ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Berean Todd said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

godrulz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

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.

Hi everyone,

godrulz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

General election is also an option.

General election is also an option.

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.

godrulz said:

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).

Click to expand...

Proverbs 8 is about the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the Christ ever referred to as the "wisdom of God."

Battuta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Battuta said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Frank Ernest said:

Proverbs 8 is about the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the Christ ever referred to as the "wisdom of God."

Click to expand...

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:

Glorious Predestination.

Glorious Predestination.

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.

Battuta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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,

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Battuta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood.

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.

godrulz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You'll catch on if you keep at it.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Frank Ernest said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Battuta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Comparing before creation and before birth

Comparing before creation and before birth

Originally posted by ChristisKing

Maybe the Lord is teaching you something here.

Click to expand...

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.