Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

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

  • Originally posted by Nang View Post
    God gave them enough victory for them to occupy the land, as promised to Abraham. The fact the Jews were not 100% cleansed from these people, was due to their disobedience.
    Ah, so God didn't fulfill His prophecy, as a response to Israel's sin.. Interesting....

    Sounds very.. OPEN ... to me.

    That is not the teaching of Nehemiah 9:8.

    " And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Nehemiah 9:8

    If the Holy Scriptures say that God has kept His Word, who are you, Oh, men, to say He has not!

    You tread on very dangerous ground, IMO.
    Knight has already pointed out the verses in Joshua and the book of John where Jesus says otherwise.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Clete View Post
      Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion
      Thank you for your comments, Clete.
      1. Do you believe that the sinner is dead, not just dying, but completely spiritually dead in their sins?
      2. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing the sinner can do to save themselves, that is that the sinner cannot originate the love for God in their heart since the sinner is a captive and willing slave to sin unable to deliver themselves from its corruption?
      3. Do you believe that the lost are able to only sin more or sin less, that is the sinner is wholly inclined to evil and therefore lacks any abilities of spritual discernment?
      4. Do you believe that given the sinner's innate sinful state of mind, as a condition of his sinful nature, it is beyond the power of the the sinner's will to change it?
      The answers are only a simple 'yes' or 'no' requiring no straining of the scriptures to elaborate an answer.
      These would be simple 'yes' or 'no' questions if you definition of the terms weren't so loaded with your theology. As it is there is no way to answer these questions in a straight forward way as they are asked here.

      You've asked effectively "Do I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

      The answer is no, I do not. But you already knew that, didn't you?
      Thank you for the rapid response, Clete.

      Then if you do not believe that the lost are totally depraved, then you must believe that the lost are somehow able to cooperate in their own redemption. My point here is that previously you argued that my post on limited atonement was irrelevant to open theism. I disagree, as open theists hold that the sinner is somehow able to cooperate in their own salvation. Curiously, in your previous post you stated "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Then, how is it you became saved if there was no way you saved yourself--since from your statement you did not cooperate "in any way" with the process of your redemption? I genuinely want to understand how this happens from the open theist's perspective.
      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 themuzicman View Post
        Ah, so God didn't fulfill His prophecy, as a response to Israel's sin.. Interesting....

        Sounds very.. OPEN ... to me.
        Oh, please. Nehemiah 9:8 clearly says God kept His word. Just because the prophecy was not totally fulfilled in Joshua's day, does not mean God did not give Israel victory over the inhabitants of the land, as promised. Nor, does it mean the prophecy was not eventually fuffilled.




        Knight has already pointed out the verses in Joshua and the book of John where Jesus says otherwise.

        Muz
        Book of John?
        "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

        " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
        Gordon H. Clark

        "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
        Charles Spurgeon

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
          Thank you for the rapid response, Clete.

          Then if you do not believe that the lost are totally depraved, then you must believe that the lost are somehow able to cooperate in their own redemption.
          Not in the sense you mean, no I do not believe that. However, you will, of course insist that this is what I do believe and so whatever, there is no point in quibbling over semantic issues. Suffice it to say that I believe what the Bible plainly teaches, that God gives us a choice to make and expects for us to make it.
          Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

          John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

          Psalm 78:21 Therefore the LORD heard this and was furious;
          So a fire was kindled against Jacob,
          And anger also came up against Israel,
          22 Because they did not believe in God,
          And did not trust in His salvation.

          And about a thousand other verses that could be quoted.

          My point here is that previously you argued that my post on limited atonement was irrelevant to open theism. I disagree, as open theists hold that the sinner is somehow able to cooperate in their own salvation.
          Only by your own convoluted understanding of what it means to cooperate in one's salvation.
          If you were stranded on a sinking ship and the Coast Guard came and plucked you off the ship, saving your life, and then later they heard you bragging about how you saved yourself by having gotten in to the basket, how much of a lunatic do you suppose the Coast Guard rescue swimmer would think you are?

          Curiously, in your previous post you stated "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Then, how is it you became saved if there was no way you saved yourself--since from your statement you did not cooperate "in any way" with the process of your redemption?
          The question is invalid. If presumes the truth of your position in order to argue for your position. I didn't participate in my own salvation any more than a drowning man participates in his rescue by sucking in a big breath of air once the life guard lifts his head above water.

          I genuinely want to understand how this happens from the open theist's perspective.
          Its pretty simple really. God through His infinite wisdom provided a just way by which He could set before us life and death. If we choose life, then the blood of Christ is put toward our account and our sin debt is thus paid in full. If we choose death, then we die the just death we deserve because of our own sin.

          That's the gospel AMR. It's what the whole Bible is about and it's simple enough for a child to understand.

          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 Clete View Post
            Suffice it to say that I believe what the Bible plainly teaches, that God gives us a choice to make and expects for us to make it.
            Thanks again for responding, Clete.

            Can you be more explicit here so I do not misunderstand?

            Are you saying you made the choice of your own volition?

            What exactly are the options for you to choose since God "expects" you to choose?
            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
              Thanks again for responding, Clete.

              Can you be more explicit here so I do not misunderstand?

              Are you saying you made the choice of your own volition?
              How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?

              What exactly are the options for you to choose since God "expects" you to choose?
              Life and death; to believe the gospel or not; to love God or to hate Him. There are perhaps dozens of ways to put it but they are all effectively the same thing.

              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 Clete View Post
                How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?

                Life and death; to believe the gospel or not; to love God or to hate Him. There are perhaps dozens of ways to put it but they are all effectively the same thing.
                That helps. Thanks!

                Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?
                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 Clete View Post
                  How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?
                  Well put.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                    That helps. Thanks!

                    Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?
                    That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by the incapacitated he did not help for they will be
                    Last edited by DFT_Dave; June 11th, 2007, 06:46 PM.
                    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                    The only view that proves the existence and explains
                    the nature of God.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by patman View Post
                      It is pointless to show you a analogy when you keep changing the rules instead of seeing its point. I know it is impossible to be dead on with a quick analogy, but when ever I present one to you, you pick at it or change it by throwing more into it rather than seeing a point.

                      That is all an analogy is, a tool to show a point. They may never match perfectly with the actual subject, but they are enough to get someone on the same page as you are.

                      You are still hooked on the analogy and not seeing my point which is:

                      If God knows the future, he knows everything that will happen. When the future is settled, there is no IF with God, there is only When. Thus, "conditional" doesn't exist for God, there is only "certainty". This means if God knows the entire future, and he says something will happen that doesn't, it is not an indication of a conditional promise, but a lie.
                      So, why can't God make a covenant for as long as it 'will' last or for whatever effect He deigns in foreknowledge without being considered a lie?
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Alright, I give it a shot.

                        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        Thank you for your comments, Clete.
                        1. Do you believe that the sinner is dead, not just dying, but completely spiritually dead in their sins?
                          Yes.
                        2. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing the sinner can do to save themselves, that is that the sinner cannot originate the love for God in their heart since the sinner is a captive and willing slave to sin unable to deliver themselves from its corruption?
                          Yes.
                        3. Do you believe that the lost are able to only sin more or sin less, that is the sinner is wholly inclined to evil and therefore lacks any abilities of spritual discernment?
                          Yes.
                        4. Do you believe that given the sinner's innate sinful state of mind, as a condition of his sinful nature, it is beyond the power of the the sinner's will to change it?
                          Yes.
                        The answers are only a simple 'yes' or 'no' requiring no straining of the scriptures to elaborate an answer.
                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        These would be simple 'yes' or 'no' questions if you definition of the terms weren't so loaded with your theology. As it is there is no way to answer these questions in a straight forward way as they are asked here.

                        You've asked effectively "Do I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

                        The answer is no, I do not. But you already knew that, didn't you?

                        Resting in Him,
                        Clete
                        Clete, I'm putting our discussion on a backburner to watch this dialogue. Do not hesitate to bring it up at a later date if you desire, but I will lose the flow as this thread progresses at a very swift rate.
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by patman View Post
                          Yes, it could have went differently, but contradicting the prophecy sometimes happens...

                          This is going to be a longer post. Please read it very carefully and think about it for a few days. You should understand that prophecy is there to inspire righteousness, it is not meant to be be 100% accurate. Accuracy was never God's intent for prophecy.

                          Are you familiar with the book of Daniel? There a lot of prophecies that you can track dead on, including many that involve the Messiah. But some of those didn't come to pass.
                          That was a lot of interesting math. How about something simpler.

                          In 458 BC King Artaxerxes I tells Ezra to go to Jerusalem (carrying a letter, see Ez. 7) commanding him to re-establish the law there--build a spiritual city of Jerusalem. In AD 33, Christ is crucified and His kingdom established forever. Between the two dates are 490 years, the seventy weeks. Tidy. Works for me.
                          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 DFT_Dave View Post
                            That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by those he did not.
                            May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance.

                            You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever. Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.
                            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 Clete View Post
                              Its pretty simple really. God through His infinite wisdom provided a just way by which He could set before us life and death. If we choose life, then the blood of Christ is put toward our account and our sin debt is thus paid in full. If we choose death, then we die the just death we deserve because of our own sin.

                              That's the gospel AMR. It's what the whole Bible is about and it's simple enough for a child to understand.
                              Thanks for elaborating, Clete. Given that it is simple for a child to understand please explain to me in childlike simple terms.

                              "If we choose life" or "if we choose death" means you have actually made a volitional choice. Right? You thought to yourself, "here are my two options, A (life) and B (death), and I really like option A and so I choose option A." Am I correct? How is it then that you claim in the post "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Yet you have again stated above "we choose" life or death. How then does that "choosing" work?
                              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
                                Thanks for elaborating, Clete. Given that it is simple for a child to understand please explain to me in childlike simple terms.

                                "If we choose life" or "if we choose death" means you have actually made a volitional choice. Right? You thought to yourself, "here are my two options, A (life) and B (death), and I really like option A and so I choose option A." Am I correct? How is it then that you claim in the post "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Yet you have again stated above "we choose" life or death. How then does that "choosing" work?
                                Why would it be so bad if God allowed us to make the choice to accept God's gift of salvation?

                                After all, it isn't as if we did any of the work on the cross, yet God allows us to choose to accept or reject that work on the cross. I don't believe that making a choice is equal to performing the work that follows when that choice is made.

                                Apparently God wanted it this way. God wanted to have a two way relationship with His creation. Personally I think that is the power of the gospel.

                                CASE IN POINT:

                                Notice that we do not have the right to boast that we played a part in our salvation...

                                Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

                                Yet at the same time we CAN and SHOULD boast that we chose Christ, after all... who wouldn't want to boast about that?? It is better to be saved than to not be saved right?

                                Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

                                In conclusion....
                                We have no reason to boast that we played a part in the saving work that cleansed our sin, however we are stupid if we don't boast in the decision to follow the cross of our Lord!
                                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X