ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

godrulz said:

Context is king (Christ is KING). Quoting a verse does not interpret it in context. The immediate and remote context does not support individual election. This is Calvinistic eisegesis and a deterministic interpretation. God's sovereign choice of Israel did not guarantee that every Israelite would be faithful to YHWH. God's purposes can be thwarted at times (Lk. 7:30; 13:34; Acts 7:51, etc.). God dealing with His people and an ungodly Pharaoh has global implications. This does not mean that individual kings or Jews were predestined from eternity to turn or burn in salvation issues. Jacob and Esau also represented nations with purposes, not individual heaven-hell salvation. Hyper-sovereignty is a deterministic filter that distorts Scripture.

Click to expand...

That's what godrulz says. I think the Scripture is very clear on this point. God has prepared vessels for destruction and He has prepared vessels of mercy for glory. Two types of plural vessels and two different destinies. God is the potter, we are the clay....you really have to really try hard to change the obvious meaning of these verses....

and you are trying really hard.

I care what you think, ChristisKing. If I just wanted to read the scriptures, I wouldn't go online.

Do I need to say please?

Battuta said:

I care what you think, ChristisKing. If I just wanted to read the scriptures, I wouldn't go online.

Do I need to say please?

Click to expand...

No not at all, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I just hate going to bible studies when everyone raises their hand saying, "Well this is what I think it says....," and "this is what I think it means...etc."

I really don't care what they or I think it means. I like Scripture to interpret Scripture. I want the Lord to tell me what it means. That's how I interpret a text, so that's all you'll see me doing.

The Scripture I gave you is a direct answer to your question. Why else would the Holy Spirit ask this critical question about God doing somthing that appears unjust and unloving, as godrulz puts it. He obviously anticipated that this doctrine of double predestination would be very offensive to us as sinners and as a result that these sinful questions would be asked:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

This doctrine of predestination was also very offensive to Jesus' disciples:

JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOH 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

ChristisKing said:

No not at all, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I just hate going to bible studies when everyone raises their hand saying, "Well this is what I think it says....," and "this is what I think it means...etc."

I really don't care what they or I think it means. I like Scripture to interpret Scripture. I want the Lord to tell me what it means. That's how I interpret a text, so that's all you'll see me doing.

Click to expand...

If this were true, you would not, could not be, a Calvinist. Calvinism is not taught by the Scripture at all.

The Scripture I gave you is a direct answer to your question. Why else would the Holy Spirit ask this critical question about God doing somthing that appears unjust and unloving, as godrulz puts it. He obviously anticipated that this doctrine of double predestination would be very offensive to us as sinners and as a result that these sinful questions would be asked:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Click to expand...

Romans 9 is not talking about God's dealings with indiviual people but with group; with nations, specifically the nation of Israel vs. the gentile nations. You have been shown this about a dozen times and yet you ignore this plain and simple Biblical fact, which belies you previous pious sounding statement about letting Scripture interpret itself.

This doctrine of predestination was also very offensive to Jesus' disciples:

JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
JOH 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Click to expand...

The above quotation is from Biblicalanswers.com


Resting in Him,
Clete

ChristisKing said:

I think the Scripture is very clear on this point. God has prepared vessels for destruction and He has prepared vessels of mercy for glory. Two types of plural vessels and two different destinies. God is the potter, we are the clay....you really have to really try hard to change the obvious meaning of these verses....

Click to expand...

ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?If your idea of the meaning of those verses is correct then that is the only possible conclusion.

However,a closer examination of the verses reveal an entirely different teaching.The contrast which is revealed is not between eternal life and spiritual death,but instead between "honor" and "dishonor".

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use on the table of a king,while he designs anoher for some base,though equally useful,purpose.But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of destroying it must be some kind of a maniac.

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.And that is exactly what the following words refer to:

"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"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart because he himself had closed it against abundant proofs of His divine power.Toward those who fear Him His mercy is boundless,but no one can despise God with impunity.

So these verses are not teaching that Pharoah was a vessel who was predestined for destruction or that the Lord is a mad potter who would make vessels for the purpose of destroying them.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Originally Posted by Clete

Romans 9 is not talking about God's dealings with individual people but with groups or with nations, specifically the nation of Israel vs. the gentile nations.

Click to expand...

Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Battuta said:

Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Click to expand...

Pharoah was dealt with because he was the king of the nation of Egypt. The text actually says that both Pharaoh hardened his own heart AND that God hardened Pharoah's heart, and both are true. God used miracles (the plagues) to harden Pharaoh's heart and such hardening was no surprise to God but Pharaoh could have repented at any time. There was no need for 10 plagues, there could have been 1 or 12 or none depending on how Pharoah acted as king of Egypt. And so, God knew Pharoah well enough to fully expect him to harden his heart if miracles were performed and Pharaoh chose to do just that.
Notice that the Plagues were visited upon the entire nation of Egypt not just Pharoah himself. Again, Romans 9 is talking about nations, not individuals, the reference to a king of one of those nations not withstanding. The reference to Jer. 18 in Romans 9 is further proof of this. No other interpretation is possible. There can be no doubt about it, Romans 9 is not the cornerstone of Calvinism that Calvinists make it out to be.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart said:

ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?If your idea of the meaning of those verses is correct then that is the only possible conclusion.

However,a closer examination of the verses reveal an entirely different teaching.The contrast which is revealed is not between eternal life and spiritual death,but instead between "honor" and "dishonor".

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use on the table of a king,while he designs anoher for some base,though equally useful,purpose.But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of destroying it must be some kind of a maniac.

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.And that is exactly what the following words refer to:

"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"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart because he himself had closed it against abundant proofs of His divine power.Toward those who fear Him His mercy is boundless,but no one can despise God with impunity.

So these verses are not teaching that Pharoah was a vessel who was predestined for destruction or that the Lord is a mad potter who would make vessels for the purpose of destroying them.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Positive rep for you. I thought you were on the other side of the debate?

Battuta said:

Pharaoh is an individual, and what it says about him in Romans 9 refers to God's dealing with him as an individual. He is referred to immediately before the verses we are discussing and is directly involved in the context.

Please describe for us, Clete, how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Click to expand...

Pharaoh is an individual. The point is that it is not talking about election or reprobation to salvation or hell.

Jerry Shugart said:

ChristisKing,

In regard to the Scriptures that you refer to are we supposed to believe that the Lord is a mad potter who prepares vessels for the express purpose of destroying them?

Click to expand...

Don't you see, that is the exact question and charge that the Holy Spirit anticipated that anyone who "rightly" understood what He was revealing would ask and make. Listen to what He asks you after He reveals double predestination:

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Jerry, what you write does not cause me to ask these questions. What you write is comforting and very palatable. I only ask these questions, recorded in Scripture, when I understand that what He is teaching is plainly what is written and that is:

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

That causes me, as a sinner, to charge God with unrighteousness, not your palatable commentary.

When God is accused of unfair play.

When God is accused of unfair play.

Thank you Clete. I'm somewhat in agreement with you. But I would like to express a different argument.

The Bible records God hardening different individual's hearts. We are told what God wants to achieve when doing this, and sometimes His methods are detailed. Pharaoh is the classic example.

God wanted to do a world-class miracle. He wanted to demonstrate his power to the nations. He wanted to say afterwards, "Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?" (This is Deut. 4:34). He wanted a lot of witnesses. He is the God who gives reasons for people to trust in Him.

God concluded if Pharaoh's heart got harder, He would in all righteousness be able to do more and bigger miracles and wonders in response, thus gaining maximum credibility among the nations.

His planned worked wonderfully, but afterward there was a hint of accusation in the crowd. Satan surely had some accusations about these events, and people came up with some, too. They said God didn't comply with His own rules. He wasn't being just. He shouldn't be allowed to harden Pharaoh's heart.

God has never done anything unjust. But some of the things He does are interpreted to be unjust by others. In answer to these accusations God gives this defense:

1. To His loved ones, he describes in detail the methods he used to harden Pharaoh's heart. He wants us to examen them and agree, we can find no fault in Him. He wants us to look at this and say, "I will sing unto the LORD for He has triumphed gloriously; the horse and rider fell into the sea!" He wants us to know He is able to work in any situation, yet He will stick to the rules in all righteousness.

2. To those who reject Him, he answers, "Who are you to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ' why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Read it right through to Romans 9:24 or further.

If this is taken out of context, it might seem to refer to double predestination. In context, God is being accused of unfair play when he intentionally seeks to harden individual's hearts. Look at the details and the accusation doesn't hold water.

ChristisKing said:

What you write is comforting and very palatable. I only ask these questions, recorded in Scripture, when I understand that what He is teaching is plainly what is written and that is:

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

That causes me, as a sinner, to charge God with unrighteousness, not your palatable commentary.

Click to expand...

ChristisKing,

You completely ignored the words of Paul in regard to "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction":

"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"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

That firs perfectly with the words of Paul at another place:

"Who will have all men to be saved,and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Pharaoh might have found mercy had he repented and confessed his sins.However,according to those who deny the words of Paul that the Lord "will have all men to be saved" the Lord is a mad potter who would make a vessel with the purpose of destroying that vessel.

And yes,the Lord says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy,but He also says that "He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him"(Heb.11:6).

So go ahead and deny that the Lord will have all men to be saved,but remember that that you are believing what men say about the Scriptures instead of what the Scriptures actually say.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz said:

Positive rep for you. I thought you were on the other side of the debate?

Click to expand...

godrulz,

I believe,like open theists believe,that the salvation of a sinner depends on the present actions of the Living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience.I do not believe that that a person's destiny is determined by what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate--the false idea that at some time in the past God decided that this or that person was to be saved.

However,I cannot go along with the idea put forth by many open thesists who "proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events",as ChristisKing says on his opening post on this thread.

All the teaching of those who say that a person's destiny is determined by an iron decree of fate can be answered without denying what the Scriptures say about the Lord's ability to see future events:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"(Isa.46:9-10).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart said:

godrulz,

I believe,like open theists believe,that the salvation of a sinner depends on the present actions of the Living God Who can appeal through the gospel to his heart and conscience.I do not believe that that a person's destiny is determined by what is nothing more or less than an iron decree of fate--the false idea that at some time in the past God decided that this or that person was to be saved.

However,I cannot go along with the idea put forth by many open thesists who "proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events",as ChristisKing says on his opening post on this thread.

All the teaching of those who say that a person's destiny is determined by an iron decree of fate can be answered without denying what the Scriptures say about the Lord's ability to see future events:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"(Isa.46:9-10).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

I think Pinnock (Open Theist) captures the nuance of how God knows future contingencies (possible vs actual):

"Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only POSSIBLE and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as POSSIBLE and not actual."

I concur that the Gospel was preached persuasively to all men. Those who responded in repentant faith were saved, while those who rejected the conviction and influence of the Spirit remained dead in sin. God's love is impartial, not arbitrary. Even Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement. Irresistible grace is also an oxymoron.

Contingency implies equal possibility of being or not being. Until the choice is made, it is only known as a possibility among alternatives. It becomes a certainty/actuality after the choice. Probability based on perfect past and present knowledge can make many things almost certain for God. This knowledge is still proximal to the choice as opposed to remote knowledge trillions of years ago before the free moral agents even existed.

Is. 46 is not about foreknowledge or omniscience. The way God can see or know certain settled aspects of the future, is that He purposes to bring them to pass apart from contingency by His omnicompetent ABILITY. Exhaustive foreknowledge is problematic in light of contingency and unnecessary for God to settle certain things. Is. 46 should not be extrapolated as a general principle. The context would suggest it is about proximal judgments that God intends to bring to pass based on His perfect present and past knowledge. It is not about remote events in the future (though this is possible in such things as the First and Second Coming of Christ, Revelation judgments, etc.). Again, these are broad, general themes. It does not imply, nor is it necessary, that every minute moral and mundane detail in the universe be predestined to creatively bring things to pass. God rules providentially and responsively, not by meticulous control or exhaustive decree.

Does this sound plausible, if not probable as an alternate understanding to Calvinism?

Can I give myself rep points

godrulz said:

I think Pinnock (Open Theist) captures the nuance of how God knows future contingencies (possible vs actual):

"Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only POSSIBLE and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as POSSIBLE and not actual."

Click to expand...

godrulz,

The problem I have with this is that people like Pinnock say that they understand the way that the Lord works even though the Scriptures reveal that no one knows these things:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.11:33,34).

The only Scriptual evidence that I have ever seen presented by those representing the open view are instances where they take anthropomorphisms and interpret them in a wooden,literal fashion.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart said:

godrulz,

The problem I have with this is that people like Pinnock say that they understand the way that the Lord works even though the Scriptures reveal that no one knows these things:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.11:33,34).

The only Scriptual evidence that I have ever seen presented by those representing the open view are instances where they take anthropomorphisms and interpret them in a wooden,literal fashion.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Books on Open Theism usually present the biblical, historical, theological, philosophical basis for the view. Some issues relating to time, eternity, foreknowledge, free will, predestination, etc. require godly, philosophical speculation if they are not explicitly addressed in a systematic way in the Bible. e.g. chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and modal logic give principles that apply to the debate. "Eternal now" is speculative Greek philosophy, but assumed to be the only view consistent with Scripture. In reality, there are 4 views on the nature of time/eternity that have merit as possible explanations of the biblical data. e.g. exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity like God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. It is not that God's ways are beyond reason. It is that we reason away His revelation. If it says God changes His mind, we should accept this. Proof texts that say God does not change His mind in specific cases do not mean that He cannot change His mind (Platonic), but that He will not at times.

Millard Erickson (What does God know and when does He know it?) gives a balanced critque of Open Theism. He recognizes that the Open and Classical view both claim Scriptural support and require some philosophical speculation.

I think it is less problematic to take verses revealing God's character and ways literally unless it is clear that it is figurative (God has wings, etc.). Making revelation anthropomorphic to support a preconceived theology is a weaker position than changing classic views that do not have Scriptural support (e.g. strong immutability; impassibility).

Jerry Shugart said:

ChristisKing,

You completely ignored the words of Paul in regard to "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction":

"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"(Ro.9:22).

The words "with much longsuffering" mean the same at Ro.9:22 as they do in the following verse:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2Pet.3:9).

That firs perfectly with the words of Paul at another place:

"Who will have all men to be saved,and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Click to expand...

Jerry,

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:

The longsuffering in this verse is God having to suffer through the rebellion of the vessels fitted for destruction so He could reveal His wrath and power against sin.

2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The longsuffering in this verse is God having to suffer through the sins of "us", the elect. Peter is writing this letter "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,..." (I Peter 1:1-2) So the "us-ward" Peter is referring to is the "Elect strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" and Peter.

God suffers long with "vessels He has fitted for destruction" so He can reveal His wrath and power to the world and He also suffers long through the sins of the Elect to reveal His mercy on them to the world.

1TI 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1TI 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1TI 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The "all men to be saved" in verse 4 is the same as the "all men" in verse 1. Paul is not asking Timothy to pray for every single man on Earth, that would be ridiculous to read this into his letter. Paul is simply teaching Timothy to pray for all types of men; "For kings, and for all that are in authority." Even those these Roman pagan kings and princes crucified Christ and were viciously persecuting the Church. Paul was teaching Timothy that they should be prayed for because God was going to save all types of men, even these pagan kings and others in authority.

You still have not dealt with the issue as to why the Holy Spirit would assume we would accuse God of "unrighteousness" and "why He would find fault" with sinners or "who has resisted His will?" Why is the Holy Spirit assuming that we would have these thoughts? Why would we think God was unrighteous, or question why He would find fault with sinners, or "who is resisting His will by doing evil?"

Why?

Because He is revealing that God creates vessels for destruction, just like the Scriptures plainly teach. He is teaching that God predestined them to do exactly what they are doing and that's hard on our puny little sinful brains. That's why He assumes our sinful minds will have these questions, He knows we as sinners will immediately accuse and rail against Him of being a "mad Potter," just as you have done.

ROM 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
ROM 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part One

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part One

How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

A. He allowed Pharaoh’s predecessor to mistreat the Hebrews with impunity.

1. He left a whole nation, supposedly known as God’s chosen people, in slavery and providing force labor to the Egyptians for many years (Exodus 1:11).

2. Pharaoh’s predecessor was allowed to extend murderous and cruel domination over these Hebrews. Slave masters worked them ruthlessly (Exodus 1:13) They made their lives bitter with hard labor (1:14). Pharaoh’s predecessor had the baby Hebrew boys thrown into the Nile (1:22). He literally got away with murder.

This would give Pharaoh the impression he was strong enough to resist God.

Some verses say Pharaoh hardened his own heart; others say God hardened it. It would not be just to harden a soft heart apart from what is already in it. The sun melts wax or hardens clay. God judicially further hardened Pharaoh's already self-made hard heart.

godrulz said:

Some verses say Pharaoh hardened his own heart; others say God hardened it. It would not be just to harden a soft heart apart from what is already in it. The sun melts wax or hardens clay. God judicially further hardened Pharaoh's already self-made hard heart.

Click to expand...

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?