ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[Swordsman]

OK? I gotta vent.

I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that attribute their free will to how they were saved, but there are some times I simply can't be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted ideology is sometimes too much to handle.

A so-called "Christian" friend of mine thinks when he was saved, that it was his own initiative and that God responded by saving him. He utilized his "free will" to choose God?!?!? Where in the world did he come up with this idea?

That is just plain unscriptural!

What ever happened to understanding that man is sinful? He does not seek after God. His mind is at enmity against God. No man is righteous. He was born into sin via the fall of man. He is a slave to sin.

How can one then jump from his wretchedness into complete salvation on his own?

IMPOSSIBLE! How dare one deny the power of God to have complete control of whom He chooses unto salvation. How prideful is man to think that he can take credit for his salvation?

This whole ideology of open theism/arminism/freewillism really proves man's downfallenness. It lessens God down to our puny platform of thinking. It makes God more humanistic and dilutes His power and grace.

[jjjg]

God calls to all of us. Catholics call this actual grace and as Christ says no one can come to to unless the Father calls him to me.

At the same time it takes an act of will for us to accept Christ. Lots of people deny Christ. If it didn't take an act of will on our part then everybody would accept him and all would be saved.

Once we accept Christ we recieve sacramental grace at baptism.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman
A so-called "Christian" friend of mine thinks when he was saved, that it was his own initiative and that God responded by saving him. He utilized his "free will" to choose God?!?!? Where in the world did he come up with this idea?

That is just plain unscriptural! “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.� - Joshua 24:15

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.�

That was easy.

Next?

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Swordsman

A so-called "Christian" friend of mine thinks when he was saved, that it was his own initiative and that God responded by saving him. He utilized his "free will" to choose God?!?!? Where in the world did he come up with this idea?
Probably from Scripture. I'm going to point out you said/he said "God responded by saving him."
What ever happened to understanding that man is sinful? He does not seek after God. His mind is at enmity against God. No man is righteous. He was born into sin via the fall of man. He is a slave to sin.
Before salvation, I'd say yeah, that's a pretty good description of our state.
How can one then jump from his wretchedness into complete salvation on his own?
On his own? We are saved by grace through faith. You didn't say your friend said he saved himself, but that God saved him. (See bold words earlier in post.) Make up your mind, will you?

[Knight]

:up: :lucky:

No open theist would say we "save ourselves" God is the only one that can do that. However we must choose for ourselves if we want to be saved.

We are responsible for our own eternal decision.

It's pretty simple really.

[Knight]

Swordsman, you argue that we are not responsible for our own decision regarding salvation. Yet my guess is you would also argue that it IS our responsibility if we chose NOT to be saved. True???

So... answer this question....

Who is responsible for a man's decision to receive eternal damnation?

A. Man
B. God

[elected4ever]

The call to salvation is a universal call.Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. of righteousness and of Judgment. This is also universal. We could never come to Christ without first believing that we are just exactly what the Holy Spirit says we are.

Man has no knowledge of sin with out the seeking of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit seeks and saves man. The universal call to man is the Holy Spirit's seeking. The saving is the Holy Spirit's response to the responsive man. That is why confession and belief is required of man. Man must choose to respond to the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. Man cannot save himself. He has no means to do so. That is why we love God because He first loved us.

There is, however, no predetermination of salvation for a select few and the rest are predetermined to remain lost. Wither a person is saved or unsaved is basted on the response of the individual to the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit. The choice to accept or reject salvation is an individual choice and the choice cannot be made by a surrogate. No One can make the choice for you. You are responsible for your personal choice.

:E4E:

[kidd94]

God never intended that man, on the day of judgement, can ever stand before Him and say, "it's not my fault, you wired me this way"...

It's still ultimately OUR choice...

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman

OK? I gotta vent.

I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that attribute their free will to how they were saved, but there are some times I simply can't be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted ideology is sometimes too much to handle.

A so-called "Christian" friend of mine thinks when he was saved, that it was his own initiative and that God responded by saving him. He utilized his "free will" to choose God?!?!? Where in the world did he come up with this idea?

That is just plain unscriptural!

What ever happened to understanding that man is sinful? He does not seek after God. His mind is at enmity against God. No man is righteous. He was born into sin via the fall of man. He is a slave to sin.

How can one then jump from his wretchedness into complete salvation on his own?

IMPOSSIBLE! How dare one deny the power of God to have complete control of whom He chooses unto salvation. How prideful is man to think that he can take credit for his salvation?

This whole ideology of open theism/arminism/freewillism really proves man's downfallenness. It lessens God down to our puny platform of thinking. It makes God more humanistic and dilutes His power and grace.

How does one then know that they are saved vs. someone hobo walking the street...?

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman
A so-called "Christian" friend of mine thinks when he was saved, that it was his own initiative and that God responded by saving him. He utilized his "free will" to choose God?!?!? Where in the world did he come up with this idea?

Swordsman! Welcome back! I haven't seen anything from you in a while.

First of all, are you suggesting that people who do not beleive in Calvinism do not believe the gospel and are therefore not "Christian"?

Secondly, if Calvinism is right and your "friend" has no free will, then wouldn't he have "come up with this idea" because God predestined that he would? Wouldn't you have to say, in order to be consistant, that your friend had been predestined to believe in free will?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[cellist]

Our conversion is totally of God and not ourselves. This is basic Augustinian as well as Reformation theology. We are born into this world spiritually dead and so we will always reject Christ unless, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel, God creates faith and the new birth in us. I didn't decide to have faith. God gave me faith as a gift. Our salvation from first to last is a gift from him. It does not arise from us. And for the record, I'm not a Calvinist.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordsman! Welcome back! I haven't seen anything from you in a while.

First of all, are you suggesting that people who do not beleive in Calvinism do not believe the gospel and are therefore not "Christian"?

Secondly, if Calvinism is right and your "friend" has no free will, then wouldn't he have "come up with this idea" because God predestined that he would? Wouldn't you have to say, in order to be consistant, that your friend had been predestined to believe in free will?

Resting in Him,
Clete

of course, but he'd also have to say that he was predestined to be furious about it and predestined to vent about it and that you also were predestined to point out that consistency and that i was predestined to make this point as well :dizzy:

[kidd94]

Originally posted by cellist

Our conversion is totally of God and not ourselves. This is basic Augustinian as well as Reformation theology. We are born into this world spiritually dead and so we will always reject Christ unless, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel, God creates faith and the new birth in us. I didn't decide to have faith. God gave me faith as a gift. Our salvation from first to last is a gift from him. It does not arise from us. And for the record, I'm not a Calvinist.

When you accepted this gift, what did you do then?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

Swordsman, you argue that we are not responsible for our own decision regarding salvation. Yet my guess is you would also argue that it IS our responsibility if we chose NOT to be saved. True???

So... answer this question....

Who is responsible for a man's decision to receive eternal damnation?

A. Man
B. God

Well, it was never man's decision to be damned. It is man's nature to love darkness and hate light. He didn't wake up one day and say "I think I wanna go to hell."

The doctrine of Total Depravity is vital to understand if a believer wants to grow to know the power and sovereignty of the Almighty God. And since man is depraved, he is unable to accept or understand God.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one'. Romans 3:9-12

So I think that explains very well who is responsible for our salvation. And you can only deduce that it is not man.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

God never intended that man, on the day of judgement, can ever stand before Him and say, "it's not my fault, you wired me this way"...

It's still ultimately OUR choice...

For your sake, I hope God chose you.

[kidd94]

How do you know you are elected then??

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordsman! Welcome back! I haven't seen anything from you in a while.

:wave: Howdy Clete!

First of all, are you suggesting that people who do not beleive in Calvinism do not believe the gospel and are therefore not "Christian"?

No, I am not suggesting that. I didn't go into further detail about my friend. He comes from a unitarian background and is currently being misled by the writings of Boyd and Sanders.

Secondly, if Calvinism is right and your "friend" has no free will, then wouldn't he have "come up with this idea" because God predestined that he would? Wouldn't you have to say, in order to be consistant, that your friend had been predestined to believe in free will?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I would have to agree with you on this.

To some people God doesn't grant the truth and blinds them so they may believe in false doctrine. In John 12, Christ tells why the people did not believe and he quotes from Isaiah, 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

How do you know you are elected then??

I believe that I was dead to my sins and unable to come to Christ on my own. (Ephesians 2, Romans 8) I believe that God provided a way of salvation from my sins through the blood of His only Son Jesus Christ. And I believe I have been united to Christ by faith, a faith I did not develop, but received as a gift of God's saving grace. I believe my sins are paid for and that righteousness has been imputed upon me as though I had never sinned (Galatians 2).

And that is what unconditional election is all about. He chose me. He plucked me out of the fire. A damnation I fully deserve. But God saved me. And I owe every facet of my life to Him.

That one word - grace. If only modern-day believers really understood what it really means.....

[cellist]

Originally posted by kidd94

When you accepted this gift, what did you do then?

Faith is trusting in the work of Christ for my salvation. I do not ever remember saying to myself; "OK, now I am deciding to believe." I was simply listening to preaching and I was overwhelmed by the the love God had shown me in Christ and I found I was trusting in that for my salvation and had a new desire to obey him. I new very little theologically, but I had a new trust and love for God. I think if we are all honest with ourselves, we will admit that we never actually "decided" we would have faith. This also squares with what the Scriptures say about us being dead in sin, and God making us alive (Eph), comparing our conversion to raising us from the dead. Or in John where it says that those who received him were born not of the will of man, nor of the flesh but of God (Jhn).

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I believe that I was dead to my sins and unable to come to Christ on my own. (Ephesians 2, Romans 8) I believe that God provided a way of salvation from my sins through the blood of His only Son Jesus Christ. And I believe I have been united to Christ by faith, a faith I did not develop, but received as a gift of God's saving grace. I believe my sins are paid for and that righteousness has been imputed upon me as though I had never sinned (Galatians 2).

And that is what unconditional election is all about. He chose me. He plucked me out of the fire. A damnation I fully deserve. But God saved me. And I owe every facet of my life to Him.

That one word - grace. If only modern-day believers really understood what it really means.....

Ok.

So your "pre-belief" state was what? A sinner who knew nothing of God. A sinner that did not know he was a sinner?

You had to have had some type of "belief" system before you "Believed", right?

So how did you know that you went from a "sin" state of belief to a "saved/elected" state of belief

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

Ok.

So your "pre-belief" state was what? A sinner who knew nothing of God. A sinner that did not know he was a sinner?

Correct. :thumb:

You had to have had some type of "belief" system before you "Believed", right?

Nope. :nono: Believe in what? The things of this world? OK. You could say I was once lost shaped by worldly things. But now I'm found. Was blind, but now I see.

So how did you know that you went from a "sin" state of belief to a "saved/elected" state of belief

The invasion of the Holy Spirit upon my life making me realize I was a sinner and that I offending the Almighty God. I was moved to confess my sins, and was told that when I did, He would forgive me and make me righteous like His Son.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Well, it was never man's decision to be damned. It is man's nature to love darkness and hate light. He didn't wake up one day and say "I think I wanna go to hell."

The doctrine of Total Depravity is vital to understand if a believer wants to grow to know the power and sovereignty of the Almighty God. And since man is depraved, he is unable to accept or understand God.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one'. Romans 3:9-12

So I think that explains very well who is responsible for our salvation. And you can only deduce that it is not man. Uh... we already know you think man has no responsibility in his choice to accept Christ.

That isn't what I asked.

I would like you to be consistent and admit that man also has NO responsibility in his decision to NOT choose Christ.

What's a matter? Cat got your tongue? :)

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Knight

Uh... we already know you think man has no responsibility in his choice to accept Christ.

That isn't what I asked.

I would like you to be consistent and admit that man also has NO responsibility in his decision to NOT choose Christ.

What's a matter? Cat got your tongue? :)

slightly off topic, i just want to say congrats to knight on reaching 10k posts!

way to go :thumb:

[Knight]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

slightly off topic, i just want to say congrats to knight on reaching 10k posts!

way to go :thumb: Look at that purple star glimmer! :D

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

Uh... we already know you think man has no responsibility in his choice to accept Christ.

That isn't what I asked.

I would like you to be consistent and admit that man also has NO responsibility in his decision to NOT choose Christ.

What's a matter? Cat got your tongue? :)

C'mon Knight. You know I will not bow out and fit into your ideology on that.

Man has a responsibility if he rejects God. And he will be judged accordingly and cast into the Lake of Fire.

The flip side to the coin is that when God chose particular men unto salvation, they weren't responsible for that choosing. God even gave them the faith to believe. They could not resist His sovereign election. That IS the defining point of the word grace, and how misunderstood it is among modern-church goers.

There is nothing a man can boast about when it comes to his salvation. Arminians/Open Theists believe you can though. I would argue that they have no idea as to what grace is. But you go to their churches and they preach a "Salvation by Grace." (a twisted form of it)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

C'mon Knight. You know I will not bow out and fit into your ideology on that.

Man has a responsibility if he rejects God. And he will be judged accordingly and cast into the Lake of Fire.Uhg.... why is it you Calvinists cannot find it within yourself to answer that question consistently?????

If man can do nothing of himself (which you assert) it only follows he has no responsibility in his eternal destination for heaven OR hell.

So there you have it folks yet one more in the long line of Calvinists that assert man has no ability to make a choice.... but IS responsible for the choice as long as it's the WRONG choice. And therefore God has predestined the majority of souls to hell and to be held eternally responsible for a choice they had no ability to affect. :kookoo:

You continue...There is nothing a man can boast about when it comes to his salvation. Arminians/Open Theists believe you can though. I would argue that they have no idea as to what grace is. But you go to their churches and they preach a "Salvation by Grace." (a twisted form of it) LOL... it would be more fun to debate you if you actually understood the arguments.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

Uhg.... why is it you Calvinists cannot find it within yourself to answer that question consistently?????

You mean consistant with your perception of it. :chuckle:

If man can do nothing of himself (which you assert) it only follows he has no responsibility in his eternal destination for heaven OR hell.

Book, chapter, verse please.

So there you have it folks yet one more in the long line of Calvinists that assert man has no ability to make a choice.... but IS responsible for the choice as long as it's the WRONG choice. And therefore God has predestined the majority of souls to hell and to be held eternally responsible for a choice they had no ability to affect. :kookoo:

And it would be more fun to debate you if you actually understood what Calvinism teaches about predestination. But I would expect nothing less from one of Enyart's sheep.

You continue... LOL... it would be more fun to debate you if you actually understood the arguments.

Great comeback! Did that make you feel good to say that to me? Or were you just out of words and felt the need to sling a little mud my way?


Let me ask you something now.

With everything in your life up until now, are you accountable for? If so, did you choose to be born? Did you choose to be born in the USA? Did you choose your personality/character traits you have? What about your parents? Did you choose how you would be reared?

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman
I was moved to confess my sins, and was told that when I did, He would forgive me and make me righteous like His Son.

You were moved to confess your sins. At any time prior to this moving, did you decide that you should move to confess your sins?

See what I am getting at is that there has to be at one point in time, when you conciously decide that yes, I am a sinner, I am lost, going to hell, that you decide that you want to remove yourself from that condemned state by accepting with your heart and proclaiming with your mouth that Christ is Lord.

The words you use SM sound as if everything was done unconciously... As if you went to bed one, and got up the next morning and realized you were saved. The whole experience of getting saved was almost like a dream. As if you had no control over the circumstances at all.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

You mean consistent with your perception of it. :chuckle: I mean consistent as in using logic.

You continue...Book, chapter, verse please.:ha: Your theology isn't in the Bible! That's the point.

You continue...And it would be more fun to debate you if you actually understood what Calvinism teaches about predestination. But I would expect nothing less from one of Enyart's sheep.:confused:

Have I mentioned Bob? No?? I haven't have I?

I expect an apology and a retraction. That was beyond rude.

You continue...Let me ask you something now.

With everything in your life up until now, are you accountable for?Huh??? That didn't make sense.

You continue...If so, did you choose to be born? Did you choose to be born in the USA?No... and no. So what?

Did you choose your personality/character traits you have?To some extent yes. So what?

What about your parents? Did you choose how you would be reared? To some extent yes. And my parent had a great deal of responsibility in those decisions. So what?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

:ha: Your theology isn't in the Bible! That's the point.

:thumb: Keep reading your Bible, partner.

:confused:

Have I mentioned Bob? No?? I haven't have I?

I expect an apology and a retraction. That was beyond rude.

You are a follower of his aren't you?

OK then. How was that rude?

Let's move on.....

Huh??? That didn't make sense.

I asked you are you accountable for everything in your life up until now and you don't understand the question?

Its just a question Knight. I'm not drilling you.

No... and no. So what?

So you admit you didn't choose to be born nor where you were born. Good. At least you understand that.

To some extent yes. So what?

I don't agree here. Your personality traits are yours whether you like them or not. They make you who you are. I don't think you woke up one day and decided you wanted to be a belligerent, homosexual bashing open theist. It was obviously in His divine plan.

To some extent yes. And my parent had a great deal of responsibility in those decisions. So what?

And I disagree here as well. You made no choice at all in your childhood how your parent would rear you.

My point is, is that its all by the grace of God we are who we are. Its by the grace of God I wasn't born in Afghanistan. Its by the grace of God I wasn't reared by two lesbian moms. Its by the grace of God my parents taught me Christian values at a young age.

So you see, grace goes a long way. It isn't something us puny little humans can decide to get. If you believe that, then you don't understand grace. Simple. Accept it. Embrace it.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

You were moved to confess your sins. At any time prior to this moving, did you decide that you should move to confess your sins?

No.

See what I am getting at is that there has to be at one point in time, when you conciously decide that yes, I am a sinner, I am lost, going to hell, that you decide that you want to remove yourself from that condemned state by accepting with your heart and proclaiming with your mouth that Christ is Lord.

And that merely was my response to the faith God granted me. I did not initiate my salvation. He did.

The words you use SM sound as if everything was done unconciously... As if you went to bed one, and got up the next morning and realized you were saved. The whole experience of getting saved was almost like a dream. As if you had no control over the circumstances at all.

Ah, but the dream has yet to begin. I long for the day He comes back to take His saints with Him.

My control only goes as far as God allows it to. His grace was irresistible.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman
My point is, is that its all by the grace of God we are who we are. Its by the grace of God I wasn't born in Afghanistan. Its by the grace of God I wasn't reared by two lesbian moms. Its by the grace of God my parents taught me Christian values at a young age.And then isn't the flip side true as well (according to you that is)

Wouldn't it also be accurate to state (from your perspective.....)My point is, is that its all by the grace of God we are who we are. Its by the grace of God that some people are born in Afghanistan and become terrorists. Its by the grace of God I wasn't some people are raised by two lesbian moms. Its by the grace of God some peoples parents taught them no values at a young age and later became wicked adults.Isn't the flip side a logical extension of your theology?

If not.... why not?

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman
And that merely was my response to the faith God granted me. I did not initiate my salvation. He did.


Why did you choose to respond?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

And then isn't the flip side true as well (according to you that is)

Wouldn't it also be accurate to state (from your perspective.....)
My point is, is that its all by the grace of God we are who we are. Its by the grace of God that some people are born in Afghanistan and become terrorists. Its by the grace of God I wasn't some people are raised by two lesbian moms. Its by the grace of God some peoples parents taught them no values at a young age and later became wicked adults.

Isn't the flip side a logical extension of your theology?

If not.... why not?

Actually you're nearing the target but still missing. It really isn't by the grace of God those things occur, but it is by the will of God. He only extends His grace to His beloved, not to the damned. And I'm pretty sure you agree with this, my dear friend Knight.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

Why did you choose to respond?

I'd use a different word over "choose". Because I didn't choose. I responded because the gift of faith was imparted to me and His grace pulled me in like a tractor beam. I couldn't resist His loving, saving grace.

What are you trying to prove here anyway? That one can freely choose God? You Arminians have been trying to do that for centuries.

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I'd use a different word over "choose". Because I didn't choose. I responded because the gift of faith was imparted to me and His grace pulled me in like a tractor beam. I couldn't resist His loving, saving grace.

What are you trying to prove here anyway? That one can freely choose God? You Arminians have been trying to do that for centuries.

I wouldn't call myself Arminian... I didn't even know the difference between Calvin and Arminius until a few years ago or what those terms meant...

I find Calvinism to be very intresting, but in my spirit, I can't agree with everything. Nor is Arminianism fully correct nor anyone else as a matter of fact... I don't think anyone has the perfect box for God yet.

We all believe in predestination.... You have to, or you believe that God is not Sovreign, thus not making him God. The difficult part is trying to understand how our dominion over this earth, and our ability to make conscious decisions aligns itself with God who knows all things. I have contemplated this many times and at best I can only summize that we really don't know how to define God in an absolute theology.

If we are all, predestined to Heaven or Hell, with no ability to change who we are, then how can we stand condemned on the day of judgement when we would be able to point the finger back at God. Morally, that is not a just, fair and loving God, and I think most people will agree. But you SM, confuse me and others by saying that we are responsible for our own condemnation, but yet you are not responsible in anyway for your own salvation. You were mearly drawn to it like a mosquito to the blue light...confused:

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by kidd94

I wouldn't call myself Arminian... I didn't even know the difference between Calvin and Arminius until a few years ago or what those terms meant...

I find Calvinism to be very intresting, but in my spirit, I can't agree with everything. Nor is Arminianism fully correct nor anyone else as a matter of fact... I don't think anyone has the perfect box for God yet.

And I don't agree with all of Calvinism either. I'm more of a 4 1/2 pointer if there is such a thing. hehe.....

We all believe in predestination.... You have to, or you believe that God is not Sovreign, thus not making him God.

Actually, most believers do not believe in predestination. Spend more time here on TOL and observe the non-belief.

The difficult part is trying to understand how our dominion over this earth, and our ability to make conscious decisions aligns itself with God who knows all things. I have contemplated this many times and at best I can only summize that we really don't know how to define God in an absolute theology.

Nicely put. Our finite minds can't (in this world) understand the things of God. One day, I believe His people will.

If we are all, predestined to Heaven or Hell, with no ability to change who we are, then how can we stand condemned on the day of judgement when we would be able to point the finger back at God. Morally, that is not a just, fair and loving God, and I think most people will agree.

You might want to do some more studying on predestination then. "Predestined to Hell" is never mentioned in the Scriptures. Only those who are predestined are those who are foreknown. (see Romans 8:29-30) And those who are foreknown, are the ones He loved from the foundation of the world. So, effectually, He doesn't predestine everybody. It ties in with foreknowledge. So, you have a large group of people (called the reprobate) who are not "known" by God.

But you SM, confuse me and others by saying that we are responsible for our own condemnation, but yet you are not responsible in anyway for your own salvation. You were mearly drawn to it like a mosquito to the blue light...confused:

Those whom are condemned deserve it because they are sinful. In fact, we all deserve such a condemnation. (see Ephesians 2:3) It really wasn't fair that God chose any unto salvation. You might ask why does God choose some and not the others. The only one who knows this answer is God Himself. It is for His glory though.

[Turbo]

Originally posted (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=591386#post591386) by Swordsman

My point is that man IS responsible for his actions. And that includes lust. If one has issues with lust, he doesn't need to go eat at Hooters. Likewise, Christian females do not need to be exposing themselves. :confused:

I thought you thought it's all part of God's design. God predestines that men will lust; they have no control over the matter. And Hooters was God's idea. And if a Christian woman dresses immodestly it's because God specifically designed her wardrobe before time began.

Is there any part of that with which you disagree ?

[Christine]

Originally posted by Turbo

I thought you thought it's all part of God's design. God predestines that men will lust; they have no control over the matter. And Hooters was God's idea. And if a Christian woman dresses immodestly it's because God specifically designed her wardrobe before time began.

Is there any part of that with which you disagree ?
Hi :turbo:

I know this isn't directed at me, but I do have a response :)

While everything is predestinated, man is still held accountable for his actions. This may sound like a contradiction, but this is how God set I believe God set it up.

[Swordsman]

Christine and Turbo, but I never agreed everything is predestined. What Calvinist ever said every all things are predestined. No one. But the feeble-minded Arminian can't Only His elect are predestined to receive His love and therefore be eternally His.

You're trying to put words in my mouth Turbo, and you know it. Man is responsible for all that he does. And furthermore, it all comes naturally for man anyway. My sinful nature isn't something I acquired on my own. I was born with it. You were too. Embrace that Turbo.

Point being, you will come to grips with it. In these days, or before the judgement seat of the Almighty God.

ARGHH!!!!! Now do you know why Open Theism makes me furious.

All these misconceptions they throw out:
Predestined to hell?
Choosing God?
God doesn't know all?
God is not eternal?
Man has free-will apart from God's will?
ARGHH!!!:mad:

Did the Holy Spirit impart these "truths" to you? Or is it just something that sounded good while you were reading Boyd, or Enyart, or any other heretical author?

[God_Is_Truth]

All these misconceptions they throw out:
Predestined to hell?
Choosing God?
God doesn't know all?
God is not eternal?
Man has free-will apart from God's will?


believe it or not, my theology is from the bible :D

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Christine and Turbo, but I never agreed everything is predestined. What Calvinist ever said every all things are predestined. No one. But the feeble-minded Arminian can't Only His elect are predestined to receive His love and therefore be eternally His.

Swordsman,

What Calvinist ever said that all things are predestined? How about all of them! It is a basic Calvinist doctrine. To deny that every single event that occurs whether it is of a moral nature or not is to deny Calvinism all together! Every flicker of light that bounces from the road to the chrome bumper on the car in front of you and just past your head that you never even saw was predestined to take that exact path at the exact moment that it happened. Every atom is in its exact place, precisely where God predestined that it would be before time began. This is the essence Calvinistic predestination.
Such meticulous predestination is logically required in order to maintain the absolute immutability of God. If something happened that God hadn't already known about then that would be a change and God's perfect immutability would crumble into dust. Calvinistic immutability is so important because they reason that something that is perfect cannot change because if it did then it would no longer be perfect.
This single piece of faulty logic is what the entire TULIP is logically derived from. To remove it is catastrophic to the entire Calvinist theological construct.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[kidd94]

Originally posted by Swordsman

You might want to do some more studying on predestination then. "Predestined to Hell" is never mentioned in the Scriptures. Only those who are predestined are those who are foreknown. (see Romans 8:29-30) And those who are foreknown, are the ones He loved from the foundation of the world. So, effectually, He doesn't predestine everybody. It ties in with foreknowledge. So, you have a large group of people (called the reprobate) who are not "known" by God.


My concern is that, according to what I have read, salavation is not our responsibilty, but somehow, eternal torment is... :devil:
That unbalances the scales of morality. Yes we can't fully understand God, but God his truest essence is Love.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

If we want to find God, and understand God, isn't His word a great place to start. The scriptures outline the qualities of those who display love, and God is that perfect example. These passages may not fit into the mold of election vs free will, but it does point to the character of God. That is why I, in all honesty, can not say that there are those who go to hell, and have no way of changing that.

[kidd94]

This scripture here has always intrested me. The key verse is 35. How can we reconcile this. It does appear to point in the direction that we do have the ability (dominion) to do things of this world that somehow God allows to happen that did not enter His mind... Granted this does not prove anything, but it does shed some possible light, however dim it might be.



Jeremiah 32:32-35

32 because of all the evil of the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah which they have done to provoke Me to anger--they, their kings, their leaders, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

33 "They have turned {their} back to Me and not {their} face; though {I} taught them, teaching again and again, they would not listen and receive instruction.

34 "But they put their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it.

35 "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through {the fire} to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin..

[natewood3]

Clete,

Before I ask this, I am not trying to argue; I just am looking for the answer. You said:


Calvinistic immutability is so important because they reason that something that is perfect cannot change because if it did then it would no longer be perfect.

Is not a change always for better or worse?

[natewood3]

kidd94,

If we want to find God, and understand God, isn't His word a great place to start. The scriptures outline the qualities of those who display love, and God is that perfect example. These passages may not fit into the mold of election vs free will, but it does point to the character of God. That is why I, in all honesty, can not say that there are those who go to hell, and have no way of changing that.

Love is not God's most important attribute as Open Theism would have you believe. God is no more loving than He is Therefore, God judges and punishes sin. Either the individual will bear his/her own sin, or Christ will bear his/her sin.

[Knight]

Originally posted by natewood3
Is not a change always for better or worse? It was the ancient pagan philosophers that came up with the flawed logic that something perfect cannot change.

And that philosophy is so obviously wrong!

Well.... wrong that is when applied to a animate objects or a living beings. That pagan philosophy only makes any sense when applied to a INanimate objects, like bowling balls or a statue.

A perfect clock changes ALL day long!!!

Animated objects or living beings change by definition. If we came across a animated object or a living being that didn't change we would refer to that item as "broken" or "dead".

A perfect God has the ability to relent... show mercy.... grieve... get jealous... get angry... forgive.... forget... and become flesh. God is NOT broken. God is alive! God is the Living God.

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation. - Jeremiah 10:10

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Knight

It was the ancient pagan philosophers that came up with the flawed logic that something perfect cannot change.

And that philosophy is so obviously wrong!

Well.... wrong that is when applied to a animate objects or a living beings. That pagan philosophy only makes any sense when applied to a INanimate objects, like bowling balls or a statue.

A perfect clock changes ALL day long!!!

Animated objects or living beings change by definition. If we came across a animated object or a living being that didn't change we would refer to that item as "broken" or "dead".

A perfect God has the ability to relent... show mercy.... grieve... get jealous... get angry... forgive.... forget... and become flesh. God is NOT broken. God is alive! God is the Living God.

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation. - Jeremiah 10:10

:up:

[kidd94]

Originally posted by natewood3

kidd94,

Love is not God's most important attribute as Open Theism would have you believe. God is no more loving than He is Therefore, God judges and punishes sin. Either the individual will bear his/her own sin, or Christ will bear his/her sin.

What is God's most important attribute then...?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

It was the ancient pagan philosophers that came up with the flawed logic that something perfect cannot change.

And that philosophy is so obviously wrong!

Well.... wrong that is when applied to a animate objects or a living beings. That pagan philosophy only makes any sense when applied to a INanimate objects, like bowling balls or a statue.

A perfect clock changes ALL day long!!!

Animated objects or living beings change by definition. If we came across a animated object or a living being that didn't change we would refer to that item as "broken" or "dead".

A perfect God has the ability to relent... show mercy.... grieve... get jealous... get angry... forgive.... forget... and become flesh. God is NOT broken. God is alive! God is the Living God.

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation. - Jeremiah 10:10

:down:

I could never trust a god like that. :nono:

Per your definition, he's no different than we are. I wonder if He could possibly sin? :think:

I like how Thomas Oden, a Methodist minister, warns the church against the false doctrines of openness

The fantasy that God is ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected on scriptural grounds. Keeping the boundaries of faith undefined is a demonic temptation that evangelicals within the mainline have learned all too well and have been burned by all too painfully.

I love how he used the words "fantasy" and "demonic". That's exactly what the open view brings. It is just another attack on the church by Satan himself.

If the apostle Paul were still around, he would be writing letters to the churches in America exhorting them to flee these satanic falsehoods and hold on to the truth - that God is God! And that His will CANNOT be thwarted and those whom He hasn't plucked from the stream of men falling into Hell will be condemned for eternity! He is the one true Almighty God! There is no other. He knows the future because He created it! He knows all His sheep before the foundation of the world because He created them.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
believe it or not, my theology is from the bible :D

No it is not. How many times do I need to tell you that The Plot is NOT the Bible?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

:down:

I could never trust a god like that. :nono: You have a problem with the Living God?

YES or NO
In the Bible God describes Himself as the Living God?

Per your definition, he's no different than we are. I wonder if He could possibly sin? :think: That wasn't my definition.... it was His definition.

you continue...I love how he used the words "fantasy" and "demonic". That's exactly what the open view brings. It is just another attack on the church by Satan himself.

If the apostle Paul were still around, he would be writing letters to the churches in America exhorting them to flee these satanic falsehoods and hold on to the truth - that God is God! And that His will CANNOT be thwarted and those whom He hasn't plucked from the stream of men falling into Hell will be condemned for eternity! He is the one true Almighty God! There is no other. He knows the future because He created it! He knows all His sheep before the foundation of the world because He created them.Spare us the dramatics... you sound as if you are losing it. :kookoo:

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

You have a problem with the Living God?

No. There you go assuming I said that again.

YES or NO
In the Bible God describes Himself as the Living God?

Yes. Point? Because His "living" is nothing like our "living". You have no platform here Knight if you think you can draw some sort of conclusion to the Living God likened into a living man where he can make mistakes, take risks, change his mind, make regrets, ignorant, impatient, etc.....

If so, then I'll say it again. I COULD NEVER TRUST A GOD LIKE THAT.

That wasn't my definition.... it was His definition.

So its possible for God to sin? Please tell me that's not what you're saying? If so, you're no different than arguing with an atheist.

Spare us the dramatics... you sound as if you are losing it. :kookoo:

I'm always happy to entertain you Knight. :D

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

No it is not. How many times do I need to tell you that The Plot is NOT the Bible?

for the record, i have not read the Plot. not one single page.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

If so, then I'll say it again. I COULD NEVER TRUST A GOD LIKE THAT.



why not?

[Knight]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

for the record, i have not read the Plot. not one single page. Don't bother Swordsman with the facts... he's like a bull in fine china store. :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

If so, then I'll say it again. I COULD NEVER TRUST A GOD LIKE THAT.

So you cannot trust a God that is capable of change???

I trust a God that BECAME flesh.... do you?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

So you cannot trust a God that is capable of change???

No. Because He does not change. WE DO!

I trust a God that BECAME flesh.... do you?

Yes. And what is your point here? And please don't give me any more "change" openness jargon.

[jpbordeaux87]

Posted by Knight:“And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.� - Joshua 24:15

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.�

+

Posted by Swordsman:But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14

...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one'. Romans 3:9-12

= If the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, aren't you both right? Or is this a contradiction? Or maybe it's "One of God's secrets"? Can they both be true?
This does not compute.

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,

Before I ask this, I am not trying to argue; I just am looking for the answer. You said:




Is not a change always for better or worse?

Is an Oak better or worse because it grew a leaf or dropped an acorn or went dormant in winter?

Is a mountain stream better or worse because eroded a portion of the bank and meandered to the south of it previous position?

Is a traffic light better or worse because the light changed from green to red?

Is a car engine better or worse because cylinder 8 is firing at the moment instead of cylinder 7?

No! These things are not better or worse they are simply different!

Change does not imply improvement or worsening especially if it is part of one's nature to change. In that case, not to change would imply that something was wrong. If something does not change that should then chances are it is dead! Take the Oak for an example, does and dead stump of an Oak tree change more or less than one that is alive?
God is a living relational being. To suggest that He is immutable robs Him of the ability to even think, never mind have a genuine two way love relationship with another living being.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Swordsman,

Is God dead right now?

Has He ever been dead, even for say, 3 days maybe?

Has God ever been a man?

Is God a man right now?

Has there ever been a time when God was not a man?

Would you say that when something dies it has changed to one degree or another from when it was alive?

Is God sin now?

Has God ever been sin, say when he was dying on the cross, for example?

Has God always been sin?


The Calvinist doctrine of immutability is utterly incompatible with the very gospel itself. This speaks nothing about Open Theism, there are other possibilities so don't jump into attacking what you think Open Theism teaches in attempt to evade the questions I've posed here. We'll get to Open Theism in due time. You say that Open Theism makes you furious but it is you who are either unwilling, or unable to defend what you posit as not only AN alternative to it, but THE ONLY alternative to it! If you cannot defend Calvinism, why would I, or anyone else here, drop Open Theism in favor of it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Christine

Hi :turbo:

I know this isn't directed at me, but I do have a response :)

While everything is predestinated, man is still held accountable for his actions. This may sound like a contradiction, but this is how God set I believe God set it up.

Does not compute. The reason it sounds like a contradiction is that it is incoherent.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Christine and Turbo, but I never agreed everything is predestined. What Calvinist ever said every all things are predestined. No one. But the feeble-minded Arminian can't Only His elect are predestined to receive His love and therefore be eternally His.

You're trying to put words in my mouth Turbo, and you know it. Man is responsible for all that he does. And furthermore, it all comes naturally for man anyway. My sinful nature isn't something I acquired on my own. I was born with it. You were too. Embrace that Turbo.

Point being, you will come to grips with it. In these days, or before the judgement seat of the Almighty God.

ARGHH!!!!! Now do you know why Open Theism makes me furious.

All these misconceptions they throw out:
Predestined to hell?
Choosing God?
God doesn't know all?
God is not eternal?
Man has free-will apart from God's will?
ARGHH!!!:mad:

Did the Holy Spirit impart these "truths" to you? Or is it just something that sounded good while you were reading Boyd, or Enyart, or any other heretical author?

You are rejecting a straw-man caricature. God knows everything that is logically knowable=omniscient. Open Theists do not deny that God is uncreated, eternal. Many do see that eternal means everlasting duration, not timelessness. In both views, God has no beginning or end, etc.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The Calvinist doctrine of immutability is utterly incompatible with the very gospel itself.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 6:17-18 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

There are more, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

This speaks nothing about Open Theism, there are other possibilities so don't jump into attacking what you think Open Theism teaches in attempt to evade the questions I've posed here. We'll get to Open Theism in due time.

My dear friend Cletus. I believe the title of this thread is "ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!" So, the teachings of open theism are what's at stake, nothing else.

You say that Open Theism makes you furious but it is you who are either unwilling, or unable to defend what you posit as not only AN alternative to it, but THE ONLY alternative to it! If you cannot defend Calvinism, why would I, or anyone else here, drop Open Theism in favor of it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Calvinism is NOT an alternative to the open view. It is the open view which has been portrayed as an alternative to foundational Christianity by renegade evangelicals such as Boyd and Pinnock.

I don't claim ever to defend Calvinism. However, its truths are Biblical and have been proven and defended for hundreds of years. The Open View, well, it has pretty much been denounced in most religious denominations as heresy.

[godrulz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,

Before I ask this, I am not trying to argue; I just am looking for the answer. You said:

Is not a change always for better or worse? [/

QUOTE]

This is a Platonic fallacy. Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and in relationship with God and man. As He grew and changed from baby to adult, He did not go from better to worse. Creation and incarnation involve changes in the universe and in the Godhead (the Word became flesh, He was not always flesh= change).

A clock changes dynamically. It is accurate only because it changes, not because it is static/broke.

I can change my plans, preferences, thinking, etc. Often this is a change from the worse to the better.

For God to have a succession of thoughts or feelings (self-evident in the Bible), does not diminish His perfection. He would be imperfect if He could not change as we can. His character and attributes are unchanging. His relations and experiences do change. Strong immutability is indefensible for a personal being (absolute changeless=static). God is immutable in some vs all senses. He is not fickle or arbitrary, but He does change in response to man's repentance/prayer or continued rebellion (e.g. Jonah; Hezekiah).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by natewood3

kidd94,



Love is not God's most important attribute as Open Theism would have you believe. God is no more loving than He is Therefore, God judges and punishes sin. Either the individual will bear his/her own sin, or Christ will bear his/her sin.

God's wrath, grace, mercy, justice, etc. flow out of God's love.

"God is love" I John 4:8

"God is light" I Jn. 1:5

Jn. 4:24 "God is spirit"

"God is sovereign" ? Hezekiah?

God is sovereign, but your definition of sovereigty is lacking. He is dynamic, responsive, creative, providential. He is not static and absolutely immutable or meticulously controlling (the logical outcome of your assumptions).

[Hilston]

You guys should be embarrassed. Calvinists (whoever you are) should not let these sloppy and shiftless comments go unchallenged, but you do. Why?

You Open Theists are fortunate that you don't have careful thinking and sharp-minded Calvinists to debate you.

Knight writes:
It was the ancient pagan philosophers that came up with the flawed logic that something perfect cannot change.

And that philosophy is so obviously wrong!I challenge you to quote the philosopher(s) who said this, and then prove that you know what they meant by "change" and "perfection" in their vocabulary. Prove you know the difference between essence and morphology.

Like a bunch of Dan Rathers running around, you Open Theists make these general statements and then support them with the selective and anti-contextual evidence that only favors your view, not showing any care or concern about your readers, fans or critics and the fact that there are verses that do say God is unchanging (Ps 102:26,27 Mal 3:6 Joh 8:58 Heb 13:8 Jas 1:17).

Knight writes:
Well.... wrong that is when applied to a animate objects or a living beings. That pagan philosophy only makes any sense when applied to a INanimate objects, like bowling balls or a statue.This only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

Knight writes:
A perfect clock changes ALL day long!!!Oh, I see. So at some point, all this changing would mean that it's no longer a clock, right? Oh, wait a second, maybe you don't mean change in that way? But wait, the way you Open Theists talk, one would think that change should only be understood in the simplest of terms, since you don't lift a finger to give careful definitions for anything. It's so annoying. I know what would happen if I pressed you guys on this stuff: You would start to backpedal and say, "I didn't mean it in that way" etc etc etc ad a nauseum. You guys make me sick. :vomit:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
The Calvinist doctrine of immutability is utterly incompatible with the very gospel itself.Prove you even understand the doctrine of immutability. I have yet to find an Open Theist who has a clue. It's embarrassing.

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is an Oak better or worse because it grew a leaf or dropped an acorn or went dormant in winter?See what I mean? Good grief, you guys are pathetic. So God could lose something, or maybe something could go dormant, like His mercy or maybe His longsuffering? :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a mountain stream better or worse because eroded a portion of the bank and meandered to the south of it previous position?Oh, I see. So because God moves and erodes things, that means He changes? Heraclitus would laugh you out of the room. :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a traffic light better or worse because the light changed from green to red?That's exactly how I picture God. Green one moment, yellow the next, then red. That is what you're implying, isn't? Or maybe it's not that simple. Sheesh. :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a car engine better or worse because cylinder 8 is firing at the moment instead of cylinder 7?How insightful! God is so much like an 8-cylinder engine the way He has intake and compression and exhaust and stuff. Brilliant! :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
No! These things are not better or worse they are simply different!But, isn't different synonymous with change? Oh, but you probably don't mean that kind of different. Or do you? What do you mean by different? What do you mean by change? What do you mean by Calvinism? It certainly is not like anything Calvin actually taught. Have any of you ever read a single word of Calvin? I've never met a more entertaining group of know-it-alls who don't know jack. You guys make me sick. :vomit:

Have a nice day.

[godrulz]

Sword (alternative interpretation vs your proof texts):

Have you read all of Boyd's works or just the anti-Open books (I read both sides for balance)?

Num. 23:19 (God is not a man that he should lie or change his mind)

This is not a proof text for strong immutability. In this case/context, God is not fickle or capricious like man. It is that He WILL not vs CANNOT change in this specific instance/matter. God will not reverse His decision, but in other cases He does (Jonah; Hezekiah). He is faithful and trustworthy (will not change). Other prophecies are conditional and He says He will relent/change IF they heed His warnings.

Mal. 3:6 This does not mean that He does not change in any way (incarnation/creation are changes). It refers to divine faithfulness. God is not fickle or capricious. His moral character and essential attributes do not change, but His dealings with man, His experiences, His relations can and do change (or God is a cosmic blob, impassible and immutable...your understanding of immutability is Platonic, not Pauline).

James 1:17 Again, God does not change in a whimsical way. He is stable and trustworthy. You cannot use this as a proof text to make a speculative doctrine of strong immutability in every sense.

Heb. 6 God has an unchangeable purpose. He desires to redeem a people for Himself. His promises are certain (I can have integrity and make a promise. Does that make me immutable in an absolute sense? We are in the personal and moral image of God. It is impossible for God to lie in a moral vs metaphysical sense. You confuse God's personality/attributes and morals (unchanging) with relations and experiences (which do change if we are alive). Will (act), intellect (think), and emotions (feel) require change, sequence, duration, succession. They cannot logically happen all at once ('eternal now'). The context is not a didactic portion on immutability, but an affirmation of God's consistency in His dealings and purposes/intentions. The Flood was a change in God's plans. If humans did not become so corrupt, there would not have been a flood.

Ps. 102:26,27 In contrast to man who will perish, God will remain the same and endure from everlasting to everlasting. This says nothing about God's relations and experiences which can change (He will not perish, but this does not mean He is absolutely changeless in every sense).

Jn. 8:58 "I am" This means that the Word preexisted and is YHWH of Ex. 3:14. He is the self-existing one with no beginning and no end. He is uncreated. It does not mean that He cannot change. After all, He did create and incarnate. His interactions with Israel, individuals, and the Church are dynamic, not absolutely unchanging.

Heb. 13:8 Jesus is unchanging in His character and essential attributes. He did experience change in space-time and became the God-Man forever (different relation in the Godhead than His preexistence before He became flesh...He has not always had a body).

Are these explanations plausible even if you disagree with them? If not, why not? (apart from a preconceived theology)? Do you have sloppy exegesis with eisegesis, or does your view come from inductive study (vs deductive)?

[Knight]

Poor Hilston... he has such a hard time with such simple concepts!

This has always been his downfall.

Tell us Hilston....

Which clock would be more perfect?

The clock that changes all day long?

Or... the clock that doesn't change at all?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Yes. And what is your point here? And please don't give me any more "change" openness jargon. Answer me this....

YES or NO....?

God becoming flesh was a type of change.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 6:17-18 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

There are more, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

No there aren't more. These are the three verses of scripture that Calvinists use to prop up thier Aristitilian beleif system.

These verses are talking about God character, His personality, His righteuosness and Holiness. They are not saying that God does not change at all in any way whatsoever. Absolute imutability is not taught at all in the Bible, it just is not in there.

My dear friend Cletus.
Only the women in my life are permited to call me Cletus.

I believe the title of this thread is "ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!" So, the teachings of open theism are what's at stake, nothing else.
This thread was very obviously named in direct response to Knight's thread against Calvinism. And you are saying in one way or another that Calvinism is the absolute equivilent to Christianity itself. We have presented multiple evidences both logical and Biblical that Calvinism is untenable and yet you refuse to rebut those arguments and instead stomp your feet and insist that Open Theism can't be true because Calvinism is. Well sorry, saying it doesn't make it so.

Calvinism is NOT an alternative to the open view. It is the open view which has been portrayed as an alternative to foundational Christianity by renegade evangelicals such as Boyd and Pinnock.
Are you even capable of constucting a logical thought in your head? If the Open View is an alternative to Calvinism then Calvinism is an alternative to the Open View. Further, Calvinism is less than 500 years old.

I don't claim ever to defend Calvinism. However, its truths are Biblical and have been proven and defended for hundreds of years. The Open View, well, it has pretty much been denounced in most religious denominations as heresy.
Yeah by Calvinists like you! What else would you expect? Unfortunately for you and the other Calvinists in the world, saying that Calvinism is Biblical doesn't make it so. Prove it if you can, or admit that you cannot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

Poor Hilston... he has such a hard time with such simple concepts!

This has always been his downfall.

Tell us Hilston....

Which clock would be more perfect?

The clock that changes all day long?

Or... the clock that doesn't change at all? The clock that changes all day long, of course. And guess what? The kind of change you're talking about is perfectly consistent with the Calvinistic concept of God's nature. But you wouldn't know that because you're too busy tilting at windmills to even know what you're talking about. :freak:

Are you surprised? Or do you just not give a rip?

Originally posted by Knight
Answer me this....

YES or NO....?

God becoming flesh was a type of change.OH! Now it's a TYPE of change? Now you're being careful? See what I mean? This is exactly the kind of sloppy theological tripe that makes me marvel at the depravity of man.

By the way, the answer is YES. Would Calvin disagree? Do you even care?

But it's entertaining.

Rock on.

[natewood3]

Knight,

Animated objects or living beings change by definition.

You are making God on the same level as other beings...

A perfect God has the ability to relent... show mercy.... grieve... get jealous... get angry... forgive.... forget... and become flesh. God is NOT broken. God is alive! God is the Living God.

Immutability does not mean that God cannot respond or move. He does show mercy, forgive, etc. However, He does not do these things like a man or as a human would do these things. He does not change His mind, for example, like a man, for God is not a man that He should change His mind.

[natewood3]

kidd94,

What is God's most important attribute then...?

I do not see how you can think that God can have a "most important attribute," as if God uses part of His being more than others...

I do not believe any single attribute is more important than the rest...

[natewood3]

Clete,

Change does not imply improvement or worsening especially if it is part of one's nature to change. In that case, not to change would imply that something was wrong. If something does not change that should then chances are it is dead! Take the Oak for an example, does and dead stump of an Oak tree change more or less than one that is alive?
God is a living relational being. To suggest that He is immutable robs Him of the ability to even think, never mind have a genuine two way love relationship with another living being.

So God is not really immutable even though He says all over, "I change not"??? That confuses me...

What you are doing is making all of these examples apply to God; these things change, which are not for better or worse, so God must change and it not be for better or worse. Are ANY of those things you listed perfect?

Humans can change and it not be for better or worse, right? Are we perfect? Are we the reference point to show how God really is? I think not...We are like God, not vice versa...

BTW, most Calvinists would never imply that God does not think experience, emotions, etc...

[Hilston]

Natewood,

It's a waste of time. They don't care. You can quote Augustine or Calvin to them all day long, stating the explicit opposite of what they criticize, but they just don't care. Knight even exclaimed surprise at one point, saying something to the effect of "Wow, so Calvin does believe God changes." I thought maybe it might stick. But no. The Open Theists are so utterly incapable of arguing against the doctrine and prefer to argue against straw men that they will tenaciously continue to say that the Calvinists believe that God does not change in any way.

Total depravity in action, demonstrated by those who deny its reality. Delicious irony.

Here's another: The only thing that doesn't change in any way is the Open Theist's insistence that Calvinists believe that God doesn't change in any way.

[natewood3]

Hilston,

I think you are completely right...it is straw man after straw man.

[Yorzhik]

Hilston wrote
It's a waste of time. They don't care.
I'm hurt. I've actually tried to care about what you say, staying awake at night considering your posts. I have found it difficult that we so frequently are told we don't know a thing about TD or the nature of the Triune God, but you (and I've looked for it) have never offered what you think is the correct view.

Can you explain the Trinity and TD so we know your definitions of at least these 2 things?

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,



So God is not really immutable even though He says all over, "I change not"??? That confuses me...
A change of mind or a change from Spirit to flesh does not imply that God changes in His character or personality, etc. How can that be confusing?

What you are doing is making all of these examples apply to God; these things change, which are not for better or worse, so God must change and it not be for better or worse. Are ANY of those things you listed perfect?
What does it mean to be a perfect Oak tree? Does it not mean that it grows, reproduces, goes dormant in winter and spouts new growth in the spring? The very definition of being alive implies constant and various types of change.

Humans can change and it not be for better or worse, right? Are we perfect? Are we the reference point to show how God really is? I think not...We are like God, not vice versa...
Was Jesus perfect? Did He not grow from a baby into a teenager and then into adulthood? Did He not learn obedience? Did He not make new friends and developed other relationships which He did not have before? Did Jesus not die? Did He not rise from the dead?
Jesus was perfect in every conceivable way and yet changed in the most important ways immaginable!


BTW, most Calvinists would never imply that God does not think experience, emotions, etc...
Well of course they wouldn't! (Actually some do, but most intuitively see the problem with such an implication). Despite what Jim says we are not arguing against straw men. In fact, if anything, it is Jim who has presented the straw man not me or any other Open Theist on this thread. I know that Calvinists believe that God loves and that God thinks etc. The point is that the theology that they believe is based upon the fact that God is utterly immutable. Augustine absolutely did believe that God was immutable and based his predestination theology on that premise. Luther failed to drop much of what Augustine taught and Calvin learned it from Luther and formalized it into what we call Calvinism today. Augustine, by the way, learned that God was immutable from Aristotle (Plato) not the Bible. In fact he refused to become a Christian until he figured our how to make the Bible agree with Plato. And so when a Calvinist permits God to have a new thought or to be mad at one point in time and then glad in another, they are destroying the very foundation of their own theology, most without even knowing that they are doing so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

No there aren't more. These are the three verses of scripture that Calvinists use to prop up thier Aristitilian beleif system.

I'll spend the weekend and study up on this some more, but I know there are plenty more passage in yours and my Bible that back this up.

These verses are talking about God character, His personality, His righteuosness and Holiness. They are not saying that God does not change at all in any way whatsoever. Absolute imutability is not taught at all in the Bible, it just is not in there.

See comment above.


Only the women in my life are permited to call me Cletus.

Forgive me then, Clete.

This thread was very obviously named in direct response to Knight's thread against Calvinism. And you are saying in one way or another that Calvinism is the absolute equivilent to Christianity itself. We have presented multiple evidences both logical and Biblical that Calvinism is untenable and yet you refuse to rebut those arguments and instead stomp your feet and insist that Open Theism can't be true because Calvinism is. Well sorry, saying it doesn't make it so.

No, you have no presented any evidence that Calvinism isn't Biblical. Some of your views and opinions? Yes, you have done a good job of that. Keep up the good work Clete. Why don't you, or I guess I could do it, start a thread dealing with some of these controversies such as God's immutability.

Are you even capable of constucting a logical thought in your head? If the Open View is an alternative to Calvinism then Calvinism is an alternative to the Open View. Further, Calvinism is less than 500 years old.

Just because something is the alternative of something else, doesn't mean it goes vice-versa. The open view is an alternative to fundamental Christianity. Fundamental Christianity is NOT an alternative to the open view.

Yeah by Calvinists like you! What else would you expect? Unfortunately for you and the other Calvinists in the world, saying that Calvinism is Biblical doesn't make it so. Prove it if you can, or admit that you cannot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

C.H. Spurgeon once said That doctrine which is called "Calvinism" did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Holy Spirit of God, from diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them from the Holy Ghost and from Jesus Christ, the great founder of the Christian Church. We use the term then, not because we impute an extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with the fact.

The main doctrine the opposition has with Calvinism is of the plan for salvation. The doctrines that make up the plan for salvation are:

1. The loving election by the Father.
2. The powerful redemption accomplished by the Son.
3. The effectual calling by the Spirit.

These were defined, defended, and expressed by the Synod of Dort in 1618; also in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. Later they were expressed in the Old Baptist Confession of 1689, later adopted by the Philadelphia Association, out of which Southern Baptists came.

Clete, I am not on a mission to prove to you that Calvinism is just another word for "evangelism" or Christianity. I know you are an ex-Reformer as well. So you know the truths the Reformed doctrines spell out. And you do not believe them for whatever reason. Possibly it is because you do not understand them.

I don't understand a many thing from the words of Christ. Like why He only calls a few unto His grace, and casts others into the Lake of Fire. I know it is only for His glory, but that doesn't help me understand it. However, I do believe that it is true. And that is all that is required of me - to have faith, or to believe. And God empowered me to have the faith required to believe. So, the difficult theologies of Calvinism really do not bother me anymore, because God has granted unto me His Spirit that injects truth upon me.

Calvinism isn't a school of thought. It is an imputation of the power of God by the Spirit upon a believer.

[Hilston]

Yorzhik,

How long have you been debating "Calvinists"? Have you ever bothered to look up the term "total depravity" in any Calvinistic or Augustinian literature or a theological dictionary? Chances are, it's the one I espouse.

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I'm hurt. I've actually tried to care about what you say, staying awake at night considering your posts. I have found it difficult that we so frequently are told we don't know a thing about TD ...The facts can't be denied. Every time the term is raised, I roll my eyes when I see what is understood by it.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
... but you (and I've looked for it) have never offered what you think is the correct view.I have. I've given whole paragraphs of excerpts from other literature as proof that Open Theists do not understand the term. These excerpts were read and acknowledged, yet the insanity persists. What else do you call it when people are repeatedly corrected, yet persist in their error? Insanity.

[Yorzhik]

Have you ever bothered to look up the term "total depravity" in any Calvinistic or Augustinian literature or a theological dictionary? Chances are, it's the one I espouse.
-and-
I have. I've given whole paragraphs of excerpts from other literature as proof that Open Theists do not understand the term.
Oh; I'll look for both.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Hilston
Here's another: The only thing that doesn't change in any way is the Open Theist's insistence that Calvinists believe that God doesn't change in any way. Hey cool!

Set the record straight for us Jim.

Does God change in any way?

P.S.
You do realize this question has been answered by folks like you (lets call them "Calvinist leaning types") on TOL about a million times. That's what we are arguing here my friend! The answers you guys have given us! Now if you think God has the ability to change then you can set yourself apart from the rest and that would be just great with me.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I'm hurt. I've actually tried to care about what you say, staying awake at night considering your posts. I've been there done that. Then I learned that Jim is good for at least 2 or 3 flame-outs per year. His bizarre and sudden rude behavior is really sad. :(

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

Hey cool!

Set the record straight for us Jim.

Does God change in any way?Yes. He changes in many ways. I've told you this before. I've quoted Calvin and Augustine to show that you Open Theists don't know what you're talking about. And now I'm saying it again. You call me rude. I call you dense. Try to get it this time. Yes, God changes. Yes. Si. Oui. Hai. Affirmative.

Originally posted by Knight
P.S.
You do realize this question has been answered by folks like you (lets call them "Calvinist leaning types") on TOL about a million times. That's what we are arguing here my friend! The answers you guys have given us! Now if you think God has the ability to change then you can set yourself apart from the rest and that would be just great with me. You have such a short memory. Or else you just don't care. :rolleyes:

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

I've been there done that. Then I learned that Jim is good for at least 2 or 3 flame-outs per year. His bizarre and sudden rude behavior is really sad. :( What are you talking about? :confused:

[Hilston]

I'm curious: Are there any Open Theists here that have ever looked up the term "total depravity" in any Calvinistic or Augustinian literature or a theological dictionary?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Hilston

Yes. He changes in many ways. I've told you this before. I've quoted Calvin and Augustine to show that you Open Theists don't know what you're talking about.Jim... it is you who is missing the point! Do you know how many times here on TOL I have been told God cannot, and does not change in ANY way?

I wish I had a dime for every time that has been typed here on this forum. Therefore it is irrelevant what you or Calvin say, the point is that the people who follow Calvinistic theology seem to believe that God cannot change so that is where the argument lies. If you and Calvin think otherwise... GREAT!!! Now help us convince everyone else of that!

Let's put this topic to rest with the following question(s):

Jim, did you realize that most Calvinists staunchly argue that God cannot and does not change in any way?

And why do you suppose the vast majority of Calvinists think this? Where do they get this notion?

What would you tell these folks? How would you convince them they are wrong and that God can indeed change?

[godrulz]

We need to distinguish between strong immutability (God does not change in any sense...the favored 'eternal now'/timelessness concept logically leads to this conclusion) and an immutability that includes some aspects of change in God. A study of the history of doctrinal development would show who believed what and when.

The classic doctrine of impassibility (God does not have feelings) is being modified in modern times by many theologians in both camps.

Hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe the same on every point.

The Open View is compatible with Evangelical beliefs (our understanding of omniscience, time, free will, etc. varies, but we agree on the essentials. Boyd clarified his views with his Baptist denomination. They did not agree with all his ideas, but recognized that he was still within evangelical Christianity. See his affirmations on his website for clarification. Likewise, the conservative Evangelical Theological Society had an opportunity to revoke membership for Pinnock and Sanders (see CT Jan./04). In the end, they were voted to remain members in good standing despite a rejection of their Open views (inerrancy was one of the issues clarified).

Calvinism is not Christianity. It is an attempt to reconcile the biblical evidence (as is Arminianism and Open Theism). Calvinists make the wrong assumption at times that they alone are Christians. TULIP is not the criteria for salvation.

"The Untamed God: A philosophical exploration of divine perfection, simplicity, and immutability." - Jay Wesley Richards, IVP

(I would not recommend this book before reading more straight forward ones...those in seminary or philosophy might understand it better than I did)

This book on 'essentialism' is a difficult read. I did not understand much of the intricacies of the arguments for the traditional, classical views of immutability, impassibility, simplicity, etc. vs current thinking. This is not a simplisitic subject. There are problematic issues. Previous stringent formulations were not always coherent. Richards attempted to retain the core of traditional views with clarification from Scripture and philosophy on how they should be understood.

Do we know what Sovereignty-Aseity-Conviction or modal logic is? If we do not, then we should not be dogmatic on some of our views. For the most part, most of us have uncritically accepted what we have read or heard without understanding all relevant issues.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

Jim... it is you who is missing the point! Do you know how many times here on TOL I have been told God cannot, and does not change in ANY way?Then why not correct them by the very words of their espoused heroes? What could be more convincing and mouth-stopping than saying, "The man whose very name you invoke as a label to your doctrine disagrees with you. Here's what he wrote ..." But no, instead you persist with this distortion of Calvinism and confuse people, including your own camp, by not exposing it.

Originally posted by Knight
I wish I had a dime for every time that has been typed here on this forum. Therefore it is irrelevant what you or Calvin say, the point is that the people who follow Calvinistic theology seem to believe that God cannot change so that is where the argument lies.Then show them otherwise. Use Prov. 26:5 and knock their legs out from under them.

Originally posted by Knight
If you and Calvin think otherwise... GREAT!!! Now help us convince everyone else of that!Coming from me, usually Calvinists will say, "Oh, is that what you mean by God changing? Then I agree." The way you guys come at them, with that distorted and goofy approach witnessed above, it's no wonder you get the kind of answers you do.

Originally posted by Knight
Let's put this topic to rest with the following question(s):

Jim, did you realize that most Calvinists staunchly argue that God cannot and does not change in any way?No, since I don't go around debating people about how God changes, I've not had much opportunity to explore what most Calvinists believe about this. Most Calvinists, it seems, have never read Calvin and don't know half the stuff the guy espoused. But that doesn't give you and your Open Theist cronies license to misrepresent a view that has a long-standing and well-established history just because you've encountered a bunch of theological loafers.

Originally posted by Knight
And why do you suppose the vast majority of Calvinists think this? Where do they get this notion?I think it's partly due to the way you guys frame the question, and then it ends up in a rabbit trail. Since they're theological loafers, you corner them into defending something they've never given adequate or due consideration. I do it to you guys, too. It's amazing what someone will defend when they've been backed into it.

Originally posted by Knight
What would you tell these folks? How would you convince them they are wrong and that God can indeed change?First of all, I would avoid the fatuous arguments about "perfect oak trees" and "perfect clocks" and "perfect traffic signals" and "perfect 8-cylinder engines." No wonder you're not taken seriously on this subject. Those analogies are so far from making your case. Really, there are much better arguments that can be made. Ask them to define "change." Ask them if gaining experience is a change. Ask them if a morphological change is the same as essential change. Find out what they understand about the incarnation. Find out what they understand about God's immanence and interaction with mankind. Discuss what the scriptures say about God's essential unchanging nature in contrast to what the scriptures say about God's changing experience and interaction with mankind.

But here's my question: Where does it get you to convince a Calvinist that God can change?

[godrulz]

Don't forget Augustine who was influenced by Greek Philosophy. Calvin credited Augustine with some of his ideas.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by godrulz

Don't forget Augustine who was influenced by Greek Philosophy. Calvin credited Augustine with some of his ideas. It's beside the point. Calvin could have been influenced by Pittsburgh's famous weatherman, Phil Connors. The point is professing Calvinists must not know what the inimitable Phil Connors believed about immutability if they go around saying God does not change in any way.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston

It's beside the point. Calvin could have been influenced by Pittsburgh's famous weatherman, Phil Connors. The point is professing Calvinists must not know what the inimitable Phil Connors believed about immutability if they go around saying God does not change in any way.

stop using words i have to look up! :D

[Hilston]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

stop using words i have to look up! :D

:p

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Hilston

It's beside the point. Calvin could have been influenced by Pittsburgh's famous weatherman, Phil Connors. Bing!

[godrulz]

The point is that influences can sometimes cloud our biblical interpretations (eisegesis vs exegesis).

[Knight]

To all...... Especially open theists...

Please everyone NOTE this post of Jim Hilstons (that I have linked below). And always refer back to it when a Calvinist makes the claim God cannot change.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=593142#post593142

Apparently Calvinists should be more "open" on the topic of immutability.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Hilston
But here's my question: Where does it get you to convince a Calvinist that God can change? Where does it get me? I really don't know what that means.

If you are asking why I do it I would answer the same as I would answer regarding any debate.

A. I want to test my own arguments to better define what is true.
B. God has asked that I defend His name.
C. It's fun.
D. I would hope to help mislead individuals become closer to God.
E. etc.

[Clete]

Please read the post linked to below...


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=594076#post594076

God bless you guys!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[natewood3]

godrulz,

Do you believe that OVers are not influenced by any other people outside the Bible? Why is it that many GREEK philosophers also held to a libertarian view of free will, that the Pelagians and Socinians held to much of what the OV tries to hold to. Why do Calvinists just respond to all OVers, "Well, that was the view of the Pelagians and Socinians, and they were condemned as heretical by the church"?

It seems any time that someone mentions something such as immutability, sovereignty, infinity, exhaustive foreknowledge, then the response from all OVers is, "Well, that is just a Greek idea, not a biblical idea." To me, that is simply avoidance of the issue or question. Yes, traditional theists were influenced by others outside the Bible, but so are OVers! If it is true for us, then it is true for the OV. If Calvinists always took the OV way, we would be having a debate about who was more influenced philosophy, rather than actually discussing the issues from the Bible and from an exegetical standpoint.

I am sure there are not very, very few, if any, scholars of Greek philosophy. I am not a historical theology scholar, and that is why I don't go around say stuff about how the OV is influenced by Pelagius or Socinus. I have read about them, but have never studied them in depth. Do you see my point? It seems bringing in the idea that all traditional theists were influenced by the Greeks, or whoever else, is simply a red herring; it is just a way to not discuss the issue at hand. I am not saying historical theology, etc, is useless, for I do not think it is at all, but I think it is a whole other issue. If OVers want to say those types of things, then we should discuss the ideas of the Greeks and the influences it has had on traditional theism, but we would also have to discuss the striking similarities between the OV and Pelagians and Socinians and others...

Do you agree?

[God_Is_Truth]

nate,

the difference is that we see the greek philosophy regarding immutability as wrong. if it were right then there is no problem, but it's logically flawed.

now if you can show how the OV is logically wrong in regards to say libertarian free will, then please, by all means do so. i'm sure we'd be more than willing to discuss it.

[godrulz]

Nate: I agree with the gist of what you are saying. Philosophical influences can go both ways.

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. He influenced Calvin. Open Theists are not without philosophical influences. They have a few ideas in common with Process thought, but generally disagree with it (more differences than similarities).

Erickson "What does God know and when does He know it" is an attempt to look at both sides even though he is biased against Open Theism. He recognized that some issues are not explicit in the Bible, but are left unresolved or in tension (Pinnock also stated this). Historical, theological, and philosophical factors must be considered in some areas of this study.

The biblical evidence is our ultimate authority.

[natewood3]

godrulz,

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. He influenced Calvin. Open Theists are not without philosophical influences. They have a few ideas in common with Process thought, but generally disagree with it (more differences than similarities).

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, but what do we mean by influenced? Did he see Greek philosophy as the ultimate authority, and made the Bible fit his philosophy? Was it always for the worse or sometimes for the better?

They do have a few ideas in common with process theology (from what I have read anyways; I haven't honestly studied process theology very much). They also have many ideas in common with Pelagians and Socinians, especially libertarian free will, denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and a denial of God's ultimate sovereignty. I see the OV more influenced by the Enlightenment, which made man the center, made man have ultimate free will, etc.

Piper stated that three things are true of the modern world:

1) They assumes human autonomy and self-determination.
2) They question all authority.
3) They take the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.

C.S. Lewis put it this way:

The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.


This seems to fit what the OVers have done. I am not saying they are willingly and trying to do this, but in their attempt to keep their idea of libertarian free will, they have made themselves the reference and standard by which God is judged. They take ideas from people who were deemed heretical in church history. I have a hard time believing something that was once heretical, but now in our Western culture and time it is considered "biblical."

[God_Is_Truth]

Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, but what do we mean by influenced? Did he see Greek philosophy as the ultimate authority, and made the Bible fit his philosophy? Was it always for the worse or sometimes for the better?


he made the bible fit his philosophy.


They do have a few ideas in common with process theology (from what I have read anyways; I haven't honestly studied process theology very much). They also have many ideas in common with Pelagians and Socinians, especially libertarian free will, denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and a denial of God's ultimate sovereignty. I see the OV more influenced by the Enlightenment, which made man the center, made man have ultimate free will, etc.


the OV does not say God is not sovereign. why do people always accuse it of doing so? and how can one deny libertarian free will? it's everywhere and in everything we do. we always have the choice to say no. that's common sense.


This seems to fit what the OVers have done.

good grief! :nono:

statements like that suggest that you don't know the OV very well.

[godrulz]

Open Theism affirms God's ultimate sovereignty. The problem is that the classical view wrongly defines sovereignty (not the biblical view of it). Sovereignty, properly understood, does not negate libertarian free will (God voluntarily chose the type of creation He made. It includes other free moral agents, so His will is no longer the only factor in the reality of the universe. It still is the decisive factor due to His omnicompetence).

[natewood3]

GIT,

now if you can show how the OV is logically wrong in regards to say libertarian free will, then please, by all means do so. i'm sure we'd be more than willing to discuss it.

If we are going to discuss the flaws of libertarian free will, would you allow me to summarize John Frame? I cannot come up with any new arguments against because he has already stated 17. I would find it hard to out-do Frame, and would just summarize what he says. If you want to read what he says for yourself, the book if "No Other God: A Response to Open Theism." I do want to discuss these arguments...

1. Scripture does not explicitly teach the existence of libertarian freedom. There is no passage that can explicitly be construed to teach that humans are ultimately free from God's plan and of the rest of human personality. Libertarianism is a technical philosophical notion, which makes various assumptions about the relationship of will to action, the relationship of will to character and desire, and the limitation of God's sovereignty.

2. Scripture never grounds human responsibility in libertarian freedom, or, for that matter, in any other kind of freedom. We are responsible because God made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct and actions. He is the Judge, and we are in the dock. According to Scripture, God's authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility. Scripture never suggests that the ordaining of a human decision makes the person less responsible.

3. Scripture does not indicate that God places any positive value on libertarian freedom (even granting it does exist). OVers argue that God places such a high value on human freedom and human choices that God gave it to creatures even at the risk of bringing evil into the world. One would assume and expect to see the Scriptures abounding with statements to the effect that causeless free actions by creatures are terribily important to God, that they bring Him glory and are essential to human personality and dignity. However, one does not find such statements.

4. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that in heaven, we will not be free to sin. So the highest state of human existence will be a state without libertarian freedom.

5. Scripture never judges anyone's conduct by reference to libertarian freedom. Scripture never declares someone innocent because his conduct was not free in the libertarian sense; not does it ever declare someone guilty by ponting to their libertarian freedom. Judas' betrayal was not free in the libertarian sense, even in Boyd's analysis. Yet he was certainly very responsible.

6. In civil courts, libertarian freedom is never assumed to be a condition of moral responsibility. Consider Hubert, the bank robber. If guilt presupposed libertarian freedom, the prosecutor would have to show that Hubert's decision to rob a bank had no cause in order to show that Hubert was guilty. What evidence could a prosecutor bring to prove that? Proving a negative is always difficult, and it would clearly be impossible to show that Hubert's inner decision was completely independent of any divine decree, natural cause, character, or motive. Libertarianism would make it impossible to prove the guilt of anybody.

7. Indeed, civil courts normally assume the opposite of libertarianism, namely, that the conduct of criminals arises from motives. Accordingly, courts often spend much time discussing whether the defendant had an adequate motive to commit the crime. If Hubert's actions had no motives or causes, then the court would likely judge