ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

Deardelmar,

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.

OK.

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,

No. I think you're dead on. The Greek words here are similar, so apparently they've got the same thing in mind. Looks like I've got some mulling over to do.

Gee, I really suck at debate.


SS

 

[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.

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

What is 'Drawing' then?

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.

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

First of all, you introduced the term. Secondly.....

Entry Word: make
Function: verb
Text: 1 to bring into being by combining, shaping, or transforming materials <will you help me make the dough for the cookies?>
Synonyms fabricate, fashion, form, frame, manufacture, produce
Related Words assemble, build, construct, erect, make up, put up, raise, rear, structure, throw up; craft, handcraft; forge, mold, shape; prefabricate; create, invent, originate; establish, father, institute, organize; concoct, contrive, cook up, design, devise, imagine, think (up); conceive, envisage, picture, visualize; refashion, remake, remanufacture

How about you find a source where it says make/made is the same as convince.

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.

Michael: 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.​

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

Michael: Talk about a total non-sequitor.​

It isn't a non-sequitor. Do you even know what you've said now? "Arrange(when, beforehand, prearrange) is a far cry from cause".

______________

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.

I said: What assumptions and synonyms are you talking about?

Michael: Tired of being twisted.

Then say what you mean and quit twisting the meanings of words around.

Questioningly,

Rob

 

[Delmar]

Gee, I really suck at debate.


SS

Debate is a work and is not needed for salvation!

 

[themuzicman]

Then say what you mean and quit twisting the meanings of words around.

Questioningly,

Rob

What I mean is that words have meaning in their context, and that includes mine. If you go back to "made" when I originally used it, I put it in quote, and included "whatever that means." To my knowledge, scripture doesnt' describe how Satan and demons have influence over Christians, so when you ask what Satan did with Judas, we aren't told how he works. We just know that he can and does in some way, including this case.

The fact that Judas wasn't drawn had little to do with what Satan's intent and actions were in regards to getting Judas to betray Christ, except that Judas didn't understand and believe who Christ really was.

So, you're attempting to twist what I said out of context into some kind of definate action by God determining the events that would occur. If it wasn't clear that "made (whatever that means)" was intended to be vague, mainly because we don't know exactly what "Satan entered into him" means, I apologize.

However, assigning blame for Judas' betrayal of Christ clearly falls to Judas' and Satan feet, not God's, as you suggest.

Michael

 

[Frank Ernest]

Debate is a work and is not needed for salvation!

You're letting the :Commie:s and atheists slide by on a big one, DD! :darwinsm:

 

[themuzicman]

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

Salvation by grace through faith is the message of salvation since the fall.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Salvation by grace through faith is the message of salvation since the fall.

Muz

This is very simply not so muzic. Well, actually, as stated, it is accurate but terribly incomplete. Salvation has always been by the grace of God to one degree or another and faith has always been a necessary part of the salvation message but what we now call the Gospel of Grace was hid in the mind of God until the revelation of the mystery was given to the Apostle Paul.
Prior to Paul (during Jesus' ministry, for example) if you professed belief in God and did not follow the Mosaic Law by becoming circumcised, observing the Sabbath, paying tithes, performing baptisms, giving sacrifices, etc, etc, you were not in covenant relationship with God and would find yourself in Hell when you died. Conversely, if you were a Jew and performed the law to the letter and yet did not love God (i.e. have faith in Him) then you too would find yourself in Hell when you died. The covenant was about faith plus obedience to the law, which is what Jesus constantly taught throughout the gospels.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Salvation by grace through faith is the message of salvation since the fall.

Muz

So works were never required?

 

[themuzicman]

So works were never required?

Salvation comes by grace through faith, such that salvation has never been earned through works.

However, as we see both Paul and James and the author of Hebrews saying, our faith should be of such a quality that our works should make that faith evident.

Now, the works that make that faith evident will depend on the situation in which you find yourself. If you're Melchezedek or one of his followers, you worship God in the manner appropriate to you. If you're Israel, you live in the Covenant which sets you apart as a nation. (The Old Covenant was never intended as a salvific Covenant.) If you're Ninevah, you live in the repentence to which God called you when Jonah showed up. If you're Rahab, you protect the spies.

If you live in first or second century Rome, you endure persecution and worship God and preach the gospel.

If you live in 21st century America, you worship God and use your wealth to spread the gospel and help for the starving and poor around the world.

So, the gospel wasn't a mystery, but was promised at the fall, and faith has always been the condition of salvation.

Michael

 

[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

Michael,

Welcomed as foolish virgins? ... not yet judged but “surely to be judged along with the passing world.” I here your caution, and welcome it. I take it to heart.
But, now who is being eschatological?
Who am I to judge another man's servant and tell him what to do?
Michael, I celebrate the wonderful diversity of the Body of Christ. There are times that I feel that some are close to the edge and even times I am convinced that a gathering is not even Christian. There are false groups out there. But, not all faithful groups where Christ Jesus is present look the same and act the same or have the same form of church structure. I have a clue as to what group you refer in San Diego, but I can tell you straight out ... If Jesus was present, I would feel quite at ease.

There will more guest than just a few wise virgins at the wedding. There is oil in my lamp, my wick is trimmed. I'm making 'every effort' to strengthen my faith with the help of Holy Spirit at work in me. But, my invitation to the wedding depends on none of that. My experience of Jesus in the world does. Perseverance in faithfulness keeps my name on the list. I understand that. Last time I told you we were having church at the corner of 6th and Main. Had you been there you would have witnessed the presence of Jesus in the salvation of a guy I have known for years on the street. And the work begun in him will continue and be completed by God, if he and we together persevere in faith. We may not all be as ‘orthodox’ or as ‘mature’ or ‘presentable’ as you or we desire to be. Still, you would have been quite at ease tough you might have thought we were out of place.

The future is not only open ... so is the door of the Church.

Philetus​

 

[Philetus]

Salvation comes by grace through faith, such that salvation has never been earned through works.

However, as we see both Paul and James and the author of Hebrews saying, our faith should be of such a quality that our works should make that faith evident.

Now, the works that make that faith evident will depend on the situation in which you find yourself. If you're Melchezedek or one of his followers, you worship God in the manner appropriate to you. If you're Israel, you live in the Covenant which sets you apart as a nation. (The Old Covenant was never intended as a salvific Covenant.) If you're Ninevah, you live in the repentence to which God called you when Jonah showed up. If you're Rahab, you protect the spies.

If you live in first or second century Rome, you endure persecution and worship God and preach the gospel.

If you live in 21st century America, you worship God and use your wealth to spread the gospel and help for the starving and poor around the world.

So, the gospel wasn't a mystery, but was promised at the fall, and faith has always been the condition of salvation.

Michael

And if you live at the corner of 6th and Main you work out your salvation there with a lot of fear and trembling.

Still Clete has a good point.

This is very simply not so muzic. Well, actually, as stated, it is accurate but terribly incomplete. Salvation has always been by the grace of God to one degree or another and faith has always been a necessary part of the salvation message but what we now call the Gospel of Grace was hid in the mind of God until the revelation of the mystery was given to the Apostle Paul.
Prior to Paul (during Jesus' ministry, for example) if you professed belief in God and did not follow the Mosaic Law by becoming circumcised, observing the Sabbath, paying tithes, performing baptisms, giving sacrifices, etc, etc, you were not in covenant relationship with God and would find yourself in Hell when you died. Conversely, if you were a Jew and performed the law to the letter and yet did not love God (i.e. have faith in Him) then you too would find yourself in Hell when you died. The covenant was about faith plus obedience to the law, which is what Jesus constantly taught throughout the gospels.

Resting in Him,
Clete

We are so hard at work trying to make everything God ever did or will do fit into the present, and inventing futures to impose on God that none of us intend to live in let alone follow, that we twist and warp the present reality of salvaition in Christ to the point that nobody can come to Christ except on our terms.

Here the Open View addresses the reall issue:
There is no past, it's history ... get past it!
There is no future ... let go of what you think it is.
There is only today and today is the day of salvation ... embrace it.

The big mystery: Christ in Philetus, former heretic, the hope of glory, is just something you have to believe or receive as valid on faith. Philetus does. It is at least something you must tolerate.

Who gives a hoot how Jim sees his salvation in meticulous detail until he imposes it on everybody else for all time and (in his view) all eternity. Who gives a hoot how Philetus sees his salvation within the scope of time from everlasting to everlasting. Both are terribly incomplete in the all inclusive ways God has and is dealing with humanity. Give God the future! We have enough to deal with today.

Philetus​

 

[RobE]

What I mean is that words have meaning in their context, and that includes mine. If you go back to "made" when I originally used it, I put it in quote, and included "whatever that means." To my knowledge, scripture doesnt' describe how Satan and demons have influence over Christians, so when you ask what Satan did with Judas, we aren't told how he works. We just know that he can and does in some way, including this case.

The fact that Judas wasn't drawn had little to do with what Satan's intent and actions were in regards to getting Judas to betray Christ, except that Judas didn't understand and believe who Christ really was.

So, you're attempting to twist what I said out of context into some kind of definate action by God determining the events that would occur. If it wasn't clear that "made (whatever that means)" was intended to be vague, mainly because we don't know exactly what "Satan entered into him" means, I apologize.

However, assigning blame for Judas' betrayal of Christ clearly falls to Judas' and Satan feet, not God's, as you suggest.

Michael

Again, I didn't suggest God caused Judas' betrayal. You did!

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

You said that Judas wasn't 'drawn' as the other apostles were and that's why Judas became the betrayer. It stands to reason that, even though you deny it, if God had 'drawn' Judas then Judas wouldn't have betrayed Christ according to your understanding.

I call this the doctrine of insufficient Grace.

Now, with all of these 'influences' how did Jesus know before Judas knew about the betrayal? Also, I should point out that Jesus didn't allow Satan to 'sift' Peter, but did allow Satan to 'sift' Judas. Cause?

Yours,
Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Again, I didn't suggest God caused Judas' betrayal. You did!

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

You said that Judas wasn't 'drawn' as the other apostles were and that's why Judas became the betrayer. It stands to reason that, even though you deny it, if God had 'drawn' Judas then Judas wouldn't have betrayed Christ according to your understanding.

Again, where did I directly link God not drawing Judas to causing Judas to betray Christ?
This was an element, but one that seems painfully obvious, namely that if Judas truly believed in who Christ actually was, he would never have betrayed him.

If you actually read the bible, you find that Satan is the one who ultimately "influences" (not sure of the right word, here) Judas to to betray Christ.

I call this the doctrine of insufficient Grace.

Should I care what you call it?

Now, with all of these 'influences' how did Jesus know before Judas knew about the betrayal? Also, I should point out that Jesus didn't allow Satan to 'sift' Peter, but did allow Satan to 'sift' Judas. Cause?

How about "choice"? It was necessary for Judas to betray Christ, so God chose to allow Satan to work on Judas. Is "allowing" = "Cause"? I think not.

Michael

 

[Clete]

The Jim Hilston multisyllabic word of the day is....

Obscurantist

ob·scur·ant·ism
1. The principles or practice of obscurants.
2. A policy of withholding information from the public.
3. a. A style in art and literature characterized by deliberate vagueness or obliqueness.
b. An example or instance of this style.

ob·scurant·ist n.

I'll try to provide such definitions so that those of us who speak like normal people can follow the conversation.

Now on to my response to the post itself....

I asked...

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?​

[snip the irrelevant insults and references to indirect answers to the question posed]

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.

Notice that Jim attempts to head off the argument in advance. Notice also that he attempts to do so, not with any substantive rebuttal of the argument he pretends to anticipate but that has actually already been made several times, but instead simply calls the argument "blatantly retarded" in hopes that this will convince someone that he's smarter than the rest of us.

Well guess what, it won't work Jim! I'm slow but I have finally figured out that this is all you've got. This sort of insulting, condescending nonsense is the full measure of your arsenal against the open view position. I will no longer be intimidated or tricked into not making sound arguments against you by such tactics (which I have been too many times in the past) and will instead take every opportunity you present me with to expose your intellectual dishonesty.

In any debate (and yes, we are debating in spite of Jim's condescending remarks to the contrary) the whole point is to point out inconsistencies in your opponents position and so yes, I do indeed make the argument here that by Jim's own reasoning God must be considered to be imperfect when it comes to His actions, His manifestations, His humanity, and His relationships. Why? Because if God were perfect in any of these areas and then He changed in one of those areas, that change would be for the worse. It's precisely the same logic which Jim himself applies to the "nature or essence" of God. If it does not apply to His actions, why would it apply to His thoughts? If it doesn't apply to His relationships, why would it apply to His personality? Etc.

Further, Jim has also affirmed on many occasions the simplicity of God; that there is no parts to God. In Calvinist theology there is no distinctions within God. His mind is not separate from His actions and His personality is not separate from His manifestations. One aspect of God is identical to all of God because there are not compartments or aspects to God. He is utterly simple. This idea is another major premise used to conclude that God cannot change in any way whatsoever because for something to change it must have parts because if something changed in every conceivable way then it would have ceased to be that which it was altogether. For example, if an onion changes color then it is still an onion because color is only one aspect of the onion. But if the onion changed in every imaginable way then it would no longer be an onion at all. And so if God is perfectly simple then any change in Him at all would constitute a complete change and He would no longer be that which He had been before the change took place, namely God. Thus God cannot change and Jim's "qualified immutability" amounts quite literally to God's "qualified simplicity" which is, in the context of this philosophical issue, a contradiction in terms. Something is either perfectly simple or it is not. There is no such thing as "qualified simplicity" (The same is true of the term immutability, by the way. Something can either manifest change or it cannot and it therefore either immutable or it is not. “Qualified immutability’ is an oxymoron).

Now I didn't just make this simplicity argument up. That is as Calvinist an argument as any argument could be. If Jim denies that it is, he will have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that he is a liar because I happen to know for a fact that he knows better. And anyone who would like to look it up and confirm that it is in fact a Calvinist argument please do so.

And can anyone tell me what Clete means when he refers to a "tenant" of Calvinism?

Okay, okay! It should have been spelled tenet. I"M SOOOOO SOORRRY!
I suppose I must be an idiot after all! :sigh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

A tenant, in this context, would refer to the most basic beliefs of a particular system, in this case Calvinism. They include what is commonly referred to as the TULIP doctrines as well as the immutability and impassibility of God as His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

How obvious was that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

As obvious as ..... goodness ...... there just isn't anything that compares, except maybe a real tulip.

For those who don't read:
:cheers: :first: :up: : :second: thumb: :third: :BRAVO: :emarie:

 

[RobE]

How about "choice"? It was necessary for Judas to betray Christ, so God chose to allow Satan to work on Judas. Is "allowing" = "Cause"? I think not.

Michael​

It's not the first time you argued about causation.......

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.​

First you claim prearranging isn't causing. Now you say allowing isn't causing.

I would ask that if God didn't allow it would it have happened or maybe He didn't have the ability to stop it?

I would be dishonest to you if I claimed that I thought allowing made you responsible because I don't. See, I know that God foresaw what would happen in creation and 'allowed' it to happen because His desire was to create us. He isn't responsible for the things we do just because He 'allowed' us to do it ---- even though He could have stopped it. Hmmm......

Now and Forever,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Michael,

Rob: Now, with all of these 'influences' how did Jesus know before Judas knew about the betrayal? Also, I should point out that Jesus didn't allow Satan to 'sift' Peter, but did allow Satan to 'sift' Judas. Cause?

Michael: How about "choice"? It was necessary for Judas to betray Christ, so God chose to allow Satan to work on Judas. Is "allowing" = "Cause"? I think not.​

Now with my admission in the previous post that says 'allowing' isn't causing I need to point out one more thing.

You said "It was necessary for Judas to betray Christ,....."

As per God's plans.

You said "...so God chose to allow Satan to work on Judas."

God's choosing was arranging, not just allowing, in Judas' case; was it not?

You really can't have it both ways.

Friends,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Again, where did I directly link God not drawing Judas to causing Judas to betray Christ?
This was an element, but one that seems painfully obvious, namely that if Judas truly believed in who Christ actually was, he would never have betrayed him.

How do you know this? No one truly knows Judas' motives since they aren't in the scriptures.

If you actually read the bible, you find that Satan is the one who ultimately "influences" (not sure of the right word, here) Judas to to betray Christ.

Since you read the Bible constantly, why don't you show me where it says that Judas did NOT believe Jesus was the Christ!!!

How about "choice"? It was necessary for Judas to betray Christ, so God chose to allow Satan to work on Judas. Is "allowing" = "Cause"? I think not.

Is allowing a bear to eat a two year old a fair contest? Is allowing in this case a cause?

Rob

 

[RobE]

And can anyone tell me what Clete means when he refers to a "tenant" of Calvinism?

TENET.

Main Entry: te·net
Pronunciation: 'te-n&t also 'tE-n&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenEre to hold
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession​

Rob

 

[Clete]

TENET.

Main Entry: te·net
Pronunciation: 'te-n&t also 'tE-n&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenEre to hold
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession​

Rob

Of course! :doh:

What I silly mistake. I'll correct it immediately. Of course, I suppose I'll have to live down some additional insults from Jim. :idunno: