ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

The following paper by John Sanders answers a lot of the questions that one might have about Open Theism due to the lack of any formal statements of faith or catechisms associated with the movement...

Is Open Theism Christian Theism?

It clearly shows what the actual difference is between Open Theism and any other form of Christian theism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hundreds of years of scrutiny by scholars and theologians have failed to undermine the tenets of my and many others' beliefs. You can dismiss that by hand-waving, vainly hoping to claim some measure of equal footing with these centuries of scriptural analysis, but the fact stands.

If open theists claim to have discovered the new truths of God's special revelation then why are we not witnessing a global awakening to these new truths? Surely God would not hold these revelations back and the spread of open theism would be exploding across the land. Moreover, seminaries would be populated with ever-increasing open theist theologians to train up new pastors, missionaries, etc. Journals and books would be appearing with frequent positive open theism discourse. The greater open theist minds would be coming together, formulating doctrinal statements and articles of faith.

Calvinism stands today only by intimidating accusations of its opponets and the manipulation of scripture, as it did at it's beginning. The execution of Servetus and the imprisonment of others by Calvin and company in Geneva shows that they were not "open" to debate nor in theology.

There has been an "awakening" of the truths of OV, schools have taught this, pastors are teaching it, books have been written about it, and we are coming together, right here in fact.

Calvinism is not the product of Biblical "scrutiny"; the tenets of Calvinism start with Augustine and rise out of a pagan world of Neo-Platonism in which he and the scholastics/Aquinas worked out a compromised theology/apologetic that is a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Biblical revelation. A synthesis is an attempt to resolve a contradiction between two opposing thesisses.

thesis----->synthesis<-----anti-thesis

The most important distinction between philosophy and theology being; "perfect immutable being" [Philosophic thesis] cannot "become flesh" [Biblical antithesis], or in an other way, "perfect singular being" [Philosophic thesis] cannot be "plural/trinity" [Biblical antithesis].

All synthetic statements are irrational and confusing because they attempt to reconcile opposites such as this one on the creation of time by Augustine.

Augustine: "Thou madest all time and before all times thou art and there was never a time when there was no time."

I have never read anything more stupid in my life, I have read things just as stupid, but this is as bad as it gets; and all who follow this way of thinking are trapped in a system of theology that is not only anti-Biblical but also anti-logical--the product of the "Dark Ages".

 

[Nang]

Yet, because of that change we are given the grace to become ‘more perfect’ in Christ.

It is little remarks like this, that deviate from the true gospel message, that evidence OVT is just another form of humanism.

OVT is not theology, for theology is sincere study of God Almighty as revealed in Holy Scripture.

The wrong-thinking that God is mutable, and that the Bible reveals mutability, reflects nothing but pure delusion.

You people are being judged by God with this form of unbelief. And you are hearing trumpets of warning.

Take heed!

Nang

 

[patman]

ARM and Lonester,

Time is a progression of events. If time was a thing, and at point A in God's existence there was no time, then later at Point D there was, even though he were outside of it, there was a leading up of events that lead to time's creation. Well, that is a paradox too. God used time to create time?

So if God didn't create time, then time isn't a thing at all, it is just momentum, and God is a God full of life forever and always was. Therefore he always moved, always loved. That, to me, means time was always around, not as a creation, but as movement.

With no "creation of time", means only a moving forward of event after event also no defined or settled future, except what is settled by God, what he wants to make happen (such as the new heaven and new earth).

 

[Clete]

It is little remarks like this, that deviate from the true gospel message, that evidence OVT is just another form of humanism.

OVT is not theology, for theology is sincere study of God Almighty as revealed in Holy Scripture.

The wrong-thinking that God is mutable, and that the Bible reveals mutability, reflects nothing but pure delusion.

You people are being judged by God with this form of unbelief. And you are hearing trumpets of warning.

Take heed!

Nang

This response is bereft of spiritual substance.

It is merely the personal opinion of a hypocrite who calls herself, "Nang."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

ARM and Lonester,

Time is a progression of events. If time was a thing, and at point A in God's existence there was no time, then later at Point D there was, even though he were outside of it, there was a leading up of events that lead to time's creation. Well, that is a paradox too. God used time to create time?

So if God didn't create time, then time isn't a thing at all, it is just momentum, and God is a God full of life forever and always was. Therefore he always moved, always loved. That, to me, means time was always around, not as a creation, but as movement.

With no "creation of time", means only a moving forward of event after event also no defined or settled future, except what is settled by God, what he wants to make happen (such as the new heaven and new earth).

You have to avoid trying to fit notions of time from our own chronological natures onto God's transcendence. God exists outside of any time based realities. You are describing an endless duration, that is, endless time. God's eternity (the complete, forever present, and perfect possession of everlasting life) is something entirely different than this. We know God can act in time with His creation from the Scriptures, but we also know that God is somehow beyond time, unconstrained by time the way we are (1 Peter 1:20).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The following paper by John Sanders answers a lot of the questions that one might have about Open Theism due to the lack of any formal statements of faith or catechisms associated with the movement...

Is Open Theism Christian Theism?

It clearly shows what the actual difference is between Open Theism and any other form of Christian theism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks for the link!

 

[Clete]

You have to avoid trying to fit notions of time from our own chronological natures onto God's transcendence. God exists outside of any time based realities. You are describing an endless duration, that is, endless time. God's eternity (the complete, forever present, and perfect possession of everlasting life) is something entirely different than this. We know God can act in time with His creation from the Scriptures, but we also know that God is somehow beyond time, unconstrained by time the way we are (1 Peter 3).

In what way does 1Peter 3 support your contention that "God's eternity is something quite different than [endless duration]"?

In fact, what in all of Scripture supports that contention? Isn't this really just a statement of Greek philosophy and not Biblical truth?

Thanks for the link

You're quite welcome.

Should I be expecting a response to post 375 and 376?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

In what way does 1Peter 3 support your contention that "God's eternity is something quite different than [endless duration]"?

In fact, what in all of Scripture supports that contention? Isn't this really just a statement of Greek philosophy and not Biblical truth?



You're quite welcome.

Should I be expecting a response to post 375 and 376?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I've tried this before, but I'll float it once more. Our very perception of time is greatly influenced by our sin nature. We measure time in a way of progression or digression. God is perfect. In other words, our perception of time is based solely on change. This is why it is so important for the OV that God be involved in this process with us, but I believe God simply acts. There is not quantifier for time change except and only as it relates to us. I am convinced that our peceived importance of 'time' is greatly affected by our need for progress and change in our lives. The change needed is so dramatic that it accentuates our need to keep a watch. I do not believe time as measured in quantity is the same way God measures or acts at all. He moves in perfection, from one perfect to another. This is my understanding of God's unchanging nature. He does relate to us , but has no need to move in our perceived increments.

 

[Nang]

I've tried this before, but I'll float it once more. Our very perception of time is greatly influenced by our sin nature. We measure time in a way of progression or digression. God is perfect. In other words, our perception of time is based solely on change. This is why it is so important for the OV that God be involved in this process with us, but I believe God simply acts. There is not quantifier for time change except and only as it relates to us. I am convinced that our peceived importance of 'time' is greatly affected by our need for progress and change in our lives. The change needed is so dramatic that it accentuates our need to keep a watch. I do not believe time as measured in quantity is the same way God measures or acts at all. He moves in perfection, from one perfect to another. This is my understanding of God's unchanging nature. He does relate to us , but has no need to move in our perceived increments.

:thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've tried this before, but I'll float it once more. Our very perception of time is greatly influenced by our sin nature. We measure time in a way of progression or digression. God is perfect. In other words, our perception of time is based solely on change. This is why it is so important for the OV that God be involved in this process with us, but I believe God simply acts. There is not quantifier for time change except and only as it relates to us. I am convinced that our peceived importance of 'time' is greatly affected by our need for progress and change in our lives. The change needed is so dramatic that it accentuates our need to keep a watch. I do not believe time as measured in quantity is the same way God measures or acts at all. He moves in perfection, from one perfect to another. This is my understanding of God's unchanging nature. He does relate to us , but has no need to move in our perceived increments.

If a sin nature in us OVer's causes us to wrongly preceive God and time;

and if you SVer's rightly preceive God as perfect and timeless;

then you SVer's must not have a sin nature. :rotfl:

 

[Nang]

If a sin nature in us OVer's causes us to wrongly preceive God and time;

Dust cannot perceive God or time or truth.

and if you SVer's rightly preceive God as perfect and timeless;

then you SVer's must not have a sin nature. :rotfl:

You present a very dopey and illogical argument.

Any creature made of dust, can only perceive the truths of God, when and if the Holy Spirit of Christ chooses to regenerate and abide within the sinner:

"But we have this treasure in earthly vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us." II Cor. 4:7

Which proves you OV'ers must be bereft of God's Spirit, or else you would properly discern the truths that pertain to your sin nature, as well as the eternal things of God.

IOW's you remain blind, DFT, and yet you would seek to lead the blind.

:sigh:

 

[godrulz]

Dave: I was just reading Boyd's arguments for and against Molinism. He calls his position neo-Molinism which is a form of Open Theism. Molinism does affirm exhaustive definite foreknowledge based on 'middle knowledge'. This does not sit well with me at all (very confusing). I like Boyd's expansion where he feels Molinism's error is that it stops and would/would not counterfactuals of freedom. He adds might and might not counterfactuals of freedom leading to two motifs (some future open, some settled) instead of EDF. I think I would distance myself even more from Molinism and its idea of actualizing possible worlds to the point of knowing what free creatures would do in every circumstance. Free choice has an element of uncertainty, no matter what, or it is not libertarian freedom.

In the end, I would reject William Lane Craig's Molinism (Catholic roots) in favor of Boyd's understanding (Molinism is not Open Theism from what I can tell).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dust cannot perceive God or time or truth.

You present a very dopey and illogical argument.

Any creature made of dust, can only perceive the truths of God, when and if the Holy Spirit of Christ chooses to regenerate and abide within the sinner:

"But we have this treasure in earthly vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us." II Cor. 4:7

Which proves you OV'ers must be bereft of God's Spirit, or else you would properly discern the truths that pertain to your sin nature, as well as the eternal things of God.

IOW's you remain blind, DFT, and yet you would seek to lead the blind.

So why do you bother with us?

 

[Nang]

So why do you bother with us?

I am commissioned to preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

What comes of my witness is entirely in the hands of God; He will either apply the gospel to save you, or He will apply the gospel to condemn you.

At least you will have been warned . . .just as Adam was first warned of the consequences of his unbelief.

The trumpets are sounding . . .

Nang

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave: I was just reading Boyd's arguments for and against Molinism. He calls his position neo-Molinism which is a form of Open Theism. Molinism does affirm exhaustive definite foreknowledge based on 'middle knowledge'. This does not sit well with me at all (very confusing). I like Boyd's expansion where he feels Molinism's error is that it stops and would/would not counterfactuals of freedom. He adds might and might not counterfactuals of freedom leading to two motifs (some future open, some settled) instead of EDF. I think I would distance myself even more from Molinism and its idea of actualizing possible worlds to the point of knowing what free creatures would do in every circumstance. Free choice has an element of uncertainty, no matter what, or it is not libertarian freedom.

In the end, I would reject William Lane Craig's Molinism (Catholic roots) in favor of Boyd's understanding (Molinism is not Open Theism from what I can tell).

You might want to move this to our other thread.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Should I be expecting a response to post 375 and 376?

I will get to your other posts. My queue is getting long. You must appreciate that I am but one of a few that are sitting on one side of a theological table across from quite a lot of others with questions, comments, and so forth. lain:

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am commissioned to preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

What comes of my witness is entirely in the hands of God; He will either apply the gospel to save you, or He will apply the gospel to condemn you.

At least you will have been warned . . .just as Adam was first warned of the consequences of his unbelief.

The trumpets are sounding . . .

Nang

Why would you bother to warn me? Isn't my destiny already determined and decreed by God.

 

[Nang]

This response is bereft of spiritual substance.

It is merely the personal opinion of a hypocrite who calls herself, "Nang."

Clete,

Thank you so much for your predictable resort to ad hominem as reply . . . it makes me feel more secure in my assessment of your loser position.

And thank you, too, for the neg rep.

It is telling that you must stoop so low and choose such pathetic means to voice your opposing views, in lieu of honest theological retort.

:kiss:

Nang

 

[Nang]

Why would you bother to warn me? Isn't my destiny already determined and decreed by God.

Your destiny is surely determined, and those who are prepared for destruction will refuse and fail to hear the fair warnings of God, who justly gives all the world warnings of His impending judgments.

However, there are also those who are surely predestined to everlasting life, who will be given ears to hear His voice. . .

Do you hear or not?

Will you heed the warnings of Godly trumpets, or not?

Only God knows . . . I only bring the message . . .