Brother, when you say my ‘command center cannot allow perspective,’ do you mean you think I’m too committed to my theological framework, or do my responses come across as prepackaged or AI-like?
Shalom.
J.
1 Like
I think you sincerely hold fast to your convictions, which is commendable. I also think that you have displayed conversational charity extending genuine care to both myself and Peter (from what I have seen) graciously. So, Johann, I do see you have graceful qualities, amen.
But like the time I was discussing back and fourth on another thread with Davey about signs of the end, you posted to me suggesting for me to be more thoughtful and not so much argue about end times. To which i suggested those posts of yours be for Davey because my conversation with him was about hermeneutics and how we interact act with one another concerning them. Davey was arguing end time points from what seemed to be less than charitable discussion. At that point you realized you may have jumped in without realizing the more robust context of what was going on in the discussion. I don’t say that to bring up dirty laundry or anything. I appreciate your graceful conclusion there. But i just point it out because it is not as close to ground zero as our discussion might be on this thread…to be able to kind of get a sense of what I am saying I suppose.
From what I have seen of the reformed ideology (especially in the mainstream) is that it tends to be pompous and condescending. So like in that thread with Davey it was natural for you to want to school me on biblical manners. Because that is the zeitgeist operating systematic for reformeds. To be fair, there are reformeds I know that don’t traffic in condescension. And that can go both ways, I know. But it is the bread and butter of the reformed movement unfortunately. So i just think for someone as zealous as you, it would be unavoidable to stay completely away from the punch drunk tutor mode of the reformed perspective. And Acts of the camp’s ideology gone performing art bad, mode. James White traffics in bad faith debate boiler-room tricks to stay relevant. Much of the reformed world has moved in that direction. To me, this is a Laodicean age attribute and signature of our age being the most narcissistic in know world history. The age of the selfie.
So to answer your question, I would say more the latter than the former. Because although i do think your commitment to your framework does not seem to be as able to see internal structural errors well (or at least consider them deeper), you do go out of your way to reason with others. But the mechanics of how you play ball seem to drive you or influence you more so to justify a position rather than understand conversational context. Kevin is not my mentor. I brought him up kind of just to be fun because he’s kind of snarky twisted himself (as I had received that myself from him in pubic). But rather than understand conversational context (like in the Davey situation) you lean toward “schooling” where God Himself could actually bring common ground conversational grounding points at a friendly grass roots level to yield far more fruit.
So i guess i would say it is the spirit of the age twitter ethics mode of discourse that seems to have you by the kahunas. And in that sense (at least on some practical levels) has you practice rhetorical mayhem skill that kind of owns you. In some ways Johann I don’t exactly fault you for that. For, like the great philosophical orator Pink Floyed noted: Welcome to Machine.
. . . . .
PS – look what happens here: What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”? - #299 by TCC
You tell me on this thread…
Yet when i answer you tell me I’m in the wrong thread. Then don’t ask in this thread brother. You are not in the same room with yourself.
The reason why Kevin charges is because he took several years to construct that. You point out how i won’t look while you won’t look at mine. I’ve looked at yours for 25 years. And it is not sound. I’ve been there Johann. But if it helps keep you tucked in your theological bed to pen me as Kevin’s dupe…godspeed.
To you…I’m never in the word enough because for the Lordship Salvation God of the reformed camp…you are never enough. I think on the front of showing how Calvinist take over churches like sly crusaders is helpful to know in our age. It helps give context to the missionary field we live in. But like a good AI bot, when you see that, its about needing to be in the word more. In the sense Kevin sees the moral “go to” rhetorical vehicle to championing conversation, he’s right. He did it to me too, and it did not help me one bit…lol. Blessings.
" the text simply does not support" – but you won’t consider.
Cheers mate. Maybe you’d be better off spending time in threads that are more your style, perhaps devotional discussions. Right now, it feels like you’re in full attack mode. Rather than engaging with the Scriptures, you’ve focused on philosophical observations and repeatedly labeling me.And, I’m getting tired of being put into a box instead of having the biblical arguments addressed.
And just so we’re clear, if I ever use AI as the lazy man’s substitute for doing my own theology, I’ll tell you. If you want to discuss Scripture, I’m here. If you want to keep pontificating, psychoanalyzing me, and avoiding the text, then stay out of my way. It’ll be better for both of us.
Getting tired of your sarcasm friend, no wonder you are a train wreck.
J.
1 Like
But see I did provide scripture as an answer. And you told me not to post it here. To you I am never using scripture correctly. I’m being honest and straight forward. So why would you ask me to explain romans 9 and then i do and then you say i should not be posting that here. Does that sound sound to you brother?
Do you have anything to say about free will, or are you just going to keep caricaturing the Reformers?
J.
That was about Romans 9 and I provided you several verses demonstrating Romans is about Christ the promised and not about God’s sovereign choice of election. That is not directly about free will. But if Romans 9 is not about God’s sovereign election, it most certainly removes a structure transcending free will. And by nature of implication, does address the generic free will wheelhouse I believe. Care to respond to those verses? I believe by so doing it will likely naturally flow into conversational rivers more fitting to your thread distinctives. Because you will be answering what you asked of me in your thread created
@TCC do you have access to an Interlinear Bible? I want you to do your own study on Romans 9 and YOU tell me if I read MY Bible wrong. You can use Paint to share Romans 9,10 & 11 here. Forget Calvin, Reformed, BTF and you tell me what stands written in front of you.
The real exegetical question is.
Election unto what?
Is Paul speaking of:
election to historical roles or covenant service,
election of corporate entities,
election unto salvation,
or some combination?
That is the debate.
This is just between you and me.
J.
1 Like
So like in 2017 I put together a meticulous study in very detailed outline of Romans for a friend. There was controversy between White and Lenski. So i wanted to see for myself. And it did lean in Lensi’s favor. I’d post it but there are notes you would not call for here. So out of respect, i won’t. I bring it up because you would be more familiar with Greek. But Lenski has a doctorate in divinity. And might have an edge on both of us in Greek. Just saying.
So you’ll like this Johann. I was watching a video last night kind of by accident by these two guys that were talking about Romans 9. They were learned. Well spoken. But when they got to “Who can resist God’s will,” something happened. They did something rather nuckleheaded. So i turned it off. They said “Who has not resisted His will?”
Now you might agree with that sentiment “in a way.” Very different then they meant. But what they meant was all men have resisted God’s will. lol. So I’m like, “You guys, that is not what is going on there.” So right there would be a case of trying to shoe-horn in ideology that does not belong. On this, we would partly agree. We would both see what was meant by “Who can resist God’s will,” was a recognition that God is doing something that transcends our abilities. That is what they meant. I wanted to point that out because I’m trying to be helpful in establishing that my issues with the reformed thing did not come before the chicken. It was not the egg. It is actually the chicken after the egg of much diligent consideration of the word. Beyond Leighton, Thompson, Warren McGrew, Alana L, Faith on Fire, Adrian Rogers, William Lane Craig, Jordan Hatfield, Jason Breda…etc.
Its like my view of the first seal. No one has it. I see it in scripture. Now on that i could be wrong. But no one taught me that. No one holds it. So what i do is i go out of my way for folks to put my view in a clown suite and set it on fire. And see, then, if that view can stand. This is kind of how i roll. I believe context is far more powerful than Greek words. BUT…
I did read romans 9 for you in interlinear. This will maybe not be easy to settle with brother, but I used to see the things you do. But since i have studied diligently in other directions, it is clear to me context is king in this book. And it might shock you that I walk away seeing the context of Romans 9 as it ends…
** **What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is [y]by faith; **31 **however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. **32 **Why? Because they did not pursue it [z]by faith, but as though they could [aa]by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, **33 **just as it is written:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And the one who believes in Him will not be [ab]put to shame.”
Its about Christ. Its about the lineage that God used to bring Him into the world. And being the Son to have utter faith in (which Israel trusted in their own doctrine instead), they could have been the kingdom key holders for the gentiles. But instead they lost that privilege. And that privilege shifted to the gentiles who had faith. But the epicenter is Christ. The story of Israel in relation to Him. And their demise in rejecting Him. That is the context. God is moving on. BUT…
…if election how is it that Israel will be grafted in again in your view?" Curious.
Maybe you have some ideas in mind to share in why you asked me to look at the interlinear. And that is ok. But even though I might not know Greek too well. Jmacs church taught at seminary level in the main service year after year. Its not like i came out of a seeker friendly or Southern Baptist church (known for not being too studious). So lets talk shop. Blessings.
TCC, whether those men handled Romans 9:19 correctly or not is beside the point. The issue is what Paul actually wrote and how he answered the objection.
The objection, “Who has resisted His will?” (τίς γὰρ ἀνθέστηκεν τῷ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ;), only makes sense because Paul has just said, “He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills” (Rom. 9:18). If Paul were merely talking about Israel resisting God, there would be no reason to ask, “Why does He still find fault?” Everyone already knew Israel had resisted God throughout her history.
More importantly, Paul never corrects the objector’s understanding. He does not say, “You misunderstood me.” Instead, he reinforces God’s sovereign freedom by appealing to the Potter and the clay (Rom. 9:20–23). That tells us the objection accurately reflects the force of Paul’s argument.
As for your study, I appreciate that you’ve wrestled with the text. But citing Lenski, Leighton, McGrew, Craig, or anyone else doesn’t settle the matter. Neither your authorities nor mine are inspired. The Greek text is.
You say context is king. I couldn’t agree more. But the context begins in Romans 9:6, not Romans 9:30. Paul starts with God’s sovereign choice of Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad, then moves to God’s mercy and hardening, and only afterwards explains why Israel stumbled. Romans 9:30–33 is Paul’s conclusion, not the controlling context for everything that precedes it.
So let’s stay with Paul’s argument, not with our preferred theologians. Exegesis must drive theology, not the other way around.
White, Craig & Leighton
J.
1 Like
Molinism, named after 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is the thesis that God has middle knowledge (or scientia media): the knowledge of counterfactuals, particularly counterfactuals regarding human action.[1] It seeks to reconcile the apparent tension of divine providence and human free will.[2]: 20 Prominent contemporary Molinists include William Lane Craig, Alfred Freddoso, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, Thomas P. Flint, Kenneth Keathley,[2] Dave Armstrong, John D. Laing, Timothy A. Stratton,[3][4] Kirk R. MacGregor, and J.P. Moreland.
God’s types of knowledge
According to Kenneth Keathley, author of Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, Molinists argue that God perfectly accomplishes His will in the lives of genuinely free creatures through the use of His omniscience.[2] Molinists, following Luis de Molina himself, present God’s knowledge in a sequence of three logical moments.
The first is God’s knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. These truths are independent of God’s will and are non-contingent. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. Examples include such statements as “All bachelors are unmarried” or “X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place” or “It is possible that X obtain.”
The second is God’s free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent upon God’s will, or truths that God brings about. Examples include statements such as “God created the earth” or something particular about this world which God has actualized. Free knowledge encompasses the future of what will happen.
In between God’s natural and free knowledge is His “middle knowledge” which contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances, by which God knows what His free creatures would do in any situation.[2]: 31 These are truths that are contingent (not necessary), but are true without God being the primary cause of them. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, John D. Laing has provided an example of middle knowledge: “If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so.”[5]
Molinists have supported their case scripturally with Christ’s statement in Matthew 11:23:[6]
And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
The Molinist claims that in this example, God knows what His free creatures would choose under hypothetical circumstances, namely that the Sodomites would have responded to Jesus’ miracles and ministry in a way that Sodom would still have been in existence in Jesus’ day, given that hypothetical situation.
Matthew 11:23 contains what is commonly called a counterfactual of creaturely freedom. But counterfactuals are to be distinguished from foreknowledge, and middle knowledge is to be distinguished from God’s knowledge of counterfactuals (because, for example, Thomists affirm that God has counterfactual knowledge). The Bible contains many examples of foreknowledge such as Deut 31:16–17, where God tells Moses that the Israelites will forsake God after they are delivered from Egypt. The Bible also contains several examples of counterfactuals, such as 1Samuel 23:1–14 and Wisdom of Solomon 4:11.[non-primary source needed]
J.
“Pelagians” redirects here. For the Catholic confraternity, see Pelagians (Quietism). For the islands in the Mediterranean Sea, see Pelagian Islands. Not to be confused with Pelasgians.
Artistic portrayal of Pelagius, for whom Pelagianism was named
Pelagianism
History
Pelagian controversySemi-Pelagianism
Proponents
PelagiusCaelestiusJulian of EclanumRufinus the SyrianSicilian Briton
Opponents
AugustineJerome
Doctrines
Rejection of original sinLibertarian free willGood works
vte
Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behaviour and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives.
To a large degree, “Pelagianism” was defined by its opponent Augustine, and exact definitions remain elusive. Although Pelagianism had considerable support in the contemporary Christian world, especially among the Roman elite and monks, it was attacked by Augustine and his supporters, who had opposing views on grace, predestination and free will. Augustine proved victorious in the Pelagian controversy; Pelagianism was decisively condemned at the 418 Council of Carthage and is regarded as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. For centuries afterward, “Pelagianism” was used in various forms as an accusation of heresy for Christians who hold unorthodox beliefs. However, more recent scholarship in both theology and religious studies has questioned how strongly Pelagius’s beliefs differed from those of his opponents and from modern mainstream Christians.
Was looking for “choicemeats” but could not find it. Free will…Monilism, from Pelagius.
J.
The article accurately describes what Provisionists believe, but it does not demonstrate that those beliefs arise from the text of Scripture.
Its central claim is that the gospel itself enables every sinner to respond positively apart from a prior work of sovereign grace. Yet none of the passages cited actually teach that. Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is living and active. It does not say the Word, by itself, overcomes spiritual inability. Likewise, John 6:63 says the Spirit gives life, while the flesh profits nothing. In the immediate context, Jesus has already said, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father” (John 6:65). The emphasis is on divine enablement, not autonomous human ability.
The article also misrepresents the Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Reformed theology does not teach that people are incapable of making choices. It teaches that fallen sinners are morally unable to come to Christ apart from God’s regenerating grace (John 3:3–8; John 6:44; Romans 8:7–8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1–5). That is a biblical doctrine of inability, not a denial of human responsibility.
Likewise, the discussion of definite atonement is oversimplified. Reformed theology does not deny that Christ’s death is sufficient for the whole world or that the gospel should be preached to every creature. Rather, it asks a different question: For whom did Christ actually bear sin as a substitute? Isaiah 53 says the Servant bears the sins of those He justifies. Jesus says He lays down His life for His sheep (John 10:11, 15), not indiscriminately for sheep and goats. Paul says Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). The issue is not the infinite value of Christ’s death, but its divine intent and saving accomplishment.
Finally, the article repeatedly assumes what it must prove. It asserts that every person is “able to respond” to the gospel, yet never provides a text that explicitly teaches natural man possesses that ability after the Fall. By contrast, Scripture repeatedly says the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), cannot submit to God (Rom. 8:7–8), and cannot come to Christ unless drawn by the Father (John 6:44). Those are the texts that must be answered, not merely asserted away.
Provisionism is therefore a coherent theological system, but coherence is not the same as exegesis. The debate must ultimately be settled by the grammar, context, and flow of Scripture, not by theological slogans or acronyms.
J.
So the thing about clay is it is very difficult to work with. But while moist, moldable. It gets to a point of setting and hardening. Fired. Once there it is what it is. The literal reality of clay pottering being made = something molded along the way (a time to change course if need be). And a time of fire to confirm its final state. A judgement of “having fully arrived.” EXAMPLE:
Jeremiah 15:1 (perhaps the strongest)
“Then the LORD said to me, ‘Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of My sight, and let them go!’” (ESV)
i no longer tolerate long clips of White. He has proven untruthworthy.
So remember we are sticking to the text and not running off to other experts. Can you sum those sevreal posts into a paragraph for me brother? Thanks. Blessings.
PS – Sine we are using the research of others, i believe this is the likely thesis of the book:
The thesis (Romans 1:16–17)
Virtually all commentators agree that Romans 1:16–17 is the thesis:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel… For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith…”
Everything else in Romans develops this statement.
Brother, nearly every reply you’ve given me has been a straw man. Instead of engaging the arguments I’ve actually made, you keep responding to arguments I haven’t made. That is not exegesis, it’s avoiding the issue.
I’ve repeatedly asked you to deal with the biblical texts in their context, the grammar, and Paul’s flow of argument. Instead, you shift to your study history, the teachers you’ve listened to, your methodology, or broad statements like “context is king.” I agree that context is king, but context must come from the text itself, not from the conclusions we bring to it.
Stop telling me what you think Reformed theology teaches and start showing me where my exegesis of the passages is wrong. Deal with Romans 9:6–24, not just verses 30–33. Deal with the Greek of κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις (“God’s purpose according to election”), οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος… ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ (“not of the one willing… but of God who shows mercy”), and ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει (“whom He wills He hardens”). Deal with Isaiah 53:11–12, where the Servant bears the sins of those He justifies. Deal with John 10, where Christ lays down His life for His sheep.
Until you engage the actual biblical texts instead of caricaturing the position, we’re simply talking past one another. Let’s let Scripture, not assumptions, labels, or preferences, settle the discussion.
But you are unwilling, and I no longer listen to Leighton, Warren, Beyond the Fundamentals and any of the teachers you give an ear, for they proven themselves unworthy, to use your terminology.
J.
Romans 1 is not the subject under discussion. Stay with Paul’s argument and the objections he raises throughout Romans 8–11. That is the context that governs the interpretation.
Radio Free Geneva! Flowers, McGrew and that Other Guy, then Gregory Boyd
Simply unbelievable.
J.
So you say the end verses of Romans 9 is not the controlling idea. Even though i have shown you other verse throughout the book to demonstrate the same idea. You ignore that. And to that claim I mentioned the idea of clay because your claim is how God’s sovereign choice of Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad, then moves to God’s mercy and hardening, and only afterwards explains why Israel stumbled. So in contrast to that view I offered a simple insight about clay and pottery. Which suggest a molding along the way. You will look at clay pottery and only see God shaping whatever He wants. i look at it and see Jeremiah 18.
Johann you may not like that I address your very words with pottery, but that does not make what i am doing a straw man. It means i am answering a perspective you have with an alternative to consider. So I will deal with your text when i have time later. But I don’t get the sense with you that it will be anything near acceptable Blessings.