That is how I interpret it.

What does the word "all" mean to you? Surely he would have specifically included the word elect if that is what he meant?

dermdoc said:

---

That is how I interpret it it.

What does the word "all" mean to you?

---

All kinds of men...Paul mentions kings in verse 2, which is before verse 4 that you quoted. Paul mentions Gentiles in verse 7. He mentions women in verse 10.

Yep.

So does all=every single individual that has ever lived?

Galatians 3:28 (Paul)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

That was a huge deal back then. Now some will interpret this to include women as elders or pastors. But this same Paul says no to that in his epistle to Timothy.

When scripture is obscure in one place. It is made clearer in another place.

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

Here are some clips about the character of God. It's on the Holiness of God.

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

Viewing scripture through the lens of Christ crucified "tilts" to open theism? Well, no wonder I'm an open theist, because Christ is the exact representation of the nature of the triune God. Want to know what God looks like, look at Jesus. Sounds like a ringing endorsement of open theism, if that's your take.

PacifistAg said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

Viewing scripture through the lens of Christ crucified "tilts" to open theism? Well, no wonder I'm an open theist, because Christ is the exact representation of the nature of the triune God. Want to know what God looks like, look at Jesus. Sounds like a ringing endorsement of open theism, if that's your take.

---

Okay. I guess. That's not what I meant. If you read this thread through then you will see that I believe in Jesus as the divine logos. Is God still omnipresent?

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

As pacifist stated, yes I believe all Scripture should be viewed through the lens of Christ. It is almost like you worship the Bible rather than Jesus. Do you have an individual relationship with Christ? Makes all the difference in the world.

Do you believe in intercessory prayer?

Patriot101 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

Viewing scripture through the lens of Christ crucified "tilts" to open theism? Well, no wonder I'm an open theist, because Christ is the exact representation of the nature of the triune God. Want to know what God looks like, look at Jesus. Sounds like a ringing endorsement of open theism, if that's your take.

---

Okay. I guess. That's not what I meant. If you read this thread through then you will see that I believe in Jesus as the divine logos. Is God still omnipresent?

---

Yes God is omnipresent.

With all due respect, it is like you have this pre conceived mindset on what non Calvinists believe. And then project that on the posters here.

I am guilty of the same thing with Calvinists, but I have found that most self proclaimed Calvinists do not fit into the mold I perceive them to be.

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

As pacifist stated, yes I believe all Scripture should be viewed through the lens of Christ. It is almost like you worship the Bible rather than Jesus. Do you have an individual relationship with Christ? Makes all the difference in the world.

Do you believe in intercessory prayer?

---

Jesus is the word. John 1:1. I don't worship the scriptures. I worship the God of the scriptures. Yes. I have a good relationship with Christ. Agreed. It does make all the difference in the world. I'll boast in Christ that a Muslim friend of mine has been visiting our church. He came into my work and we just started talking. Then he invited himself to church, basically. Thank you for your prayers that at least a seed is planted. Pray with me for his salvation or conversion.

And yes. I do believe in prayer. I pray to a God who works through our prayers. He's a sovereign God that can actually do whatever he wills from the end to the beginning and visa versa. I'm not assured by that other view of God. It doesn't comfort me that God might not know my prayers before I pray them.

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

Then we would have to make God have two sovereign wills. That's just wrong.

---

No this is not about sovereignty. Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

It is about the character of God as revealed through Jesus. All Scripture needs to be viewed through Christ.

---

To tilt it into an open theism?

---

As pacifist stated, yes I believe all Scripture should be viewed through the lens of Christ. It is almost like you worship the Bible rather than Jesus. Do you have an individual relationship with Christ? Makes all the difference in the world.

Do you believe in intercessory prayer?

---

Jesus is the word. John 1:1. I don't worship the scriptures. I worship the God of the scriptures. Yes. I have a good relationship with Christ. Agreed. It does make all the difference in the world. I'll boast in Christ that a Muslim friend of mine has been visiting our church. Thank you for your prayers that at least a seed is planted. Pray with me for his salvation or conversion.

And yes. I do believe in prayer. I pray to a God who works through our prayers. He's a sovereign God that can actually do whatever he wills from the end to the beginning and visa versa. I'm not assured by that other view of God. It doesn't comfort me that God might not know my prayers before I pray them.

---

What "other view of God"?

Nobody is questioning the sovereignty of God. What is being questioned is the character of God as portrayed by Calvinists with double predestination.

I am getting frustrated as obviously I am not getting my point across so I will take a break.

God bless.

The character of Jesus is that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The God of the Old Testament is his father. And they are of the same substance.

God bless you, too.

If you get a chance to answer....

Is God omnipresent after the resurrection of both the saints and the unregenerate? Will God be present wherever the unregenerate are post-judgement day?

Why pray to a God who may not know the future?

Patriot101 said:

---

Why pray to a God who may not know the future?

---

You misunderstand open theism.

**edit: not sure if that comment was in regards to open theism, so my apologies if not.

Patriot101 said:

---

Why pray to a God who may not know the future?

---

If God knows the future in absolute terms, then I have no choice in the matter one way or the other. So it's nonsensical to ask this question as if I had a say in the matter

Or read Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey

svaggie said:

---

Or read Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey

---

"As I've attended gay and lesbian churches, I'm also saddened that the evangelical church by and large finds no place for homosexuals."

"Obviously, if a church is saying you need to give up sexual orientation, that church needs some education."

By Philip Yancey in an interview...

http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/bible/

And here I will state that dp is not novelty. We have Augustine as a church father on our side.

But I can't think of one church father who would endorse open theism or taught it. Can you? It's novelty.

Patriot101 said:

---

And here I will state that dp is not novelty. We have Augustine as a church father on our side.

But I can't think of one church father who would endorse open theism or taught it. Can you? It's novelty.

---

Not sure if this is directed to me or Pacifist. If me, then you should know how very little I care whether something is an innovation. Origen was an innovator, Athanasius was an innovator, and even your favorite Augustine was in innovator. All of them took known ideas and beliefs and synthesized them into something new but still true. My favorite example is Athanasius and the Eternal Beggetting of the Son. He was able to solve a controversy and heal a schism with an innovation that was consistent with the beliefs of the early church and affirmed the nature of God.

So does open theism contradict the known nature of God? It preserves God as Creator. It preserves God as loving. It preserves free will. It does place a limit on God's omnipotence, but only if God limits Himself. We've seen God limit Himself. He limited Himself after the Great Flood by promising He would never do it again. Is God no longer omnipotent because He promised not to flood the world again? I'd say no.

In regards to omniscience, that is a direct result of limiting His own power. As you have previously noted, Calvinists follow the model of foreknowledge set forward by Duns Scotus. In this, God is not an atemporal being that exists outside the bounds of time, but instead His Will becomes reality. So God doesn't know things the way we know things. God knows because He Wills, and everything He Wills happens. So if He limits His own Will then He limits His own knowledge. Those two things are interconnected. But if God never limits His will then there is never any room for any other wills. In such case we end up with absurdities I like to keep bringing up.

I believe God is God over time. He exists both in time and outside of time. He is both transcendent and immanent. God is everywhere/omnipresent. That includes both the boundary of time and outside of the boundary of time. God is infinitely eternal.

Patriot101 said:

---

I believe God is God over time. He exists both in time and outside of time. He is both transcendent and immanent. God is everywhere/omnipresent. That includes both the boundary of time and outside of the boundary of time. God is infinitely eternal.

---

Sorry but your theology is all over the place. Augustine and Aquinas followed the model of God being atemporal. Duns Scotus put forward his model of God's Will basically driving time in direct contrast to this. Calvin adopted this model and you have quoted from it. But these two models are incompatible. So God can't be outside of time and also have His Will be the "driver" of time. Or if you think they are compatible then write a treatise. You'd probably earn a PhD and a ThD if you were able to do it.

Not to mention the appeal to the East in regards to innovation when the East disagrees with your conclusions. Or the appeals to Augustine was an innovator who threw a lot of new ideas out there without marrying himself to any of them. Worst of all is the constant fallback to the "ineffible Will of God" and "clay judging potter" verses when you really just can't answer straightforward and legitimate questions and criticisms.

How so? Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

Well...anyway. I'll concede that little ordeal.

Blessings.

I'll just stick with God being outside or sovereign over time.

Galatians 1:15 (Paul)

"But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,"

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love." Charles Spurgeon

In the discussion, even a Lutheran scholar agrees Luther held to dp.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/01/luther-unlike-lutheranism-taught-double-predestination.html/amp

Interesting paper on St. Thomas Aquinas

https://journal.rts.edu/article/aquinas-and-calvin-on-predestination-is-there-any-common-ground/

Side note:

King David was a descendent of Lot/aka the Moabites. The Moabites were also not listed as among the main twelve tribes of Israel. Lot had intercourse with his daughters and created the Moabites.

Aquinas has written about free will. From what I have read, he does not argue for predestination. I'd copy and paste some of his words, but apparently that is frowned upon :-)

Right. St. Aquinas went a different route when he put forth double predestination. He went the route of the Will of God. The paper on him is two or three posts above.

So you have the two doctors of the church basically agreeing on dp.