ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Philetus said:

Emphasis mine.

That's Good News and that leaves the furute open to learning.

Thanks for your obscure insight. Just make sure the mystery your teaching is THE Mystery.

Philetus

Click to expand...

It is THE mystery.

Eph. 3
1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles--
2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
3 how that by revelation He made known to me THE mystery (as I have briefly written already,
4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, <------- THE mystery vs. 6

The mystery has more to do with the Church Age and the Gospel of the resurrected Christ (vs Judaism), not a Pauline vs Petrine/Johannine NT Gospel. Christ and the Holy Spirit, not Paul, is the pivotal point of Church History (not to minimize the huge significance of Paul, apostle of the heart set free- F.F. Bruce).

godrulz said:

The mystery has more to do with the Church Age and the Gospel of the resurrected Christ (vs Judaism), not a Pauline vs Petrine/Johannine NT Gospel. Christ and the Holy Spirit, not Paul, is the pivotal point of Church History (not to minimize the huge significance of Paul, apostle of the heart set free- F.F. Bruce).

Click to expand...

See my above post. Gentiles becoming fellow heirs with Jews of the same body and partakers of God's promise through the gospel was HIDDEN from the ages and generations until it was revealed to the apostle Paul. It was NEW. -Bible

doogieduff said:

See my above post. Gentiles becoming fellow heirs with Jews of the same body and partakers of God's promise through the gospel was HIDDEN from the ages and generations until it was revealed to the apostle Paul. It was NEW. -Bible

Click to expand...

I thought there was provision for Gentiles in the OT to become part of the people of God? I agree with the gist of your comment. The question is the timing of this starting to become a reality (I put it earlier than Mid-Acts and do not see it exclusive to Paul though he best expressed the fulness of it).

godrulz said:

I thought there was provision for Gentiles in the OT to become part of the people of God? I agree with the gist of your comment. The question is the timing of this starting to become a reality (I put it earlier than Mid-Acts and do not see it exclusive to Paul though he best expressed the fulness of it).

Click to expand...

Who do you see preaching on THE mystery before Acts 9?

AUGH. I'll come back in six months and see if the future has changed.
Philetus

Hang in there godrulz! You are doing great.

doogieduff said:

Who do you see preaching on THE mystery before Acts 9?

Click to expand...

Peter preached the risen Christ. This was the incipient, early stages of the Church at Pentecost. Paul elaborated on the New Covenant in Christ, but he did not invent it. The mystery is the church age and the combining of Jew and Gentile into one Body. Peter's crowd became part of local churches that Paul no doubt visited. They did not divide the room up with those of Jewish background who had been saved by works and baptism, and their neighbours who had Gentile background and were not baptized and simply came by grace and faith. All NT converts, including those at Pentecost were saved by God's grace through faith in the risen Christ. Just because Paul talked about a mystery does not mean the Johannine expression of the Gospel of faith in Christ was a totally different gospel.

Philetus said:

Hang in there godrulz! You are doing great.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am not well versed in MId-Acts so am unable to respond as it deserves. I think most believers historically have intuitively not adopted or seen the Mid-Acts position. There is a simpler explanation for the transition from the Old to the New in the early church. Two NT gospels after Christ does not seem to add up and seems to be a misunderstanding of the historical narrative. Rather than dismiss much of the NT for believers after Paul's time, it seems to me Mid-Acts should consider the classic resolutions of the non-Pauline texts (e.g. James vs Romans; baptism; etc.).

I see God's grace and the condition of faith as the root of salvation. Works, circumcision, baptism, law, etc. could never save anyone. They were outward badges of inner faith and varied at different times. The fundamental issues of redemption and reconciliation are the same from Gen. to Rev. Proposing 3 gospels is more confusion than resolution. The view leads to OSAS, a negation of the charismata, a dispensing of believer's baptism, a downplaying of non-Pauline writings, etc. These things give one pause.

godrulz said:

Peter preached the risen Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you are missing a huge difference between two events involving Peter. Acts 2 and Acts 10. Let me explain...

- In Acts 2, Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the crowd at pentecost
- In Acts 10, Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the household of Cornelius

- In Acts 2, after they heard Peter preach the DBR of Jesus Christ, and believed (they were cut to the heart from his message) they asked Peter what to do, and he commanded them to be baptized IN ORDER TO recieve the Holy Spirit
- In Acts 10, after the household of Cornelius heard Peter preach the DBR of Jesus Christ, and believed, they IMMEDIATELY recieved the Holy Spirit! (According to Acts 11, Peter had only begun to speak his message)

So in Acts 2, they heard Peter's message, believed him, and still had to be baptized to recieve the Holy Spirit, but in Acts 10, they recieved the Holy Spirit IMMEDIATELY after believing, WHILE Peter was still speaking! Why this difference Godrulz?

This was the incipient, early stages of the Church at Pentecost. Paul elaborated on the New Covenant in Christ, but he did not invent it.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant and the mystery are completely different.

The mystery is the church age and the combining of Jew and Gentile into one Body. Peter's crowd became part of local churches that Paul no doubt visited. They did not divide the room up with those of Jewish background who had been saved by works and baptism, and their neighbours who had Gentile background and were not baptized and simply came by grace and faith. All NT converts, including those at Pentecost were saved by God's grace through faith in the risen Christ. Just because Paul talked about a mystery does not mean the Johannine expression of the Gospel of faith in Christ was a totally different gospel.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there were no Gentiles present at the day of pentecost as you presume. There were only proselytes, which remains consistent with the mid-acts position that a gentile had to proselyte to judaism to be saved until the "mystery" was revealed to the apostle Paul.

THE mystery can be found nowhere talked about EXCEPT in the Pauline epistles. WHY Godrulz?

godrulz said:

I see God's grace and the condition of faith as the root of salvation. Works, circumcision, baptism, law, etc. could never save anyone. They were outward badges of inner faith and varied at different times.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say "baptism" is an outward showing of an inner faith?

The fundamental issues of redemption and reconciliation are the same from Gen. to Rev.

Click to expand...

Then why can't you show Paul's gospel ANYWHERE in the OT?

Proposing 3 gospels is more confusion than resolution. The view leads to OSAS, a negation of the charismata, a dispensing of believer's baptism, a downplaying of non-Pauline writings, etc. These things give one pause.

Click to expand...

Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Margin note: "sealed for the day of redemption" can also be translated OSAS. ; )

One faith, one Lord, one baptism and ..... three gospels? I just can't go there. I was baptized because I needed a way to say to my new family in Christ and to the old family in the world that Jesus had saved me by grace through faith. I never even thought of Baptism as anything other than a 'working out of my own salvation' with my mouth shut and holding my breath, (ie. fear and trembling.) Baptism did not save me. Jesus did.

Actually, I am not well versed in MId-Acts so am unable to respond as it deserves. I think most believers historically have intuitively not adopted or seen the Mid-Acts position. There is a simpler explanation for the transition from the Old to the New in the early church. Two NT gospels after Christ does not seem to add up and seems to be a misunderstanding of the historical narrative. Rather than dismiss much of the NT for believers after Paul's time, it seems to me Mid-Acts should consider the classic resolutions of the non-Pauline texts (e.g. James vs Romans; baptism; etc.).

I see God's grace and the condition of faith as the root of salvation. Works, circumcision, baptism, law, etc. could never save anyone. They were outward badges of inner faith and varied at different times. The fundamental issues of redemption and reconciliation are the same from Gen. to Rev. Proposing 3 gospels is more confusion than resolution. The view leads to OSAS, a negation of the charismata, a dispensing of believer's baptism, a downplaying of non-Pauline writings, etc. These things give one pause.

Click to expand...

Godrulz, You don't have to be well versed in Mid-Acts .... you know the gospel. I have found a great deal of merit and help in your postings here. Wasn't it Paul who said if anyone comes preaching "another Gospel" ...? I know nothing of the Mid-Acts postion but I can already guess what their answer is: yea, Peter was preaching a different Gospel at pentecost. Please.

Yes, by grace through faith, and baptism is an expression to the world of our surrender to that grace and our God given measure of faith to respond. There are not three Gospels, there are at least four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and doesn't Paul state in Romans ... "so my Gospel declares"? Are they not the ONE, same gospel espressed through individuals as inspired by Holy Spirit. I'm resolved to believe so.

You are more tactful Godrulz, than I will ever be. Apparently the Mid-Acts views give everybody paws except doggieduff. And I think we have both given him good reason to find another forum for his view. You did so in humility ... I'm still learning from your example.

So, Godrulz, may I ask you, at the root of salvation, is grace and the condition of faith, agreed

how does the open view theist deal with the 'condition of faith'?

Grace is free or it isn't grace. I'm convinced it is the work of God and to place any price on it is to cheapen it. It cost God his Son and us nothing or it isn't grace. But, then comes the 'condition of faith' and this seems to be the rub for many. How do you reconcile the question of God's will over and against man's will. Is it adequate to simply say to a Calvinist, "Yes, Save yourself by repenting and believing the Gospel ... (and for the sake of our Mid-acts friend so we don't go down that trail again ... and be baptized.)

Is the OVT position that God has decided that anyone who wants to be saved can be saved by accepting the Gospel in faith?

Philetus

Lord, have mercy. I just read my last post. Baptism, what a witness: holding my breath with my mouth shut. I hope you guys don't loose patient with me.
p

Doggie: Then why can't you show Paul's gospel ANYWHERE in the OT?

Click to expand...

Because it was still a bit of a mystery, I guess. Maybe because God didn't want Jonah blowing it any worse than he did in Nineveh. One minute he was a called prophet, the next he was whale puke, the next he was the most successful missionary in Israel, the next he was a pouting thumb sucker. And God took him to task for being peeved because God cared more about the multitudes that didn't know their left hand from their right hand than he did about his previous declaration that he was going to destroy them. Sounds all too familiar. "God didn't save them the way I thought he should so they can't be really saved."
Maybe if people got baptized three times it would satisfiy all three gospels ... that's ludicrous.

God: Proposing 3 gospels is more confusion than resolution. The view leads to OSAS, a negation of the charismata, a dispensing of believer's baptism, a downplaying of non-Pauline writings, etc. These things give one pause.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and a host of other problems as well, whaterver OSAS means.

Dog: Margin note: "sealed for the day of redemption" can also be translated OSAS. ; )

Click to expand...

TRANSLATED? Are you for real? You surely mean understood or interpreted to mean OSAS.

What is OSAS? Is it Once Saved Always Save?
I guess that means Once Lost Always Lost? more confused

If God has already decided then why bother? Calvinists and Arminians play that game all the time ... and now we have a Mid-act throwing in the same ol shoe.

Isn't this really Your contention with Open Theism, doggieduff? Then let the baptism thing go for a while. I don't care why, how or even how many times you were baptized. (I am simply glad your were.) Who decided you would be?

Philetus

I guess God is just more flexible when it comes to baptism than you would allow.
Philetus

OSAS= Once saved, always saved (unconditional eternal security; usually Calvinism's TULIP, but also Mid-Acts understanding for this dispensation).

Most classical Open Theists are free will theists. It is more a sub-type of Arminianism than Calvinism (though some here would disagree...Arminianism is like Calvinism in some ways, and Open Theism in other ways).

Mid-Acts teaches that baptism is NOT necessary in this dispensation under Paul, so many Mid-Acts believers would not be baptized. This does not mean they are not saved.

If one has the genuine, it is easier to spot the counterfeit view. There is merit in understanding other positions rather than dismissing them uncritically.

The condition of faith is dealt with by OT the same way as Arminians. Calvinists see faith as a gift of God...i.e. regeneration precedes repentant faith. Free will theists believe repentant faith precedes regeneration (though it is practically simultaneous). i.e. faith involves knowledge, mental assent, trust and has a volitional aspect.

God's grace and perfect provision (objective) must be appropriated subjectively through faith. The theological debate is monergism (all of God) vs synergism (relationships/reconciliation involves two parties).

The grounds of salvation (reason for which) are grace and the person and work of Christ. The conditions of salvation (not without which) are repentant faith and continuance in the faith. Conditions are not works, nor are they apart from the convincing and convicting of the Holy Spirit.

TULIP is a deductive, preconceived theology. It is somewhat internally consistent, but I would argue that hyper-Calvinism's understanding is not biblical. Other threads have wrestled with this.

Philetus said:

One faith, one Lord, one baptism and ..... three gospels? I just can't go there.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been nice if "gospel" accompanied that list in Eph. 4 Philetus? BTW, which ONE baptism is Paul talking about? Water? I don't think so. I'm sure that was your first guess. Actually he's talking about Spirit baptism, as he knew water baptism had been done away and is now useless.

1 Cor. 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Take note Philetus, we (the body of Christ) were baptized BY the Holy Spirit. Sadly, the philetus and Godrulz interpretation of Pentecost doesn't fit once again. Who was the agent doing the baptizing on Pentecost? The Spirit right? Wrong. Jesus Christ was doing the baptizing and the Holy Spirit followed the baptism. Face the facts Philetus. All you did was get wet.

I was baptized because I needed a way to say to my new family in Christ and to the old family in the world that Jesus had saved me by grace through faith.

Click to expand...

If you choose to do things man way, that's fine. God and the Bible never command baptism as an "outward showing of an inward work." I'll stick with God here. Most mid-actsers have never been baptized.

I never even thought of Baptism as anything other than a 'working out of my own salvation' with my mouth shut and holding my breath, (ie. fear and trembling.)

Click to expand...

That's because you didn't know your Bible.

Baptism did not save me. Jesus did.

Click to expand...

Hey! We agree on something. But if baptism didn't save you, why in the world did you get baptized? Was it because some pastor said you should proclaim your faith, or because God instructed you? If the latter, please reference chapter and verse. (I mean, who would want to misquote God?)

Godrulz, You don't have to be well versed in Mid-Acts .... you know the gospel.

Click to expand...

The Bereans searched the scriptures daily (Acts 17) to make sure what they heard was true. Seems their way of doing it is not good enough for you. Peter tells us to always be ready to give a defense (1 Pet. 3) to everyone who asks of you a reason, yet you don't defend your position biblically. How are you going to grow? I would have never left my calvinistic covenental position had I not opened my heart and mind. And guess what? I seem to change my mind on something weekly. Being open-minded is a beautiful thing.

I have found a great deal of merit and help in your postings here. Wasn't it Paul who said if anyone comes preaching "another Gospel" ...? I know nothing of the Mid-Acts postion but I can already guess what their answer is: yea, Peter was preaching a different Gospel at pentecost. Please.

Click to expand...

Paul wasn't speaking of pentecost, he wasn't even saved at the time. Historically, he was speaking to the Galatians, and told them that if anyone preached a different gospel which was not another of the same rank or order, that they should be accursed. He was right. The galatians were under the dispensation of grace, and their gospel was Paul's gospel, recieved from the ascended Christ.

Yes, by grace through faith, and baptism is an expression to the world of our surrender to that grace and our God given measure of faith to respond.

Click to expand...

Not in the Bible...

There are not three Gospels, there are at least four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Click to expand...

Gospel means "good news" Philetus. Only ONE "good news" in the Bible? Bummer...

and doesn't Paul state in Romans ... "so my Gospel declares"?

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, Paul calls the gospel MY gospel many times. Why is he so possessive Philetus? If the gospel has been around since Gen. 3, why does Paul call it MY gospel?

Are they not the ONE, same gospel espressed through individuals as inspired by Holy Spirit. I'm resolved to believe so.

Click to expand...

You seem to be resolved because the majority of man believes it, not God. This is frightening, and why I believe so many Christians are so confused about the truth.

The Gospel is my gospel, not just Paul's gospel. The Father is my God and your God. This does not make it a different god.

Quick question: why was there still speaking in tongues after Mid-Acts (I Cor.; Acts 10:46; 19:6= Gentiles)? Why do hundreds of millions of God-fearing believers speak in tongues today (or do you think us Pentecostals are a cult, contrary to any credible church historian who recognizes them as the fastest growing and largest Protestant denominations).

Philetus said:

Because it was still a bit of a mystery, I guess.

Click to expand...

Why would God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) make the gospel a mystery?

Maybe if people got baptized three times it would satisfiy all three gospels ... that's ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've been only baptized ONCE. BY the Holy Spirit. Our ONE baptism for the body of Christ.

Eph. 4
4 There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as you were called in ONE hope of your calling;
5 ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism*;
6 ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

*Margin note: The oldest manuscripts (Codex Calviniticus and Covenentanus) read TWO baptisms. ; )

TRANSLATED? Are you for real? You surely mean understood or interpreted to mean OSAS.

Click to expand...

That's the point of the little ; ) that I put in there. It's a sideways wink. I was being facetious.

What is OSAS? Is it Once Saved Always Save?
I guess that means Once Lost Always Lost? more confused [/quote

In the body of Christ, we are sealed unto the day of redemption according to Eph 4:30, Eph. 1:11-14, 2 Tim 2:13, and 1 Cor. 3:15. Some people label this OSAS, or Once Saved Always Saved. You can't lose your salvation in the body of Christ.

If God has already decided then why bother? Calvinists and Arminians play that game all the time ... and now we have a Mid-act throwing in the same ol shoe.

Click to expand...

You can't confuse the Calvinistic "Irresistable Grace" with the doctrine of "eternal security." They are definitely different.

Isn't this really Your contention with Open Theism, doggieduff? Then let the baptism thing go for a while. I don't care why, how or even how many times you were baptized. (I am simply glad your were.) Who decided you would be?

Click to expand...

I was baptized by the Holy Spirit when I believed. God decided so. Don't forget 1 Cor. 12:13.

Click to expand...

godrulz said:

The Gospel is my gospel, not just Paul's gospel. The Father is my God and your God. This does not make it a different god.

Click to expand...

Paul is the only one who calls it MY gospel I believe.

Quick question: why was there still speaking in tongues after Mid-Acts (I Cor.; Acts 10:46; 19:6= Gentiles)? Why do hundreds of millions of God-fearing believers speak in tongues today (or do you think us Pentecostals are a cult, contrary to any credible church historian who recognizes them as the fastest growing and largest Protestant denominations).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this deserves an answer much longer than I can give right at 12:06 am. But the mid-acts position does not say that tongues ceased when the body of Christ started. Paul spoke in tongues as did many others including the Corinthians. I think I can show that tongues (not those on the day of pentecost, which I think were different) were to show Israel that they had been set aside. When Paul made his proclamation in Acts 28 that "the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!" (the third type of proclamation against Israel in a sort of progressive manner through the book of Acts) we no longer see any sign gifts. Healing, tongues, etc. had vanished. I would love if you could show me any sign gifts in Paul's writings after Acts 28. There's a short answer for you.