Open View of Salvation vs. Predetermination

[Brother Bob]

"For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," Jude 4.


7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

Is this one of the times God created them for his Glory when they were all Homosexuals? How does this show Free-Willism to be denied?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

BPT,

I would like to begin by saying I do concede that you have made a very good argument that may create some difficulties to over come. I want to thank you for this op as it has driven me to dig so deeply into my Lords' very Words.

I disagree that the reformed view is a higher view of God than that of those who have studied diligently and have come to understand that being created in the image of God we have free will.

The reformed view of God falls short of the title "higher" because it puts limits on God much in the same way you say that those of us who hold to the free will of man does.

The reformed view contends, with reasonable thought, that those who hold to free will diminish Gods' soveriegnty as we seem to say that God is limited by our free will. How ever I say that just the opposite is true. I will clarify further:

I beleive that the reformed view itself diminshes Gods' soveriegnty. For it says that God cannot maintain soveriegnty when men have free will.
It is not necessary to think that God cannot act in a soveriegn way if man has free will. This is hard to understand and even more difficult to explain. Is it reasonable to think that man has God given free will? Is it possible that Gods' soveriegnty and mans' free will can coexist?

Let's begin by taking a look at what you have asked us to address.

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things to himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil.

The word "made" does not have to speak to the creation of the wickedness of the wicked. In order to make that case you have have to present some scripture that says just that in order to make your point credible here.

If this passage actually speaks to the creation of the wicked at all it can also mean the creation of the person that is wicked and the power to use free will to be wicked. This is also a reasonable possibility.

The word "made" is the Hebrew word "Pawal" and it means "to do, to make, or to practice. The synonyms given for it are "commit, do, make, ordain, work, or wrought.

So as we see the word "made" does not have to refer to the creation of wickedness, by God, that is in man.

This verse can reasonably be understood to mean God has ordained all things for himself, even the wicked are ordained for the evil day.

The chaldee translates this verse in this way:
All the works of the Lord are for those that obey him; and the wicked is reserved for the evil day.

Wolvord & Zuck puts it this way:

God works all things for his own ends including the wicked for the day of destruction.

This is enough for now I look forward to your response BPT.:thumbs:

Revmitchell,

Believe me this stuff is not easy to grasp. I have often just pounded my head against my hands in frustration. However, with due diligence and with time I have come to a point that I am at peace with the whole counsel of God. Who am I to sit in judgment of God? Who am I to sit in judgment of God's Word?

I do not want nor do I believe anyone here wants to attribute evil directly to God. God is not evil.

Also, I do not want to suggest and nor do I believe anyone here wants to suggest that God violates the free moral agency of man.

BTW, blogger nailed it. He beat me to much of what needs to be said.

None of what I have offered for you consideration is in violation with nor do I thus far dispute what you offer, with the exception that God is more sovereign in an Arminian system. When you properly understand the Reformed view you will see that it does everything that Arminian system hopes to without limiting election to man's choice. By limiting election to man's choice some very import assumptions are made. One, is that man has the choice to make, when clearly I have argued that those who have never heard the gospel do not have that choice. Two, that given the choice man has the ability and will to want to chose God. If it were not for the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration the soul would not want to serve God. Three, it assumes that God creates with a self imposed limitation. God never divests himself of power nor limits his power in anyway. Watch out for a heresy that could pop up there in argument against what I just stated, ie kenosis Christology. Christ never divested himself of deity and any limitation to Christ was not systemic to the Godhead.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Now, Paul was talking to the church alright but was speaking about how that Christ had died for the dead in sin which was the whole world.
Paul also said though they were all dead that some were made alive in Christ Jesus raised to walk a newness of life.
Paul also those who were made alive were a new creature for old things had passed away. Which He was talking about the church here.
Paul then spoke of being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ and made a minister of reconciliation and that through Jesus Christ the world was being reconciled to God. Paul was speaking of himself here.
Again, Paul speaking of himself said he had been committed to the word of reconciliation and was now ambassadors for Christ and prayed that those he was addressing at the time also be rconciled to God.
Paul concluded that Jesus who had no sin, took our sins that we might be made righteous back to God.
Finally, Paul was speaking not only to the believers but about the whole world of mankind and also of Paul being chosen to be a minister of reconciliation and an ambassador for Christ.

Bob,

I want to try to see if we can agree on this one passage...

You state, "Paul also said though they were all dead that some were made alive in Christ Jesus raised to walk a newness of life."

First, what relationship does Christ death have to those who die?

It states, "one has died for all, therefore, all have died."

What does the death of all have to do with the one who died for all?

Why did all die as a result of Christ death?

All have not died but only those who die to themselves and that is not everyone. So the all is not made in reference to all human beings but to all who die to themselves.

Even according to what you suggest, the ones who are made alive are believers in Jesus Christ and therefore it states, "that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."

This is clearly qualifying who Christ died for and it was for the sake of those who live not for themselves but for him who for their sake Christ died and was raised from the dead.

You have yet to interpret this passage correctly. Can you not see how this works?

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

I want to try to see if we can agree on this one passage...

You state, "Paul also said though they were all dead that some were made alive in Christ Jesus raised to walk a newness of life."

First, what relationship does Christ death have to those who die? They were already dead in sin and Christ died for their sin.

It states, "one has died for all, therefore, all have died."

What does the death of all have to do with the one who died for all?

Why did all die as a result of Christ death? Were already dead in sin.

All have not died but only those who die to themselves and that is not everyone. So the all is not made in reference to all human beings but to all who die to themselves. Does not say die to themselves, says they can not live to themselves. The can only be made alive in Christ.

Even according to what you suggest, the ones who are made alive are believers in Jesus Christ and therefore it states, "that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised." I agree

This is clearly qualifying who Christ died for and it was for the sake of those who live not for themselves but for him who for their sake Christ died and was raised from the dead. Died for all the dead and all had sinned and come short of the Glory of God and died in sin.

You have yet to interpret this passage correctly. Can you not see how this works?

Lets take it line by line.
You say:

It states, "one has died for all, therefore, all have died."

Scripture says:

14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

There is a big difference in what you say the Scripture says and what it really says. "then were they all dead" is a question, it did not say "all have died". At least I don't see it.

15: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for

them, and rose again. (I take it that all of the dead did not live, for in order to live it had to be in Christ.) Also, this would

refer back to 14: "that if one died for all", It would give all a chance to live but not unto themselve but only in Christ.

I think you would have to be stretching it to hold it to the elect for no where does it mention the "elect" Paul doesn't

seem to be holding it just to the church of Corith either.

Now, I take this to mean that they were dead in sin and in order to be made alive it must be in Christ Jesus, that they

couldn't be made alive in themselves.

Tell me where I am wrong please.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

I want to try to see if we can agree on this one passage...

I grant you those who were alive were the church but according to this same scripture all were not alive.

And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again

that if one died for all, then were all dead: (If they all were not dead then how could He die for all is what it is saying. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.)

Looks like I am not alone. I just found this. Now Wesley put it in better words than I did but is saying exactly the same thing and I never knew that another person in the world agreed with me until just now. amen,

Wesley;
5:14 For the love of Christ - To us, and our love to him. Constraineth us - Both to the one and the other; beareth us on with such a strong, steady, prevailing influence, as winds and tides exert when they waft the vessel to its destined harbour. While we thus judge, that if Christ died for all, then are all, even the best of men, naturally dead - In a state of spiritual death, and liable to death eternal. For had any man been otherwise, Christ had not needed to have died for him.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

It would be curtains for all Free-Willers and nothing but Calvinist left. Just one big dull happy family. You always have to give Calvin the credit. (They persecuted Calvin as they did Jesus). Never knew Jesus to go around killing people. I will take the rest of your Scriptures on when I get time.

HMMMMMM? Did God ever kill anyone? Do you believe Jesus is God? Or do you, like many liberal theologians such as Spong and Borg discount the parts of the Bible that reveal the God of wrath because it doesn't make us feel good about him?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

HMMMMMM? Did God ever kill anyone? Do you believe Jesus is God? Or do you, like many liberal theologians such as Spong and Borg discount the parts of the Bible that reveal the God of wrath because it doesn't make us feel good about him?

Wondered when you would put John Calvin equal to God!!

What a sad commentary.:tear: :tear:

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Are you telling me that God never killed anyone as part of his righteous judgment, or are you just another liberal theologian who discounts those parts of the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

Are you telling me that God never killed anyone as part of his righteous judgment, or are you just another liberal theologian who discounts those parts of the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

Not telling you anything, just saying There is just one God.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yes there is one God. Do you deny the diety of Jesus?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

Never, If you have seen me you have seen the Father.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Are you then telling me that God has never killed anyone as a part of his righteous judgment?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

Never, but Joseph;
You made a bad mistake comparing John Calvin with God. Just admit it and let it go man.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Are you telling me that God never killed anyone as part of his righteous judgment, or are you just another liberal theologian who discounts those parts of the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

I can see this is going to get nasty. I just answered you question in the last post. At least lets not repeat ourselves.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Never, but Joseph;
You made a bad mistake comparing John Calvin with God. Just admit it and let it go man.

I quoted more of that statement than I meant to. I was not comparing Calvin with God, but correcting your theological error that you never saw Jesus going around killing anyone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

who did Jesus Kill?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

who did Jesus Kill?

Who did God kill?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

How old are you to ask such questions to try and justify John Calvin killing so many people and burning a man at the stake? I am glad I am on this side of the argument. because you are going to lose. Let it go Joseph? You have made it known on several occasions that you do not like me so why engage me when you know where its going to lead?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I am not justifying anything Calvin did when it comes to murder. I am correcting your theological error that Jesus never killed anyone in his righteous judgment. There is a difference, BTW, between what Calvin and others did in sin and what the sovereign God of the universe did in his righteous judgment.

Joseph Botwinick