Open View of Salvation vs. Predetermination

[Joseph_Botwinick]

What Calvin and others did was murder and sin.

What God did was righteous judgment from the sovereign God of the universe.

Do you believe God was a murderer?

Joseph Botwinick

Or, perhaps, he could answer this question. Pick a question, any question, Bob...and actually give an answer to it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yes I said Jesus. Jesus is God. I use the two interchangeably. Read it for yourself. Perhaps, Brother Bob has a problem with referring to Jesus as God?

Joseph Botwinick

How about this one?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Brother Bob,

Do you believe God is a murderer? I don't. I think he was totally justified to kill all those Egyptians. Don't you?

Joseph Botwinick

Or this one?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

Or, perhaps, he could answer this question. Pick a question, any question, Bob...and actually give an answer to it.

Joseph Botwinick__________________

You never said anything about God but said Jesus killed people. Look at your following post. I would of dropped it but you keep hounding me.
Joseph Botwinick's Blog

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
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.

I never did see Jesus going around killing people!!!!

Joseph Botwinick Joseph says Jesus is a murder!

Quote:
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
__________________
Joseph Botwinick's Blog

You gave me the approval to post it.


Originally Posted by Brother Bob
You don't mind if I quote you do you Joseph and James. Especially you Joe.:tear: :tear:

No problem. I am not ashamed of the truth.

Joseph Botwinick
__________________
Joseph Botwinick's Blog

I never lie, just read his posts above.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Brother Bob,

Jesus is God. When I talk about Jesus and God, I am talking about the same person. Do you have a problem with the diety of Christ?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Brother Bob]

Jesus never killed anyone. If I have to stand alone then I will. :tear: :tear:

 

[LeBuick]

Jesus never killed anyone. If I have to stand alone then I will. :tear: :tear:

Bob, are you implying Christ is not the part of the Godhead who passed past judgements?

Example, many believe it was God the father who brought on the flood but the Son was the ark of salvation.

It was God the father who destroyed Sodom but it was Christ the Son who delivered Lot and his family (minus his nosey woman).

Christ parted the red sea and allowed the children of Israel to walk on dry land but it was God the father who drowned Pharoh and his army?

 

[npetreley]

Brother Bob,

Jesus is God. When I talk about Jesus and God, I am talking about the same person. Do you have a problem with the diety of Christ?

Joseph Botwinick

Face it, Joseph. You called Jesus a murderer. Okay, well, technically, you didn't say anything of the sort, but if I accuse you of it enough times maybe someone will believe me.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Election: Reformed View vs. Open View

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:

I think you can sum up what Prov. 16:4 is teaching by saying that God had express purpose in creation. He created "for his own ends" or for His own pleasure (Revelation 4:11) and for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). All of creation is thus an expression of his will and his power.

God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).

From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).

Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, "Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. "Shall we not accept adversity from God?" And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters "consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: "You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful" (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash.

As for the alternative views you are considering, they cannot consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished.

Likewise other positions cannot consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which they must face like anyone else. If they face it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

Likewise these cannot consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear these other positions talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.

Hope this helps clarify some things ...most of all, I would challenge you to let the conclusions you ultimately draw take into account all biblical evidence.

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]

The above was what I considered to be one of the more promising discussions that developed on this thread. However, due to another hostile takeover by Brother Bob on this thread, I have started to see this thread get off track once again.

Now if it is at all possible can we avoid the hostile tones and vitriolic nature that is developing on this thread.

I really do enjoy the exchange but remember substance wins the day... so be prepared to back up your beliefs and expect to be challenged biblically!

 

[Brother Bob]

Anyone who says I took over this thread as a hostile takeover is telling false. Joseph took it over by comparing John Calvin to God and saying Jesus is a killer.

I answered BP/T post and showed that Wesley agreed with me so he is making false statements now.

I will leave you with this:

Jesus killed no one. He was as a lamb led to the slaughter and the theif spoke better of Jesus than you do for he said "this man hath done nothing.

The question has always been wonder who would stand for Jesus if their life was threaten but seems it takes much less than that for some to forsake Him.


I would like to know how many on BB thinks Jesus killed? Also, is there not another who would say that Jesus never killed anyone or am I alone?

"Father, why hast thou forsaken me"? Wonder why He didn't talk to Himself. There is a Trinity and they may be the Godhead but there still are three. The Father, Son and The Holy Ghost.

He also said the Holy Ghost killed. I thought the Holy Ghost was the "good" Spirit?

New stuff to me maybe not the rest but new to me.

 

[Brother Bob]

LeBuick;
You surprise me. Maybe you would like to give me Scriptures where Jesus Killed anyone?

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace Everybody,

Okay the petty bickering is getting really distracting again. This is why they locked the last post. Can we refocus and get back on the topic at hand Please? :saint:

Peace and God Bless.

 

[J.D.]

Who killed Annanias and Saphhira?

 

[Blammo]

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

Originally posted by Joseph Botwinick to defend Calvin's right to murder people that didn't agree with him. Absolutely comparing Calvin to God, as well as likening burning innocent people at the stake to God's righteous judgement.

Then it turned into....

Just read through it, use your head, you'll figure it out. Unless you are full of pride and stubborn.

Yes, Jesus is God. Duh.

 

[Brother Bob]

Who killed Annanias and Saphhira?

God and their lies. Jesus had already gone back to Heaven in case you never read it.

When Jesus died on the cross did they kill God? Was your God dead?
Waiting for your responses.

Just got back from the gymn and ask them if they had ever heard of Jesus killing people. They are all of different denominations and to the person they said No, who in the world is starting that and they must be "crazy".

 

[Brother Bob]

This is the last reasonable post asking a question from BP/T to Bro Bob

2Cr 5:15 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.

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?

This is my answer to BP/T

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.

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.)


Tell me where I am wrong please.

To which I never received an answer and not know anyone on earth believe the above Scripture as I do, I found where Wesley had written this about the Scripture.

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.

I see where I am not allowed on the new post made by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian called "Bobless discussion of predestination". I didn’t know you could do that, nor did I know you could use someone's name to show slander.
I see the moderator remove some of the slander but never removed the heading. I would say this is the first time on BB that someone's name has been used in such a way. BP/T wants to be moderator maybe he got it.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

This is the last reasonable post asking a question from BP/T to Bro Bob

2Cr 5:15 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.



This is my answer to BP/T

To which I never received an answer and not know anyone on earth believe the above Scripture as I do, I found where Wesley had written this about the Scripture.

I see where I am not allowed on the new post made by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian called "Bobless discussion of predestination". I didn’t know you could do that, nor did I know you could use someone's name to show slander.
I see the moderator remove some of the slander but never removed the heading.

It is not a slander, it is more of a request. Bob you are not helping matters here. These threads have only so much time to work through various issues due to the limitation of pages that are allowed. You post almost half of the posts. You have not been constructive lately in your approach, but have resorted to petty bickering. I think you have had a chance to say what you want to say, now let some of the others on here have a chance to express themselves because they are getting pushed aside due to your constant belligerence. Revmitchell had some good points I am sure that he was going to try and make, bound wants to contribute, but they cannot in the climate you are creating which is hostile and mind numbing. If you want to discuss Calvinism, post a thread and invite people into your world Bob, but please stay clear of my new thread out of respect for what others may want to have the chance to say but are unable to due your participation. The first thread I started got locked and this one will soon no doubt, and yet the overwhelming majority of interesting comments are lost in the aftermath of hurricane Bob!

 

[Blammo]

He may want to change the name of the thread to include "Blammoless". I don't wish to engage in a discussion where certain persons are unwelcome. After reading the last several pages of this thread, I don't believe I would conclude that Bob was the problem. One of the posters, whom I believe was being less than helpful, has often stated "this is a public forum, you don't get to decide who participates". Well, although that is not entirely true, this is the "Baptist DEBATE Forum (Baptist Only)", I believe Bob is a Baptist, and should be included. (Exclude me if you wish, I am not learning anything anyway.)

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

He may want to change the name of the thread to include "Blammoless". I don't wish to engage in a discussion where certain persons are unwelcome. After reading the last several pages of this thread, I don't believe I would conclude that Bob was the problem. One of the posters, whom I believe was being less than helpful, has often stated "this is a public forum, you don't get to decide who participates". Well, although that is not entirely true, this is the "Baptist DEBATE Forum (Baptist Only)", I believe Bob is a Baptist, and should be included. (Exclude me if you wish, I am not learning anything anyway.)

Granted, that there are others who are in the mix but Bob seems to be the eye of the storm...