ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

You are missing a Pentecostal hermeneutic in Acts. In some contexts, the filling of the Spirit was related to an experience subsequent to salvation (when one receives the Spirit/regenerated) evidenced by speaking in tongues. Believer's baptism had to be subsequent to repentant faith and should not be confused with salvation itself in any dispensation.

I am a dispensationalist of some sort, at least related to eschatology and covenants in the Bible.

John 3 is not talking about water baptism. It is definitely not talking about believer's or Christian baptism as practiced after His death and resurrection in Acts and the early church. The context and chronology precludes the possibility of Christian baptism.

Grace is an essential characteristic of the Living God. The OT God is not a stern judge while the NT God is meek and mild. There is one God who exhibits grace from the Garden of Eden to the End of time. Mercy is also not just a NT concept.

True faith includes obedience. Different displays of obedience to show that one has saving faith does not mean the outward ritual or law or work is what is salvific. There were 'thief on the cross' people in every age. If someone called on the Living God in the heat of battle, they could be eternally saved before imminent death, apart from any outward ceremony. This is the grace of God consistent with His justice.

Why is it the so-called 'Grace' believers seem to want to limit God's love and grace and reduce it to external legalisms. Jesus got at the heart of the law. He did not say the law saved anyone in itself. Relational trust in God has always been essential, not works of any kind. Just because works demonstrate saving faith, does not mean they are salvific.

The ungodly people I am talking about are the masses who get infant baptized or adult baptized in a church thinking this gives them fire insurance. They have no love for God or His people, they are selfish and unrepentant, they do not trust Christ and His finished work. They are merely religious, ritual-oriented, but have no clue about godliness or a relationship with Him. There are many dead, nominal denominations and believers who have rituals but no true gospel.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

You are missing a Pentecostal hermeneutic in Acts. In some contexts, the filling of the Spirit was related to an experience subsequent to salvation (when one receives the Spirit/regenerated) evidenced by speaking in tongues. Believer's baptism had to be subsequent to repentant faith and should not be confused with salvation itself in any dispensation.

You can't show me one example of someone saved BEFORE getting water baptized in the NT. This only happened for the first time in Acts 9-10.

I am a dispensationalist of some sort, at least related to eschatology and covenants in the Bible.

What kind? Who agrees with you?

John 3 is not talking about water baptism.

Prove it. Your posts are terrible. You don't respond to what I say. Do you notice I never cut anything out in my responses to you? I respond to everything.

It is definitely not talking about believer's or Christian baptism as practiced after His death and resurrection in Acts and the early church. The context and chronology precludes the possibility of Christian baptism.

Huh!? What does this mean? Baptism was commanded in Acts 2 by Peter, and in Acts 8 by Philip.

Grace is an essential characteristic of the Living God. The OT God is not a stern judge while the NT God is meek and mild. There is one God who exhibits grace from the Garden of Eden to the End of time. Mercy is also not just a NT concept.

Irrelevant to our discussion.

True faith includes obedience.

Scripture?

Different displays of obedience to show that one has saving faith does not mean the outward ritual or law or work is what is salvific.

I never said this.

There were 'thief on the cross' people in every age. If someone called on the Living God in the heat of battle, they could be eternally saved before imminent death, apart from any outward ceremony. This is the grace of God consistent with His justice.

Of course. This isn't my point. My point is that believing in Christ DBR was not the gospel until Paul.

Why is it the so-called 'Grace' believers seem to want to limit God's love and grace and reduce it to external legalisms. Jesus got at the heart of the law. He did not say the law saved anyone in itself. Relational trust in God has always been essential, not works of any kind. Just because works demonstrate saving faith, does not mean they are salvific.

No, faith and works were salvific because God said so. See Mark 16:16.

The ungodly people I am talking about are the masses who get infant baptized or adult baptized in a church thinking this gives them fire insurance. They have no love for God or His people, they are selfish and unrepentant, they do not trust Christ and His finished work. They are merely religious, ritual-oriented, but have no clue about godliness or a relationship with Him. There are many dead, nominal denominations and believers who have rituals but no true gospel.

You don't seem to understand the mid-acts position. Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation today, but once was in the OT (Num. 19) and the NT (Gospels and Acts 1-8) and will be, after the rapture of the body of Christ (1 Peter 3.)

 

[godrulz]

You can't show me one example of someone saved BEFORE getting water baptized in the NT. This only happened for the first time in Acts 9-10.



What kind? Who agrees with you?



Prove it. Your posts are terrible. You don't respond to what I say. Do you notice I never cut anything out in my responses to you? I respond to everything.



Huh!? What does this mean? Baptism was commanded in Acts 2 by Peter, and in Acts 8 by Philip.



Irrelevant to our discussion.



Scripture?



I never said this.



Of course. This isn't my point. My point is that believing in Christ DBR was not the gospel until Paul.



No, faith and works were salvific because God said so. See Mark 16:16.



You don't seem to understand the mid-acts position. Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation today, but once was in the OT (Num. 19) and the NT (Gospels and Acts 1-8) and will be, after the rapture of the body of Christ (1 Peter 3.)

I have wrote expanded answers to various issues in the last 8000 posts. I do not have to engage every sentence or word you write. Get over yourself. I am selective in repeating long posts when we all have limited time and energy.

The topic is Open Theism, so let's get off your hobby horse of Mid-Acts on this thread.

Mk. 16:16 This is a controversial passage, so I would not use it as a proof text. It does not teach baptismal regeneration. I answered this text on a thread for Bob Hill. You misunderstand the relationship between believer's baptism and faith.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I have wrote expanded answers to various issues in the last 8000 posts. I do not have to engage every sentence or word you write. Get over yourself. I am selective in repeating long posts when we all have limited time and energy.

The topic is Open Theism, so let's get off your hobby horse of Mid-Acts on this thread.

Mk. 16:16 This is a controversial passage, so I would not use it as a proof text. It does not teach baptismal regeneration. I answered this text on a thread for Bob Hill. You misunderstand the relationship between believer's baptism and faith.

Mark 16:16 is not a controversial passage. You just say it is because it goes against your theological position. Anyone that knows greek and has read Burgon knows the passage does teach baptismal regeneration and that it is included in the original manuscript written by Mark.

Wish I could say you challenged me in my beliefs, but you offered me nothing that I haven't heard from beginning bible students.

 

[godrulz]

Mark 16:16 is not a controversial passage. You just say it is because it goes against your theological position. Anyone that knows greek and has read Burgon knows the passage does teach baptismal regeneration and that it is included in the original manuscript written by Mark.

Wish I could say you challenged me in my beliefs, but you offered me nothing that I haven't heard from beginning bible students.

There are textual criticism issues. Burgon, who ever he is, has not proven that this passage was in original Markan MSS. The two most reliable early MSS do not have Mk. 16:9-20 (Rome/Vaticanus; London/Sinaiticus). This does not mean the passage is noncanonical. I accept it at face value, but it must be interpreted correctly. It is consistent with the other Gospels. Some Pentecostal groups die handling snakes based on this passage. The problem is with their interpretation, not the passage (I am a tongue speaking Pentecostal, but I do not handle snakes or drink poison on purpose).

Whoever does not believe is condemned. It does not say whoever is not baptized after belief is condemned in that dispensation (see, I can proof text as good as you). I answered Bob Hill elsewhere recently on this passage. It does not teach baptismal regeneration, since this is a heresy that is clearly contradicted from Gen. to Rev. Following Jesus, not getting wet, is how we are saved. The early church took for granted that obeying Christ's command to be baptized was evidenced by an external step of discipleship as testimony to the world. Arguing as you do, we end up with the Catholic idea that communion is how we take in the literal Christ (transubstantiation). I doubt you are sacramental, so do not reduce baptism to a Catholic, meritorious sacrament for any post-resurrection believer (they say we are born again at infant baptism)! I suppose you also have thrown communion out with the proverbial bathwater.

Only Mid-Acts could think John 3:16 is not part of the heart of Pauline teaching. :madmad:

 

[Just Tom]

I haven't read this whole thread just the first page.

What I wonder is why do some think that God is somehow less of God, because he chose to create free will beings.

He is still sovereign, meaning there is none higher in authority than him, not that his is controlling everything. As in any RELATIONSHIP you have to have interaction between two parties. Otherwise you are having a relationship with your computer, since it is doing just what you told it to do.

Those that are threatened by Open Theism still carry the baggage of the world with them.

Unless you become like this little child you will not see the kingdom of heaven.

You don't put new wine in an old wine skin..

Forget all the notions you have learn from TV and pagan greeks and your own imagination and just read the bible. You will not see the IMINI's and Omni's but a living God struggling to get his message across through men who are less than perfect.

May we all choose to allow God to rule in our hearts, that we can be used by Him to stand for the foundation of His throne.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Forget all the notions you have learn from TV and pagan greeks and your own imagination and just read the bible. You will not see the IMINI's and Omni's but a living God struggling to get his message across through men who are less than perfect.

The only one who struggles with God's message is us, not God.

 

[Just Tom]

The only one who struggles with God's message is us, not God.

Did I say God was struggling with his message as though his is confused? If that is the way if came across then my bad..

He is struggling with us. God has chosen us to bring the message and has worked to bring this message through men. Thus He is struggling with men to get the correct message out.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Did I say God was struggling with his message as though his is confused? If that is the way if came across then my bad..

He is struggling with us. God has chosen us to bring the message and has worked to bring this message through men. Thus He is struggling with men to get the correct message out.

Thanks for the clarification.:up:

 

[godrulz]

Tom is correct. God's desired reciprocal relationships more than a deterministic universe. Freedom was a means to have these relationships. This introduced the potential for grief in God's 'very good' creation. He sovereignly chose this type of creation with the result that He does not always get His way (e.g. Hitler; evil; hell). Despite this, He still brings His overall redemptive plans and intentions to pass whether everyone buys into it or not (Satan and the ungodly do not with serious consequences not originally desired nor intended by God).

 

[GodsfreeWill]

There are textual criticism issues. Burgon, who ever he is, has not proven that this passage was in original Markan MSS.

Actually he has. He has done extensive research on the issue and has proven that these verses are there. In fact, he wrote a book entitled "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark."

The two most reliable early MSS do not have Mk. 16:9-20 (Rome/Vaticanus; London/Sinaiticus).

Reliable? HA! That's funny Godrulz. Neither manuscript contains the canon of today, and both are riddled with errors. Do some research, PLEASE!

This does not mean the passage is noncanonical. I accept it at face value, but it must be interpreted correctly. It is consistent with the other Gospels. Some Pentecostal groups die handling snakes based on this passage. The problem is with their interpretation, not the passage (I am a tongue speaking Pentecostal, but I do not handle snakes or drink poison on purpose).

It fits perfectly with scripture. Unfortunately tongues, healing and the like are no longer for today. Your tongues are most likely either demonic or you've been coerced into them.

Whoever does not believe is condemned. It does not say whoever is not baptized after belief is condemned in that dispensation (see, I can proof text as good as you).

Actually, you can't, and your lack of greek shines through here. Botha re aorist participles. Grammatically, you MUST do both to be saved.

I answered Bob Hill elsewhere recently on this passage. It does not teach baptismal regeneration, since this is a heresy that is clearly contradicted from Gen. to Rev.

It does teach baptismal regeneration, you just don't know greek.

Following Jesus, not getting wet, is how we are saved.

Following Jesus meant different things in different dispensations. For those under the great commission, following Jesus meant being water baptized.

The early church took for granted that obeying Christ's command to be baptized was evidenced by an external step of discipleship as testimony to the world. Arguing as you do, we end up with the Catholic idea that communion is how we take in the literal Christ (transubstantiation). I doubt you are sacramental, so do not reduce baptism to a Catholic, meritorious sacrament for any post-resurrection believer (they say we are born again at infant baptism)! I suppose you also have thrown communion out with the proverbial bathwater.

Anyone baptized today only gets wet, nothing more. Communion is still a way for the church to remember Christ's sacrifice, "as often as we do it," which for my church is about once a year!

Only Mid-Acts could think John 3:16 is not part of the heart of Pauline teaching. :madmad:

Unfortunately for you, you don't understand John 3:16. John 3:16 does not talk about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection which was the heart of Paul's gospel. In fact, Christ commanded His disciples to tell NO ONE of his death and resurrection.

Luke 9:21,22
21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one,
22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”

Here's my last question for you Godrulz: How could Jesus command His disciples to tell no one of His death and resurrection, the exact thing Paul preached as his gospel in 1 Cor. 15? Was Jesus telling His disciples NOT to preach the gospel Godrulz? Only in your world.... I've never recieved an answer to this, and will prepare myself to add you to the list of those who not only don't have an answer, but are also unwilling to admit it.

 

[Philetus]

Mk. 16:16 This is a controversial passage, so I would not use it as a proof text. It does not teach baptismal regeneration. I answered this text on a thread for Bob Hill. You misunderstand the relationship between believer's baptism and faith.

Any one reading this thread can see it is controverisal ...
I've read the thread from post one ... got lost in that whole Baptism thing. "Down dirty and up wet" and still all wet. That's goooood!

The topic is Open Theism, so let's get off your hobby horse of Mid-Acts on this thread.

Though you had had sliped a cog and was about to leave ... ride er hard and put er up wet. Back to Open Theism.

Just now signed on ... this thread did it. Ok, down to business.

Can anyone give me a brief sweep of the charge Open Theists make that the omnis are rooted in Greek Philosophy?
I'm really open to the OTV and inquiring minds what to know.

 

[Philetus]

Luke 9:21,22
21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one,
22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”
doogieduff:
Here's my last question for you Godrulz: How could Jesus command His disciples to tell no one of His death and resurrection, the exact thing Paul preached as his gospel in 1 Cor. 15? Was Jesus telling His disciples NOT to preach the gospel Godrulz? Only in your world.... I've never recieved an answer to this, and will prepare myself to add you to the list of those who not only don't have an answer, but are also unwilling to admit it.

Hey Doggieduff, I'm not Godgulz, but couldn't resist moving this thing back to the Open T. Topic topic. Don't take me off your list quite yet. Jesus the God/man must have had some good reason for not wanting them spilling the whole can of beans as early as chapt. 9. Maybe it had something to do with the mess that nearly got out of hand in chap. 4. You know the clift thing after telling his hometown neighbors why he was there. If they had succeeded in tossing him then there would not have been a living sacrifice to nail to the cross. Heck, the desciples didn't even begin to get it until after the resurrection. The part you left out is the clincher for me ... after his resurrection, JESUS commanded those same guys to go tell it all, leave nothing out, and tell it to every living creature, but even then Jesus told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for a helper. I can only imagine how Peter would have done if he had tried to preach that sermon (you know "this Jesus that your crucified") the day before the Holy Spirit showed up at Pentecost. Not good. By the time God gave Paul the green light to make the mystery known the cat was already way out of the bag. It was time for everybody to be told. I guess at any point in time its fair to say the "future isn't what it once was." (Unless you have a static view of the world and God that is.) And that doesn’t mean that the end is not a sure thing. Godwins!

Hey, that would make a cool ID name. Naw, on second thought I'll stick with Philetus, because in a weak and divided church everybody has gotta be somebody's heretic. I just know looking forward to the resurrection changes everything.

Philetus

 

[CRASH]

Any one reading this thread can see it is controverisal ...
I've read the thread from post one ... got lost in that whole Baptism thing. "Down dirty and up wet" and still all wet. That's goooood!



Though you had had sliped a cog and was about to leave ... ride er hard and put er up wet. Back to Open Theism.

Just now signed on ... this thread did it. Ok, down to business.

Can anyone give me a brief sweep of the charge Open Theists make that the omnis are rooted in Greek Philosophy?
I'm really open to the OTV and inquiring minds what to know.

You need to read this to get up to speed!!!

 

[Philetus]

Thanks for the direction CRASH. found it. Were you talking about the posts or the rules in particular?

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Doogie:

What church/denomination do you attend? How old are you (you sound like a teen ager)?

Aorist participles are not binding imperatives.

Your rejection of the spiritual gifts for today is another pitfall of Mid-Acts. Some tongues is fleshly or demonic, but that does not mean there is not a genuine expression vs counterfeits. My experience came shortly after conversion as I quietly prayed to God in my own bedroom. There is no biblical basis for the cessation of the gifts.

Outward badges that evidence saving faith did differ in different dispensations. This should not be confused as the grounds or conditions of salvation. They are evidences of saving faith and obedience, not the thing that saves us (circumcision, water baptism, etc.).

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Doogie:

What church/denomination do you attend?

I attend Grace Bible Fellowship in Englewood, CO, and it's a non-denominational bible teaching church.

How old are you (you sound like a teen ager)?

Again, I'm 22yo, saved under 3 years, and have been studying the Bible a little more than 2 years.

Aorist participles are not binding imperatives.

The aorist participles "believe" and "be baptized" MUST take place before the future "will be saved" can be applied. This is basic greek syntax. Ask any greek scholar, don't believe me. So, YES, according to the greek, you MUST be baptized to be saved in Mark 16:16.

Your rejection of the spiritual gifts for today is another pitfall of Mid-Acts.

Wrong-o. Do you know anyone being healed or being risen from the dead today?

Some tongues is fleshly or demonic, but that does not mean there is not a genuine expression vs counterfeits. My experience came shortly after conversion as I quietly prayed to God in my own bedroom.

Why did you pray to God? Tongues are for unbelievers according to 1 Cor. 14:22. They were to show the nation of Israel that they had been set aside.

There is no biblical basis for the cessation of the gifts.

Actually there is. Too much to get into for someone who doesn't respond to most of what I say. Why did Paul no longer heal after Acts 28?

Outward badges that evidence saving faith did differ in different dispensations. This should not be confused as the grounds or conditions of salvation. They are evidences of saving faith and obedience, not the thing that saves us (circumcision, water baptism, etc.).

Numbers 19:9
9 Then a man who is clean shall gather up ithe ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel jfor the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin.

Mark 1:4
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism.

1 Cor. 15
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
2 by which also you are saved that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

Only Godrulz doesn't see the differences between the OT and NT passages above compared with that of Paul.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Hey Doggieduff, I'm not Godgulz, but couldn't resist moving this thing back to the Open T. Topic topic. Don't take me off your list quite yet. Jesus the God/man must have had some good reason for not wanting them spilling the whole can of beans as early as chapt. 9.

Philetus, you're missing the whole point. If the gospel has always been the same since Gen. 3, then the apostles would already have known about it WAY before Christ explained this to them. They knew their OT. But even in Matt. 16, when God told Peter what would happen to Him, Peter said, NO! It obviously was not the gospel at the time.

Heck, the desciples didn't even begin to get it until after the resurrection.

Exactly....it wasn't the gospel from Gen. 3.

The part you left out is the clincher for me ... after his resurrection, JESUS commanded those same guys to go tell it all, leave nothing out, and tell it to every living creature, but even then Jesus told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for a helper.

Christ commanded the 11 to baptize the world for the remission of their sins, not believe in His DBR. This is exactly what Peter did on the day of Pentecost. After Peter preached the crucified Christ, the men were struck at the heart, and asked Peter what they should do, and Peter replied,

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

DOH! That was Paul, actually Peter said,

"if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

AH! Paul again, what Peter really said was,

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."

Sorry, this is simply not Paul's gospel.

By the time God gave Paul the green light to make the mystery known the cat was already way out of the bag.

What are you saying the mystery is Philetus? The mystery was not revealed until it was revealed to the apostle Paul.

 

[godrulz]

I Cor. 12-14 is about the use and misuse of spiritual gifts, not their supposed cessation.

Your quote from I Cor. 14 displays an abysmal lack of understanding of the flow of Paul's arguments (that verse does not negate the other verses in context that affirm the benefit of speaking in tongues for the believer and the church...there is also a difference between the private, devotional use of tongues and the public gift that needs interpretation).

I also recognize the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. What I do not see is two true NT gospels after the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Philetus]

You need to read this to get up to speed!!!

Wow, thanks for the link, that was a lot of really good reading from both sides.
Cleared up a lot of questions for me. Thanks
Philetus