, 3rd generation PB... And like EWF said, we are not Calvinist... But we do believe!

Matthew 19: 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Brother Glen

See....we are the same....

 

[Silverhair]

The message is: Who is your neighbor?

The answer is: Jesus is our neighbor. He is the good Samaritan. We are the half dead person who cannot save himself.

Jesus is looking right at the lawyer and telling him that he is dead in his sins and he needs Jesus.
Jesus reveals himself as the good Samaritan and then tells us that we are to go and do likewise. This is a great commission parable where we become the hands and feet of Jesus. We are to go and share the balm of healing that Jesus provides.

Now, you may reject this understanding of the parable since it conflicts with your free will theories, but this is the correct understanding of the parable.

The point is that God gives us a lot of slack in the rope to make generic decisions. That, to me, is not actually free will. It is governed will. Also, we see in scripture that such will is always self-centered and self-seeking. It always focuses on "How do I..." It seeks to place ones self in control and fit a slot in for God somewhere to the side. It never "willingly" gives over authority and control to God.

The worst thing we can do with any parable, especially this one, is turn it into an allegory and make everything stand for something. The victim becomes the lost sinner who is half dead (alive physically, dead spiritually), helplessly left on the road of life. The priest and Levite represent the Law and the sacrifices, neither of which can save the sinner. The Samaritan is Jesus Christ who saves the man, pays the bill, and promises to come again. Wiersbe Bible Commentary

The message is: Who is your neighbor? Well at least you got that right. But then again Christ did indicate that in the parable. Christ was not telling the lawyer that he was lost and needed Jesus, that something that you read into the text.

If as you assert man has no free will then the only reason that the Levite and the priest did not help the injured man is because God determined that they would not and that the Samaritan would. I understand that you have a problem allowing God to have the ability and right to give man an actual free will as it does not fit with your philosophy but the bible is clear that man is responsible for the choices they make.

Man responding to the gospel message does not place them in control any more than a child accepting a gift from their father places them in control. You overlook the truth of scripture when it says:
Rom 1:16 ...the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes,...
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
And how do you deal with the jailer and Paul
Act 16:30 ..."Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved...

Man is saved by God after they place their trust in the risen Christ. Why do you find this biblical fact so hard to accept. Man is not saving himself as you seem to think, he is responding to the gospel message.

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

It seems that you have such an attachment to a man-made philosophy that you will deny clear scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

See....we are the same....

Here is a little ditty of mine, you can use it if you want... From the cradle to the grave, GOD will save!... Brother Glen

Same as post #135

 

[tyndale1946]

This might be of interest to you all... DoG is Doctrines Of Grace but I guess all us Dogs, to this applies... So when you look at this scriptures again it applies to all not just DoG... Dog is what the Jews referred to as Gentiles... You might recall these scriptures... Brother Glen

Matthew 15: 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.