ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Choice, not foreknowledge is the issue. In Romans, they also represent nations (see Genesis quote), not individuals (mission, not salvation).
Love vs hate here is also relative. Jesus said to hate parents in comparison to our love for Him, but this does not mean a wooden literalism or Jesus would be contradicting the Decalogue and the Father.
elected4ever
New member
I really don't think the two can be separated. At least in this debate they cannot.
True
Lon
Well-known member
I see in this, a desire to preserve something, which I value, but it was always an error not to see it in traditional theology. We cannot presume order and hierarchy with His attributes. They are all so intricately part of His complete nature. If you've seen Sovereignty as imperical in Calvinist doctrine, it is merely the fact that He is God and we are but creations and trying to keep those in proper perspective. Emphasis, is not the same as driven, nor is character separate from those mentioned here. Theology, I believe, is a great revealer. You know by one's theology what is most important to him or her. Our divergence seems mostly centered either in our Love and devotion to God, or in our devotion to man. Calvinism, I believe, focuses on God to give Him preeminence in our lives. It can tromp on feelings, things taken for granted, and sensibilities, but I came to the point where I recognized my sensibilities were still somewhat ego-centric. As I began working through scripture, I came naturally to a reformed stance and began aligning what I believed to be true with Calvinist doctrines I'd rejected in the past. For about 10 years, I considered myself a 3 3/4 point Calvinist, partly because I still had to wrestle with it to understand and fit it to scripture, partly because of the resistance from my Arminian upbringing. As you might imagine, it was limited atonement but I also had trouble reconciling irresistible grace and a bit of perseverance of the saints as it related to Salvation.
Limited Atonement wasn't as big of a hurdle as I'd imagined once I understood what it was and wasn't. It took awhile to get a good explanation. OSAS isn't the same as perseverance of the saints and there is a lot of discussion always going on to clarify what we believe about saints and their perseverance and specifically how it differs from OSAS. OSAS is held by someone in all our camps and because of that, I think it is a can of worms to try and dig through.
All this to say, I had similar concerns and hadn't seen Calvinists as the loving 'huggy/feely' sort, not until I'd gotten to know a few and see a balance with His Sovereignty and Majesty. As could be imagined, most of my friends are decidedly Arminian. I tend to see our theological perspectives as differing priorities and emphasis on the structure of what is most important to us. As a Calvinist, God's love is very important to me. All of our Theology, I'd hope, would be based on His loving relationship to us.
elected4ever
New member
OSAS has more to do with God 's promises than with man's ability to live a perfect life in the flesh. It is God's promise that sustains me and not my ability to live a perfect life while still in human flesh. It is what I once was that I was delivered from and what God has now made me to be that fuels my love for God and righteousness.
Lon
Well-known member
No they don't. Here is AMR's (John Piper) and here is Hilston's.
Decretive means allow rather than desire. God will work with the way things are moving such as "All things work for good." It isn't that God wants us to suffer in order to grow, but that there is no other way. He is working through that which is undesired (sin and its effects) to bring about His desire and love for us.
His prescriptive will is His commands. What we are expressly called to do or what happens because He decides it will be done. God does not will (command) that sin exist. It is hated by Him. He will work through them to bring about His desires.
Lon
Well-known member
My point was that it isn't just a Calvinist doctrine. I do understand where you are coming from. My biggest caution is that it can lead some who have no right to believe the saved part, presume upon it. I do believe with you, a saint should have assurance from God and His Word.
elected4ever
New member
Just me I suppose. I am not as obnoxious as I use to be.
Lon
Well-known member
elected4ever
New member
This is not what Calvin taught. You need to review quotes from him that are more exhaustive in scope of His monothetic will (you are trying to retain Arminian 'baggage'). One can also not be less than a 5 point Calvinist according to thinking Calvinists. The whole thing is dependent on each other. If you disprove or reject one point, it all crashes down.
In all our views, we desire to be theo vs ego/anthro centric. We all desire to exalt God's majesty and sovereignty. The problem is with a wrong view of sovereignty that compromises His other attributes (love, goodness, etc.). There is much more emphasis on relational love in Scripture than a verse or two that implies His sovereignty. Again, His power is not divorced from love, wisdom, God-given creaturely freedom, etc.
I think you are in transition and the cement has not hardened yet (thankfully...there is hope).
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Calvinism-Calvinist-System/dp/1931667888
I am finding this book surprisingly fair, thorough, and shocking. I double dare you...
elected4ever
New member
I don't think that ether view tells the whole story. Half truths are error and both sides are guilty of that.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Just a suggestion -
http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=61
You may as well consider all of the evidence.
http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=61
You may as well consider all of the evidence.
elected4ever
New member
If you wont to buy into that trash, be my guest. Bob is right on some issues and wrong on others in my view. If you wont to have a discussion of a particular issue then put it forth and we will discus it. Don't expect me to buy in on an issue because "Bob" said so.
themuzicman
Well-known member
And it doesn't, here. Do you want me to bring a more doctrinal case?
And the question is whether OVT is biblical. IT certainly makes that effort.
Premised based upon exegesis.
Again, when is your confirmation? Or are you going EO?
Assert assert assert.
Only in your assertion.
And now you insert words into the text. Is there nothing sacred that you wont' assert opposition?
Tell me how your claim that God really meant "Now you know" isn't just as great an assertion, if not even more so than mine.
At least the text says what I claim it says.
The only thing going around in circles is you. You go around accusing me of assert assert assert, and yet, to explain this text away, that's all you do.
I've studied church history. I see how theology comes about. It's not pretty. The church went 1500 years before Luther came around to assert sola fide. Do you reject sola fide because most of Christendom rejects it?
You'd have said the same thing to Luther.
Again, are you going RCC or EO? Do you now reject sola fide? Are indulgences acceptable to you?
That's fine. I'm willing to be patient. People rejected Luther and Lutherans. People still do. That doesn't make him wrong.
Muz
Lon
Well-known member
I may pick it up in the future but I'm finding exactly what I expect from the comments. You'll note these aren't just run of the mill comments but those vehemently opposed to the position. It seems it is an 'atta-boy' for anti-Calvinists. I think if I were him, I'd write my own review when my material caters to the prejudice crowd. I would also guess that there is nothing new there that hasn't been discussed at length here. Still, I will look for it.
Lon
Well-known member
No, I want doctorates to bring in more. Is the OV camp bereft of scholars? I don't mean to belittle OVer's but that lack of credentials lies suspect. I do realize Boyd has it, but even OVer's reject aspects of Pinnock and Sanders from their own camp!
I disagree. If it were me, I'd be earning many more degrees 1) because I'd want to be absolutely sure AND pursuasive 2) Because I recognize the huge weight of burden of proof and after being convince, would also realize I now had to convince the whole of the Christian world of the fact. I'd be run by passion, hock my house, and be the forerunner fully recognizing the opposition. There would be a tenor of proving right, but there'd also be a love for others to see them get it right. Isn't it odd, that TOL has 'Truth of Smack' and 'Open rebuke...' when it purportedly seeks to salvage God's relational love? Isn't it odd that TOL seems more smack than love?
I find it difficult to believe OV preserves His relational qualities when the disciples of it are about other things. It just doesn't seem a love revolution after all.
Do I have to say 'tomorrow' for you to stop asking? Is the question supposed to be maligning?
Hebrew commentaries even say this. You are saying I'm asserting when it is you who are disagreeing?
'now'
עתּה
‛attâh
at-taw'
From [H5703]; at this time, whether adverbial, conjugational or expletive: - henceforth, now, straightway, this time, whereas.
H5703
עד
‛ad
ad
properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end.
'since'
לה לוא לא
lô' lô' lôh
lo, lo, lo
lo; a primitive particle; not (the simple or abstract negation); by implication no; often used with other particles: - X before, + or else, ere, + except, ig [-norant], much, less, nay, neither, never, no ([-ne], -r, [-thing]), (X as though . . . , [can-], for) not (out of), of nought, otherwise, out of, + surely, + as truly as, + of a truth, + verily, for want, + whether, without.
I'm beginning to question your language credentials at this point. I cannot believe you just said this because of the implication in means to your prowess. Retract or admit.
Both you and GR have said this. I looked high and low for this and nobody in this thread said anything of the sort. Can you build a poorer strawman?
Go back up to those Strong's excerpts for the 2nd point.
Just because you don't like it does not mean I haven't done my homework. Take them point by point. Show me from the language that I'm wrong. Show me from scholarship support. Show me from the context where it can be assumed God had no idea what Abraham would do and prove Now and Since are the only options available and that they expressly reveal lack of prescience.
Definition of sola fide usually has us in agreement. It is how works plays in connection to this that brings dissonance.
themuzicman
Well-known member
OK, so the foundation of your objection is that OVT doesn't have a long lineage of scholars who give some foundation to it?
Muz
Muz
I have just started the book, so blame me, not him. Reading Calvin's quotes convinces me he missed the boat because of his wrong assumptions about God's will, sovereignty, free will, etc. When cornered, he must appeal to mystery/antimony. Open Theism can appeal to Scripture because it is coherent.