Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
    Your right. OV is riddled with philosophy and vain deceit. They have human philosophy down pretty well but they also try to make God subject to that philosophy. That never works.
    For "human philosophy" read "sound reason".

    e4e, let me ask you a serious question.

    Why, in your view, is insisting that one's doctrine be rationally sound a bad thing?
    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
      You are not making sense, Clete. Without any foreknowledge means God decreed without relying on any foreknowledge of the decisions of mankind beforehand. This is the key distinction between Arminian and Calvinistic doctrine. If you want to argue the finer points of supra and infra-lapsarian doctrine, start another thread and I will help you better understand the issues and the biblical rationale. Your comments demonstrate the difficulty of open theists in being able to perceive the concept of eternity, an existence vastly different than temporality where everything is known to God equally vividly.
      Well make up your mind AMR!

      Did God have exhaustive foreknowledge "when" he decreed whatever it was He decreed or didn't He?

      The two "camps" you posited were full of crap anyway. Show me one single Calvinist on the planet who denies that every action of every man woman and child in all of history, including Adam and Ave, was decreed by God "before" time began and I'll show you a Calvinist who is confused.
      Westminster Confession of Faith
      CHAP. III. - Of God's Eternal Decree.

      1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

      2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

      3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

      4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

      5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

      6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

      7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or witholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

      8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.


      CHAP V. - Of Providence.

      1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

      2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

      3. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

      4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

      5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

      6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption make occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.

      7. As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof.

      Resting in Him,
      Clete

      P.S. I know most you won't read all of that but you've got to at least read point #1 from each of these two chapter from the WCF. It a hoot to read this stuff side by side and then watch the Calvinsts scurry around trying to explain how they aren't self-contradictory.
      sigpic
      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

      Comment


      • Clete,
        The infra and supralapsarian camps are two historically verifiable camps that have existed within the Calvinist strain since the Scholastic period. So, the are real camps, regardless of your thoughts on what a true Calvinist is.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
          You need to r-e-a-d. I said 'eternal judgment' not 'eternal torment.' Once again, you demonstrate your inability to do so.
          I know what you meant using words that open theists use to belie the sense of a mainstream system of beliefs. That is why I made it explicit for all to see clearly.
          "Proper" meaning how you define them. However, the beliefs of OVTs are not inconsistent with historical belief. Again, these are issues that aren't entirely settled in orthodoxy.
          No, how I and the orthodox Church defines them. You are just too desperate, no?
          I don't recall saying that they were identical to human emotions. However, because God uses these terms, there must be some similarity which is born out in how God arranged the text for us to read. The fact that you have to spend a significant amount of time explaining away these things, but provide no significant Scriptural basis for what you replace the text of Scripture gives a clear indication that you have a problem with your Systematic theology
          I explain them mainly for those that may still have an open mind about the commonly held beliefs of the Church. Pick up any theology text, Grudem, Erickson, Reymond, Culver, etc., and see for yourself. You think I make this stuff up? Find out how far afield you are by digging deeper into the topic. Go beyond TOL and Enyart's The Plot. Test what you are being told by study of the scriptures and others that have made a lifetime studying them.
          If we look at God's sovereignty, we find that God is a judge, an executioner, and issues commands and laws for which He is willing and able to hand out judgment for those who are guilty. That sounds like a really good definition of sovereignty from any perspective to me.
          No, you sound like a humanist trying to define God from your own sense of egalitarianism.
          Perhaps you could explain your views on what God's love and justice and mercy and sovereignty anthropomorphize into by first explaining the attribute of man that God does not have, and then explaining from the text how we are to understand your anthropomorphized attribute of God.
          Asked and answered in this thread. R-e-a-d.
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
            I know most you won't read all of that but you've got to at least read point #1 from each of these two chapter from the WCF. It a hoot to read this stuff side by side and then watch the Calvinsts scurry around trying to explain how they aren't self-contradictory.
            So, from the post you made please tell me the order of the decrees of God. While you are at it, explain the term "pass by". Better yet, as I suggested, you can start another thread if you want to learn more about the two views within Calvinism. You keep insisting you know what Calvinists believe. When you have been one for around twenty or thirty years or so, let's talk.
            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



            Do you confess?
            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
            AMR's Randomata Blog
            Learn Reformed Doctrine
            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
            The best TOL Social Group: here.
            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
            Why?


            Comment


            • Originally posted by VanhoozerRocks View Post
              Clete,
              The infra and supralapsarian camps are two historically verifiable camps that have existed within the Calvinist strain since the Scholastic period. So, the are real camps, regardless of your thoughts on what a true Calvinist is.
              I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't two camps that go by those names, it was AMR characterization of them that I disputed. Even if his characterizations were accurate, they both directly contradict the WCF, which is not uncommon, by the way. The point is that AMR and every other Calvinist I've ever come across gives lip service to their doctrines and then routinely contradict them. Generally when the contradiction is pointed out, it isn't long before the antinomy card comes into play. In short the point was to point out the contradictions not to deny the existence of those groups.
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • The misunderstandings of the Reformed doctrines demonstrated in posts from folks like Clete, Philetus, and Muz go to the real heart of the issues motivating the advent of systems like open theism. I pray that some have gleaned some inkling from my participation that all is not what it seems and that the frequent anti-Calvinist rhetoric is drawing upon shallow knowledge of the pertinent doctrines.
                Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                Do you confess?
                Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                AMR's Randomata Blog
                Learn Reformed Doctrine
                I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                The best TOL Social Group: here.
                If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                Why?


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  So, from the post you made please tell me the order of the decrees of God. While you are at it, explain the term "pass by". Better yet, as I suggested, you can start another thread if you want to learn more about the two views within Calvinism. You keep insisting you know what Calvinists believe. When you have been one for around twenty or thirty years or so, let's talk.
                  Do you ever actually respond to an argument AMR?

                  Change the subject, ask someone to start another thread so that they can be educated by you, repeat an already refuted position, ignore the whole thing entirely, call someone pedantic, anything and everything but actually responding directly to someone's argument.

                  Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  The misunderstandings of the Reformed doctrines demonstrated in posts from folks like Clete, Philetus, and Muz go to the real heart of the issues motivating the advent of systems like open theism. I pray that some have gleaned some inkling from my participation that all is not what it seems and that the frequent anti-Calvinist rhetoric is drawing upon shallow knowledge of the pertinent doctrines.
                  Which misunderstanding would that be AMR? I quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith you ridiculous idiot!
                  How is it my fault that you dullards are too stupid to understand the point?

                  Do I have to spell everything out to the inth degree or what?

                  You posted this and said that you agreed with it...

                  In eternity God decreed, without any foreknowledge and only with the counsel of His own sovereign will, the following:
                  1. To create the world for His glory
                  2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
                  3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
                  4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment
                  Notice the highlighted point #2.

                  The WCF says very clearly the following...

                  CHAP. III. - Of God's Eternal Decree.

                  1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

                  and this...

                  CHAP V. - Of Providence.

                  1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

                  Explain the contradiction AMR.


                  Resting in Him,
                  Clete

                  P.S. Would you please stop one lining us all to death!
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                    Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian all affirm the atemporality and orthodox definitions of omnipotence, and omniscience.

                    I guess you will have to look over the following and determine which resonate or do not with you:

                    Open Theism Tenets
                    1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions
                    2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational
                    3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
                    4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated
                    5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center


                    "1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
                    2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.
                    3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.
                    4. God always desires the highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
                    5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make." (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)

                    I am assuming these are the tenants of open theism, I have not confirmed this myself.

                    Open Theism Tenets
                    1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions

                    (God is not vulnerable; He may seem open to our own human sense of the future, yet that does not mean God does not know what we will do.)

                    2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational

                    ( God is immutable)

                    3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
                    (This does not occur, God is not a super man, rather He is the One all knowing God)

                    4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated

                    (God is omnipotent)

                    5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center
                    (I do not understand this, God is Divine love)


                    "1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.

                    (God created the universe ex nihilo, not creatio ex materia, as that would assume something other than God is eternal. In the OT we find that God has intervened)

                    2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.

                    (God is always in full control; compatiblist view of freedom seems most consistent with St. Augustine. I have learned this view from the teachings of my church; however, I would take a closer view of it at this time in my life. Not that I wish to find support for a Divine libertarian freedom, rather as it interests me. New ways of thinking have always fascinated me. On a spiritual level, I have little need to change my views, as I have come to my own reconciliation of how God is related to the universe. I disagree with my church on some fundamental points, but this does not seem to be one of them)

                    3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.

                    (God knows in advance, out if time, what we do, if He desires to intervene, He can, and I think does, but God allows us to fall away if that is our nature)

                    4. God always desires the highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.

                    ( God may have been affected, but I cannot see what affected Him, who made the universe?)

                    5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make." (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)

                    (God knows all that has and will occur, He has perfect foreknowledge)

                    I do not know David Basinger, this might be worth a read.

                    Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views (Paperback)
                    by Gregory A. Boyd (Contributor), David Hunt (Contributor), William Lane Craig (Contributor), Paul Helm (Contributor), James K. Beilby (Editor), Paul R. Eddy (Editor)
                    So, what?

                    believe it!

                    Comment


                    • Thank you Ktoyou for the perfectly complete waste of time post!
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Thank you Ktoyou for the perfectly complete waste of time post!
                        If you think by beliefs and views are a waste of time, I will not post them anymore. I have do desire to make anyone angry, what is the point in upsetting anyone? I was merely sharing my thought on the subject. I will not post anymore on this thread.
                        So, what?

                        believe it!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
                          If you think by beliefs and views are a waste of time, I will not post than anymore. I have do desire to make anyone angry, what is the point in upsetting anyone? I was merely sharing my thought on the subject. I will not post anymore on this thread.
                          You are more than welcome to post on the thread but something more than one line statements of your personal opinion would be far less of a waste of time. No one here knows you and even if they did, why is your opinion any more authoritative than Boyde's or Sander's or mine for that matter? This is supposed to be a discussion about theology, not personal opinions. If you have an opinion, GREAT! Voice it and then tell us why you believe it. That way, we have something worth responding too.
                          sigpic
                          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            The misunderstandings of the Reformed doctrines demonstrated in posts from folks like Clete, Philetus, and Muz go to the real heart of the issues motivating the advent of systems like open theism. I pray that some have gleaned some inkling from my participation that all is not what it seems and that the frequent anti-Calvinist rhetoric is drawing upon shallow knowledge of the pertinent doctrines.
                            Lord, I hope that's what it sounds like.

                            "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              Start a thread on the philosophy of religion or something if you want philosophical discourse. I majored in the subject before switching to theology for obvious reasons.
                              So if I start a new thread, you'll answer there?
                              Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                              Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                                For "human philosophy" read "sound reason".

                                e4e, let me ask you a serious question.

                                Why, in your view, is insisting that one's doctrine be rationally sound a bad thing?
                                Because I take God's self revelation over your supposed reasoning. We all use reasoning to make heads or tell of things but when the word says something I have to adjust my reasoning to conform with what God has said. You do the same. I don't think ether of us believe the same thing we believed 10 years ago.

                                Human reasoning is not the last word. There are things that we cannot reason with human reasoning and we accept by faith and further down the road an answer is given and an understanding is received that was not plan in the beginning. We all travel that road. God has said I was wrong many times and my understanding had to be adjusted. It is not a strange thing to me. God's way is better. Trust me.
                                Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                                The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X