15 years added to Hezekiah's life and its problems for foreknowledge and open theism

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Uncomfortable with the thought that some people just cannot be saved.

and hardened against receiving His word and being saved.

There are people you can reveal the truth to, over and over and over, and no testimony reaches them, they simply CANNOT believe. My sister is this way. She just can't. She understands the Gospel, but does not believe, and she has just outright said "God has not touched me the way he does some people, so I can't believe like they do"
I still say it makes no sense to harden a corpse. Your sister is using your theology to remove her own responsibility to believe. No matter if your theology is correct or not, you have to act like it's not true in your dealings with unbelievers. You also have to act like you know you won't be tossed aside before you die as an apostate. Since it happens to some, predestined from the foundation of the world to apostatize, it might happen to you.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟512,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God adds 15 years to Hezekiah's life. He changes His mind - a problem for foreknowledge and adds precisely 15 years, a problem for open theism. The article details the problem and proposes how kenotic openness might work for this case.

15 years added to Hezekiah's life and its problems for foreknowledge and open theism : cruciformity

How do you square God changing His mind and adding 15 years to Hezekiah's life and His foreknowledge about Hezekiah's death?

The perfect foreknowledge of God is not circumvented by God choosing to intervene to effectuate a change in circumstances that otherwise would not have transpired without His act of intervening.

This is not the first time where God was intent for some action to transpire to only change his mind. That God has several ways, means, methods, for interacting with humanity and intervening in human affairs does not pose a problem for perfect foreknowledge.

God can have perfect foreknowledge of what people will say, do, think, and perfect foreknowledge of all the possible outcomes of His interaction with and intervention into human affairs.

The fact God has a wide array of possible actions He can take in relation to human affairs does not impair His perfect foreknowledge of how each of His actions will impact humanity or his perfect foreknowledge of how humanity will respond.

God was intent to wipe out the Israelites until Moses persuaded him otherwise. God had perfect foreknowledge of the consequences and results of either choice/action.

“So the Lord relented of the harm which He said He would do to His people.” See Exodus 32:1-14.

God has perfect foreknowledge of what people will say, do, think, and perfect foreknowledge of all the possible outcomes of His interaction with and intervention into human affairs. The fact God has a wide array of possible actions He can take in relation to human affairs does not impair His perfect foreknowledge of how each of His actions will impact humanity or his perfect foreknowledge of how humanity will respond.

Regarding Hezekiah, God had perfect foreknowledge of what is to transpire if He did not intervene and add years to Hezekiah’s life. That God subsequently changed his mind in response to Hezekiah’s prayer request is not fatal to perfect foreknowledge of God as God can perfectly foreknow He could add any number of years or not do so.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟512,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is the point. God makes it clear He is changing His mind in response to Hezekiah's prayer when He says "I have heard your prayer...I will add fifteen years to your life." If He foreknew that He would change His mind, then that wouldn't be a real response to Hezekiah's prayer - He wouldn't "have heard your prayer", He would have foreseen Hezekiah's prayer.

Yet, what this ignores is that when it comes to perfect foreknowledge of God it is in relation to the created. God has perfect foreknowledge of what the created will do, say, etcetera.

God need not have perfect foreknowledge of what he is to do but rather has perfect foreknowledge of all the possible things he can do and perfect foreknowledge of the plethora of outcomes from each action He takes.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟512,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If God knew he would add 15 years, then he didn't actually add 15 years.

So? I can accept as true, and do accept that as true, and the perfect foreknowledge of God is not tarnished.

God has perfect foreknowledge of what the created will say, do, behave, act, etcetera.

God does not have perfect foreknowledge of what He will necessarily do but instead has perfect foreknowledge of His inaction and it’s outcomes, his interaction and it’s outcomes, and perfect foreknowledge of all the possible actions/interactions He may undertake and all the effects.

That God had changed His mind in regards to Hezekiah does not negate A.) He had perfect foreknowledge if He did nothing then Hezekiah would die B) Perfect foreknowledge He could add years and Hezekiah would live longer and its effects C) Perfect foreknowledge of the many different years He could add and the effects of each.

That God decided to add years and settle for 15 and it’s effects was a possibility God had perfect foreknowledge of along with the other alternatives.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟512,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But He knows He's going to send them to hell, right? Why wouldn't He chastise the during their temporal life, so they could avoid hell?

There can exist “chastisement…during their temporal life” and no avoidance of hell because the some of the chastised have freely chosen not to repent.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟512,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Because He'll have mercy on who He has mercy on, and harden who He hardens.

Romans 9


So yeah, as per scripture, there are some people that God creates, that He hardens against Him, they sin, they don't repent, and they go to destruction.

It's an uncomfortable thought, but that is scripture.

and hardened against receiving His word and being saved.

Except, the verses you’ve referenced do not support any notion God “hardened” anyone “against…being saved.”

Theologically, from a Biblical perspective, God desires none should perish but all be “saved.” 1 Timothy 2. God perfectly foreknows those who will freely choose righteousness by faith and through Jesus from those who have freely chosen to reject both and consequently eternal damnation.

God perfectly foreknew Pharoah freely chose to not believe in Him. So, God, when “hardening” Pharoah’s heart was not precluding someone from being saved, but using someone who had chosen not be to be saved to show his glory.

“For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

And the “hardening” of Pharoah was, “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 When Pharaoh does not listen to you, I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My armies, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I extend My hand over Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.”

God was “hardening” the heart of someone who didn’t want God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rwb
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So? I can accept as true, and do accept that as true, and the perfect foreknowledge of God is not tarnished.

God has perfect foreknowledge of what the created will say, do, behave, act, etcetera.

God does not have perfect foreknowledge of what He will necessarily do but instead has perfect foreknowledge of His inaction and it’s outcomes, his interaction and it’s outcomes, and perfect foreknowledge of all the possible actions/interactions He may undertake and all the effects.

That God had changed His mind in regards to Hezekiah does not negate A.) He had perfect foreknowledge if He did nothing then Hezekiah would die B) Perfect foreknowledge He could add years and Hezekiah would live longer and its effects C) Perfect foreknowledge of the many different years He could add and the effects of each.

That God decided to add years and settle for 15 and it’s effects was a possibility God had perfect foreknowledge of along with the other alternatives.
If God has perfect foreknowledge of what we will do, and some of what we will do s based on what God does for us, perhaps even adding 15 years to our lives, then God must have perfect foreknowledge of what He will do, too. If God knows He will "add" 15 years, and He tells you You will die in the next few days, then God is lying.

And let's say you are going to die on your 50th birthday, and God sends a prophet to tell you that, then sends the same prophet to tell you you will survive to 65, only one of those can be true to someone with perfect foreknowledge. He either knows perfectly that you will die at 50, or He knows perfectly you will die at 65. Or, His knowledge changes when the circumstances change.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,503
2,336
43
Helena
✟207,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I still say it makes no sense to harden a corpse. Your sister is using your theology to remove her own responsibility to believe. No matter if your theology is correct or not, you have to act like it's not true in your dealings with unbelievers. You also have to act like you know you won't be tossed aside before you die as an apostate. Since it happens to some, predestined from the foundation of the world to apostatize, it might happen to you.

Well friend, you're arguing against the Apostle Paul.
He wrote Romans 9, not me.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well friend, you're arguing against the Apostle Paul.
He wrote Romans 9, not me.
You really need to put every verse in Ro. 9 in the context of at least all of Ro. 9, ro. 9-11 and all of Romans.


Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well friend, you're arguing against the Apostle Paul.
He wrote Romans 9, not me.
No, I'm arguing against your interpretation of the scriptures. If you can't discern the difference, it's no wonder you're stuck with a theology that makes God the author of sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,503
2,336
43
Helena
✟207,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm arguing against your interpretation of the scriptures. If you can't discern the difference, it's no wonder you're stuck with a theology that makes God the author of sin.


Not the author of sin, but we all sin, but what it seems to say is that God chose some to redeem, and some to pass over, and let be destroyed.

It's a very popular section of scripture used to support Calvinism.

but I'll have to prayerfully consider what bling has said.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,503
2,336
43
Helena
✟207,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You really need to put every verse in Ro. 9 in the context of at least all of Ro. 9, ro. 9-11 and all of Romans.


Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

So, how does this fit into what appears to be God sovereignly choosing some to have mercy on while passing over (or even hardening) others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derf
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, how does this fit into what appears to be God sovereignly choosing some to have mercy on while passing over (or even hardening) others?
@bling may have a better answer, but the main point is that those who were chosen, Israel, had not received the messiah, which is the exact opposite message you try to make of it. "Who are you, o man, to question God?" speaks to Jews who felt entitled to the benefits of God's kingdom while rejecting His messiah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bling
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, how does this fit into what appears to be God sovereignly choosing some to have mercy on while passing over (or even hardening) others?
God decided from the beginning of time to extend help/Love/forgive/have mercy to everyone, but those who humbly accept God's Love (charity/forgiveness/mercy) as pure undeserved charity receive mercy/forgiveness/Love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derf
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God decided from the beginning of time to extend help/Love/forgive/have mercy to everyone, but those who humbly accept God's Love (charity/forgiveness/mercy) as pure undeserved charity receive mercy/forgiveness/Love.
"Whosoever" believes will have eternal life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bling
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,503
2,336
43
Helena
✟207,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
God decided from the beginning of time to extend help/Love/forgive/have mercy to everyone, but those who humbly accept God's Love (charity/forgiveness/mercy) as pure undeserved charity receive mercy/forgiveness/Love.

So what about the language about hardening?
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,503
2,336
43
Helena
✟207,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You're betting your entire theology on one verse?

Oh it's not my theology really, I definitely don't like to lean Calvinist at all, but Romans 9 was hard to argue against when presented to me by Calvinists, and like I said, things that my sister said in how she received the Gospel but could not believe, resounded with that.
I never came to her as a Calvinist, I never used terms like election, or sovereignty.
For her, she would like to believe, but cannot.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So what about the language about hardening?
The same actions that harden one person's heart will soften another person's heart. We do not want God to stop His actions. It is up to the individual in how he/she accepts God's actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derf
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
361
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,382.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh it's not my theology really, I definitely don't like to lean Calvinist at all, but Romans 9 was hard to argue against when presented to me by Calvinists, and like I said, things that my sister said in how she received the Gospel but could not believe, resounded with that.
I never came to her as a Calvinist, I never used terms like election, or sovereignty.
For her, she would like to believe, but cannot.
I have a friend that says the same thing, but he goes on to say it's because of "science."

I think, though I'm not sure how to verify it, that part of the problem is that they don't want to give up their sin, and part is that they want something more complicated rather than just believing in Christ.

Another friend says he knows he would have to become a missionary if he still believed. He claims a profession of faith in his past.
 
Upvote 0