ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

One last post for the night, I still do not feel that I am explaining myself well.

Lets say the future is like the answer to a math problem.

If someone says 2 + 2, I know the true answer would be 4.

If someone says 4 + 4 I know the true answer would be 8.

Lets say 2+2 represents God putting the tree in the center of the garden.

Lets say 4+4 represents God putting the tree in the east of the garden.

Lets now say 4 represents man falling

Lets also say 8 represents man never falling.

If God initiates the problem 2+2 knowing the answer would be 4 (i.e. putting the tree in the center of the garden results in sinful man), by God initiating that problem, the outcome has no choice but to be the outcome it was. And visa versa. Because of the design, the answer was certain.

:dizzy:

OK, I give up on trying to explain this tonight.

 

[RobE]

Ya know, for the most part you just reword everything I say. You ever realize that? The problem is neither likes how the other put it... plus you are a lot more optimistic about the evil that is in the world.

Sure I am. It's easier for me since I know that God foreknows how to bring good from the evil that men do.

Also, you just can't understand why foreknowledge and foreordaining is the same thing for a creator God.

Actually this is untrue since foreknowledge leads to foreordination. They aren't the same, but they are related. It's just that what you appropriately call foreordaining is the same as allowing when foreknowledge is present. If foreknowledge is untrue sin would simply be ordained by God and not foreordained through His allowance of sin. Another way to say it is that God decreed man to have free will and foreknew that some men would sin.

If God foresaw it, and he created everything, he created what he foresaw..

He created man and foresaw what man would do within creation(i.e. sin). But God didn't create man's actions. Man did that himself. God is the First Cause of everything, but God didn't create everything. God gave man the ability to create independently and that is where sin comes from.

You do get it!

Even if an element of freewill is allowed, the state of things is still pre-determined by God because he initially set things to go the way they would through his foreknowledge of the outcome of that setup.

Well, there's two ways to look at this. Either A, 'God looked at all possible worlds and decided to create the best choice that He had'; or, B, 'God decided to create this world because He loved you'.

It's my nature to say that they are indeed the same world, but that option B was the reason God created this world. God is perfection and God is only able to create the best out of love. Creating inferior worlds is impossible for God in my opinion.

Put simply, God didn't abort creation because that would entail aborting you. God loved you and wanted you; despite the suffering and evil which God foreknew would come into the world in the process. God's purpose was greater than suffering even if we don't always love ourselves as much as God does.

God Bless,
Rob

 

[Philetus]

You are wrong. Only an anti-Christ would "think it's time for Christendom to die." I'm sure this isn't true in your case. Christendom probably means something different in open theism. What do you mean by this?

Lon Stated: Suspend the humorous rhetoric is my suggestion.





I think you're right Lon.

Philetus, I broke our long standing rule of silence towards each other because I know you don't believe what you said from a normal perspective. What did you mean by "I think it's time for Christendom to die."

Rob

Nope, you heard it right. Christendom needs to die. That unholy alliance between Empire and church that began with Constantine and continues in the west is dying and the sooner it is dead the better. I don’t expect you to grasp the meaning of Christendom since you seem to equate it with following Jesus, the body of Christ and faith itself (Christianity). The church needs to regain its identity as peculiar and alien to the present culture. You can call that statement anti-Christ in your ignorance, but many, many marginalized Christians in the West today think that what is anti-Christ is the false sense of security and power that comes from the compromise with the state itself. Go figure.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

Nope, you heard it right. Christendom needs to die. That unholy alliance between Empire and church that began with Constantine and continues in the west is dying and the sooner it is dead the better. I don’t expect you to grasp the meaning of Christendom since you seem to equate it with following Jesus, the body of Christ and faith itself (Christianity). The church needs to regain its identity as peculiar and alien to the present culture. You can call that statement anti-Christ in your ignorance, but many, many marginalized Christians in the West today think that what is anti-Christ is the false sense of security and power that comes from the compromise with the state itself. Go figure.

Philetus

Well, I thought you would mean other than the traditional definition. I agree that modernism has lead to the marginalization of many Christians. It's not the first time in history and I doubt if it will be the last. I'm one of those marginalized in the first reformation, but often wonder if they were wrong to create a schizm within Christianity itself. We see the results of 500 years of fighting in front of pagans. They seem to be taking over the world. The gates of Hell have opened and are issuing forth. Woe to those who inhabit the earth!

Anyway, brother, thanks for the reply. We can now return to our regular scheduled program.

Thanks, I mean it.

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Well, I thought you would mean other than the traditional definition. I agree that modernism has lead to the marginalization of many Christians. It's not the first time in history and I doubt if it will be the last. I'm one of those marginalized in the first reformation, but often wonder if they were wrong to create a schizm within Christianity itself. We see the results of 500 years of fighting in front of pagans. They seem to be taking over the world. The gates of Hell have opened and are issuing forth. Woe to those who inhabit the earth!

Anyway, brother, thanks for the reply. We can now return to our regular scheduled program.

Thanks, I mean it.

Rob

Actually some see post-modernism as an opportunity for liberating the Gospel and the marginalized Christians from the paralyzing effects of Christendom on the Body of Christ. Some just refer to it as Churchianity.
Here is a slightly modified statement I read on a blog by a Fuller professor:

Many growing communities throughout the world meet in homes, cafes, or as networks. They eat together, serve the poor, create worship together and gather around Scripture. They focus on Jesus. They pray several times a day. They would rather invite someone into their home than argue about their faith. They do not understand the difference between sacred and secular.
These communities might not meet in a church building, they might not have a pastor, and they might not pay anyone for their service to the community. They do not understand the concept of ordination, nor do they ‘go to church’. They are not directly connected to any European church tradition. They are organic in their ethos -- business or institutional models do not make sense of their community. These movements are fast-growing on all continents and serve as the pattern for many non-Christendom forms of church.​

Sums it up well.

Few paid professional Christians get it; they think they have too much to lose. Others are learning to embrace the margins as where Jesus led and also leads.

That really pertains to Open Theism (or at least broadly) only in that our Theologies no longer are a tool for leveraging, brokering power or lording it over one another. It places Jesus back in position as Head of his body. It makes us all servants and is really a fun dynamic place to be. I think it is one of the main reasons that we are even having the discussion about Open Theism in the West. Further, I think it is way past time to revisit Classical Theism with some very open and honest questions.

Thanks for asking.
Philetus

 

[Nang]

Actually some see post-modernism as an opportunity for liberating the Gospel and the marginalized Christians from the paralyzing effects of Christendom on the Body of Christ. Some just refer to it as Churchianity.
Here is a slightly modified statement I read on a blog by a Fuller professor:

Many growing communities throughout the world meet in homes, cafes, or as networks. They eat together, serve the poor, create worship together and gather around Scripture. They focus on Jesus. They pray several times a day. They would rather invite someone into their home than argue about their faith. They do not understand the difference between sacred and secular.
These communities might not meet in a church building, they might not have a pastor, and they might not pay anyone for their service to the community. They do not understand the concept of ordination, nor do they ‘go to church’. They are not directly connected to any European church tradition. They are organic in their ethos -- business or institutional models do not make sense of their community. These movements are fast-growing on all continents and serve as the pattern for many non-Christendom forms of church.​

Sums it up well.

Fuller professors should not be listened to, for this one describes what is called the "emerging church," movement which proves to be lawless, plain and simple.

Few paid professional Christians get it;

Fuller professors are paid, too!

they think they have too much to lose.

Yes, there is lots to lose! Classical theism is being lost. Protestantism and orthodoxy are disappearing. Preachers, Pastors, and Elders are discarded. Theology only comes from the dictionary, and the Bible is merely used to carry in and out of whatever tent is being used for the day.

It is not worship, it is not church. It is men and women doing their own thing, in the name of religion.

And it has triggered a very dangerous response, called "The Federal Vision" which is no answer, either.

Others are learning to embrace the margins as where Jesus led and also leads.

That really pertains to Open Theism (or at least broadly) only in that our Theologies no longer are a tool for leveraging, brokering power or lording it over one another. It places Jesus back in position as Head of his body. It makes us all servants and is really a fun dynamic place to be. I think it is one of the main reasons that we are even having the discussion about Open Theism in the West. Further, I think it is way past time to revisit Classical Theism with some very open and honest questions.

Thanks for asking.
Philetus

Well, have your fun . . .

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Fuller professors should not be listened to, for this one describes what is called the "emerging church," movement which proves to be lawless, plain and simple.



Fuller professors are paid, too!

Like I said, FEW paid professional Christians get it.

Yes, there is lots to lose! Classical theism is being lost. Protestantism and orthodoxy are disappearing. Preachers, Pastors, and Elders are discarded. Theology only comes from the dictionary, and the Bible is merely used to carry in and out of whatever tent is being used for the day.

It is not worship, it is not church. It is men and women doing their own thing, in the name of religion.

And it has triggered a very dangerous response, called "The Federal Vision" which is no answer, either.



I agree with this last statement.

Well, have your fun . . .

Nang

The missional/emergent/marginal (or whatever label makes you feel more secure in your stagnancy) church is moving on while the dead are burying the dead. People do cry at funerals. My condolences to you and Classical Theism.

The point is that it isn't about theology anymore. It isn't even about the church anymore. It's about what God is doing. It is about the Gospel. Its about Jesus. The bible isn't being carried ... its being read and followed ... its replacing 'theologies'. That "Federal Vision" thing seems to be the effort of the Empire church trying to come to grips with God doing something they can't control. I give them credit for trying to understand it at least. The discussion is far from over on either side and it remains to be seen what forms the church will take in the not-to-distant future, a future that is no longer what it once was.

Open Theism is only one (though invaluable) of several underlying themes of a greater context which is recognizing the larger issue that the 'traditional' church is but a part (not the whole) of what God is continuing to do in the world through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Your knee-jerk reaction to the ongoing discussion is more than understandable ... its history replayed and repeated, its even predictable. Just be careful that what you are defending isn't just a mask for denying the move of God in the midst of His OTHER people; sheep you obviously only think you know through reading. Your younger brother will be home some day and life in Father's house will never be the same. So, join the party, sourpuss.

Thanks. I'm having the time of my new life in Christ.
Philetus

 

[Yorzhik]

Well, from my perspective that foreknowledge is true. Then the cross and Christ's worthiness were known before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ's act was the entire point of creation, it's alpha and omega if you prefer.

If you can answer my point with "Jesus Christ's act" and actually mean something, then that is the only answer. Ever.

Rob, you might not know this, but Douglas Adams was pointing out the absurd with "42".

 

[Nang]

So, join the party, sourpuss.

Well, at least you didn't call me an "old sourpuss!"

Thanks. I'm having the time of my new life in Christ.
Philetus

But are you conforming to the image of Christ, growing day by day, in holiness and wisdom?

Or is your Christianity just a lot of fun and games?

Delusion comes in many forms, you know . . .

Nang

 

[Yorzhik]

Someone desperately needs a refresher on foreordination and foreknowledge. Start here.

AMR has said previously:

God foreknows because He has foreordained. To this I agree. Indeed, foreknowledge presupposes foreordination

Wouldn't you agree that foreknowledge combined with the first cause IS in itself foreordination?

 

[Delmar]

So, join the party, sourpuss.

Thanks. I'm having the time of my new life in Christ.
Philetus

:up:

 

[Lon]

I'm listening. Closely. And I'm not buying your mushy sentiments for a second.

It isn’t vitriol. In fact I’m not in the least angry. It is very effective in keeping me on AMR’s ignore list which also precludes discussion with him. You haven’t said anything in your last 12 post since Oct 3rd that indicate you even know what OV is or why you are here. Neither grace nor God’s glory have anything to do with this thread, oh-holier-than-thou.

What you see is problems with your own view that OV raises and you can’t seem to deal with them. At least you haven’t done anything except tell me to be nice. You aren’t planting doubt you merely have doubts that you can’t seem to articulate or face. You can take my humorous rhetoric and stick it up your suggestion box where you and AMR might read them in the light of his cigar.

I would love to talk about Open Theism, but ever since AMR got on this thread everybody who disagrees with him seems to be the topic of conversation.
When in Rome …. prepare to be slammed. Debate, dissuade or get off line and go pray for us.

I had a feeling that'd get your goat. I did very much see it as vitriol with nothing substantial.

OV theology is too 'basic math' with no account nor acknowledgement of the higher 'nonexistent' math. It is like trying to substantiate algebra to someone who says the letter representations are gibberish. I can't even get you to acknowledge that there are letter values for God. It is all gibberish to you and your box is too small. God is much bigger than our finite ability to grasp. 'Mystery' is a scriptural concept. What do you think Paul meant by glass darkly and mystery? Apparently he was mistaken. Not to mention that all the bible scholars throughout time who agree with him. OV throws too much away and lifts up the holder to some kind of holy nonsense. So instead the OV erradicates all that makes no sense to them, simplify scripture to basic math and give values to letters where they have no recognizable value for those letters to try to plug in the answers. Just because you remove all letters from algebra and then do the basic math doesn't mean the equation has been properly solved.

Here is a recent quote I appreciated:

Now that's a *good* question and all really good theology starts with a really good question like that one.

The answer is no. God not only didn't change His mind. God can't change His mind. Both scripture and reason bear this out.

Moses tells us that, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." The Psalmist praises God as bing ever, "the same." The Lord says explicitly through the prophet Malachi that, "I the LORD do not change." The author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus is "the same yesterday and today and forever." James speaks of God as having, "no variation or shadow due to change."

Once one accepts the notion of an eternal God the very idea of change becomes meaningless. How can there be change when there is no time? If God were to think, "You know... I really did make a mistake making the world." The world would simpy cease to be, yesterday, today, and forever. It wouldn't stop. It would have never been.

So what do we do with passages like this and the one where God is described as "regretting" or "repentind" that He made the world or the one where God is described as "relenting" in His wrath against Israel on account of the Golden Calf?

A careful reading of each passage will show you that it is not God who changes, but rather the person or people He's dealing with. Abraham, who seemed to be bargaining, with God was actually learning about Him. God didn't decide to smite the snot out of Soddom and then Abraham talked him down. God already knew the conditions there, but Abraham didn't. Abraham says, "If there were 10 people there who were righteous would you spare them?" God says, in effect, "If there were, I would."

The same with Moses in Exodus 32. God didn't change His mind. Moses changed his heart. God tested Moses on the mountain. God told Moses to leave Him be so that He could give the people of Israel the punishment they so richly deserved, but Moses passed - rather than take the glory himself and allow God to make a great nation of him, he implored God to forgive his brothers and sisters and to remember His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moses prayed for mercy for his people and he received it.

Immagine if you must that God has certain "trigger events" laid out in advance. If you sin, you will die. If there are 10 righteous people in Soddom, I will spare it. If you do x then I will do y. God knows what those "triggers" are but we don't. God is eternal. We aren't. To us it may seem like He's changing His mind, but He isn't.

That's not to say that life is a minefield where we need to live in fear of accidentally hitting a tripwire of God's wrath. If that were the case, we'd all be in trouble, because we're all offending God's holiness continually. Glory be to our God and Savior, however, that his mercy and love are every bit as steadfast as His wrath. If we belong to Him, then we have nothing to fear. He will lead us and direct us in righteousness so that we break His commandments less and when we do screw up, He'll forgive us.

I think that is really good news.

http://www.firestream.net/forum/showthread.php?p=430837#post430837

 

[RobE]

If you can answer my point with "Jesus Christ's act" and actually mean something, then that is the only answer. Ever.

Rob, you might not know this, but Douglas Adams was pointing out the absurd with "42".

Well, alot of 'trekkisms' I'm unfamiliar with, but I do know who Douglas Adams is. Forty-Two might well be the Alpha and Omega if the future is unknown. Perhaps you wish me to say the 'act of Jesus Christ's sacrifice' instead of 'Jesus Christ's act'. Would Mr. Adams understand this or is it only understandable to just plain old Christians?

 

[themuzicman]

What do you think Paul meant by glass darkly and mystery?

Paul was referring to our inability to assess ourselves clearly. The "glass" is a mirror.

This is the problem with all of your "mystery" talk. You use it to say that Scripture doesn't mean what it actually says, as though God is unable to communicate clearly to us.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Well, at least you didn't call me an "old sourpuss!"

I do have a few boundaries in tact. :chuckle:

But are you conforming to the image of Christ, growing day by day, in holiness and wisdom?

Or is your Christianity just a lot of fun and games?

Delusion comes in many forms, you know . . .

Nang

Had I said "I'm miserably hammering out my salvation in the day to day" would you have told me to seek 'the joy of His salvation"?

Well, I haven't yet reached perfection, if that's what you mean; and I'm still pressing on to take hold of that for which Christ has taken hold of me and I am growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus and making every effort to strengthen my faith .... and conforming to the image of Christ ... and ... and ... and ... want to give me your whole check list? Do you always dismiss others from the faith because they disagree with your theological views when it comes to those issues that have always been debatable? Your previous post seems to indicate it does.

What form of delusion are you operating in?
I suspect you are still a little miffed that Father won't allow you to dip the calf you have been feeding and fattening in gold as a symbol of your slavish servitude because He plans to slaughter it, dip it in barbecue sauce and feed it to your little brother and his friends at the family reunion. That's a party we don't want to miss. Do we? Little brothers seldom come home on their big brother's terms. They return on what they think to be the Father's terms and to everyone's utter amazement Father's terms are a lot more lavish, compassionate and inclusive than any imagined.

'Older' sourpuss might have been more biblical. :shut:
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I had a feeling that'd get your goat. I did very much see it as vitriol with nothing substantial.

Well, the following might be a lot tamer but where is the substance?

OV theology is too 'basic math' with no account nor acknowledgement of the higher 'nonexistent' math. It is like trying to substantiate algebra to someone who says the letter representations are gibberish. I can't even get you to acknowledge that there are letter values for God. It is all gibberish to you and your box is too small. God is much bigger than our finite ability to grasp. 'Mystery' is a scriptural concept. What do you think Paul meant by glass darkly and mystery? Apparently he was mistaken. Not to mention that all the bible scholars throughout time who agree with him. OV throws too much away and lifts up the holder to some kind of holy nonsense. So instead the OV erradicates all that makes no sense to them, simplify scripture to basic math and give values to letters where they have no recognizable value for those letters to try to plug in the answers. Just because you remove all letters from algebra and then do the basic math doesn't mean the equation has been properly solved.

Here is a recent quote I appreciated:

http://www.firestream.net/forum/showthread.php?p=430837#post430837

Where in the world did you get the idea that Open Theism makes its adherents holy?:kookoo:

So basically you are saying "the more mysterious we can make (or keep) God the closer we are to knowing Him"? :kookoo: :kookoo:
You seem to think of theology as an effort to make God more complicated rather than an effort to understand what we can.

Open Theism doesn't have God in a box. The future is OPEN. Get it? There is NO BOX. God is alive, dynamic, relational, AND sovereign. MOVING. It ain't math; it's basic vocabulary.

Philetus

BTW, Are you happy now that you have the goat? I am! But keep your eye on him. He eats everything in sight and especially likes tulips. Oh, yeah ... I forgot ... he likes boxes, too.

 

[Lighthouse]

Paul was referring to our inability to assess ourselves clearly. The "glass" is a mirror.

This is the problem with all of your "mystery" talk. You use it to say that Scripture doesn't mean what it actually says, as though God is unable to communicate clearly to us.

Muz

You're an idiot. Not once has anyone suggested that the mystery revealed to Paul was not made clear in Paul's writings, or that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.*














*Except for the Calvinists.

 

[themuzicman]

You're an idiot. Not once has anyone suggested that the mystery revealed to Paul was not made clear in Paul's writings, or that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.*

*Except for the Calvinists.

Then talk to Lon. He's the one implying that we have to somehow accept his view because it's mysterious and he thinks it reflects a "better" god.

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

Then talk to Lon. He's the one implying that we have to somehow accept his view because it's mysterious and he thinks it reflects a "better" god.

Muz

We already knew Lon was an idiot.

I should have paid closer attention. I thought you were talking to STP, because you pretty much say the same sort of things to him. I apologize, because it seems that Lon may have been saying the things you accuse him of.:kookoo:

 

[themuzicman]

We already knew Lon was an idiot.

I should have paid closer attention. I thought you were talking to STP, because you pretty much say the same sort of things to him. I apologize, because it seems that Lon may have been saying the things you accuse him of.:kookoo:

Different "mystery"... lol

Muz