ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nang

TOL Subscriber
it wasn't your general 'ANNOUNCEMENT' that shocked me.

No, it was someone else's post that you got "shocked" over and then tried to attribute to me.

I can keep track of who says what to who on threads, guy, even if you can't.

For instance:


Quote:
Originally Posted by [SIZE="4"
Nang;1424668[/size]]Open Theists affirm and assert a lot of things, using the holy Word of God in one breath, and denying the Spirit of God in the next.

Do you hold to their beliefs?

I asked this of godrulz.

Now you answer! :sigh:

YES! I do.

Well, whoop-de-doo for you, but I was not asking you. :kookoo:



Now go pray for me, so we can talk theology,

:rolleyes:

I will pray that you will acquire the skill of dissecting, truly reading, and thereby comprehending discussion group threads; learning to discern who is responding to whom.

IOW's, not all replies on threads are about YOU or answering YOU!

Nang
 

Philetus

New member
I agree, it was well said, but my approach isn't exactly the same as many. About the only thing in common is that all of my influences weren't OV. I've always examined everything because I was in a church for most of my growing up period where I had to actually read my Bible because the pastor was as liberal as all get-out (United Methodist). I was in a post-modern extremely generous orthodoxy before any of this was ever written about. So, at any rate, I'm a bit of a strange animal, I am more covenant than dispensation, more Calvinistic than Arminian (Ha AGAIN Godrulz!). A more 'open' rapturist/millenialist in eschatology, etc.

At any rate, if I were influenced by Greek philosophy, you could blame my College class for that, but I resisted every stretch of the way. I had a B+ in that class even though I A'ced everything and only received one B+ during the whole class (Tell me that wasn't a prejudice prof). Oh yes, I resisted. Anyway, the only way I could buy into Greek influence is if I found it Biblically sound as a secondary. It could never influence me primarily. Scripture directs what I believe. This all to say, if outside secular thinking influences me, it has to be filtered before I'd buy it.

Until I discovered this thread, I had never heard of Open Theism!
I grew up Arminian, in a rather ‘generous’ environment. It seemed that most of the theology had been formulated in reaction to Calvinism, and what wasn’t, was Wesleyan. I didn’t become a Christian until my second Jr. year of high school. I had a learning disability that hadn’t been diagnosed (I grew up in rural Kentucky. I began to search the scriptures … in fact I really learned to read listening to LP recordings and following along with the printed page in the New English Bible. There were lots of questions that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism answered.

I barely escaped high school, the Viet Nam draft, free love and the 60s, finally got accepted on academic probation at a little Bible College (that wasn’t even accreted then) studied philosophy at ETSU, and eventually finished my undergrad work at Anderson College. Pastored a few years, went back for my M.Div. (almost burned at the stake then), pastored a few more years, started street ministry, and worked in prisons, shelters and parachurch organizations of varied sorts. And now I’m scheduled to finish my Doctoral dissertation by June 2008, I’ve pastored in the Church of God, Anderson, the United Methodist Church, and for nearly three years in the United Church of Christ (I only thought I was a liberal till I got there.)

Long story short (well not as short as GR’s posts) Chete and godrulz and others accepted me where I was and directed me to the available works on Open Theism. Everything I read at that time rang true with what I had found in the Bible and the way the Spirit had been guiding me. The years of frustration with Churchianity’s hierarchies began to fade. Old issues began to lose importance. Everything began to make sense. The bible and reason aren’t enough. If they were, we would all agree by now. Only the Spirit can lead us into truth. Neither historical nor textual criticism nor the two combined are enough. Only the Spirit of Jesus the Christ can create in us the hope of glory. Why? Because like it or not, we are influenced by everything that has come across our pathway; directly or indirectly. Only the Spirit of Truth can save us from our own arrogance.

So let’s cut the baloney, ignore the clangnanging of noisy cymbals and go for broke. Listen to Dave. That man is not only wise, but has a spirit filled heart. So does godrulz! (And I have never met anyone as good as godrulz is at pigeonholing a position as quickly and accurately as he does.) I'm still glad you are here, however you come out on OT.

Banned Again Christian,
Philetus
 

Lon

Well-known member
Until I discovered this thread, I had never heard of Open Theism!
I grew up Arminian, in a rather ‘generous’ environment. It seemed that most of the theology had been formulated in reaction to Calvinism, and what wasn’t, was Wesleyan. I didn’t become a Christian until my second Jr. year of high school. I had a learning disability that hadn’t been diagnosed (I grew up in rural Kentucky. I began to search the scriptures … in fact I really learned to read listening to LP recordings and following along with the printed page in the New English Bible. There were lots of questions that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism answered.

I barely escaped high school, the Viet Nam draft, free love and the 60s, finally got accepted on academic probation at a little Bible College (that wasn’t even accreted then) studied philosophy at ETSU, and eventually finished my undergrad work at Anderson College. Pastored a few years, went back for my M.Div. (almost burned at the stake then), pastored a few more years, started street ministry, and worked in prisons, shelters and parachurch organizations of varied sorts. And now I’m scheduled to finish my Doctoral dissertation by June 2008, I’ve pastored in the Church of God, Anderson, the United Methodist Church, and for nearly three years in the United Church of Christ (I only thought I was a liberal till I got there.)

Long story short (well not as short as GR’s posts) Chete and godrulz and others accepted me where I was and directed me to the available works on Open Theism. Everything I read at that time rang true with what I had found in the Bible and the way the Spirit had been guiding me. The years of frustration with Churchianity’s hierarchies began to fade. Old issues began to lose importance. Everything began to make sense. The bible and reason aren’t enough. If they were, we would all agree by now. Only the Spirit can lead us into truth. Neither historical nor textual criticism nor the two combined are enough. Only the Spirit of Jesus the Christ can create in us the hope of glory. Why? Because like it or not, we are influenced by everything that has come across our pathway; directly or indirectly. Only the Spirit of Truth can save us from our own arrogance.

So let’s cut the baloney, ignore the clangnanging of noisy cymbals and go for broke. Listen to Dave. That man is not only wise, but has a spirit filled heart. So does godrulz! (And I have never met anyone as good as godrulz is at pigeonholing a position as quickly and accurately as he does.) I'm still glad you are here, however you come out on OT.

Banned Again Christian,
Philetus

Thanks for sharing and I totally agree on your assessment of Dave and Godrulz, but then again I'm not E4, sozo or lighthouse. And I also totally agree on his ability to discern, but his sympathies are definitely OV :p

Chete (ha ha was that a faux paus'!) Clete, is the philosopher and even though I've had a course or two, I'm yet a layman in philosophy, so I appreciate the links and terms from him.

I do not envision embracing the OV. I'm a learner by nature because my puzzle is always being worked on, but at this venture I believe scripture supports a bit more concerning knowing God. In OV I'd have to take a step back rather than forward. Right now, I view God as being more capable than OV allows, and so it would be a hard constraint to use the OV framework. I do appreciate you guys. My theology has been through rigorous exercise and for that I've nothing but gratitude. I've a few Catholic friends I'm on similar terms with. I appreciate a good workout and broadening my perspective regarding Our Precious God.

In Him

Lon
 

Philetus

New member
No, it was someone else's post that you got "shocked" over and then tried to attribute to me.

I can keep track of who says what to who on threads, guy, even if you can't.

For instance:




I asked this of godrulz.

Now you answer! :sigh:



Well, whoop-de-doo for you, but I was not asking you. :kookoo:





:rolleyes:

I will pray that you will acquire the skill of dissecting, truly reading, and thereby comprehending discussion group threads; learning to discern who is responding to whom.

IOW's, not all replies on threads are about YOU or answering YOU!

Nang

When you say:

Nang;1424668 Open Theists affirm and assert a lot of things, using the holy Word of God in one breath, and denying the Spirit of God in the next.


That's about me, your holiness. Welcome to the public forum.

And when E4E agrees, with anyone, we are all shocked.:chuckle: So don't get your robe in a knot, put your gavel down on the desk, your backside on the bench, your nose back in joint and take Clete’s advice. Nobody made you sheriff.


So moving right along, what is it you don’t like about Open Theism? The people?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Open Theists affirm and assert a lot of things, using the holy Word of God in one breath, and denying the Spirit of God in the next.

Do you hold to their beliefs?

I am in agreement with Open Theism in general as the most biblical position. Not all OTs agree on every detail.

I affirm the Word of God as authoritative and the source for understanding these issues. The Spirit of God gives illumination of His Word. As a Pentecostal, I value the person and work of the Spirit.

Unless you can specifically illustrate your vapid accusations, I would refrain from saying people who love the Spirit and the Word deny both?!
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
its true and godrulz does not even recognise who the spirit of God is. In fact he denies Him every chance he gets.

Pentecostals emphasize the person and work of the Holy Spirit. My pneumatology is orthodox. Do I deny that the Spirit is God (triune) or that He is personal (JW active force)? Do I reject the gifts of the Spirit like you guys do? The Spirit came on people and they spoke in tongues (Acts). I have had this experience 25 years, yet you guys say it is fleshly or demonic?! (chapter or verse? My experience is based on Acts and I Cor. 12-14...what is your lack of experience based on? Unbelief? Quenching and grieving the Spirit?).

Rejecting some of your views on 'flesh' or OSAS is not tantamount to rejecting the person and work of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God.

If you are going to make lame accusations, be specific lest you be guilty of slander, libel, and denigrating the work of the Spirit in a fellow believer's life.

Talking about the proverbial peanut gallery:box: :noid:
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Unless you can specifically illustrate your vapid accusations, I would refrain from saying people who love the Spirit and the Word deny both?!


That is not what I said to you, is it? You cannot quote me as having said the above, can you?

Why do you feel the need to disingenuously reword my comments?

Nang
 

Philetus

New member
Thanks for sharing and I totally agree on your assessment of Dave and Godrulz, but then again I'm not E4, sozo or lighthouse. And I also totally agree on his ability to discern, but his sympathies are definitely OV :p

Chete (ha ha was that a faux paus'!) Clete, is the philosopher and even though I've had a course or two, I'm yet a layman in philosophy, so I appreciate the links and terms from him.

I do not envision embracing the OV. I'm a learner by nature because my puzzle is always being worked on, but at this venture I believe scripture supports a bit more concerning knowing God. In OV I'd have to take a step back rather than forward. Right now, I view God as being more capable than OV allows, and so it would be a hard constraint to use the OV framework. I do appreciate you guys. My theology has been through rigorous exercise and for that I've nothing but gratitude. I've a few Catholic friends I'm on similar terms with. I appreciate a good workout and broadening my perspective regarding Our Precious God.

In Him

Lon

Chete (ha ha was that a faux paus'!)
Oh, mercy! You only hurt the ones you love. Fast fingers. Sorry, Clete!


Even if you don't buy into it, can you see that WITHIN the OV system, God isn't ‘incapable’ in the least, in fact my favorite OV attribute, (I think Clark Pinnock first used it and I first heard it from Clete or godrulz) is omnicompetent. God is faithful and able to fulfill the future He plans, even if you or I don’t buy into it. We have been given freedom to direct our own futures to a great degree (significant say-so within the limits God has set, of course). Yet, even within those limits, the freedom God has granted is risky in that we may reject Him and his plan to our own ruin. Some no doubt will, still by grace through faith, some will embrace God and His gift of life. Just who will and who won’t make that future decision, remains a mystery, even to God.
 

elected4ever

New member
:jawdrop: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatttt? Well that's good that you think God created it:sigh:

Gen 1 goes into detail how God made us. Remember? Didn't you approve of those verses? Not up to your standards of truth?

How about these verses that mirror Gen?

Exodus 20:11

Job 26:7-14

(Not to mention the genealogy records kept in scripture that allow us to count the earth is very young. I guess they don't live up to your standards?)


Isa 45
9 “ Woe to him who strives with his Maker!
Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth!
Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?

E4E, I never thought much about your arguments before, but now I have no respect for them. Because now I know you do not believe in the entire bible. Only the parts that suit you, the parts that make you look holier than others is all you care about.

Elected4Ever = holier than everyone else forever :(

How can you be like the person being rebuked by God in Isaiah? Who are you to tell us what parts of the Bible happened? Why not just let atheists on this thread who don't believe in the Bible too and let them make up whatever they want to be true?
I don't think much of your arguments ether come to think of it. I hardly think about them at all.:rolleyes:

I don't strive with my maker, that is unless you are my maker then i strive a lot.:p

Hay, tell me something Patman, what have I calmed for myself that is not true with all God's children? The only difference is I know who i am in Christ and 90 percent of the people on this board do not know who they are in Christ. I suppose that would include you.

Your just jealous that i gave my death to Christ and he gave me His life, and it would seem that you are more comfortable remaining in your death and keeping it as your very own even though you have received salvation (life from the dead) as i have.

I don't guess it makes you feel very religious in the flesh when the flesh can add nothing and is left out. After all the flesh has to do something to justify its existence doesn't it.:sigh:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Well, Hello Dave,
I was going to wait a day, but after beginning and doing a brief gloss over, I thought I'd find time.

Maybe you don't build your theology on Greek philosophy but Augustine did by his own confession.

"By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. (Natural theology preceeding Revealed theology) And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity (timeless); that thou truly art, who art ever the same, (changeless) varying neither in part nor motion (immovable); and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone (nothing moves itself): that they exist...I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scripture (determinism), that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them."
Certiainly I agree, there definitely was influence of greek philosophy upon him, but I use scripture to back up claims of who God is. I do not believe He is unmoved, but that He is perfect. Our change is from lessers to glory, His is responsive change that entails His perfect love and care. This should have an OV thread btw, there is great room here for misinterpretation from those looking in, and in fact, the debate between Enyart and Cook pointed to this. There is a need to define 'unmoved mover.' I've been with you guys long enough to know we aren't necessarily in disagreement, but because it is a change in a doctrinal stance, it needs a good address.
Then what does the Bible say?

Biblical premise:
Knowledge of God begins with God

The Biblical premise is that God has spoken to us through the prophets to tell us he is the Creator of the world and has revealed himself to us through his son. John 14:8-9 "Jesus said to his disciples, 'If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.' Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' Jesus said to him, 'He who had seen Me has seen the Father.'"

Biblical analysis:
Movement, change, and time exist in God

Hebrews 1:10-12 "Thou, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; and they all will become old as a garment, and as a mantle thou wilt roll them up as a garment they will also be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will not come to an end." The creation is the work of God; this is movement. God has "years"; this is time. These verses tell us that the material world will run down and wear out through time, but God, who is spirit, will not experience change nor perish though time.

Psalms 90:1-4 "Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." Because God has no beginning and no end, a thousand years is as a day to God. There are theologians who say that these verses explain that God is timeless, but the verses only say that God experiences time differently than we do.

The Bible records that God has changed his mind, his mood, and his form. Genesis 6:5-8 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people." To repent is a change of mind and action.
I agree with this, it is scriptural, but.... there are some logic problems we should discuss. Because God is perfect there is no 'need' to change. His change therefore must be seen as necessary for 'us.' I am not perfect so to even appreciate the sense of a sentence like this I'm scrambling. If you make a perfect anything, you could change it (like the colors, or wooden panels. It wouldn't necessarily make it less perfect, but what we do know is that from Everlasting to Everlasting God is the same Psa 90:2; Psa 89:34; and in Kings we also recon that Something in His very nature does not change. Therefore, there must need be a cogent theology that accounts for what we see. To simply say "God changes" is just as wrong to simply say "God never changes." There is great need to build a cogent doctrine.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the word became flesh and dwelt among us."This is greatest change of all. The Word becoming flesh not only speaks of change but also time and movement.
Yes, but by the very act there is a transcendence of time at the incarnation. Once I was told by OV in here that when Joshua's day of battle extened, it was not the suspension of time, but it definitely was a time change. Whether by stopping all the universe, or by some other means, the concept of time was suspended. This gets very difficult in which to see clearly, but this moment in O.T. history transcends our understandings. Somehow that particular day had more hours involved with it. The pattern of perception of time was disrupted. All this to say, that God's time is different from ours (a day as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day).
Biblical conclusion:
God is the creator of the world and enters it

The Bible reveals that God acted sequentially in the creation of the universe. In six days he brought into existence a world that had not previously existed. This reveals time and movement in God. The incarnation is a change in God; "The Word became flesh." This is the antithesis of Plato's deity who "always is and never becomes", and Aristotle's "immovable" deity.

That God has a past, present, and future is quite obvious. The creation and incarnation are past events for God. The day of judgement is a future event for God as it is for us. The essence of time has always existed in God himself. In the creation there is only a new way to measure it, "seasons, days and years",

Genesis 1:14. God assures us that his character does not change. He always has been and always will be love, light, and justice, etc.. But the Bible clearly tells us that God can change his mind, make plans, and alter them. He has unlimited potential and freedom of thought and action in an eternity of unlimited time.

This is a pretty good start on this discussion. It was like I was reading your mind. At this point, it'd be awesome to start a thread concerning just this, because clarity is needed. If you'd like to move this post over to a new place along with your's and any other pertinent comments, I believe this would serve as a great thread all on it's own.

In Him

Lon
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
That is not what I said to you, is it? You cannot quote me as having said the above, can you?

Why do you feel the need to disingenuously reword my comments?

Nang

I was talking to e4e. You made a general comment about Open Theism, whereas e4e specifically said I deny the Spirit. You need to back up your slam against OT (I assume you really do not understand it), and elected needs to back up his slam against me, otherwise you lack credibility and are simply straw man, ad hominem attackers because you can't build an intelligent case to think critically about different views.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Has anybody seen the Denzel Washington movie 'Deja Vu'? My wife wanted to rent it. Minority Report, Back to the Future, etc. always strained my brain with their time warp issues. Deja Vu is refutable by Open Theism and makes no sense, except to the timeless/eternal now people. The movie is incoherent and impossible logically.

The movie is a good argument for Open Theism and against other views on time.

Perhaps the timeless people could explain how 500 people could get blown up, yet it was possible to go back 4 days, change the past, and have the same 500 people alive in a parallel stream that negated their actual deaths?!:rolleyes:

Oops. Is it too late for a spoiler alert?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Chete (ha ha was that a faux paus'!)
Oh, mercy! You only hurt the ones you love. Fast fingers. Sorry, Clete!


Even if you don't buy into it, can you see that WITHIN the OV system, God isn't ‘incapable’ in the least, in fact my favorite OV attribute, (I think Clark Pinnock first used it and I first heard it from Clete or godrulz) is omnicompetent. God is faithful and able to fulfill the future He plans, even if you or I don’t buy into it. We have been given freedom to direct our own futures to a great degree (significant say-so within the limits God has set, of course). Yet, even within those limits, the freedom God has granted is risky in that we may reject Him and his plan to our own ruin. Some no doubt will, still by grace through faith, some will embrace God and His gift of life. Just who will and who won’t make that future decision, remains a mystery, even to God.

Absolutely! If not, I pity the foo'! Omnicompetent is a must regardless. It is inclusive in Omnipotence (God can do) which is not just a view of His strength, but ability.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Has anybody seen the Denzel Washington movie 'Deja Vu'? My wife wanted to rent it. Minority Report, Back to the Future, etc. always strained my brain with their time warp issues. Deja Vu is refutable by Open Theism and makes no sense, except to the timeless/eternal now people. The movie is incoherent and impossible logically.

The movie is a good argument for Open Theism and against other views on time.

Perhaps the timeless people could explain how 500 people could get blown up, yet it was possible to go back 4 days, change the past, and have the same 500 people alive in a parallel stream that negated their actual deaths?!:rolleyes:

Oops. Is it too late for a spoiler alert?

You Trekkie!

(and yeah, thanks. No need to see THAT one now)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top