Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Care to respond to this critique?

  1. #1
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,834
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Care to respond to this critique?

    This is my signature.

  2. #2
    Moderator Forester07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    29
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    I've addressed this subject here: http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...he-Eternal-God

    Basically it doesn't look like he really understands the concept of eternity.

  3. #3
    Moderator Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Iíve been told many times that to put too much emphasis on predestination or election leads to error. Iíve never accepted that as a legitimate rebuke because the bible teaches time and time again predestination and election by the Sovereignty of God. The time/eternal issues will always bring out those who donít think that we can understand Godís in an eternal sense. Daniel uses a lot of technical language but the Scripture doesnít use that kind of language so Iím never impressed by it.

    Ephesians 2:3 ďAmong whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as otherĒ

    Daniel reads that verse differently than I do. Our nature was no different than the others as we fulfilled the lusts of our flesh and of our minds and that is why those two words are there.ÖÖÖÖ. But Daniel neglects the next verse which says BUT GOD which explains the true difference between the elect and the reprobate. Who made us to differ BUT GOD 1 Cor 4:7 and He did that in from timeless eternity not solely in time.

    He misrepresents eternal justification believers when he says that we deny we are deserving of His wrath; that is the whole point of Eph 2:3. We walked like them, we talked like them and we deserve exactly what the others do BUT GOD.

    He believes that faith is prior to justification and so he leaves out the finished work of Christ on the cross who was raised BECAUSE of our justification. If we hadnít been justified Christ wouldnít have been raised from the dead.

    He misrepresents anyone who believes in eternal justification when he says that we deny that Godís decrees are executed in time. We deny no such thing we simply know that is from our perspective because we are time creatures, God is not.

    ďWho hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world beganĒ. 2 Ti 1:9

    BY NATURE I am like the others but only because of His grace before the world began was I created and fashioned a vessel of mercy, nonetheless a creature. He endures the vessels of wrath with much patience so that He can make known the riches of His glory. I am an object of His mercy, not His wrath and His riches can be seen in our redemption by His Son, in our regeneration and in our eternal salvation and all for His Glory!

    There will always be those who use derogatory labels such crypto-hyper, etc; itís just part of the journey. And I agree with Jimmy, he doesn't understand the eternal issues at all.

    Eileen~
    "To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby

  4. #4
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,138
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    When he says "eternity past" and the way he speaks of God in eternity yet he keeps using time words to describe the eternal shows that he doesn't even understand the concept. Also, he like others, uses the "Hype-Calvinist" tag not understanding it's a pejorative and that there is no such creature.
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,674
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    122
    Thanked in
    67 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Everything in his assumptions depends on a false exegesis of Eph. 2:1-3. He builds the whole heresy of common wrath upon it. He has no other corroborating scriptures. Enough said.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  6. #6
    Moderator Saint Nicholas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New Castle, PA
    Posts
    711
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    After reading his critique, I found most interesting the below statement in which I feel totes the typical low grace view of Justification.

    "The second error made by Kraft follows from the first and in fact may be the rationale for embracing the first error. The doctrine of eternal justification is a most pernicious error in making justification prior to faith, contradicting the vital doctrine so explicitly taught especially in the book of Romans - that justification is by faith."


    His view that Justification prior to faith is in error fully exposes the influence that "Papal Trent"
    has had on protestant reformed theology.

    The counter-reformation and it’s seminary agents have destroyed the Pauline and scriptural view of Justification.

    Others and myself have written extensively on this subject. For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of God’s verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

    Also in my opinion, the writer totally misrepresents our views due to lack of understanding.

    While the writer claims to be "supra", his understanding of Justification and Eternal Justification is suspect.

    Nicholas
    My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand..........John 10:27,28

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Brandan and Brethren:

    It is useless! Every time we discuss issues of EJ people immediately think we are talking about something that is akin to the Mormon Religion or anything of the sort and NO MATTER how we explain about "experience in time" and that "God is not subject to time" and "that His decrees cannot be altered, so, at a minimum it is LOGICAL to think in terms of EJ", and no matter how much we try to explain that we are DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!

    They agree that God is eternal, unchangeable, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, to Whom be glory and glory forever Amen... The even so much as agree with our own verses but still keep accusing us of this and that... They simply do not understand what we're saying and most likely, find comfort in the fact that "they had the experience in time" and that this experience is so dear to them that is (for them) equivalent to justification itself!

    I stopped communicating with FIRE because my mere mentioning of EJ caused a flurry of emails where people would REPEAT what I was arguing in my favor but not coming to the same conclusion, whereas accusing me of not considering important the "experience in time".

    Be at comfort at at peace (as if I needed to say that...) that, ONLY people who have no reason to expect a "raised hand", or a box of Kleenex tissue along with two verses of Just as I am in an altar call as something essential in the "justification timely experience" will really VALUE the Glory of understanding the inalterability of God's decrees and that the Covenant with Jesus Christ, is providing Him a Bride, precedes the Foundation of the World and therein it was completed!

    An Anglican brother, of all people, a REAL CALVINIST Anglican, who hates, debates and writes against Roman Catholicism in a very similar way as we do here, published at Facebook what he calls the ORIGINAL version of the Nicene Creed that says that "Jesus was begotten of the Father before all WORLDS". It all started and finished in eternity!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Brethren:
    After reading the terrible composition of my last post, I noticed that I made a serious mistake. When I wrote this:


    "and no matter how much we try to explain that we are DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!"

    I meant this :

    "and no matter how much we try to explain that we are NOT DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!"

    I apologize for saying the opposite of what I was thinking!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,674
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    122
    Thanked in
    67 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    I KNOW the writer who wrote the critique is ANYTHING BUT a supralapsarian, regardless of his claims.

    Nicholas: For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of Godís verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

    Exactly right! ANY position proposing that Christ's merits are imputed CONDITIONALLY upon time-salvation is Tridentine and therefore the equivalent of SUBJECTIVE justification. Let us ignore all of the paradox theology and get to the real issue! Only justification from eternity is REAL justification based exclusively on Christ's obedience unto death for all of His elect. Everything else is paradoxical conditionalist gobbldygook.

    --Bob
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  10. #10
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,834
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    I KNOW the writer who wrote the critique is ANYTHING BUT a supralapsarian, regardless of his claims.

    Nicholas: For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of God’s verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

    Exactly right! ANY position proposing that Christ's merits are imputed CONDITIONALLY upon time-salvation is Tridentine and therefore the equivalent of SUBJECTIVE justification. Let us ignore all of the paradox theology and get to the real issue! Only justification from eternity is REAL justification based exclusively on Christ's obedience unto death for all of His elect. Everything else is paradoxical conditionalist gobbldygook.

    --Bob
    I'm right there with you Bob, Milt, and everyone else. In my experience, most of the "supralapsarians" on the "I am supralapsarian" page are right there with this guy. They think supralapsarianism is something you pick out of a textbook!
    This is my signature.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    There is not even a need for "context" here, although it is good! This final phrase IS a description of what God is in eternity! I worship Him for it! Even though I did not even exist at the beginning of the world HE CALLED ME, and JUSTIFIED ME AS IF I WERE; even if I were not! Comprende? Praise His name!
    We're not kooks for believing what we do about E.J. because God DECLARES that He is what he declares what He is in the verse above! Of course things occurred in time, but God still calls us what we are even when we're not! Do I have a point?

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  12. #12
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,834
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Here are some more articles about us lately:

    The Heresy of Eternal Justification
    http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/...ification.html

    More on Eternal Justification
    http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/...ification.html

    Eternal Justification and Antinomianism
    http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/...nomianism.html

    Eph. 2:1-4, the wrath and the grace of God
    http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/...ce-of-god.html

    Eternity and Time: A brief look
    http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/...rief-look.html
    (Jimmy was quoted in this one)
    This is my signature.

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,674
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    122
    Thanked in
    67 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    If the author at Puritan Reformed is claiming that ANY teacher at p-net subscribes to the teaching he outlines in the following quotation (which is implied by his 'guilt by association'), he is an outright liar. He is equating the conditionalist Primitive Baptists (who indeed ARE anti-gospel heretics) with all who affirm eternal justification and deny common wrath.

    We would look briefly and refute the third and last objection raised by the hyperists against the orthodox doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Instead of this fundamental doctrine, the hyperists put foward their doctrine of "faith by justification alone". According to their flawed thinking, making justification by faith implies that justification depends upon faith, which would make salvation synergistic as both God and Man cooperate in the work of salvation.
    One thing that we can see immediately is that the Arminians and the Hyperists share one thing in common ó the unbiblical conviction that faith is a work of men. The Arminians believe that faith is Man's work, so therefore unconditional election is false for how can God saves Man without demanding of him his exercise (work) of faith? The Hyperists on the other hand believe that since faith is Man's work, therefore salvation is not dependent on faith, for otherwise faith would be made a condition for salvation which creates an opening for works righteousness.
    The biblical teaching however is that faith is a gift of God (cf Eph. 2:9, Phil. 1:29), not a work of men. It is precisely because faith is God's work and gift that the Hyperists' third objection falls flat. Once again, it seems that the Arminians and the Hyperists actually do deserve each other, for they share a lot of false assumptions in common.


    Interestingly, the Federal Vision teachers of Reformed Presbyterianism teach the same anti sola-fide heresy as the conditionalist Primitive Baptists.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,674
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    122
    Thanked in
    67 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    On timeless eternity:

    The third main pillar of the Hyperists over at the Predestinarian Network, which informs their error of Eternal Justification, is the [Neo-Platonic] theory of Timeless Eternity.

    NO ONE at P-Net teaches a theory of a Timeless Eternity; I have opposed it many times. I believe the quote by Jimmy is taken out of context and made into a doctrine that no one here would support.

    God both inhabits time (including eternal time, which has a beginning but no end) and also transcends it. When the Bible talks about God inhabiting eternity it refers to both of these aspects. Now those who want to deny that God created time would make time itself into a God more sovereign than the God revealed to us in the scriptures. Ditto for space, law, and sin--which most theologians practically treat as un-created in their expositions. The notion of 'past without beginning' as a valid description of eternity is something that virtually all who profess Christ believe in. Yet it is something that we ought to abhor as the inevitable corollary of Process Theism.

    The false religions of the world, of course, indeed teach that eternity is truly timeless, that God inhabits only timelessness, and that WE ALL at some future point inhabit timelessness (eternity) also. Gnostic teaching following Platonic philosophy certainly taught the same.

    --Bob
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  15. #15
    Moderator Forester07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    29
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    My response that I posted on his blog.

    Daniel,

    I don't think you really read my article because most of what you are critiquing is a complete misrepresentation of my position on the issue of eternal justification. Re-read the section titled "According to the whole of scripture, what is God’s ultimate purpose for all of creation and human history?" Your whole "succession of ideas" argument is weak because the whole of creation from start to finish is a succession of ideas where God creates and orders time and history the way He wants. All the "acts' of history are determine by God's sovereign will. Charles Hodge was right on with the classical reformed view while your Robert Reymond is off.

    In your blog you basically conclude with this thought:

    "To make it simpler, God knows everything past, present and future, but these past, present and future events do happen successively in chronology before God."

    I would agree with this statement. Where I think we would differ is that I believe God predestined every part of the past, present and future from eternity for a particular purpose. Time does indeed happen to us successively and in a chronological way and God is involved in every part of this order. However, I hold that God sees all of this at once, outside of time where He set it up successively and chronologically. At times God does indeed act within time. Christ Jesus is the perfect example of this. God in Time coming to die as a sacrifice for sins in time. Even though this act happened in time on earth God is eternal. Jesus is the ETERNAL son and His sacrifice and death are applied in an eternal way to the elect. The atonement is of an eternal nature because it is from the eternal Son and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the elect in time when God chooses (From our experience of it at least but from God's view from eternity).

    You also said,
    "Rather, God in eternity is everlasting — without beginning or end. God knows all things past, pesent and future, and remains the same throughout all time, yet God does have an idea of succession within Himself, and His decrees and the events that are caused by the decrees have a chronological ordering to them."

    I can completely agree with this statement. God does have an idea of succession within Himself because he predestines every event in time to be ordered and controlled directly by Him. The only thing that I would add to your statement is that "God knows and Causes all things". Of Course God's decrees have a chronological order to them and the reason is simply because God created time and everything that happens within time.

    The main issue with your view is that is leans towards the concept of open theism. If God is just flowing with time like the rest of us then is God really God? Here is a definition of open theism from Wikipedia

    "Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions."

    It looks like you are pretty close to this.

  16. #16
    Moderator Forester07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    29
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby
    On timeless eternity:
    The third main pillar of the Hyperists over at the Predestinarian Network, which informs their error of Eternal Justification, is the [Neo-Platonic] theory of Timeless Eternity.

    NO ONE at P-Net teaches a theory of a Timeless Eternity; I have opposed it many times. I believe the quote by Jimmy is taken out of context and made into a doctrine that no one here would support.

    God both inhabits time (including eternal time, which has a beginning but no end) and also transcends it. When the Bible talks about God inhabiting eternity it refers to both of these aspects. Now those who want to deny that God created time would make time itself into a God more sovereign than the God revealed to us in the scriptures. Ditto for space, law, and sin--which most theologians practically treat as un-created in their expositions. The notion of 'past without beginning' as a valid description of eternity is something that virtually all who profess Christ believe in. Yet it is something that we ought to abhor as the inevitable corollary of Process Theism.

    The false religions of the world, of course, indeed teach that eternity is truly timeless, that God inhabits only timelessness, and that WE ALL at some future point inhabit timelessness (eternity) also. Gnostic teaching following Platonic philosophy certainly taught the same.

    --Bob
    I don't know where he gets the timeless eternity from what I wrote. I do focus a lot on God Transending time and the eternal aspect of God but I make it clear that God clearly inhabits time as it is seen throughout the scriptures. I thought it was obvious that since God is omnipresent that would include time bound earth.

  17. #17
    Moderator Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    To those reading here:

    I have used the phrase "timeless eternity" unknowingly without attaching the meaning of God not inhabiting time so that would be a word error on my part and perhaps where Daniel is coming from. Obviously it holds a meaning that was unknown to me or I wouldn't have used it. Of course God inhabits time and works in time, I have never denied that and I apologize for causing confusion on the teaching at P-net. We are time creatures and will always be time creatures, even in our glorified state, I have always believed that and have posted on that very fact many times over the years.

    If you are reading this Daniel then I think it will suffice for a truthful explanation and hopefully will be reflected upon by you.

    Eileen~
    "To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby

  18. #18
    Moderator Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    I left this message on Daniel's blog:
    Daniel,
    "I don't know if you are reading at all over at P-Net, I have left a public message there and want to leave one here as well, following the rules of course and relating my comment to your current post.

    The use of the word "timeless" was used once by me unknowingly as to any teaching or thought that it might represent. The use of the word reflected dishonor on the teaching at P-Net and for that I have publicly apologized. I've never believed that everlasting life would be anything but in time and have stated that many times on P-Net.

    So this was a failure on my part by the use of a specific word not equating that word to any doctrine, a doctrine by the way I've never even heard of until now.


    I publicly come here to your blog so that you will know this and so that you might in all Christian integrity retract any statement that P-Net believes in a timeless eternity even though you might have other problems with what is put forth on eternity."


    Eileen~
    "To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby

  19. #19
    Moderator Forester07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    29
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    Eileen,

    It's not your fault. Especially if you did not know that the phrase "timeless eternity" had a whole doctrinal position tagged along with it. I'm pretty sure Daniel got the whole concept from the systematic theology that he is using by Richard Reymond which he quotes extensively. If you read Reymonds views and the whole concept of timeless eternity it is clearly different from our views. I am probably the one to blame if Daniel thought this is what I was talking about in my artlice "The Eternal God" because I really only focus on how God transends time and only hint about the timely aspects of God. My article was not suppose to be a systematic theology expounding all points of the subject but a thought provoking piece to express a clear aspect of God that is often overlooked.

    My Guess is that Daniel looked in the index of his systematice theology and found this timeless eternity stuff that Reymond wrote about and imediately assumed that is what we were saying. He was wrong. It is clear from what he wrote on his blog that he didn't read / understand what I was writing and in fact missed the whole point of my article.

    Eileen, if anything, it is my fault for not being as clear on the subject in my article as I could have been.

  20. #20
    Moderator Forester07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    29
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Care to respond to this critique?

    My further response to His comments...

    You Said,
    "This has nothing to do with your embrace of the Neo-Platonic idea of eternal timelessness."

    You again are misrepresenting me. I hold that God does indeed work within time. God created time and exists within time. However, He is not bound by time in and of itself. Your view essentially makes time god because he is wholly subject to time. Once God created time he exists within time but at the same time apart. Just like when God became man. Jesus was 100% man and also 100% God. You are restricting God. God clearly exist outside of time but within time also. He is not subject to it. Please give me your reference for this "timeless eternity" that you are using so I can compare what I believe to what your book is saying. I think they differ.

    You Said,
    "The point of contention is that the "absolute predestinarians" like you make God into a timeless being utterly transcendent such that He does not work out His decrees in time but rather apart from time. God according to your position cannot be immanent."


    Yes I am a absolute predestinarian. Yes I hold that God, before the foundation of the world predestined everything and that God, who transcends time, sees the past, present and future at once. However, where you are misrepresenting me is that I also hold the God does work out all of human history in time by the fact that he is omnipresent. God transcends time but works within time. How do you explain these verses. The view I hold to is in complete agreement with these.

    2Pe 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

    This verse is showing my view perfectly. God is outside of time and sees one day and a thousand year the same. How do you read it?

    Psa 90:2-4 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of man!" For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."

    This verse in consistent with my view. How can a thousand year in God's sight be as yesterday if God is not outside of time?

    Isa 43:7-13 "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?"

    This is the end of an awesome passage. Read the whole chapter to get the context. This passage yells eternal justification. God has DECLARED and has SAVED! God's grace, election and justification is shown by this passage so clearly. "Before the day was I Am He" is clearly pointing to Gods transcendence of Time. God created the day and is not bound by it.

    You can get my point. I am supporting my doctrines from Scripture alone.

    You Said,
    "Nobody is saying that God is not omniscient. What we are saying, and you are denying, is that God has an idea of succession in His mind which is worked out in time chronologically."

    I've never said this. A misrepresentation my position.

    You said,
    "The "absolute predestinarians" collapse God's decrees with their execution, and make all things done by God timeless. However, Scripture does not present it in this matter."

    Where have I said that all things done by God are timeless. I've never said that. Wow! another misrepresentation. I have said God is not bound by time and is outside of time but that He clearly works within time and history constantly. If you are going to critique a view make sure you fully understand your opponent and not try to push them into a pre-conceived box.

    You said,
    "And as I have mentioned, all of this is philosophy. You are assuming a particular theory of eternity (ie. Neo-Platonism) and reading that into Scripture (ie eisegesis)."

    Wrong. I get it straight from Scripture. You might disagree with the interpretation but you have not argued along those lines yet.

    You said,
    "No Bible verses support such an irrational position; the atonement happens in time AT the cross."

    The act of the atonement does indeed happen at the cross but I'm sure you would agree that the effect of the atonement happens to the elect on an eternal scale. Old testament saints are atoned through Christ's death in the same way as someone today or in the future are atoned through his death. That is what I am saying.

    You Said,
    "You deny that God is pleased to execute His decree of Justification in time. Instead, your good friend Brandan Kraft (aka Darth Gill) states that all of God's decrees are executed at the "time" they are made since God is timeless"

    No, God works in time. However, to the mind of God, who is outside or Transcendent of time when his decree of justification occurs, it is as good as being done. I know this is difficult to grasp to our finite minds but think on it. From our perspective Justification happens to us in time. We are timely creatures. God, on the other hand is not bound by time. He sees 1000 years ago and today at the same time. We are stuck in time God is not. God determined to justify a people unto himself before the creation of the world and time. Ephesians Chapter 1 explains this.

    Eph 1:3-12 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory."

    We were chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved, justified, ect ect as a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in Him.

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The just shall live by faith - from Christ's faith[fulness] to ours
    By solegrace in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-16-09, 06:55 AM
  2. False Gospel?
    By Nicholas Heath in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 05-26-06, 11:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •