PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ChristisKing
April 13th, 2005, 06:06 AM
"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
April 13th, 2005, 09:06 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 09:21 AM
[QUOTE=I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?[/QUOTE]

Ditto

Servo
April 13th, 2005, 09:31 AM
If God wanted to, could He create a free will being?

ChristisKing
April 13th, 2005, 09:31 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 09:43 AM
If God wanted to, could He create a free will being?

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

Servo
April 13th, 2005, 10:38 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:41 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:41 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:43 AM
God knows everything that is knowable.


God knows everything.

Knight
April 13th, 2005, 10:43 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:45 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Did God make me an open theist?

Servo
April 13th, 2005, 10:51 AM
so be prepared to be attacked, it's coming ...

It was predestined!

ChristisKing
April 13th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Did God make me an open theist?

Does God make you sin?

God_Is_Truth
April 13th, 2005, 11:50 AM
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
April 13th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Does God make you sin?
No. How about you?

Emo
April 13th, 2005, 06:01 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:17 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:23 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:27 PM
"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
April 13th, 2005, 06:32 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:34 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:38 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:42 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:46 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:48 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 06:51 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 07:06 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 07:12 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Well, Lucky has given a great response. I see no need to add to it.

Servo
April 13th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Does God make you sin?

According to Calvinism, yes!

Servo
April 13th, 2005, 07:52 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 08:00 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 10:52 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 11:04 PM
"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
April 13th, 2005, 11:05 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 11:49 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 11:52 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 11:55 PM
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
April 13th, 2005, 11:58 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:01 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:03 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:03 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:10 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:18 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:21 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:25 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:28 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 12:32 AM
Thanks, godrulz. :thumb:

ChristisKing
April 14th, 2005, 04:57 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 09:18 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 09:40 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 10:34 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 10:45 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 10:59 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:20 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:21 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:23 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:43 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:52 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 11:55 AM
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
April 14th, 2005, 01:15 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 01:49 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Yes, G_I_T. Thak you for that. I've been searching for a competent explanation of that verse.

godrulz
April 14th, 2005, 01:51 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 04:04 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 04:08 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 05:22 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 06:10 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 07:39 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 08:39 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 08:57 PM
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
April 14th, 2005, 10:29 PM
Me or lighthouse?

Or is it Peter who is doesn't understand?

you

Lighthouse
April 14th, 2005, 10:54 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 12:29 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 12:34 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 04:39 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 08:21 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 08:25 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 08:26 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 08:31 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 08:49 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 09:25 AM
: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
April 15th, 2005, 10:30 AM
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
April 15th, 2005, 02:20 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 02:32 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 02:56 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 03:45 PM
"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
April 15th, 2005, 03:48 PM
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

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

Knight
April 15th, 2005, 06:10 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 07:06 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 07:13 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 07:44 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 07:49 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 10:01 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 10:18 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 10:33 PM
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
April 15th, 2005, 10:52 PM
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
April 16th, 2005, 12:57 AM
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
April 16th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 11:42 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 01:55 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:02 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:18 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:34 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:45 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:46 AM
No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.

doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 02:52 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:56 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 05:48 AM
doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?
Yes. As in God incarnate, i.e. in the flesh.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 05:58 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 06:51 AM
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
April 17th, 2005, 01:23 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 02:58 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 03:37 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 04:35 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 06:14 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 06:18 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 08:38 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 08:46 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 10:52 PM
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
April 17th, 2005, 11:06 PM
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
April 18th, 2005, 01:45 AM
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
April 18th, 2005, 10:10 AM
He's preaching to the choir.

Carver
April 18th, 2005, 11:49 AM
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
April 18th, 2005, 05:19 PM
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
April 20th, 2005, 07:08 PM
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
April 20th, 2005, 11:36 PM
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 respond in real time without having to have seen things in advance.

The Cosmic Chessmaster handles billions of contingencies as they unfold. Like a human chessmaster, He can play any move in response to any move and win the game by His superiority. He may normatively respond one way, but He is sovereign and can respond with freedom. e.g. He may or may not respond supernaturally to a given situation. He is free to decide in advance or at the moment the new contingency unfolds.

Lighthouse
April 21st, 2005, 03:24 AM
Hi everyone,
Where have you been?!


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?
Wrong. I am an open theist, and I know God knows how He would respond in any given situation. And God knows all possibilities, of all things.


Not this Calvinist!
So, how much of a Calvinist are you?


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.
:confused:

Who believes that God can not turn anything for good?

lee_merrill
April 21st, 2005, 10:49 AM
Hi everyone,


Lee: Then does God not know how he would respond, freely, in any completely described situation?

Godrulz: The Cosmic Chessmaster handles billions of contingencies as they unfold. Like a human chessmaster, He can play any move in response to any move and win the game by His superiority.
Then God doesn’t know all there is to know about himself! How he would choose in a given situation, isn’t this a fact about God, in the present?


Lighthouse: Where have you been?!
Over at Theology Web, and Infidels.org, mostly. And playing my new electronic keyboard! ‘Til 1 AM in the morning. It’s kind of wild, I haven’t touched a piano in several years, yet now I can play passages that I couldn’t play before, it seems I made progress! Now that I am practicing, I suppose I will lose ground?


So, how much of a Calvinist are you?
80%! I spell my TULIP without the “L”. And I don’t believe God makes all decisions, I believe God’s children can really choose:

1Co 9:1 Am I not free?


Who believes that God can not turn anything for good?
Greg Boyd? Who speaks of God working to minimize evil results, which implies some actual evil result may not be reduced to zero, for God’s children.

Blessings,
Lee

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:52 AM
Hi everyone,



Greg Boyd? Who speaks of God working to minimize evil results, which implies some actual evil result may not be reduced to zero, for God’s children.

Blessings,
Lee

Open Theists have different views among themselves.

The heinous evil of a Christian parent's baby being raped and murdered cannot be reduced to zero evil. The child goes to heaven, but it does not undo the evil brutality and loss. God punishes the evildoer, but cannot reverse the actual evil and its consequences. He comforts the parents and gives them the big picture, but it still does not reduce the evil to zero.

DTS teaches 4 point Calvinism. Calvin also denied a limited atonement (though the L makes TULIP more consistent). If grace is irresistible and perseverance unconditional, then you cannot claim libertarian free will.

lee_merrill
April 21st, 2005, 07:23 PM
Hi Godrulz,


The heinous evil of a Christian parent's baby being raped and murdered cannot be reduced to zero evil. The child goes to heaven, but it does not undo the evil brutality and loss. God punishes the evildoer, but cannot reverse the actual evil and its consequences. He comforts the parents and gives them the big picture, but it still does not reduce the evil to zero.
But then Jesus failed…

1 John 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

And we cannot be super-conquering, present tense, continually, through him who loved us. But Paul says not just that we can be, but that we are.

Even the worst evil can be reduced to zero, indeed, it can be, as in the cross, and for those who love God, it will be...

Psalm 56:10-11 In God, whose word I praise, in the Lord, whose word I praise-- in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?


If grace is irresistible and perseverance unconditional, then you cannot claim libertarian free will.
Do you mean by libertarian free will the ability to make any logically possible choice? Then how about saints in heaven? Are they less human?

Blessings,
Lee

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:43 PM
Hi Godrulz,


But then Jesus failed…

1 John 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

And we cannot be super-conquering, present tense, continually, through him who loved us. But Paul says not just that we can be, but that we are.

Even the worst evil can be reduced to zero, indeed, it can be, as in the cross, and for those who love God, it will be...

Psalm 56:10-11 In God, whose word I praise, in the Lord, whose word I praise-- in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?


Do you mean by libertarian free will the ability to make any logically possible choice? Then how about saints in heaven? Are they less human?

Blessings,
Lee

The cross ASSURED that the victory would be achieved.

After the millennium, the victory will be ACHIEVED with Satan and evil cast in the lake of fire forever.

In between the cross and the consummation is a period of cosmic spiritual warfare with casualties. It does not mean Jesus has failed or the cross is ineffective.

cf. WW II D-Day and VE-Day. Between the assurance of the victory and the achievement of the victory the war was waged and there were still casualties.

The fact that millions of Jews were killed is unmitigated evil. It does not mean the cross was a failure. It means that the Kingdom (rule of God) is now, but not yet. Jesus did destroy the devil's work by making redemption possible. He also healed the sick and cast out demons. Not every person was healed. Not every possessed person was freed. Not every person is saved from the lake of fire. The devil sometimes still has sway in lives. In the future, he will be completely banished. So, we have the timing of the defeat. He was neutered at Calvary, but will only be banished at the Consummation. In the mean time, he is loose on a leash and still wreaks havoc. Do you not read the newspaper?

It is unreasonable to say that my example of the dead baby is zero evil. In the end, justice will occur. In the mean time, we have a dead child, a grieving family, and hopefully a perpetrator in prison on earth and then in hell at death. Some people even get away with murder in this life and the evil is not resolved. In eternity, the books will be settled, but not always now (see Psalms).

Carver
April 22nd, 2005, 12:26 AM
The cross ASSURED that the victory would be achieved.

After the millennium, the victory will be ACHIEVED with Satan and evil cast in the lake of fire forever.

In between the cross and the consummation is a period of cosmic spiritual warfare with casualties. It does not mean Jesus has failed or the cross is ineffective.

cf. WW II D-Day and VE-Day. Between the assurance of the victory and the achievement of the victory the war was waged and there were still casualties.

The fact that millions of Jews were killed is unmitigated evil. It does not mean the cross was a failure. It means that the Kingdom (rule of God) is now, but not yet. Jesus did destroy the devil's work by making redemption possible. He also healed the sick and cast out demons. Not every person was healed. Not every possessed person was freed. Not every person is saved from the lake of fire. The devil sometimes still has sway in lives. In the future, he will be completely banished. So, we have the timing of the defeat. He was neutered at Calvary, but will only be banished at the Consummation. In the mean time, he is loose on a leash and still wreaks havoc. Do you not read the newspaper?

It is unreasonable to say that my example of the dead baby is zero evil. In the end, justice will occur. In the mean time, we have a dead child, a grieving family, and hopefully a perpetrator in prison on earth and then in hell at death. Some people even get away with murder in this life and the evil is not resolved. In eternity, the books will be settled, but not always now (see Psalms).
I'm not disputing your point at all, but rather your example. During World War II, there was little in the way of assured victory until the last month or two before VE-Day. If you wanted to point to a turning point, probably go with the Battle of the Bulge. D-Day was a wild experiment that went very well, but it was by no means assured to do as well as it did.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 09:07 AM
Greg Boyd? Who speaks of God working to minimize evil results, which implies some actual evil result may not be reduced to zero, for God’s children.

Blessings,
Lee
God does not immediately turn everything around for good. And some effects of wrong are wrong. The good comes eventually, but not always immediately.

godrulz
April 22nd, 2005, 10:21 AM
God does not immediately turn everything around for good. And some effects of wrong are wrong. The good comes eventually, but not always immediately.

Exactly. If God made the effects of evil of zero effect for believers (this is contrary to reality...we are not immune to some things in a fallen world), it would blur the distinction between good and evil. It would make evil not real, but an illusion (cf. Christian Science).

lee_merrill
April 22nd, 2005, 09:26 PM
Hi everyone,


Godrulz: After the millennium, the victory will be ACHIEVED with Satan and evil cast in the lake of fire forever.

In between the cross and the consummation is a period of cosmic spiritual warfare with casualties. It does not mean Jesus has failed or the cross is ineffective.
The point was about all evil works of the devil being destroyed, though. Yes, he will be cast in the lake of fire, but can there be real harm for God's children? If so, Jesus will not destroy the works of the devil, though Jesus came to do that, and we must say he failed in this.


Godrulz: The fact that millions of Jews were killed is unmitigated evil.
Real harm can come to those who do not take refuge in God, and who do not know his Son.


Jesus did destroy the devil's work by making redemption possible.
A possibility does not destroy the devil's work, though.


It is unreasonable to say that my example of the dead baby is zero evil.
That is evil indeed, and for those who trust God, the warfare worldview indeed lacks consolation here, that is real tragedy.

Ecclesiastes 4:1 Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed--and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors--and they have no comforter.

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the Lord says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."

But we have promises of overcoming completely even the worst evil:

Psalm 91:9-10 If you make the Most High your dwelling-- even the Lord, who is my refuge--then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.

Proverbs 12:21 No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble.

Isaiah 43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; And through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, Nor will the flame burn you

Luke 21:18 But not a hair of your head will perish.


Godrulz: In eternity, the books will be settled, but not always now (see Psalms).

Lighthouse: God does not immediately turn everything around for good. And some effects of wrong are wrong. The good comes eventually, but not always immediately.
Yes, I agree, the good results for those who trust God are not all immediate.

Hebrews 11:35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.


Godrulz: If God made the effects of evil of zero effect for believers (this is contrary to reality...we are not immune to some things in a fallen world), it would blur the distinction between good and evil. It would make evil not real, but an illusion (cf. Christian Science).
But how does overcoming evil deeds completely make evil not be real? We are indeed not immune to pain, but for those who trust and obey God, they cannot be harmed.

Psalm 121:5-8 The Lord watches over you-- the Lord is your shade at your right hand; the sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night. The Lord will keep you from all harm-- he will watch over your life; the Lord will watch over your coming and going both now and forevermore.

Blessings,
Lee

godrulz
April 22nd, 2005, 10:57 PM
Ostrich syndrome? Christian Science? Believers can and do get cancer and die. Believers get murdered or hit by drunk drivers. Missionaries get raped. Jesus said we would have trials, troubles, and persecutions in this world. Eternity will bring justice and peace and no more tears. In the interim, we may be subject to aspects of the fallen world. We do not grieve as those with no hope. The key is that God is with us and will raise us up, no matter what happens to a believer. He gives peace, builds character, but does not always supernaturally deliver us in the here and now. Our hope is future and now, but this does not mean we have immunity from things unbelievers face. We just have someone carrying us through the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23). Martyrdom/blood of the saints is the seed of the persecuted church and causes growth. This does not negate the evil or murder, but God is redemptive and brings good out of bad when possible. The warfare model is what Jesus operated under, not the blueprint model of determinism.

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 03:44 AM
lee-
Not all evil is a work of the devil.:nono:

Frank Ernest
April 23rd, 2005, 05:44 AM
If you mean we can't always shift the blame to Satan, I agree.

lee_merrill
April 23rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
Hi everyone,


Lighthouse: Not all evil is a work of the devil.
That's a good point! But I think "In Adam's fall, we sinned all," and that was the devil's work (though that doesn't remove responsibility from Adam and Eve), and that kind of includes all human evil.


Godrulz: Ostrich syndrome? Christian Science? Believers can and do get cancer and die.
And some on a cross … like Jesus.

Luke 23:28 But turning to them Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me…"


Godrulz: We do not grieve as those with no hope.
We do, though, for those losses for which there is no recovery, for that we have no hope. Unless Paul was correct! In all these things, super-conquering, continuous present tense.

Philippians 1:20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed…

Hebrews 13:6 So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"


He gives peace, builds character, but does not always supernaturally deliver us in the here and now.
Yes, I agree…


Martyrdom/blood of the saints is the seed of the persecuted church and causes growth. This does not negate the evil or murder, but God is redemptive and brings good out of bad when possible.
Paul would perhaps state this differently?

Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen! Wherever possible, is always…

2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him.

Blessings,
Lee

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 03:16 PM
Sounds to me like ya'll agree!

godrulz
April 23rd, 2005, 09:35 PM
Hi everyone,



Paul would perhaps state this differently?

Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen! Wherever possible, is always…

2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him.

Blessings,
Lee

Jesus said we would have trials. They can kill our bodies (as the early apostles experienced and many do today in the persecuted church), but they cannot kill our spirits. In this world, we may have troubles. Hebrews 11 lists things suffered by saints in this life. Some did not see the promise fulfilled until the next life. We are more than conquerors in life or death. This does not mean we might not experience evil or suffering in this life. In the light of eternity, our troubles now are a wisp. If I get shot in the head by a robber, this is irreversible evil in this life. I still win, because I go to be with Jesus. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, your proof texting is out of balance with other verses and real life experience.

lee_merrill
April 23rd, 2005, 10:28 PM
Hi everyone,


We are more than conquerors in life or death. This does not mean we might not experience evil or suffering in this life.
As Robin said, I agree!


This does not mean we might not experience evil or suffering in this life. In the light of eternity, our troubles now are a wisp.
Yes...

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.


If I get shot in the head by a robber, this is irreversible evil in this life. I still win, because I go to be with Jesus.
Yes, I would say that all that happens is not just compensated for, by some other good, but it turns out, in itself, for good.

Psalm 90:15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble.

That's good...

1 John 5:18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

That's better...

Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold.

That's best!

Blessings,
Lee

Battuta
April 30th, 2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by ChristisKing in post 110

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.)

Although I am an open theist, I wish to commend ChristisKing and BereanTodd for their participation from posts 51 to 110.

In my opinion, some of the open view answers in this section reflect a version of the OV which needs some modification, as these men have demonstrated.

My open view agrees with ChristisKing in this: before the foundation of the world it was predestined that Jesus Christ would come in the flesh to offer his body as a sacrifice for the redemption of men and women condemned to eternal destruction because of their sin.

How does the OV line up with predestination here?

As in general election, many of the specific details are still not known until they occur. There is no need to know which man or woman will be the first to sin. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, the population of the world would increase with more men and women who could choose to walk with God or , conversely, rebel against his commands.

For me, predestination implies God's intention to keep offering free will to men until there is a fall. Even if millions of men lived for millions of years before sin entered the world, God did not intend to close down the "experiment" before he would have the opportunity to be Savior as well as Creator.

He estimated the benefits of redeeming a lost world as a worthy project. He founded the world with this plan in His mind.

By creating men with free will and maintaining that freedom for as long as it would take, it became inevitable there would be a fall.

(My guess is both the OVers and the non OVers will be opposed to this post).

ChristisKing
April 30th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Although I am an open theist, I wish to commend ChristisKing and BereanTodd for their participation from posts 51 to 110.

In my opinion, some of the open view answers in this section reflect a version of the OV which needs some modification, as these men have demonstrated.

My open view agrees with ChristisKing in this: before the foundation of the world it was predestined that Jesus Christ would come in the flesh to offer his body as a sacrifice for the redemption of men and women condemned to eternal destruction because of their sin.

How does the OV line up with predestination here?

As in general election, many of the specific details are still not known until they occur. There is no need to know which man or woman will be the first to sin. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, the population of the world would increase with more men and women who could choose to walk with God or , conversely, rebel against his commands.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned then there would be people in heaven who would have not needed Christ and would have earned their own glory. We know this is unscriptural because the Scriptures teach that God created all for the glory of Christ and that He was to receive all the glory:

1CO 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

COL 1:16 For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (Christ):

godrulz
April 30th, 2005, 12:07 PM
Although I am an open theist, I wish to commend ChristisKing and BereanTodd for their participation from posts 51 to 110.

In my opinion, some of the open view answers in this section reflect a version of the OV which needs some modification, as these men have demonstrated.

My open view agrees with ChristisKing in this: before the foundation of the world it was predestined that Jesus Christ would come in the flesh to offer his body as a sacrifice for the redemption of men and women condemned to eternal destruction because of their sin.

How does the OV line up with predestination here?

As in general election, many of the specific details are still not known until they occur. There is no need to know which man or woman will be the first to sin. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, the population of the world would increase with more men and women who could choose to walk with God or , conversely, rebel against his commands.

For me, predestination implies God's intention to keep offering free will to men until there is a fall. Even if millions of men lived for millions of years before sin entered the world, God did not intend to close down the "experiment" before he would have the opportunity to be Savior as well as Creator.

He estimated the benefits of redeeming a lost world as a worthy project. He founded the world with this plan in His mind.

By creating men with free will and maintaining that freedom for as long as it would take, it became inevitable there would be a fall.

(My guess is both the OVers and the non OVers will be opposed to this post).

This is not unreasonable. I prefer to distinguish possibilities from actualities. God's reaction of grief implies He did not anticipate the Fall as a certainty, but as a possibilitity He was prepared to deal with (even from eternity past).

Your view still does not answer their objections why God would create such a world knowing that sooner or later there would be misery with people suffering torment for eternity.

godrulz
April 30th, 2005, 12:15 PM
If Adam and Eve had not sinned then there would be people in heaven who would have not needed Christ and would have earned their own glory. We know this is unscriptural because the Scriptures teach that God created all for the glory of Christ and that He was to receive all the glory:

1CO 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

COL 1:16 For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (Christ):


I Cor. and Col. must be interpreted in light of the fact they are AFTER the Fall. If Adam would have walked with God in fellowship, this does not mean that he was earning his own glory. It means that he was living as God intended for His perfect creation. Free moral agency made selfish rebellion possible, but not necessary. I thought the original intention was for Adam and Eve to live forever on paradise earth (not just JW concept). The expulsion from the garden and physical death were consequences after the Fall, not part of God's perfect plan. Redemption and heaven were implemented after the Fall. There will still be a plan for earth during the millennium when saints coming out of the Tribulation repopulate paradise earth. Then, some will be in glorified bodies, while others will live on a new earth in a new heaven for eternity.

It is theoretically possible that it was so probable that someone would rebel someday, that God pretty much knew that Christ would inevitably come to redeem mankind.

What is certain and not speculative is that Christ DID come and die, just as was promised after the Fall in Genesis 3.

Battuta
April 30th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by ChristisKing

If Adam and Eve had not sinned then there would be people in heaven who would have not needed Christ and would have earned their own glory. We know this is unscriptural because the Scriptures teach that God created all for the glory of Christ and that He was to receive all the glory:

1CO 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
There will be angels in heaven who never sinned. There will be fallen angels who are cast into hell instead. I tentatively hold to the view they all had an opportunity to choose at a specific time; some chose to obey while others rebelled. An angel who did not fall would not be in heaven because of redemption. Neither would he boast about it.

Adam walked with God when he was innocent. It was not a problem for him to be in God's presence, even though he was not redeemed. He didn't boast.

People boast in God's presence today, in the sense that He is everywhere and he observes them boast. So the verse needs to be understood in context. Human wisdom, the wisdom of those who do not know God (v. 21), may puff itself up in this life, but it will be defeated.

If anyone boasted in heaven, he would have to be expelled. Then he would be in need of a Savior.

Personally, I don't know if we will have free choice in heaven. I tend to think we will be "locked in to innocent mode." Some OVers would object. The innocent men and women of our hypothetical "If Adam and Eve didn't sin scenario" might not have gone to heaven until they were "locked in to innocent mode," too. I realize this last paragraph is highly speculative.



How would you describe glory, ChristisKIng?

ChristisKing
April 30th, 2005, 12:59 PM
How would you describe glory, ChristisKIng? The Scriptures teach that God predestined Christ to come in the flesh to be the only Savior for all flesh who would be saved. In this way Christ would receive all the glory for redeeming all men and women who receive eternal life.

No flesh would be able to earn it and receive the glory of their good works. The glory was predestined to Christ's alone!

Battuta
April 30th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Originally Posted by godrulz

I prefer to distinguish possibilities from actualities. God's reaction of grief implies He did not anticipate the Fall as a certainty, but as a possibility He was prepared to deal with (even from eternity past).
I don't find a possibility here. I see either a certainty or the time leading up to that certainty. God is saying he won't settle for any other possible closure outside of the plan of redemption. That much was predestined.

Please identify the reaction of grief to which you refer. I just scanned Genesis 3 and didn't find it.

Battuta
April 30th, 2005, 01:29 PM
ChristisKing,

I want to keep discussing with you another day. Please choose a few scriptures for us to look at. 1 Cor. 1:29 did not convince me, but your argument deserves more consideration. I've enjoyed this thread more than the previous ones I was in.

godrulz
April 30th, 2005, 02:50 PM
The Scriptures teach that God predestined Christ to come in the flesh to be the only Savior for all flesh who would be saved. In this way Christ would receive all the glory for redeeming all men and women who receive eternal life.

No flesh would be able to earn it and receive the glory of their good works. The glory was predestined to Christ's alone!


TULIP, I presume?

godrulz
April 30th, 2005, 02:55 PM
I don't find a possibility here. I see either a certainty or the time leading up to that certainty. God is saying he won't settle for any other possible closure outside of the plan of redemption. That much was predestined.

Please identify the reaction of grief to which you refer. I just scanned Genesis 3 and didn't find it.

God predestined that IF man fell, Christ would die. He predestined the nature and need for redemption as a contingency, not foregone conclusion before it happened.

The grief after the Fall was Genesis 6:9 (proximal to the Fall=Noah, not centuries later): "The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain."

Creation was originally 'very good'. After man became wicked, God's disposition changed. This did not happen trillions of years before the Fall when He delighted at the possibility of a free creation that would love Him in relationship without coercion.

ChristisKing
April 30th, 2005, 05:07 PM
ChristisKing,

I want to keep discussing with you another day. Please choose a few scriptures for us to look at. 1 Cor. 1:29 did not convince me, but your argument deserves more consideration. I've enjoyed this thread more than the previous ones I was in.

Sure, pls just let me know the day and I'll be glad to continue this...I want to tell you how refreshing this is for me to see such a godly attitude and tone from you Battuta. You must be born from above.

ChristisKing
May 1st, 2005, 01:46 AM
ChristisKing,

I want to keep discussing with you another day. Please choose a few scriptures for us to look at. 1 Cor. 1:29 did not convince me, but your argument deserves more consideration. I've enjoyed this thread more than the previous ones I was in.

As you requested, other Scripture to consider that reveals how God had predestined Christ to receive all the glory for saving all men and women who would have eternal life:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, ( EPH 1:4-5)

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (EPH 1:10)

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (EPH 1:22)

And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; (COL 1:18-19)

You begin to see the beauty of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God and predestination; it reveals how God had always planned that Christ should receive all the glory and honor before God created one thing. Christ is exalted and honored above any and all men in this doctrine. In open theism, as you rightly point out, Adam and Eve and numerous others could have rec'd all the glory and honor in earning their own salvation. But according to Scripture God would have none of this, He would not give any of the credit for earning eternal life to anyone except His Son. His Son was predestined to receive it all, "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."

Frank Ernest
May 1st, 2005, 05:42 AM
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?
Very confusing question to me.

If God did not want to know something, He would have to know what He didn't want to know before choosing not to know it. I don't think it is a master-slave relationship either.

Proverbs 8:22-36 says God is, His Wisdom is. Best I can do. (No, I don't want to get into what the definition of "is" is. :D)

Berean Todd
May 1st, 2005, 07:45 AM
As you requested, other Scripture to consider that reveals how God had predestined Christ to receive all the glory for saving all men and women who would have eternal life:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, ( EPH 1:4-5)

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (EPH 1:10)

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (EPH 1:22)

And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; (COL 1:18-19)

You begin to see the beauty of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God and predestination; it reveals how God had always planned that Christ should receive all the glory and honor before God created one thing. Christ is exalted and honored above any and all men in this doctrine. In open theism, as you rightly point out, Adam and Eve and numerous others could have rec'd all the glory and honor in earning their own salvation. But according to Scripture God would have none of this, He would not give any of the credit for earning eternal life to anyone except His Son. His Son was predestined to receive it all, "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."


Just to add a couple of more before I head off to church:

2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

Gee, here we are told that these people specifically were chosen from the begining for salvation. I know these OVers like to say that "election is corporate, not individual", but here in this passage Paul is thanking God that these SPECIFIC people were chosen from the begining.

Gal 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased

Wow, here is Paul being set apart from the womb. Doesn't sound like he had much choice in the matter.

Ok, I would give more but I have to go now ... have a great Sunday morning everyone!

godrulz
May 1st, 2005, 08:31 AM
Very confusing question to me.

If God did not want to know something, He would have to know what He didn't want to know before choosing not to know it. I don't think it is a master-slave relationship either.

Proverbs 8:22-36 says God is, His Wisdom is. Best I can do. (No, I don't want to get into what the definition of "is" is. :D)


Proverbs 8 is about wisdom. It is personified as a figure of speech. The context is not saying God is Wisdom (though it is true that God is wise and Christ is the wisdom of God...different contexts).

The idea that God could chose to not know something He is able to know does not compute. It is not the classical view nor normative Open Theism.

The only way I can see that God does not know something knowable is to create beings with free moral agency (libertarian free will). This type of creation (vs determinism) means that the future cannot be exhaustively foreknown by the omniscient God. It is an issue with the nature of freedom and an open future, not God willing directly to not know something other beings in the universe could know.


e.g. Some think that God forgiving our sins means that He forgets them. Forgiveness does not mean literal forgetfulness, even for humans. It is chosing to not bring them up again, though God and sinner or offended person could recall them to mind if they wanted to.

If something is a possible object of knowledge, God could not chose to not know it. He is omnipresent and omniscient, knowing all that is knowable. In relation to the future, He correctly knows things as possibilities until they become certainties/actualities with the choice.

Omnipotence does not mean that God does everything He could possibly do. He also cannot do logically contradictory or absurd things. Omnipotence is not identical to omniscience in its ability or limitations.

godrulz
May 1st, 2005, 08:35 AM
Just to add a couple of more before I head off to church:

2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

Gee, here we are told that these people specifically were chosen from the begining for salvation. I know these OVers like to say that "election is corporate, not individual", but here in this passage Paul is thanking God that these SPECIFIC people were chosen from the begining.

Gal 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased

Wow, here is Paul being set apart from the womb. Doesn't sound like he had much choice in the matter.

Ok, I would give more but I have to go now ... have a great Sunday morning everyone!


Both these verses cannot be extrapolated to eternity past, trillions of years ago. They are proximal chosing vs remote.

God set apart Jeremiah and Paul from the womb for a specific ministry. This was God's intention and purpose. It is not related to individual salvation (TULIP). Other passages show that God's intentions and purposes can be thwarted. If Jeremiah or Paul would have not followed God, they would not have fulfilled their intended calling. Jer. 1 and Gal. 1 (written after the fact) may not have been inspired as written. God desires that all men be saved. Not all men are saved. Some people God called and intended for specific ministry also dropped the ball (Judas, Saul, Demas, etc.). God calls many men, but not all respond to His call. Many are called, but few are chosen in the end.

ChristisKing
May 1st, 2005, 12:14 PM
The idea that God could chose to not know something He is able to know does not compute. It is not the classical view nor normative Open Theism.

You're right, it doesn't compute, it can't compute. It's unbelieveable that many Open Theists not only believe this but openly teach it, like in forum's like this.

There are many things God can not do, He can not lie, He can not sin, He can not change, and He can not "stop knowing" or rather choose to not know. He is God and He can't stop being God.

But you're delimna in undersatnding this attribute about God is that if God knows all and leaves the future "open" to "free agents," then if God doesn't like the way things are going to work out all He has to do is change something. For instance, if God did not want to humble himself and become a man and die all He had to do was not create man, or not create satan, or not create the tree of good and evil, or, or, or, ......

Everything that comes to pass is because God wills it and if it's evil He only allows it in order to turn it around for the good. God does not allow evil to happen without a specific reason to fulfill His ultimate purpose. The ultimate evil to ever have been committed on planet Earth was the killing of the Son of God and that was predestined for our good!

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:

godrulz
May 1st, 2005, 01:18 PM
There is a difference between the predestined death and resurrection of Christ and heinous evil perpetuated by the likes of Hitler. Hitler is possible because of free moral agency. God allows it, but this does not mean that killing Jews is inherently able to be turned to good. Evil is contrary to God's will. Jesus came to destroy evil, not affirm it as God's predestined will. Evil originates in Satan's and man's choices. God is not the only moral agent in the universe with volition. Evil is a misuse of our wills. God is not culpable for evil (contrary to His revealed character and Word). Hyper-sovereignty leads to wrong conclusions about the nature of evil (theodicy= problem of evil).

The other problem with your logic is that just because God predestines some things, does not mean He predestines all things. God can bring things to pass by His power (e.g. First and Second Coming), but that does not mean He is responsible for the brutal rape of children. Evil could have been avoided by not creating, or by creating deterministic robots. Scripture and reality show that this is not the type of creation God made. In the end, evil will be dealt with and He will rule and reign in righteousness. Evil is not turned to good in all cases. Satan will experience torment day and night forever and ever. He is not redeemed from bad to good.

lee_merrill
May 1st, 2005, 07:14 PM
Hi everyone,


Hitler is possible because of free moral agency. God allows it, but this does not mean that killing Jews is inherently able to be turned to good.
Not inherently, this is indeed a miracle when God brings good out of what was intended for evil.


God is not culpable for evil (contrary to His revealed character and Word). Hyper-sovereignty leads to wrong conclusions about the nature of evil (theodicy= problem of evil).
Did God not know what might happen in creating the world? Is there no responsibility when God sees Hitler set out to kill people, and does not stop him?


Evil could have been avoided by not creating, or by creating deterministic robots.
Then God made a world where evil could exist, for a greater good that he saw. That is the Calvinist view, too.

Only Calvinists would go farther, and say that for those who love God, all works out for good, not "all evil for them, God attempts to minimize."

Blessings,
Lee

Battuta
May 2nd, 2005, 05:54 AM
Hi again, ChristisKing,

What I really am saying is I was signing out but I intend to keep coming back. A little bit every day is probably better than long stretches. I'm sure you have other responsibilities, too.

When we discuss the Bible we need to remember we are using inductive reasoning. Estimation is involved here. We are not using deductive reasoning as we would in mathematics. We are looking at Open Theism to find out if it is plausible. We could look at Calvinism the same way. Afterwards we estimate which we think is more biblical.

Also, we need to try to keep focused. The subject is still predestination and free will up to the time of the fall, or hypothetical, what if the fall occurred millions of years later.

My post 146 says Open Theism needs to include predestination. The predestination I am suggesting is minimal compared to Calvinism, but more to your liking than how some OVers express it. As you can see, godrulz is pulling on me one way, and you are pulling from the other side.

Eph. 1:4,5 I believe this predestination took place before the foundation of the world, in conjunction with 1 Peter 1:18-20. 1 Peter tells us Christ will be the redeemer, and he will suffer and shed his blood as part of fulfilling this task. Ephesians tells us the result will be sonship for a body of believers. Romans 8:29 and following tells us the result will be a body of believers who are conformed to the likeness of God's Son. They will experience a calling, justification and glorification. They will not be condemned. Nothing will separate them from the love of God in Christ.

I can hold to this view and consider the predestination (and election which accompanies it) was not specific about details such as what the names of these believers will be or when they will be saved.

At this point, I will agree with you that specific election is a plausible interpretation of these verses. Can you see that general election is also a plausible interpretation of these verses? Can we prefer different views, but still see the plausibility of the other view.

Frank Ernest
May 2nd, 2005, 06:00 AM
Proverbs 8 is about wisdom. It is personified as a figure of speech. The context is not saying God is Wisdom (though it is true that God is wise and Christ is the wisdom of God...different contexts).
Proverbs 8 is about the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the Christ ever referred to as the "wisdom of God."

ChristisKing
May 2nd, 2005, 06:17 AM
Hi again, ChristisKing,

At this point, I will agree with you that specific election is a plausible interpretation of these verses. Can you see that general election is also a plausible interpretation of these verses? Can we prefer different views, but still see the plausibility of the other view.

I know what you mean, I've been a member since April 2003 and have .26 posts per day. I've been away for years and just came back for a stretch. I don't like it when Christians resort to personal attacks and exhibit ungodly behavior when they start losing an argument or find they just can't convince someone of their position so I'll probably be taking off again soon myself.

But anyway, I wish I could be as accomodating as you on those verses in Ephesians. I really don't see "a general election." Paul even refers to the specific Church of Ephesus and himself specifically as being "predestined to be the first to trust in Christ."

EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
EPH 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

But take care and will probably see you around later.

Battuta
May 2nd, 2005, 06:31 AM
Ephesians 1:10

If Adam had never sinned, he would still love his Creator. He would still recognize all that he has was given to him by the grace of God. He would look on with awe at the redeeming work of Christ, recognizing there was nothing he could have done to rescue them. He would willingly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ.

In heaven, you might say that some people would love God more because they have been forgiven more. But I tend to think those differences will be diluted. I see no reason to ostracize an Adam who never sinned.

It looks plausible to me. The general view of predestination also leads to one glorious head over all creation. When we get there, can I take you out for dinner, ChristisKing?

ChristisKing
May 2nd, 2005, 06:59 AM
Ephesians 1:10

If Adam had never sinned, he would still love his Creator. He would still recognize all that he has was given to him by the grace of God. He would look on with awe at the redeeming work of Christ, recognizing there was nothing he could have done to rescue them. He would willingly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ.

When we get there, can I take you out for dinner, ChristisKing?

I don't know, that's all very speculative....don't you think? Anyway, yes to the dinner!

godrulz
May 2nd, 2005, 08:30 AM
Proverbs 8 is about the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the Christ ever referred to as the "wisdom of God."


I Cor. 1:24 "..Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God..."

The problem is that some commentators link Prov. 8 with I Cor. 1. These are different contexts and it is sloppy exegesis. Arians, like JWs, do this to try to show that Christ is created, rather than the uncreated Creator.

Wisdom is an attribute of the Holy Spirit. Just because fire and water are symbols for the Spirit does not mean that every time those words are used in the Bible it refers to the Holy Spirit. Context is king.

Most exegetes recognize the figures of speech in wisdom literature like Proverbs. The immediate and remote context is about the impersonal quality of wisdom (like knowledge, truth, etc.). The literary device is called personification...giving personal qualities to an impersonal thing. If you try to fit Christ into all the verses in Proverbs 8, you will end up with heresy. Taking one verse out of context to try to say it refers to Christ or the Spirit is not defensible. You could make an application from other verses that the Spirit or Christ (I Cor.) is the wisdom of God.

Where is the explicit verse that says the Spirit is the wisdom of God? Romans? I cannot remember.

If this is good exegesis, how about some rep points? :angel:

Battuta
May 2nd, 2005, 10:18 AM
2 Thess 2:13
Eph 1:11,12

I will agree with you even further about specific election. Not only is your view plausible, it is the first assumption one would make upon reading these verses.

But election is still glorious! This is God's Number One project! The Lord Jesus Christ is choosing titles by which he would be like to be known and walks out with Source of Eternal Salvation (Heb 5 :9) and Mediator of a New Covenant (Heb. 9:15). The Author of Salvation was made perfect (legally declared to be competent) through suffering (Heb 2:10).

When Jesus Christ went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, He was recognized as having accomplished a mighty work. He received a hero's welcome. He received additional glory over and above what He had received in the past. There is still more to come as he works in the lives of His body.

I find no way in which general election is less glorious than specific election. It is a possible alternate reading. In my opinion, it does the best job of avoiding accusations of double predestination. I follow because in my mind it gives all the glory, and the right kind of glory, to God.

ChristisKing
May 2nd, 2005, 11:04 AM
I find no way in which general election is less glorious than specific election. It is a possible alternate reading. In my opinion, it does the best job of avoiding accusations of double predestination. I follow because in my mind it gives all the glory, and the right kind of glory, to God.

I must admit, I see a tremondous difference. Specific election is very personal and individual. As you know God doesn't save groups, He saves people. Each person is unique with a specific love from God to them. Their election from the Father of them individually creates a very special one-on-one relationship that endures forever and through all things. Christ had each one of the elect in mind when He came, lived and died, not as a general group but specific individuals. This specific individual love that the Father and Christ have for specific individuals is what God has revealed for us to understand in Scripture so we can fully appreciate what mercy and love He has had on us, personally.

We are no different than the nonelect and deserve the same, yet He had mercy on us!

ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Battuta
May 2nd, 2005, 01:02 PM
Originally quoted by Berean Todd

Wow, here is Paul being set apart from the womb. Doesn't sound like he had much choice in the matter.
I wonder why it says Paul was set apart from the womb, and not from before the foundation of the world?

If God really wanted to persuade me of specific election, that would have been an opportunity.

That love of God for individuals is expressed each time he forms a new child in their mother's womb.

Now I know you will respond: what had Paul done before he was formed in his mother's womb to deserve this unique position? That is a good question, too.

Election for service could be a little different. John the Baptist was elected for service, too. He was from a distinguished family and he was exceptionally gifted for the service he later performed. Personality, temperament and upbringing were joined to help make him what he became. Though we know less about Paul's family, we know he grew up with an unsurpassable education, language skills, and personality traits which opened the way for his later careers, both as persecutor and as apostle.

My guess is all of us were set apart in our mother's womb for service. Most of us don't complete the works which we were originally designed to thrive in. Again, you may not agree with me, but you can see my view is plausible.

ChristisKing
May 2nd, 2005, 02:20 PM
I wonder why it says Paul was set apart from the womb, and not from before the foundation of the world?

My guess is all of us were set apart in our mother's womb for service. Most of us don't complete the works which we were originally designed to thrive in. Again, you may not agree with me, but you can see my view is plausible.

I think he was using OT language which also taught predestination in exactly these same words:

ISA 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
ISA 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

This is a prophecy about Christ in Isaiah. Now we know the Scriptures are clear about Christ being predestined before the foundation of the world:

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,

It is interesting that Christ spoke about His predestination before the foundation of the world using the words "The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother," and "the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant." It is also very interesting that Paul spoke about his predestination using these exact same words that Christ chose to describe His predestination.

Maybe the Lord is teaching you something here.

Battuta
May 3rd, 2005, 04:23 AM
How can I get my rep power in the red? I looked around and there are offensive posts written by members with rep power scores in the 40s and 50s, and signs of intelligence where the scores are negative and in the red. I want to associate with the reds.

In this world I would also rather associate myself with He who made himself of no reputation.

Please acknowledge that I have been covered by the blood. I can't go it alone. I was guilty of envy, but now I am no longer under condemnation.

Frank Ernest
May 3rd, 2005, 05:17 AM
I Cor. 1:24 "..Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God..."

The problem is that some commentators link Prov. 8 with I Cor. 1. These are different contexts and it is sloppy exegesis. Arians, like JWs, do this to try to show that Christ is created, rather than the uncreated Creator.
:confused: That's great for apologetics, but beside the point.


Wisdom is an attribute of the Holy Spirit. Just because fire and water are symbols for the Spirit does not mean that every time those words are used in the Bible it refers to the Holy Spirit. Context is king.
Proverbs 8:1-4. That enough context for you?


Most exegetes recognize the figures of speech in wisdom literature like Proverbs. The immediate and remote context is about the impersonal quality of wisdom (like knowledge, truth, etc.). The literary device is called personification...giving personal qualities to an impersonal thing. If you try to fit Christ into all the verses in Proverbs 8, you will end up with heresy. Taking one verse out of context to try to say it refers to Christ or the Spirit is not defensible. You could make an application from other verses that the Spirit or Christ (I Cor.) is the wisdom of God.
1 cor 1:22 " ... and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" 1 Cor 1:24 is explanatory not definitive.


Where is the explicit verse that says the Spirit is the wisdom of God? Romans? I cannot remember.
You'll catch on if you keep at it.


If this is good exegesis, how about some rep points? :angel:
It's a sloppy mix of apologetics, poor comprehension, and lack of regard for context. No points for that.

Battuta
May 3rd, 2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

God predestined that IF man fell, Christ would die. He predestined the nature and need for redemption as a contingency, not foregone conclusion before it happened.

The grief after the Fall was Genesis 6:9 (proximal to the Fall=Noah, not centuries later): "The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain."

Creation was originally 'very good'. After man became wicked, God's disposition changed. This did not happen trillions of years before the Fall when He delighted at the possibility of a free creation that would love Him in relationship without coercion.
In Genesis 3, God could have administered justice. He could simply capture Adam, Eve and the serpent, and toss them into a lake of fire where they would be destroyed for all eternity. No sweat; no pain. That would be justice. They had been forewarned.

Instead, God administered grace. They were condemned to die, but their Savior was now engaged. God would open up a way of salvation. There is no expression of grief here. He had made His decision previously, and solemnly pronounced the words to the serpent, "Her offspring will crush your head." At the same time he acknowledges the suffering with, "You will strike his heel." No pain; no gain.

Centuries later, in Genesis 6, God confronts the unprecedented violence of these unrestrained creatures. Every sin causes God to grieve, but not every sin causes God to direct his providential efforts in a new direction. God decides things cannot keep going forward without a major intervention on his part. He opts for a worldwide flood. Future generations need to look back and recall God administering judgment, not just grace where people keep getting away with murder.

Your view is plausible. The semantics of calling predestination a contingency, rather than a certainty, are weak. I see no evidence for it in your grief argument. I find no benefit to open theism in a denial of general predestination (in the normal sense of the word predestination). There is no hang-up with double predestination in the general predestination model, yet at the same time we can do as good a job of glorifying God for his redemptive project as the Calvinists do.

godrulz
May 3rd, 2005, 09:55 AM
:confused: That's great for apologetics, but beside the point.

Proverbs 8:1-4. That enough context for you?

1 cor 1:22 " ... and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" 1 Cor 1:24 is explanatory not definitive.

You'll catch on if you keep at it.

It's a sloppy mix of apologetics, poor comprehension, and lack of regard for context. No points for that.

Proverbs 8:1 "Does not wisdom call out?...SHE takes her stand..."

Is Christ a female? Go back to your high school English teachers. They will explain personification. Proverbs 8 is not a Christological passage. It is in wisdom literature and about wisdom. The early chapters in Proverbs use the same language and are clearly talking about wisdom personified, not Christ.

Prov. 4:5-7 "Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them. Do not forsake WISDOM, and SHE will protect you; love HER, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom"

If you read the whole book of Proverbs, there are many examples of personification. If you read Christ into Proverbs 8, you should do the same in parallel passages nearby. It will simply not make sense. If there are similarities between Christ and wisdom, that does not mean they are identical.

Prov. 8:22,23 is used by JWs to show Christ had a beginning and was created.

3:19 "By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place."

Christ is supreme; wisdom is supreme. This does not mean every use of the word refers to Christ. Men and dogs have legs. This does not mean men are dogs.

The reason it is sloppy exegesis and I still want my rep points is that you cannot string unrelated contexts together to support a preconceived idea (NT shows that Christ created everything and that Christ is the wisdom of God), and that it is sheer eisegesis to read Christ back into a few verses in Prov. 8 without doing it in the rest of the book. The type of writing that Proverbs is should alert you to the use of figures of speech like personification, simile, etc.


Proverbs 9:13 ff. talks about the woman FOLLY who is loud and undisciplined. This is also personification. Using your logic, you should say the devil is a female or all spoiled brats are females.

Figures of speech are in any literature, including the Bible.

Is my view plausible, if not probable?

godrulz
May 3rd, 2005, 10:00 AM
In Genesis 3, God could have administered justice. He could simply capture Adam, Eve and the serpent, and toss them into a lake of fire where they would be destroyed for all eternity. No sweat; no pain. That would be justice. They had been forewarned.

Instead, God administered grace. They were condemned to die, but their Savior was now engaged. God would open up a way of salvation. There is no expression of grief here. He had made His decision previously, and solemnly pronounced the words to the serpent, "Her offspring will crush your head." At the same time he acknowledges the suffering with, "You will strike his heel." No pain; no gain.

Centuries later, in Genesis 6, God confronts the unprecedented violence of these unrestrained creatures. Every sin causes God to grieve, but not every sin causes God to direct his providential efforts in a new direction. God decides things cannot keep going forward without a major intervention on his part. He opts for a worldwide flood. Future generations need to look back and recall God administering judgment, not just grace where people keep getting away with murder.

Your view is plausible. The semantics of calling predestination a contingency, rather than a certainty, are weak. I see no evidence for it in your grief argument. I find no benefit to open theism in a denial of general predestination (in the normal sense of the word predestination). There is no hang-up with double predestination in the general predestination model, yet at the same time we can do as good a job of glorifying God for his redemptive project as the Calvinists do.

Predestination is not generally a contingency. Isaiah says that what He purposes He will do. The problem is that some things are predestined and settled, while others are unsettled and open. Calvinists wrongly assume that because some things are settled, then all things must be settled (hyper-sovereignty).

The Bible does reveal God's heart as being 'grieved'. I am not suggesting that He was blissfully full of joy and suddenly taken by surprise in an instant and then was shocked. He anticipated the possibility of evil entering the universe and grief entering the calm disposition of the Godhead. God is not impassible (without emotion). He says He was grieved, so we should take this literally just as when it says He delights in us.

Battuta
May 3rd, 2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by ChristisKing

Maybe the Lord is teaching you something here.
He definitely is. That was a superb answer. I feel like I just lost the point in a ping-pong match. That doesn't mean the game is over.
***
Here is a comparison:

1A Christ foreknown before the creation of the world:
-1 Peter 1:18-20

1B Christ known before birth
-Isaiah 49:1,5

2A Individuals foreknown before the creation of the world:

(Empty set)

2B Individuals known before conception, or from birth, and chosen for service:

-Samson in Judges 13:5
-Jeremiah in Jer. 1:5
-John the Baptist in Luke 1:13-17
-Paul in Gal. 1:15

3A Believers in general known before the creation of the world:

-Ephesians 1:4,5,10,11,13 Paul says we were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, but also says you were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked ....

3B Believers in general known from "the beginning"

-2 Thess 2:13,14 Here we can accept "the beginning" to be before the creation of the world, though it is not specified. But we note the individuals were called through "our gospel" and Paul's participation in the gospel, so he could call it ours, is very recent at the time of writing.

3C Believers in general foreknown
-Romans 8:29-30 Events here are spread out over time. We haven't been glorified yet.

To me 1B is the exception. This is probably due more to progressive revelation than anything else. Maybe Isaiah is setting up some possible "double fulfillments."

What you try to say about Paul could not apply to Jeremiah and Samson. I prefer to leave them sitting together in group 2B.

Battuta
May 3rd, 2005, 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by godrulz

Predestination is not generally a contingency.
Predestined, by definition, is "certain to happen because God or another force has decided that it will." Macmillan's Dictionary 0-333-96675-9

I doubt you could come up with a decent example anywhere in which predestination could be a contingency.

The other things God predestined are sure to happen. Believers will be adopted as sons. Believers will be conformed to God's Son.

I can't imagine one possible benefit you could have arguing against predestination, or denying that Christ, the lamb without blemish or defect, was chosen before the creation of the world, but revealed in these last times.

In my opinion, your argument detracts from the open view.

godrulz
May 3rd, 2005, 12:20 PM
Predestined, by definition, is "certain to happen because God or another force has decided that it will." Macmillan's Dictionary 0-333-96675-9

I doubt you could come up with a decent example anywhere in which predestination could be a contingency.

The other things God predestined are sure to happen. Believers will be adopted as sons. Believers will be conformed to God's Son.

I can't imagine one possible benefit you could have arguing against predestination, or denying that Christ, the lamb without blemish or defect, was chosen before the creation of the world, but revealed in these last times.

In my opinion, your argument detracts from the open view.

I would suggest election is corporate, rather than individual. God predestines that all who believe in the Son will be saved. He does not predestine from eternity past that Bob or Joe or Sam will be elect or non-elect (double predestination). It is also not necessary to assume that God predestines from eternity past. He could have predestined future judgments in Revelation after creation and the Fall, not trillions of years ago. This would fit the idea of God experiencing an endless duration of time rather than a timeless eternal now.

ChristisKing
May 3rd, 2005, 04:06 PM
Here is a comparison:

1A Christ foreknown before the creation of the world:
-1 Peter 1:18-20

1B Christ known before birth
-Isaiah 49:1,5

2A Individuals foreknown before the creation of the world:

(Empty set)....ahhhh not quite;

ACT 13:48
ROM 9:23

2B Individuals known before conception, or from birth, and chosen for service:

-Samson in Judges 13:5
-Jeremiah in Jer. 1:5
-John the Baptist in Luke 1:13-17
-Paul in Gal. 1:15

3A Believers in general known before the creation of the world:

-Ephesians 1:4,5,10,11,13 Paul says we were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, but also says you were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked ....

3B Believers in general known from "the beginning"

-2 Thess 2:13,14 Here we can accept "the beginning" to be before the creation of the world, though it is not specified. But we note the individuals were called through "our gospel" and Paul's participation in the gospel, so he could call it ours, is very recent at the time of writing.

3C Believers in general foreknown
-Romans 8:29-30 Events here are spread out over time. We haven't been glorified yet.

To me 1B is the exception. This is probably due more to progressive revelation than anything else. Maybe Isaiah is setting up some possible "double fulfillments."

What you try to say about Paul could not apply to Jeremiah and Samson. I prefer to leave them sitting together in group 2B.

But what group would you put Cyrus in? Isaiah prophesied the Persian King Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born and that as a pagan, who did not know God, he would deliver the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem.

ISA 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
ISA 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

So it is not literally in the womb that God sets people apart, and we would be silly to say its 150 years from the womb. God knows all things from the beginning, before the foundation of the world:

ISA 46:9 ...for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
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:

Battuta
May 4th, 2005, 05:36 AM
1A Christ foreknown before the creation of the world:
-1 Peter 1:18-20

1B Christ known before birth
-Isaiah 49:1,5

2A Individuals foreknown before the creation of the world:

(Empty set)

2B This individual is identified for a role he will play to fulfill prophecy and God's promise c. 150 years before his birth. God in His providence, possibly even using deterministic influence, will work through a man who does not acknowledge God.

-Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28-45:6

2C Individuals known before conception, or from birth, and chosen for service:

-Samson in Judges 13:5
-Jeremiah in Jer. 1:5
-John the Baptist in Luke 1:13-17
-Paul in Gal. 1:15

3C Individuals, and by extension their descendents, known before conception, or from birth, and chosen for service.

-Jacob and Esau in Genesis 25:23; Romans 9:10-13

4A Believers in general known before the creation of the world:

-Ephesians 1:4,5,10,11,13 Paul says we were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, but also says you were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked ....

4AA Believers in general foreknown

-Romans 8:29-30 Events here are spread out over time. We haven't been glorified yet.

4AAA Believers in general. Preparations for their glory have been progressing since the beginning.

-Romans 9:23

4AD Believers in general known from "the beginning"

-2 Thess 2:13,14 Here we can accept "the beginning" to be before the creation of the world, though it is not specified. But we note the individuals were called through "our gospel" and Paul's participation in the gospel, so he could call it ours, is very recent at the time of writing.

4E A subset of believers in general known from the "beginning", who at a particular time prove the efficacy of God's original plan by entering, with eternal results, into His redemption.

-Acts 13:48

5D Non-believers in general. God's great patience with them gives them time to accept Him, but they still choose to reject Him and face His wrath. They will be destroyed for all eternity.

-Romans 9:22

ChristisKing
May 4th, 2005, 05:45 AM
1A Christ foreknown before the creation of the world:
-1 Peter 1:18-20

1B Christ known before birth
-Isaiah 49:1,5

2A Individuals foreknown before the creation of the world:

I still think you are missing 3 very important verses of individuals predestined to salvation before the creation of the world.

ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

ROM 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Battuta
May 4th, 2005, 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by godrulz

It is also not necessary to assume that God predestines from eternity past.
As an open theist, I understand God makes decisions in time. But the Bible uses the word predestination to describe a few specific decisions of God which He made before the beginning of time, before the foundation of the earth.

2 Timothy 1:9, 10 ... God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life -- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed throught the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ....

I agree predestination was corporate, before the beginning of time, when referring to believers (and possibly by extension non-believers).

I think your view would be more accurate, and persuasive, if you would agree to the second sentence of my first paragraph above.

Battuta
May 4th, 2005, 06:15 AM
ChristisKing,

This is where the estimating and the inductive thinking kick in.

Your verses can be found in my list. You would make the list differently. I can't be accused of ignoring your verses. I see no evidence against corporate predestination in the Romans verses.

Regarding predestination, as in what God decided before the foundation of the world:
You see predestination as individual and certain.
I see predestination as corporate and certain.
godrulz saw predestination as corporate and contingent.
I don't think anyone sees it as individual and contingent.

godrulz
May 4th, 2005, 07:27 AM
As an open theist, I understand God makes decisions in time. But the Bible uses the word predestination to describe a few specific decisions of God which He made before the beginning of time, before the foundation of the earth.

2 Timothy 1:9, 10 ... God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life -- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed throught the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ....

I agree predestination was corporate, before the beginning of time, when referring to believers (and possibly by extension non-believers).

I think your view would be more accurate, and persuasive, if you would agree to the second sentence of my first paragraph above.


Before the earth was created or the earthly measure of time could mean thousands of years ago, not trillions of years ago (if you are a young universe creationist). Some things were predestined in God's mind eternal ages ago, Other things could have been in space-time earth history. The use of the phrase (before foundation earth) could also be an idiom for long ago, but not necessarily trillions of years ago (forever and ever ago). The same result is that before God created (regardless of when), He had determined some, but not all things.

"God's Strategy in Human History" - Forster

This book looks at word studies and contexts of predestination. It caught F.F. Bruce's attention, though it disagreed with his Calvinistic ideas. There is more depth to this concept than we are looking at.

brockerst
May 4th, 2005, 08:44 AM
I just don't get that if God knew this world be a mess. If he knew there'd be so much hurt and sin. If he knew that person A was going to an eternal damnation in HELL. Why did he make the world? Why did he make person A? Why didn't he, as he was knitting person A, in A's mothers womb, didn't he make the adjustments to send A on a path to HEAVEN? Did he know he was making a HELL-bound person as he was knitting him?

godrulz
May 4th, 2005, 10:15 AM
I just don't get that if God knew this world be a mess. If he knew there'd be so much hurt and sin. If he knew that person A was going to an eternal damnation in HELL. Why did he make the world? Why did he make person A? Why didn't he, as he was knitting person A, in A's mothers womb, didn't he make the adjustments to send A on a path to HEAVEN? Did he know he was making a HELL-bound person as he was knitting him?

Good questions that illustrate why determinism and Calvinism are incoherent and inconsistent with the wisdom and character of God.

Exhaustive foreknowledge of the future is incompatible with genuine freedom.

TULIP, including unconditional election/non-election, is problematic and unbiblical.

God did not make anyone to be hell-bound. This is a consequence of individual rebellion. Love relationship/salvation is not coerced. We can change our destiny based on His finished work on our behalf. The power of choice is a double-edged sword. God thought the risk of creating free moral agents was wiser than creating robots or not creating at all.

Battuta
May 4th, 2005, 10:45 AM
godrulz,

I apparently have a shorter list of biblical uses of the word "predestination" than you do. Could you give me your list of verses which include the word predestination, predestinate, predestinated, etc.

godrulz
May 4th, 2005, 08:18 PM
godrulz,

I apparently have a shorter list of biblical uses of the word "predestination" than you do. Could you give me your list of verses which include the word predestination, predestinate, predestinated, etc.


I do not have a list. Try a concordance. I do not think the word is used very often. I was referring to Greek word studies and the historical views on predestination (e.g. Whitefield vs Wesley controversies).

Sometimes the concept is there, even if the word is not used (e.g. Isaiah 46).

ChristisKing
May 5th, 2005, 02:57 AM
I just don't get that if God knew this world be a mess. If he knew there'd be so much hurt and sin. If he knew that person A was going to an eternal damnation in HELL. Why did he make the world? Why did he make person A? Why didn't he, as he was knitting person A, in A's mothers womb, didn't he make the adjustments to send A on a path to HEAVEN? Did he know he was making a HELL-bound person as he was knitting him?

The Holy Spirit anticipated that you would ask that question, and here is His answer:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

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?
ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Battuta
May 5th, 2005, 05:23 AM
Originally Posted by godrulz

Sometimes the concept is there, even if the word is not used (e.g. Isaiah 46).
Isn't Isaiah 46:10-13 referring to certainties? I see no contingencies here. God does the works described here by his providential power and omniscience. I speak of omniscience, not "super-omniscience" as imagined in Calvanism or Arminianism.

All prophecies labeled with predestination are certainties. Some other prophecies are contingent upon the response of men. The word "predestination" is not used in connection with any prophecy which could be called contingent.

One difficulty with Open Theism is we can be challenged to describe how God could make any particular prophecy at a given time and later cause it to be fulfilled. Other views always have a simple answer, "God knew it ahead of time" or "God determined it would happen." Having to give complex answers for each type of prophecy could get laborious. Those who disagree with us might stop paying attention after a short time because of this complexity.

We might be tempted to take a shortcut and say a predestined prophecy is contingent, even when it is not. I feel this weakens our argument.

Battuta
May 5th, 2005, 05:47 AM
Romans 9:19-23, if interpreted in context with the preceding verses about Pharaoh and Esau, looks rather different than if it is taken on its own.

Pharaoh is an individual about whom God claims, "I hardened his heart." He also says, "but Esau I hated."

Can we hear ChristisKing's explanation of what is happening here with Esau and/or Pharoah?

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 07:41 AM
The Holy Spirit anticipated that you would ask that question, and here is His answer:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

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?
ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Perhaps you need the illumination of the Spirit. Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of national Israel. It is not proof texts for the so-called election and non-election of individuals in Calvinism (TULIP). It is about ministry purposes, not whether someone goes to heaven or hell by decree.

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 07:46 AM
Isn't Isaiah 46:10-13 referring to certainties? I see no contingencies here. God does the works described here by his providential power and omniscience. I speak of omniscience, not "super-omniscience" as imagined in Calvanism or Arminianism.

All prophecies labeled with predestination are certainties. Some other prophecies are contingent upon the response of men. The word "predestination" is not used in connection with any prophecy which could be called contingent.

One difficulty with Open Theism is we can be challenged to describe how God could make any particular prophecy at a given time and later cause it to be fulfilled. Other views always have a simple answer, "God knew it ahead of time" or "God determined it would happen." Having to give complex answers for each type of prophecy could get laborious. Those who disagree with us might stop paying attention after a short time because of this complexity.

We might be tempted to take a shortcut and say a predestined prophecy is contingent, even when it is not. I feel this weakens our argument.


Some prophecies are predictive, others are proclamations, and many are conditional.

God purposes to bring certain things to pass by His ability/power. Is. 46 does not imply foreknowledge as a mechanism. God is omnicompetent. Open Theists recognize God can bring some things to pass and predict them due to His ability (e.g. First Coming of Christ and Second Coming). Calvinists wrongly assume He predestines and decrees everything, not just some things. Arminians wrongly think simple foreknowledge explains how God can know an open, unknowable future.

Some of the future is settled due to God's ability to bring things to pass.
Some of the future is unsettled, open, and unknowable, due to other free moral agents and contingencies.

Conditional prophecies are declarations by God and contingent on whether man responds to or rejects God's call and conviction.

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 07:48 AM
Romans 9:19-23, if interpreted in context with the preceding verses about Pharaoh and Esau, looks rather different than if it is taken on its own.

Pharaoh is an individual about whom God claims, "I hardened his heart." He also says, "but Esau I hated."

Can we hear ChristisKing's explanation of what is happening here with Esau and/or Pharoah?

These verses are simply not about individual election to salvation or damnation. This is contrary to more explicit verses about God's character and ways. Love, truth, and justice are impartial, not arbitrary.

ChristisKing
May 5th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Romans 9:19-23, if interpreted in context with the preceding verses about Pharaoh and Esau, looks rather different than if it is taken on its own.

Pharaoh is an individual about whom God claims, "I hardened his heart." He also says, "but Esau I hated."

Can we hear ChristisKing's explanation of what is happening here with Esau and/or Pharoah?

Who cares what I think, lets hear from the Holy Spirit Himself:

ROM 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 08:46 AM
Who cares what I think, lets hear from the Holy Spirit Himself:

ROM 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
ROM 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Context is king (Christ is KING). Quoting a verse does not interpret it in context. The immediate and remote context does not support individual election. This is Calvinistic eisegesis and a deterministic interpretation. God's sovereign choice of Israel did not guarantee that every Israelite would be faithful to YHWH. God's purposes can be thwarted at times (Lk. 7:30; 13:34; Acts 7:51, etc.). God dealing with His people and an ungodly Pharaoh has global implications. This does not mean that individual kings or Jews were predestined from eternity to turn or burn in salvation issues. Jacob and Esau also represented nations with purposes, not individual heaven-hell salvation. Hyper-sovereignty is a deterministic filter that distorts Scripture.

ChristisKing
May 5th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Context is king (Christ is KING). Quoting a verse does not interpret it in context. The immediate and remote context does not support individual election. This is Calvinistic eisegesis and a deterministic interpretation. God's sovereign choice of Israel did not guarantee that every Israelite would be faithful to YHWH. God's purposes can be thwarted at times (Lk. 7:30; 13:34; Acts 7:51, etc.). God dealing with His people and an ungodly Pharaoh has global implications. This does not mean that individual kings or Jews were predestined from eternity to turn or burn in salvation issues. Jacob and Esau also represented nations with purposes, not individual heaven-hell salvation. Hyper-sovereignty is a deterministic filter that distorts Scripture.

That's what godrulz says. I think the Scripture is very clear on this point. God has prepared vessels for destruction and He has prepared vessels of mercy for glory. Two types of plural vessels and two different destinies. God is the potter, we are the clay....you really have to really try hard to change the obvious meaning of these verses....

and you are trying really hard.

Battuta
May 5th, 2005, 08:57 AM
I care what you think, ChristisKing. If I just wanted to read the scriptures, I wouldn't go online.

Do I need to say please?

ChristisKing
May 5th, 2005, 10:51 AM
I care what you think, ChristisKing. If I just wanted to read the scriptures, I wouldn't go online.

Do I need to say please?

No not at all, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I just hate going to bible studies when everyone raises their hand saying, "Well this is what I think it says....," and "this is what I think it means...etc."

I really don't care what they or I think it means. I like Scripture to interpret Scripture. I want the Lord to tell me what it means. That's how I interpret a text, so that's all you'll see me doing.

The Scripture I gave you is a direct answer to your question. Why else would the Holy Spirit ask this critical question about God doing somthing that appears unjust and unloving, as godrulz puts it. He obviously anticipated that this doctrine of double predestination would be very offensive to us as sinners and as a result that these sinful questions would be asked:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

This doctrine of predestination was also very offensive to Jesus' disciples:

JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOH 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Clete
May 5th, 2005, 11:09 AM
No not at all, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I just hate going to bible studies when everyone raises their hand saying, "Well this is what I think it says....," and "this is what I think it means...etc."

I really don't care what they or I think it means. I like Scripture to interpret Scripture. I want the Lord to tell me what it means. That's how I interpret a text, so that's all you'll see me doing.
If this were true, you would not, could not be, a Calvinist. Calvinism is not taught by the Scripture at all.


The Scripture I gave you is a direct answer to your question. Why else would the Holy Spirit ask this critical question about God doing somthing that appears unjust and unloving, as godrulz puts it. He obviously anticipated that this doctrine of double predestination would be very offensive to us as sinners and as a result that these sinful questions would be asked:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Romans 9 is not talking about God's dealings with indiviual people but with group; with nations, specifically the nation of Israel vs. the gentile nations. You have been shown this about a dozen times and yet you ignore this plain and simple Biblical fact, which belies you previous pious sounding statement about letting Scripture interpret itself.


This doctrine of predestination was also very offensive to Jesus' disciples:

JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOH 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

"We are not foreknown as individuals, chosen as individuals, or predestined as individuals. According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ, “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” The father has drawn everyone who will listen, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:44,45). The Son draws everyone. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself [panta" elkusw pro" emauton]” (John 12:32). The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ. “But when the Helper comes . . . the Spirit of truth . . . He will testify of Me” (John 15:26). It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

The above quotation is from Biblicalanswers.com (www.biblicalanswers.com)


Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart
May 5th, 2005, 11:53 AM
I think the Scripture is very clear on this point. God has prepared vessels for destruction and He has prepared vessels of mercy for glory. Two types of plural vessels and two different destinies. God is the potter, we are the clay....you really have to really try hard to change the obvious meaning of these verses....
ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?If your idea of the meaning of those verses is correct then that is the only possible conclusion.

However,a closer examination of the verses reveal an entirely different teaching.The contrast which is revealed is not between eternal life and spiritual death,but instead between "honor" and "dishonor".

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use on the table of a king,while he designs anoher for some base,though equally useful,purpose.But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of destroying it must be some kind of a maniac.

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.And that is exactly what the following words refer to:

"What if God,willing to show His wrath and to make His power known,endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart because he himself had closed it against abundant proofs of His divine power.Toward those who fear Him His mercy is boundless,but no one can despise God with impunity.

So these verses are not teaching that Pharoah was a vessel who was predestined for destruction or that the Lord is a mad potter who would make vessels for the purpose of destroying them.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Battuta
May 5th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Originally Posted by Clete

Romans 9 is not talking about God's dealings with individual people but with groups or with nations, specifically the nation of Israel vs. the gentile nations.
Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Clete
May 5th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Pharoah was dealt with because he was the king of the nation of Egypt. The text actually says that both Pharaoh hardened his own heart AND that God hardened Pharoah's heart, and both are true. God used miracles (the plagues) to harden Pharaoh's heart and such hardening was no surprise to God but Pharaoh could have repented at any time. There was no need for 10 plagues, there could have been 1 or 12 or none depending on how Pharoah acted as king of Egypt. And so, God knew Pharoah well enough to fully expect him to harden his heart if miracles were performed and Pharaoh chose to do just that.
Notice that the Plagues were visited upon the entire nation of Egypt not just Pharoah himself. Again, Romans 9 is talking about nations, not individuals, the reference to a king of one of those nations not withstanding. The reference to Jer. 18 in Romans 9 is further proof of this. No other interpretation is possible. There can be no doubt about it, Romans 9 is not the cornerstone of Calvinism that Calvinists make it out to be.


Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 04:21 PM
ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?If your idea of the meaning of those verses is correct then that is the only possible conclusion.

However,a closer examination of the verses reveal an entirely different teaching.The contrast which is revealed is not between eternal life and spiritual death,but instead between "honor" and "dishonor".

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use on the table of a king,while he designs anoher for some base,though equally useful,purpose.But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of destroying it must be some kind of a maniac.

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.And that is exactly what the following words refer to:

"What if God,willing to show His wrath and to make His power known,endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart because he himself had closed it against abundant proofs of His divine power.Toward those who fear Him His mercy is boundless,but no one can despise God with impunity.

So these verses are not teaching that Pharoah was a vessel who was predestined for destruction or that the Lord is a mad potter who would make vessels for the purpose of destroying them.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Positive rep for you. I thought you were on the other side of the debate?

godrulz
May 5th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Pharaoh is an individual. The point is that it is not talking about election or reprobation to salvation or hell.

ChristisKing
May 6th, 2005, 01:53 AM
ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?

Don't you see, that is the exact question and charge that the Holy Spirit anticipated that anyone who "rightly" understood what He was revealing would ask and make. Listen to what He asks you after He reveals double predestination:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Jerry, what you write does not cause me to ask these questions. What you write is comforting and very palatable. I only ask these questions, recorded in Scripture, when I understand that what He is teaching is plainly what is written and that is:

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

That causes me, as a sinner, to charge God with unrighteousness, not your palatable commentary.

Battuta
May 6th, 2005, 10:39 AM
Thank you Clete. I'm somewhat in agreement with you. But I would like to express a different argument.

The Bible records God hardening different individual's hearts. We are told what God wants to achieve when doing this, and sometimes His methods are detailed. Pharaoh is the classic example.

God wanted to do a world-class miracle. He wanted to demonstrate his power to the nations. He wanted to say afterwards, "Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?" (This is Deut. 4:34). He wanted a lot of witnesses. He is the God who gives reasons for people to trust in Him.

God concluded if Pharaoh's heart got harder, He would in all righteousness be able to do more and bigger miracles and wonders in response, thus gaining maximum credibility among the nations.

His planned worked wonderfully, but afterward there was a hint of accusation in the crowd. Satan surely had some accusations about these events, and people came up with some, too. They said God didn't comply with His own rules. He wasn't being just. He shouldn't be allowed to harden Pharaoh's heart.

God has never done anything unjust. But some of the things He does are interpreted to be unjust by others. In answer to these accusations God gives this defense:

1. To His loved ones, he describes in detail the methods he used to harden Pharaoh's heart. He wants us to examen them and agree, we can find no fault in Him. He wants us to look at this and say, "I will sing unto the LORD for He has triumphed gloriously; the horse and rider fell into the sea!" He wants us to know He is able to work in any situation, yet He will stick to the rules in all righteousness.

2. To those who reject Him, he answers, "Who are you to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ' why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Read it right through to Romans 9:24 or further.

If this is taken out of context, it might seem to refer to double predestination. In context, God is being accused of unfair play when he intentionally seeks to harden individual's hearts. Look at the details and the accusation doesn't hold water.

Jerry Shugart
May 6th, 2005, 12:12 PM
What you write is comforting and very palatable. I only ask these questions, recorded in Scripture, when I understand that what He is teaching is plainly what is written and that is:

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

That causes me, as a sinner, to charge God with unrighteousness, not your palatable commentary.
ChristisKing,

You completely ignored the words of Paul in regard to "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction":

"What if God,willing to show His wrath and to make His power known,endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

That firs perfectly with the words of Paul at another place:

"Who will have all men to be saved,and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.However,according to those who deny the words of Paul that the Lord "will have all men to be saved" the Lord is a mad potter who would make a vessel with the purpose of destroying that vessel.

And yes,the Lord says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy,but He also says that "He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him"(Heb.11:6).

So go ahead and deny that the Lord will have all men to be saved,but remember that that you are believing what men say about the Scriptures instead of what the Scriptures actually say.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart
May 6th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Positive rep for you. I thought you were on the other side of the debate?
godrulz,

I believe,like open theists believe,that the salvation of a sinner depends on the present actions of the Living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience.I do not believe that that a person's destiny is determined by what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate--the false idea that at some time in the past God decided that this or that person was to be saved.

However,I cannot go along with the idea put forth by many open thesists who "proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events",as ChristisKing says on his opening post on this thread.

All the teaching of those who say that a person's destiny is determined by an iron decree of fate can be answered without denying what the Scriptures say about the Lord's ability to see future events:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 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"(Isa.46:9-10).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz
May 6th, 2005, 02:50 PM
godrulz,

I believe,like open theists believe,that the salvation of a sinner depends on the present actions of the Living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience.I do not believe that that a person's destiny is determined by what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate--the false idea that at some time in the past God decided that this or that person was to be saved.

However,I cannot go along with the idea put forth by many open thesists who "proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events",as ChristisKing says on his opening post on this thread.

All the teaching of those who say that a person's destiny is determined by an iron decree of fate can be answered without denying what the Scriptures say about the Lord's ability to see future events:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 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"(Isa.46:9-10).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html


I think Pinnock (Open Theist) captures the nuance of how God knows future contingencies (possible vs actual):

"Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that 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."

I concur that the Gospel was preached persuasively to all men. Those who responded in repentant faith were saved, while those who rejected the conviction and influence of the Spirit remained dead in sin. God's love is impartial, not arbitrary. Even Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement. Irresistible grace is also an oxymoron.

Contingency implies equal possibility of being or not being. Until the choice is made, it is only known as a possibility among alternatives. It becomes a certainty/actuality after the choice. Probability based on perfect past and present knowledge can make many things almost certain for God. This knowledge is still proximal to the choice as opposed to remote knowledge trillions of years ago before the free moral agents even existed.

Is. 46 is not about foreknowledge or omniscience. The way God can see or know certain settled aspects of the future, is that He purposes to bring them to pass apart from contingency by His omnicompetent ABILITY. Exhaustive foreknowledge is problematic in light of contingency and unnecessary for God to settle certain things. Is. 46 should not be extrapolated as a general principle. The context would suggest it is about proximal judgments that God intends to bring to pass based on His perfect present and past knowledge. It is not about remote events in the future (though this is possible in such things as the First and Second Coming of Christ, Revelation judgments, etc.). Again, these are broad, general themes. It does not imply, nor is it necessary, that every minute moral and mundane detail in the universe be predestined to creatively bring things to pass. God rules providentially and responsively, not by meticulous control or exhaustive decree.

Does this sound plausible, if not probable as an alternate understanding to Calvinism?

Can I give myself rep points :)

Jerry Shugart
May 6th, 2005, 04:16 PM
I think Pinnock (Open Theist) captures the nuance of how God knows future contingencies (possible vs actual):

"Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that 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."
godrulz,

The problem I have with this is that people like Pinnock say that they understand the way that the Lord works even though the Scriptures reveal that no one knows these things:

"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! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.11:33,34).

The only Scriptual evidence that I have ever seen presented by those representing the open view are instances where they take anthropomorphisms and interpret them in a wooden,literal fashion.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz
May 6th, 2005, 10:22 PM
godrulz,

The problem I have with this is that people like Pinnock say that they understand the way that the Lord works even though the Scriptures reveal that no one knows these things:

"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! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.11:33,34).

The only Scriptual evidence that I have ever seen presented by those representing the open view are instances where they take anthropomorphisms and interpret them in a wooden,literal fashion.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Books on Open Theism usually present the biblical, historical, theological, philosophical basis for the view. Some issues relating to time, eternity, foreknowledge, free will, predestination, etc. require godly, philosophical speculation if they are not explicitly addressed in a systematic way in the Bible. e.g. chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and modal logic give principles that apply to the debate. "Eternal now" is speculative Greek philosophy, but assumed to be the only view consistent with Scripture. In reality, there are 4 views on the nature of time/eternity that have merit as possible explanations of the biblical data. e.g. exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity like God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. It is not that God's ways are beyond reason. It is that we reason away His revelation. If it says God changes His mind, we should accept this. Proof texts that say God does not change His mind in specific cases do not mean that He cannot change His mind (Platonic), but that He will not at times.

Millard Erickson (What does God know and when does He know it?) gives a balanced critque of Open Theism. He recognizes that the Open and Classical view both claim Scriptural support and require some philosophical speculation.

I think it is less problematic to take verses revealing God's character and ways literally unless it is clear that it is figurative (God has wings, etc.). Making revelation anthropomorphic to support a preconceived theology is a weaker position than changing classic views that do not have Scriptural support (e.g. strong immutability; impassibility).

ChristisKing
May 7th, 2005, 06:06 AM
ChristisKing,

You completely ignored the words of Paul in regard to "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction":

"What if God,willing to show His wrath and to make His power known,endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

That firs perfectly with the words of Paul at another place:

"Who will have all men to be saved,and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Jerry,

ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

The longsuffering in this verse is God having to suffer through the rebellion of the vessels fitted for destruction so He could reveal His wrath and power against sin.

2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The longsuffering in this verse is God having to suffer through the sins of "us", the elect. Peter is writing this letter "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,..." (I Peter 1:1-2) So the "us-ward" Peter is referring to is the "Elect strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" and Peter.

God suffers long with "vessels He has fitted for destruction" so He can reveal His wrath and power to the world and He also suffers long through the sins of the Elect to reveal His mercy on them to the world.

1TI 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1TI 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1TI 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The "all men to be saved" in verse 4 is the same as the "all men" in verse 1. Paul is not asking Timothy to pray for every single man on Earth, that would be ridiculous to read this into his letter. Paul is simply teaching Timothy to pray for all types of men; "For kings, and for all that are in authority." Even those these Roman pagan kings and princes crucified Christ and were viciously persecuting the Church. Paul was teaching Timothy that they should be prayed for because God was going to save all types of men, even these pagan kings and others in authority.

You still have not dealt with the issue as to why the Holy Spirit would assume we would accuse God of "unrighteousness" and "why He would find fault" with sinners or "who has resisted His will?" Why is the Holy Spirit assuming that we would have these thoughts? Why would we think God was unrighteous, or question why He would find fault with sinners, or "who is resisting His will by doing evil?"

Why?

Because He is revealing that God creates vessels for destruction, just like the Scriptures plainly teach. He is teaching that God predestined them to do exactly what they are doing and that's hard on our puny little sinful brains. That's why He assumes our sinful minds will have these questions, He knows we as sinners will immediately accuse and rail against Him of being a "mad Potter," just as you have done.

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
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?

Battuta
May 7th, 2005, 06:34 AM
How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

A. He allowed Pharaoh’s predecessor to mistreat the Hebrews with impunity.

1. He left a whole nation, supposedly known as God’s chosen people, in slavery and providing force labor to the Egyptians for many years (Exodus 1:11).

2. Pharaoh’s predecessor was allowed to extend murderous and cruel domination over these Hebrews. Slave masters worked them ruthlessly (Exodus 1:13) They made their lives bitter with hard labor (1:14). Pharaoh’s predecessor had the baby Hebrew boys thrown into the Nile (1:22). He literally got away with murder.

This would give Pharaoh the impression he was strong enough to resist God.

godrulz
May 7th, 2005, 07:17 AM
Some verses say Pharaoh hardened his own heart; others say God hardened it. It would not be just to harden a soft heart apart from what is already in it. The sun melts wax or hardens clay. God judicially further hardened Pharaoh's already self-made hard heart.

ChristisKing
May 7th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Some verses say Pharaoh hardened his own heart; others say God hardened it. It would not be just to harden a soft heart apart from what is already in it. The sun melts wax or hardens clay. God judicially further hardened Pharaoh's already self-made hard heart.

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?

Jerry Shugart
May 7th, 2005, 09:36 AM
In reality, there are 4 views on the nature of time/eternity that have merit as possible explanations of the biblical data. e.g. exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity like God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. It is not that God's ways are beyond reason.
godrulz,

Using out finite reasoning how can we reconcile the teaching that the Lord Jesus is completely and totally Man but at the same time He is completely and totally God?

We accept that teaching by "faith",and while some things are above our reasoning that does not mean that the same things contradict reason.

Books on Open Theism usually present the biblical, historical, theological, philosophical basis for the view. Some issues relating to time, eternity, foreknowledge, free will, predestination, etc. require godly, philosophical speculation if they are not explicitly addressed in a systematic way in the Bible...
In regard to the topic of "predestination" we do not have to rely on "speculation" in order to answer the false teaching of the Calvinists on this subject.Instead,if we turn to the Scriptures we can see that every single time this word is used it is used in regard to the believer receiving his new,glorified body when we meet the Lord in the air:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren"(Ro.8:29).

The Lord predetermined that all those who believe during the present dispensation would be conformed to the image of His Son.

All of the terms that the Calvinits mis-use can be explained by using the Scriptures.Therefore,our faith does not rest on "speculation".

It is that we reason away His revelation. If it says God changes His mind, we should accept this. Proof texts that say God does not change His mind in specific cases do not mean that He cannot change His mind (Platonic), but that He will not at times.
The Lord expresses a part of His very nature in the following verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

He will not change His mind.But open-theists will go to other verses that they say proves that He does just that.But the verses they refer to are verses that are not revealing His very nature,but instead they are verses that are used in a narrative.And unless we are to believe that these verses contradict Numbers 23:19 we know that the verses used in a narrative are used in a figurative sense,and that figure of speech is anthropomorphic.

This figure of speech is defined as "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,irrational creatures,or inanimate things"("The Campanion Bible",Appendix 6,"Figures of Speech").

So when the Scriptures are revealing the "nature" of God we should take that as final.If any other verses from a narative contradict what the Scriptures say about His nature then we can very easily understand that a figure of speech is being employed.

Again,our faith does not rest on speculation but instead on the sure Word of God.And if there are verses which seem to contradict verses which reveal the nature of the Lord we can understand that those verses are to be taken in a figurative sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

lee_merrill
May 7th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Hi everyone,


Godrulz: Making revelation anthropomorphic to support a preconceived theology is a weaker position than changing classic views that do not have Scriptural support (e.g. strong immutability; impassibility).
I agree that impassibility is not Scriptural (the only statement I find of this in the Bible is from one of Job's comforters!), yet there is a difficulty with interpreting God changing his mind as meaning like what we do. Two difficulties!

The first is that the word has more meanings than "changed his mind," and one of these other meaning might be what is meant. The second is that there are statements that God does not speak and then not act! Which in this case must mean he does not change his mind.

So it is not a simple matter of interpreting a verse literally and forsaking some philosopher's conclusions. It is a matter of making a synthesis of Scripture, such as where God speaks of his wings, as you mentioned, and yet he fills heaven and earth.

Blessings,
Lee

Battuta
May 7th, 2005, 10:13 AM
How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

B. God chose Moses as his spokesman to Pharaoh.

1. Moses and Pharaoh grew up together in the Egyptian palace (Exodus 2:1-10). One can only speculate about the dynamics of this relationship. I see a similarity to Jesus situation, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor (Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:3,4).

2. This Moses had previously taken justice into his own hand and killed an Egyptian. Afterwards he was a fugitive (2:11-15). Pharaoh’s predecessor had wanted to kill Moses (also 4:19)

3. God led Moses to become a shepherd (3:1). All shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34).

4. If it is true Moses spoke with faltering lips, this could be another reason why Pharaoh wouldn’t listen to him (6:30).

In Pharaoh’s opinion, what self-respecting god would choose to speak through this loser?

godrulz
May 7th, 2005, 10:27 AM
What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?

God, in His sovereignty, chose one nation over another for His purposes. It was not based on merit/works, but sovereign choice. Jesus said to hate our parents (Lk. 14:26). The Hebrew concept does not mean to despise Esau nor our parents as evidenced by other verses. Our loyalty to God must be supreme compared to our love and loyalty to parents (relative vs absolute 'hate'). It is not talking about individuals being saved or lost before they were born. Jacob was favored over Esau in the area of service, not salvation.

You go beyond the context to assume that election is individual unto salvation vs corporate unto service.

godrulz
May 7th, 2005, 10:38 AM
godrulz,

Using out finite reasoning how can we reconcile the teaching that the Lord Jesus is completely and totally Man but at the same time He is completely and totally God?

We accept that teaching by "faith",and while some things are above our reasoning that does not mean that the same things contradict reason.

In regard to the topic of "predestination" we do not have to rely on "speculation" in order to answer the false teaching of the Calvinists on this subject.Instead,if we turn to the Scriptures we can see that every single time this word is used it is used in regard to the believer receiving his new,glorified body when we meet the Lord in the air:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren"(Ro.8:29).

The Lord predetermined that all those who believe during the present dispensation would be conformed to the image of His Son.

All of the terms that the Calvinits mis-use can be explained by using the Scriptures.Therefore,our faith does not rest on "speculation".

The Lord expresses a part of His very nature in the following verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

He will not change His mind.But open-theists will go to other verses that they say proves that He does just that.But the verses they refer to are verses that are not revealing His very nature,but instead they are verses that are used in a narrative.And unless we are to believe that these verses contradict Numbers 23:19 we know that the verses used in a narrative are used in a figurative sense,and that figure of speech is anthropomorphic.

This figure of speech is defined as "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,irrational creatures,or inanimate things"("The Campanion Bible",Appendix 6,"Figures of Speech").

So when the Scriptures are revealing the "nature" of God we should take that as final.If any other verses from a narative contradict what the Scriptures say about His nature then we can very easily understand that a figure of speech is being employed.

Again,our faith does not rest on speculation but instead on the sure Word of God.And if there are verses which seem to contradict verses which reveal the nature of the Lord we can understand that those verses are to be taken in a figurative sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html


Revelation > Reason. Many things we accept by faith as a revelation of God. They are not unreasonable, but beyond our finite understanding (e.g. Trinity; incarnation, etc.). We understand that Jesus is the God-Man. This is explicit revelation, even if we do not grasp the exact nature of the union of Deity with humanity. Other areas are not explicitly revealed in Scripture. These things we can speculate on with godly reasoning (e.g. the exact mechanism of creation; the nature of eternity in relation to time, etc.).

The example of God changing His mind or not can be understood literally in both contexts. Just because you misunderstand the context is not reason to assume we must take one set of verses figuratively. There is a difference between God not being able to change His mind (strong immutability, impersonal, not free) and God not being willing to change His mind under some circumstances. There is no contradiction between one context where God does change His mind because the people respond to His call and conviction, and the other context where He refuses to change His mind (though He could if He wanted to), because man refuses to repent and obey. The point is that God is not fickle and arbitrary if He changes His mind, nor is He unjust if He does not in other situations (will not vs cannot).

Many seeming contradictions result from a false construct like Calvinism. They look at one set of proof texts while ignoring the other set or explaining them away as figurative. The strength of Open Theism is that it can accept the revelation literally and at face value without contradiction. If we say certain things about God's revelation are merely figurative, it leaves God no way to communicate the opposite truth if that is what is true, in fact. Weak immutability trumps Greek, pagan philosophy and its influence on strong immutability (i.e. God is unchanging in His perfect character and attributes, but His relations, knowledge, emotions, thoughts, experiences do change because He is personal and free).

Jerry Shugart
May 7th, 2005, 11:10 AM
The "all men to be saved" in verse 4 is the same as the "all men" in verse 1. Paul is not asking Timothy to pray for every single man on Earth, that would be ridiculous to read this into his letter. Paul is simply teaching Timothy to pray for all types of men...
ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned.

You still have not dealt with the issue as to why the Holy Spirit would assume we would accuse God of "unrighteousness" and "why He would find fault" with sinners or "who has resisted His will?" Why is the Holy Spirit assuming that we would have these thoughts? Why would we think God was unrighteous, or question why He would find fault with sinners, or "who is resisting His will by doing evil?"

Why?
If you put the question of which you speak in the "context" you will see that the reference is not in regard to eternal life and eternal damnation but instead it is in regard to "service".

It starts at verse 12,where it says that the older will serve the younger and that the Lord loved Jacob (the younger) more than He loved Esau (the Greek word translated "hate" is equivalent to "loving less" in a qualified sense--"Ro. ix. 13,the signification to love less,to postpone in love or esteem,to slight"["Thayer's Greek English Lexicon"].The idea that the mesaning is "positive hate" could not be corrrect because the Scriptures reveal that the Lord bestowed many blessings on Esau.).

So in regard to the younger serving the older,Paul asks,"Is there unrighteousness with God?".The question is not in regard to questioning the Lord's unrighteousness in regard to the "fiction" that He would form some men with the express purpose of destroying them,but instead the question is in regard to why the purpose of the lives of some men is more honorable than that of other men.

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use at the table of a king,while he designs another for some less honorable purpose.But both are formed for some "useful" purpose.Neither is formed for the purpose of destroying them.A potter who would make a vessel for the deliberate purpose of destroying it would be described as a maniac.And by your false teaching on these verses you are making the Lord to appear to be a maniac of the worst kind.

Also,in order to cling to your false ideas you must "edit" the words revealed in the Scriptures.To you "all men" means "all types of men".If that is the meaning that Paul wishes to convey then why did he not say that?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart
May 7th, 2005, 12:09 PM
The strength of Open Theism is that it can accept the revelation literally and at face value without contradiction.
godrulz,

I must disagree with what you say about no contradiction in the teaching of Open Theism.

For exaple,the following verses are used by the Open Theists in their attempt to prove that the Lord has purposely limited His foreknowledge:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

According to Open Theism the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God,and He did not know until Abraham drew back his hand with the knife in order to slay Isaac.

But this is what the Lord says about His nature:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Lord would not need to see the "outward" act of Abraham before He would know that Abraham had a fear of God.He knew the heart of Abraham.So in order to use Genesis 22:10-12 to support their ideas the Open Thesists are directly contradicting the Word of God.

Besides,if the Lord did not know the heart of Abraham,how did He know that Abraham might not turn away from his intention to slay Isaac at the last split-second?

These verses in regard to Abraham are clearly written in an anthropomoric sense and is not to be taken literally.

If we say certain things about God's revelation are merely figurative, it leaves God no way to communicate the opposite truth if that is what is true, in fact.
The Scriptures reveal that the sun sets and the sun rises.Are we supposed to take this literally when we know that it is the earth that is rotating on its axis and the sun is not really rising?

We must use our common sense in order to understand what is to be taken literally and what is not.And if something is said about the actions of God in a narrative that directly contradicts the revelation of God in regard to His very nature then we should recognize that the things in the narrative are not to be taken in a literal sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Battuta
May 7th, 2005, 01:23 PM
How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

C. God designed miracles with the intention of hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

1. God chose, initially, to have Moses perform miracles which Pharaoh’s magicians could replicate. This was the opposite of a demonstration of power. These wonders were designed to get Pharaoh in the habit of defying God ( Ex.7:8-8:7). The sign of the staff becoming a snake and the plagues of blood and frogs didn’t faze the magicians. Not until the plague of gnats did they finally admit, “This is the finger of God" (8:19).

2. The plagues were of limited duration. They did not force Pharaoh’s hand. The Lord was monitoring Pharaoh to see how much he could endure. God wished to demonstrate multiple plagues, not just one or two of long duration. He did not really want the early plagues to be too much for Pharaoh to resist.

3. The third and fourth plagues were only irritations. The gnats and flies caused no economic damage or immediate health problems. These plagues would help innoculate Pharaoh’s heart. He could show he was tough enough to endure.

4. The fifth plague killed all the livestock. This was the first plague with noticeable economic consequences. However, Egypt was wealthy, and this was a small price to pay to keep their enslaved laborers. They had replaced livestock in their fields by the time plague seven came along. We don’t know if they bought livestock from the Hebrews or external trading partners.

5. The first record of the Lord hardening Pharaoh’s heart (9:12) is after the plague of boils (plague 6). This is admittedly speculative, but there is no record of Pharaoh or his officials suffering, but rather the magicians and “all the Egyptians” (which may refer to the common people). It helps Pharaoh to harden his heart if he and his inner circle are not personally affected.

There is no admission here of God determining Pharaoh’s choices against Pharaoh’s will or forcing him to sin. Such a view would also be speculative, and it would not agree with the overwhelming context of God using providential power and clever methods to draw Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.

6. The day before plague 7 ( Hail and lightening ), Pharaoh and his officials were warned (9:13-19). Some of them heeded the warning and suffered only minor damage (9:20,21). I suggest it helps to harden the official’s hearts when they suffer less damage then their countrymen and come out on top.

The first time God claims to have hardened the hearts of Pharaoh’s officials, as well as Pharaoh’s heart, is after this plague (10:1,2). When God says, “I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them...” I agree with God he has accomplished his goal, and at the same time I find no fault with Him or His methods.

godrulz
May 7th, 2005, 07:59 PM
ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned.

If you put the question of which you speak in the "context" you will see that the reference is not in regard to eternal life and eternal damnation but instead it is in regard to "service".

It starts at verse 12,where it says that the older will serve the younger and that the Lord loved Jacob (the younger) more than He loved Esau (the Greek word translated "hate" is equivalent to "loving less" in a qualified sense--"Ro. ix. 13,the signification to love less,to postpone in love or esteem,to slight"["Thayer's Greek English Lexicon"].The idea that the mesaning is "positive hate" could not be corrrect because the Scriptures reveal that the Lord bestowed many blessings on Esau.).

So in regard to the younger serving the older,Paul asks,"Is there unrighteousness with God?".The question is not in regard to questioning the Lord's unrighteousness in regard to the "fiction" that He would form some men with the express purpose of destroying them,but instead the question is in regard to why the purpose of the lives of some men is more honorable than that of other men.

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use at the table of a king,while he designs another for some less honorable purpose.But both are formed for some "useful" purpose.Neither is formed for the purpose of destroying them.A potter who would make a vessel for the deliberate purpose of destroying it would be described as a maniac.And by your false teaching on these verses you are making the Lord to appear to be a maniac of the worst kind.

Also,in order to cling to your false ideas you must "edit" the words revealed in the Scriptures.To you "all men" means "all types of men".If that is the meaning that Paul wishes to convey then why did he not say that?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Good insights. This is the same thing as Calvinists having the nerve to say that: "For God so loved the elect that He gave....". God's universal, impartial love for mankind must not be reduced to a specious elect vs non-elect arbitrary concept to support a preconceived theology.

godrulz
May 7th, 2005, 08:11 PM
godrulz,

I must disagree with what you say about no contradiction in the teaching of Open Theism.

For exaple,the following verses are used by the Open Theists in their attempt to prove that the Lord has purposely limited His foreknowledge:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

According to Open Theism the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God,and He did not know until Abraham drew back his hand with the knife in order to slay Isaac.

But this is what the Lord says about His nature:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Lord would not need to see the "outward" act of Abraham before He would know that Abraham had a fear of God.He knew the heart of Abraham.So in order to use Genesis 22:10-12 to support their ideas the Open Thesists are directly contradicting the Word of God.

Besides,if the Lord did not know the heart of Abraham,how did He know that Abraham might not turn away from his intention to slay Isaac at the last split-second?

These verses in regard to Abraham are clearly written in an anthropomoric sense and is not to be taken literally.

The Scriptures reveal that the sun sets and the sun rises.Are we supposed to take this literally when we know that it is the earth that is rotating on its axis and the sun is not really rising?

We must use our common sense in order to understand what is to be taken literally and what is not.And if something is said about the actions of God in a narrative that directly contradicts the revelation of God in regard to His very nature then we should recognize that the things in the narrative are not to be taken in a literal sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Some passages are literal, while others are figurative. The context will determine which is which. Sometimes we do not understand a passage and wrongly assume we must take it figuratively to avoid contradiction. God does see the heart, but an outward test can be definitive for the person to know where they are at. It is also possible for a person to act contrary to their general heart. In any given test, we can pass or fail it. Until the test and choice is made, it is not known as an absolute certainty. It may be a high probability which way we will go, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Some here say that God has purposely limited his knowledge. The only way God has limited His knowledge is by chosing to create free moral agents that can produce genuine unknowable and alternative contingencies.

Here is a quote I think challenges our traditional thinking. It has some merit:

Since God has these omni attributes, He has the ability to determine what He does not want to know (rulz- future free will contingencies are logically not exhaustively knowable as certainties...the type of creation God chose vs deterministic), where He does not want to go, and what He does not want to do.

Reformed theologian Charles Hodge:

"It is admitted that theologians are not infallible, in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in His works."

Even traditional, classical theologians are rethinking the Platonically influenced attributes of God and have moved away from strong immutability and impassibility to a more biblical understanding. Open Theism was on the cutting edge of this paradigm shift that shows that God is personal, responsive, providential rather than a meticulous control-freak and unchanging in every sense. God is transcendent and immanent.

ChristisKing
May 8th, 2005, 01:21 AM
ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned

Paul is clearly teaching Timothy that he should include "kings and all in authority" in his prayers because God will also be saving these type of men as well. He is clearly teaching all types of men in these verses.

The words "all men" is used in Scripture to mean:

1) Every single man and woman
2) Every single man only
3) All nations and races
4) Every man and woman from Israel
5) Every man only from Israel
5) A great number of people (but not every single person on Earth)
6) Men from every station in life (rich and poor; ordinary and rulers; or "types of men.")

You need to see the context of how "all men" is used in order to understand what "all men" means in any particular verse.

Lets take a look at a few examples, ok?

MAR 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.

This means a great number of Israelites, it does not means every single person on earth.

LUK 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

This means a great number of lost people, it does not mean every single person on earth.

JOH 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

This does mean every single man and woman on earth.

LUK 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

This means all lost men and women, not every single person on earth.

ACT 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

This means men and women from every nation and race, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

This means all the believers in this church only, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.

This means all the men and women who saw the miracle or knew the man who was healed in Jerusalem, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

This means all the men and women in the town that only happened to be present, it does not mean every single person on earth.

1CO 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

This means all "types of men and women" and certain men and women who were "Jews and Gentiles," it does not mean every single person on earth (many were not pleased with Paul....lol).

1TI 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

This means "all types of men," men from every station of life, it does not mean every single person on earth.

Jerry Shugart
May 8th, 2005, 08:48 AM
Some passages are literal, while others are figurative. The context will determine which is which. Sometimes we do not understand a passage and wrongly assume we must take it figuratively to avoid contradiction. God does see the heart, but an outward test can be definitive for the person to know where they are at.
godrulz,

I will quote again the passage we are discussing:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

You say that the Lord does know the heart but Abraham must pass a test before the Lord will know whether or not he fears God.

But "fearing God" is a thing of the heart.The Lord knew that Abraham feared God before He took up the knife to slay Isaac.The Lord knew exactly where Abraham was at before he took the knife in his hand.

Before this incident we read the things which the Lord knew about Abraham:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness"(Gen.15:6).

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; ...And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness"(Ro.4:19-22).

And even before Abraham took the knife in his hand and was told that he was gonig to offer Isaac he made all the preparations for the task at hand.But yet,according to the ideas of the Open Tehesits that Lord did not yet know whether or not Abraham feared God!

According to the OPen Thesist the Lord did not yet know the heart of Abraham,and it was not until Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac that the Lord was finally able to put two and two together and understand that Abraham feared Him.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
May 8th, 2005, 09:07 AM
What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?
He didn't. He simply loved Jacob more than He loved Esau. It is a common Hebrew idiom. God does not hate (as in dispise or detest) the unborn. If you insist that He does then you are not only a fool and do not know God but then you must also by the decree of Jesus Himself hate your entire family, for Jesus explicitly said...

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I've been ill for the last couple of days and have fallen behind on my responses. I apologize for the delay and will respond ASAP. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to get done today but be patient and I'll respond when I can. Battuta, you present an interesting study on the issue that I'm not sure I disagree with at all, but I haven't read all of it yet so I'll let you know when I get more time.
God bless you guys!

Jerry Shugart
May 8th, 2005, 09:30 AM
Paul is clearly teaching Timothy that he should include "kings and all in authority" in his prayers because God will also be saving these type of men as well. He is clearly teaching all types of men in these verses.
ChristisKing,

As you correctly point out we must examine the "context" in order to determine the meaning of the term "all men".Here is the most immediate context in regard to the verse we are discussing:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:4-6).

He gave Himself as a ransom for "all" men.But you might ask,How do we know that this is not saying that He gave Himself a ransom for "all types" of men.

To answer that,please consider the following verse:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The words "all men" in the first part of this verse means every single person,and I do not think that you will argure with that.Therefore,the ame words in the second part of the verse must mean the exact thing--every single person.A "free gift" came to every single person,and the results of receiving that free gift is justification before God.

And it is not difficult to understand what this free gift is.It is "reconciliation":

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

The death of the Lord Jesus paid the ransom for all men:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"(Col.1:20).

It is "reconciliation" that has been obtained for "all men",and it is "reconciliation" that is the "free gift" that comes upon all men unto justification of life.

Of course all men do not receive the intended result of the free gift,and that is because some men will not come within the reconciliation.That is why we as Christains are to tell men to be reconciled to God:

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God"(2Cor.5:20).

The free gift of reconciliation has been provided for "all men" by the Cross,but in order to come within that reconciliation the sinner must believe the gospel of Christ.That is why Paul says that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

The Lord gave Himself a ransom for "all men",and therefore it can be said that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

The death of the Lord Jesus provides a propitiation for the sins of all men,and not just the sins all "all types" of men:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"(1Jn.2:2).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz
May 8th, 2005, 09:31 AM
godrulz,

I will quote again the passage we are discussing:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

You say that the Lord does know the heart but Abraham must pass a test before the Lord will know whether or not he fears God.

But "fearing God" is a thing of the heart.The Lord knew that Abraham feared God before He took up the knife to slay Isaac.The Lord knew exactly where Abraham was at before he took the knife in his hand.

Before this incident we read the things which the Lord knew about Abraham:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness"(Gen.15:6).

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; ...And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness"(Ro.4:19-22).

And even before Abraham took the knife in his hand and was told that he was gonig to offer Isaac he made all the preparations for the task at hand.But yet,according to the ideas of the Open Tehesits that Lord did not yet know whether or not Abraham feared God!

According to the OPen Thesist the Lord did not yet know the heart of Abraham,and it was not until Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac that the Lord was finally able to put two and two together and understand that Abraham feared Him.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Open Theists believe that God knows the past and present perfectly. He knows what is in the hearts and minds of men. In any given free choice, someone may act in or out of character. The test was genuine. Knowing what was in his heart does not preclude Abraham from making free choices and failing a specific test at a specific time. Until the choice is made, God would know the possibilities and probabilities of what he would chose. Once the choice is made, it becomes an object of present actuality/certainty and is known as such...hence...NOW I know (certain vs possible/probable).

Jerry Shugart
May 8th, 2005, 09:46 AM
In any given free choice, someone may act in or out of character. The test was genuine. Knowing what was in his heart does not preclude Abraham from making free choices and failing a specific test at a specific time.
godrulz,

The test was not to see whether or not Abraham would "act in or out of character",but instead to determine whether or not Abraham "feared God".The verse does not read:

"...for now I know that thou acted in the way that one who feareth God should act".

Instead it says,"for now I know that thou fearest God".

Surely the Lord knew that Abraham had a fear of God before he took the knife to slay his son.And the Lord would have known that and would not need an outward demonstration in order to know the heart of Abraham:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Open Thesists ideas directly contradict 1Samuel 16:7 by saying that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He judged Abraham by his outward appearance.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz
May 8th, 2005, 10:03 AM
Open Theists affirm that God knows the heart. Peter generally feared God and loved the Lord, yet there was some ambivalence and he failed an outward test. God knew for sure the heart when a specific test of obedience was given. I would not read too much or too little into the historical narrative. There is no reason not to take it at face value. God knew the heart and the test was genuine and resulted in new, certain knowledge based on this specific test of the heart. Man does not know the heart of others. This is not the only 'proof text' to show that God does learn new things as the objects of knowledge become actual. e.g. given the billions of possibilities, it is not possible for God to know who would ultimately be born and every moral and mundane choice they would ever make from trillions of years ago. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know the unknowable. The future has not happened and is not an object of knowledge.

Jerry Shugart
May 8th, 2005, 10:33 AM
Open Theists affirm that God knows the heart. Peter generally feared God and loved the Lord, yet there was some ambivalence and he failed an outward test. God knew for sure the heart when a specific test of obedience was given. I would not read too much or too little into the historical narrative. There is no reason not to take it at face value. God knew the heart and the test was genuine and resulted in new, certain knowledge based on this specific test of the heart.
godrulz,

You are saying that the Lord knew the heart of Abraham but the test was necessary so that the Lord would have a new and certain knowledge.

So even though the Scriptures say that the Lord knows the heart of man and does not rely on outward appearances in the case of Abraham that knowledge was not "certain" until Abraham gave an outward demonstration that he feared the Lord.

Man does not know the heart of others. This is not the only 'proof text' to show that God does learn new things as the objects of knowledge become actual. e.g. given the billions of possibilities, it is not possible for God to know who would ultimately be born and every moral and mundane choice they would ever make from trillions of years ago. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know the unknowable. The future has not happened and is not an object of knowledge.
First of all,"with God all things are possible"(Mt.19:26).

And secondly,if the future cannot be known how do you explain the following?:

"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"(Isa.46:10).

The Lord can declare "the things that are not yet done" because He has a foreknowledge of those things.The verse does not say that He can declare the end from the beginning because He can see some of "the things which are not yet done".

Again,the Theology of the Open Theologists is based on "speculation",and that speculation is employed by them in order to say that they know the "ways" of the Lord.However,Paul asks a question that is germane to the ideas of the Open Thesists:

"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! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.12:33,34).

The Open Theologists claim that they know the mind of the Lord and that they know the ways of the Lord even though Paul says that that "his ways are past finding out".The Open Theologists use verses that are in regard to a narrative in order to attempt to prove their theology despite the fact that their interpreation of those verses directly contradict verses that are in regard to the very nature of the Lord.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

drbrumley
May 8th, 2005, 10:55 AM
That is one reason I no longer attend a Baptist Church. Calvanism is the norm there, I need to have to part in that.

drbrumley
May 8th, 2005, 10:57 AM
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!

Amen!!!!!

godrulz
May 8th, 2005, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=Jerry Shugart]

JS: First of all,"with God all things are possible"(Mt.19:26).

RULZ: This does not mean that God can do the logically absurd like creating a rock too big to lift.

JS: And secondly,if the future cannot be known how do you explain the following?:

"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"(Isa.46:10).

The Lord can declare "the things that are not yet done" because He has a foreknowledge of those things.The verse does not say that He can declare the end from the beginning because He can see some of "the things which are not yet done".

RULZ: This is a favorite verse of Open Theists like Gregory Boyd. Is. 46:11 goes on to say that He will bring about what He has planned....that will I do. He knows some aspects of the future because of His omnicompetent ABILITY, not His foreknowledge. He is able to predetermine and foreknow some things, because He intends to bring them to pass apart from other free moral agents. It is wrong to extrapolate that He brings ALL things to pass or that He knows the future exhaustively. In this context, and for this particular prophecy, He knows because He brings it to pass. Many other moral and mundane things are unknowable and unsettled until man makes an actual choice.

cf. Is. 48:3 "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I ACTED, and they came to pass."

The context is about proximal prophecies relating to Israel and judgments. It is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies from trillions of years ago. The verse has God's ABILITY, not foreknowledge in mind as the mechanism for how He can know SOME (not all) things about the proximal future. It is illogical for God to know exhaustively every chess move Fisher and Spasky would make zillions of years before they even existed as objects of knowledge. The only way to have this would be a sheerly deterministic universe. It is self-evident that we have genuine freedom to make alternate choices. This is part of what it is to be in the personal and moral image of God.


JS: "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! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.12:33,34).

The Open Theologists claim that they know the mind of the Lord and that they know the ways of the Lord even though Paul says that that "his ways are past finding out".The Open Theologists use verses that are in regard to a narrative in order to attempt to prove their theology despite the fact that their interpreation of those verses directly contradict verses that are in regard to the very nature of the Lord.

RULZ: God wants us to know Him personally and intimately. We cannot understand everything about the infinite God with finite minds, but His revelation does communicate truth about His nature and ways. It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. Calvinism has much to say about who God is and what He does. Open Theism seeks the same thing: to understand God and His ways within the parameters of His knowable revelation in His Word. We do not fully understand the triune nature of God, but we are expected to worship Him in Spirit and truth. Calvinism distorts the revelation of God and makes Him responsible for heinous evil and the damnation of most of the human race that He could save if He would only chose to. A caricature of God is a stumbling block and a barrier to faith for those who are thinking and seek to love and serve a God who is not arbitrary and evil. The problem is not with OTs interpreting verses in a contradictory manner. The problem is that some classical theists are forced to take some straightforward passages figuratively because it contradicts a preconceived theology.

There is a difference between questioning God and His ways in certain circumstances when we see through a glass darkly, and claiming we cannot know basic things about His character and attributes. We know He is loving, faithful, personal, omnipotent, etc. It is not wrong to speculate on the nature of the future and how the eternal God relates to His temporal creation. Open Theists do not claim to know about God exhaustively, but desire to know what is knowable truthfully. If Augustine was unduly influenced by Platonic ideas, we want to get back to solid biblical ground. This is our responsibility. The verse is not a proof text to justify sloppy theology, the Queen of sciences. The study of God is paramount. Sovereignty is rarely mentioned in the Bible, yet it is the crux of Calvinism. The concept is certainly in the Bible, but the definition of how God is sovereign is what is debated (providential vs meticulous control).

Agape4Robin
May 8th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Just because God has Omniscience, does not make Him responsible. Foreknowledge is not pre-determination. God has the vantage point of all eternity, He can see past the limitations of time.
God's "tests" aren't about Him learning about us, but us learning about Him and learning about ourselves in the process.

godrulz
May 8th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Just because God has Omniscience, does not make Him responsible. Foreknowledge is not pre-determination. God has the vantage point of all eternity, He can see past the limitations of time.
God's "tests" aren't about Him learning about us, but us learning about Him and learning about ourselves in the process.


Simple foreknowlege (Arminian) is still problematic from a logical, philosophical viewpoint.

"If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable."

Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity. It is not a limitation on omniscience to not know a nothing (the future is not there yet to know). "Eternal now/timelessness" is incoherent. Everlasting duration is the biblical view of eternity. Time is not a thing or a line that can be viewed all at once. Time is unidirectional moving from the potential future into the fixed past through the actual present.

Calvinism is more logical in that determinism would make something knowable and foreknowable in advance. It is problematic in that it negates self-evident libertarian free agency and makes God responsible for heinous evil.

lee_merrill
May 8th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Calvinism is more logical in that determinism would make something knowable and foreknowable in advance. It is problematic in that it negates self-evident libertarian free agency and makes God responsible for heinous evil.
And there is no responsibility when God sees an evil act about to be commited, and chooses not to stop it? For a greater good, that he sees?

That is the Calvinist view, too...

Blessings,
Lee

Clete
May 8th, 2005, 07:08 PM
And there is no responsibility when God sees an evil act about to be commited, and chooses not to stop it? For a greater good, that he sees?

That is the Calvinist view, too...

Blessings,
Lee
This may be what Calvinist say they believe but their theology teaches that God doesn't simply see an evil act about to be committed, He makes that evil event take place by His soveriegn decree as does He decree the so called greater good, which is meaningless because there was never any other possible outcome in the Calvinist world view.

In short, this is not the Calvinist view; their declarations to the contrary not withstanding.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 8th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Just because God has Omniscience, does not make Him responsible.
That depends on what is included in that Omniscience.


Foreknowledge is not pre-determination.
Logically it is. With freedom comes the ability to do or to do otherwise. Foreknowledge would eliminate the ability to do otherwise and thus detroy freedom. The result is pre-determination.


God has the vantage point of all eternity, He can see past the limitations of time.
Says who? You? Aristotle? Plato? Who, exactly says that God sees "past the limitations of time"?


God's "tests" aren't about Him learning about us, but us learning about Him and learning about ourselves in the process.
Again, says who? The text says the exact opposite of this? Where are you getting these ideas from? Not the Bible! That much is certain.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Delmar
May 8th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Says who? You? Aristotle? Plato? Who, exactly says that God sees "past the limitations of time"?


Clete
Don't you watch Star Trek?

ChristisKing
May 8th, 2005, 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristisKing

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?


He didn't. He simply loved Jacob more than He loved Esau.

Hmmm....that's not Scriptural:

ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Clete
May 8th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristisKing

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?



Hmmm....that's not Scriptural:

ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
As I explained it is a figure of speech!

What, did you read that one sentence and completely ignore the whole point, or what?

Do you hate your mother and father?
Do you hate your siblings?
Do you hate you wife and children?
Do you hate yourself?

Yes or no, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
May 8th, 2005, 08:53 PM
And there is no responsibility when God sees an evil act about to be commited, and chooses not to stop it? For a greater good, that he sees?

That is the Calvinist view, too...

Blessings,
Lee


There is a difference between delaying justice in His sovereign wisdom, and being the one actually culpable as a perpetrator of evil. Creating free moral agents with the potential vs necessity for evil and not dealing justice the instant evil happens (this would terminate the entire race...game over) is within His sovereign right.