ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

1) When asked why Judas was not drawn by God you said, "Because he was the one to betray Jesus."
Here you said that God was the cause!

Your answer:No, I said that God didn't draw Judas. That's a far cry from God causing Judas to do anything.

No, you are saying that if Judas was 'drawn' that Judas wouldn't have betrayed Christ! You're saying that the grace given to Judas wasn't sufficient.

2) When asked if God was the cause you said, "I'm saying that SATAN made Judas betray Him."
Here you said that Satan was the cause!

Your Answer:"Made" in the sense of Satan's ability to influence, whatever that is.

You said, "....SATAN made Judas betray Him.". Made denotes complete influence as you know.

3) When asked how Jesus foreknew this you said, "I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him."
Here you said God arranged it(caused it)!

Your answer:Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.

Main Entry: foreordain
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: doom
Synonyms: destinate, destine, fate, foredoom, foretell, prearrange, predestine, predetermine, predict, preordain, reserve
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

I said: In our previous discussion you adamantly held to the notion there was absolutely NO cause for free will decisions!

You said: Determining cause, yes. There are obviously influences and tendencies that we all have.

I said: Do you see why I'm asking what your answer is?

You said: Because you're making synonyms and assumptions that I'm not making.

What assumptions and synonyms are you talking about?

Questioningly,

Rob

 

[Lighthouse]

No, it was just a convienent answer from scripture.



I think it was God's intent to judge all those who sought righteousness by the law and to save all those who receive righteousness by grace through faith. The pots are simply the two covenants, the Old, works based covenant, prepared for destruction, the New, grace through faith based covenant prepared for glory.

(And to answer the question about those in the Old Testament, the New Covenant was promised way back in Gen 3:15, such that those, as we see in Hebrews, that were looking foward to the promise of God to be fulfilled were living by faith and not by works, such that they are in the New Covenant, even if they were observing the rituals of the Old. This goes back to the days of the exile when sacrifice was replaced by oral tradition and living out every aspect of the law possible to the nth degree, and this was supposed to please God.)

Michael

Ah, I see. I was misunderstanding you.

 

[Turbo]

Oh, the irony!

Oh, the irony!

First of all, I would ask the reader to consider the importance of defining words properly, and making due use of them, especially when firing accusations against another individual. For example, please consider the definition and usage of the word "hypocrite":

hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

hypocrite n : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Source: Merriam-Webster

hypocrite one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13). The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or "profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary​

With those definitions in mind, please consider the following:

Hilston wrote: Dear Bob Hill, You continue to misrepresent Augustine and Calvin.

Hypocrite!

Does anyone (excluding those infected by Open Theism), in light of the above definitions, see a problem with this accusation? What belief or opinion have I professed that I do not hold? Since when is one's appearance of virtue or religion germane to this discussion? How have I put on a mask and pretended to be what I am not?

Houghton/Mifflin, Merriam/Webster, et al must provide definitions that are broad and general. You should already know this. HM and MW are not the final word. It is expected that someone interested in this discussion will go beyond HM or MW to think a little more critically about what it means within this context. You should already know this.

 

[Hilston]

Houghton/Mifflin, Merriam/Webster, et al must provide definitions that are broad and general. You should already know this. HM and MW are not the final word. It is expected that someone interested in this discussion will go beyond HM or MW to think a little more critically about what it means within this context. You should already know this.

That's why I also quoted a Bible dictionary that offered Biblical references, Turbo. If I didn't already know it, this one post of yours so perfectly fits the Open Theist pattern of absurd illogic, selective quoting and mindless sycophantism, that I would have bet pesos to Krispy Kremes that you are an Open Theist.

 

[Hilston]

So vicious is the venom that poisons the mind of those who embrace the Open View that even basic reading comprehension and logical constructs elude them. Consider the Clete's question, noting especially the fact that I've not only answered this multiple times here on TOL, but also in private correspondence to Clete, providing piles of quotes from Calvin and Augustine that explain this thoroughly. Clete is an obscurantist, and it is shameful for someone who claims to be a child of God.

Clete asks:

If, in your view (and presumably in the Calvinist's view as well), God is only immutable in His essence/character, in what way is He mutable?

Here are three recent posts that answer Clete's question:

• Post #2193 of this thread
• Post #2199 of this thread
• My second post in my One-On-One with Knight on Calvinism and the Immutability of God

And HERE is a post from nearly 2 years ago that answers Clete's question.

And if those threads are too difficult for Clete to digest, below is the answer again in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that non-Open Theists will understand immediately, but Open Theists will twist to their own destruction. First, Clete's question again:

If, in your view (and presumably in the Calvinist's view as well), God is only immutable in His essence/character, in what way is He mutable?

God is mutable in His actions, His manifestations, His humanity, and His relationships. Knowing Open Theists as well as I do, I have little doubt that Clete will now try to accuse me of believing God is somehow "imperfect" in His actions, manifestations, humanity, etc., not realizing how blatantly retarded such a line of reasoning is in light of the careful biblical distinctions made between God's transcendence and His immanence.

And can anyone tell me what Clete means when he refers to a "tenant" of Calvinism? If Clete would just be himself for a change, instead of pretending to be something he is not, he would not embarrass himself when he invokes words that he has no business using. Where are Clete's friends? Is there anyone who loves Clete enough to tell him that he is out of his league and that he needs to go back to school? Is there anyone who will be honest enough to tell him that he has bitten off way more than he can chew? How long will you let your friend continue to make an idiot of himself and to unwittingly trivialize this quasi-theology you've all come to embrace at the expense of your rationality?

Park at your own risk,
Jim

 

[seekinganswers]

Michael,

The church you describe wouldn’t have me. :chuckle: I’m not angry about that; it’s just a fact. I love the church ... all of it. Especially the members like myself who are less ‘presentable’ and have been dismissed as unnecessary and at times viewed as her enemies. I’m a foot. And just because I’m a foot and not an eye ... I do not for that reason cease to be a member of the body. I’m happy being a foot in the body ... even a left foot. I do not say to the eye ... I don’t need you. I do. I’m not particularly proud of Protestants either. All we seem to have left to protest is each other. AUGH! Indeed!

( I’m letting the Joe Smith thing slide, believing your were just preaching, not telling the truth.) I’m not in an Essene community either. I live in Ziklag for now. Its not permanent. God will burn us out when the time comes. He always does. Look it up in the Bible. I’m just one of hundreds (perhaps thousands all over the country) that find it impossible to follow Jesus within the tight exclusive orthodoxy ‘the churches’ impose with their hair splitting doctrines. Rather than struggling over the question of separating yourself form the church .... why not join us and be inclusive! You don’t have to leave your church. If you get to inclusive they will show you the door. Trust me. It is better to burn at the stake for breaking bread with the wretched, than for breaking stained-glass windows. Want to really love your enemies ... break bread with them in the name of Jesus. Pass the cup to one less deserving than you . Dip in the same bowl with the one you think is betraying Christ. You will discern the Body. I find it hard to reconcile talk about voluntary poverty and the withholding of the cup and bread.

Our goal at Ziklag is not to see the destruction of any part or member of the church. We are committed to filling up every vacant seat in every sanctuary in this county every time their doors are open with people who come to recognize that God has already made every provision for their salvation and inclusion. The churches have nothing to add except fellowship and the equipping of like minded servants. I sense that you are still not reconciled to the fact that Jesus died for me and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it; that I receive the body and blood of Christ with or without your sanction.

There is a reformation coming, Michael. One that will make the last look like the average pot-lick-supper. This time it will be a reformation of unity, not division. But it will require the most difficult and perhaps violent changes we can imagine. When we lay aside our control of the Lord’s table, the baptistry and our credentials for the sake of our Lord’s great passion, His prayer for unity will be answered. We will be one in more than theory. When we quit controlling and arguing over the very things He gave us to express that unity, we will be one. Letting go of the past is a given. Letting go of our preconceived notions of God’s future, each in our own way, is but the beginning. Letting go of our grasping for equality with God in the present and becoming servants after the fashion of Christ (voluntarily) is perhaps the greatest obstacle we face. Waiting for Saul to fall on his own sword is just a matter of time. Living in the place where kings are tested requires more patients than action. Life in the Kingdom of God is a mad scramble to the bottom of a pile of servants. When we return we will return in numbers and your picnic table, your pool and your lifeguards will be overwhelmed by just how big the body of Christ really is.

The future is no longer what it once was.
Philetus

Philetus,

You would not have felt out of place in the gathering that I was a part of in San Diego (at least not by your appearance, though you might have felt that we were out of place). It is a question of faithfulness. Does the Spirit of Christ for the churches dwell among us in our gathering? If it does, this is commendable (as John commends the faithful churches in his letters and calls them to perserverance in their faithfulness). And what of the gatherings that are not faithful? Well, they are not yet left out, but they will be judged along with the passing world (for they in their faithlessness held fast to the age that is passing away). The question is whether we will persevere to the end, or whether we will be like the virgins who only came with enough oil for the first watches of the night in their waiting for the bridegroom. And when the bridegroom came, they did not go in with him (because their lamps had gone out), and when they asked to be let in, they were told that the gate was shut, and that they should have come in the bridegroom!

Oh how sad it will be for those vigins when they see their fellow women enter in through the gate for the wedding feast of the bridegroom while they themselves are shut out. There will be bitter weeping and gnashing of teeth on that day. The feast is set in our time between the times, and we only await the arrival of the bridegroom, when this age will come to completion. Whether we rejoice or not will depend on our alegiances.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Delmar]

.... On the Open View, God only makes it available. You have to save yourself..

Jim
You are a world class twister of words. Paul says that Abraham was justified simply by believing rather than by works! (Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness) Paul is claiming that "to believe" is not a work that a person does. So what is it? I contend that disbelief is like a door that God is drawing open. In order not to believe a person has to willfully be holding that door shut! Believing is simply relaxing.
Now Jim, if you don't want to take The Apostle Paul's word for it and you don't want to take my word for it, allow me to present you with the words of someone you might trust! You.

About what, you ask? Namely, could the Bible be wrong about what it says of those who reject the existence of God? First, here is what the Bible say of those who reject the existence of God:

* They already know the truth, but they hold (suppress) it in unrighteousness; [Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;]
* They innately know God, for He has sufficiently revealed Himself to them; [Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.]
* They already see and are confronted with the knowledge of God's existence via the creation; [Ro 1:20a For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;]
* They have no defense. [Ro 1:20b ... so that they are without excuse:. ]
Jim

 

[themuzicman]

1) When asked why Judas was not drawn by God you said, "Because he was the one to betray Jesus."
Here you said that God was the cause!

Your answer:No, I said that God didn't draw Judas. That's a far cry from God causing Judas to do anything.

No, you are saying that if Judas was 'drawn' that Judas wouldn't have betrayed Christ! You're saying that the grace given to Judas wasn't sufficient.

No, I'm saying that Judas wasn't drawn. Where does drawing = grace? What thesaurus are you using?

2) When asked if God was the cause you said, "I'm saying that SATAN made Judas betray Him."
Here you said that Satan was the cause!

Your Answer:"Made" in the sense of Satan's ability to influence, whatever that is.

You said, "....SATAN made Judas betray Him.". Made denotes complete influence as you know.

Nothing like introducting a vage term. "Made" is more like "convince", rathe than "complete influence."

3) When asked how Jesus foreknew this you said, "I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him."
Here you said God arranged it(caused it)!

Your answer:Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.

Main Entry: foreordain
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: doom
Synonyms: destinate, destine, fate, foredoom, foretell, prearrange, predestine, predetermine, predict, preordain, reserve
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

I'm sorry, where did I say "foreordain". I must have missed that one. And, for that matter, where did I say "prearrange" or "predetermine" or "preordain" In fact, I don't see the word "cause" in there anywhere.

Talk about a total non-sequitor.

I said: In our previous discussion you adamantly held to the notion there was absolutely NO cause for free will decisions!

You said: Determining cause, yes. There are obviously influences and tendencies that we all have.

I said: Do you see why I'm asking what your answer is?

You said: Because you're making synonyms and assumptions that I'm not making.

What assumptions and synonyms are you talking about?

Grace = draw. Arrange = Cause (/foreordain/preordain/predetermine/prearrange/etc.)

Tired of being twisted.
Michael

 

[sentientsynth]

Deardelmar,

How've you been? It's been a while since I've spoken with you.

Paul is claiming that "to believe" is not a work that a person does so what is it? I contend that disbelief is like a door that God is drawing open. In order not to believe a person has to willfully be holding that door shut! Believing is simply relaxing.

I believe that faith is a work, as is recording in John 6.

28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

How do you understand this section of scripture?



SS

 

[seekinganswers]

Deardelmar,

How've you been? It's been a while since I've spoken with you.


I believe that faith is a work, as is recording in John 6.

28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

How do you understand this section of scripture?


SS

Or how about this one: "We always give thanks to God for all of you and mention you in our prayers, constantly remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ." I Thess. 1:3

Peace,
Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Deardelmar,

How've you been? It's been a while since I've spoken with you.


I believe that faith is a work, as is recording in John 6.

28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

How do you understand this section of scripture?



SS

And let's not exclude verse 27...

(Jesus speaking) "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."​

 

[Delmar]

Deardelmar,

How've you been? It's been a while since I've spoken with you.


I believe that faith is a work, as is recording in John 6.

28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

How do you understand this section of scripture?



SS

God's drawing man to him is the "work" described in this passage and it fits with what I said.



I am doing quite well, thank you.

 

[sentientsynth]

Michael,

I'm not sure. I think that v.3 is further expounded in v. 9-10, which identifies works which proceed from faith, i.e. turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, to wait for his Son from heaven. John 6, in my opinion, makes it indubitably clear.


SS

 

[sentientsynth]

God's drawing man to him is the "work" described in this passage and it fits with what I said.

Deardelmar,

Are you saying that Jesus is identifying faith as the work of God, or that being drawn is the work of men?

Jesus is answering the question, What work shall *we* work? Do you agree?



SS

 

[Delmar]

Deardelmar,

Are you saying that Jesus is identifying faith as the work of God, or that being drawn is the work of men?

Jesus is answering the question, What work shall *we* work? Do you agree?



SS

First of all, I didn't get a lot of sleep last night and my brain is not firing quite right this AM.I think I am going to have to go back to bed before I really get a handle on what you are getting at.

 

[sentientsynth]

Cool beans, Delmar. Take some valerian. Get some rest.

 

[Delmar]

Deardelmar,

Are you saying that Jesus is identifying faith as the work of God, or that being drawn is the work of men?

Jesus is answering the question, What work shall *we* work? Do you agree?



SS

Let me try to paraphrase what is going on in Jn 6 (which I really think is off topic)and we can go from there.
The crowd is following Jesus around looking for more miracles. The disciples, caught up in the moment, are asking How do we do these "mighty works"? Jesus responds with what is really important. "Believe in me." His point does not appear to be that believing is a work, but rather that believing is far more important than signs and wonders.

 

[themuzicman]

You gotta read verse 27, because Jesus tells them to work for the bread that endures to eternal life, and then in 28, the crowd asks what works they might do in order to work the works of God, and Jesus tells them what work to do: Believe.

Jesus is the one who brings up the idea of doing a work to them.

Muz

 

[Delmar]

SS
Do you agree that in Romans 4:5 Paul is sayig that believing is not a work or do you think I am missreading it.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

 

[Delmar]

You gotta read verse 27, because Jesus tells them to work for the bread that endures to eternal life, and then in 28, the crowd asks what works they might do in order to work the works of God, and Jesus tells them what work to do: Believe.

Jesus is the one who brings up the idea of doing a work to them.

Muz

Let's also remember that during Jesus' ministry The message of Salvation by grace alone was not yet taught.