ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

themuzicman

Well-known member
Clete said:
Because He had already chosen the twelve and given the great commission directly to them along with the authority needed to administer that commission. How is it that this new comer who had been the arch enemy of the twelve now teaches a gospel that Peter himself has a hard time getting his head around? By what authority does Paul preach? God's, right? Is God in the habit of giving a job to one man or group and then doing an end run around them to give it to someone else? No! Of course not! God is not in conflict with Himself and is not the author of confusion!

If Paul's gospel was the same then why was it necessary for him to go to the twelve to explain his gospel to them and why does Paul spend whole chapters distancing himself from the twelve? Don't you think that aught to have been the other way around? Shouldn't the twelve have had to explain the gospel to Paul and then perhaps send him out on some missionary journey? Shouldn't Paul have been using the endorsement of the twelve as a calling card to demonstrate that his message was on the up and up?

Oh, you wanted speculation? My guess is that Paul was chosen because he was a highly educated Pharisee with an extensive knowledge of the TNK and would be well prepared to teach new Christians about their heritage and prove from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, as Paul did on many occasions. Paul was also well equipped to interact with the Roman culture he would encounter, since he was both a Roman citizen and from Tarsus.

Why does Paul repeatedly call the gospel that he preached "my gospel"? None of the twelve or even Jesus called it that! In what way was it Paul's gospel?

Because Paul was a skilled writer and orator, and well versed in Greek. Paul's Greek writing is more elaborate and reflective of Greek style than Peter or John. Also, Greek uses the genitive "of me" (which we translate my) to reflect possession, but it also uses the same form to reflect a host of other meanings. The genitive is best described as 'descriptive' as a whole, so it is quite likely that Paul isn't making an exclusive claim to this particular gospel, but is simply referring to the same gospel that he taught them when he was with them. Even in English, if I say, "My State", I don't mean that I own the state of Michigan, but, rather, where I associate myself, as do 9 million other people.

This is one of the places where mid-acts dispies insert their own beliefs into a word that isn't warranted. Just because Paul calls is "my gospel" doesn't mean that others weren't preaching it, too.

I understand them perfectly well and ignore nothing. Romans 4:5 is Paul's entire message in a nutshell as it James 2 James' (and Jesus' for that matter).

For you to say that they are preaching different faiths says otherwise.

You would make a great Baptist Muz! I've heard this argument made a thousand times and you've made the Baptist argument almost verbatim. Have you ever heard a Church of Christ person make the argument? It's 180 degrees out of phase with yours in that it is Paul who is not saying what it sounds like he's saying instead of James. Their argument is just as wrong as your is.

I never said that either was not saying what it sounds like he is saying. When you read both in context, both make perfect sense, and are perfectly compatible. It is only when you prooftext them do you get an out of context pretext.

Both Paul and James are talking about what it takes to be saved and both of them mean precisely what it sounds like they means and they are saying precisely opposite things just as it seems like they are.

Sorry, but you're wrong, here. James is not speaking of what it takes to be saved. James is speaking of what it means to be saved. James' whole point is that if you are saved, that MEANS that works will result. James is speaking of post-salvation actions.

If you had been in Rome at the time Paul had written that letter then you would have read that letter and understood that works don't have anything to do with getting saved at all but that if you call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Agreed.

Conversely had you been a member of the dispersion (the audience of the book of James) and you had read that letter you would have understood that works are a necessary part of your faith and that if they are absent whatever you believe won't matter.

And Paul would agree with James, as would the readers of Romans.

Romans 6
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin [as] instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?​

This is where Paul agrees with James. Our newfound faith isn't there so that we may go on sinning, but our newfound faith exists so that we might be instruments of righteousness.

Thus, just as we should not be slaves to sin by sinning, our faith ought to result in works that reflect our faith.

Same message, different audience and presentation.

You would have understood that because that's what the letter says. In fact, that's what the whole book of James is about - what it takes to be saved - that's the theme of the whole book.

You completely lost me, here.

James 1 is about asking for wisdom and living wisely.
James 2 is about living according to your faith.
James 3 is about living a life of self-control, no supposing to be teachers.
James 4 chides the audience for being quarrelsome
James 5 is further commands on moral and spiritual living.

James is not speaking about soteriology anywhere in his book. He certainly isn't building a foundational doctrine about salvation. He is writing to those who are saved about how to live as those who believe.

You really should back this up with actual exegesis, if you're going to make claims like this.

And the only reason to even think, never mind actually suggest that James is talking about anything other than that is in order to maintain the position that his gospel was the same as Paul's.

Sorry, Clete, if you want me to quote and exegete the whole book of James for you, I can, but James is NOT presenting a case for how one is saved. He's talking about how to live life after salvation.

As soon as you realize that Paul's message is not the same as that of the twelve it is no longer necessary to even try to make them say the same thing. The Bible all of sudden makes sense when you just read it. It's no longer necessary to study a simple passage for hours and days in order to make it fit with things that it shouldn't fit with. All you have to do is just read it and take it for what it plainly says, which, incidentally, will not only result in Acts 9 Dispensationalism but Open Theism as well.

The bible makes sense without imposing Acts 9 dispyism on it. I realize that individual verses may be read with an Acts 9 dispy spin, but when you take those verses to the larger context, they don't make sense anymore.

I don't spend hours trying to study a simple passage. I spend lots of time explaining to people like you how their proof texts don't make sense in the context, but that isn't difficult, either.

To be honest, you've made a couple of very incredible and very unsupported statements in this post. Maybe you should take some more time to show these things from the larger context of what James and Paul are saying, rather than picking verses and imposing upon them.

Michael
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
themuzicman:

Which denomination are you ordained with? If an independent local church only, what fellowship (more Baptist, etc.?).

I apprediate your insights and understand this issue like you do. I agree with your understanding of James (practical Christian living) and Romans (great salvation themes). One of the issues in Galatians is the heretical Judaizer views. It was not a matter of two true NT gospels. There was one gospel to two target audiences.

Paul was ideally suited for Jewish and Gentile ministry. I am not sure why it is assumed that Christological, Petrine, Pauline, Johannine, etc. views were so diametrically opposed. Paul's teaching is rooted in Christ. John pastored after Paul in a Gentile church (Ephesus). I do not see John's thoughts later in church history contradicting Paul's thoughts.

What is your educational background?

How did you become conversant with Mid-Acts and its refutation?

I imagine you do not agree with Open Theism. Since I affirm it (while denying Mid-Acts), what are your concerns with the view?

Thx again for your helpful insights that I have been trying to share, but perhaps not as well.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
godrulz said:
themuzicman:

Which denomination are you ordained with? If an independent local church only, what fellowship (more Baptist, etc.?).

Church isn't associated with any particular denomination. I suppose we're a bit like Willow Creek in Chicago.

I apprediate your insights and understand this issue like you do. I agree with your understanding of James (practical Christian living) and Romans (great salvation themes). One of the issues in Galatians is the heretical Judaizer views. It was not a matter of two true NT gospels. There was one gospel to two target audiences.

Agree re: Judaizers. Acts 9 dispies put Peter in with the heretics Paul is fighting.

Paul was ideally suited for Jewish and Gentile ministry. I am not sure why it is assumed that Christological, Petrine, Pauline, Johannine, etc. views were so diametrically opposed. Paul's teaching is rooted in Christ. John pastored after Paul in a Gentile church (Ephesus). I do not see John's thoughts later in church history contradicting Paul's thoughts.

Agree. When you read each with the proper historical and audience backgrounds, they are perfectly harmonious.

What is your educational background?

Presently studying for M.Div at a Baptist Seminary.

How did you become conversant with Mid-Acts and its refutation?

Started here a few years ago, interacted with them on Paltalk and other forums.

I imagine you do not agree with Open Theism. Since I affirm it (while denying Mid-Acts), what are your concerns with the view?

Actually, I'm Open View Theist, too, although covenantal,rather than dispy.

Thx again for your helpful insights that I have been trying to share, but perhaps not as well.

I think you've been doing well. :bannana:

Muz
 

Philetus

New member
themuzicman said:
Church isn't associated with any particular denomination. I suppose we're a bit like Willow Creek in Chicago.



Agree re: Judaizers. Acts 9 dispies put Peter in with the heretics Paul is fighting.



Agree. When you read each with the proper historical and audience backgrounds, they are perfectly harmonious.



Presently studying for M.Div at a Baptist Seminary.



Started here a few years ago, interacted with them on Paltalk and other forums.



Actually, I'm Open View Theist, too, although covenantal,rather than dispy.



I think you've been doing well. :bannana:

Muz

Me too!
Not affiliated with a denomination.
One Gospel.
Open Theist – covenantal.
Presently Studying. (but not as much as I should be.)
We both like godrulz.
I think you both do very well.

On any given topic in Theology ... you win some and you lose some.

Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
There is a difference between trials and tribulations experienced by all believers through the centuries, and the Great Tribulation before the Second Coming at the end of the age (Mt. 24; 25). The church experiences persecutions that wax and wane, but THE Tribulation (Daniel) will be God judging the Gentile nations and restoring His people Israel.

Yea, it’s called intensity. Is God not judging the Gentile nations and restoring His people now? Is this not likely to increase in intensity as that day approaches?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Philetus said:
Yea, it’s called intensity. Is God not judging the Gentile nations and restoring His people now? Is this not likely to increase in intensity as that day approaches?

Does Daniel's 70 th week ring a bell? The judgments in Rev. 6 ff. have not been historically fulfilled. There is no reason to make most of Revelation allegorical either (a literal view recognizes symbolism). Your principles are valid, but it seems there will be a chronological, historical period unlike what is happening now (immediately before the Second Coming).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame

themuzicman

Well-known member
godrulz said:
Phil and Muz:

What do you mean by covenantal Open Theism? Does this incorporate Calvinistic Reformed ideas :confused: I suppose I am Acts 2 dispensational with a Dallas Theological Seminary (Walvoord and Pentecost) eschatology (pre-trib./pre-mill).

For me, Covenentalism means that all are saved by grace through faith in Christ as a result of the formation of the New Covenant by Christ, which was promised at the fall. All the other Covenants served a purpose in pointing us to Christ and that Covenant, but none are able to save anyone.

In that sense, there is no difference in dispensations of grace or standards of salvation beyond faith in God.

The tricky part, of coruse is the transition around Christ's death, from looking forward to what was promise to looking back to what has been completed, which is why Jesus spent three years bringing signs and wonders to Israel.

Muz
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
themuzicman said:
For me, Covenentalism means that all are saved by grace through faith in Christ as a result of the formation of the New Covenant by Christ, which was promised at the fall. All the other Covenants served a purpose in pointing us to Christ and that Covenant, but none are able to save anyone.

In that sense, there is no difference in dispensations of grace or standards of salvation beyond faith in God.

The tricky part, of coruse is the transition around Christ's death, from looking forward to what was promise to looking back to what has been completed, which is why Jesus spent three years bringing signs and wonders to Israel.

Muz

I agree that grace and faith, not works have always been the issues in Old and New Covenant. Some covenants are conditional and some are unconditional (covenants include Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.). Old Testament saints looked forward to the cross by faith (shadow/types), while we look back on the finished work by faith (reality).
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
I think this is the main thing Open Theism believes. God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it. It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

Berean Todd

New member
Bob Hill said:
I think this is the main thing Open Theism believes. God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

So, in other words maybe God could change His mind about the whole salvation thing, and decide to just give us all the hell that we all deserve. Who knows, we really can't trust God in regards to any of the promises He has made to either us or Israel because He could very easily just change His mind about all of it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Berean Todd said:
So, in other words maybe God could change His mind about the whole salvation thing, and decide to just give us all the hell that we all deserve. Who knows, we really can't trust God in regards to any of the promises He has made to either us or Israel because He could very easily just change His mind about all of it.
Not and remain just He couldn't. Are you suggesting that God is unjust?
 

Berean Todd

New member
Clete said:
Not and remain just He couldn't. Are you suggesting that God is unjust?

What is so unjust about changing His mind. We are all deserving of hell, we all have sinned. He decided that He would accept Christ's payment on our behalf, perhaps He could just change His mind. We still deserve hell ... maybe He will decide to give us what we deserve.
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
Berean Todd said:
What is so unjust about changing His mind. We are all deserving of hell, we all have sinned. He decided that He would accept Christ's payment on our behalf, perhaps He could just change His mind. We still deserve hell ... maybe He will decide to give us what we deserve.

No. That's not possible. Before, we had our own righteousness and that condemned us. But now, we have the righteousness of Christ and as such it's impossible for us to become imperfect and deserving of hell. Thus, we have no need to worry about God somehow changing his mind and casting us away from himself.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Berean Todd said:
So, in other words maybe God could change His mind about the whole salvation thing, and decide to just give us all the hell that we all deserve. Who knows, we really can't trust God in regards to any of the promises He has made to either us or Israel because He could very easily just change His mind about all of it.

The immutability proof texts show that God is faithful and righteous. He does not change His mind in a fickle, arbitrary, capricious way. This does not mean that He will not change His mind in relation to changing contingencies. Will not is not the same as cannot. A personal being, including God who has ultimate freedom, can change His mind and will. Any change will be consistent with His perfect character and promises. Strong, Platonic immutability negates the personal nature of God and does not add anything to His dependable character that precludes the speculative nonsense you propose. God is love. He does not change His mind contrary to love and holiness.
 

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
Does Daniel's 70 th week ring a bell? The judgments in Rev. 6 ff. have not been historically fulfilled. There is no reason to make most of Revelation allegorical either (a literal view recognizes symbolism). Your principles are valid, but it seems there will be a chronological, historical period unlike what is happening now (immediately before the Second Coming).

Sure it does. And to a greater or lesser degree they have but, not with the intensity that will precede the second coming. Does it require a literal 'rapture' of the church in order to be fulfilled at some future date? Not, in the least. One reason we can trust God is because God is consistent in dealing with us throughout human history. Always has been; always will be.

I read the Book of Revelation as a discipleship manual for Christians going through hard times. It was written by a pastor well acquainted with persecutions and tribulations. The apocalyptic literature of the Bible isn’t all that mysterious or dificult when we remain grounded in the consistency of God and realizing that God can in fact be trusted to stand by His word is the greatest motivation for remaining faithful. No matter what the world throws at us, God is faithful. We need to remain faithful as well.

It is when we start dividing history into all these 'dispensations' or eschatology is reduced to two three and a half year periods that it gets confusing and nobody has a clue as to what God is up to. Where does it stop? Two Gospels? Really? I'll stick with the two basic options for getting right with God: Keep the Law to the letter (the circumcision covenant?) or trust Jesus (non-circumcision covenant?). Jew or Gentile the basic contracts haven’t changed. And Armageddon or no they aren’t likely to. Why not? God is faithful. God is consistent.
 

Philetus

New member
Berean Todd said:
So, in other words maybe God could change His mind about the whole salvation thing, and decide to just give us all the hell that we all deserve. Who knows, we really can't trust God in regards to any of the promises He has made to either us or Israel because He could very easily just change His mind about all of it.

Are you married?

Do you only trust people who CAN NOT change their minds?

I would hate to think that the only reason God is willing to see this thing through and include me in the future is because He can not change if He wanted to.

Did somebody say relationship?
 

patman

Active member
elected4ever said:
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ADMEISTRATIONS OF THE SAME GOSPEL AND TWO SEPERATE GOSPLES? :kookoo:
Stop screaming... or whatever that is you are doing.

It is pretty obvious the 12 wanted to keep to the law and circumcision and Paul said it was no longer needed... The "good news" in both is Jesus died for our sins, but the rest is completly different. Can you tell the difference, e4e?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
elected4ever said:
Clete, you do not do to become, you do because you are. There are no good works outside of Christ. If a person does not do the good works of God then it is a defiant sign that they are not of God. We do not do good works to become saved but we do good works because we are saved.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them
I agree completely but that is in direct contradiction to what the entire book of James is about. James even comes right out and says that you are justified by works.

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

You are doing the exact same thing that Muz is doing and in fact what the majority of Christians do and that is to make James say something other than what the text of his epistle actually says. There is no way anyone of James' original audience would have gotten anything that resembles Romans 4 from having read James' letter.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Philetus said:
Are you married?

Do you only trust people who CAN NOT change their minds?

I would hate to think that the only reason God is willing to see this thing through and include me in the future is because He can not change if He wanted to.

Did somebody say relationship?
:first: POD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top