ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Context vs proof text. I stand by my view (cf. I Sam. 15 where God changes His mind on some vs all things. Will not is not cannot).

 

[Lon]

Context vs proof text. I stand by my view (cf. I Sam. 15 where God changes His mind on some vs all things. Will not is not cannot).

You are stubborn, I'll give you that.

All history of Christianity was proof-texting? That is a sad commentary on your historical understandings. Get out of OV books and really dig into some RC and Hebrew teachings on the matter. Your head is stuck in the sand...OV books.

 

[themuzicman]

You are stubborn, I'll give you that.

All history of Christianity was proof-texting? That is a sad commentary on your historical understandings. Get out of OV books and really dig into some RC and Hebrew teachings on the matter. Your head is stuck in the sand...OV books.

So, RC tradition supersedes Scripture? Has the RCC been right on every doctrinal issue it's addressed? Can you point us to a council that says that God is immutable?

Muz

 

[Clete]

You are stubborn, I'll give you that.

All history of Christianity was proof-texting?

Not all, but most, yes! That is exactly what was happening! The whole iron grip hold the Catholic church had practically on the whole civilized world for over a thousands years was based almost entirely (from a theological perspective) on proof-texting! The reason they got away with it was because no one had a Bible of their own that they could read and find out the truth.

This is why Christian tradition (i.e. Christian history) is the singular worst test of theological truth that is possible!

That is a sad commentary on your historical understandings. Get out of OV books and really dig into some RC and Hebrew teachings on the matter. Your head is stuck in the sand...OV books.

Blah, blah, blah!

Make the argument, Lon! Make a Biblical argument that is rationally sound against Open Theism or admit that you cannot. I don't need to read a whole library of books or know the Hebrew language, and neither do you or anyone else. All you have to do is read the Bible. Read it and take it for what it plainly states. If you read something that confuses you, read it to a third grader (preferably a home schooler) and ask him what it means. Chances are he'll nail it. The Bible is not written in code. It's really quite simple. What's hard is getting past all the theological noise coming from all the egg heads in seminary who've educated themselves into blissful ignorance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Not all, but most, yes! That is exactly what was happening! The whole iron grip hold the Catholic church had practically on the whole civilized world for over a thousands years was based almost entirely (from a theological perspective) on proof-texting! The reason they got away with it was because no one had a Bible of their own that they could read and find out the truth.

This is why Christian tradition (i.e. Christian history) is the singular worst test of theological truth that is possible!


Blah, blah, blah!

Make the argument, Lon! Make a Biblical argument that is rationally sound against Open Theism or admit that you cannot. I don't need to read a whole library of books or know the Hebrew language, and neither do you or anyone else. All you have to do is read the Bible. Read it and take it for what it plainly states. If you read something that confuses you, read it to a third grader (preferably a home schooler) and ask him what it means. Chances are he'll nail it. The Bible is not written in code. It's really quite simple. What's hard is getting past all the theological noise coming from all the egg heads in seminary who've educated themselves into blissful ignorance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Of course I beg to differ simply because I believe God sovereign. He ALWAYS interceded and steered Israel back to the straight and narrow. Oddly enough, He never corrected their perception of His prescience. So, there is the argument. You're presuppositions about Hebrew, Greek or lack of old Hebrew commentary is specious. The Dead Sea scrolls came with scrolls and scrolls of commentary oddly enough. Also oddly, they match what was preserved until they were found. Greek tainting? Your premise is weak at best and parroting of some folks who should but don't know better. Pinnock, Boyd, and the rest have steered you into a horrible delusional mess.

 

[Lon]

So, RC tradition supersedes Scripture? Has the RCC been right on every doctrinal issue it's addressed? Can you point us to a council that says that God is immutable?

Muz

Have you read the early fathers? I don't think you'll find much in which to disagree.

 

[Eli_Cash]

The issue with omniscience also involves a logical contradiction and does not compromise God's infinitude. God knows all that is knowable and knows reality as it is. The issue is not His omniscience (which we both affirm), but the nature of reality or creation that He knows/actualizes. By allowing genuine creaturely freedom, an inherent limitation on the nature of His future knowledge was voluntarily introduced. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is possible in a deterministic view, but not in a libertarian free will view

There is a very real Biblical problem with assuming that foreknowledge and freewill are mutually exclusive. As I'm sure you know, Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny him three times, and Peter did. Does this imply that his actions were not free?

(so perhaps the debate moves on to the nature of freedom and contingencies and whether God is timeless eternal now or experiences endless time/duration in a unidirectional manner).

If those two choices are taken as exhaustive of the possibilities, the I think only timelessness is tenable. This is because endless unidirectional time must have a begging, otherwise we face an infinite regress. And if time is a condition of God's existence then this would imply that God has a beginning as well.

So, God correctly knows some of the future as settled (by His ability) and some of the future as open (by His sovereign choice). He fully knows all that is knowable distinguishing possible from actual/certain. As possible contingencies become certain, they are then known as such (without a change in omniscience, but just a change in possible objects of certain knowledge...He is ignorant of nothing, but to know a non-existent nothing is absurd).

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself here, since you start by saying that the limitation on God's foreknowledge is voluntary, and then you seem to say that foreknowledge is impossible.

Also I don't know that it is absurd to claim knowledge of a non-existent event, since Jesus apparently did just that.

Matthew 11:21 KJV
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

 

[godrulz]

Lon: We all believe God is sovereign, but this can be understood as meticulous control (micromanaging) or providential control (macromanaging). Rejecting your view of sover. is not rejecting God's sover.

Eli: The Peter and Judas issue have alternate explanations. They are also proximal knowledge based on perfect past and present knowledge. These e.g. cannot be extrapolated to support exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future contingencies (especially since there are texts that show the future as partially unsettled and known as such, even by an omniscient God).

 

[Clete]

Of course I beg to differ simply because I believe God sovereign. He ALWAYS interceded and steered Israel back to the straight and narrow. Oddly enough, He never corrected their perception of His prescience. So, there is the argument. You're presuppositions about Hebrew, Greek or lack of old Hebrew commentary is specious. The Dead Sea scrolls came with scrolls and scrolls of commentary oddly enough. Also oddly, they match what was preserved until they were found. Greek tainting? Your premise is weak at best and parroting of some folks who should but don't know better. Pinnock, Boyd, and the rest have steered you into a horrible delusional mess.

If you were consistent that last sentence would read....

"By God's sovereign and unshakable decree, Pinnock, Boyd, and the rest have steered you into a horrible delusional mess, that you were then compelled to accept as the truth by the same divinely sovereign decree."​

But of course you don't believe that, do you? Heaven forbid you actually take your own stupidity to its logical conclusion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

If you were consistent that last sentence would read....

"By God's sovereign and unshakable decree, Pinnock, Boyd, and the rest have steered you into a horrible delusional mess, that you were then compelled to accept as the truth by the same divinely sovereign decree."​

But of course you don't believe that, do you? Heaven forbid you actually take your own stupidity to its logical conclusion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hmmm . . .not answering for Lon, but I believe this is so. (Spiritual Principle: I Thessalonians 2:11-12)

However, I also believe God might yet grant you repentance, and provide you the light of correct doctrinal understanding, if He so wills to show you mercy and grace.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

God desires to save all men and to lead all men into truth. There is no good reason why a holy, loving, truthful God would save some, but not save others whom He could save if He wanted to (TULIP). There is no good reason to let some believers wallow in error while granting truth to others on an arbitrary basis. He wants all men to understand and obey His Word.

Calvin was wrong to think that God's will is monothetic or the only factor in the universe. By His sovereign choice, He has also given us significant, but not ultimate, freedom and ability (image of God, not image of a monkey or rock). Freedom is not the end in itself, but a means to love and relationship.

 

[Eli_Cash]

Eli: The Peter and Judas issue have alternate explanations. They are also proximal knowledge based on perfect past and present knowledge.

I'm not concerned with the explanation but with the consequences of Jesus' foreknowledge. Was Peter free to do otherwise, given Jesus' prediction? If he was, then foreknowledge doesn't contradict freedom. If he wasn't then maybe freedom isn't as important as you claim that it is.

These e.g. cannot be extrapolated to support exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future contingencies

Only under the assumption that the future isn't determined by the past and present.

(especially since there are texts that show the future as partially unsettled and known as such, even by an omniscient God).

I don't think that this is an accurate interpretation of those verses. Such an interpretation would firstly ignore the element of metaphorical anthropomorphism. Secondly it would be assuming that God's presentation of counterfactuals to his limited-knowledge creation implies that he shares this limitation, which I think is pretty big jump.

 

[Nang]

God desires to save all men and to lead all men into truth.

Says you but not the Bible.

There is no good reason why a holy, loving, truthful God would save some, but not save others whom He could save if He wanted to (TULIP).

There is no good reason God should save a single sinner. All men hate God, and God is not obligated in the least to help, let alone save those who hate His Person.

But God, in His great love for His Son, and to fulfill His promises and intents for His Son, has elected to save a people to share in the divine inheritance of heavenly kingdom and glory.

There is no good reason to let some believers wallow in error while granting truth to others on an arbitrary basis.

God is Judge of such matters.

Who are you to judge God or to tell Him what is good "reasoning" or not.

What audacity on your part!

Calvin was wrong to think that God's will is monothetic or the only factor in the universe.

The will of the Creator is the only determining factor in this universe. The actions and deeds of all His created beings is controlled by the Creator, who alone does what He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

By His sovereign choice, He has also given us significant, but not ultimate, freedom and ability (image of God, not image of a monkey or rock). Freedom is not the end in itself, but a means to love and relationship.

Wrong.

Love and relationship with God never comes through the corrupted and hateful will of the creature. If God did not establish love and relationship with what He has made, through the sacrificial act of great grace, there would never be any kind of relationship between corrupted man and Divine and Holy God.

Love and relationship with God does not come by the will of sinful man.

Love and relationship with God comes by the sovereign will and grace of God, alone.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

:bang: Someone does not get it yet.:singer:

God's love is impartial and unlimited. To say that none deserve salvation is not an excuse for saving the elect elite and damning those who do not win the coin toss. etc. etc. (cringe).

 

[themuzicman]

Have you read the early fathers? I don't think you'll find much in which to disagree.

Nice dodge. I take it that there is no council established theology on immutability?

Muz

 

[LightSon]

:bang: Someone does not get it yet.:singer:

God's love is impartial and unlimited. To say that none deserve salvation is not an excuse for saving the elect elite and damning those who do not win the coin toss. etc. etc. (cringe).

:think:

Romans 9:13

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay 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?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Does this passage not directly rebuff your idea that God's love is impartial? Looks pretty clear He will have mercy on whomever he chooses (i.e. elects).

 

[godrulz]

:think:

Romans 9:13




Does this passage not directly rebuff your idea that God's love is impartial? Looks pretty clear He will have mercy on whomever he chooses (i.e. elects).

Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of Israel for service/mission. It is not about individual salvation primarily. Election is corporate and Christocentric. A wrong view of election will affect one's prooftexting.

We know from God's self-revelation that love is impartial, unlimited, and not arbitrary. God is holy and just, not fickle. His choices are based on wisdom and character, not coin tosses. I believe you are not understanding the whole context deeply enough. He can choose one nation sovereignly and be righteous. He cannot save some and damn others 'just because' and remain just and true.

 

[elected4ever]

There is a gross misapplication of Romans 9. It is not about a certain few being saved according to God's sovereign choice but that the seed was preserved and the plan implemented by God's sovereign choice. God did not leave the plan to provide a savior for the world in the hands of fickle man. The linage of Jesus Christ was preserved sovereignly by God not each and ever person that would or would not be saved.

The Open View as presented on this board by some would have us believe otherwise and believe that God is held hostage by the fickleness of man. At least that is what I understand it to be.

The closed view seems to present God as the soul choice maker in our salvation as though we had no choice in the matter at all. Therefore those who are saved becomes no more than God's trained pets as if we have no free will or part in salvation outside of God's sovereign choice to save an individual or not.

I believe both of these extremes are incorrect. I believe the destiny of the lose has been sovereignly predetermined and the destiny of the saved is also just as sovereignly determined.

What has not been predetermined is an individual's choice to believe God or not to believe God. It is not whether someone believes that there is a God or not You can believe there is but one God until the cows come home but your destiny will be to partake with the infidel. You will come to God by the way God has sovereignly provided or you will not come to God at all. The method by which God has chosen to save the world is not open to discussion as for as God is concerned.

:e4e:

 

[Lon]

Romans 9:7-22

7nor are they all children (S)because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(T)THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

9For this is the word of promise: "(W)AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."

10(X)And not only this, but there was (Y)Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;

11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that (Z)God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12it was said to her, "(AA)THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

13Just as it is written, "(AB)JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

14(AC)What shall we say then? (AD)There is no injustice with God, is there? (AE)May it never be!

15For He says to Moses, "(AF)I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who (AG)runs, but on (AH)God who has mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "(AI)FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He (AJ)hardens whom He desires.

19(AK)You will say to me then, "(AL)Why does He still find fault? For (AM)who resists His will?"

20On the contrary, who are you, (AN)O man, who (AO)answers back to God? (AP)The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction?

NASB

 

[Clete]

Hmmm . . .not answering for Lon, but I believe this is so. (Spiritual Principle: I Thessalonians 2:11-12)

However, I also believe God might yet grant you repentance, and provide you the light of correct doctrinal understanding, if He so wills to show you mercy and grace.

Nang

You don't get it, Nang!

If your god is true then I hope that he does not "grant me repentance"!

Your god has the mind of a brick! Mercy and grace are meaningless in your convoluted worldview! Your ridiculous excuse for a god, if it were real, would be unspeakable unjust and cruel!

I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR UNJUST BULLY OF A gOD!
If your god is real, then I've been predestined to believe in free will and to despise not only your god but you as well! That's right, Nang! If you have a problem with the way I treat you, talk to your pagan god about it, its his fault anyway, I'm only here going through the motions like everyone else, including you.

Resting in Him,
Clete