Jump to content


Photo

Openness Theology Debate


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:11 PM

Howdy all,

There is a very interesting debate on Openness Theology taking place at www.theologyonline.com ('Does God Know your Entire Future?'). I highly recommend following this debate, as it touches on all kinds of doctrinal issues, especially perhaps the most difficult doctrine in scripture that Christians often struggle with, pre-destination & free will. It also has a lot to say about Calvinism, another topic we had a healthy debate on in this forum (link).

I personally lean toward the Open view, though I do have some reservations about it (particularly that God does not have an exhaustive knowledge of the future – do not let this scare you away from reading the debate, please have an open mind, as I certainly do consider this a possibility, though again I struggle with it). I encourage members to read the debate, and participate in the grand stand discussions if you like. Of course comments are welcome in this thread as well.

For the record, the person arguing for the open view, Bob Enyart, is a personal friend of mine.

In Christ,
Fred

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 August 2005 - 07:59 PM

I have a question on this. The free will part and how it applies to salvation. Can you choose salvation, have free will, but never have the free will to change your mind about your salvation choice?

Free will is free will. For either God is about free will, or He is about complete control.

Example: From creation with Adam and Eve, they had a choice. They choose evil. But before this, what were they considered to be? And then after, what were they considered to be? They had to fall from something in order to be thrown out of the Garden. Free will is what they had, and they choose.

James 5
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;


1) Brethren: is a reference to someone who is in the body of Christ.
2) If anyone one of you: Is a direct reference to whom James is speaking to.
3) To err from the truth: Is a reference to turning away from God and His word.
4) And one convert him: How can you convert something this is already converted? If the saved (brethren) are always saved, then who is being spoke of here? Who can err from God's truth and then have to be converted?

20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.


In verse 19, the person spoke of was the brethren. Now look what the brethren is being refered to as: Sinner. And sinners are what? Unsaved.

If you do not think brethren is a direct reference to the saved, but is just a general reference? Read the next verse.

Acts 2:
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.


Now why would someone make a seperation between the two words "men and brethren", unless they wanted to relay that there was a difference? The exact phrase: "men and brethren" is mentioned 11 times, and this exact phrase is only used in the book of acts. The words "men" and "brethren" are used in different ways throughout God's word.

So knowing this, what meaning does that give to James 5:19-20?

To make it better understood.
1) Who is the brethren?
2) Who can err from truth?
3) Can a sinner err from truth?
4) Who has truth, according to God's word?
5) Can God still be a free will God, when He leaves no choice after salvation?

Added: I could have put alot more about this, plus alot more verses to back this up. I have done extensive research on this subject because I wanted to make sure that what I was seeing, was what God's word was saying. I grew up believing OSAS, until I heard a sermon where the preacher made it sound like salvation was a free ticket to sin (a preacher that was for OSAS). I knew what he had said was wrong, and made me question what I believed. For I knew salvation could not forgive sin, and condone it at the same time. So from looking at all the evidence, I have made a conclusion that you can lose your salvation. For it is plainly written in those verses, plus others I can post.

Just so no one misunderstands this. I do not believe you can work for salvation. Works do noting, except give you more rewards in heaven. But the works have to be rightious. And no I don't believe you lose salvation right when you sin. For grace gives you time to repent of it.

Here's where I wrote about another part of this same subject: http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=461
About halfway down where I go into spiritual levels, you will see how this fits. Plus I have more, if needed for better understanding. But the verses in James could not make it more clearer about this.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:31 AM

One more note. Occults use total control over their followers through forcing them to worship through fear. Such as fear of total rejection from family, friends, and the church. And that also, through this rejection, some occult religions even teach that it is ok to kill such a person who has practiced a free will to choose against believing in what they believe.

Satan is always operating in the opposite of what God is. So if God be free will, satan wants to take it away. Just like the occult religions do.

Matthew 12:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

So satan can never do what reinforces God's will. Even free will.

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2005 - 05:49 AM

I have a question on this. The free will part and how it applies to salvation. Can you choose salvation, have free will, but never have the free will to change your mind about your salvation choice?


This is the heart of the matter, and where sound Bible Doctrine begins.

We do not choose to be saved or unsaved. The plan of God is that who ever believes in Christ as savior will be saved. At the point of accepting the gospel, God the Holy Spirit does the work in salvation, and places the believer in unity with Christ, and seals him for the day of redemption.

Free will is free will. For either God is about free will, or He is about complete control.


Divine sovereignty and human free will co-exist at certain levels, but God is always in control of everything.

Example: From creation with Adam and Eve, they had a choice. They choose evil. But before this, what were they considered to be? And then after, what were they considered to be? They had to fall from something in order to be thrown out of the Garden. Free will is what they had, and they choose.


Before they sinned, they were not saved. In order to be saved, you have to be lost 1st. They were in status quo eternal life, but not becuase of anything they had done, they were just created that way. God gave them free will, just as he had all of the angels. When Satan sinned against God, then he, and the angels that rebelled with him, also were lost. Adam and Eve were created to demonstrate to Satan that God's sentence to the lake of fire was just.

Now to the scripture:

JAM 5:19~20 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

In time, the believer looses fellowship with God whenever he sins.

1JO 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
1JO 1:7 but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

If anyone thinks they are not sinning in this life, they are not in touch with reality.

1JO 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

God has provided the means to regain fellowship in time. We do this by confessing our sins to God, not by repenting.

1JO 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The fact that we sin in this life is not to be over looked.
1JO 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

But when we do sin, God will never see it as a means of loosing salvation, since Jesus himself is our advocate and represents us before God the Father.

1JO 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

It was the work of Christ that satisfied God for the payment of our sins.

1JO 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Everything in God's plan is centered on Christ for salvation. The only thing an unbeliever can do is express non-moritorious faith in Christ, and after that, God takes over and does the work of salvation. There is nothing we can do to undo the work of God.

If we stay out of fellowship long enough, or get steeped enough in reversionism, then God will take us out of this life, this is called "sin unto death".

1JO 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

JAM 5:20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

"Sinner" hear represents the reversionistic believer who is about to "sin unto death".

From these 2 verses we see that if we see a believer getting out of fellowship, that we can help him recover before its too late. Once things have gotten so far, then we are not obligated to do anything.

I think that most of, if not all, the scripture that is used to support the view that you can loose your salvation can be also be understood in the light of seeing the beliver as person who in time, can loose or gain fellowship with God, but never looses his position in Christ for eternal life.

The doctrine of "Positional Truth" is one of the most foundational, and most easily deomonstrated, of Bible Doctrines. When that doctrine is taken as the frame of refernce for other scripture, and I believe it should be, then its hard to see how scripture teaches that you can loose your salvation.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

Terry

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2005 - 12:37 PM

Revelation 3:
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Why would it be said that someone can be blotted out of the book of life, when salvation is secure? For to even mention it, means that it can be done. For what would be the purpose of even saying it? But who is it that can be written in the book of life, the sinner, or the saved? Knowing this, this should also tell you who it is that is being spoke of. And this backs up what is said in book of James.

James 5:
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Then we have the sin that is unforgivable:

Mark 3:
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Luke 12:
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

So how can salvation be secure and without choice on one hand, but through these choices, if made, be lost? It is either free will, or it is not. God does not hedge a fence between good and evil to force His views upon another.

"Sinner" hear represents the reversionistic believer who is about to "sin unto death".

There are two types of death.

Revelation 20:
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Also grace allows time for us to repent, and also covers us until death, even if we sin just before we die. It is when we fall from grace is when we become in danger of sinning the one sin that will condemn us and it not being covered by God's grace.

Galatians 5:
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

No one has been able to show me a verse where it plainly explains how you can have salvation without the grace of God.

To better break down that verse, to understand it more.
1) Christ is become of no effect unto you. When Christ has no effect, it means you have lost the power of what the blood that was shed on the cross for your sins,

2) The "no effect" means that everything Christ has done, no longer applies to you. Thus a real meaning of Christ having no effect in your life.

3) whosoever of you are justified by the law. When Christ no longer has an effect, the only thing left is the law of Moses. But, the atonement for sin was paid by Christ, so therefore the old atonement no longer applies (the sacrafice of animals, the old law of atonement).

4) ye are fallen from grace. Because there is now only one way (Christ), but that way was lost (Christ is become of no effect unto you), you fall from grace.


Can we make salvation into something that condones sin as well as forgive it?

Hebrews 10:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

So let us break down this verse:

1) For if we sin wilfully: To sin wilfully, is to sin without remorse. Not wanted to confess or repent, but only to want to continue to do evil.

2) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth: Just ask yourself what truth is, as God's word would put it.

3) there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, So, if there is no more sacrafice, what verse would override this one when there are so many supporting it?

So, can a saved person sin wilfully, and not be in danger of falling from grace, and losing salvation?

Then we have what our relationship with Christ is called. A marriage? Why would the translators call this a marriage, unless, all that would apply to the marriage (being a covenant), also applies to our relationship with Christ. Including divorce. Christ would never divorce us. It is we who would divorce Him by our free will actions. And it would also explain these verses:

Revelation 3:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Cold, lukewarm, and hot. Are three spiritual levels in your walk with Christ. And because there is one that will seperate you, here again, it is shown there is free will to choose even after salvation. For if Christ is spueing you from His mouth, do you really think your salvation is still intact?

Proverbs 26:
11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

The reason I list this one verse with the rest, is to show that when you are spued from the body of Christ, Christ will not return to you. It is you that has to return to him. Which again supports what James said:

James 5:
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

So these verses prove that whole thing is by free will. You choose to recieve it, reject it, and come back to it. But salvation cannot ever be made to forgive sin and condone it. And it makes the verses below have more meaning.

1 John 1:
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Can you see where God sets the bounderies for Himself in verse 5. Then God shows that how we live our life, reflects upon Him. And when we do what is not right, we are only lying to ourselves. Verse 5 also confirms that God cannot hedge the fence between good (light) and evil (darkness). That there are clear bounderies, as clear as night and day.

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2005 - 02:39 PM

Revelation 3:
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Why would it be said that someone can be blotted out of the book of life, when salvation is secure? For to even mention it, means that it can be done. For what would be the purpose of even saying it? But who is it that can be written in the book of life, the sinner, or the saved? Knowing this, this should also tell you who it is that is being spoke of. And this backs up what is said in book of James.


All people start out with their names written the book of life. Your name is erased when you leave this life unsaved, having never accepted the Gospel and having been saved.

PSA 69:26 For they have persecuted him whom Thou Thyself hast smitten, And they tell of the pain of those whom Thou hast wounded.PSA 69:27 Do Thou add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Thy righteousness.
PSA 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life, And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

So here, we have people that are persecuting the Lord, so they cannot not be saved, and the Psalmist requests that their name be "blotted out" of the book of life. Did they loose their salvation? No.....

IMO, that concept doesn't support your interpretation of James 5.

Then we have the sin that is unforgivable:

Mark 3:
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Luke 12:
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

So how can salvation be secure and without choice on one hand, but through these choices, if made, be lost? It is either free will, or it is not. God does not hedge a fence between good and evil to force His views upon another.


There is only one unpardonable sin, and that is the sin of unbelief. The Lord said it this way:

JOH 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
JOH 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment;
JOH 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;

This has nothing to do with believers.

Also grace allows time for us to repent, and also covers us until death, even if we sin just before we die. It is when we fall from grace is when we become in danger of sinning the one sin that will condemn us and it not being covered by God's grace.

Galatians 5:
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

No one has been able to show me a verse where it plainly explains how you can have salvation without the grace of God.


I would never say that anyone could be saved apart from the Grace of God. That does not mean we should to equate grace and salvation in the sense that if we "fall from grace", that we have "fallen from salvation. This is clearly not the case, since as Galations were reminded of their position in Christ as heirs and as sons.

God's grace entails many aspects of the spritual life, after salvation, and prior to eternal life. You can fall form grace in this life, when you start walking by sight, and not by faith, but that doesn't mean you've lost your salvation, only that you do not have access to God's power in time.

Hebrews 10:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

So let us break down this verse:

1) For if we sin wilfully:  To sin wilfully, is to sin without remorse. Not wanted to confess or repent, but only to want to continue to do evil.

2) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth: Just ask yourself what truth is, as God's word would put it.

3) there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, So, if there is no more sacrafice, what verse would override this one when there are so many supporting it?

So, can a saved person sin wilfully, and not be in danger of falling from grace, and losing salvation?


Absolutely, consider this verse:

2TI 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

Lack of faith is the greatest type of sin in the bible, from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit at the point of hearing the Gospel, which is the unpardonable sin, to not trusting God with the circumstances in your life, e.g. David and the judgement Israel suffered after having his army counted.

Yet, God's word says that if we are Faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

That is the doctrine of Positional Truth in plain view. The believer, is a part of Christ, and we cannot be removed, no matter what.

IOW, while we are sinning in the worst kind of way, we are a part of him, and he will never turn his back on us, never.

Revelation 3:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Again, this is only in time, and does not have any truth as far as eternal life goes.

In Christ,

Terry

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2005 - 07:22 PM

I’m impressed with the formality of the debate, i.e. agreed to ground rules, who posts first, reply times, etc I thought inclusion of view comments, a very good idea so as not to disrupt the main show

An intriguing position from the opening post

Latin concept of absolute omnipotence is exaggerated, and wrongly implies that God retains all power for Himself, which would mean that He could never truly have delegated anything.


Delegation from a human POV means you have been given some authority to act without deferral to your master, by no means has the master lost any power should he not agree with the delegate. To which I find the conclusion of

Even though God has delegated enormous power to billions of creatures, still He retains far more power than they collectively possess. So He will prevail over His enemies. Thus, Scripture refutes the traditional philosophical definition of omnipotence.

rather confusing. Delegation never implies giving up power for good, so there is never a loss of omnipotence, yet Bob Enyart seems to imply that, that is the case (I think).

Impassibility is not something I’m familiar with (i.e God having or not having emotions) not the origin of that or the counter POV.

Omnipresence -

means that God is everywhere. <snip>  But, is He in Hell?

That’s an interesting notion, but to me this is a just one of those paradox of mans making (e.g can god make a rock too heavy to lift). If one is to postulate such things an as an omnipotent god the one thing that defied omnipotence is a paradox, and no solution is possible because it is not a fair question.

The replies from Samuel Lamerson were somewhat surprising, after reading them I got the impression that he is an atheist (at least a lot of his argument ‘sounded as such’). Anyone else feel that way?

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 August 2005 - 11:39 PM

All people start out with their names written the book of life.  Your name is erased when you leave this life unsaved, having never accepted the Gospel and having been saved. 

I have yet to see a verse that quotes this. But I have heard that there is a clause that allows someone to become self aware of God before they are condemned. Though I don't know of any verses to support this either.

PSA 69:26 For they have persecuted him whom Thou Thyself hast smitten, And they tell of the pain of those whom Thou hast wounded.PSA 69:27 Do Thou add iniquity to their iniquity, All people start out with their names written the book of life. Your name is erased when you leave this life unsaved, having never accepted the Gospel and having been saved.
PSA 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life, And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

So here, we have people that are persecuting the Lord, so they cannot not be saved, and the Psalmist requests that their name be "blotted out" of the book of life.  Did they loose their salvation?  No.....

IMO, that concept doesn't support your interpretation of James 5.
There is only one unpardonable sin, and that is the sin of unbelief.  The Lord said it this way:


Revelation 17:
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 22:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When was the foundation of the world? Was it created during creation? And who is "any man"? Here again, by choice of action, we can lose salvation.

JOH 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
JOH 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment;
JOH 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;

This has nothing to do with believers.

So are you saying that the sinner can be filled with the holy ghost?

John 16:
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Different translations, always spell it out differently. The last verse sums up what is being talked about here. Many believe in God, but they do not believe in the son of God. Take most of the Jewish people. Even though Christ was on their own land, and there is evidence of this. They choose to look the other way. They try to be justified by the law (believing in God, but not His Son), because they choose to reject Christ. And therefore fall from grace which leaves no more sacrafice for sin (because Christ was the last sacrafice, reject Him, what is left?). Being "chosen" does not mean you have a garuntee passage to heaven. For it is said several times that Christ is the "only" way.

Matthew 22:
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

God called and choose many people through out the bible. And some did not want to do His will. Jona was one.

I would never say that anyone could be saved apart from the Grace of God.  That does not mean we should to equate grace and salvation in the sense that if we "fall from grace", that we have "fallen from salvation.  This is clearly not the case, since as Galations were reminded of their position in Christ as heirs and as sons.

God's grace entails many aspects of the spritual life, after salvation, and prior to eternal life.  You can fall form grace in this life, when you start walking by sight, and not by faith, but that doesn't mean you've lost your salvation, only that you do not have access to God's power in time.
Absolutely, consider this verse:

2TI 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

Lack of faith is the greatest type of sin in the bible, from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit at the point of hearing the Gospel, which is the unpardonable sin, to not trusting God with the circumstances in your life, e.g. David and the judgement Israel suffered after having his army counted.

Yet, God's word says that if we are Faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

That is the doctrine of Positional Truth in plain view.  The believer, is a part of Christ, and we cannot be removed, no matter what.


II Timothy 2:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Faith is a mindset of the person who chooses to believe. We will have doubt from time to time. And God considers this being faithless when we become weak enough to have doubt. God said: You are either for me or against me (quoting from memory, may not be exact).

To deny is an actual visual action. God is not mocked in front of men. So to lose faith enough to voice it in denial, or demonstrate it through an action of sin. Shows what's really in your heart. And is the reason why the two are look upon differently.

Matthew 10:
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Whosoever means anyone, right? And this is Christ speaking. And if Christ is denying you before the Father, will your salvation still be intact?

For Christ to deny someone in front of the father means they are not at the great white throne. Which is the throne the sinners will be judged at. Because at this throne, by choice, those standing in front of it are already denied eternal life in heaven. So there is nothing to be denied of more than that. But being denied in front of the saved throne, means you lost something you had. And would explain these verses:

Matthew 25:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

1) Where in God's word does it say the saved will appear in front of the white throne?
2) Where does it say the sinner will appear before the saved throne?
3) And where does it say that both will appear at any throne at any one time?
4) Will the sinner have what is claimed by them, to claim before the Lord?
5) Or will it be those who were onced saved be claiming these things?
6) Is this another way of explaining what the lukewarm are, and what will happen to them on judgement day?

"Depart from me" is a key phrase used here. You cannot depart from something you were never part of. For I cannot depart from you unless I was with you first. And it also explains the seperation of the sheep and the goats, both are at the same throne. Also notice that God does not tell them to go to the great white throne of judgement, He tells them: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:.... Also notice the seperation of these people. It's not a throne of judgement seperation, it is a right hand and left hand seperation. And those on the left get cast into the everlasting fire.

So who is it that's being put at the left hand of God, setting at the saved throne, then being cast into hell?

That is the doctrine of Positional Truth in plain view. The believer, is a part of Christ, and we cannot be removed, no matter what.

IOW, while we are sinning in the worst kind of way, we are a part of him, and he will never turn his back on us, never.
Again, this is only in time, and does not have any truth as far as eternal life goes.

In Christ,

Terry

View Post


And your welcome to that view.

But the way I see it, if we cannot make the word of God mesh, but always contridict itself, have we really found truth? Being spued from the body of Christ, is being removed completely. Because you are in the body of Christ in the spirit, not the flesh. So when you are spued, it is your spirit that is being removed.

#9 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 August 2005 - 02:42 AM

But the way I see it, if we cannot make the word of God mesh, but always contridict itself, have we really found truth? Being spued from the body of Christ, is being removed completely. Because you are in the body of Christ in the spirit, not the flesh. So when you are spued, it is your spirit that is being removed.


Being spued is a metaphor for lossing fellowship in time, not eternity. It could only be viewed from the viewpoint of eternity if the Gospel was:

"believe on the Lord Jesus, and you may be saved", or

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you may be saved;",

but the scritpure never says may, and the Gospel is never predicated on good behavior after salvation.

This, IMO, is what taking the viewpoint that you can loose your salvation does to scripture. The only way to make sense out of all the scripture your dealing with, nad the Gospel passages, is to view your position in Christ in two different ways, time and eternity.

In Christ,

Terry

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 August 2005 - 01:25 PM

Being spued is a metaphor for lossing fellowship in time, not eternity.  It could only be viewed from the viewpoint of eternity if the Gospel was:


I never said it was for eternity. I'll requote it and explain in more detail.
--------------------
Revelation 3:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Cold, lukewarm, and hot. Are three spiritual levels in your walk with Christ. And because there is one that will seperate you, here again, it is shown there is free will to choose even after salvation. For if Christ is spueing you from His mouth, do you really think your salvation is still intact?

Proverbs 26:
11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

The reason I list this one verse with the rest, is to show that when you are spued from the body of Christ, Christ will not return to you. It is you that has to return to him. Which again supports what James said:

----------------------

By choice we seperate ourselves from Christ. Christ only rejects (spueing from His body) when our life does not reflect what Christ is all about. We sin wilfully as if Christ has no effect on our lives. Can Christ keep in His body what rebels* against it? Christ cannot contain in His body someone that insists on doing evil. We are not rejected eternally (forever), for it is we who have to come back to Christ. He will not return to us as a dog returns to it's vomit.

I Samuel 15:
23 For rebellion* is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

"believe on the Lord Jesus, and you may be saved", or

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you may be saved;",

but the scritpure never says may, and the Gospel is never predicated on good behavior after salvation.


So I can sin to my flesh's content, and nothing will happen to me? Where does it say that you can sin wilfully after being saved? Can God have evil in heaven? Being a child of God does not give the person the right ti dabble in sin "wilfully" and stay in God's will and never lose salvation. Now if you want to call all verses that go against what you believe about this metaphors, then that's your choice. I believe it is written quite clear on what is meant.

This, IMO, is what taking the viewpoint that you can loose your salvation does to scripture.   The only way to make sense out of all the scripture your dealing with, nad the Gospel passages, is to view your position in Christ in two different ways, time and eternity.

In Christ,

Terry

View Post


Grace gives time, judgement is for eternity.

#11 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 August 2005 - 04:28 PM

Divine sovereignty and human free will co-exist at certain levels, but God is always in control of everything.

View Post


I somewhat disagree with this. The way I would word it is “God is in control of whatever He wants to be in control of”. For example, God is not in control of my choice to do good or evil. So my ability to either cheat on my wife, or be faithful to my wife, is my choice. His is not in control of this choice because he has, by his own volition, granted us free will and relinquished this control.

The doctrine of "Positional Truth" is one of the most foundational, and most easily demonstrated, of Bible Doctrines.


Hmm, in my mind it has been one of the most difficult doctrines for me to take a position on. I’m virtually 50-50. There are a lot of verses each side can present, as both you and Admin3 have so aptly done. Taken in its entirety I lean toward OSAS (or Preservation of the Saints), but part of me also considers the possibility that one can become saved, then later willfully choose to abandon the faith. If you join a club and are given lifetime membership (a promise, or guarantee), you can still walk away if you decide you don’t like the club you are in. So I do think it is possible we may find out there were actual believers (Farrell Till comes to mind as one possibility) who decided they didn’t like God after all, and willfully walked away (Hanging out in Heaven with guys like you and me would be hell for liberals like Till! :unsure:). Or we may find out he really never believed from the beginning (OSAS).

There are very few doctrines I have been unable to commit on, and this is one of them. Check back with me after a dozen years or so and maybe I’ll finally have seen the proper light of what scripture is saying regarding this. :(

Fred

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 August 2005 - 04:54 PM

To deny is an actual visual action. God is not mocked in front of men. So to lose faith enough to voice it in denial, or demonstrate it through an action of sin. Shows what's really in your heart. And is the reason why the two are look upon differently.

View Post


I agree with the part about voicing it in denial, but not necessarily the part about demonstrating it through sin. It depends on how you look at it. For example, David committed the horrendous sins of both adultery and murder. Yet he was still saved, because he was genuinely sorry and repented. Hmm, see, this is the type of passage that makes me wonder about OSAS! What if David decided he did not want to repent? If we say he had no choice but to repent, this removes the free will element and it becomes the Calvinistic “irresistible grace”, which I believe has a very weak scriptural basis.

Where we can get an idea if sin is reflective of one’s salvation, is when it is unrepentant. I believe the Bible makes clear in many verses that God does not forgive willfully unrepentant sin (i.e. Matthew 3:8, Mark 1:15 , 1 John 1:9, 10, Romans 1:32, etc). In fact, most Christians think they should dish out unconditional forgiveness, but I believe this is has become a sort of cliché that is unbiblical (like the cliche that we shouldn't judge, which is also unbiblical). We as believers are not expected to forgive unrepentant sins against us! (see Luke 17:3-4). In fact to do so would only encourage the sin.

I’m serious about something earth-shattering in this doctrine I have discovered, I’m really glad we are working through this. My thinking through the David passage, and the fact I believe “irresistible grace” is not scripturally sound, now makes me lean against OSAS. This is truly the first moment ever in my life when I can recall considering myself on the other side of OSAS. I was told not too long ago (maybe a year or so) that the TULIP of Calvinism held together like a glove and if one is wrong they are all wrong, and only now this seems to make sense to me. If OSAS is true, then it was predestined that David would repent of his sin. I find this very hard to reconcile with what I know about the arguments against irresistible grace. If David decided he hated God, he would not have repented of the sin. But David truly loved God, and repented.

Mark this date in history. :unsure:

In Christ,
Fred

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:32 PM

I agree with the part about voicing it in denial, but not necessarily the part about demonstrating it through sin. It depends on how you look at it. For example, David committed the horrendous sins of both adultery and murder. Yet he was still saved, because he was genuinely sorry and repented. Hmm, see, this is the type of passage that makes me wonder about OSAS! What if David decided he did not want to repent? If we say he had no choice but to repent, this removes the free will element and it becomes the Calvinistic “irresistible grace”, which I believe has a very weak scriptural basis.

Where we can get an idea if sin is reflective of one’s salvation, is when it is unrepentant. I believe the Bible makes clear in many verses that God does not forgive willfully unrepentant sin (i.e. Matthew 3:8, Mark 1:15 , 1 John 1:9, 10, Romans 1:32, etc). In fact, most Christians think they should dish out unconditional forgiveness, but I believe this is has become a sort of cliché that is unbiblical (like the cliche that we shouldn't judge, which is also unbiblical). We as believers are not expected to forgive unrepentant sins against us! (see Luke 17:3-4). In fact to do so would only encourage the sin.

I’m serious about something earth-shattering in this doctrine I have discovered, I’m really glad we are working through this. My thinking through the David passage, and the fact I believe “irresistible grace” is not scripturally sound, now makes me lean against OSAS. This is truly the first moment ever in my life when I can recall considering myself on the other side of OSAS. I was told not too long ago (maybe a year or so) that the TULIP of Calvinism held together like a glove and if one is wrong they are all wrong, and only now this seems to make sense to me. If OSAS is true, then it was predestined that David would repent of his sin. I find this very hard to reconcile with what I know about the arguments against irresistible grace. If David decided he hated God, he would not have repented of the sin. But David truly loved God, and repented.

Mark this date in history. :unsure:

In Christ,
Fred

View Post



I am glad you are open minded about this. So many are closed minded on this issue as a whole. My goal here is not to convert anyone, but to make people equally weigh the issue. For it is not what man would say the issue says, it is what God's word says it is.

Example: If I was closed minded about believing osas, or non-osas. And opened God's word, how would I view all that I read? I would view it on the bases of what doctrine I was taught by man. In other words, my view of what was being said would always be what I was taught even before I read it. So if the person who teaches the doctrine is wrong, so am I.

Example two, my own true life example: I was raised going to a baptist church, and was taught the OSAS doctrine. All the while I thought it was so wonderful to be able not to worry about losing my salvation. I even slipped away from God without fear, because why fear when you cannot lose the main goal. Upon comming back, the preacher preached that after recieving salvation, we could sin, and sin, etc... and not lose it. The whole sermon was about this, and he made it sound like it was without bounds on what we could get away with.

This grieved my soul. I knew it was wrong. I soon left that church because I felt there was nothing it could teach me anymore. At that time, I did not even know there was two sides to this issue. I was just grieved, and did not know where to turn.

I back slid for several years. And then came back because God kept calling me back. I went to my mothers church and heard, for the first time, there was another side to this issue. After being called into ministry myself, I started to minister on the web as well. This is where I learned alot about this issue. Actually more than I wanted to know on some issues that go along with either side. I was confused for a short while about what to believe. But instead of relying on man to show me the truth, I relied on God. Why? Because there was verses that supported both sides.

Then God started showing me verses that are spiritual laws that cannot be broken, that seperate good from evil. From understanding this, I started to see more clearly, instead of being in a fog of always wondering. For it was through HIs word, and not the word of man, that lead me to this conclusion. If I were to put this into a percent of doubt, I'm 95% sure with only 5% doubt about non-osas being the right way.

The reason I always let a little doubt be there is because it keeps me humble some what to listen to what people say, even if I disagree. For even God said that all will not be made known until we get to heaven. Which means no one knows the whole truth about this.

While learning so much on the web, I also found that most non-osas are catagorized into a catagory that says: We believe that you work your way to salvation. Sorry, that's a whole another type of belief. Just because someone does not believe OSAS, does not mean they believe in works in place of salvation. In fact, to keep non-osas from having a say, many osas believing preachers started taging this belief this way. That everyone that believed this way, thought this way. Nope, that could not be more of a lie.

There are some who do, I'm not one of them. And I know of many who believe the same way I do. We agree with everything osas teaches, except to the point of losing salvation. In fact, if someone was changing their point of view from osas to non-osas, I would encurage them to search the scriptures more and allow God to speak to their heart on this issue. That even though I'm 95% sure, I am but only a man, and can make mistakes. I am not so caught up in myself not to able to say this. For it is truth I search for, not to be right on every issue.

I have changed my views on creation many times (example of having a open mind), and have found more truth in doing so. For even one issue can open a whole door of truth, if we can set aside, any bias we may have, to see it, for what it really is. This type of mindset allows the spirit to override the flesh. But it also requires you to swallow some of your pride. Pride is a spiritual block between God and man. For God cannot speak through a mindset that won't even listen. And some people ask why God becomes silent. Why speak, when what is said is not heard?

#14 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 August 2005 - 06:54 AM

I am glad you are open minded about this. So many are closed minded on this issue as a whole. My goal here is not to convert anyone, but to make people equally weigh the issue.


Believe me, there are doctrines I can be closed minded on perhaps to a fault, but this was one I was never committed to and struggled with. I was familiar with many of the scriptures you and Terry put forth, but ironically what swayed me was while I was essentially defending Terry’s point about sin - in fact I still believe you may have been taking the sin thing too far, and why I wanted to try to add some clarification becuase people may get the wrong idea and think that becoming a Christian means an end to your sin. So while writing the thing about King David’s sin, it hit me like a ton of bricks - my question to Terry or any supporter of OSAS is, did David have a choice to repent, or was he predestined to do so?

Admin3: So, can a saved person sin wilfully, and not be in danger of falling from grace, and losing salvation?

Terry: Absolutely, consider this verse:

2TI 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.


I actually agree with Terry here. But what I believe a person can’t do is sin willfully while also knowingly be completely unrepentant of it. It would be the same as essentially walking away from God. So here’s how I now reconcile all these verses: If you believe, you are saved, Just as Jesus promised. You are sealed just like it says in Ephesians 1. Your salvation is secure and you are given a guarantee. This isn’t a ticket to sin (see Romans 6:1), even though we know we completely fail the battle against it while we remain in our mortal bodies (see Romans 713:24; 1 John 1:8).

But just like in everyday life, you have the freedom to walk away from a guaranteed deal. You can join a club and be given a guaranteed lifetime membership, but you are still free to walk away if you decide you don’t like the club. I think this is what happened to Farrell Till, and Charles Templeton. Templeton was the Billy Graham of his day, leading many people to the LORD. But after going to Princeton seminary school where they taught evolution and millions of years, he landed on the slippery slope and went all the way down to disbelief. Not that he really didn’t believe in God (even the demons believe, James 2:19), but he decided he didn’t like God, so he walked away, relinquishing his guarantee. What was his number one reason he gave in his book “Farwell to God”? He did not want to worship a God who produced millions of years of death, disease, suffering, etc.. He believed man’s fallible opinion, and attributed to God something God hates and considers an enemy – death. He bought into the worldview of death as a permanent part of history, instead of the truth from the Bible, that death is an enemy and a temporary part of history.

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:26)

"Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor 15:54)

“Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.” Rev 20:14

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.
(Rev 21:4)

In Christ,
Fred

[added: I beleive this is a great discussion guys, thanks]

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2005 - 03:43 PM

The way I would word it is “God is in control of whatever He wants to be in control of”. For example, God is not in control of my choice to do good or evil. So my ability to either cheat on my wife, or be faithful to my wife, is my choice. His is not in control of this choice because he has, by his own volition, granted us free will and relinquished this control.


I agree whole heartedly. If you take the position that God knew all things in enternity past, then even before he called you into being, he knew what you would choose on your own. So, in the end, he is in control of everything.

Its hard to think about......

Me:The doctrine of "Positional Truth" is one of the most foundational, and most easily demonstrated, of Bible Doctrines.

Hmm, in my mind it has been one of the most difficult doctrines for me to take a position on. I’m virtually 50-50. There are a lot of verses each side can present, as both you and Admin3 have so aptly done.


Well,......,

Just do a search on the New Testament for the phrase "in Christ". It occurs numerous times, e.g.

ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

ROM 12:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

ROM 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Here is a critical verse:

1CO 1:2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Sanctified is the perfect passive participle of hagios. The greek perfect is very important, and really has no english equivalent. It means completed action in past time, with a resulting state of being. IOW, our sanctification is complete at the point in time we believe the gospel, and we are positionally set apart in christ. Now we may not believe that by way of experience, but from God's view that's our status.

1CO 1:4 ¶ I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,

1CO 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

Note that its by God's doing that we are "in Christ".

Another ciritical verse, as this shows both our position in Adam, and our position in Christ.

1CO 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

1CO 16:24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

2CO 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,

We are new beings "in Christ".

2CO 5:17 Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

I hope that helps to see that scripture clearly teaches that we upon believing are placed in union with Christ. There's more, but I think that's enough.... :unsure:


Taken in its entirety I lean toward OSAS (or Preservation of the Saints), but part of me also considers the possibility that one can become saved, then later willfully choose to abandon the faith.


I can understand this, and its a legitimate point.

If you join a club and are given lifetime membership (a promise, or guarantee), you can still walk away if you decide you don’t like the club you are in.


I think that if you consider the mechanics of salvation, there is a stark difference between what happens to a believer when he believes the gospel, and what happens if you join the YMCA.

Generally speaking, the "past tense" verbs used for saved are in the aorist tense, and passive voice in the greek.

The aorist means that its a punctiliar action, with no epmhasis on aspect of time, and that its seen as a completed action. The passive voice means that the object receives the action of the verb. IOW, all we do is believe, and then God does the work, and gets all of the credit. There is no merrit for us.

In the case of joining a club, you actually make a decision, and you can make the decsion to get out, but in each of those cases, in greek, you would use a middle voice so that you accomplished it for you own good, and maybe when you left the club, you would do the same thing.

The other aspect is that of the indicative mood of the salvation verses, e.g.

ROM 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;

Saved here is he future passive indicative of sodzo, which means to be saved. The indicative mood means that from the author's point of view, that its a condition of reality, the passive voice again means that we receive salvation.

If the Lord wanted to tell us that believing the gospel only gives us the potential to be saved, then he would have used the subjunctive mood, not the indiciative.

The reason I chose that verse is because of the phrase: "believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead"

I think in the cases where people reject the faith altogether, that they never fully believed "unto salvation". IOW, for them it was only gnosis(accademic knowledge), and not epignosis(knowledge learned by believing the Holy Spirit, and accepting it by faith).

If there is any case, where you could loose your salvation, the only scriptural way would only be where you stopped believing, since that is what the gospel hinges on, not how much you sin afterward. The question at that point would be, does God undo what he has aleady done? I don't think so, for the simple reason that God exists outside of time, so its illogical to think that he would change a person's eternal status, when he knows the final outcome anyway, its kind of pointless.....

I hope that helps.

In Christ,

Terry

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2005 - 03:54 PM

my question to Terry or any supporter of OSAS is, did David have a choice to repent, or was he predestined to do so?


I'll answer if I can, but I'm not sure what your asking.

But just like in everyday life, you have the freedom to walk away from a guaranteed deal. You can join a club and be given a guaranteed lifetime membership, but you are still free to walk away if you decide you don’t like the club.


I don't know about you, but I spent 6 years in the Navy, and they would not let me leave anytime I wanted... :( And believe me, when I stepped off the bus outside of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center Bootcamp and saw the recruits marching around with shaved heads and a thing on the back of their waist, I knew I made a mistake before I even set foot inside..... :unsure:

In Christ,

Terry

#17 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 August 2005 - 04:20 PM

Delegation never implies giving up power for good, so there is never a loss of omnipotence, yet Bob Enyart seems to imply that, that is the case (I think).

View Post


He did relinquish some power permanently, specifically free will. I don’t think anything in the Bible indicates that free will was rescinded.

Impassibility is not something I’m familiar with (i.e God having or not having emotions) not the origin of that or the counter POV.


Many Calvinists take immutability to the same extreme as taught by the Greeks. CS Lewis is one who denied God had emotions.

Enyart: means that God is everywhere. <snip>  But, is He in Hell?
That’s an interesting notion, but to me this is a just one of those paradox of mans making (e.g can god make a rock too heavy to lift). If one is to postulate such things an as an omnipotent god the one thing that defied omnipotence is a paradox, and no solution is possible because it is not a fair question.


The paradox “can god make a rock too heavy to lift” is a logical absurdity. God being everywhere, including hell, is a possibility and is only paradoxical based on what we know of God’s attributes (why would God want to be in hell?). So Enyart’s point is well-served that God is not everywhere, simply because God doesn’t want to be everywhere. There is Biblical support for this as well, ie the Sodom & Gomorrah account.

The replies from Samuel Lamerson were somewhat surprising, after reading them I got the impression that he is an atheist (at least a lot of his argument ‘sounded as such’). Anyone else feel that way?


Not at all.

Fred

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:19 PM

I agree whole heartedly.  If you take the position that God knew all things in enternity past, then even before he called you into being, he knew what you would choose on your own.

View Post


I don't take that position. :D This gets to the very heart of the debate in the OP! More later...

Here is a critical verse:

1CO 1:2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Sanctified is the perfect passive participle of hagios. The greek perfect is very important, and really has no english equivalent. It means completed action in past time, with a resulting state of being. IOW, our sanctification is complete at the point in time we believe the gospel, and we are positionally set apart in christ. Now we may not believe that by way of experience, but from God's view that's our status.


I agree this is a powerful verse, but not a slam dunk (or I would have never been 60-40, 50-50, etc for OSAS, I would have been 95-5% :)). I’m probably 70-30 against OSAS right now (which again is the first time in my life I am on the opposite side of OSAS, two days and counting :unsure: ), not quite as convinced as Admin3. But I still think the above verse, plus all the others you provided, can still be true and OSAS false.

I hope that helps to see that scripture clearly teaches that we upon believing are placed in union with Christ. There's more, but I think that's enough....


I agree, we are placed in union with Christ. But this again doesn’t present to me a slam-dunk for OSAS, since I can see how the falling from grace position supported by many verses such as Admin3 posted, can still work with these verses. I believe there is at least the possibility. If it were a slam dunker we wouldn't even be debating this. :)

I think that if you consider the mechanics of salvation, there is a stark difference between what happens to a believer when he believes the gospel, and what happens if you join the YMCA.


I actually agree with this. I had a hard time formulating an analogy to describe what can happen to a believer. I was trying to address the seal of the Holy Spirit and how one could get out from under it, since that is what must happen to refute OSAS. If we accept OSAS, then there is no way a Christian could ever willfully choose to not repent of an evil he commits. It implies he is predestined and does not have free will in the matter. So that is my question to you regarding David. When he committed murder and adultery, was David predestined to repent of these sins, or did he do it of his own volition (ie free will)? Did David really have a choice in the matter to repent? According to OSAS, he had no choice but to repent, as if he were programmed to do so. I have serious problems with that.

OK, now that we’ve discussed this further, I’m now only 60-40 against OSAS. :(

If there is any case, where you could loose your salvation, the only scriptural way would only be where you stopped believing, since that is what the gospel hinges on, not how much you sin afterward.


I completely agree with this.

The question at that point would be, does God undo what he has aleady done? I don't think so, for the simple reason that God exists outside of time, so its illogical to think that he would change a person's eternal status, when he knows the final outcome anyway, its kind of pointless.....


Ah, and why I referred to the theologyonline.com debate in the OP, since Open View theology rejects the idea that God is outside of time! So this is where things can get surprising, and shocking for many Christians (with screams of heresy and burn him at the stake :)). What if God does not exist outside of time? Then your logical dilemma goes away! (you could claim God could go back in time and revoke the seal – but notice that nowhere in scripture is there even the slightest hint that God ever goes back in time, something to keep in mind when considering traversing the opposite direction, the future).

This isn’t the only logical dilemma that vanishes, there are many others that vanish, and why the Open View has had some appeal for me. The idea that God exists outside of time is certainly a reasonable possibility, and indeed most Christians believe this, but what if it’s wrong? Did you know this belief also has roots in Greek pagan philosophy? This alone should at least give us caution. I’m always suspicious of what the “world” believes, and why should this be an exception?

If you believe God exists outside of time, it seems to me you have to allegorize or “anthropomorphisize” a lot of scripture to support it. Here’s one of many examples I could give:

And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. - 1 Sam 13:13-14

If God truly is outside of time, the penultimate sentence makes no sense and the whole thing has to be allegorized. My problem is that there are numerous scriptures just like this throughout the Bible - they only seem to fit within the Open View framework. You can take the straighforward meaning and it will work.

The Open view posits that the future does not exist until it happens (God still knows everything, that is, everything knowable). Perhaps God knows the future in the sense that He knows His plan, and knows what He is going to bring to pass. Just do a search on “pass” and how many times God says he will bring something to pass. Which is harder for God to do, bring the future to pass, or peek ahead and then tell us? It does seem to bring Him more glory to make the future happen, not peer into the future then tell us what will happen.

Please just please keep an open mind while Enyart presents his case, it’s a completely foreign idea to many Christian ears but we should not let our preconceptions keep us from at least considering what is being said. I had always had trouble and asked other Christians questions about the God outside of time idea. Then along came the Open View, and it really makes a lot of sense and explains a LOT of otherwise problem scriptures.

Terry and Admin3, let me know what you think of the debate, I’ll be curious to know. It’s fairly long reading, but I think it’s well worth it. It's a ten rounder that will be going on for the next month, I suspect. But the first two posts by each are already worth the price of admission! :)

In Christ,
Fred

#19 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:20 PM

Fred said:

The paradox “can god make a rock too heavy to lift” is a logical absurdity. God being everywhere, including hell, is a possibility and is only paradoxical based on what we know of God’s attributes (why would God want to be in hell?). So Enyart’s point is well-served that God is not everywhere, simply because God doesn’t want to be everywhere. There is Biblical support for this as well, ie the Sodom & Gomorrah account.


1) How would someone measure the strength of God?

2) God does not have to be everywhere at once, He is where He needs to be according to his will. Being the alpha and omega, forcasting the future. He knows where He needs to be, and the time He needs to be there. Even if we have to wait, God is always on time for His will to be done.

To be God, your power to do these things would have to be unlimited.

#20 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:30 PM

Another question:

If God is outside of time, doesn't this therefore mean there is no time where God reigns, ie no time in Heaven?

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users