ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[ChristisKing]

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. Now that claim sounds innocent enough, but let me show you some of the consequences of that. Think back to the moment when Jesus Christ was dying on the cross. Incidentally, let me tell you what John Sanders, one open theist, says about the cross. He says that God the Father had no knowledge that His Son would end up being crucified. And at that particular moment, when God the Father looks down from heaven and sees His Son hanging on the cross, John Sanders put it in language somewhat like this, "Oops, I guess we have to switch to plan B." Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash

Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?

[Berean Todd]

I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?

I agree wholeheartedly as well, Open Theism is a humanistic blight on Christianity, and it is unBiblical and demeaning of God. However, understand that this site is a serious outpost OF open theism, so be prepared to be attacked, it's coming ...

[docrob57]

[QUOTE=I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?[/QUOTE]

Ditto

[Servo]

If God wanted to, could He create a free will being?

[ChristisKing]

I agree wholeheartedly as well, Open Theism is a humanistic blight on Christianity, and it is unBiblical and demeaning of God. However, understand that this site is a serious outpost OF open theism, so be prepared to be attacked, it's coming ...

I picked up on that just from the responses to my limited posts in here. That is why I posted this, what a horrible theology! I can't imagine how you could ever believe that God "doesn't know" something. What kinda god is this?

But if it helps your arminian theology work better then I guess it's tempting to run with it. I mean anything is better than God choosing, electing and predestinating us, right?

[ChristisKing]

If God wanted to, could He create a free will being?

He did, Adam! God just can't create God.

[Servo]

I picked up on that just from the responses to my limited posts in here. That is why I posted this, what a horrible theology! I can't imagine how you could ever believe that God "doesn't know" something. What kinda god is this?

But if it helps your arminian theology work better then I guess it's tempting to run with it. I mean anything is better than God choosing, electing and predestinating us, right?

God knows everything that is knowable.

BTW, Open theism is not arminianism.

[Knight]

I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?What do I think???

I guess whatever God ordained me to think. :sheep:

[Servo]

He did, Adam! God just can't create God.

So you argee that Adam is a free will being?

Where did you get that God can not create God? I think we all know that. God always existed.

[ChristisKing]

God knows everything that is knowable.


God knows everything.

[Knight]

Do any of you know Ron Nash?

We are looking for a person to debate this topic here on TOL in a formal debate.

[Knight]

God knows everything.
Does God have control of His knowledge? Or does God's knowledge control Him?

In other words....
If God decided He didn't want to know something could He choose to NOT know it? Or is God a slave to His own knowledge?

[Servo]

Did God make me an open theist?

[Servo]

so be prepared to be attacked, it's coming ...

It was predestined!

[ChristisKing]

Did God make me an open theist?

Does God make you sin?

[God_Is_Truth]

this has to be one of the worst descriptions of open theism i've ever seen. the first sentence isn't even correct for crying out loud.

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events."

that is blatantly false as open theists believe God knows the future, but we say he knows it as it really is, contingent. it's not saying he doesn't know the future (as we are slanderously accused of saying), but that he knows it as it is instead of what it is not. in other words, we believe God perfectly foreknows a contingent future, not one that is exhaustively settled.

open theism deals with the nature of the future, not God's foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge is complete, accurate and perfect. what that foreknowledge consists of (the nature of the future) is whats different with open theism with regard to traditional christianity.

it is also just as ludicrous to suggest that God did not purpose the cross for salvation. Paul most clearly states that it was purposed from before the foundation of the world but was hidden in God until revealed to Paul. no open theist in their right mind honestly believes God the Father looked down when his Son was being crucified and said "oops, guess i'll have to go with plan B".

if you want to know what open theists really believe then go buy a book by either Greg Boyd or some other prominent open theist and read what they have to say so next time you won't misrepresent what they believe.

[Knight]

Does God make you sin?
No. How about you?

[Emo]

posted by ChristisKing

I can't imagine how you could ever believe that God "doesn't know" something. What kinda god is this?

:confused:

So let me guess, God knew 6000 yrs. ago that you would be a Calvinist & that you would be saved.
Hey, you're one of the elect, congratulations on winning the salvation lottery, your salvation code is #2698752469.


Titus 2:11

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men

Does God desire for only a predetermined amount of people to be saved? Doesn't God want all men to repent?

If only the elect are saved by Christ's blood then by your account His blood has a cheap, limited value. How foolish! The work of the Cross has the ability to save anyone, which gives it the amazing, infinite value that it was originally intended for. Please, don't discount & cheapen the price that was paid at Calvary.

[ChristisKing]

So let me guess, God knew 6000 yrs. ago that you would be a Calvinist & that you would be saved.
Hey, you're one of the elect, congratulations on winning the salvation lottery, your salvation code is #2698752469.

No, He didn't just know, He presdestined it!

He created me, then elected me, then predestined me, then called me, then saved me, and now He's going to resurrect me. All I did was sin.

ROM 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
ROM 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Titus 2:11

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men

Yes all "types" of men"

TIT 2:2 Older men
TIT 2:3 Older women
TIT 2:4 ...young women
TIT 2:6 ....young men
TIT 2:9 ....bondslaves ... masters

In summary, " the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" TIT 2:11

Does God desire for only a predetermined amount of people to be saved? Doesn't God want all men to repent?

Yes, but they can't. They are dead in their sins and held as satan's slaves, only God can grant them repentance, and as many as are ordained to eternal life will believe.

2TI 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2TI 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

ACT 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

[Knight]

He created me, then elected me, then predestined me, then called me, then saved me, and now He's going to resurrect me. All I did was sin.Well.... according to Calvinism you didn't even do that did you? After all... if God predestines EVERYTHING... then EVERYTHING must include your sin.

[Lighthouse]

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. Now that claim sounds innocent enough, but let me show you some of the consequences of that. Think back to the moment when Jesus Christ was dying on the cross. Incidentally, let me tell you what John Sanders, one open theist, says about the cross. He says that God the Father had no knowledge that His Son would end up being crucified. And at that particular moment, when God the Father looks down from heaven and sees His Son hanging on the cross, John Sanders put it in language somewhat like this, "Oops, I guess we have to switch to plan B." Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash
I agree. Those conclusions are completely absurd. Of course God knew Jesus was going to die. Isaiah prophesied it, because revealed it to him. Maybe not in full detail, of course. But God knew. Of course the question is whether or not God knew that He was going to send Immanuel before Adam and Eve ate of the tree. Did God know Adam and Eve were going to eat of the tree? Unequivocally, no. He had no reason to. It hadn't happened yet. And why would God predestine such a thing? Because He enjoys playing games?:dizzy:

Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."
It's quite Biblical. God sent the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. He asked Abraham to sacrafice Isaac, to test Abraham's faith.

The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."
How would anyone, even God know something that doesn't exist? Does Wonderland exist? Is God in Wonderland?

[ChristisKing]

Well.... according to Calvinism you didn't even do that did you? After all... if God predestines EVERYTHING... then EVERYTHING must include your sin.

Of course He predestined I would be a sinner, but I did the sinning. God predestined Christ would be killed, but the Romans and Jews killed Him. God predestined Judas would betray Christ, but Judas did the betraying.

ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

JOH 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

[Lighthouse]

I picked up on that just from the responses to my limited posts in here. That is why I posted this, what a horrible theology! I can't imagine how you could ever believe that God "doesn't know" something. What kinda god is this?

But if it helps your arminian theology work better then I guess it's tempting to run with it. I mean anything is better than God choosing, electing and predestinating us, right?
Arminian? Open Theism is diametrically opposed to Arminianism. Arminianists beleive that God didn't predestine, but that He knows everything that will ever happen. Open Theists beleive that God can not know that which does not exist.

[ChristisKing]

How would anyone, even God know something that doesn't exist?

By just being God:

ISA 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

[Knight]

Of course He predestined I would be a sinner, but I did the sinning. God has asked me to defend Him from your accusation.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

You accuse God of far worse than temptation... you accuse God of the sin itself!

[Lighthouse]

Of course He knows how He will end things. He began them, and He will end them. THis doesn't mean He knows every detail that will happen within them all. God knows all possibilities, but not specifics. there's not even a reason for Him to know.

[ChristisKing]

God has asked me to defend Him from your accusation.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

You accuse God of far worse than temptation... you accuse God of the sin itself!

God hasn't asked you to any such thing, who do you think you are, an Apostle? How ridiculous!

[ChristisKing]

Of course He knows how He will end things. He began them, and He will end them. THis doesn't mean He knows every detail that will happen within them all. God knows all possibilities, but not specifics. there's not even a reason for Him to know.

Oh ok I see, He's just a General Manager, He doesn't get into specifics....like when a sparrow will fall or how many hairs I will have on my head?

[Knight]

God hasn't asked you to any such thing, who do you think you are, an Apostle? How ridiculous!
What part of "Let no one say" don't you understand?

[Lucky]

Oh ok I see, He's just a General Manager, He doesn't get into specifics....like when a sparrow will fall or how many hairs I will have on my head?
Assuming these are your references...

Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. - Matt.10.29

I guess if you wanted to make the case that a sparrow has no free will, you might be on to something, but that's irrelevant.

But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. - Matt.10.30

God knows the number of hairs on your head right now. Your point?

[Lighthouse]

Well, Lucky has given a great response. I see no need to add to it.

[Servo]

Does God make you sin?

According to Calvinism, yes!

[Servo]

God hasn't asked you to any such thing, who do you think you are, an Apostle? How ridiculous!

But God did predestine Knight to post what he posted, correct?

[Emo]

Who & what should I pray for tonight before I lay down for bed? :think:

:think:
:think:

Aahh, nevermind, it's useless, since the future is exhaustively settled I'd just be wasting my time, darn, I'm sorry guys, I forgot.

[Carver]

If God, at some point, exhaustively predestined everything, then did God, at that point, surrender His own free will?

The answer pretty much has to be yes, but I just want Calvinists to admit and realize all that their theology involves.

[godrulz]

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. Now that claim sounds innocent enough, but let me show you some of the consequences of that. Think back to the moment when Jesus Christ was dying on the cross. Incidentally, let me tell you what John Sanders, one open theist, says about the cross. He says that God the Father had no knowledge that His Son would end up being crucified. And at that particular moment, when God the Father looks down from heaven and sees His Son hanging on the cross, John Sanders put it in language somewhat like this, "Oops, I guess we have to switch to plan B." Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash

Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?

This is a typical straw man caricature of Open Theism. In reality, God knows some of the future as settled, but knows other aspects of the future as unsettled, open, or possibilities vs certainties. God is also omnicompetent in all views. To say He is impotent shows a gross misunderstanding of the Open View. This view is more about the openness of God's creation rather than about God. It is logically absurd to say an omniscient being can know future free will contingencies exhaustively. The open view affirms that God is omniscient, but that He correctly knows reality as it is: certainites/actualities, possibilities, necessities, etc. This view does not limit God, but affirms revelation and reality as it truly is without the trapping of Augustinian/Greek philosophy.

[godrulz]

If God wanted to, could He create a free will being?

He created free moral agents. This is why things are a mess (Lucifer=Satan; Adam fell; Hitler slaughters, etc.).

[godrulz]

I picked up on that just from the responses to my limited posts in here. That is why I posted this, what a horrible theology! I can't imagine how you could ever believe that God "doesn't know" something. What kinda god is this?

But if it helps your arminian theology work better then I guess it's tempting to run with it. I mean anything is better than God choosing, electing and predestinating us, right?

Election is corporate, not individual. God does predestine some things, but this does not mean He predestines all things. He is not responsible for heinous evil and people going to hell (we are accountable). Even Calvin called double predestination a 'horrible' doctrine, but he believed it anyway (contrary to God's explicit revelation, character, and ways). God knows all that is knowable. He knows reality as it is. He correctly distinguishes past, present, future, possibilities/contingencies, certainties/actualities.

Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual".

This is not a limitation on God's omniscience, but a correct understanding of it.

'As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable....we do not limit omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things (like creating a rock too heavy to lift). Neither do we limit omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things (future free will contingencies)'.

God is not an aloof, unchanging monarch. He is providential, dynamic, relational, responsive, transcendent, and immanent.

[godrulz]

God knows everything that is knowable.

BTW, Open theism is not arminianism.

Most feel open theism is a subtype of Arminianism or free will theism as opposed to deterministic Calvinism. It has similarities, but many other differences. I like to call it an alternative, biblical view (mediate between Arm. and Cal.).

[godrulz]

God knows everything.

Does God know for sure who will win the 2010 Superbowl trillions of years ago? If He did, then He must control all the players and negate their freedom and self-determination. The future is not there yet to know as a certainty (God would only know aspects of the future as a certainty if He purposed to bring them to pass by His power...e.g. the First and Second Coming of Christ, future judgments, the end of Satan, etc.).

[godrulz]

Does God have control of His knowledge? Or does God's knowledge control Him?

In other words....
If God decided He didn't want to know something could He choose to NOT know it? Or is God a slave to His own knowledge?

The way God decided to not know aspects of the future as a certainty was to create other free moral agents.

What are some other examples of God chosing to not know something. Forgiveness is not literal forgetting. It is chosing to not bring it up again. If we can bring to our minds our sins, God cannot chose to not know an object of knowledge in the universe (compromises our definition of omniscience= knows all that is knowable; Enyart's definition is not classic Open Theism).

[godrulz]

No, He didn't just know, He presdestined it!

He created me, then elected me, then predestined me, then called me, then saved me, and now He's going to resurrect me. All I did was sin.

ROM 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
ROM 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.



Yes all "types" of men"

TIT 2:2 Older men
TIT 2:3 Older women
TIT 2:4 ...young women
TIT 2:6 ....young men
TIT 2:9 ....bondslaves ... masters

In summary, " the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" TIT 2:11



Yes, but they can't. They are dead in their sins and held as satan's slaves, only God can grant them repentance, and as many as are ordained to eternal life will believe.

2TI 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2TI 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

ACT 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Classic proof texts that have a better, alternate understanding.

[Ninjashadow]

Does anyone happen to know the philosophical name for open view theism? For instance, Determanism and Fatalism are basically the same as Closed View.

[godrulz]

Of course He predestined I would be a sinner, but I did the sinning. God predestined Christ would be killed, but the Romans and Jews killed Him. God predestined Judas would betray Christ, but Judas did the betraying.

ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

JOH 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Theological debate: Compatibilism vs incompatibilism...that is the question (is free will compatible with decrees/predestination? No. Incompatibilism has my vote).

[godrulz]

Arminian? Open Theism is diametrically opposed to Arminianism. Arminianists beleive that God didn't predestine, but that He knows everything that will ever happen. Open Theists beleive that God can not know that which does not exist.

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies/uncertainties).

No= Arminianism
Open Theism (contingencies)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism= decree
Arminian= simple foreknowledge (whatever that means?)= certainties

No= Open Theism (alternative)= uncertainties.

God is resourceful, creative, providential, omnicompetent vs meticulously controlling.

Open Theism is not diametrically opposed to Arminianism in every sense. They both believe in contingencies and free will. However, simple/exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction, making Arminianism fall short of a cogent view of God's omniscience.

Rep points for effort?

[godrulz]

By just being God:

ISA 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

46:11 tells us how God knows some aspects of the future. He will bring it about by His ability, not His 'foreknowledge'. The proof text fallacy is that just because God predestines some general aspects of the future (settled) does not mean He brings about all things in the future. Omnipotence does not mean He has to do everything that He can possibly do. There is no need to control or predestine when I brush my teeth, have sex, drive a car, etc. Some aspects of the future are open and unsettled, especially from trillions of years ago before we even existed to make knowable choices.

Is. 48:3 is another verse that affirms God's omnicompetence and ability to bring about some things in the future. It is not a proof text for exhaustive or simple foreknowledge, nor predestination of all moral and mundane choices free moral agents would ever make.

" I foretold the former things long ago (context is about things that are fulfilled, such as judgments of pagan nations...it cannot be extrapolated to mean God knows who will go to heaven or hell before they are born, who will win a chess match before it is played, etc.)...then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."

Again, He foretells some things because of His intent and ability to bring it to pass apart from man's free will. It is not about exhaustive foreknowledge or causative determinism of free choices.

The problem is a failure to recognize the two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is predestined, settled, known (Calvinistic proof texts); some of the future is open, unsettled, unknown (Open Theism texts). The strength of the Open view is that it takes both sets of verses literally. Calvinism must make the second set of verses figurative, without warrant (e.g. God changing His mind).

[godrulz]

Oh ok I see, He's just a General Manager, He doesn't get into specifics....like when a sparrow will fall or how many hairs I will have on my head?

God knows the fixed past and the present exhaustively. The sparrow and hairs are objects of knowledge known perfectly as certainties. The future is not yet, so is only known as a possibility vs certainty.

The nature of time and eternity is relevant to this discussion. The Platonic 'eternal now'/timelessness concept is problematic. The Hebraic view is that God exists in an endless duration of time (unidirectional) and experiences the reality of past, present, future. Timelessness is incoherent. The future is not there to know yet, so this is not a limitation on omniscience.

[godrulz]

Who & what should I pray for tonight before I lay down for bed? :think:

:think:
:think:

Aahh, nevermind, it's useless, since the future is exhaustively settled I'd just be wasting my time, darn, I'm sorry guys, I forgot.

The Open View makes prayer, evangelism, social responsibility, change, etc. real, not illusory. God is not the static, impersonal being of Greek philosophy. He is not absolutely immutable (strong) in every sense. His essential character and attributes do not change. He does change in His experiences, thoughts, actions, emotions, relations, etc. This is not a negation of perfection, but the glory of God as a personal, dynamic, responsive being.

[godrulz]

Does anyone happen to know the philosophical name for open view theism? For instance, Determanism and Fatalism are basically the same as Closed View.

Along with Arminianism, it claims to be a type of free will theism (libertarian free will vs Calvinisms strained concept of deterministic so-called 'free will'). It is about the openness of God's creation, more than the openness of God.

[Ninjashadow]

Thanks, godrulz. :thumb:

[ChristisKing]

Perhaps its best-known expositor of Open Theism is Prof. Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Ontario. While open theists affirm the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, they reject that claims that God has exhasutive foreknowledge of the future (omniscience), that God is impassible (incapable of suffering), immutable, without emotions, and outside of time. According to open theists, these ideas are the result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. While classical theists take Scriptural language concerning God's repenting or changing his mind as anthropomorphisms, open theists take them as literal descriptions of how God's being and his interaction with the world. Not surprisingly, open theists are almost exclusively Arminians (although traditional Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists).

Lets hear from Clark Pinnock:

"...despite Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer the city of Tyre; despite the Baptist, Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner (1 Thes. 4:17)" (Pinock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"...despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other" (Mt. 24:2)" (Pinnock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"We may not want to admit it but prophecies often go unfulfilled..." (Pinnock, MMM, 51, n.66).

"That leaves us with the question, Does the New Testament, did Jesus, teach the perfect errorlessness of the Scriptures? No, not in plain terms. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. Looking at the actual Biblical evidence today, I have to conclude the case for total inerrancy just isn't there." Pinnock; The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 57-58

"When Jews and Muslims, for example, praise God as the Creator of the world, it is obvious that they are referring to the same being. There are not two almighty creators of heaven and earth, but only one. We may assume that they are intending to worship the one Creator God that we also serve...People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus has not yet been proclaimed."-Pinnock (Christian Renewal Vol. 20)

[Delmar]

Well.... according to Calvinism you didn't even do that did you? After all... if God predestines EVERYTHING... then EVERYTHING must include your sin.
They just don't get that part of it.

[ChristisKing]

They just don't get that part of it.

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

[Carver]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?
You just said that both Satan and mankind freely rebeled against God, but that God predestined it. Those two can't coincide. If God predestined it, it wasn't free, because there was no other option.

There is a defense of Calvinism that is unanswerable. I'm waiting for someone to post it. By the way, by unanswerable, I don't mean it proves Calvinism right. I just mean that it makes it impossible to prove Calvinism wrong.

[Knight]

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?
:dizzy: :hammer:

[godrulz]

Perhaps its best-known expositor of Open Theism is Prof. Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Ontario. While open theists affirm the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, they reject that claims that God has exhasutive foreknowledge of the future (omniscience), that God is impassible (incapable of suffering), immutable, without emotions, and outside of time. According to open theists, these ideas are the result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. While classical theists take Scriptural language concerning God's repenting or changing his mind as anthropomorphisms, open theists take them as literal descriptions of how God's being and his interaction with the world. Not surprisingly, open theists are almost exclusively Arminians (although traditional Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists).

Lets hear from Clark Pinnock:

"...despite Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer the city of Tyre; despite the Baptist, Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner (1 Thes. 4:17)" (Pinock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"...despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other" (Mt. 24:2)" (Pinnock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"We may not want to admit it but prophecies often go unfulfilled..." (Pinnock, MMM, 51, n.66).

"That leaves us with the question, Does the New Testament, did Jesus, teach the perfect errorlessness of the Scriptures? No, not in plain terms. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. Looking at the actual Biblical evidence today, I have to conclude the case for total inerrancy just isn't there." Pinnock; The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 57-58

"When Jews and Muslims, for example, praise God as the Creator of the world, it is obvious that they are referring to the same being. There are not two almighty creators of heaven and earth, but only one. We may assume that they are intending to worship the one Creator God that we also serve...People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus has not yet been proclaimed."-Pinnock (Christian Renewal Vol. 20)

Pinnock is an earlier Open Theist. He has not always been clear in his articulations and as changed his thinking to the point of rewriting things or removing them from his books in response to critics. A 1984 quote does not necessarily reflect his thinking decades later. Not all Open Theists agree with some of Pinnock's more fringe ideas. He certainly has been misquoted and misrepresented at times. Even the Evangelical Theological Society did not ban him after they investigated his ideas on innerancy (though they certainly disagreed with his Open Theism...see Christianity Today articles).

Prophecy can be conditional. This fact does not undermine innerancy. It is true that Paul was inspired in his writings and that he did believe in the imminent return of Christ in his own day.

The Christian Renewal quote must also be put in a larger context of the section and his total thinking. He is not a universalist and does affirm that Jesus is the only way to God. The quote does stand as sloppy and should be retracted if it has not already been clarified. This would also not be Open Theist doctrine, but Pinnock's musings. Open Theists are squarely in the evangelical, orthodox tradition. Calvinists oppose Arminians as much as Open Theists and use similar arguments. The Reformed part of the Body of Christ wrongly assumes that its views are the equivalent of Scripture (hence Wesley vs Whitefield, etc.). Most classic Arminians also consider Open Theism and Calvinism heretical. The debate is mostly about the nature of the future, free will, and exhaustive foreknowledge (not about most historical, biblical theology...it has philosophical overtones since Scripture is not systematically explicit on the nature of time vs eternity, etc.).


http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=506

Open Theists affirm biblical truths, but understand them differently than other views. Even classic theists have realized their old views on immutability and impassibility, etc. were problematic and jaded by Greek philosophy through Augustine and others (see "The Untamed God" by Jay Wesley Richards).

[godrulz]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

If God created man or angels to never sin, they would be robotic machines, not free moral agents. To have love, relationship, and freedom necessitates the equal possibility of hate, selfishness, rebellion, bondage. Choice is part of being in the image of God, but introduces an element of risk and uncertainty. Despite this, God is able to bring His ultimate purposes to pass. Hell was never intended in the mind of God for man. It is a consequence of man's possible Fall that was actualized, but not necessitated nor predestined.

God did formulate a plan of redemption from the beginning. You are wrongly assuming that it was a foregone conclusion. He said that His creation was very good (Gen. 1;2). Only after the actual Fall was He grieved and regretted making man. The Fall was a possibility, not a certainty until it actually happened. Once it happened, then, and only then, was the potential plan implemented in reality. It now was certain (Gen. 3), but was not actual until thousands of years later (Gospels).

The plan of redemption was in the mind of God as a contingent possibility from the beginning. It was not implemented until the certainty of the Fall. God did not create man intending or knowing that he would fall. He knew the potential of this and felt the risk was of a higher good and love than not creating or creating deterministic automatons. We, not God, are responsible for the mess. It did not have to be this way. Things are not the way He intended. In His love and wisdom, He will restore things and truth and justice will prevail. The Gospels and ministry of Jesus affirm a warfare model that includes casualties, God's will and purposes being resisted, etc. The Calvinistic blueprint model is deductive reasoning and problematic. It is contrary to revelation.

So, God could predestine that Christ would come and die IF man fell. The potential plan was implemented WHEN man fell. If we did not Fall, the plan would not have been implemented. Our Bible (that was written years later) would not read as it does. The Bible was not sitting in a box in heaven trillions of years ago with history already pre-recorded. His Story unfolds as the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present (the only reality).

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If God knew that Lucifer/Adam would fall as a certainty, then He would have caused it and there is no genuine freedom. Libertarian freedom is coherent (alternative choices are possible and real). Calvinistic 'freedom'/determinism/predestination is not compatible with genuine free moral agency. Calvinists are coherent to think God knows the future because He decrees or predestines it. The problem is that it negates love, freedom, and responsibility (worse, it makes God responsible for heinous evil, contrary to His character). Arminians simple foreknowledge is no better. It says that God 'sees' the future (try explaining a possible mechanism to see something that is not there), and thus does not cause it. He is above an imaginary timeline looking down at past, present, future all at once. It is also problematic because logically it also removes genuine freedom and contingencies.

[godrulz]

You just said that both Satan and mankind freely rebeled against God, but that God predestined it. Those two can't coincide. If God predestined it, it wasn't free, because there was no other option.

There is a defense of Calvinism that is unanswerable. I'm waiting for someone to post it. By the way, by unanswerable, I don't mean it proves Calvinism right. I just mean that it makes it impossible to prove Calvinism wrong.

Go for it...

[Rimi]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

Maybe this will be too simplistic or childish to consider, but can you explain to me Genesis 2:19 . . . "So the Lord God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Why would God need or want to see what man would call them, since He would already know or it would be predestined??

Consider Genesis 18:17 . . . "Then the Lord said, 'Should I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?'" Why would God even give this a thought? Especially if He already knew what He Himself is going to do?

Also, what's your take on Genesis 22:12 . . . "Then He said, 'Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since ou have not withheld your only son from Me.'" God was speaking to Abraham who'd just been stopped from sacrificing Isaac. So didn't God always know that Abraham feared God? Wasn't it predetermined?

Thanks for your time.

[Lighthouse]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?
God did not predestine Christ to come to Earth, and die for our sins [be the Savior], until after The Fall. And saying it wasn't predestined is not unscriptural. But saying that everything was predestined before creation even bagan is.

[Carver]

Go for it...
I'm giving the Calvinists a chance to come up with it first. If they can't, I'll play a little devil's advocate and help them out. But I don't really enjoy supporting positions I disagree with, so I'm not going to unless I have to.

I'm looking for the little Calvinist that could....

[Knight]

God is the master chess player. Being the pinnacle of intelligence He can work His plan in spite of our unreliable wills. Masterfully weaving His truth and desire in a unlimited store of possibilities.

Calvinism's version of God has Him playing chess with Himself in a sad and tragic lonely reality where He is the only consciousness that exists.

[God_Is_Truth]

God did not predestine Christ to come to Earth, and die for our sins [be the Savior], until after The Fall.

but it was already established from before the foundation of the world that if/when mankind sinned, Christ would come to earth and die for our sins right?

[godrulz]

I'm giving the Calvinists a chance to come up with it first. If they can't, I'll play a little devil's advocate and help them out. But I don't really enjoy supporting positions I disagree with, so I'm not going to unless I have to.

I'm looking for the little Calvinist that could....

Throw some hints for us non-Calvinists later. See if we can understand or refute it intuitively. I like playing games.

[Lighthouse]

Yes, G_I_T. Thak you for that. I've been searching for a competent explanation of that verse.

[godrulz]

but it was already established from before the foundation of the world that if/when mankind sinned, Christ would come to earth and die for our sins right?

His potential plan predated the Fall, if not creation. It was only implemented when the contingency became a necessity.

[God_Is_Truth]

His potential plan predated the Fall, if not creation. It was only implemented when the contingency became a necessity.

the plan predated all of creation, that's what "foundation of the world" means. see Ephesians 1:4.

[godrulz]

the plan predated all of creation, that's what "foundation of the world" means. see Ephesians 1:4.

This does not mean it was certain or implemented trillions of years ago. It was possible, probable, but not certain/actual until the Fall became a reality.

[God_Is_Truth]

This does not mean it was certain or implemented trillions of years ago. It was possible, probable, but not certain/actual until the Fall became a reality.

that's why it's called a "plan".

[Clete]

Most feel open theism is a subtype of Arminianism or free will theism as opposed to deterministic Calvinism. It has similarities, but many other differences. I like to call it an alternative, biblical view (mediate between Arm. and Cal.).
This is very simply not true. If anything, Arminianism is a subtype of Calvinism, although you'd never find a Calvinist (or an Arminian for that matter) who would agree with that. But be that as it may, Arminianism has more in common with Calvinism than it does Open Theism.
Pretty much the only important foundational similarity that Open Theism has with Arminianism is free-will. That single similarity does carry with it certain other theological conclusions that Arminians and Open Theists share but the Arminian comes to several correct conclusions in spite of themselves. They must overlook several logical inconsistencies in order to hold many of their views, a problem Calvinists don't have as badly. Calvinist are far more logically consistent than are Arminians except for when in comes to the implications of their definition of the word 'sovereign' and their belief in exhaustive predestination. When it comes to those two issues both Calvinists and Arminians right away start using words like "antinomy" and phrases like "spiritually discerned" which are simply escape hatches for them so that they can ignore the logical implications.
I could go on and on but the point is, I, as an Open Theists, am not in any respect and Arminian. Arminians are just too Calvinistic for me.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[ChristisKing]

God did not predestine Christ to come to Earth, and die for our sins , until [B]after The Fall.

I think on this very point Open Theism rises or falls, because if God did indeed did predestine Christ to come and die before creation than of course He predestined the fall, etc. etc. and etc.

Thank God He revealed this to us:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

"After the fall"--Lighthouse and Open Theism

"Before the fall"-Apostle Peter and Holy Spirit

[God_Is_Truth]

I think on this very point Open Theism rises or falls

no, not even close. this just shows you don't understand what open theism is all about.

[ChristisKing]

no, not even close. this just shows you don't understand what open theism is all about.

Me or lighthouse?

Or is it Peter who is doesn't understand?

[God_Is_Truth]

Me or lighthouse?

Or is it Peter who is doesn't understand?

you

[Lighthouse]

It was a contingency before The Fall. But only implemented as "going to happen" after The Fall.

You are right, that God would have had to predestine The Fall, if He predestined Christ's sacrafice before The Fall. I contend that not only did He not predestine The Fall, but that He did not know if it would actually happen.

[godrulz]

It was a contingency before The Fall. But only implemented as "going to happen" after The Fall.

You are right, that God would have had to predestine The Fall, if He predestined Christ's sacrafice before The Fall. I contend that not only did He not predestine The Fall, but that He did not know if it would actually happen.

Adam, not God, is responsible for the Fall. God gave free moral agency to man. This made the Fall a possibility, but not a necessity.

Interestingly, Mormons say the Fall was a necessary probation from God for the spirit children. They are wrong on this point also.

[godrulz]

I think on this very point Open Theism rises or falls, because if God did indeed did predestine Christ to come and die before creation than of course He predestined the fall, etc. etc. and etc.

Thank God He revealed this to us:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

"After the fall"--Lighthouse and Open Theism

"Before the fall"-Apostle Peter and Holy Spirit

God formulated a plan due to the possibility of sin. He did not implement the plan until the actuality of sin. Christ was chosen early, but only manifest after the fact of the Fall.

God is not responsible for evil. This is contrary to explicit revelation of His character and ways. Jesus came to oppose and destroy sin and evil, not affirm it as God's will.

[ChristisKing]

It was a contingency before The Fall. But only implemented as "going to happen" after The Fall.

You are right, that God would have had to predestine The Fall, if He predestined Christ's sacrafice before The Fall. I contend that not only did He not predestine The Fall, but that He did not know if it would actually happen.

Where is any of that in the bible? That's just what you say. I'm saying that is completely unscriptural and have given you a plain Scriptural text to prove it.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This say's Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was a contingency or He didn't know it was going to happen. If you can't deal with this verse then change your theology, don't go into a philisophical spin. Let God be true and every man a liar.

[Berean Todd]

Where is any of that in the bible? That's just what you say. I'm saying that is completely unscriptural and have given you a plain Scriptural text to prove it.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This say's Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was a contingency or He didn't know it was going to happen. If you can't deal with this verse then change your theology, don't go into a philisophical spin. Let God be true and every man a liar.


:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :first: Preach it brother!!! I've beaten my head against the wall enough on this argument here, but great job you're giving them, particularly in this post!!!

[Berean Todd]

God formulated a plan due to the possibility of sin. He did not implement the plan until the actuality of sin. Christ was chosen early, but only manifest after the fact of the Fall.
.

You can't get that from that passage, the word "foreordained" or "predestined" in 1 Peter 1:20 is the word προγινώσκω , which is transliterated proginōskō and means to know beforehand. Not to have a possible plan, God KNEW and PLANNED beforehand that Christ would die for sins.

[Berean Todd]

Adam, not God, is responsible for the Fall. God gave free moral agency to man. This made the Fall a possibility, but not a necessity.
.

Adam is morally responsible for the fall, hence the curse, but God still predestined it, along with Christ on the cross. Your God is much too small ...

[Carver]

You can't get that from that passage, the word "foreordained" or "predestined" in 1 Peter 1:20 is the word προγινώσκω , which is transliterated proginōskō and means to know beforehand. Not to have a possible plan, God KNEW and PLANNED beforehand that Christ would die for sins.
Real quick, to know is not the same thing as to plan. Either you left out some possible definitions, or you made that verse a lot more friendly to Open Theism.

[Berean Todd]

Real quick, to know is not the same thing as to plan. Either you left out some possible definitions, or you made that verse a lot more friendly to Open Theism.

No, that first clause of 1 Pet 1:20 is:

μέν προγινώσκω πρό καταβολή κόσμος

The first word, transliterated 'men' is a primary participle and is an affirmation in an assertive or intensive sense. The King James in this case seems to have the most literal translation of it, being "Who verily ..." I'm not usually a big KJV fan, but here they are spot on, most other versions don't seem to carry over the intensity of the opening affirmation.

The second word is 'proginōskō' , it is not the same as predestine no, but it implies specific knowledge of the event, He KNEW it was going to happen. There is no indication of any other possibility here. God KNEW it would come about.

The third word, 'pro' is "in front of" or "prior to", a clear temporal indicator in this context here.

The next word is 'katabolē', and is literally "founding".

Last is 'cosmos' and is the world, or the universe.

So, Jesus VERILY was KNOWN/FOREKNOWN before the founding of the universe to be this spotless lamb for sin.

[ChristisKing]

:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :first: Preach it brother!!! I've beaten my head against the wall enough on this argument here, but great job you're giving them, particularly in this post!!!

Hey thanks, I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone else in here who still believed in a BIG God, I was starting to feel like "Athanasius against the world." :cheers:

[Servo]

Hey thanks, I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone else in here who still believed in a BIG God, I was starting to feel like "Athanasius against the world." :cheers:

Re-read post #77.

[God_Is_Truth]

Where is any of that in the bible? That's just what you say. I'm saying that is completely unscriptural and have given you a plain Scriptural text to prove it.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This say's Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was a contingency or He didn't know it was going to happen. If you can't deal with this verse then change your theology, don't go into a philisophical spin. Let God be true and every man a liar.

have you lost it? all 1 Peter 1:20 says is that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. it doesn't say he was already destined to be sacrificed for mankind, all it says is that he was foreknown, i.e. he is eternal and existed from before the foundation of the world. it says nothing about being predestined to die from before the foundation of the world. you are reading that into the text.

[Berean Todd]

have you lost it? all 1 Peter 1:20 says is that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. it doesn't say he was already destined to be sacrificed for mankind, all it says is that he was foreknown, i.e. he is eternal and existed from before the foundation of the world. it says nothing about being predestined to die from before the foundation of the world. you are reading that into the text.


No, but apparantly you have lost it, because what you are trying to tell us is that the Bible, God's breathed out Word, is trying to tell us on this point "God foreknew God, but was manifest ..." That is stupid and nonsensical. The verse before talked about Christ's blood, the verse after talks about our salvation through faith, the verse in the middle is obviously talking about the work of the cross.

[God_Is_Truth]

No, but apparantly you have lost it, because what you are trying to tell us is that the Bible, God's breathed out Word, is trying to tell us on this point "God foreknew God, but was manifest ..." That is stupid and nonsensical. The verse before talked about Christ's blood, the verse after talks about our salvation through faith, the verse in the middle is obviously talking about the work of the cross.

no, it is not obviously talking about that at all.

1 Peter 1
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;

18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,

19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

22Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

23for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduing word of God.

i quoted both verses before 20 and after to give us some context on what Peter is stating. Peter begins by stating that if we address the Father as God then we should conduct ourselves in fear (respect) while on the earth (verse 17).

he then states in verse 18 that we also ought to do this because we were redeemed with somethijng much more valuable than gold or silver, and in verse 19 he declares that it was the blood of Christ. now in verse 20 he expands on who Christ is, this is made clear by the phrase "for HE was foreknown". thus, he is speaking about the person, not about an event. an event is not a person, which is what "He" denotes. thus, Peter declares that Christ was foreknown from before the foundation of the world, echoing what Christ uttered when he said "glorify me father with the glory i had with you before the foundation of the world" in John 17:5.

in the latter part of verse 20 Peter states that although Christ was from before the beginning of the world, he was only revealed in "these last times" and that for us. in verse 21 Peter expands on who we are in Christ, namely believers in God who raised Christ from the dead and glorified him. verse 22 goes back to the original point of how we ought to conduct ourselves and appeals to our obedience first in the truth, purifying our souls and how we ought to love our brothers based on that. verse 23 gives yet another reason for doing this in that we have been born again now of that which is perishable, but that which is imperishable.

[godrulz]

"God's Strategy in Human History" Forster

C. Gordon Olson's "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation"

These books and others do detailed word studies on predestination, foreknowledge, etc. Their insights will refute the proof texting from our Calvinistic friends. There is more to the story than Strong's concordance. We must guard against exegetical fallacies (see D.A. Carson's book on the subject). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Berean Todd]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

As so many open theists make apparantly clear with their little knowledge ...

[Knight]

As so many open theists make apparantly clear with their little knowledge ...So..... you are saying I am predestined to stupidity???? :rolleyes:

P.S. If I (we) have such "little knowledge" why is that I know how to spell "apparently" yet apparently you don't??? :D

Normally I overlook spelling errors but when someone is insulting my intelligence I feel the need to be a tad more picky.

[ChristisKing]

have you lost it? all 1 Peter 1:20 says is that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. it doesn't say he was already destined to be sacrificed for mankind, all it says is that he was foreknown, i.e. he is eternal and existed from before the foundation of the world. it says nothing about being predestined to die from before the foundation of the world. you are reading that into the text.

The Son of God existed before the foundation of the world, not the Son of God in human flesh a.k.a "Christ." When you say Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, you've said it all! You are agreeing with us, because if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means His having to take on flesh was foreordained and He only took on flesh for one reason, "the fall." And if the fall was foreordained before creation, well....there goes Open Theism. :wave2:

You see, we actually have much in agreement, Christ was indeed foreordained before creation.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

[drbrumley]

Adam is morally responsible for the fall, hence the curse, but God still predestined it, along with Christ on the cross. Your God is much too small ...


:doh: Another clueless wonder.

[God_Is_Truth]

The Son of God existed before the foundation of the world, not the Son of God in human flesh a.k.a "Christ." When you say Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, you've said it all! You are agreeing with us, because if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means His having to take on flesh was foreordained and He only took on flesh for one reason, "the fall." And if the fall was foreordained before creation, well....there goes Open Theism. :wave2:

where did i ever say his having to take on flesh was foreordained and unavoidable? and by the way, even if the fall was ordained by God or in some way inevitable, that does not mean open theism goes out the window. it just means that for whatever reason, the fall was going to happen and God knew it as thus. it does not mean all things are predestined or that the future is closed.

[ChristisKing]

where did i ever say his having to take on flesh was foreordained and unavoidable?

Here.

all 1 Peter 1:20 says is that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Christ is God in the flesh.

[godrulz]

As so many open theists make apparantly clear with their little knowledge ...

Most Open Theists were once classic theists. Many are well credentialed. Calvinism is not the only kid on the block that should be considered a possible biblical view.

[ChristisKing]

Most Open Theists were once classic theists. Many are well credentialed. Calvinism is not the only kid on the block that should be considered a possible biblical view.

But it's the only kid that is thoroughly consistent and embraces all those "predestination" and "election" verses.

[godrulz]

But it's the only kid that is thoroughly consistent and embraces all those "predestination" and "election" verses.

Open Theism affirms that God predestines some things, but not all things. The predestination proof texts you use are taken literally, while you must ignore the verses that show some of the future is unsettled or genuinely open. Likewise, a strong case can be made for corporate vs individual election. While we talk about the same terms, it is possible to understand different things by them based on the evidence (of course, contradictory views are not both right). There is not a proof text that an Open Theist could not give a cogent, alternative explanation. Closed theists must make our proof texts figurative to retain consistency. This is not warranted (e.g. God changing His mind in response to changing circumstances).

[Lighthouse]

Where is any of that in the bible? That's just what you say. I'm saying that is completely unscriptural and have given you a plain Scriptural text to prove it.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This say's Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, not that it was a contingency or He didn't know it was going to happen. If you can't deal with this verse then change your theology, don't go into a philisophical spin. Let God be true and every man a liar.
It says that Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Not that His sacrafice was.:doh:

[God_Is_Truth]

Christ is God in the flesh.

Christ has not always been in the flesh, but he has always been Christ. though he was not always called "Christ" (meaning messiah), he was still the same person/being. the reason the verse says that Christ was foreknown is because that was the fitting title for his present state of existence. that was what they were proclaiming to the people, that Jesus was Christ and it was therefore a fitting thing to say that the Christ, even though he was not always the Christ, was foreknown from before the foundation of the world.

[Lighthouse]

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

[godrulz]

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."


In His preexistence from eternity past, He was the Word. Messiah/Christ relates to His earthly redemptive ministry. He was anointed by the Spirit as the God-man, not as the Word who was existing when there was a beginning of creation. The man Christ Jesus has always been anointed. Was He as a baby, or was it related to His last years of ministry? He was born Christ, the Lord. Some cults say He became the Christ only at His baptism.

[ChristisKing]

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

And Anointed One means God in the flesh. Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .

[Lovejoy]

If anointed one means God in the flesh, why were Saul and David both referred to in that fashion? I only ask out of curiosity.

[God_Is_Truth]

Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .

none of that eliminates open theism. :help: :nono:

[ChristisKing]

If anointed one means God in the flesh, why were Saul and David both referred to in that fashion? I only ask out of curiosity.

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.

[Lighthouse]

And Anointed One means God in the flesh. Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .
No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.

[God_Is_Truth]

No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.

doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?

[Lovejoy]

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.
Um, alright, I was just asking because I thought it seemed a little silly to call Saul God in the flesh. I rather assumed that is not what "annointed one" meant. But you have a good day, now.

[ChristisKing]

none of that eliminates open theism.

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan. But rather both the free will of Adam remained in tact yet God's predestined will from all eternity was fulfilled at the same time. This is what the Apostle Paul marveled over when he wrote:

ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

[Lighthouse]

doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?
Yes. As in God incarnate, i.e. in the flesh.

[Lighthouse]

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan. But rather both the free will of Adam remained in tact yet God's predestined will from all eternity was fulfilled at the same time. This is what the Apostle Paul marveled over when he wrote:

ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?

[ChristisKing]

How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?

Christ is God in the flesh.

That's the teaching of the entire NT, here are just a few verses that prove that Jesus being the Christ means He was God in the flesh, pls let me know if you need more:

ROM 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

PHI 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
PHI 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
PHI 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
HEB 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

1TI 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1TI 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[God_Is_Truth]

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

it is quite possible to be a open theist and hold that the sin of adam was unavoidable therefore necessitating Christ die and take on flesh.


But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan.

all it means is that one part of the future was not open. open theism is quite in favor of this as it holds that some of the future is open and some is closed. i don't know of any open theist who beleives that the entire future has always been completely open and that nothing was ever unavoidable or so determined by God that it would be closed. all the open theists i know believe in a future that is partly open and partly closed.

the things that are closed are those which God will sovereignly bring to pass without regards to our own actions, things like the second coming. the things that are open are the decisions we make like what to eat for dinner, what clothes to wear etc. if the fall was foreordained by God and the flesh was thus a necessity then it would fall under the closed part of the future, but this by no means necessitates that the entire future is closed or has always been. thus, adam's sin not being a contingency is quite compatible with open theism and does not, as you put it "strikes at the very foundation" of it.

[ChristisKing]

it is quite possible to be a open theist and hold that the sin of adam was unavoidable therefore necessitating Christ die and take on flesh.

all it means is that one part of the future was not open. open theism is quite in favor of this as it holds that some of the future is open and some is closed.

Doesn't this seem awfully convienent to you that you or any man could just be able to "cherry pick" what future is open and what is closed? I mean many open theists believed Adam's future was open but after being confronted with Scripture subsequently have had to admit that it may very well have been closed. I mean how can you really be sure what is open and what is closed? What is open today is closed tomorrow. What really appears to be "open" in open theism is the "open flexibility" it provides its adherents on a day-to-day basis.

I find it ironic that you would admit that Adam, the most free man completely untainted with sin and not in bondage of any kind to have ever lived and newly created, would not have had an "open future," yet some of us who are (were) in slavery to sin and who always does (did) the will of the devil until, as the Scriptures teach, God grants (granted) us repentance are completely free with an "open future" to write whatever we will.

Don't you?

[God_Is_Truth]

Doesn't this seem awfully convienent to you that you or any man could just be able to "cherry pick" what future is open and what is closed?

we don't get to choose. either parts are open or the whole thing is closed. we do not know all that is closed because we are not God. so we go based on scripture as to what things are closed and which are not.


I mean many open theists believed Adam's future was open but after being confronted with Scripture subsequently have had to admit that it may very well have been closed. I mean how can you really be sure what is open and what is closed? What is open today is closed tomorrow. What really appears to be "open" in open theism is the "open flexibility" it provides its adherents on a day-to-day basis.

adam's future was certainly open, even if one part of it was closed. even IF he was destined to sin (eventually), it was not necessarily determined before hand WHEN he would sin. and the rest of his future, after sin, was completely open as well. the only thing you can establish with your point is that one aspect of Adam's future was determined in some sense by God and unavoidable. however, the rest of his future and the rest of eternity have not been determined (though i believe parts of it are).


I find it ironic that you would admit that Adam, the most free man completely untainted with sin and not in bondage of any kind to have ever lived and newly created, would not have had an "open future," yet some of us who are (were) in slavery to sin and who always does (did) the will of the devil until, as the Scriptures teach, God grants (granted) us repentance are completely free with an "open future" to write whatever we will.

Don't you?

i believe adam did have an open future, i deny that he had to sin and that sin was ever ordained by God. sin is the most horrible thing to ever come to pass and is completely contrary to the character of God. to suggest that God who is good would decree such a thing for any man is sickening.

[ChristisKing]

i deny that he had to sin and that sin was ever ordained by God. sin is the most horrible thing to ever come to pass and is completely contrary to the character of God. to suggest that God who is good would decree such a thing for any man is sickening.

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[godrulz]

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Poor proof texting. This does not mean God is responsible for evil or individual, unconditional election. The flow of Paul's argument in Rom. 9-11 is not about TULIP.

[godrulz]

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.

I have never read an Open Theist who argues that Christ only means the eternal Son without flesh. This is extra/contrabiblical. Most Open Theists have a classical Christology. Our difference is about the nature of the future, not the Deity or humanity of Christ. Boyd and others also have given an alternate understanding of your Petrine texts. The plan of redemption was conceived as a possibility in the mind of God from the beginning, but it did not become an implemented certainty until after the fact.

[God_Is_Truth]

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Funny how Paul's entire message in Romans 9 is about Israel, the Gentiles and the body of Christ, which is obvious from his conclusion:

Romans 9
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Paul is not speaking about predestination or unconditional election no matter how hard you want him to be.

[godrulz]

Funny how Paul's entire message in Romans 9 is about Israel, the Gentiles and the body of Christ, which is obvious from his conclusion:

Romans 9
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Paul is not speaking about predestination or unconditional election no matter how hard you want him to be.

Exactly. Rom. 9-11 is about the election of national Israel. Paul was addressing the Jewish Christians in Rome who were jealous of the inclusion of the Gentiles and wondered what role Israel had or now has in light of this. The context is not a proof text passage for TULIP.

[Carver]

I've been waiting for one specific word to come up, and so far it hasn't. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that most of the active posters here seem to be Protestants (or at any rate, not Catholic). Non-Catholic types don't use this word much in talking about religion and theology. The word? Mystery. More specifically, Divine Mystery. Watch and learn:

Calvinist:
God predestined everything and took away your free will (and, oh, by the way, His free will too), but it's all good because He did it for His glory.
Any other person:
But how is it to God's glory to have a bunch of robots doing what He decided an eternity ago that they should do? Wouldn't it be more gloriful to have real people, with real wills, and maybe even - if they're lucky - real souls?
Calinvist:
It's just a Divine Mystery, we can't understand it because we're not God (and anyway, He didn't predestine us to understand it, so we're just out of luck)

Open Theist:
God can't know the future, it doesn't EXIST yet! So, naturally we have free will. Of course, God could have decided to predestine some things...I guess, but I'm sure He only does that when He has to. After all, if God predestined stuff, well, that just wouldn't be very nice, now would it?
Any other person:
But how do we know what's predestined and what's free???????
Open Theist:
We can't
Any other person
But then, doesn't that make our entire doctrine of God a little shaky?
Open Theist:
Of course not! Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean it's shaky. It's a Divine Mystery!!! Isn't that nifty!


And before you all get offended, that was meant to be a little humorous as well. My Calvinist was a little cynical, because most Calvinists I've met sound cynical. My Open Theist was a little naive, because most Open Theists I know sound naive (even if they're not). On a more serious note though, the Divine Mystery card is real, and it is pretty much unanswerable (if you can refute, please do, I'd be very interested to see how). The only reason I don't like it for debate/discussion is that it is unanswerable. It seems that it is most appropriate (perhaps only appropriate) in an individual context. I use it a lot on things which I'm simply unable to know. Enjoy.

[godrulz]

Just because a subjective individual does not know or understand something does not mean it is a mystery or unknowable. We can know truth with certainty, but not necessarily exhaustively (what we know is true, but we do not know every fact there is to know).

Mutually exclusive, illogical, absurd, contradictory things are not a mystery. Some concepts are simply wrong, whether we understand it or not.

God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it is not an unanswerable concept or true, but a mystery. This dumb question is an absurdity. We can refute the logic or lack thereof.

Likewise, logically/philosophically/biblically, the exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction. We do not label the idea as a mystery or unknowable. Rather, we refute the concept as a cogent explanation for the relationship between sovereignty and free will. Calvinists also wrongly understand sovereignty as meticulous rather than providential control. They also assume that God predestines all things, because He predestines some things.

Open Theism and its view of a partially open future resolves the 'mystery' of sovereignty vs free will.

Likewise, it is wrong to shrug our shoulders and say the Trinity is a mystery. A mystery is something hidden, not absurd. God has revealed His triune nature. We can understand specific truths about the Godhead, without understanding exhaustively all the nuances of the Trinity and its implications.

Mystery can become a cop out for lack of critical thinking and searching out the truth. Some things are a mystery ('hidden') because God has not revealed everything there is to know.

TULIP is problematic. We should not try to defend it as a 'mystery'. Rather, we should propose alternate views that are more biblical.

Your illustrations are straw men caricatures. They do not reflect the beliefs of thinking Calvinists nor Open Theists. There is also a variety of views within these broad categories, so it is simplistic to reduce them to a sentence or two.

[Lighthouse]

Christ is God in the flesh.

That's the teaching of the entire NT, here are just a few verses that prove that Jesus being the Christ means He was God in the flesh, pls let me know if you need more:

ROM 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

PHI 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
PHI 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
PHI 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
HEB 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

1TI 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1TI 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Great job... at proving absolutely nothing.:nono:

[godrulz]

He's preaching to the choir.

[Carver]

Your illustrations are straw men caricatures. They do not reflect the beliefs of thinking Calvinists nor Open Theists. There is also a variety of views within these broad categories, so it is simplistic to reduce them to a sentence or two.
Of course they were straw men caricatures, that was half the point. You did read the bottom of my post, right? Where I said it was supposed to be a little funny as well. I think you might have taken me a bit more seriously than I had intended.

Likewise, it is wrong to shrug our shoulders and say the Trinity is a mystery. A mystery is something hidden, not absurd. God has revealed His triune nature. We can understand specific truths about the Godhead, without understanding exhaustively all the nuances of the Trinity and its implications.
I really hope you were using this an your own example, because otherwise we're on different threads. I haven't seen anyone mention the Trinity on this thread. You are wrong anyway, because the Trinity is undiscernable. Mystery (in a religious context, which is how I've been refering to it all along) is defined as that which cannot be known by reason alone, but must be revealed. And even though it has been revealed, it is still beyond human comprehension to understand how it works.

God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it is not an unanswerable concept or true, but a mystery. This dumb question is an absurdity. We can refute the logic or lack thereof.
So which is it then, a mystery, or an absurdity? I certainly would say absurdity, but you seem to have said both.

Just because a subjective individual does not know or understand something does not mean it is a mystery or unknowable. We can know truth with certainty, but not necessarily exhaustively (what we know is true, but we do not know every fact there is to know).
I agree with you, but I was refering to people in general, not any one person in specific. As such, I was refering to truth, and not subjective thoughts or opinion.

Mystery can become a cop out for lack of critical thinking and searching out the truth. Some things are a mystery ('hidden') because God has not revealed everything there is to know.
Of course it's a cop out. I thought I had made clear that it was. Sorry if I hadn't. I never said it was a solution, or that it was true. I merely said that it was unanswerable. A certain Calvinist friend of mine uses it a lot. The mock conversation with the Calvinist in my post above is a simplification of a real conversation I had with him. And once he says, "It's for God's glory, and it's beyond us to know how," then there is nothing I can say. Because if I question further, he just repeats that it is beyond us to know (in other words, a mystery).

[ChristisKing]

Great job... at proving absolutely nothing.:nono:

It does prove one thing, I can hop down a bunny trail with the best 'em! :jump:

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Likewise, logically/philosophically/biblically, the exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction.
Then does God not know how he would respond, freely, in any completely described situation? Does God not know all the possibities of human decisions? And how he would freely respond to them?

Calvinists also wrongly understand sovereignty as meticulous rather than providential control. They also assume that God predestines all things, because He predestines some things.
Not this Calvinist!

Open Theism and its view of a partially open future resolves the 'mystery' of sovereignty vs free will.
By discounting providential control! As in the warfare worldview, where indeed all things may not work out together for good, God's obedient followers can be harmed, in ways where the harm cannot be undone, or turned to good.

God is now minimizing evil's effects, instead of destroying the devil's work (1 John 1:8).

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,


Then does God not know how he would respond, freely, in any completely described situation? Does God not know all the possibities of human decisions? And how he would freely respond to them?


Blessings,
Lee


This sounds like Molinism or 'middle knowledge' (William Lane Craig and others). Boyd is a neo-Molinist.

God is omnicompetent and can respond to any contingency on a moment's notice. He does not need to contemplate all the scenarios for trillions of years to respond effectively. He knows consequences and possibilities. Accidents and choices by men can change moment by moment. God can res