ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

elected4ever

New member
Who is "adopting" anything? I am simply saying the two theologies work together brilliantly to paint a very coherent, logical, biblically accurate picture of God's word.

If it's right.... it's right!
If it is wrong it is wrong also and don't solve a thing. It just makes God into your personalized image that you are comfortable with. the truth be damned as lone as God is what you make of him. You do not define God, God defines you.
 

elected4ever

New member
The fix isn't the reason its the result. If you find a correct theology one would expect for it to solve all sorts of what otherwise might have seemed to be unrelated problems. The more problems that a system easily fixes without having set out to do so, the more credibility the system should have. Buddhists would call it the Zen factor, I call it eloquence, others might refer to the principle as something else but by whatever name a rose is still a rose. And Open Theism mixed with Dispensationalism (Acts 9 Dispensationalism in particular) makes for one incredibly sweet smelling and dazzlingly beautiful rose.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Yea, one heresy fixing another Oh Boy:rolleyes:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I have read the syllogism, but I still don't understand how God knowing what I will
decide to do tomorrow means that I don't have a choice of what to do tomorrow.
That depends on when God "knows it" and in what detail right?

After all God knows everything knowable! And therefore God knows what my intentions are, He knows that I will be leaving for vacation tomorrow and He knows all the other factors and variables that I am unaware of. Therefore God knows better than I do what time I will actually leave tomorrow.

Yet did He know I would be going on vacation a millennia ago?

I made the decision to go on vacation about 2 months ago.

yet....

If God knew I was going on vacation a millennia ago, my decision to go on vacation was made a millennia ago not two months ago.

I'll keep reading the posts and thinking...

have a nice vacation :)
Sounds great! :up:
 

Lon

Well-known member
I've never heard anyone here say that God isn't sovereign. Most non-Calvinists take God to be sovereign in that He is the standard of morality, and will ultimately judge the world. That's what sovereign normally means. Calvinists have taken this to an extreme, saying that God's sovereignty means that He has meticulous control over every aspect of the universe, including the decisions His creation makes.

So, once again, Mr. Religion seems to specialize in burning straw men, rather than engaging either scripture or the arguments of his opponents.

Muz

Burning strawmen is a good place to start. It sifts through the dross so the real men (pertinent topics) can be faced and keeps one from side-tracking. Now if it comes up, he can say "Strawman, burnt." and be done.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
If that were true why would we find instances of things happening that are contrary God's will?

I guess you have not noticed that it is to the glory of God that He overcomes all evil with good and is thereby victorious over His enemies who live contrary to His will.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I guess you have not noticed that it is to the glory of God that He overcomes all evil with good and is thereby victorious over His enemies who live contrary to His will.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28
Overcoming evil is very different than willing evil itself.

Which is it Nang? Does He overcome evil and overcome the things that are contrary to His will? Or..... is it as you stated earlier... "The future will be the performance of God's will, which will surely come to pass."

It can't be both.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Overcoming evil is very different than willing evil itself.

I agree.

Which is it Nang? Does He overcome evil and overcome the things that are contrary to His will?

Yes.


Or..... is it as you stated earlier... "The future will be the performance of God's will, which will surely come to pass."

Yes.

It can't be both.

It has been both since Adam fell.

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Psalms 145:17
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I've never heard anyone here say that God isn't sovereign. Most non-Calvinists take God to be sovereign in that He is the standard of morality, and will ultimately judge the world. That's what sovereign normally means. Calvinists have taken this to an extreme, saying that God's sovereignty means that He has meticulous control over every aspect of the universe, including the decisions His creation makes.

So, once again, Mr. Religion seems to specialize in burning straw men, rather than engaging either scripture or the arguments of his opponents.

Who are these "most non-Calvinists" you refer to that believe God's sovereignty extends only to judgment and moral standards? It is best to resist seeing a Calvinist bogeyman behind every statement made that you disagree with.

The following do not agree with your claim:

Methodist
http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2299859/k.13B7/Our_Christian_Roots.htm
So. Baptist
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#ii
Assemblies of God
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_21_free_will.cfm

Note: Obviously, I did not bother checking Presbyterians and Lutherans. But, like I said, obviously.

So who are the "most non-Calvinists" you mention?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?

Posted by Dave
That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by the incapacitated he did not help, for they will be
:execute: decapitated

Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance. You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever.

Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.

Posted by Dave
Don't strain my little quip, my meaning is simple and clear.

I want to deal with "total deparvity", this house of cards stands or falls with it's first premise, without the "T" there is no "TULIP". Biblical theology of salvation is built on the Biblical revelation that man is created "tripartite" not a "duality", then all the verses about what we call "free will" make sense, but I will admit, if man were a "duality", we would have a problem.

I Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

We make decisions in our "soul" not in our "spirit". Our spirits are "dead" but our ability to understand the gospel is in our "mind" which is part of our soul. If our "mind", "emotions", and our "will" are part of our "spirit" then being spiritually dead would mean we would not be able to think, act, or feel anything.


Posted by Clete
Dave's response to this was brilliant and it was entirely on target and blew the whole argument right out of the water.

My response to this would be to point out the Calvinist's amazing ability to compartmentalize their theology to the point that such errors of logic can take place. It is remarkable to me how the Calvinist just forgets about exhaustive predestination/sovereignty when discussing total depravity and any number of other doctrines.


Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
I believe that all actions of persons, including their sinful actions, occur only with God’s permission... In some sense, this all must be in accordance with what God has desired and purposed.

:doh: If our actions are purposed by God, then, they do not occur with God's permission as our own actions. You can't have it both ways and claim your are a rational person, or perphaps, you would want us to believe that the Bible contradicts itself.

As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...

:confused: How stupid is this! If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.

And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create...

:dizzy: Again, a timeless God does not know "before" he creates, stop contradicting yourself.

God leaves a person to his own nature, knowing that the person will sin.

:jawdrop: No! No! You made it very clear that God foreordained sin.

"Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass...

God's decree does not take away man's liberty;

:rotfl: Stop! Please, your killing me!
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
We make decisions in our "soul" not in our "spirit". Our spirits are "dead" but our ability to understand the gospel is in our "mind" which is part of our soul.

Beg your pardon, but I must interject (surely with the generous permission of AMR) a comment . . .

The human spirit/soul of man is the same being, which is subjected to the consequences and Godly sentence of God. The entire being of man (body, soul, spirit) is dead because of trespasses and sins. There is absolutely no way a dead body, soul, or mind can comprehend the gospel of grace, without first being spiritually regenerated ("born again") by the resurrection power of God.


It is remarkable to me how the Calvinist just forgets about exhaustive predestination/sovereignty when discussing total depravity and any number of other doctrines.[/COLOR]

I, being a Calvinist, have no idea of what you speak.

And I suspect, you have little theological knowledge of what you speak, either.

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Dave,

Notice how the Calvinist, (particularly the presuppositional Calvinist) seems to separate logical order from chronological order in order to get around the 'timelessness' vs. 'before and after' contradiction you point out. I've never been made to see how there is any difference but I was hoping I could get you to comment on it.
 

elected4ever

New member
Poly it might interest you to know along with other OVers and Calvinist alike that God's plan is foreknown and set in stone. God will perform it with or without the participation of man. Your negative rep of me was uncalled for. My comment was right on point and I don't care if there are responses to me are not. Your excuse was a joke. God made man a sovereign creation and man chose to go his own way. That did not and will not negate the plan of God that so many here seem to believe. God did not have to alter or come up with a new plan

The plan of God is to make man His express image. Man cannot be God's express image and remain a created being. Man must be as God is to be His express image. God, however will not make man His express image with out the consent of man. That is also part God's plan.

To make wild statements that God is taken by surprise, that man can do it by His choice alone, That God is a gambler and takes risk are beyond the pale. These remarks grossly misrepresent God and are humanistic in there origin. Correcting the error that the Calvinist make is no excuse to formulate another error to take it place.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
OK, after the recent revelations, I'm going to make a distinction:

I'm a "One Plan" Open View Theist. Since God knew all possible courses of the future, and God knows how His actions will affect the future, God had one plan with a variety of contingencies for the free will actions of men. The church wasn't a "new direction" or a "parenthesis" in prophecy. It is the continuing fulfillment of God's purpose for creation.

Muz
 

elected4ever

New member
OK, after the recent revelations, I'm going to make a distinction:

I'm a "One Plan" Open View Theist. Since God knew all possible courses of the future, and God knows how His actions will affect the future, God had one plan with a variety of contingencies for the free will actions of men. The church wasn't a "new direction" or a "parenthesis" in prophecy. It is the continuing fulfillment of God's purpose for creation.

Muz
That is a realistic start anyway. The only difference is that man has not changed the plan of God in any way and God does not work on a contingency basis when it comes to his plan. He knows the end from the beginning The only choice man has to make is whether or not he will participate in being made in the image of God. That choice is on an individual basis and not corporate.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
OK, after the recent revelations, I'm going to make a distinction:

I'm a "One Plan" Open View Theist. Since God knew all possible courses of the future, and God knows how His actions will affect the future, God had one plan with a variety of contingencies for the free will actions of men. The church wasn't a "new direction" or a "parenthesis" in prophecy. It is the continuing fulfillment of God's purpose for creation.

Muz

I agree that the Church was always in God's one plan. It is parenthetical, however,
in the fact that the church age isn't at all revealed by the OT scriptures. It's
insulated from prophecy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top