Podcast EP161 – Why Skelly Should Reconsider Open Theism Part II

7 comments

  1. I have been watching a lot of Jesse Morrell and I wondered what your stance is on the Moral Perfection he speaks about, and it seems that he says that the moment one sins he loses his salvation until the sin is confessed. Also, what about original sin, not inhereted guilt? What are your thoughts on the subject, that seems like a pretty fragile salvation. Thanks!!

    1. Myself, I am what Morrell calls an antinomian, someone who thinks people are saved apart from works. Although, I am very sympathetic to Morrell’s position. The Jewish idea, especially obvious in the Old Testament, was that what God was interested in was a right relationship with Him. People like David could have faults, but were by no means excluded or hell-bound.

        1. I am not sure your objection. I am a dispensationalist, so I agree with Morrell up to the ministry of Paul. If I were to debate Morrell, my stance would be “sure, let’s assume you are right on Jesus, the 12 disciples, and James, but Paul taught something different.” My case would be using the works of Paul to show variance with the teachings of Jesus and the 12.

          As to historical perfection:

          Several people are described as “perfect” throughout the Bible. In Job, it is a plot device.

          Job 1:1  There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. 

          Noah:

          Gen 6:9  These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. [this might be about a pure lineage]

          Hezekiah:

          2Ki 20:3  I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. 

          When figuring out what “being perfect” is, we should see how it is used in the Bible.

          1. No objection, I am just trying to understand different view, no condemnation or objection, just learning. Just out of curiosity ( again, no objection), why would Jesus who is God the son teach something so different than Paul?

            1. The idea of dispensationalism is that God works in different ways with different people. Jesus “did not come but to the lost sheep of Israel”. Any time that Jesus and the 12 dealt with Gentiles it was not in an evangelical mindset. They were concerned with Israel’s redemption.

              Jesus dies, rises, and after death is rejected by Israel. Israel’s redemption is postponed. God then turns to the Gentiles to “provoke Israel to jealousy”. Paul teaches what “was not made know before” that the “Gentile are fellow members and fellow heirs”. The apostles debate these ideas which were not addressed by Jesus and not before considered (Acts 15). They conclude Paul is legitimate and his ministry to the gentiles is legitimate.

              Not really an Open Theist issue. You can read what I have written on dispensationalism on my blog realityisnotoptional.com :
              https://realityisnotoptional.com/2016/09/12/refuting-acts-9-dispensationalism/

              See especially questions on Acts 15:

              https://realityisnotoptional.com/2013/12/03/basic-questions-on-acts-15/

              1. I really do appreciate your time. Thanks for dialoging with me. I am in search of truth. Biblical truth and to know truly what I believe. Thank you for your site and it is a blessing to me!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s