ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

...........Well, that would have been cool if he just posted

:first:
It might have even been tempted to accept his position that God 'caused' him to post at that moment.























NOT!

 

[Nang]

Sounds a little compatibilistic to me. Then maybe I don't quite understand the concept.

My understanding of "compatabilism" is it is the attempt to harmonize LFW with Determinism. Which always devolves into a synergistic theology to some degree or another, so as a strict monergist, I have rejected it as a viable argument.

I take it you mean: At least NOT without natural and just and most holy consequence. (I trust I'm reading that correctly.)

Yes, thank you for the correction. I mistakenly left out the word "not." My statement should have read "God never gave man the freedom to oppose His good Law and order. At least, not without natural and just and most holy consequence."

Of course there are consequences which brings up the whole issue of contingencies.

I do not see your logic here. If there is a good choice and a bad choice; both of which have promised consequences, where is the contingencies? Either the good cause will bring good effect, or the bad cause will bring bad effect. It is set in stone. No "ifs," about choosing between good and bad.

Are there consequences/contingencies if we don't sin that are different than if we do sin?

Who are you talking about? Saved or unsaved people?

Unsaved people are in a state of sin, and the consequence is death. Doesn't matter what the specific sins are or what sins are avoided, that sinner is consigned to death because of sin. No contingencies. "The wages of sin is death. . ." Romans 6:23

Saved people are in a state of grace, and the consequence is life. Doesn't matter that sin remains in their members, that saved sinner is consigned to life because of the Covenant performed by Jesus Christ. ". . .But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

There are no other possibilities or destinies to speculate about. It is an either/or truth, with no middle grounds between death and/or life.

"If you eat you will die" isn't the same as "when you eat, I will kill you". I think that is significant.

I suppose you refer to God's command to Adam in the garden, forbidding he partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God never used an "if." This was a serious command, for God prophesied "in the day that" Adam would disobey he would surely die.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Genesis 2:17

God revealed His Law to Adam and warned of the consequence (death) Adam would suffer "on the day that" Adam rebelled.

To say that God gives genuine freedom that includes the freedom to go against His holy will is not the same as saying that HE APPROVES IT.

Where do you see approval of God for what God knew Adam would do? Where do you see God giving Adam free choice to do what Adam did? There is no freedom in this command. There is no approval in this command. There is no permission or contingencies included with this command. This was a pure, holy, demand of God issued under His Law.

GOD neither approves of sin

Correct. God loathes sin.

nor does God cause it!

Correct. Sin has no part with God. God cannot even look upon sin.

God allows it.

I disagree. God does not "allow" sin. God punishes sin. Period.

WE do it knowing its just penalty!

Correct. But not out of a moral freedom of any kind, but because of moral bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Adam broke God's command as federal head of the human race, and threw himself into bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil . . .which bondage all his descendents are naturally born into. Every person of the human race is conceived and/or born enslaved to serving Satan as their master, instead of God. God has departed from us all, and left us in the hands of the liar whom Adam chose to heed, instead of God. Calvinists call this the beginnings of the doctrine of "Total Depravity."

Given your statements (in bold) in the quotes above:
where does sin and lawlessness come from if not from man's exercising his God given freedom?

I just answered . . .the sinful nature is inherited from the first Adam. There is no escape from this corrupted and sinful human nature. So all are born sinners, and willfully commit their own sins to add to their disgrace before God; verifying His justice for consigning us all to death. And because the nature of man is so tainted by sin, every action he takes is sinful; even when he attempts to be morally right and civilly "good." God cannot look with favor upon those born of the first Adam; He abhors their proclivity and inclination to only sin out of self-serving heart motives:

"In these ways we continue; and we need to be saved. But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags . . ." Isaiah 64:5b&6a

" . . .They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1b

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3

"As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after god. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

That's where we seem to always hang up. If it isn't 'freedom' miss used to go against God ... what is SIN?

The only one who taught that man is free to go against God, was the devil in the garden. He encouraged A&E to disregard God's command, eat of the tree, assuring them, "you will NOT surely die." (Gen. 3:4)

This was a lie, and it is a lie to this day.

Man is not free to disobey God and break God's Law. Man is not free to sin.

If there are not real consequence for our choices then are there really any choices for us to make?

The choice to disobey God and sin, is not freedom of will, but suicide. The devil knew this, but A&E did not. They committed suicide and brought death to all mankind. And men live and breathe and still believe they are free to sin; that God allows them to sin; with various possibilities of pleasing God or finding excuses before God without repentance. This is suicide, and men follow this lie daily.

IF Adam did what you just said God given freedom didn't allow for, then who could possibly sin?

No point in addressing that "if." That is a contingency that does not exist. Adam was given command under the Law of God, and Adam broke that command. Adam offended holy God, and Adam was consigned to both physical and spiritual death, forever and ever. Where is the freedom in any of this? Where was the supposed choice? There was no choice. God commanded one thing . . . He forbid Adam to eat of that tree which would kill him. No choice there, unless Adam wanted to take heed to the warning, which Adam did not will to do. And God knew Adam did not have the heart to submit to His will in obedience. God knew Adam possessed no faith in God or belief in His word. God prophesied what Adam would do, willingly, and God warned Adam of the consequences of his actions.

So what do you do with the statement after the Pharisee's party at Simon's house where Jesus says to the woman who had lived a life of sin ... "Your faith has saved you." NIV

Luke 7:48 Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" 50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." NIV​

This passage speaks of Godly grace. The mercy and gift of grace from God is the only escape from sin. Virtue and good works is not the antidote for sin. Only by God's forgiveness is rescue from sin known.

And of course, I believe we would all say that we are forgiven (justified) by faith in the cross work of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins. Right? So this faith referred to as saving faith, was the gift of God given to this woman to save her from her sins.

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

Who sinned? The woman?

Yes.

Of her own volition?

Yes, according to her nature.

Or was God the agent of cause by virtue of His 'absolute sovereignty' over her will?

Oh, I see a misconception on your part here, that I was not full aware of. It seems you believe for God to act as absolute sovereign, that He dictates the willful choices of all sinners?

God is sovereign over His creatures as Creator, and predestines the fate of all (life or death), but God also created man, in His image, accountable and responsible to subject the human will to the sovereign will of God. It is the natural resistence and failure to submit the human will to the will of God, that constitutes sin.

In the beginning, Adam was created in God's image as a morally responsible creature, with intelligence, creativity, sentient qualities, and ability to work secondary cause and effect, in submission to God's superior and sovereign morality, intelligence, creativity, consciousness, and cause of all things. Adam had the ability to fellowship with God, communicate with God, accept domain from God, and gifts from God (Eve), and fulfill human responsibilities according to Godly command. Adam knew God's goodness and greatness, and Adam was told about evil and death. Adam was put under the Holy Law of God and as designed, accountable to serve his Master in subjection, submission, humility, and thanksgiving.

Adam refused to submit his God-given abilities to his Maker, and fell into corruption, bondage, enslavement, misery, curse, and the sentence of death . . .not because God gave him a free choice to make . . .but because Adam despised how God had created him. Adam refused to believe he had to live a life of submission to the will of God, and when the serpent lied to Adam and told him there would be no consequence to rebelling against God's command, Adam fell out of fellowship and communication with his Maker, and the creation that Adam took for granted, corrupted and suffered death under his domain.

A&E reproduced as God commanded, but all their chilren were conceived and born under Godly curse and the sentence of physical and spiritual death. Adam never achieved becoming "like God," but instead simply subjected his will to Satan, rather than His Maker . . .for man was designed to submit and serve a master.

Now, due to Adam's federal headship over the human race, no man can serve God as Master, but are all in bondage to serving Satan . . .until and unless God extends His grace, and gives faith to individual sinners to believe in the redemption of the God/Man, the last "Adam," Jesus Christ.

Did her faith have anything to do with her salvation?

The woman's faith was evidence God had forgiven her sins, and saved her by His grace. Her faith was not caused of her volition, but a gift from God, according to His will to show mercy and grace. Faith does not come from within any sinner, but is imparted to regenerated souls by the power of the Holy Spirit. This faith of Jesus Christ is the gift that enables the sinner to newly submit his will to the will of God, to obey anew the holy laws of God, to love God and his fellow man, and to repent of sin in order to serve righteousness in a state of grace.

In your view; are we talking about first and secondary causes here?

Secondary cause has to do with effect. When we exercise our wills to serve the devil, our master, the effect is evil and wickedness. When we exercise our wills anew, according to the Holy Spirit and truths of God's word, the effect is evidentiary faith, repentance, fruits of the Spirit and righteousness.

Yes, we are willful creatures, who have the volition to cause and effect, but always according to whom we submit and serve. Our moral agency (wills) never work automously from God, or free from the sin. We serve one or the other, thus it can never be said man has a will that is "free."

If so isn't it a matter of semantics and if so, which is easer to explain to the lost or the saved for that matter? Is it really a matter of forcing the scripture into an explanation that isn't necessary?

Don't know why? . . .the gospel is simple and straight-forward. All men are sinners, serving sin, death, and the devil and need to be saved from deserved judgement of eternal death. The only way to be saved from this fate, is by the grace of God, who sent His Son to bear the sins of His people on the cross; justifying (forgiving) them, and calling them to trust in the Son and His righteousness works on their behalf, rather than their own deeds.

I'm not just trying to be clever or crafty. I'm honestly trying to voice my frustration with Calvinism without all the barbs. (Admittedly, not easy for me.) I'm trying to understand where YOU are coming from and being careful not to lump you into a general group that happens to be in opposition to OV on this thread.

I understand and appreciate this opportunity to share my views about these matters of life and death.

I will look forward to your return on Monday . . .have a nice weekend.

Nang

 

[Clete]

Nang,

The Open View really does lean heavily upon God's qualitative attributes like justice and righteousness, love etc. And so since you reject the Open View, it follows that your definition of justice would have to be significantly different than what most people would intuitively think justice means. Could you explain what you understand justice to be and why? What does it mean to be treated justly?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Nang,

The Open View really does lean heavily upon God's qualitative attributes like justice and righteousness, love etc. And so since you reject the Open View, it follows that your definition of justice would have to be significantly different than what most people would intuitively think justice means. Could you explain what you understand justice to be and why? What does it mean to be treated justly?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

I seem to remember asking the OT'ers what their views of justification were, a few weeks ago, and got no takers or answers, but only insults . . .you being one of the insulters, if I recall.

For you see, I believe one must study Godly justification in order to understand Godly justice to the fullest.

So what's this all about?

I asked first.

Want to start a new thread? I might answer you if you do.

Nang

 

[Lon]

Nang,

The Open View really does lean heavily upon God's qualitative attributes like justice and righteousness, love etc. And so since you reject the Open View, it follows that your definition of justice would have to be significantly different than what most people would intuitively think justice means. Could you explain what you understand justice to be and why? What does it mean to be treated justly?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Actually, 'most people' (Catholic/Protestant) are not OV, so they'd have a similar take on His justice. Justice means doing rightly. In our 'justice' system, it is judging rightly between offenders. God's justice is the standard because whenever there is an offense, it is always man-initiated. Justice and righteousness are most nearly synonomous in discussion, because one proceeds from the other. God is just (judges rightly) because He is always right(eous).

 

[Lon]

It's interesting to me that the Calvinists have been reduced to "Theologians have always believed..." and "Philosophers have said that.." and "The historical church says that..." as though these things are infallible to the Protestant.

Martin Luther disagreed with the theologians of his day. Calvin had disputes with the theologians of his day. Yet, these are held as the ones who "the church has always believed...."

Philosophers never agree with one another. It's how they make their living.

I also find it odd that they've stopped using Scripture to support their cases.

It's almost as though they're saying "This is what we've always believed...." Like their tradition trumps Scripture.. Hmm....

Muz

Just for statistic's sake, I ran the numbers counting all the times scripture(s) are introduced for discussion and dependence.
I took the first 39 pages and stopped. I believe it is a valid random sampling. OV 300 non-scriptural posts 50 using scripture. NonOV 160 Non scriptural posts, 60 using scripture. OV= 16.7%scripture usage. NonOV=37.5%.

btw, we took E4e who claims a partial OV. I gave you Lighthouse, so it about evened up. Dave, Nang, use scripture most often. Bob Hill may have tipped that scale a tad in the OV1 thread. Some OV posts simply cited the verses rather than quoting them, but I gave credit. Most often NonOV quote the verse.

 

[Clete]

Actually, 'most people' (Catholic/Protestant) are not OV, so they'd have a similar take on His justice. Justice means doing rightly. In our 'justice' system, it is judging rightly between offenders. God's justice is the standard because whenever there is an offense, it is always man-initiated. Justice and righteousness are most nearly synonymous in discussion, because one proceeds from the other. God is just (judges rightly) because He is always right(eous).

Biblically speaking righteousness and justice are totally synonymous. In fact, it is basically just two different applications of the same word ((Strong's H6666 - See Genesis 15:6 & 18:19) & (Strong's 1342 - See Matthew 1:19 & 9:13))

In effect then you've not really defined the term 'justice', you've only cited a synonym. Not that doing so wasn't helpful at all, it does move in the right direction but could you be more specific? When you use the word "justice" in the context of rightly holding someone morally responsible for their actions, what are you thinking? Describe for me the concept behind the word.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I seem to remember asking the OT'ers what their views of justification were, a few weeks ago, and got no takers or answers, but only insults . . .you being one of the insulters, if I recall.

For you see, I believe one must study Godly justification in order to understand Godly justice to the fullest.

So what's this all about?

I asked first.

Want to start a new thread? I might answer you if you do.

Nang

I do not recall you asking the question and this posturing of yours is rude and intellectually dishonest in the first place. If you want to discuss it, answer the question. If you don't then don't. I am no longer interested in playing these sorts of idiotic games with you. I should have known I couldn't get a straight answer anyway. I don't even understand why I try.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I do not recall you asking the question

Asked here. Your "response" here. Q.E.D.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nang,

The Open View really does lean heavily upon God's qualitative attributes like justice and righteousness, love etc. And so since you reject the Open View, it follows that your definition of justice would have to be significantly different than what most people would intuitively think justice means. Could you explain what you understand justice to be and why? What does it mean to be treated justly?

You are quite the glutton for punishment. One would think that after the beat down you got from Stevenw the last time you raised this question, you would just let it drop. (See here and here.)

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Just to let you all know, compatabilism (or some general form of it) is most likely the most widely held view in academic philosophy regarding the "free will" debate.

PS. Not saying that legitimatizes it, but just food for thought.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Just to let you all know, compatabilism (or some general form of it) is most likely the most widely held view in academic philosophy regarding the "free will" debate.

PS. Not saying that legitimatizes it, but just food for thought.

Which proves once again that the majority is almost always wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You are quite the glutton for punishment.

Oh... the irony!!! :rotfl:

 

[Lighthouse]

Did God predestine that He would predestine?

 

[Lon]

Biblically speaking righteousness and justice are totally synonymous. In fact, it is basically just two different applications of the same word ((Strong's H6666 - See Genesis 15:6 & 18:19) & (Strong's 1342 - See Matthew 1:19 & 9:13))

In effect then you've not really defined the term 'justice', you've only cited a synonym. Not that doing so wasn't helpful at all, it does move in the right direction but could you be more specific? When you use the word "justice" in the context of rightly holding someone morally responsible for their actions, what are you thinking? Describe for me the concept behind the word.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Actually this was an excellent answer AMR cited:

Why not! Let's begin with the Justice of God for you claim that God would not be just if He only saved one person .... As I stated earlier, the demands of justice require no more than that sin be punished. This can be simply demonstrated through the teaching of Scripture, of the church fathers and of orthodoxy to the present.

In the Divine context, Justice means that God must render to every man according to his works. Since all have sinned (which is a violation of God's Infinitely Holy Nature) justice demands capital punisment (spiritual, physical and eternal death). The work of Jesus on the cross through His vicarious (substitutionary) atonement does not change the meaning of the Justice of God - in this case sin is punished through the crucifixion of Christ on our behalf which quenches the infinite fury of God against sin and satisfies the demands of God's Justice. The demands of justice are therefore satisfied through punishment either of the sinner or through the suffering of the God-man.

How is God unjust if He saves no-one?? He will punish sin, He will render to every man according to his works, what a man sows he will also reap (retributive justice), therefore, how is God unjust if he casts every sinner into hell? Your concept of the Justice of God falls far short of the Scriptural and accepted meaning of the word, remember,

For the life of me, I cannot see why he was banned.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Oh... the irony!!!

Thanks, 'elect' (can you guess who) needs all the help he can get.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For the life of me, I cannot see why he (stevew) was banned.

Best way to determine this usually is to look at the last few posts made by a person. Start here.

 

[dale]

Talk about God being unjust. I seems to me it would be unjust for Him to send anyone to eternal punishment for their sins since His Son paid the price to redeem them. Reaping what you sow--that sounds like disciplinary action for corrective purposes. Eternal torment would be paying for your sins after Jesus Christ already did. Did God accept His sacrifice or not? I believe He did

 

[godrulz]

Talk about God being unjust. I seems to me it would be unjust for Him to send anyone to eternal punishment for their sins since His Son paid the price to redeem them. Reaping what you sow--that sounds like disciplinary action for corrective purposes. Eternal torment would be paying for your sins after Jesus Christ already did. Did God accept His sacrifice or not? I believe He did

Are you trying to defend universalism?

God's objective provision must be subjectively appropriated through repentant faith. Reconciled love relationships are freely entered into and maintained, not unilaterally caused/coerced. Many refuse His free gift and efficacious provision.

The other problem is that the atonement is not a literal Commercial Transaction (Anselm theory). It is not a literal payment of a debt or universalism would be true. Payment is one of many metaphors for salvation and should not be pressed as a wooden literalism leading to contradiction with more explicit passages.

God is still just if condemned sinners refuse to come to Him to have life.

 

[Clete]

Asked here. Your "response" here. Q.E.D.

That was not the same question but even if it had been, the way she was acting at the time would have urned her the same answer she got.

Who you care to answer the question yourself?

What is justice?

It is my belief that the Calvinist cannot answer that question without tacitly conceding the Open View paradigm.


Resting in Him,
Clete