ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Mr. 5020
New member
The game "Snake" in the TOL Arcade (click here).Bob Hill said:
:thumb:Mr. 5020 said:
God rules is fine. rulz is a modern thing and a shorter form. God is normally capitalized, but it is not in the Greek (theos). It was also a fad to use small letters for names and is quicker to type. We know that God is not a god. He is THE GOD. Rulz seems cool vs rules.
Bob Hill:
I agree that there is a different emphasis in Johannine, Petrine, and Pauline writings. I disagree that there are two Gospels. There are two covenants (OT/NT) and two target audiences for the one NT Gospel (Gal. 2).
Is John 3:16; 36 void for post-Mid Acts believers/unbelievers?
There does seem to be a Gospel of the Kingdom in the Gospels for Israel. When they crucified the King, this message was postponed until the Tribulation. The Church Age emphasizes the Gospel of Grace found in the death and resurrection of Christ.
It seems to me that there was a transition period where thick skulled Peter and others were having trouble seeing the shift from Jew to Gentile. I do not think this means they preached a different gospel, but God had to lead them into greater understanding and truth progressively.
I would not pit Peter's Gospel against Paul's Gospel since they are the one Gospel centered around the person and work of Christ. I would also be slow to negate much of the Gospels and NT for modern believers.
Just because baptism is mentioned in one context, but not another is not definitive proof for two Gospels. Just because a verse mentions the Father, but not the Son, does not mean their is no triune God. We need to look at all relevant verses in context to formulate an understanding.
I appreciate Open Theism, but do not fully understand Mid-Acts. My initial impression is that it is half truth. There are better, alternate explanations for the so-called doctrinal conflicts/problems.
Thank you for your patient building of your case. I respect your insights, but am not comfortable swallowing them uncritically.
Heb. 6:4-6 can be difficult to exegete. I believe it is relevant to us, though it was primarily directed at Christians who were former Jews.
I find it strange that there would be an Old Covenant, a circumcision Gospel (very limited time version), an uncircumcision gospel. I see a pre-resurrection and post-resurrection of Christ Gospel. The transition period was short and no need for another Gospel. Modern Jews convert with the Pauline Gospel, do they not?
I agree that there is a different emphasis in Johannine, Petrine, and Pauline writings. I disagree that there are two Gospels. There are two covenants (OT/NT) and two target audiences for the one NT Gospel (Gal. 2).
Is John 3:16; 36 void for post-Mid Acts believers/unbelievers?
There does seem to be a Gospel of the Kingdom in the Gospels for Israel. When they crucified the King, this message was postponed until the Tribulation. The Church Age emphasizes the Gospel of Grace found in the death and resurrection of Christ.
It seems to me that there was a transition period where thick skulled Peter and others were having trouble seeing the shift from Jew to Gentile. I do not think this means they preached a different gospel, but God had to lead them into greater understanding and truth progressively.
I would not pit Peter's Gospel against Paul's Gospel since they are the one Gospel centered around the person and work of Christ. I would also be slow to negate much of the Gospels and NT for modern believers.
Just because baptism is mentioned in one context, but not another is not definitive proof for two Gospels. Just because a verse mentions the Father, but not the Son, does not mean their is no triune God. We need to look at all relevant verses in context to formulate an understanding.
I appreciate Open Theism, but do not fully understand Mid-Acts. My initial impression is that it is half truth. There are better, alternate explanations for the so-called doctrinal conflicts/problems.
Thank you for your patient building of your case. I respect your insights, but am not comfortable swallowing them uncritically.
Heb. 6:4-6 can be difficult to exegete. I believe it is relevant to us, though it was primarily directed at Christians who were former Jews.
I find it strange that there would be an Old Covenant, a circumcision Gospel (very limited time version), an uncircumcision gospel. I see a pre-resurrection and post-resurrection of Christ Gospel. The transition period was short and no need for another Gospel. Modern Jews convert with the Pauline Gospel, do they not?
Why did you ask the same question twice?RobE said:
I suppose you mean, why didn't God just do something that all men would be saved no matter what, right? Well, God, not wanting to force people, allowed us a choice. Because He loves us, and wants us to love Him in return. And you can't have genuine love from someone who does not choose to love you, even if you were God.
And, no, Christ did not expect all to be saved after the crucifixion. He knew not everyone would be saved, but that there were those who would. And He was willing to risk the propitiation of His sacrafice for the sake of those who would turn to Him, knowing that not all would. He loved us so much He was willing to risk it.
Absolutely nowhere.
And? That has no bearing. Because God did not know, He created Adam and Eve, and wanted a relationship with them, at the risk that they may fall. But He had such love in His heart, He felt the risk was worth it.
How does it defeat Open Theism? Free will is part of the package of the image of God. And God was not surprised. He knew it was possible. And you can't even explain how God not knowing the future makes His reasons invalid. Unless you think His reasons are not the reasons I believe He had.
His love isn't the point.
Do you really think it would make sense for Christ to say, "I know you will die without me, and go to hell, but I love you anyway, so I'm going to die so that you may live with me for eternity, even though you won't." Do you really believe that makes sense? to anyone? Do you actually believe that makes sense to God?
John Calvin is not the one who came up with the idea of eternal security. God is, and it's in the Bible. Paul mentioned it constantly.
Yes. Because He gave us free will.
But you can't answer why Christ died for someone who is unable to come to salvation.
Actually, no. they wouldn't.
You do realize that if He had not created us, then we would not exist, nor even be thought of and therefore it would not matter to us, or anyone, not even God, that we could not be saved. None of it would exist, or even be thought of. And if He hadn't created the tree, and had not told them there were things they could not do then we would all still live in the Garden of Eden and none of it would matter then, either. Some, probably most, of us would not even exist.
elected4ever
New member
Bob Hill said:
elected4ever said:
We disagree on some things, but I also take a stand with your conclusion. After the birth of the Church in power and glory by the Holy Spirit, Peter preached THE Gospel of the risen Christ. Paul preached the same Gospel, but primarily took it to Gentiles, instead of Jews. Peter was slow on the uptake during the transition period of the formation of the early church. Paul corrected him on some things, but did not say Peter and others had been preaching a different gospel that was only valid for a short time. Paul did say the Judaizers and others preached another gospel (heteros) of a different kind. There are two covenants, one true Gospel for the Church, and many false gospels (cf. John vs incipient Gnosticism or Doceticism).
RobE
New member
Lighthouse said:
No matter how it's phrased your statement is true whether God foresaw the future or not. You just can't get it through your head that free will can exist when the creator foresees the outcome.
Lighthouse said:
Whether He foresaw our outcome or not. Same answer. Do you see what I'm saying? How could he KNOW not everyone would be saved unless your saying He knew the future?
Lighthouse said:
Was worth what? He can't know outcomes so why take the risk in your view? From your stance He couldn't know anything. I'm saying He knew the risk would be worth it because He foresaw the outcome. Get it?
Lighthouse said:
I'm simply saying His reasons are His reasons and are not invalid whether He knows the future or not. Open Theism requires a 'surprised' God, does it not?
Lighthouse said:
I really think it makes sense for Christ to want all to be saved even though some wouldn't. He being just and good made it possible for all knowing that some would not avail themselves of the opportunity. Does it matter if He knew this from the beginning or just predicted it on the cross?
Lighthouse said:
The Calvinists came up with it to combat Armenius. You believe it. You believe that you are predestined to be with God. I find it interesting in the Open, anything can happen, View; that you hold on to your own predestination.
Lighthouse said:
I did, You did, and e4e did. Because He loved them even though they rejected Him.
Lighthouse said:
It makes you wonder what God knew beforehand, doesn't it? I also notice this sounds like an argument used by pro-aborts towards the killing of unborn children. And probably by Satan against the creation(my guess).
Friends,
Rob
Saying it doesn't make it so RobE.RobE said:
To be free means having the abilty to do or to do otherwise. In other words, there must be a genuine choice to be made for an action to be considered free. Now I don't usually ask the sort of question I'm fixing to ask because I don't think that definitions are a matter of opinion. Words have meaning and this is what it would mean to have free will whether any of us agreed with it or not. But since I've made this exact point with you a dozen times with little or no response, I don't want to go any further until you acknoweldge this single point. So, do you or do you not acknowledge that without the ability to do or to do otherwise there is no free will?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Clete
I believe that. Now explain something to me. How does God knowing what your choice is prevent you from making that choice? Making a choice is by definition an act concerning a future event. God does not make your choice concerning that future event but what does He do? He presents you with knowledge that you may make a more informed choice. God does not make the choice for you.Furnishing you knowledge does not constitute making your decision. The fact is that God knows the future event and you do not. You do not know the future and must make an informed or uninformed choice concerning the event.
elected4ever said:
The fact of the matter is that foreknowledge does not prevent free choice. This has been demonstrated to the OV folks over and over with no recognition of the validity of the argument from them.
I understand that you must believe that foreknowledge does preclude choice to adhere to the open view. Rather than accept this the OV proponents simply choose to ignore logic and forge ahead.
God_Is_Truth
New member
docrob57 said:
If all you mean by "choice" is the ability to choose something then you are right. But if by "choice" you mean real choices, the ability to choose one thing or another (like in the real world where you can choose a whole host of things) then you are wrong. If we have the ability to choose among two or more things, then foreknowledge cannot include the outcome of that choice, by definition.
God_Is_Truth said:
Can you offer any proof of your assertion? I have presented formal proofs in previous threads demonstrating your position to be false. In return, I was presented with statements such as yours which basically states "what I say is true because I say so."
If you are right, if what you say is true by definition, then proof of your statement should be relatively simple. So please proceed.
RobE
New member
RobE said:
Clete said:
You are exactly right Clete. It's true on its own merits and doesn't depend on anyone saying it.
Clete said:
Exactly. What is your only real choice? What's the one choice that the laws of physics can't govern? When you stand before the judgement seat does God want to know if you prefer ketchup to mustard? What one decision can you NOT blame on someone/something else? What one decision that you can make which will have eternal consequences?(con=with, sequences=order)
Clete said:
Unless those definitions are foresight or change; and, those opinions are ours.
Clete said:
I acknowledge that without the ability to do or to do otherwise there is no free will. I disagree with the fact that we are capable to do anything we wish(Open Theism), that a dog on a chain is also bound and gagged(Calvinism), but a dog on a chain may still choose to drink, eat, or sleep(Traditional Christianity) as he wishes.
What choices can you make which will last past the Day of Judgement? When the Heavens and Earth are gone then what will be left? What choice can you make in your freedom, Clete? Was Lucifer's choice any different before his judgement?
Thanks,
Rob
Seeing is believing, not doing.
It's true by definition doc! This is like telling me to prove that circles are round. You don't have to prove such things because circle are round by definition a free action could have been obstained from.docrob57 said:
This has not been demonstrated doc. Or if it has I missed it. Perhaps you could give us all a link to the post where this has been established. Will you be man enough to either do so or admit that you cannot?
Resting in Him,
Clete
I make a thousand choices a day RodE. I don't understand what you're getting at here.RobE said:
You do not understand Open Theism. Open Theism does not teach that we can do anything we wish. I cannot defeat Michael Jordon in a game of one on one basketball, no matter how badly I want to do so. I cannot go today and buy a genuine Rolex watch, even though I would really like to do so. There's tons of things I would like to do that I cannot for any number of reasons. The only thing required for Open Theism is that the future is not exhaustively settled, not my ability to do willy-nilly anything that I can imagine doing.
But the point I have repeated made and would like for you to respond too directly is that if God knows my future action then I have no ability to otherwise and that action is therefore, BY DEFINITION, not free.
There are many. Will I honor my wife today or won't I. Will I share the gospel with some person at work or won't I. Which words will I choose to speak to my neighbor today? All of the things I do that honor God will have a potentially eternal consequence.
Every moral action has a potentially eternal consequence either for the good or for the bad. I really don't understand your point here. Please clarify.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Genuine freedom of choice (chosing among possible alternatives) inherently involves and element of uncertainty or unsettledness. The possible is not known as actual/certain until the choice is made. The exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical absurdity or contradiction. We either sacrifice freedom or admit that the future has an element of uncertainty (unknowable). One cannot have their cake and eat it too.
- Status