Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Let's be clear, you wrote:
    "their answer is, that they only share the gospel because God commanded them to. Not that it makes a difference."

    See that last part? We are commanded to preach the Good News to all peoples because we do not know the elect who come to righteousness from the hearing of the word. God predestines the elect and the means of their answer to the call. Preaching the Good News fulfills the chain of the predestination of the elect. In other words, it DOES make a difference. Your statement was wrong.
    Originally posted by Delmar View Post
    "Not that it makes a difference" was a separate sentence and was my own editorial comment! If it seemed like I was claiming that Calvinists would say that I apologize.

    edit: Is this more clear?

    their answer is, that they only share the gospel because God commanded them to. Not that their answer makes a difference.
    Delmar, I think you were closer to the truth the first time. Nothing makes any difference in
    "the chain of the predestination". (you gotta love that phrase) It's gona happen regardless. It's just another predestined 'link' in the chain. AMR is kidding himself if he thinks anything he does makes any difference any time to anyone in his closed view.

    "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
      God's decrees are made without the use of the foreknowledge that God possesses. God's providence is unrelated to the decrees. God's providence is all about sustaining that which God has decreed.
      This sounds contrived to me AMR.

      Where does it teach that God degreed all things without foreknowledge in the Bible?

      Where does it teach that God's providence is unrelated to His decrees in the Bible?

      How is that either one, even if they are so unrelated to one another, does not destroy self-determination? How is it possible for us to determine anything if it's already been determined before anyone ever existed?

      And finally, to remain more on point (although I've somehow still allowed this discussion to stray completely away from Open Theism again), how is that that infralapsarian isn't falsified by the first sentence in chapter III of the WCF (and probably several others)?

      Resting in Him,
      Clete
      sigpic
      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Delmar, I think you were closer to the truth the first time. Nothing makes any difference in
        "the chain of the predestination". (you gotta love that phrase) It's gona happen regardless. It's just another predestined 'link' in the chain. AMR is kidding himself if he thinks anything he does makes any difference any time to anyone in his closed view.
        That is a totally irrational statement and shows the propensity of the human will to reject the gospel of Christ. Why do you indulge in such irrational thinking? Why is the OV position on this board so negative in its articulation?
        Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

        The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Clete View Post
          This sounds contrived to me AMR.

          Where does it teach that God degreed all things without foreknowledge in the Bible?

          Where does it teach that God's providence is unrelated to His decrees in the Bible?

          How is that either one, even if they are so unrelated to one another, does not destroy self-determination? How is it possible for us to determine anything if it's already been determined before anyone ever existed?

          And finally, to remain more on point (although I've somehow still allowed this discussion to stray completely away from Open Theism again), how is that that infralapsarian isn't falsified by the first sentence in chapter III of the WCF (and probably several others)?

          Resting in Him,
          Clete
          Clete, Why are you so adamant in hanging on to your human will when you know that will is against God? You know that Jesus gave His life to free us from that will.
          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
            Because I take God's self revelation over your supposed reasoning.
            My supposed reasoning?

            Without "my supposed reasoning" you wouldn't even be able to read God's self revelation nor understand it in the slightest! - Which is the whole point, by the way!


            We all use reasoning to make heads or tell of things but when the word says something I have to adjust my reasoning to conform with what God has said.
            How can you not see that you just contradicted yourself here? You just used a law of reason to undermine the laws of reason.

            You would have no way of knowing that God's word has said something without using reason! So if you change the rules of reason to adjust to God's word, how do you know what you think God's word says is really what it says? Maybe you should have adjusted your reasoning the opposite way? How would you know whether your reasoning adjustment was correct?

            That is not a rhetorical question E4E. I would like it if you actually tried to give me a cogent answer.

            You do the same. I don't think ether of us believe the same thing we believed 10 years ago.
            It is not reasoning that I adjust though! My knowledge increases and my thinking skills improve and so my conclusions are adjusted over time. That much cannot be disputed, but as a man grows and learns, if his thinking is sound, he should become more and certain of the soundness of his conclusions and thus more and more rooted in the truths contained within God's word. It is only when his thinking is muddled (unsound reasoning) that he is blown about by every wind of doctrine throughout his life, as many people are.

            Human reasoning is not the last word.
            Of course not! I never said it was. You cannot rely on sound reason alone but it must be combined with God's word, fervent prayer and humility. While there is much about God that we can know through sound reason and simply the observance of the universe around us, God's word contains truths that we could not hope to have figured out with God having revealed it to us.

            This point demonstrates, I think better than anything else you've said in a long time, how you over react to the open view's use of sound reason. The settled view has a very liberal (i.e. loose or pliable) stance on the use of reason. They pretty much ignore whatever law of reason they need to in order to maintain their doctrine. And while the open view attempts a more conservative approach to the use of reason, you think or feel like like we've thrown the baby out with the bath water and somehow elevated reason over and above not only the Bible but God Himself! That just isn't so E4E! Sound reason is not the object of our faith but a tool used to understand both the Him the written revelation which He wrote about Himself.

            There are things that we cannot reason with human reasoning and we accept by faith and further down the road an answer is given and an understanding is received that was not plan in the beginning.
            You and I could both affirm this statement but I have a strong feeling that your meaning would be something entirely different than mine.

            I would say this concerning some doctrine which has not been fully explained but that does not contain any outright contradictions. The Trinity comes to mind right off the bat as does the fact that God created everything in this vast universe in six days and that the entire Earth was flooded. There is missing information, or at the very least, information that has not been taught to me concerning all of those issues and several others but none of them violate some fundamental law of reason in any way. There is nothing self-contradictory, for example about it raining for 40 days and 40 nights and so even without direct evidence that such a thing occurred, I can trust that it did on the basis of God's word, without throwing sound reason in the toilet.

            Can you give me an example of the sort of things you are talking about that must be taken on "faith" and not reason?

            We all travel that road. God has said I was wrong many times and my understanding had to be adjusted. It is not a strange thing to me. God's way is better. Trust me.
            I used to be a Calvinist and so I know exactly what you are talking about here but my point, once again, isn't that we don't ever make mistakes with our reasoning. Indeed, we clearly do just that. But making errors of reason doesn't mean that we throw out reason! We could never detect that we had made an error without the application of sound reason to our conclusions! It is the correction of error and the establishment of the objective truth which makes sound reason so vitally important! There can be no objective truth if sound reason is not allowed to falsify truth claims? Without sound reason, there is no way to prove that Benny Hinn's, or Kenneth Copeland's or David Coresh's or AMR's, or yours or my use of the Bible is in error. Without sound reason, we're all just as right as the other guy!

            How am I wrong?

            Resting in Him,
            Clete
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
              Clete, Why are you so adamant in hanging on to your human will when you know that will is against God? You know that Jesus gave His life to free us from that will.
              It is with my will that I love, not only God, but my family and friends. Love is the principle thing and without a will, love is an illusion for love must be given away as an act of the will.

              Indeed, the will is so vital to love that if it is proven that we do not have a volitional will, Christianity itself is falsified.
              1 Corinthians 8:3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

              1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.


              Resting in Him,
              Clete
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • What I think about the OV is that God is as he is described in the bible. When God changes his mind or doesn't change his mind or gets angry or sad or delighted at different things that is just a picture of reality for the time in question. I find it reasonable to be asked to trust such a God. I find it a much more appealing proposition to be asked to trust God that asked to trust my earthly father or anyone else. I believe our relationship with God should be of a nature as with those in our family. Only he will always be faithful. Which is why I trust him.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  My supposed reasoning?

                  Without "my supposed reasoning" you wouldn't even be able to read God's self revelation nor understand it in the slightest! - Which is the whole point, by the way!
                  "Your supposed reasoning" Your supposed reasoning is what helped me remain confused. Your supposed reasoning lied about who Christ is. Your supposed reasoning lied about who I am. You know how I know that? Because your supposed reasoning was the same as mine. It had is origin in the human mind and not the mind of Christ. I use to be where you are now, a carnal christian trying not to sin and beating myself up when I though I had. You see your flesh likes to play the religion game too. It is not until I believed facts that were beyond my human reasoning did the Spirit teach me concerning those fact. We can only reason with the knowledgwe we have and not the knowledge we do not have.



                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  How can you not see that you just contradicted yourself here? You just used a law of reason to undermine the laws of reason.
                  I didn't contradict myself. I just didn't fully explain what reasoning we use. That of the spirit or or that of the flesh. We have both. One is alive. The other is dead.

                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  You would have no way of knowing that God's word has said something without using reason! So if you change the rules of reason to adjust to God's word, how do you know what you think God's word says is really what it says? Maybe you should have adjusted your reasoning the opposite way? How would you know whether your reasoning adjustment was correct?

                  That is not a rhetorical question E4E. I would like it if you actually tried to give me a cogent answer.
                  You actually expect me to reason with the dead? The reasoning of the human mind is dead to God and it can never understand the things of God. The carnal mind can never understand the things of God. It is the direct intervention of God in a person's life that gives understanding to salvation. A choice for salvation can never be made until an understanding of salvation is given. That understanding is placed within the mind of the individual by God to be accepted or rejected.


                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  It is not reasoning that I adjust though! My knowledge increases and my thinking skills improve and so my conclusions are adjusted over time. That much cannot be disputed, but as a man grows and learns, if his thinking is sound, he should become more and certain of the soundness of his conclusions and thus more and more rooted in the truths contained within God's word. It is only when his thinking is muddled (unsound reasoning) that he is blown about by every wind of doctrine throughout his life, as many people are.
                  Every one reasons soundly upon the facts they have. It is not sound reasoning that prevents the truth to be know but the facts upon which the reasoning is basted.


                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  Of course not! I never said it was. You cannot rely on sound reason alone but it must be combined with God's word, fervent prayer and humility. While there is much about God that we can know through sound reason and simply the observance of the universe around us, God's word contains truths that we could not hope to have figured out with God having revealed it to us.
                  Mortal man does not have the capacity to reason soundly concerning God even with the Bible, prayer and humility without the direct intervention of God.

                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  This point demonstrates, I think better than anything else you've said in a long time, how you over react to the open view's use of sound reason. The settled view has a very liberal (i.e. loose or pliable) stance on the use of reason. They pretty much ignore whatever law of reason they need to in order to maintain their doctrine. And while the open view attempts a more conservative approach to the use of reason, you think or feel like like we've thrown the baby out with the bath water and somehow elevated reason over and above not only the Bible but God Himself! That just isn't so E4E! Sound reason is not the object of our faith but a tool used to understand both the Him the written revelation which He wrote about Himself.
                  This paragraph I think demonstrates best the difference between you and me. It is not that we both fail to use sound reasoning , it is the source of that reasoning and the facts upon which that sound reasoning is basted.


                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  You and I could both affirm this statement but I have a strong feeling that your meaning would be something entirely different than mine.
                  Why are you so skeptical of a strait forward statement such as that?

                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  I would say this concerning some doctrine which has not been fully explained but that does not contain any outright contradictions. The Trinity comes to mind right off the bat as does the fact that God created everything in this vast universe in six days and that the entire Earth was flooded. There is missing information, or at the very least, information that has not been taught to me concerning all of those issues and several others but none of them violate some fundamental law of reason in any way. There is nothing self-contradictory, for example about it raining for 40 days and 40 nights and so even without direct evidence that such a thing occurred, I can trust that it did on the basis of God's word, without throwing sound reason in the toilet.
                  agreed.

                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  Can you give me an example of the sort of things you are talking about that must be taken on "faith" and not reason?
                  Yes. The present day perfection of the saint and the inability of those born of God to sin. Both are received by faith and are contrary to the human life experience, but both are true none the less.


                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  I used to be a Calvinist and so I know exactly what you are talking about here but my point, once again, isn't that we don't ever make mistakes with our reasoning. Indeed, we clearly do just that. But making errors of reason doesn't mean that we throw out reason! We could never detect that we had made an error without the application of sound reason to our conclusions! It is the correction of error and the establishment of the objective truth which makes sound reason so vitally important! There can be no objective truth if sound reason is not allowed to falsify truth claims? Without sound reason, there is no way to prove that Benny Hinn's, or Kenneth Copeland's or David Coresh's or AMR's, or yours or my use of the Bible is in error. Without sound reason, we're all just as right as the other guy!

                  How am I wrong?

                  Resting in Him,
                  Clete
                  I can agree with that. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water though. You and I having admitted to being wrong on occasion should resist such impulses. That doesn't meant that we just automatically accept what may come down the pike from time to time. There should be a vigorous discussion and contemplation on issues that arise and truth is not always defined by the consensus formed.
                  Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                  The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                  Comment


                  • E4E,

                    Would it surprise you to know that, given your (and Sozo's) strict definition of sin, that I agree that believers are presently perfect and incapable of sinning, in Christ?
                    sigpic
                    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                      E4E,

                      Would it surprise you to know that, given your (and Sozo's) strict definition of sin, that I agree that believers are presently perfect and incapable of sinning, in Christ?
                      Do you believe our definition is accurate?
                      Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                      The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by stipe View Post
                        But we can just as easily choose not to act according to God's will.
                        Depends on the "we" in your statement and it is more nuanced than your statement would belie. The elect can choose to sin or not to sin. The non-elect can only choose to sin more or sin less. If a "self-professed Christian" leads a life of sin with no works that are good works (here good as defined by God), then that person was never one of God's elect.
                        Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                        Do you confess?
                        Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                        AMR's Randomata Blog
                        Learn Reformed Doctrine
                        I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                        Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                        Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                        The best TOL Social Group: here.
                        If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                        Why?


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                          Depends on the "we" in your statement and it is more nuanced than your statement would belie. The elect can choose to sin or not to sin. The non-elect can only choose to sin more or sin less. If a "self-professed Christian" leads a life of sin with no works that are good works (here good as defined by God), then that person was never one of God's elect.
                          How is it that the righteous can choose to become unrighteous when it is God's righteousness that is possessed by the righteous? Sin is not a choice that the righteous can make.
                          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                            Do you believe our definition is accurate?
                            That depends on the context of the conversation. It is accurate from a very particular perspective but if that perspective is not clearly articulated the result will be needless confusion because virtually no one understands "sin" to mean what you and Sozo insist it must mean in ever conversation no matter the context.
                            sigpic
                            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              That depends on the context of the conversation. It is accurate from a very particular perspective but if that perspective is not clearly articulated the result will be needless confusion because virtually no one understands "sin" to mean what you and Sozo insist it must mean in ever conversation no matter the context.
                              So your answer is no. Sin is sin in any context you put it in. and sin is defined always by the same definition. There is no ambiguity about it. Sin is not relative to anything but what it is. If sin is not defined then sin can be anything that we disapprove off regardless of a biblical definition.
                              Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                              The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                                That is a totally irrational statement and shows the propensity of the human will to reject the gospel of Christ. Why do you indulge in such irrational thinking? Why is the OV position on this board so negative in its articulation?
                                Well, maybe that is because we have been dealing with AMR and Nang for the most part. Real exchange became imposable early on. AMR refused to reply to honest posts by several Open Theists long before he hit the ignore button on me. (like I care) So since I couldn't talk to him ... I just talked about him. Not all that fruitful but entertaining for me at least. "Ask Mr. Religion" is the epitome of religious smugness. He stopped thinking a long time ago and now just belts out the same old rehash and appeals to tradition, forgetting that his tradition is an affront to traditions much older than his own. Oh, well.
                                _______________

                                Your phrase 'the propensity of the human will to reject the gospel of Christ' really goes to the heart of this discussion. Open Theism affirms it or at least admits it with out all the qualifying rhetoric. And though you use it as a criticisms against Open Theism, do you really believe it? You accuse me of indulging in such irrational thinking and then blast Clete for thinking rationally. Fits right into your over all theology; no?

                                What began as temptation over a single issue (acknowledge God and the truth about God or reject God and embrace the lie) focused in a single choice and action, has become paramount to universal in the human condition. Temptation now lies in the heart of every human being and is expressed in a multitude of ways. We have become so good at sinning and justifying it that one is hard pressed to look anywhere in creation without recognizing that temptation is present. The issue remains the same however.

                                Calvinism on the other hand places the origin of temptation and sin with God.

                                But if God truly gives humankind a real choice in the single issue, then temptation is ours alone and so is our propensity to deny the truth about God. Satan, ‘the evil one,’ can only appeal to that propensity which comes as a result of living in a fallen world. Rather than coerce or meticulously control us, God provides at His own expense and His own determining the means and the invitation to return to fellowship/right relationship. That’s grace. Our response is faith. God does not tempt us. God's remedy for temptation is the provision of a way to escape it, not eliminate it.

                                Something I'm curious about: In your view that it is impossible for Christians to sin, do you also maintain that Christians are not tempted to sin?

                                "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X