Why would that matter? Is that the definition of "the fullness of the Gentiles"?
So you disagree with AMR that all things were decreed by God?
Would you say that God knows the future exhaustively? Would you also say that God is the first cause?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Would you say that God knows the future exhaustively? Would you also say that God is the first cause?
The future does not exist and so no, it does not have two parts, one fixed the other not.
There are however events which God has planned for the future that He will bring to pass and that no creature has any power, authority or ability to prevent. Some of these events include but are not limited too...
1. The glorification of the Body of Christ.
2. The establishment of Israel's Millennial Kingdom on Earth.
3. The destruction of the Earth by fire.
4. The creation of a new Earth and new Heaven.
5. The casting of all things evil into the Lake of Fire.
The precise time line, circumstances, people and events surrounding these things have not been and could not be firmly established by God, nor is it necessary for Him to have done so.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
When "the full number of the Gentiles come in" (Rom. 11:25). So then how can God know the full number has been reached, if repentance is a free choice? and how can God know then "all Israel will be saved" then? (Rom. 11:26-27)
I do not believe God makes all decisions, no.
Yes to both of these questions...
Blessings,
Lee
I missed this post earlier. Sorry, it was not my intention to ignore you.
It is relevant Evoken! Your entire objection was based on the idea that death means that one ceases to exist! Your entire post was based on that single premise!
Death also does not mean, in the context of the gospel message, "the permanent cessation of all the vital functions". If that were an accurate definition then Jesus didn't die at all for His condition in the grave was not permanent. Extinction also has nothing to do with what it means to die in this context.
Jesus died in all ways as any other human being has every died. Physically His death is obvious. His Spirit was separated from His body and thus His body died. Spiritually He died in that He was separated from the Father (Matthew 27:46). That is what it means to be spiritually dead, to be separated from God. Jesus did not go to be with His Father immediately upon His death on the cross (John 20:17). Instead He went to the place of the righteous dead (Luke 23:43). God the Son's death was real and complete in every sense (Revelation 1:18). It was therefore of infinite and inexhaustible value sufficient to pay the sin debt of the whole world and that many times over. That payment has been made available to us through faith if we but call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins and believe that God raised HIM (i.e. not merely His physical body but HIM) from the dead.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
No, Clete, the spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, so he cannot die spiritually--let's not flirt with heresy.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
And if Jesus died physically and spiritually, what is "the power of an indestructible life" that Jesus had? (Heb. 7:16)
Folks such as Open Theists who are seemingly scornful of doctrines should in fact read some doctrine, it is the distilled wisdom of those who have studied carefully, such matters.
Blessings,
Lee
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, if you are going to start stating that "AMR believes this or that" I humbly request that you quote me to demonstrate you have it correct.
Nowhere have I made a statement that God decreed evil. Please review this, this, and this if you want to know what I really believe. I will go out on a limb here and assume you won't read these items, so the short answer is: God is not the author of sin.
I gave examples of redemptive history that were fixed by God after the Fall. I qualified this by saying the minute details were not fixed (like whether Judas ate an apple or an orange or nothing on the day he betrayed Christ).
The OTs would not say God fixed every molecule, but brought the larger 'project' (Sanders) to pass even if it meant creative flexibility on the way to bring His purposes to pass.
The Holy Spirit is Lord as is Jesus and the Father.
His human spirit was not the person of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had His own spirit and was anointed by the Holy Spirit.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Thank you for admitting that.
Again, incorrect. God knows that Peter in one circumstance or another will deny Christ three times. Thus, Peter may have done it in the courtyard, or Peter may have done it out in a field, or in town or someplace else. There is no definite foreknowledge of when and where this event will take place. Peter's heart and mind, however, were in such a place that when confronted, he was not ready to stand with Christ, and that, along with each possible future resulting in someone challenging Peter, is all that was necessary.
And that's not definite foreknowledge of a future free choice.
Some want knowledge. Some want faith. I'll take faith. What do you take?
Are insurance companies God? Do you have need of a written guarantee from God? Is faith insufficient?
Yeah, and it seems to me that God took some pretty specific steps to make sure that situation worked out, didn't He.
This is the last straw. You've pulled another bait and switch, and I won't tolerate it.
I was responding to your cite of 2 Cor 3:17
2 Cor 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit , and where the Spirit of the Lord is, [there] is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit .
And you try to switch the context to 1 Cor 1:9. You've crossed this line with me for the last time. You Calvinists make me sick with your twisted ways. Makes me wonder if you're still stuck in your own depravity.
You expose your own lack of an argument and lack of intellectual integrity by this trash, and I will dance with you no longer.
Have a nice life.
Muz
RobE
New member
Well, this then isn't open theism, it's Molinism.
Yeah right. Anything that you disagree with is irrational right?
God the Son is a Spirit and God the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are separate persons within the Triune God. If you want to muddy the water in this way then I'm quite sure it will make you feel better about things but it will not refute the clear teaching of Scripture.
Umm, Hello! He resurrected from the dead! :doh::duh:
The only distilled wisdom I need is that of the Scripture and plain reason. If you cannot refute what I say with one or both of those things, I'd prefer you keep it to yourself. I simply couldn't possibly care less about the traditions of men.
Typical non-responsive BS.
Word count of the posts linked too above...
Link 1 has 511 words and does not mention evil at all.
Link 2 had 2719 words and mentions the word 'evil' once.
Link 3 has 859 words and does not mention evil at all.
AMR believes and has openly stated on more than one occasion that "God decrees all things that come to pass". It took me all of about 30 seconds to find an example HERE.
Of course, you'll have to overlook the self-contradictory nature of that post and how he obviously wants desperately to have his cake and eat it too but such is the case with all Calvinists.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
It most certainly is knowledge of a future free choice, and it doesn't matter if the time or place may not be definite.
Faith in a God who may lie to us? what kind of faith would that be?
The point is that insurance companies don't say their estimates are certain, so group dynamics cannot explain a certain prediction that some will not repent, some will or will not give God glory.
So issues of salvation are by God's decree, "only a remnant will be saved"? Well, I agree, you will make a fine Calvinist.
This from someone who always insists on the critical importance of context? We should examine other places Paul speaks of freedom in Christ, to know what this might mean.
I don't think ... we were exactly dancing.
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
I agree, and the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit, essentially. And yes, Jesus had a human spirit, yet as our spirit is one with the Holy Spirit, Christ's was also one with the Holy Spirit to an even greater degree, I would conclude--and thus Jesus' human spirit did not die, "Into your hands I commit my spirit".
But "indestructible life" does not mean it can't be destroyed indefinitely, it means it can't be destroyed.
This will mean such folks who are thus scornful, will repeat the various heresies--creeds were written for a reason.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana)
Last edited:
Evoken
New member
No problem, this thread has a lot of activity and it is quite easy to overlook posts.
My objection was aimed at your claim that God died. You were not making any clear distinctions as far as the incarnation is concerned before. Later I see you began to do so, in light of that, the objection may no longer hold (depending on what you mean below). In the context of what you say here, we agree, Lord Jesus died a real human death. Even if it was not permanent, all the vital functions of his body ceased and his soul was separated from his body, hence it was as complete as any human death can possibly be.
Hmmm, no, only the damned are “spiritually dead” and separated from God. Christ who is both perfect God and perfect Man and who is one with the Father (John 10:30) could in no way be separated from God or be spiritually dead. He gave up his soul at the cross to the Father right before he died (Luke 23:46). Neither his human soul nor the Son was separated from the Father at any time.
He did not go to the Father bodily right away; this he did after his bodily resurrection. However, his soul, which descended into Hell was united to the second person of the Trinity at all times and logically also to the Father and the Holy Ghost. The hypostatic union was never broken.
Your emphasis in the word “HIM” here makes it seems as if what you mean is that the divine person, the Son, died, so that for the time he was dead, in the Blessed Trinity only the Father and the Holy Ghost were alive and then the Son was “resurrected” and all the tree persons of the Trinity were alive again. If this is really what you mean, then my initial objection holds, for you are saying again that God, or at least a “part” of God died. You are saying that Christ died not as man but as God, that the divine nature was put to death and not just the human nature. This notion can in no way be admitted, and for various reasons, one of them being that it destroys the integrity of the Blessed Trinity, for if the Son died, then so too the Holy Spirit must have died since he proceeds from the Father and the Son (Nicene Creed). This idea also leads you into a separation of essences between each person. You would no longer have three persons sharing the one divine essence, but three separate essences, and thus three separate gods (Tritheism).
There are some things that must be understood about the incarnation. Christ became man to redeem man; the nature he assumed is what is redeemed. So, the divine nature could not be fused with the human nature, because then the nature Christ assumed was not truly human but something else. If that is the case then his sacrifice would simply not apply to humans, nor could his resurrection be an example of real human resurrection. St. Paul could not draw a parallel between Adam and Christ as men (Romans 5:17, 1 Corinthians 15:22), if Christ were not fully human. Nor could it be said, that he was like us all ways except in sin (Hebrews 4:15). So, the integrity of the human nature Christ assumed must be maintained for the sacrifice to be applicable to humans. This is one of the reasons why it is said that the union did not take place in the nature (mixing both human and divine), and it is said instead that it took place in the person.
As far as the value of the sacrifice goes, in order for it to be of infinite value the divine nature did not need to die. Nor is it needed that the divine nature be mixed with the human nature. Rather, the infinite value of the sacrifice emerges due to the person that was sacrificed. And by person it is meant: “the actual self or individual personality of a human being” or “an individual substance of a rational nature”. And the person of the Son is what Christ’s human nature had united to it that made it of infinite value.
Evo
Last edited:
OT believes in 2 motifs (some of future unsettled, some settled). Molinism is still essentially exhaustive definite foreknowledge (all future known as settled), but in a convoluted way. Its 'middle knowledge and counterfactuals of freedom' compromise libertarian freedom and make possible knowledge certain when the concept is incoherent.
William Lane Craig is Molinist. Boyd may be neo-Molinist. Boyd is OT, but Craig is not.
Yeah right. Anything that you disagree with is irrational right?
No, but to come down to mystery's level and negate people's precious salvation over peripheral, divisive issues is irrational and indefensible.
I do not say your views are irrational if I disagree with them. They are possible, but not always plausible.
What I am objecting to is how people play god and judge other's motives, salvation, integrity, etc. off of limited knowledge from posts on a forum.
People who disagree with you are not unsaved, necessarily.
lee_merrill
New member
Excellent points these...
- Status