Originally posted by Christianbookworm
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Theology 201 Guidelines
This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Jesus didn't want to save everyone?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAs my theology professor in college always used to say, "One day, God is going to correct everybody's theology."1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
He is wrong. He is missing the context of Jesus' words - namely, Jesus is referring to Isaiah 6, Isaiah 44, Psalm 115, and Psalm 135. Jesus isn't saying that he's speaking in parables in order that people not understand him. He's saying that the people do not understand because they are like lifeless idols. They do not see/hear/understand because they are spiritually dead - they cannot.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostHe is wrong. He is missing the context of Jesus' words - namely, Jesus is referring to Isaiah 6, Isaiah 44, Psalm 115, and Psalm 135. Jesus isn't saying that he's speaking in parables in order that people not understand him. He's saying that the people do not understand because they are like lifeless idols. They do not see/hear/understand because they are spiritually dead - they cannot.
If they had been open to Jesus' claims they would have turned and been saved.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christian3 View PostThey hardened their hearts -- God didn't do it -- they did it."What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIs it figurative, or literal? If I say, "My brother made me angry!" what does this mean? That my brother somehow usurped my freewill?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chuckles View PostThat does not at all compare to the situation in the text...
Thanks for playing.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAsserted without proof.
Thanks for playing.
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts, [...]"
This is a situation in which something is actively done to a seemingly non-active subject. I did not blind my own eyes, he did. I did not harden my own heart, he did. If the point was different from that, then why does the text not say anything about it. Why do we need Mountain Man to tell us the true meaning of the words? Why is that not in the Bible? Why does the text give the impression that God is actually doing this if the truth is that he is not, or if the truth is that this is somehow based on human reaction to God. How can humans even be held accountable for how they react to God's call if the cannot see with their eyes or understand with their hearts? Taking about free will about situations you do not even understand is absurd.
So, you see, there is no playing on my side. I just happen to read what the text says and not what some people would wish it said because, really, they don't believe what the Bible actually says but they have come up with a compromise interpretation.Last edited by Charles; 01-26-2018, 09:08 AM.
Comment
-
So God sends the Messiah Jesus to save mankind and then God hardens the hearts of corporate Israel so they will not accept Jesus' message???Last edited by Christian3; 01-26-2018, 09:12 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chuckles View PostYou are the one who is playing. I asked you to read the text again but it seems you did not. So let me help. Take a look at this part...
Unless you're prepared to argue that an angel literally scalded Isaiah's lips with a red hot coal.
I would say you're smarter than this, but I'm not convinced I would be speaking the truth.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHow about you take a look at the part where God is speaking to Isaiah in a vision, and that the language throughout is metaphorical and not literal?
Unless you're prepared to argue that an angel literally scalded Isaiah's lips with a red hot coal.
I would say you're smarter than this, but I'm not convinced I would be speaking the truth.
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,"
Of course the use of eyes and hearts are metaphorical, I never rejected that. But what is a meaningful understanding of the metaphorical language? God has blinded their eyes but somehow they can still see? He has hardened their hearts, but their hearts are still soft and somehow open to God? They can neither see nor understand, but yet they can somehow be held accountable for not being able to see or understand?
You are yet to come up with a meaningful explanation of why this language is used about a free will situation in which a person could choose differently. The language and metaphors used give the opposite impression.
And I suspect we will never get that explanation...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostBack to the text again.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment