[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Nang

Well, the original sin of Adam is the foundation for the doctrine of Total Depravity. Romans 5:12-19

Through Adam's representation, all his biological offspring (the entire human race) was imputed with the guilt of sin and received the condemnation of God, evidenced by inescapable death.

All men are sinners.

All men are consigned (accursed) to death.

All men serve the devil through fear of this death. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

Every facet of human nature has been corrupted by sin; even the "heart" (intellect and will) is only inclined to choose evil. Fallen men cannot choose to serve God, because they are enslaved to sin, death, and the devil.

The only remedy to this totally depraved condition, is the grace and forgiveness of God, which has been provided by the Father by sending His Son Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. Romans 5:20-21

Now, you may not agree with this, but you cannot say you do not understand it, else you would be saying you do not understand the gospel message contained in Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 2:10-17

I agree that salvation was not possible for anyone due to Adam's sin without the suffering and death of Jesus which He did for all men
so
we are all redeemed
but
to be saved we still have to prove that we can be trusted
because
we have free will

our salvation depends on what we do

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Nang

You are kidding, are you not?!!!

What is it about TULIP doctrines that I have failed to make clear to you?

. . . and that is the reason we disagree with it. Plus, the (your) reasoning in the attempt to support it is ludicrous.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

I agree that salvation was not possible for anyone due to Adam's sin without the suffering and death of Jesus

This is the foundational truth of the doctrine of Total Depravity, and I am glad to see you do understand and agree with what I mean by the term.

which He did for all men
so
we are all redeemed
but
to be saved we still have to prove that we can be trusted
because
we have free will

our salvation depends on what we do

Here you are expressing disagreement with the doctrine of Limited Atonement, so I can assume you also comprehend this teaching also, even though you take the opposite view ("Unlimited Atonement").

What produces and develops the doctrine of a Limited Atonement, is the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

Are you clear as to what Unconditional Election is all about?

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Nang

This is the foundational truth of the doctrine of Total Depravity, and I am glad to see you do understand and agree with what I mean by the term.






Here you are expressing disagreement with the doctrine of Limited Atonement, so I can assume you also comprehend this teaching also, even though you take the opposite view ("Unlimited Atonement").

What produces and develops the doctrine of a Limited Atonement, is the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

Are you clear as to what Unconditional Election is all about?

here is where I ask if it matters what we do
you say yes
and
I say that is a condition

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

Which I deny, but in order to misrepresent my views, you persist in the accusation anyway.

That adds up to bearing false witness against me and my word.

You can deny it all you want, but I've spent many posts demonstrating that this is, in fact, the case.

I am forced to guess you refer to Exodus 32:14. However, this conclusion that God "changed His mind" must be reconciled with Numbers 23:19.

How does the Open View harmonize the two teachings?

1) You've provided the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're using Numbers 23:19 to refute a clear reading of Exodus 32:14.

2) Numbers 23:19 has to be understood in context. This come from the story of Balak and Balaam, where Balak wanted the prophet of YHWH (Balaam) to prophesy against Israel and to curse them. Balak asks for two attempts.

Response #1:

“From Aram Balak has brought me,
the king of Moab from the eastern mountains:
‘Come, curse Jacob for me,
and come, denounce Israel!’
8 How can I curse whom God has not cursed?
How can I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced?
9 For from the top of the crags I see him,
from the hills I behold him;
behold, a people dwelling alone,
and not counting itself among the nations!
10 Who can count the dust of Jacob
or number the fourth part[a] of Israel?
Let me die the death of the upright,
and let my end be like his!”

Balaam reports back that he cannot curse whom God has not cursed.

So, Balak asks him to try again.

13 And Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place, from which you may see them. You shall see only a fraction of them and shall not see them all. Then curse them for me from there.” 14 And he took him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

And Balaam comes back with:

“Rise, Balak, and hear;
give ear to me, O son of Zippor:
19 God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
20 Behold, I received a command to bless:
he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.
21 He has not beheld misfortune in Jacob,
nor has he seen trouble in Israel.
The Lord their God is with them,
and the shout of a king is among them.
22 God brings them out of Egypt
and is for them like the horns of the wild ox.
23 For there is no enchantment against Jacob,
no divination against Israel;
now it shall be said of Jacob and Israel,
‘What has God wrought!’
24 Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up
and as a lion it lifts itself;
it does not lie down until it has devoured the prey
and drunk the blood of the slain.”

So, what we see here is Balak is trying to change God's mind about Israel by appeasing Him with altars and sacrifices. And Balak tries again, and Balaam returns a third time to bless Israel.

So, returning to Numbers 23:19, we see that God has spoken through his prophet already, and this Balak is trying to appease God to change His mind. But changing His mind would constitute God lying in the first reply from God. And God is saying that He isn't fickle like men. He doesn't lie like men do, nor is He appeased into changing His mind by pretty sacrifices.

Exodus 32, then, is a completely different circumstance. Israel IS under God's judgment, and God decides He's going to fulfill His promise to Abraham by making a great nation of Moses, and so declares to Moses that this is His plan, and tells Moses to go away.

But Moses doesn't go away. Instead, Moses basically says that he doesn't want any part of being a nation that's a laughing stock in Egypt because God will appeared to have acted against Israel with evil intent.

So, without Moses' cooperation, God has to change His mind. And He does. This isn't a case of God being fickle or choosing to curse Israel after refusing to do so. God's hand is simply forced by the one individual He needs to continue down the path He desired to go.

And, if we keep reading, we see that the tent of meeting has been moved outside the camp, a good distance from the camp. God hasn't just gone back to normal. There are consequences coming for Israel when this scene is repeated in Numbers 14.

Thus, when we consider both contexts individually, we need not use Numbers 23:19 to refute Exodus 32:14. Both can be accepted as they are properly exegeted independently.

Now, I'm sure you'll mock my exegesis, but you won't be able to present an alternative without refuting what Exo 32:14 says.

I am surprised you would persist in this groundless accusation after having read Piper's exegesis of God's dealings with Pharaoh.

Again, I don't use scripture to refute Scripture, so how Piper deals with Pharaoh wouldn't impact this passage.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

here is where I ask if it matters what we do
you say yes
and
I say that is a condition

Election is conditioned upon the sovereign will and good purposes of God, alone.

Election was determined by God before any of us were born (Romans 9:11). Election was decreed even before God created the world. (Ephesians 1:4).

There are "children of flesh" (like Abraham's son Ishmael) and there are the "children of promise" (like Abraham's son Isaac).

God did not elect to save all men, but covenanted to redeem only many "children of promise." This is revealed in Galatians 4:21-31

Therefore, election is taught to be unconditional upon the works, actions, or decisions of sinners.

However, a "child of promise" who is redeemed by the elect purposes and grace of God, is then freed from his former condition of depravity, and his heart ("intellect and will") is freed to serve righteousness.

From the point of regeneration on, the willful choices and acts of the elect believers do matter in the eyes of God, for they become the very witness of God and His grace through their daily lives and worship. It is these who are commissioned to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, so their willful actions DO matter!

Not for justification, for all of forgiveness and salvation is the solely the result of God's sovereign mercy and compassion. (Romans 9:16-18), but Christians are to bear witness of the anointing of the Holy Spirit through their works, for holy sanctification. (I John 2:20)

[OMEGA]

Ro 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

De 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me,

and keep all my commandments always,

that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Nang

Election is conditioned upon the sovereign will and good purposes of God, alone.

Election was determined by God before any of us were born (Romans 9:11). Election was decreed even before God created the world. (Ephesians 1:4).

There are "children of flesh" (like Abraham's son Ishmael) and there are the "children of promise" (like Abraham's son Isaac).

God did not elect to save all men, but covenanted to redeem only many "children of promise." This is revealed in Galatians 4:21-31

Therefore, election is taught to be unconditional upon the works, actions, or decisions of sinners.

However, a "child of promise" who is redeemed by the elect purposes and grace of God, is then freed from his former condition of depravity, and his heart ("intellect and will") is freed to serve righteousness.

From the point of regeneration on, the willful choices and acts of the elect believers do matter in the eyes of God, for they become the very witness of God and His grace through their daily lives and worship. It is these who are commissioned to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, so their willful actions DO matter!

Not for justification, for all of forgiveness and salvation is the solely the result of God's sovereign mercy and compassion. (Romans 9:16-18), but Christians are to bear witness of the anointing of the Holy Spirit through their works, for holy sanctification. (I John 2:20)

just for once forget all that scripture
and
ask yourself what are we doing here
and
see if you can come up with a reason that makes sense

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Thus, when we consider both contexts individually, we need not use Numbers 23:19 to refute Exodus 32:14. Both can be accepted as they are properly exegeted independently.

And I agree. Both passages deal with matters of human intercession, and they are harmonized according to the will of God being performed. No reason to refute either Scripture, for both teach about the prayers of men being ordained and utilized by God to accomplish His purposes decreed before the foundation of the world.

I would only question why Exodus 32:14 is used (as a proof text) to establish a theology that does refute hundreds of other Scriptures that clearly reveal God is Sovereign over all His creation and is not subject, nor dependent upon the acts and/or choices of His creatures. (Romans 9:16-18)

[Nang]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

just for once forget all that scripture
and
ask yourself what are we doing here
and
see if you can come up with a reason that makes sense

Who is "we?" There is no universal "we."

The "children of flesh" are here in this world for a different purpose than the "children of promise." Distinction must be made between believers and unbelievers.

The answer is found in Romans 9:22-23.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

And I agree. Both passages deal with matters of human intercession, and they are harmonized according to the will of God being performed. No reason to refute either Scripture, for both teach about the prayers of men being ordained and utilized by God to accomplish His purposes decreed before the foundation of the world.

I would only question why Exodus 32:14 is used (as a proof text) to establish a theology that does refute hundreds of other Scriptures that clearly reveal God is Sovereign over all His creation and is not subject, nor dependent upon the acts and/or choices of His creatures. (Romans 9:16-18)

This is an excellent example you provide. You see, Romans 9:16-18 starts with "it depends..." Thus, the passage only refers to that which "it" refers to (specifically God's choice to extend eternal life only to those in Israel who believe, and not to the entire nation of Israel), which is analogized by God's choosing of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, and God's choice to harden Pharaoh's heart.

It says nothing about this applying to any choice God makes.

Thus, you've done it again, you've used your (invalid) interpretation of one scripture to refute the clear text of another. Using Scripture to refute Scripture.

What you cannot do (which I have done) is to explain Exodus 32:14 only using its local context. And that's because the local context all directly points to God changing His mind. Thus, the only way you can get away from Scripture is to refute this Scripture with other Scripture.

I find that to be very poor theological practice.

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Nang

Who is "we?" There is no universal "we."

The "children of flesh" are here in this world for a different purpose than the "children of promise." Distinction must be made between believers and unbelievers.

The answer is found in Romans 9:22-23.

now how could I possibly misrepresent that?

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

This is an excellent example you provide. You see, Romans 9:16-18 starts with "it depends..." Thus, the passage only refers to that which "it" refers to (specifically God's choice to extend eternal life only to those in Israel who believe, and not to the entire nation of Israel), which is analogized by God's choosing of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, and God's choice to harden Pharaoh's heart.

It says nothing about this applying to any choice God makes.

Romans 9:16-18 is a reiteration of Romans 9:15, which gives answer to question of whether God is unrighteous to choose to love Jacob and hate Esau. Romans 9:13-14

The entire passage abides within the context of Romans 9:11 (which explains vss 6-10), so your criticism falls flat.

Thus, you've done it again, you've used your (invalid) interpretation of one scripture to refute the clear text of another. Using Scripture to refute Scripture.

I refute no Scripture. Not one.

Another one of your false accusations against me in the attempt to bear false witness against my testimony to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

What you cannot do (which I have done) is to explain Exodus 32:14 only using its local context. And that's because the local context all directly points to God changing His mind.

The immediate context of one Scripture cannot contradict other contexts or other scriptures. Each and every word of God is compatible and able to be reconciled and harmonized.

[Vaquero45]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I wish...people were as quick to apologize as they were to offend.

Why dont YOU shut UP!!?

Sorry.










(and sorry nang that didnt do much much for your thread )

[Nang]

Originally Posted by Vaquero45

Why dont YOU shut UP!!?

Sorry.










(and sorry nang that didnt do much much for your thread )