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 Knight View Post
    I do not believe Christ had to be murdered.

    I don't think murder is righteous.

    God could have presented Christ as a sacrifice in a way other than Him being murdered. God doesn't make men sin, in fact God asks us to defend His name against folks that claim otherwise.

    James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

    Now... based on the above verse do you still believe that God directed/forced men to sin by murdering Christ? Or were the tempted and drawn away by there own desires?

    I believe that Christ's death was yet one more example of God using the evil actions of men to bring about good (i.e., His plan). That is in contrast to God doing evil so that good may come of it. Do you see the distinction there?
    So you know better than God how Jesus should have been offered as a sacrifice for sin. maybe God should have ask you how He should do things.
    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 Knight View Post
      He knew in meticulous detail? Or just that His Son would be the sacrifice for fallen man?
      Well, it's prophesied that the heathen and the Jews would come together
      to bring about his death. There are various details provided throughout the OT.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      You're too literal to get it.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

      Comment


      • SaultoPaul..... notice your not-so-subtle change in thought just within the last few posts.

        At first you said that Christ's crucifixion was a part of God perfect plan....
        I believe God only had one plan and it's unfolding perfectly.
        Yet now, after we discussed God not being the cause for man's sin you have moved towards the idea that God didn't plan the crucifixion, instead He simply knew in advance that the events would take place.
        God didn't force Christ to be crucified, he foreknew that he would.
        I would like you to carefully think about these two very different theories that you have presented as they are mutually exclusive.

        Which is it? Did God plan these events? Or did He simply know they were going to happen?
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • AMR,

          I absolutely agree that ALL actions of God are PURE! But, not all interpretations of God purity are pure. Yours for instance.

          AMR= While God’s decree of election and predestinating love, is discriminating and particular, it is, nevertheless, very extensive.

          I believe that God has elected untold millions of mankind to everlasting and eternal salvation and happiness. Exactly what proportion of mankind God has included in His purpose of mercy, we have not been informed. But, in light of the future days of prosperity which are promised to the Church, it may be inferred that much the greater part will eventually be found among the number of His elect.
          Pure conjecture! Heaven is big, hell is little? There will be no golf courses in hell because there won’t be room? I agree that Heaven will be a spacious place. No cabins, just mansions.
          I do see how you arrive at the conclusion that the numbers in Heaven will be great. (I even enjoyed your take on the parables.) Yet you cannot assume that will constitute even a ‘majority’. You do not know the hour or the day of Christ’s return, therefore you can not assume that humanity will NOT continue in the world for thousands of years into the future. That’s a lot of multiplying and replenishing! The one commandment we seem to have no trouble fulfilling. The numbers reflected in the prophecies of Revelation may in fact only reflect a very small minority (FEW) of the world’s total historical (past, present, and yet to be born) population. Most important: Your view assumes the over-riding attribute of God’s love; precisely what you accuse Open Theism of.


          I asked my earlier question because you seem to shift between the present and the future. The example we are to follow is not of the coming King who will Judge, but rather the example of the Suffering Servant who came and told us to love our (His?) enemies until he in fact does return. Christ didn’t come the first time to judge the world, but to save it. The very core of Christ-faith community is the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus. Through it we ‘remember’ His DEATH (not his reign) until He comes! That does not mean He is not reigning in the hearts and lives of believers in the present. It means He is reigning as a slain-lamb-standing.

          The question is HOW DOES HE CONQUER … NOW (not in the future)? What is the nature of God's saving activities in reconciling the world through Jesus today? Here the cross is central and foundational to the answer: God conquers not through coercion but through Self-Sacrifice; not through limited grace or limited atonement but through LIMITED use of Unlimited Power; not by a ‘sword’ of judgment, but with a Word of invitation: "come".


          Yours is not a ‘broader view of God’s gracious dealings with the sinful world’. LIMITED atonement, COMMON grace (non-saving), “discriminating and particular” is not the biblical picture of God’s dealings with humanity no matter how ‘extensive’ you think it might be. Your view is a limitation of grace. Grace is either all inclusive or it is not GRACE at all. God is not un-Christ-like. (We will just have to disagree on this. It is an impasse in our particular views. While I acknowledge you have done a fine job in stating your position, I still reject it out of hand.)

          “While God’s decree of election and predestinating love, is discriminating and particular, it is, nevertheless, very extensive.”
          “That does not imply that God does not bestow His good grace to some (e.g., the elect).”
          It is not redundant at all to say that ‘a restricted/restricting grace’ (as in your view) is not pure grace. Grace is either inclusive (whosoever) or it isn’t grace; it’s just decree. A discriminating and exclusionary decree at best. Saving grace is either an offer made in love that can be received or rejected or it is nothing more than covert coercion no matter how Calvinists try to frame it. Grace by its very nature is relational reciprocating love or it is reduced to a power trip that uses double talk to appear ‘gracious’. God doesn't just appear loving, God is love.

          Clearly, I believe in limited atonement. Negative rhetoric notwithstanding, to prevent this post from being even longer, let’s examine at the matter more carefully in a separate post.
          Clearly you do. Is it clear to you yet, I don't?

          Predestinating love is (must be) discriminating, it can't risk rejection, doesn't require self-sacrifice and seeks only its own interests and than ain't Love or Grace.
          4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
          God is patient, God is kind, God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud, God is not rude, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs, God rejoices not in evil but with the truth, God protects, trusts, perseveres.
          But if God so loved the world and God is love, then what has God to hope for?

          Philetus


          No, let’s just stay with the fray and try to keep it a little shorter.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Knight View Post
            SaultoPaul..... notice your not-so-subtle change in thought just within the last few posts.

            At first you said that Christ's crucifixion was a part of God perfect plan....Yet now, after we discussed God not being the cause for man's sin you have moved towards the idea that God didn't plan the crucifixion, instead He simply knew in advance that the events would take place.I would like you to carefully think about these two very different theories that you have presented as they are mutually exclusive.

            Which is it? Did God plan these events? Or did He simply know they were going to happen?
            When I say according to God's plan, I mean according to Prophecy, according to what is written. In that sense, the crucifixion was in his plan. However, that does not mean he forced anyone to kill his Son.

            I've said before, I cannot comprehend how God can know the future perfectly and
            write it in his Book, yet give mankind a complete free-will to do as they wish and have it all come to pass anyway...but, I believe he does.
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            You're too literal to get it.
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
              When I say according to God's plan, I mean according to Prophecy, according to what is written. In that sense, the crucifixion was in his plan. However, that does not mean he forced anyone to kill his Son.

              I've said before, I cannot comprehend how God can know the future perfectly and
              write it in his Book, yet give mankind a complete free-will to do as they wish and have it all come to pass anyway...but, I believe he does.
              God can bring to pass events as He sees fit and God can use events to His benefit as He sees fit.

              But not all prophecies come to pass. And because of that fact we can know beyond any doubt that God does not see all of the future in advance nor does He plan all of the future in advance.

              Note the following....

              Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

              Without fail!!!!

              Yet.... did God bring this to pass?
              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 Lonster View Post
                What I'm failing to see after this, however, is how qualitative vs. quantitative attributes can be prioritized. I'm still in the process of looking up the scriptures but so far I'm not seeing this as a truth in proposition. I do not believe we can place any of God's attributes over and above another. I cannot make this chart.

                In Him

                Lon
                You don't have any choice but to do so Lonster! That's the whole point.

                The two camps (Calvinists and Open Theists) both have their proof texts. Each take their own proof texts literally and insist that the other's proof texts are figurative. They cannot both be literal or else the Bible contradicts itself thus one must choose which is figurative and which is not. The choice you make as to which is which will be based entirely upon which attributes of God you place precedence on over the other. There is no avoiding it. You can there insisting that you cannot place any of God's attributes over and above another until you're blue in the face and the fact will remain that you do exactly that as does God Himself. The only question that remains is whether you will choose the same as God has or not; will your hermeneutics be Biblically based or will they not or based on your allegiance to pagan Greek philosophical thought and the traditions of men?

                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 Knight View Post
                  God can bring to pass events as He sees fit and God can use events to His benefit as He sees fit.

                  But not all prophecies come to pass. And because of that fact we can know beyond any doubt that God does not see all of the future in advance nor does He plan all of the future in advance.

                  Note the following....

                  Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

                  Without fail!!!!

                  Yet.... did God bring this to pass?
                  I don't think that is prophecy...sounds more like a promise based on condition.
                  Originally posted by Interplanner
                  They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                  Originally posted by Interplanner
                  You're too literal to get it.
                  Originally posted by Interplanner
                  The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                    I don't think that is prophecy...sounds more like a promise based on condition.
                    OK. Prophecy is promise and/or warning. So, God didn't do what he most surely promised?

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
                      OK. Prophecy is promise and/or warning. So, God didn't do what he most surely promised?
                      This is prophecy:

                      Gen 15:13-16
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      You're too literal to get it.
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                        I don't think that is prophecy...sounds more like a promise based on condition.
                        That's essentially what all prophecy is!

                        However, setting that aside for a moment you say.... "...sounds more like a promise based on condition."

                        What do you mean by that?

                        If the future is settled in advance (either through God's ordination or through God's foreknowledge) how could such a thing as a "condition" exist?
                        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 godrulz View Post
                          Election is corporate (Israel; Church), not individual.

                          I disagree.

                          Not all of national Israel was of the elect and spiritual seed of Abraham. Isaac inherited everlasting life; Ishmael did not. The Jewish nation, as a whole, was cast off by God, and only a remnant with her received the promises of God, according to election. (See Romans 9:11)

                          Same with the N.T. church. Within the visible church bodies, there is a mix of regenerated believers, unsaved persons, and reprobate hypocrites. The entire N.T. church is not elect of God. Only a remnant within are genuine Christians.


                          I did not say faith is a gift. Grammatically, salvation is the gift of God, not faith, in Eph. 2:8-10.
                          Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .I know that old "Greek" arguement. But if salvation is a gift of the grace of God, and that salvation comes by faith, not by works, then faith is included in the gift. Just as repentance is also "granted by God." (II Tim. 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)

                          One big pretty package. Freely given from God.


                          Faith is a response of mind and will to God and truth.
                          You assume faith is innate to sinful man; that faith inherently abides within all. This is not so, and is, in fact, the great contrast taught in the Bible between the two Adams. The first Adam was faithless, and all his descendents are born without faith in God. Only in the last Adam, Jesus Christ, who is the author and finisher of faith (Heb. 12:2), is faith found. And only His spiritual offspring evidence the faith of Jesus Christ. Just as they are saved by His righteousness and not their own, so are they given the grace and capacity (new hearts, minds, and wills) to live by His faith, and not their own.

                          If faith is a gift, there is no good reason why a loving God would not give it to all men.
                          It was never the will of God to save all men, universally. Never.

                          Love is not caused or coerced. Relational theism is biblical. Hyper-sovereignty/determinism is a distortion. Grace is also not irresistible or coerced. Grace can be rejected, as can love. Calvinism does limit the love of God and the efficacy of the atonement because God saves some, but damns many others that He could save if He wanted to. God wants to, but we are not willing (as Scripture says).
                          If God "wants to", God does. That is the very definition of God. The Self-Existent Sovereign Being whose will and purposes are always achieved; which the puny wills of men and angels cannot thwart.

                          "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35

                          Nang
                          "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


                          • =Knight;1440368]


                            Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

                            Without fail!!!!

                            Yet.... did God bring this to pass?
                            Do these tribes exist today?
                            "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


                            • But they weren't all driven out before Israel.

                              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 Nang View Post
                                Do these tribes exist today?
                                Are you saying that God did "drive them out"?

                                A YES or NO would be great.
                                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X