ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
? for you. How do you cohisively seperate(or do you?) predestination from EDF? Let me know if you want me to elaborate.
Hope all is well today. (I heard you were not feeling well!)

EDF? Are you referring to God’s foreknowledge?

No where in discourse does Paul elude to general salvation of all, he does say the gentiles have been grafted on to the tree. Not all gentiles, or Jews, only those chosen, remember ‘many are called but few are chosen
verses:

Ephesians 1:4-5 (King James Version)

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Romans 8:29-30 (King James Version)

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (King James Version)

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
 

penofareadywriter

New member
EDF? Are you referring to God’s foreknowledge?

No where in discourse does Paul elude to general salvation of all, he does say the gentiles have been grafted on to the tree. Not all gentiles, or Jews, only those chosen, remember ‘many are called but few are chosen
verses:

Ephesians 1:4-5 (King James Version)

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Romans 8:29-30 (King James Version)

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (King James Version)

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

And do you believe Open Theism is a heresy?
 

penofareadywriter

New member
That conclusion begs the question. Just because you don't know God's purposing or mechanism for election that doesn't necessitate that it be arbitrary.

If every one is dead in there sin, and there is no one the does good, it sounds like we are all in the same "cell" so to speak. So God leting some out but not other IS arbatrary. That would be the perfict picture of arbatrary.
 

assuranceagent

New member
If every one is dead in there sin, and there is no one the does good, it sounds like we are all in the same "cell" so to speak. So God leting some out but not other IS arbatrary. That would be the perfict picture of arbatrary.

You'll note I retracted the comment before you posted your response. I'm reconsidering my initial reaction after considering the actual definition of arbitrary versus the negative perception I assigned to the word.

Think of it like this: If I said, "God is AWFUL!." Your initial reaction might be negative, but only because of the connotation you assign to the word itself, not in reference to it's actual meaning. In fact, God IS awful, in a true sense of that word.

Likewise God, though He has a purpose in His election (and therefore it is not random or without direction) is arbitrary in the sense that the decision to elect one man while passing over another isn't dependent on any satisfaction of condition on the part of the elected.

Does that make sense?
 

assuranceagent

New member
Try a bit to make more sense, are you asking me a question, making an assumption, or are you telling me I am wrong?

He's implying that you are a bit Calvinistic in your view of salvation, referring to your comments contrasting called/chosen in your previous post.

He's asking if you think God chooses unconditionally unto salvation.
 

penofareadywriter

New member
You'll note I retracted the comment before you posted your response. I'm reconsidering my initial reaction after considering the actual definition of arbitrary versus the negative perception I assigned to the word.

Think of it like this: If I said, "God is AWFUL!." Your initial reaction might be negative, but only because of the connotation you assign to the word itself, not in reference to it's actual meaning. In fact, God IS awful, in a true sense of that word.

Likewise God, though He has a purpose in His election (and therefore it is not random or without direction) is arbitrary in the sense that the decision to elect one man while passing over another isn't dependent on any satisfaction of condition on the part of the elected.

Does that make sense?

Ya, I get what you are saying, I just dont think it is biblical(No disrespect). The motifs that I see in the Word suggest God always wanting the wicked to come to repentance! Even the wicked city of Nineveh.
God"wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."1 Tim. 2.4
 

assuranceagent

New member
Ya, I get what you are saying, I just dont think it is biblical(No disrespect). The motifs that I see in the Word suggest God always wanting the wicked to come to repentance! Even the wicked city of Nineveh.
God"wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."1 Tim. 2.4

I don't disagree with you. The Bible is clear on that fact. The thing is, the Bible is also clear that God's will, when understood dispositionally, is not always fulfilled. And further that God's dispositional will, and what He purposes to do (His sovereign will) are not always the same thing.

For instance, while we both agree that God wants all men to be saved, and I'm assuming we'd both agree that God is capable of bringing about that reality, He doesn't purpose to do so. In this case, His will understood dispositionally (His desire) and His will understood sovereignly (His purpose) are not the same thing.

As another example, God desired that man would never sin in the first place. And He could have brought about that desire with certainty. Despite that fact, He didn't purpose to do so and man, created with a free will, went against God's will in the matter.

Check out my post here for more information on my understanding of the subject. I'd be interested to know your thoughts.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
He's implying that you are a bit Calvinistic in your view of salvation, referring to your comments contrasting called/chosen in your previous post.

He's asking if you think God chooses unconditionally unto salvation.

Some Anglicans are influenced by John Calvin, but we are not Calvinists. A Calvinist, as AMR points out, holds to the five point position. I would differ on these points, as to both degree and description. It is true, however that I am more influenced by Calvin than my husband and children, we raised Methodist.

God does not choose without condition, certainly not random, as I think he implied. With perfect foreknowledge, God knows what we will do; He does not influence us, but leaves us to our natural selves. It is our faith that makes the difference; some never understand faith, while others do not know its depth. God acts on us through Grace, we find this all through the Bible.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Beware my brother; it is out of love I speak, please listen, God can do. What God does is according to His wishes, but do not confuse that with your rational limitations.
They aren't my limitations. Rationality is a description of what is real.
You could not have written your post without reason. You used reason when you said "What God does is according to His wishes", for example. When you make a truth claim like that you also imply that its negation is false. So, in this case, when you say that "What God does is according to His wishes", or are also saying that, "What God does is not contrary to His wishes."

Do you believe that God can do that which is contrary to His wishes?

God is the Creator and as the Creator He can do what seems absurd to you.
You are talking about opinions I am talking about facts.
Either that or you are suggesting that we cannot know the difference between that which is truly irrational and that which only seems irrational (or vise-versa) in which case I would simply point out that if that is the case then you don't know that I'm wrong or that you are right. If it is not possible for the human brain to distinguish the rational from the absurd then there is no such thing as knowledge.

Know this,
This made me laugh!

Seriously. I'm not being insulting. I enjoy talking about this epistemology stuff and it really does make me chuckle when someone is unwttingly arguing against the existence of knowledge and then they start the next sentence with "know this". It really is funny when you think about it. Its starts to sound like a Laurel and Hardy routine.

Any way....

Know this, as it is only right I say this, do not limit God to your horizons, for God is beyond human rationally.
You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as "human rationality". Something is either rational or it is not. Something is either self-contradictory or it is not. We ARE NOT discussing mere perception here but rather about what is actually real.

If not, faith would be a simple task, to believe only what is logical to you.
"Logical to you" is a meaningless concept. Again, I am not talking about personal opinions but about objective facts - Biblical facts at that.

Further, if accepting what is rational was easy, everyone would be an Open Theist.

That's obviously overstated a bit but my point is that accepting the rational is not at all easy when discussing matter of religious faith. It is a lot easier for people to accept antinomy in the name of their religion than it is to restrict themselves only to those beliefs that make coherent sense.

Do not face judgment in this simple rational thought; have faith that God can do all.
This comment makes me believe that you do not understand the Biblical concept of faith. Biblical faith never asks you to believe nonsense.

His propose is revealed in scripture, but do not try to limit Him to what seems rational to you.
The key is to figure out what IS rational, not simply what I think might be rational. That is the purpose of debate, of teaching, of iron sharpening iron. We cannot learn anything without the application of reason. If we allow ourselves to accept the absurd, then anything goes; nothing can be disproved and all truth claims must be accepted as possibly true.

Jesus died on the cross for you, it was not rational giving His ability, that is why so many have forsaken Him, yet why Jesus did this, was to complete the Word of God, so we mere humans might understand.
Okay, now this statement make me believe that you do not understand what rationality is. There is nothing self-contradictory about Jesus dying on the cross. In fact, the death of God is the only thing that makes sense if you need a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the sins of the whole world. You would need a sacrifice of infinite, inexhaustible value. God is the only one that fits that bill. That's a major reason I accept the gospel as truth! Because it makes sense!

This, by the way, is a terrific example of what I was talking about earlier about how its a lot harder for the average person to limit themselves to only those beliefs that are rational. The plan of salvation is simple - too simple for the average person to accept. They believe it just can't be that easy. That's why the biggest churches in the world are the ones that stray the farthest from the true gospel message, complicating it to no end. The more lofty the dogma, the complex the doctrine, the more difficult it is to understand, the more the average person wants to believe it must be true. People like things that cannot be explained. It feels mystical and bigger than life. And they also like to be with others that accept such things. The less it makes sense the more people that buy it. One only need look as far as their local TBN station for proof of this. The average person is a cow who follows the herd with his emotions, not his mind.


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I have said nothing about squared circles my good friend. I point out that God can do anything. God has a plan for us, we hopefully follow His plan, but we are not to make statements that God could not do contrary to His plan, if He had chosen. This leads nowhere but to doubt. Have faith, God’s plan is for your salivation. Do not try to be godly and decipher God’s plan, just have the faith to follow it. Keep in mind what Jesus said about salivation, be like innocent children

I was not aware God said anything about digestion/salIvation.

I believe he said more about salvation.

It is not true that God can do anything since He cannot make square circles.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
God does not choose without condition, certainly not random, as I think he implied.

God indeed chooses who He will save, apart from human requirements or conditions.

The Calvinist (reasonable) position is that God chooses who He will save according to His will.


With perfect foreknowledge, God knows what we will do; He does not influence us, but leaves us to our natural selves. It is our faith that makes the difference;

Then, you are saying the way to salvation is via the will of the sinner, rather than via the will of God.

Men save themselves?

This is impossible.

Nang
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Do you believe that God can do that which is contrary to His wishes?

That would be illogical and unreasonable.

On this point, I agree with Clete.

(That will make him furious, but he is correct.)

s not possible for the human brain to distinguish the rational from the absurd then there is no such thing as knowledge.

Oops . . . another agreement between Nang and Clete!


, if accepting what is rational was easy, everyone would be an Open Theist.

Oops . . . another one of those nasty disagreements between Nang and Clete. Nang believes Calvinists are rational. Clete proposes only OT are rational. :sigh:

obviously overstated a bit

Indeed! (yuk, yuk)


a lot easier for people to accept antinomy in the name of their religion than it is to restrict themselves only to those beliefs that make coherent sense.

Nang agrees. It infuriates her when she observes and reads fellow Calvinists resort to antimony to protect their deficient apologetics, rather than reason out their testimony according to Scriptural facts.

l faith never asks you to believe nonsense.

The sons of God are gifted with faith to believe in the Person and righteousness of Jesus Christ . . .not in nonsense, as Clete says.


is to figure out what IS rational, not simply what I think might be rational.

AMEN!!


llow ourselves to accept the absurd, then anything goes; nothing can be disproved and all truth claims must be accepted as possibly true.

AMEN!!

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
God indeed chooses who He will save, apart from human requirements or conditions.

The Calvinist (reasonable) position is that God chooses who He will save according to His will.




Then, you are saying the way to salvation is via the will of the sinner, rather than via the will of God.

Men save themselves?

This is impossible.

Nang


If I receive a pill that cures cancer, does that mean I am saving myself or it is independent of the efficacy of the pill?

Just because we have responsibility to receive or reject truth/Christ, does not mean we died on the cross, that we initiated or provided salvation. It is a free gift (grounds), but the conditions involve a response (this explains how God can be willing that none perish, yet some perish). To say that God only saves some, but damns others that He could save, impugns His character and ways.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
If I receive a pill that cures cancer, does that mean I am saving myself or it is independent of the efficacy of the pill?

The "efficacy" of the pill is determined by administration of the physician.

Can't save yourself if your doctor does not prescribe your cure, and provide you with the medicine, right?

All cure and remedy depends upon the doc, right?

Just because we have responsibility to receive or reject truth/Christ, does not mean we died on the cross, that we initiated or provided salvation. It is a free gift (grounds), but the conditions involve a response (this explains how God can be willing that none perish, yet some perish). To say that God only saves some, but damns others that He could save, impugns His character and ways.

Jesus Christ died on the cross because His children were incapable of medicating or curing themselves.

His blood was the only cure . . .and God the Father determined who would receive the healing dose.

(The damaged and dying patient is unable and incapable of administering the necessary medicine to help himself. God is the sole and discriminatory Great Physician!)

How many comatose or mentally disabled persons have you treated, who could not possibly have prescibed their own treatment, which might have accomplished their being physically saved while in extremis?

Nang
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Clete,

I think you have a limited views of what is rational, as you seem to say it is rational or not, yet what seems rational to humans is quite limited to human knowledge. Once the world (Earth) was consider flat and the sun revolved around it, hardly a rational idea today! What we humans think is rational is limited by our little brains
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I was not aware God said anything about digestion/salIvation.

I believe he said more about salvation.

It is not true that God can do anything since He cannot make square circles.

I know you know that I misspelled the word, something I rarely do

Forget the square circles idea, it is silly to pose such a question in reference to God. As God can do anything He so desires, how could He be limited by a human idea?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The "efficacy" of the pill is determined by administration of the physician.

Can't save yourself if your doctor does not prescribe your cure, and provide you with the medicine, right?

All cure and remedy depends upon the doc, right?



Jesus Christ died on the cross because His children were incapable of medicating or curing themselves.

His blood was the only cure . . .and God the Father determined who would receive the healing dose.

(The damaged and dying patient is unable and incapable of administering the necessary medicine to help himself. God is the sole and discriminatory Great Physician!)

How many comatose or mentally disabled persons have you treated, who could not possibly have prescibed their own treatment, which might have accomplished their being physically saved while in extremis?

Nang


I agree with the doctor part, but he does not force the pill down the throat without legal consequences.

Your illustration also fails to explain why a loving, competent doctor who has sworn an oath would only give it to some, but withhold it from all? He has the power to save all, but flips a coin to see who will benefit and who will not? Is His power or love limited (GOD)?

A denial of free will and a wrong view of sovereignty, love, freedom, relationship leads to incoherence and no explanation (you have Satan wanting all to perish and God wanting some to perish...is God and Satan on the same level as to love, justice, holiness, etc.)?!
 
Top