Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[Derf]

Man's purposes are not always selfish. Even those without the law must do things of the law in order to be judged by the law (Romans 2:14-16). Yes, the human nature when it comes into contact with law tends to sin (Romans 7:5-9), but that isn't always his purpose.

I don't think the selfish things are always sinful things. Sometimes the selfish goal might fit with the law. But in general human purpose and selfishness run along the same track--it's kind of the definition of one's "purpose" (defined in Webster as "something set up as an object or end to be attained" and if it's the human's purpose, then it's for what the human desires to get or "attain"). There are a few extraordinary cases, like a mother sacrificing for her child, or someone who might die for a good man (Rom 5:7).

And I'm not sure Romans 7:5-9 says what you are saying it says. Rather, it talks of "passions", which are really desires to please ourselves, thus selfishness. No, I don't believe we always do only those things driven by our passions, but it's hard to find very many things that aren't. Even things we do that we don't want to do are often because we don't want the hurt promised us (like paying a ticket for running a red light, or the loss of life or property from the crash when we run that light). Paul speaks of keeping our zeal (same as passion?) pointed in the right direction in Rom 12:11 (NIV). The opposite, "lagging in diligence" (NKJV) or "slothfulness" (other translations), is also a desire to please ourselves, rather than work hard for the Lord. I certainly feel that tug. A lot. Every day.

Jesus' primary goal here on earth was to do what the Father told Him to. And He had to set aside His own desires to do so (Not MY will, but Thine be done. Luk 22:42). Which tells me His human passions were to please himself, and he had to fight against them sweating drops of blood, or "buffet his body" as per Paul (1 Cor 9:27).

(It also tells me that such desires not to go through hard or painful trials are not part of a "sin" nature, since Jesus didn't have one of those, though giving in to those desires more easily seems to be. Adam also had no sin nature at the first, and he still gave in to the temptation to please himself--so he could "be like God" (Gen 3:5-6))

 

[Lighthouse]

Not really trying to argue, but think through it. My point was that if free will is dependent on ability to do otherwise, which some say and which I thought you were suggesting, then God doesn't have free will either. Most (or all) Christians believe God has free will, therefore we, too, have free will, even if we can't do otherwise.

I don't know for sure if Jesus was able to be unrighteous. But someone being tempted that can't succumb is hardly a consolation for those of us that can (Heb 4:15). "Yet without sin" is a far cry from "Yet He couldn't sin". I'm not sure why it's a big deal to some that Jesus not be able to sin vs just not giving in to sin.

1. Jesus was able to not give in, ever. We are not. We are occasionally able to not give in, but we are not able to never give in.
2. God can do otherwise, except when it comes to violations of who He is. He cannot be anything other than what He is. He is righteous by nature; He cannot be unrighteous, therefore He cannot do anything unrighteous. He is God; He cannot be anything other than God. But He can sing if He wants to, and He can also choose not to sing: for example.

I want to clarify this: Our state of sin is not predicated on our acts of sin; it is predicated on the fact that we are not righteous of our own accord. We can't be, because we're not divine. God is. He is righteous; He cannot be otherwise. We are unrighteous [without Him] and we cannot be otherwise [without Him].

That's what sin is: unrighteousness, or the state of not meeting God's standard. God is incapable of not meeting His standard, but that doesn't mean He isn't free to act within His nature and do or do otherwise, as long as neither violates His nature.

No one wold make the fallacious and ridiculous argument that I don't have freedom of will simply because I don't have the ability to fly like a bird. So why make the argument that God isn't free because He can't sin?

 

[Derf]

1. Jesus was able to not give in, ever. We are not. We are occasionally able to not give in, but we are not able to never give in.

Yes Jesus was able to resist temptation perfectly. Was He able to give in to temptation? I don't know for sure, and it sounds like you aren't quite sure. That's fine, it's a hard question to answer.

By "we" I assume you mean us descendants of Adam. And do you think Adam was in the same boat as us or not (see discussion below).

• God can do otherwise, except when it comes to violations of who He is. He cannot be anything other than what He is. He is righteous by nature; He cannot be unrighteous, therefore He cannot do anything unrighteous. He is God; He cannot be anything other than God. But He can sing if He wants to, and He can also choose not to sing: for example.

I want to clarify this: Our state of sin is not predicated on our acts of sin; it is predicated on the fact that we are not righteous of our own accord. We can't be, because we're not divine. God is. He is righteous; He cannot be otherwise. We are unrighteous [without Him] and we cannot be otherwise [without Him].

So, by your definition, Adam was unable to avoid eating of the wrong tree, since he wasn't divine? God gave him a standard to meet that he couldn't meet? why then do we say we fell in Adam, since it seems a foregone conclusion that all men will fall anyway. And doesn't that impugn God's ability to make a man that is "very good", unless He made him divine in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of "divine".

That's what sin is: unrighteousness, or the state of not meeting God's standard. God is incapable of not meeting His standard, but that doesn't mean He isn't free to act within His nature and do or do otherwise, as long as neither violates His nature.

No one wold make the fallacious and ridiculous argument that I don't have freedom of will simply because I don't have the ability to fly like a bird. So why make the argument that God isn't free because He can't sin?

"No one"? I disagree--some do make the "fallacious and ridiculous argument" that if we can't do right always, that means we don't have free will. I've heard Calvinists make that argument (not all, but some).

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes Jesus was able to resist temptation perfectly. Was He able to give in to temptation? I don't know for sure, and it sounds like you aren't quite sure. That's fine, it's a hard question to answer.

If He had been able to then He would have been able to become unrighteous. He was not able to become unrighteous.

By "we" I assume you mean us descendants of Adam. And do you think Adam was in the same boat as us or not (see discussion below).

Yes, I mean the descendants of Adam. Adam was obviously able to disobey, and thereby be unrighteous. But He was created righteous, and being ignorant of good and evil he was able to remain that way if he had obeyed and continued to be ignorant.

So, by your definition, Adam was unable to avoid eating of the wrong tree, since he wasn't divine? God gave him a standard to meet that he couldn't meet? why then do we say we fell in Adam, since it seems a foregone conclusion that all men will fall anyway. And doesn't that impugn God's ability to make a man that is "very good", unless He made him divine in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of "divine".

Adam was able to avoid eating of the tree, because of his ignorance of good and evil. [See above]

"No one"? I disagree--some do make the "fallacious and ridiculous argument" that if we can't do right always, that means we don't have free will. I've heard Calvinists make that argument (not all, but some).

But they would not make the argument that my inability to fly means I am not free. Their argument would focus on my inability to be perfect. I was showing the fallacious nature of their arguments by showing that inability to act outside of nature isn't what negates will.

 

[Derf]

If He had been able to then He would have been able to become unrighteous. He was not able to become unrighteous.


Yes, I mean the descendants of Adam. Adam was obviously able to disobey, and thereby be unrighteous. But He was created righteous, and being ignorant of good and evil he was able to remain that way if he had obeyed and continued to be ignorant.


Adam was able to avoid eating of the tree, because of his ignorance of good and evil. [See above]


But they would not make the argument that my inability to fly means I am not free. Their argument would focus on my inability to be perfect. I was showing the fallacious nature of their arguments by showing that inability to act outside of nature isn't what negates will.

I think I'm in agreement with you about everything above except these 2 things:

1. If He had been able to then He would have been able to become unrighteous. He was not able to become unrighteous. (my reasoning given from before--if Jesus was unable to do wrong it is no consolation to us that He was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin, as I said before. Rather He was UNWILLING to become unrighteous, something we cannot be without help, I believe.)
2. But they would not make the argument that my inability to fly means I am not free. (You might be right that they would never use those terms, but they are doing essentially the same thing with their argument, so maybe we're in agreement there, too.)

In regard to Jesus, I have as hard a time as everybody else discerning how Jesus could have two natures and how that works, especially the one that is capable of sinning and the other one that is incapable of sinning. But One thing about Jesus' divine nature is that "sin" is mostly non-existent for Him as God. Think about it. God makes all the rules, including "Do not kill". Sin is defined by not following His rules. But His rules are for His creations, and not for Himself, in general. He can and does kill, but I don't know that He can murder, because murder seems to be human verse human. So to say that God is not unrighteous is tautological. "God would never do what God would never do." And if God did it, then it must not be a sin for Him (like commanding the Hebrews to wipe out the Canaanites, for instance, or asking a spirit to lie to deceive Ahab and ensuring he will be successful at it, from 1 Kings 22:22.)

Could Jesus have murdered? Yes, at least because he was human, and that made murder a possibility.

On the point about ignorance of good and evil being the way to remain righteous, that again makes one question how God can stay righteous, when He is NOT ignorant of good and evil (Gen 3:22).

 

[Lighthouse]

I think I'm in agreement with you about everything above except these 2 things:

1. If He had been able to then He would have been able to become unrighteous. He was not able to become unrighteous. (my reasoning given from before--if Jesus was unable to do wrong it is no consolation to us that He was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin, as I said before. Rather He was UNWILLING to become unrighteous, something we cannot be without help, I believe.)
2. But they would not make the argument that my inability to fly means I am not free. (You might be right that they would never use those terms, but they are doing essentially the same thing with their argument, so maybe we're in agreement there, too.)

He may be theoretically able, but it's so opposite of his nature and character that He would never even consider doing it.

In regard to Jesus, I have as hard a time as everybody else discerning how Jesus could have two natures and how that works, especially the one that is capable of sinning and the other one that is incapable of sinning. But One thing about Jesus' divine nature is that "sin" is mostly non-existent for Him as God. Think about it. God makes all the rules, including "Do not kill". Sin is defined by not following His rules. But His rules are for His creations, and not for Himself, in general. He can and does kill, but I don't know that He can murder, because murder seems to be human verse human. So to say that God is not unrighteous is tautological. "God would never do what God would never do." And if God did it, then it must not be a sin for Him (like commanding the Hebrews to wipe out the Canaanites, for instance, or asking a spirit to lie to deceive Ahab and ensuring he will be successful at it, from 1 Kings 22:22.)

Actually the rule is not "do not kill," as evidenced by the fact He commanded the same people under the law to kill; including those who broke the specific law of "Do not murder." And lying in and of itself isn't a sin either. As evidenced by the story you referenced and others; for ex. Rahab.

And sin is not defined as breaking His rules; it's defined as missing the mark of righteousness.

Could Jesus have murdered? Yes, at least because he was human, and that made murder a possibility.

In a sense; theoretically.

On the point about ignorance of good and evil being the way to remain righteous, that again makes one question how God can stay righteous, when He is NOT ignorant of good and evil (Gen 3:22).

Divinity. And also the fact that righteousness is eternal. It's permanent. One who is righteous can't be unrighteous. So I think "righteous" was the wrong word to use in reference to Adam's state between his creation and The Fall.

 

[Derf]

[/LIST]
He may be theoretically able, but it's so opposite of his nature and character that He would never even consider doing it.

But He had a new nature--a different one. That new nature didn't have an inherent righteousness, as you pointed out with Adam (below). He had to actually make righteous choices.

Actually the rule is not "do not kill," as evidenced by the fact He commanded the same people under the law to kill; including those who broke the specific law of "Do not murder." And lying in and of itself isn't a sin either. As evidenced by the story you referenced and others; for ex. Rahab.

Thank you for making my point for me. It's ok to "kill", but not ok to "murder". Since God is not on the same level with human beings, He cannot possibly murder one of them--it's not a moral thing, it's an ontological thing. Jesus broke the ontological barrier.

And sin is not defined as breaking His rules; it's defined as missing the mark of righteousness.

And the difference is??? Can we tell what the mark is without rules to follow? How did Adam "miss the mark"? By disobeying the command God gave him not to eat of the wrong tree (listening to the wrong authority). How did Israel "miss the mark"? by doing the things God told them not to do--like having other gods (following after the wrong authority). How do we miss the mark? by not believing in Jesus Christ (not heeding the Holy Spirit, or not following the right authority).

Divinity. And also the fact that righteousness is eternal. It's permanent. One who is righteous can't be unrighteous. So I think "righteous" was the wrong word to use in reference to Adam's state between his creation and The Fall.

Ezekiel doesn't seem to agree with you that righteousness is eternal:

Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. [Eze 3:20 KJV]

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. [Eze 18:24 KJV]

When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. [Eze 18:26 KJV]

When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. [Eze 33:18 KJV]​

 

[Lighthouse]

But He had a new nature--a different one. That new nature didn't have an inherent righteousness, as you pointed out with Adam (below). He had to actually make righteous choices.

Adam didn't have to make righteous choices because he was never given the opportunity to make choices between right and wrong until that day.

And Jesus had the righteousness inherent with being God.

What Scripture do you look to for support of the hypostatic union?

Thank you for making my point for me. It's ok to "kill", but not ok to "murder". Since God is not on the same level with human beings, He cannot possibly murder one of them--it's not a moral thing, it's an ontological thing. Jesus broke the ontological barrier.

Actually murder has a specific definition. If God killed someone who didn't deserve it that would be murder. But God, being righteous, would not and could not do that.

And the difference is??? Can we tell what the mark is without rules to follow?

Not necessarily.

How did Adam "miss the mark"? By disobeying the command God gave him not to eat of the wrong tree (listening to the wrong authority). How did Israel "miss the mark"? by doing the things God told them not to do--like having other gods (following after the wrong authority). How do we miss the mark? by not believing in Jesus Christ (not heeding the Holy Spirit, or not following the right authority).

You don't miss the mark by breaking the rules; we never even come close to reaching the mark.

Adam was placed in the mark through the special circumstance of being the first created person [and already in Paradise]. Similar for Eve. They fell from the mark more than they missed it.

Ezekiel doesn't seem to agree with you that righteousness is eternal:

Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. [Eze 3:20 KJV]

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. [Eze 18:24 KJV]

When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. [Eze 18:26 KJV]

When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. [Eze 33:18 KJV]
​

The righteousness of man is not the righteousness of God.

 

[Derf]

Adam didn't have to make righteous choices because he was never given the opportunity to make choices between right and wrong until that day.

Really? Which day was that? God rested the seventh day--after everything was still very good. That means Adam made it all the way through the last part of day six, at least, and likely through day 7, without falling. Are you saying he didn't have the opportunity to make any right/wrong choices those days? Why not? He at least waited long enough to explain God's command to Eve (possibly inaccurately--"don't even touch the tree").

And Jesus had the righteousness inherent with being God.

What Scripture do you look to for support of the hypostatic union?

Which part don't you agree with? You seem ok with Jesus being God. What about Him being man? How about that He was born of woman, and that He called Himself "son of man".

Actually murder has a specific definition. If God killed someone who didn't deserve it that would be murder. But God, being righteous, would not and could not do that.

Really? Tell that to David's first son from Bathsheba. And the 70,000 that were killed because David numbered the people.

[1Ch 21:17 KJV] 17 And David said unto God, [Is it] not I [that] commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but [as for] these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.

Not necessarily.


You don't miss the mark by breaking the rules; we never even come close to reaching the mark.

Adam was placed in the mark through the special circumstance of being the first created person [and already in Paradise]. Similar for Eve. They fell from the mark more than they missed it.

What was the mark? You seem to have mysticized the mark. Why is it that we need the mark to be something unattainable, rather than something unattained?

The righteousness of man is not the righteousness of God.

See? You do agree with me! "righteousness" means something different for the maker of the subjects than for the subjects. Jesus (once we agree that He was both creator and creature) had 2 standards to follow, imo.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Having personal definitions of "will" may give hope to escape the issues motivating such a tactic, but it is seen to be merely as so hoped.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will--the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Arminians, open theists, and others, like to argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

AMR

A cause does not force a certain action. A grenade is tossed into a bunker... choices are made.

Why was Job tested if the outcome was certain? He had choices to make.

Was Jesus a programmed robot or a glorious faithful Son? He was sustained by His Father's love (but he was forsaken); he was tested, tempted. .. or He wasnt. Scripture is clear. He was.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We choose according to our motivations when we so choose

We choose according to our motivations when we so choose

A cause does not force a certain action. A grenade is tossed into a bunker... choices are made.

Why was Job tested if the outcome was certain? He had choices to make.

Was Jesus a programmed robot or a glorious faithful Son? He was sustained by His Father's love (but he was forsaken); he was tested, tempted. .. or He wasnt. Scripture is clear. He was.

Choice implies motive. We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is as free our wills can be.

Ignoring the typical anti-Calvinist "robot" canard signifying a lack of understanding of the topic, these may be helpful:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41620
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63586

In summary, this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...o-you-think-of-it/page4&p=3415136#post3415136

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

Really? Which day was that? God rested the seventh day--after everything was still very good. That means Adam made it all the way through the last part of day six, at least, and likely through day 7, without falling. Are you saying he didn't have the opportunity to make any right/wrong choices those days? Why not? He at least waited long enough to explain God's command to Eve (possibly inaccurately--"don't even touch the tree").

:doh:

The day he ate of the fruit. Are you seriously so ignorant you had to ask that question?

When he ate of the fruit that was the first time he was ever offered a choice between right and wrong. There was only one rule in the Garden and up to that point there had been no implication of a choice.

Which part don't you agree with? You seem ok with Jesus being God. What about Him being man? How about that He was born of woman, and that He called Himself "son of man".

He was flesh. We all know that. You still haven't answered the question.

If you could you would have. Instead of trying to attack me for not believing it you would show me the Scripture so that I may learn and correct my error.

Really? Tell that to David's first son from Bathsheba. And the 70,000 that were killed because David numbered the people.

Show that they were either killed or that they didn't deserve to be. That child died, but it was not killed.

[1Ch 21:17 KJV] 17 And David said unto God, [Is it] not I [that] commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but [as for] these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.

What David thought is irrelevant. God knows what we do not.

What was the mark? You seem to have mysticized the mark. Why is it that we need the mark to be something unattainable, rather than something unattained?

The righteousness of God is the mark.:dunce::duh:

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

See? You do agree with me! "righteousness" means something different for the maker of the subjects than for the subjects. Jesus (once we agree that He was both creator and creature) had 2 standards to follow, imo.

No, I don't. The righteousness of man is not righteousness; it is a shadow of true righteousness, which is the righteousness of God.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Choice implies motive. We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is as free our wills can be.

Ignoring the typical anti-Calvinist "robot" canard signifying a lack of understanding of the topic, these may be helpful:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41620
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63586

In summary, this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...o-you-think-of-it/page4&p=3415136#post3415136

AMR

And what of competing motives? You pretend they dont exist.

Christ's love, His Spirit compels us. But many ignore Him. Choosing to ingratiate the darkness, the self, the flesh.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Motives Underlie Choice

Motives Underlie Choice

And what of competing motives? You pretend they dont exist.

I do not ignore them, I embrace them as did Paul (Rom. 7:15 and forward). We choose according to our greatest inclinations (driven by motives, often competing) at the moment we so choose. None of the motives of the lost person are good, for no choice the lost makes, even helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, feeding the poor, etc., is performed to bring glory to God. The lost simply hate God with every breath they draw as they can only sin more or sin less.

AMR

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I do not ignore them, I embrace them as did Paul (Rom. 7:15 and forward). We choose according to our greatest inclinations (driven by motives, often competing) at the moment we so choose. None of the motives of the lost person are good, for no choice the lost makes, even helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, feeding the poor, etc., is performed to bring glory to God. The lost simply hate God with every breath they draw as they can only sin more or sin less.

AMR

Ok. So we agree we have competing motivations. You said previously "our motives". I would argue the motives are God's and His enemy satan's. Good vs. evil, the Light vs. Darkness, Truth vs. lies. These are not inherently ours but they are at work within us.

So we have two manipulators so to speak competing for us.

We choose which to follow.

I do appreciate your honest debate. And I really want to understand how you could possibly begin to rationalize away free will choice.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The motives of the unbeliever are only towards evil

The motives of the unbeliever are only towards evil

Ok. So we agree we have competing motivations. You said previously "our motives". I would argue the motives are God's and His enemy satan's. Good vs. evil, the Light vs. Darkness, Truth vs. lies. These are not inherently ours but they are at work within us.

So we have two manipulators so to speak competing for us.

We choose which to follow.

I do appreciate your honest debate. And I really want to understand how you could possibly begin to rationalize away free will choice.

Given that our wills are driven by motives, the unbeliever's motives can only be to sin more or sin less. Nothing the unbeliever does is for the glory of God. Hence, their choices are but choices borne of evil motives. Can the unbeliever choose among these competing evil motives? Of course. In fact, that is all that the unbeliever can do: choosing among competing evil motives.

But...to assert that the lost possess the moral ability to choose Light over Darkness ignores the dire state of all who are lost in Adam (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14). The lost require a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit to give them a new heart (Eze. 36:26)—regeneration or what is called "born anew"—such that they will now possess the moral ability to choose to glorify God, beginning with sure faith and repentance.

We have to be careful when we say God or the Devil is working within us. God is not doing the believing and the repenting for us any more than the Devil is doing the sinning for us. We do these things, within the bounds of our spontaneous free will, that is, the liberty of choosing according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. We believers are indeed God's workmanship, which does not mean we are but passive recipients of God's actions. There is a concurrency of God's will upon us and our own newly regenerated wills. God uses means, such as the hearing of the Good News, to bring about His ends for all that He has ordained.

For a more detailed discussion of this see my:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The lost require a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit to give them a new heart (Eze. 36:26)—regeneration or what is called "born anew"—such that they will now possess the moral ability to choose to glorify God, beginning with sure faith and repentance.

Your idea that regeneration (receiving life) precedes faith is contradicted by John's words here:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

Here "believing" results in "life." But according to your ideas "life" precedes "believing."

You got it backwards.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Exegesis is not special formatting of Scripture citations

Exegesis is not special formatting of Scripture citations

Your idea that regeneration (receiving life) precedes faith is contradicted by John's words here:

Enough of this, Jerry. I provide substantive responses that you simply wave off, only to restate that which has been answered. You are stuck in a loop.

When you have more exegetical "insight" other than Scripture citations seasoned with boldface formatting, perhaps things will move forward.

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Enough of this, Jerry. I provide substantive responses that you simply wave off, only to restate that which has been answered. You are stuck in a loop.

Here is what you said and that is followed by my response:

The passage is clear that those who believe will have life. The passage is not making a didactic statement about fallen man's ability to believe at all. You just want it to say what it does not say.

You misunderstand what the Apostle John wrote here:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

This not teaching that those "who believe will have life," as you imagine. Instead, John states in no uncertain terms that those who are believing have life. Both the Greek word translated "believing" and the word translated "ye might have" are in the "present" tense.

Therefore we can understand that believing results in life.

But according to the Calvinists the giving of life precedes believing.

How can the Calvinists get these simple things so wrong?

 

[Dialogos]

Jerry,

I've already explained this to you.

πιστεύοντες is a present active participle which accords with the main verb of the clause: (ἔχητε) which is a present active verb. Thus the "believing" and the "having" are ongoing actions that are concurrent with the timing of the main verb (which is ongoing). So, of course a person who continues to believe is a person who continues to have life in Him. There isn't a Calvinist I know who would argue that a believer can stop believing and still have life in Christ. That's the whole point behind the P in TULIP.

What you are trying to do is to make that carry more freight than the context or the syntax will permit.

This verse doesn't teach us that faith precedes regeneration anymore than pointing out that by breathing we have life means that breathing precedes conception.