 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > More questions about OV theology- if anyone cares | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 2/1/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | Interested inquirer, what do you make of all the passages that speak of humans resisting or even rejecting God's will or plan for their lives? And along those lines, the passages that speak of us (the elect are the ones being addressed!) greiving the Holy Spirit and so forth?
I'll assume you are aware of these passages that I refer to and have considered them.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 2/1/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | II,
Do you really not see that you are only referring to passages that could be construed as supporting your view (and omitting the many that conflict with it)? What of Romans 5? or I Cor. 15 where salvation is clearly a universally offered reality? Or the vine and the branches from Romans again? How does that square with your schema? Of course, if grace is resistable, then there is no problem, but that is not available to you as an explanation. Even though these texts clearly suggest (in my mind) that grace is indeed resistable. I must say, the confidence with which you seem to affirm your position doesn't seem appropriate to the broader context of the conversation. Surely you are aware that people have disagreed about the meaning of the many texts you quoted. Did you think reasserting Calvinism once again would settle things?
It is surely not the case that the amount of verses you could lean on is endless, in fact, most passages seem to me to more clearly support an open future. But of course, that is why we are discussing this. Let's not act as though the issues are settled before we even begin here. (And if that is really your perspective, the name Interested Inquirer could seem misleading!) Rather, let's deal with some particular things, like the ones that initiated this conversation, and work on them to some degree of satisfaction. Any suggestions, given where this conversation has been, where it might be most useful to focus next? Or perhaps what to return to?
RD? Any thoughts on that?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/1/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes wrote: (And if that is really your perspective, the name Interested Inquirer could seem misleading!)
By using my name of choice, I meant that I was interested in the goings on of this site, not that I was in doubt as to my position, or that I was a dispassionate observer. Sorry if that was unclear. With regard to the discontinuity from the previous discussion (which, you are right, it wasn't pertaining to the immediately preceeding posts), I intended to send out my post a few nights ago before the discussion had continued to the point it had. When I went to send it out I was disconnected from the internet and I lost the whole message and didn't have time to retype it then. Everything I wrote pertained in some manner to the issue of libertarian free will, which I believe is quite relevant to this forum.
I feel very strongly about these issues because I believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake. I will write more as time permits.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/1/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes wrote: what do you make of all the passages that speak of humans resisting or even rejecting God's will or plan for their lives? And along those lines, the passages that speak of us (the elect are the ones being addressed!) greiving the Holy Spirit and so forth?
II: I briefly mentioned that in my post, though not in great detail. It is certainly true that humans act against the prescriptive will of God all the time, that is, the law that God sets forth for us to follow. And yes, this angers God...but at the same time, these events do not occur apart from his secret, decretive will. As in the case of Judas, "the Son of Man will go just as has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed." (Luke 22:21) It would be better for him had he never been born, says one of the other gospels. Even this very act of disobedience against God has been determined by God. So it is with all acts of disobedience. But this very act of disobedience was part of the means God used to secure our redemption!That the Jews would put Christ to death was predetermined by God and foretold by the prophets. The act of putting Jesus to death was an evil act, with regard to the intent and purpose of those who killed him, but with regard to God, of whom it is said, "It pleased Him to crush him" His purposes were good in bringing this evil to pass, so it was good for God to do this.
I admit, these are tough conclusions to come to. It took me a while to accept them, but I believe them for no other reason than this- it is what the Bible declares.
You are correct, I am not unfamiliar with the passages you mentioned. To them I would add 2 Pet.3:9, Heb 2:9, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Cor 5:14, 1 Cor. 8:11, John 1:7. I spent a good 2 years of my life raising every objection I could to the Calvinistic viewpoint. I am convinced that sound exegesis of the texts I have just listed in no way promotes libertarianism nor a general ransom. John Owen, in his masterful work, "The Death of Death" provides a wonderful treatment of the nature of the atonement and what it accomplished, and he also deals with all the major disputed texts. I would highly encourage you to read his work. My time is quite limited now, but if you are interested, I could provide you later with the exegesis of a few sample texts.
As an interesting passing note,what I have found to be the case over the course of my time dealing with this issue is that for some reason the burden of proof is always on the Calvinist. The texts that the Calvinist offers never seem to be treated. Other texts supposedly supporting the other side are suggested in their place without a serious effort being made to explain the verses that the Calvinist offers. It is not as if the Bible offers us two opposing views and then we are allowed to choose whichever one we prefer. I know this sounds silly, but I seriously think that some people treat the issue in this manner.
I am also interested to hear how you find the texts I mentioned supportive of the open view. Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/1/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | II said: quote:
It is certainly true that humans act against the prescriptive will of God all the time, that is, the law that God sets forth for us to follow. And yes, this angers God...but at the same time, these events do not occur apart from his secret, decretive will.
Someone explain this to me just once. Who exactly would God be angry with? Himself? After all, he intended it to happen, determined that it would happen, forced it to happen, right? Why then would he be angry with any sinful act if he wanted it to happen? I really try to understand this deterministic perspective, but the logical inconsistencies are just glaring. Either God is some kind of schizophrenic puppetmaster, or this determinism is nonsense.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/2/2003 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Every man is tested by choice, because the untried and unproved man is worth nothing, one receiving as the prize of his virtue, incorruption, another the fate of corruption. One man is made perfect by the trial, through the observance of the command of God. Another man clings to pleasure, as though it is necessary to maintain it, and fearlessly abhors any that might deprive him of his desire for life. Such a man, transfers his desire from God to the matter of things created, rather than the creator, and his anger from the real enemy of his salvation, the envy of the devil, to his own brethren. Yet every man that is lost, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas.
The false one tempts the misery of man with the hope of being the Godhead, and leading him up to as great a height of arrogance as himself, he hurls him down into a pit of destruction just as deep.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/2/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS wrote: Someone explain this to me just once. Who exactly would God be angry with? Himself? After all, he intended it to happen, determined that it would happen, forced it to happen, right? Why then would he be angry with any sinful act if he wanted it to happen? I really try to understand this deterministic perspective, but the logical inconsistencies are just glaring. Either God is some kind of schizophrenic puppetmaster, or this determinism is nonsense.
I.I.’s response: The apostle Paul anticipated just such a question. He says, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?' (Rom. 9:19)
Now at this point, if Paul were a libertarian this would have been the perfect opportunity to get God off the hook with the free will answer. He might have said something like: "When God hardens people, He is only confirming them in their choice they have already made" or something to that effect (although even this answer would still eliminate their freedom after that point). But does his answer at all smack of an appeal to libertarian freedom? No, but rather he says:
But who are you, o man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power has endured w/ much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?" (Rom. 9:20-21)
I am not saying that this is the answer that we all would have expected, or that it makes the most sense to us as humans. The notion that we can't determine our own outcome in life is downright offensive to us! It doesn't seem fair. But, just as Paul says, God is under no obligation to give us an explanation for why things are the way they are, or why He didn't do things differently than He did. God is not on trial here. He has no need to defend himself.
I don't know how many times I have heard people try in vain to make Rom. 9 say the exact opposite of what it says. I have read Dr. Boyd's treatment of this text and quite frankly, I just don't find it convincing. It’s not that he doesn’t make a good effort; it’s just that he doesn’t have much to work with given his theological starting point. I usually don't pull out the Rom. 9 trump card because it usually just makes people get angry and they shut off immediately, and there are plenty of other predestinarian passages that serve the purpose just as well. But this particular passage has been giving libertarians fits for ages. It's like a host of flies swarming around their heads that they keep swatting at but can never succeed in killing.
I reference it now, however, because it is so fitting an answer to your question.
I am not required to understand why God holds me responsible for my actions despite the fact that I cannot do anything contrary to His secret purpose and decretive will. As a matter of fact, this is not a question that I am even allowed to ask Him (see 9:20). I am only required to believe what He tells me and humbly submit to His authority, while trusting that His purposes are good even when I don't see how anything good could come out of a given situation. Is this the way that I always respond to Him? If I am going to be honest with myself, I would have to say, no. I don't always respond to God in the way that I should. Often times when I am in the middle of a troubling situation, I doubt God and sometimes even get angry with Him. In these times I have failed to trust in God's goodness, and I need to repent of that, not alter my view of God!
It is usually at this point that libertarians interrupt and point out, “Look, it sounds like you are saying that you had control over whether you would trust or fail to trust. You’re being inconsistent!” No, I didn’t say that I ever had any power to make the end result of that situation be different than what actually came to pass. All I implied was that I was responsible to trust, whether I did so or not. You see, God doesn’t accomplish His ends by skipping over the means. That is Fatalism, not Calvinism. God ordains the means as well as the ends. If I fail to trust God in a certain situation (and yes, he did foreordain even that lack of trust), then I can be sure that He had a good purpose in mind even if I never discover His purpose. Perhaps He will use that past situation of mistrust to show me the folly of my ways, and this will cause (yes, a cause predetermined by God) me to trust Him during my next crisis. I just don’t know. But it is this kind of absolute control that we have in mind when we speak of the Sovereignty of God. (The book of Job is a perfect example of how God often hides His purposes from us. Here is a man who undergoes a plethora of horrible experiences despite the fact that he is a blameless man. He never gets to learn what the reader learns. God doesn't show him that He has a good purpose in mind during his trials, or even after them. Job is expected to trust God in spite of the fact that he doesn't understand God's purposes. It is true that God sometimes does reveal to us the reasons for why certain events happen, but in my experience at least, more often than not, He doesn’t. But the key thing is this--God doesn't require us to figure out why He is doing what He is doing. He only requires us to trust Him.)
Geisler, in his book “Chosen but Free” belittles a man whose son has just died. The man was able to better deal with his son’s death once he came to the realization that God had foreordained the number of days of his life, and that it was God’s decision to remove him at that appointed time. Geisler says, “He wouldn’t say that kind of thing if his daughter had been raped.” To that I reply, “Don’t be so sure.” True, it is possible that he might have had an even harder time coming to grips with the scenario Geisler suggests than with the death of his son, but that doesn’t mean his doctrine is wrong. Geisler’s argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion. He refuses to acknowledge the truth of the matter, that God “ordains whatsoever comes to pass” (Ch. 9 Westminster Catechism), even the most unthinkable events. Nevertheless, Geisler’s theology still forces him to come to grips with the fact that God “permits” or “allows” such atrocious events to occur and that He is in some way sovereign over them and could prevent them if He chooses to. Open Theism, however, as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) is another matter.
A Dangerous Game
Passages like Rom. 9 contain the kind of scriptural statements that cause atheists to openly rail against God, screaming and blaspheming (I never get over how people who don’t believe in God can hate Him so much!). They say, I could never serve or worship this kind of a God! He is despicable! How can you call the God of the Bible a moral God who commits and/or allows such atrocities?!
Now, what is so disturbing to me about Open Theism is this…
(I know this is going to make people wild, but it needs to be said. All I ask is that before you get wild, consider the ramifications of what I’m saying. Ultimately if you commit to Open Theism and if it turns out to be a false theory, you will have to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. I realize that this is a knife that cuts two ways. If I am wrong and Open Theism is true, I am guilty of seriously misrepresenting God. However, I am confident that I stand on solid biblical ground and am in line with the teaching of the Reformers who all denied libertarianism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Beza, Bullinger etc [with the possible exception of Melanchthon]).
Now please hear this. In a much more subtle way, Open Theism responds to God in the same manner as does Atheism. To be sure, it’s not as obvious, but in reality it makes the same accusations against God. Let me post two remarks that I found on this site written by people whom I presume to be Open Theists:
1) “My thoughts? mmmmmm....the thought of a parent who has just lost their child after an abduction, rape and murder or a woman who has just been raped, humiliated and beaten, or someone that has experienced the many other possible horrible scenarios that can play themselves out in this life, being counseled by someone that truly holds to this theology horrifies me. I cannot fathom a God who would purpose and ordain these kinds of evils to test the treasures of our heart.”
And here is an admission by Tom, in a dialogue w/ Reasonable Doubt, the implications of which I find extremely disturbing. He makes a direct link between determinism (or at least, a non-open view of God) and atheism, perhaps implying that it is rational for people to become atheists if they believe that God in any way brought about a tragedy that deeply affected them:
2) ReasonableDoubt: For example, the Jews who did not lose their faith during the Holocaust, as horrible as it was, believed that God had a purpose for it.
Tom: And others who believed God brought it about turned into atheists.
I’d like you to pay particular attention to example #1. This is an almost verbatim response that many atheists have given me as to why they don’t believe in God!! (although they may have added a few more expletives). At the very least, you must admit to me that Open Theism proposes a God who is much different than the God I proclaim. Taking it a step further, if the Calvinistic view is true, then accusations such as these (i.e. “I could never believe in a monstrous God who would do such things”) are made to the very face of God!! What other word is there to describe it but “blasphemy”? Open Theism sets up for itself a different kind of God, I daresay one remade in the image of man, with a different set of character traits that are much easier to live with and much more user friendly to people of the 21st century.
This, my friends, is why I take this issue so seriously. It is NOT the same God I worship. For this reason I can agree with John Piper and say that Open Theism leads to idolatry. As a matter of fact, I would go a step farther than Piper and say that it is idolatry. Why? Because its adherents worship a God who is different from the biblical God, despite the fact that they offer Him lip service. I notice striking similarities with Israel’s Golden Calf incident. What were Aaron’s words?
“Here, O Israel, is your God who brought you out of Egypt!”
The Israelites didn’t think of themselves as turning their back on Yahweh as they worshipped the calf. On the contrary, they were attempting to worship Him! But the attributes of this God were much different than those of Yahweh. Despite the fact that they may have convinced themselves into believing that this was the same God, Yahweh was not honored by their worship. All I am asking is that you consider the cost. Even if you disagree with the Calvinists view of scripture, at least ask yourself, “If their view of God is correct, would God be displeased with the thoughts I am harboring against Him?” This is a weighty matter, much more so than many people realize. Do not neglect to consider it prayerfully and biblically.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/2/2003 9:40 PM (GMT -6) | | What is the point of numerous verses that state God's patience? What does God need to be patient about if everything that happens, the means and the ends, are ordained by God?
2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
1 Timothy 1:15-16: The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the foremost. But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life.
Romans 2:4: Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
2 Peter 3:14-15: Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
It does not insist on its own way
Well that doesn't sound like the God of calvinism, does it?
quote:
I have read Dr. Boyd's treatment of this text and quite frankly, I just don't find it convincing. It’s not that he doesn’t make a good effort; it’s just that he doesn’t have much to work with given his theological starting point.
What exactly is the starting point of Dr.Boyd's? Why didn't you pull out those verses from Jeremiah that Dr.Boyd uses to show what Paul was referring to when he spoke of the "potter and the clay" analogy? If I am not mistaken, a lot of writings in the new testament refer back to the Old Testament; and Paul's writings seem to rest on the assumption that his knowledge of God stemmed from his being versed in the Judaic Law. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
Here is something I could never understand, maybe you can help me? If Paul is speaking of how the Jews rejected God's promise, and he was now grafting gentiles into his plan, how does this refer to some form of "universal predestination" that reaches into the 21st century? And what makes one think they are standing on biblical grounds when this is being addressed in the 1st century to the jewish people, not to 21st century westerners who follow the dogmas of Post reformation theologians who have no better insite into the mind of Paul than we do? (This is why I like N.T. (Tom) Wright's scholarly approach to the bible in the 1st century jewish mindset and not the post-reformation mindset that luther and calvin [and whoever else you mentioned] espoused.)
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/03/2003 02:58:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/3/2003 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I.I. wrote: quote:
I don't know how many times I have heard people try in vain to make Rom. 9 say the exact opposite of what it says. I have read Dr. Boyd's treatment of this text and quite frankly, I just don't find it convincing. It’’s not that he doesn’’t make a good effort; it’’s just that he doesn’’t have much to work with given his theological starting point. I usually don't pull out the Rom. 9 trump card because it usually just makes people get angry and they shut off immediately, and there are plenty of other predestinarian passages that serve the purpose just as well. But this particular passage has been giving libertarians fits for ages. It's like a host of flies swarming around their heads that they keep swatting at but can never succeed in killing.
This is the response that one gets 99% of the time when the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is challenged: “I just don’t find it convincing.” No genuine grappling with the actual text. No real response. You just “don’t find it convincing.” As you (rather revealingly) state above, Boyd’s treatment of Romans 9 is “a good effort”, but it can’t be right(!) “given his theological starting point.” What you seem to be saying is that if Boyd would approach his interpretation of the text from the correct “theological starting point” (determinism, in your view) he would know what Romans 9 really means. The circularity of this reasoning is astounding.
Romans 9 is obviously the central passage for the deterministic worldview. I can understand why the adherents of this worldview need to think of it as their “trump card.” Perhaps, though, the “trump card” status should not be so dogmatically applied. Dr. Boyd and others on this board have spent long hours explaining the libertarian interpretation of this passage. I think it would only be fair to actually engage that interpretation, argument by argument, with your reasons for disagreement, rather than merely dismissing it as unconvincing.
I will post Boyd’s interpretation here again, and hope for a response:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1725&whichpage=1
Please understand that I would be completely comfortable with someone who actually addressed these arguments in a logical and fair-minded fashion, but still came out on the deterministic side of the issue. It’s the dogmatic dismissiveness that irritates me.
I.I. also wrote:quote:
If I fail to trust God in a certain situation (and yes, he did foreordain even that lack of trust), then I can be sure that He had a good purpose in mind even if I never discover His purpose. Perhaps He will use that past situation of mistrust to show me the folly of my ways, and this will cause (yes, a cause predetermined by God) me to trust Him during my next crisis.
But according to your view, why would God be trying to show anyone “the folly of our ways”? Those ways are already determined by God himself. He wanted those ways to be “folly.” Right? If you, I.I., get up from your computer right now and go murder a small child, God wanted you to do it, right? So why would God be angry that you did it? Why would he consider what you did to be wrong or “folly”? The fact is, according to your view, there is absolutely NOTHING that you could choose to do today that God didn’t WANT you to do. Whether you spend 3 or 4 hours in prayer for your cancer-ridden neighbor or you spend 3 or 4 hours raping and murdering your neighbor, you will be doing EXACTLY what God wants you to do. Don’t you see how nonsensical and irrelevant our existence becomes under your theory?
I.I. also wrote:quote:
I am not saying that this is the answer that we all would have expected, or that it makes the most sense to us as humans. The notion that we can't determine our own outcome in life is downright offensive to us! It doesn't seem fair. But, just as Paul says, God is under no obligation to give us an explanation for why things are the way they are, or why He didn't do things differently than He did. God is not on trial here. He has no need to defend himself.
No, God doesn’t “need” to defend himself – he WANTS to. True, there are unknowns that we must trust him for, but that is AFTER he has already demonstrated that he is GOOD and LOVING. In other words, God EXPECTS us to know that he is good and fair and just and righteous. He expects us to believe that he does not want the sin and pain and agony and carnage and misery that characterizes so much of this world. In fact, it is completely contrary to his dream for us.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/3/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS, the place you directed me to only had a brief statement
from Dr. Boyd's larger article, so I will respond to it and later if I have time I might go looking for the full length article.
II: As I understand it, one of Dr. Boyd's main arguments is this:
Hence Paul summarizes his argument in chapter 9 by noting that Gentiles receive the righteousness of God because they have faith while unbelieving Jews were hardened “ecause they did not strive for [righteousness]...on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (30–32, emphasis added). “They were broken off because of their unbelief...” (11:20, emphasis added, cf. 10:3). This is why they as a nation have now been hardened (Rom. 11:7, 25) while the Gentiles who seek God by faith have been “grafted in” (11:23).
When he says, "This is why they as a nation have now been hardened," because they didn't seek righteousness by faith, I agree fully. This in no way contradicts the Reformed view. The question is, whose choice was first? The way we see it, God acts (or purposes things to happen), and then we act as a result of His purposes. As it is written in Is., "Surely as I have planned, so shall it be, as I have purposed, so it will stand..the Lord almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?". One of our key disagreements is over how one attains faith in the first place. From Eph. 2 we read:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
According to the Reformed view, the very faith we have to believe in God is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God sovereignly bestowed. Our new birth(regeneration) which enables us to believe, is "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13
As for those who are perishing, it is perfectly correct to say that they will not be saved because of their unbelief, but the reason they do not believe is because God has not given them the gift of faith.
Look at it this way. I’ll take an example from RC Sproul. Assume that anyone can have faith, or that God gives the gift of faith to everyone. If God gives/offers 2 individuals faith to believe, and they are able to resist this gift or accept it as they choose, and if one accepts God and one rejects God, what accounts for their different responses? If God gives the exact same amount of grace to each individual, then ultimately what determines whether they will be saved or not is not God’s grace, but something from within them. One must be smarter, wiser, or even more aware of his need than the other person. When this person reflects on why he was saved and his friend was not, the answer is obvious. It was because of something he did. He made better use of his grace than the other person. But the Bible says that faith is “not of ourselves, so that no man may boast.” If this scenario were true, then the saved person certainly has something to boast about (even if it is something minor) over against the person who is not saved.
I will go no farther with the topic of faith, since I treated it in a previous post with scriptural texts).
BJS said:
What you seem to be saying is that if Boyd would approach his interpretation of the text from the correct “theological starting point” (determinism, in your view) he would know what Romans 9 really means. The circularity of this reasoning is astounding.
You attributed a little more to me than I actually said.
What I mean is, the sensus naturalis of this passage at face value, regardless of your theological starting point, certainly appears to support the complete Sovereignty of God (in the Reformed sense). That is why this passage is troubling to so many people who don't come at it from a Reformed starting point, because they hope it doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying. All I'm saying is, if people weren't fully committed to libertarianism from the outset, I don't think we would be seeing these kinds of interpretations.
I don't have time to exegete the whole of Rom. 9 (BTW, I actually became Reformed wholly apart from any consideration of this passage, surprising as that may seem to many non-Calvinists), but I will post an excerpt from John Gill's commentaries. I hope this is okay to do. I'm pretty sure that the writings of anyone who is past 50 yrs deceased are in public domain.
Concerning Jacob and Esau:
Ver. 11. For [the children] being not yet born, So says {h} the Chaldee paraphrast,
"the prophet said unto them, was it not said of Jacob,
dylyta ald de, "when he was not yet born", that he should be greater than his brother?''
the Syriac version supplies, "his children", that is, Isaac's; and the Arabic version, "his two children". This shows, that the apostle designs not the posterity, but the very persons of Jacob and Esau; since as he speaks of their conception in the verse preceding, so of their birth in this: and though in the words of God to Rebecca, and which are urged in favour of the other sense, it is said, "two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people", Ge 25:23; yet this primarily respects the persons of Jacob and Esau, as the roots of their respective offspring; and only secondarily their posterity, as branches that should sprout from them; it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca's womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people; and whatever may be said for their respective posterity, taking their rise from one common father Isaac, or for their being chosen or rejected as nations, before they were in being as such, yet it cannot be said with any propriety, that "Rebecca conceived" their several offspring "by one, even by our father Isaac",
There is a whole lot more that is relevant to our discussion if you want to check out Gill's commentaries online.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/3/2003 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
One of our key disagreements is over how one attains faith in the first place. From Eph. 2 we read:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
According to the Reformed view, the very faith we have to believe in God is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God sovereignly bestowed. Our new birth(regeneration) which enables us to believe, is "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13
II: Your take on both of these verses can be challenged. First, in Ephesians 2:8 the Greek word for faith (pistis) is feminine, but the demonstrative pronoun "that" (touto) is neuter. It is not faith that is the gift of God, but the whole antecedent clause, viz. salvation by grace through faith. "Works" in v.9 refers to works of the law. It does not imply that humans make no contribution to their salvation at all. Second, the Greek for the word "man" in John 1:13 is not the generic "anthropos" but the gender-specific "andros", which can equally be translated "husband" (as in the NIV). In short, it is not immediately evident that John 1:13 rules out any and all contribution from human will in the salvific process.
quote:
Look at it this way. I’ll take an example from RC Sproul. Assume that anyone can have faith, or that God gives the gift of faith to everyone. If God gives/offers 2 individuals faith to believe, and they are able to resist this gift or accept it as they choose, and if one accepts God and one rejects God, what accounts for their different responses? If God gives the exact same amount of grace to each individual, then ultimately what determines whether they will be saved or not is not God’s grace, but something from within them. One must be smarter, wiser, or even more aware of his need than the other person. When this person reflects on why he was saved and his friend was not, the answer is obvious. It was because of something he did. He made better use of his grace than the other person. But the Bible says that faith is “not of ourselves, so that no man may boast.” If this scenario were true, then the saved person certainly has something to boast about (even if it is something minor) over against the person who is not saved.
Again, Eph. 2:8 does not say that faith is not of ourselves but that grace is not of ourselves. Second, the verse says "not of WORKS, so that no man may boast" (not, as you have it "not of ourselves, so that no man may boast"). The reason no one can boast is because however hard we might try, we cannot merit salvation by good works. We depend on God's grace. But the kind of "boasting" (the use of the word here is prejudicial) in view in the above scenario is not contrary to Eph 2:9. The Bible frequently refers to those who trust is God as "wise" and those who reject God as "fools". The sort of "boasting" involved in the "wise" remarking that the choices of the "foolish" are indeed foolish has nothing to do with trusting in one's works to secure one's standing with God. Additionally, accepting a free gift (viz. God's gracious offer of salvation) hardly makes it less of a gift.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/4/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | First, I.I., let me say that I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this. I know it's not easy to come into a forum where you know most people will be opposed to Calvinism, and I hope that your purpose is not merely to challenge, but also to be challenged. That is certainly my desire.
I.I. said: quote:
BJS, the place you directed me to only had a brief statement from Dr. Boyd's larger article, so I will respond to it and later if I have time I might go looking for the full length article.
Boyd's entire article is a few posts down that page I referenced. He posted it in its entirety after I mentioned his brief statement. Take a look.
I.I. also wrote:quote:
When he says, "This is why they as a nation have now been hardened," because they didn't seek righteousness by faith, I agree fully. This in no way contradicts the Reformed view. The question is, whose choice was first? The way we see it, God acts (or purposes things to happen), and then we act as a result of His purposes. As it is written in Is., "Surely as I have planned, so shall it be, as I have purposed, so it will stand..the Lord almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?". One of our key disagreements is over how one attains faith in the first place. From Eph. 2 we read:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Yes, as you say, it does come down to the question of "whose choice is first." And it also seems that you acknowledge the rather distasteful nature of the deterministic worldview. You just believe that Scripture explicitly supports it. I understand and respect that. However, wouldn't you be relieved if you could be convinced that Scripture doesn't actually demand that you believe in a God who forces us to do evil?
With that in mind, let's address the passages that you have cited thus far, and explain why they do not demand that you believe this admittedly harsh and distasteful worldview.
Alan explains quite nicely why Eph. 2:8 doesn't demand it.
With regard to your verses from Isaiah 14, as this response explains in more detail, there is no reason to take from that passage that God has exhaustively determined every decision, good and evil, that will ever occur, because (1) the verse does not actually say it, (2) that interpretation would be inconsistent with the context of the verse, and (3) it would be contrary to a mound of other scripture that describes God in fact modifying his plans in response to human action.
Finally, you reference John 1:13. Of course, we would all agree that salvation is God's gift to us, but as Alan points out, it is still a gift that we have to receive. Let's look at the context of John 1, starting with verse 7 and following through to the verse you cite in support of your position, verse 13:
Jhn 1:7 [John] came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
What is this verse saying? John the Baptist was sent to fulfill God's intention that "all" might find salvation through Christ. Either this is disingenuous, or God's intent is that "all" have an opportunity to believe. This of course would be a lie, if God in fact predestined that many would never believe in him.
Jhn 1:8 He was not the Light, but {he came} to testify about the Light.
Jhn 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
Again, the Light is intended for "every" person. Another lie here if God determined before time began that not "every" person was going to be enlightened.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
Jhn 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,
Jhn 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Those who "received Him" and "believed in His name" were given "the right to become the children of God." And as verse 13 says, they "were born" [or, "born again," as we evangelicals like to say] not because of their own ability or effort, but merely because they "received" God's gift, and "believed in His name."
Do you see how your use of that phrase in verse 13 would be entirely inconsistent with the theme of the passage, which is that God desires "all" to respond to Christ, and "every" person to see the "Light"?
I know this is just a start, and there are plenty of other passages that need to be discussed, but let me say again, that I'm glad there is dialogue. One of the common misconceptions that lazy and dogmatic thinkers have about open theism is that it dismisses Scripture in favor of feel-good philosophy. This is why words like "blasphemy" and "heresy" get thrown our way. I hope you can see that even if you aren't ultimately convinced of the open view (though I hope you will be! ), you can respect the position and those who hold to it.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/4/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
First, thanks for picking up on my misquote. It is usually late when I write these, and I sometimes am not quite as careful when I'm tired. I didn't mean to put that phrase in quotes as if I was giving the exact words of scripture, but I was giving my view of what it meant.
You wrote:
First, in Ephesians 2:8 the Greek word for faith (pistis) is feminine, but the demonstrative pronoun "that" (touto) is neuter. It is not faith that is the gift of God, but the whole antecedent clause, viz. salvation by grace through faith.
II:
I assume you take this from Geisler, because it sounds exactly like what he wrote. You are right to say that it is "the whole antecedent clause" that Paul refers to, but you are wrong to say that "it is not faith that is the gift of God." The whole antecedent clause includes "faith". Wouldn't you agree that it is not exclusive of faith, as if only the grace part is coming from God, but we provide the faith ourselves!
As Grudem and Murray emphasize, scripture tells us that we are saved by faith (ek pisteuos) or through faith (dia pitsteuos-gen. case rather than accusative)or upon faith, but never on account of faith or because of faith. Faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. John Murray says, "The fact that scripture, and especially the apostle Paul refrains from using such terms is in itself sufficient to make us careful not to think or speak in any way which would suggest such a view of justification."
My main point from the RC Sproul example was this; in the Arminian view, the ONLY THING that makes the difference in whether a person is saved or not is human effort (even if it is as small an effort as reaching out to recieve a gift). I will be the first to admit to you that I am no better than those who are perishing. I am not being saved because I made a better decision than someone else on account of my own free will. What distinguishes me from those who are perishing is nothing from within myself. It was God's sovereign choice to save me. Ultimately, I think the Arminian must at some point admit that they are going to heaven because of what they have done; namely for having chosen Christ. This is not to say that Christ's works are all for naught under this system, but it very similar to the co-mingling of grace and works that you find in the Catholic system. In Arminianism, faith becomes a work that you must perform of yourself. It was this point that really made me start to consider the Reformed view.
Next, can you explain to me how the use of andros rather than anthropos suggests that there may be an element of human effort involved in the new birth?
This next part is from BJS:
And it also seems that you acknowledge the rather distasteful nature of the deterministic worldview. You just believe that Scripture explicitly supports it. I understand and respect that. However, wouldn't you be relieved if you could be convinced that Scripture doesn't actually demand that you believe in a God who forces us to do evil?
II: At first, yes, it was difficult for me to come to Reformed conclusions about human freedom, but please don't think that I still feel that way. I think it is a glorious thing, and my awe and fear of God have increased a hundredfold since the time my views changed. I don't intend to defend my statements here (because I am sure many people would find this dreadful) I am just telling you what happened to me personally.
I have more to write, but I'm going to send this off and then see if I can find John Owen's works on the net so I don't have to retype long sections of his work that are so fitting for what I'm about to say.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/4/2003 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | (I sent this once but it didn't seem to go through. I apologize if for some reason it appears twice)
Next, you referred to John 1:7.
You said: Do you see how your use of that phrase in verse 13 would be entirely inconsistent with the theme of the passage, which is that God desires "all" to respond to Christ, and "every" person to see the "Light"?
This is a key text. I’m very glad you mentioned it. Go back to the verse and read it carefully. You will see that the evangelist is not referring to Jesus, but John the Baptist when he says, "that all men through him might believe." The Bible never speaks of us believing “through” Christ, but always in/into (eis) Christ or on (epi) Christ. I don’t think this point is really even disputed by modern scholars. Now, here is the significance of this, in the words of John Owen. I know this is long and the English is old, but please read it carefully. It is a good example of how many “All” passages in scripture have been abused by those supporting the general ransom. You will also note just how serious of a distortion of scripture Owen thought this to be. You might want to read this with a Bible in hand. I’ll underline a few points for ease of reading.
Owen says: “The next thing is from John i. 4, 7. Verse 4 is, that Christ was the " life of men;" which is most true, no life being to be had for any man but only in and through him. This not being at all to the question, the next words of verse 7 [are], " That all men through him might believe;" which words being thrust in, to piece-up a sense with another fraction of Scripture, seem to have some weight, as though Christ were sent that all men through him might believe. A goodly show! seeming no less to make for 'universal redemption than the Scripture cited by the devil, after he had cut off' part of it, did for our Saviour's casting himself from the pinnacle of the temple. But if you cast aside the sophistry of the old serpent, the expression of this place is not a little available to invalidate the thesis sought to be maintained by it. The words are, " There was a man sent &am God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." Now, who do you think is there meant by " through him?" Is it Christ, think you, the light ? or John, the witness of the light? Certainly John, as almost all expositors do agree, except certain among the Papists, and Grotius,-- that Ishmael. So the Syriac interpreter, reading, " By his hand or ministry." So the word infers; for we are not said to believe " by Christ," or, as it should be here, " by the light;" but John xii. 36, " in the light," not by it. And Acts ix. 42, " believed in the Lord;" so also, Rom. ix. 33, " Every one that believeth on him." So in divers places, in him; but no mention of believing by him, which rather denotes the instrument of believing, as is the ministry of the word, than the object of faith, as Christ is. This being apparent, let us see what is affirmed of John, why he was sent " that all through him might believe." Now, this word all here hath all the qualifications which our author requireth for it, to be always esteemed a certain expression of a collective universality, that it is spoken of God, etc. And who, I pray you, were these all, that were intended to be brought to the faith by the ministry of John? 'Were they not only all those that lived throughout the world in his days, who preached (a few years) in Judea only, but also all those that were dead before his nativity, and that were born after his death, and shall be to the end of the world in any place under heaven? Let them that can believe it enjoy their persuasion, with this assurance that I will never be their rival; being fully persuaded that by all men here is meant only some of all sorts, to whom his word did come. So that the necessary sense of the word all here is wholly destructive to the proposition.”
I don’t think this passage could be treated much better. In my opinion, Owen clearly demonstrates how this "All" passage doesn't refer to "every single individual on the face of the earth." I was hoping someone would bring this up at one point or another, because I found this stuff really convincing w/ regard to Limited Atonement. I think some of the most powerful arguments for limited atonement are found in Owen’s clear expositions of some of the “All” passages, and “the whole world” passages. Would anyone disagree that if Limited Atonement could be proved, that the libertarian view would have to be abandoned? I’m interested in some feedback. I have to add, however, that I start classes tomorrow, which means I won’t have much time to write after today, so the sooner the better! Thanks guys.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/4/2003 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | I.I. said:quote:
II: At first, yes, it was difficult for me to come to Reformed conclusions about human freedom, but please don't think that I still feel that way. I think it is a glorious thing, and my awe and fear of God have increased a hundredfold since the time my views changed. I don't intend to defend my statements here (because I am sure many people would find this dreadful) I am just telling you what happened to me personally.
I have met few Calvinists who would actually say what you have just said: that you find it "a glorious thing" that God has forced people into hell for his own pleasure. Yes, I do believe many people would find this "dreadful", as you put it. Frankly, I think God finds it "dreadful" that he is painted this way by those who claim to speak for him. Just as Christ wept over Jerusalem when he saw that they did not accept him for who he was (Luke 19:41-44), he demonstrated that God yearns for our response to him, and is saddened and grieved when we refuse to accept him. Christ's weeping would of course be nonsensical and even disingenous if God had from the very beginning intended that those in Jerusalem would reject him.
In reference to John 1:7, you said: quote:
You will see that the evangelist is not referring to Jesus, but John the Baptist when he says, "that all men through him might believe." The Bible never speaks of us believing “through” Christ, but always in/into (eis) Christ or on (epi) Christ.
First, read my post. I stated quite clearly that verse 7 meant that "John the Baptist was sent to fulfill God's intention that "all" might find salvation through Christ." I was not confused by who the evangelist is referring to. More importantly, I.I., how does the point you are trying to make here support your position? God sent sent John (v. 6) so "that ALL men through him might believe" (v. 7). How does what you say above change the meaning of that scriptural statement?
I.I. further stated: quote:
In my opinion, Owen clearly demonstrates how this "All" passage doesn't refer to "every single individual on the face of the earth."
Again, why does this matter, I.I.? How does this support your point? Whether John's use of the word "all" is there referring to "every single individual on the face of the earth" or just those within his local Judean area, your deterministic interpretation cannot be correct. Let's give it "all" the more limited definition. Let's say that instead of referring to "all" people everywhere, it only refers to "all" people within the local Judean area. So God wanted "all" people within the local area to be saved. Then why didn't everyone accept him, I.I.? Why did so many reject him? Because while God wanted them to be saved, many chose not accept him.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/4/2003 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS: First, read my post. I stated quite clearly that verse 7 meant that "John the Baptist was sent to fulfill God's intention that "all" might find salvation through Christ." I was not confused by who the evangelist is referring to.
II: When you said this,referring to verse 7,
"What is this verse saying? John the Baptist was sent to fulfill God's intention that "all" might find salvation through Christ."
it sounded to me like you were paraphrasing v.7b, and in that case the "through him" would have referred to Christ, while it should be referring to John. Do you see what I mean? The verse doesn't say anything about "all finding salvation through Christ" but that "all through him (John) might believe." There is a big difference.
II: In my opinion, Owen clearly demonstrates how this "All" passage doesn't refer to "every single individual on the face of the earth."
----------------------------------------------------------------------BJS: Again, why does this matter, I.I.? How does this support your point?
It matters a whole bunch, because in nearly every instance in which the words "all" or "the whole world" are used in the NT, Arminians attempt to apply it to every person w/out exception, which is clearly not how the terms are being utilized.
BJS: John the Baptist was sent to fulfill God's intention that "all" might find salvation through Christ. Either this is disingenuous, or God's intent is that "all" have an opportunity to believe. This of course would be a lie, if God in fact predestined that many would never believe in him.
II: Again, the part that "all" might find salvation through Christ" is misleading. John preaches and the external call goes out to everyone he can reach (although certainly not everyone w/out exception, because countless many have died never hearing the Gospel from either John or anyone else). This external call is not disingenuous, it is a real call for people to repent, even to those who are unable to repent, not from a natural inability, but from a moral inability (this is a distinction Edwards uses in Freedom of the Will).
Concerning the light that lighteth "every" man, again, this is an Arminian misuse of the word "every".
John Gill says:
Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: the sense is, either that every man that is enlightened in a spiritual manner, is enlightened by him, which is true of Christ, as the Son of God, existing from the beginning; but not in the Socinian sense, as if they were enlightened by his human ministry and example; for the Old Testament saints were not enlightened by his preaching; and many were enlightened by the ministry of John the Baptist; and multitudes afterwards, through the ministry of the apostles; and very few, comparatively, were enlightened under the ministry of Christ; and none we read of, in this sense, enlightened by him, when, and as soon as they came into, the world: or, the meaning is, that he is that light which lighteth all sorts of men;
In what sense are they enlightened by him that remain in darkness?
Well, my time is up. I'd like to write more, but my school vacation ends tomorrow at 8AM. I might check on things periodically, but I'll be quite limited from here on out. Thanks for chatting, Grant
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/5/2003 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | I.I. said:quote:
The verse doesn't say anything about "all finding salvation through Christ" but that "all through him (John) might believe." There is a big difference.
This is getting very disjointed. I ask again, please explain how the distinction you are making here supports your position of determinism. With either of the alternatives above, it is clear that God wants "all" to become believers. What are you trying to say?
I.I. further said:quote:
II: Again, the part that "all" might find salvation through Christ" is misleading. John preaches and the external call goes out to everyone he can reach (although certainly not everyone w/out exception, because countless many have died never hearing the Gospel from either John or anyone else). This external call is not disingenuous, it is a real call for people to repent, even to those who are unable to repent, not from a natural inability, but from a moral inability (this is a distinction Edwards uses in Freedom of the Will).
Once again, I stated quite clearly that even if we do not apply the word "all" to the entire human race, but only to those within John's local sphere of influence, you still run into the same problem. Again, let's just say that God sent John so that ALL who heard him could believe. But we know that all of them did not. So what does that tell us? That there were those who God wanted to believe who did not. You see, your rather strained attempt to define away the word "all" in v. 7 is in the end irrelevant to the point because it doesn't matter whether "all" refers to the entire human race, or whether it only refers to the more limited "all" that encompassed only those within John's local and temporal sphere of influence. Either way, Scripture is telling us that God's intent was that "all" of a group of people under John's influence would believe, when many of that group chose not to. You really must respond to this, I.I.
[BTW, hope school started well for you!]
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Edited by - BJS on 02/05/2003 11:29:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/5/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | II: When he says, "This is why they as a nation have now been hardened," because they didn't seek righteousness by faith, I agree fully. This in no way contradicts the Reformed view. The question is, whose choice was first? The way we see it, God acts (or purposes things to happen), and then we act as a result of His purposes.
Doc: Its not clear to me how you can agree with me (and Paul) that God hardened the Jews BECAUSE OF their unbelief while at the same time maintaining that they did not believe BECAUSE God choose to harden them? It SOUNDS like your saying: a) God choose to harden them which led to b) their unbelief which led to c) God hardening them.
II: What I mean is, the sensus naturalis of this passage at face value, regardless of your theological starting point, certainly appears to support the complete Sovereignty of God (in the Reformed sense).
Doc: Its interesting that your "sensus naturalis" was completely missed by the church until Augustine. We have to remember that the natural sense of a text must be defined by the original community, which means trying to take into account all the factors that influenced THEIR hearing of the text. It seems to me that the Reformed treatment of Romans 9 is flawed because it doesn’t adequately do this. It treats the passage as though Paul were here giving a discourse on individual soteriology rather than the question he himself says he’s trying to answer: "has the word of God failed" (9:6).
BJS: You see, your rather strained attempt to define away the word "all" in v. 7 is in the end irrelevant to the point because it doesn't matter whether "all" refers to the entire human race, or whether it only refers to the more limited "all" that encompassed only those within John's local and temporal sphere of influence. Either way, Scripture is telling us that God's intent was that "all" of a group of people under John's influence would believe, when many of that group chose not to. You really must respond to this, I.I.
Doc: I agree with you BJS. But there no need to worry about the specific reference of the "all" in Jn 1:7. Plenty of other verses specify God’s desire for all to be saved. E.g.
Rom. 11:32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
1Tim. 2:6 [Jesus] who gave himself a ransom for all
1Tim. 4:10 For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
Thanks for your patient and courteous interactions with us free willers InterestedInquirer and Reasonabledoubt. We appreciate and enjoy the dialogue.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|