ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Somebody shoot me; I agree 100%! (But, then, it is hard to disagree with questions.:) )

Me 0%! God crucified 100%!

In a forum like this it is impossible to say it all.

And true, Open Theists apparently need to do a better job of saying it if you aren’t hearing it! Opponents need to do a better job of listening, as well. Just because you don't see it here doesn't mean it isn't there. No open theist I know or have read thinks salvation comes anyway but through the cross of Christ. The difference is that in the settled view our volition has NOTHING to do with salvation which to us isn’t biblical or reasonable.

What does our supposed volition accomplish? Can we willfully forgive ourselves of our sins? Can we willfully remit and remove our sins? Can we willfully wash our guilty record of offenses clean? Can we reconcile ourselves to the Father without accomplishing all these things?

At what price to God? Indeed! Yes, Christ crucified! God in the flesh - actually suffering real pain. Really dying! Providing everything we need to repent and return; and entirely at God's own expense. Hardly an unmoved mover, we would say! And the result is our freedom in Christ. And we are forever grateful.

Free in Christ; free indeed,
Philetus

But what provided the "freedom" from the sentence of death? Was it not the substitutional death of Christ? Where and how does our willingness affect His death that has already occurred in time? Jesus didn't wait to obtain our o.k. before He died for us, did He?

What I am asking, is exactly how the OVT teaches the doctrine of Justification.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Freewill is a discussion avoided because of the significant ramifications of scripture, philosophy, morality, and common-sense ideologies.

It affects our understanding, appreciation, and placement with God and in understanding ourselves.

The US constitution declares we have a right to life, 'liberty (freedom),' and the pursuit of happiness.

We tend to carry these pursuits over into our Christian lives and theology and I want to examine these ideas specifically as they relate to our 'free will.'

First of all, do we really have freewill? When we choose the color of shirt, the pants, and socks in the morning are we truly free?

Yes and No are my answers. Yes, I have chosen these items and have a certain freedom to do so, but let me proceed to the 'No'.

I cannot wear 'anything' because I do not own everything. I cannot wear the $3k shirt because I cannot afford the $3k shirt. There are limits placed on my freedom. Let me go further: "Do slaves have free will?" No they are completely subject to their master's wishes, even in the clothing they wear.

We are able to choose between two masters (Matthew 6). We will either serve one and hate the other, or the reverse. So in effect, my every decision in life, what I eat, drink, wear (again Matthew 6) all reflect which master I am serving. When it comes to choice then, I have but one of two choices always. I will either serve one master or the other, and my only true choice is between those two. After that, EVERY decision is based on that choice. Look at it another way, what matters is not whether I wear the blue shirt or the red shirt with the rock logo, what matters is 'why' I am wearing it. It totally reflects whether one or the other master is being served. The actual shirt I chose makes no difference. If my black shirt has a skull on it, it can easily represent something about those two masters. The 'why' is the focal point. I may wear it to remind myself without Christ, I'm a dead-man walking or it might be a statement that 'there is no god, after death is only the grave.'

Autonomy is a fallacious idea. Colossians 1 reminds us that our very breath is drawn from Christ. Free will then must be defined not as libertarian (freed up). We are never freed from a master (will always be one of two: Christ or sin). We will either serve sin, or Christ. There are no third options. Every act is always in deference to one of two masters whether the shirt is clean or not.

Freedom then, needs specific definition. Freedom is the ability to be 'free' to do a particular choice. We are 'free' by Christ's work to disobey sin and obey Christ. Before Christ's work, we had no freedom but to serve sin and its purposes. Because of Christ we are free to choose Him. Freedom is being able to finally be what we were created to be as Philetus pointed out. Freedom is when we experience what we want/need to experience, and it comes from Jesus Christ. But it isn't autonomous freedom, It is libertarian in that it frees us from sin. Libertarian freedom was accomplished on the cross for us, but it isn't autonomy, we have no autonomous freedom. We are always bond servants. Freedom in this sense is not like the Constitution's meaning that we extrapolate in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Originally this didn't mean freedom of autonomy, but freedom from King George.

The bottom line of this discussion goes back to omniscience. God is all knowing and this includes the future. Foreknowledge does not mean guess.

The problem is continually a dilemma for the OV that the real definition of foreknowledge limits free will, but free will is only a definition of being freed up from sin in Christ to be able to choose to do His will. Freedom is not autonomy, it is being finally used and placed for the purpose of which we were created: To love and serve God and to do His will and turn from sin. This is the definition of freedom. It isn't autonomy. If I choose the red shirt, even if it is because it was clean, I originally had purchased it because I ultimately serve one of two masters. I either chose the red shirt because I am a bond-servant of Christ, or because I am a bond-servant in sin. I will either eat or choose not to eat because I am a bond-servant to one or the other. Again, the choice isn't at all important, these are all very trivial, this isn't the issue of importance when discussing if our 'free will' is lost with true foreknowledge. What brings meaning is the 'why' I am doing such (1 Corinthians 3:13, 15 and 13:5; Romans 12:2). Our definition of what free will is defined as, is the point of contention.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Frankly, I see the latter missing in the OVT. I see little giving of glory to the cross work of Jesus Christ, and too much emphasis on the volitional works of sinners.

Nang

This is not related to OVT, per se. You would gripe about the same thing with Arminianism, because both are more free will theisms than determinism.

Your root confusion is failing to distinguish the grounds (reason for/by which) of salvation and the conditions (not without which) of salvation.

God alone provides and initiates salvation in all 3 views. In Calvinism, regeneration precedes repentant faith. In the other views, faith precedes regeneration. A response to the convicting/convincing work of the Spirit is not a work nor is it self-righteousness.

You are attacking a straw man.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
God alone provides and initiates salvation in all 3 views. In Calvinism, regeneration precedes repentant faith. In the other views, faith precedes regeneration. A response to the convicting/convincing work of the Spirit is not a work nor is it self-righteousness.

You are attacking a straw man.

Nah . . .I am attacking the soft-belly of a beast . . .

If salvation is dependent upon human response, then salvation comes only by human response, and not according to grace based upon the cross work of Jesus Christ.

No one was actually forgiven, and sins were not truly remitted, when Christ suffered and died. Forgiveness and remission of sins, is conditional upon human response, which makes the blood offering of Christ non-effectual. His death and resurrection are only potentially salvific.

That makes the human response a work of righteousness achieved by self.

Are you willing to tell me exactly how OVT'ers teach the doctrine of Justification?

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Quote - Ask Mr. Religion
Hundreds of years of scrutiny by scholars and theologians have failed to undermine the tenets of my and many others' beliefs.
Trying to separate Calvinism from the Reformed movement is not warranted. I am a reformed theologian who happens to believe the Calvinistic doctrines defined in the Westminster Confession.

Fine.

Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. Millions have believed the traditional reformed perspectives. Thousands may claim to be open theists, not millions.
Cite your source. (Not really - the point is that you don't know the actual numbers any more than I do.)

Quote – Ask Mr. Religion
You can dismiss that by hand-waving, vainly hoping to claim some measure of equal footing with these centuries of scriptural analysis, but the fact stands.
Our discussion has nothing to do with non-believers. I assume we both believe, so let’s stay on point. Hundreds of years and millions of believers should serve as a warning to proceed with caution and carefully when attempting to cast off a system of beliefs. To simply state, in effect, “well they could all be wrong” is to ignore the realities of the situation.
I never suggested otherwise. It is you who have made the argument that millions of people can't be wrong, which is a fallacious argument. Your very own Reformation is based on the very fact that millions and millions of people can be wrong for generations.

That being said, I have never suggested that we throw caution to the wind and accept Open Theism without careful consideration. I'm sure Luther felt the same way about his 95 thesis. It was not his intention to just flippantly throw away over a thousand years of teaching but to do so on the basis of Scripture and sound reason, precisely the same basis upon which I have been challenging the Settled View in all its forms including Calvinism.

How do you justify this statement? Is it only Calvinists you see disagreeing with open theism? I don’t think you have surveyed the theological space sufficiently. My point is that if open theism is some new revelation, previously hidden for hundreds of years, now being unfolded then we should be witnessing a revival of global proportions. We are not. What we see are pockets of believers here and there, no centralization or no attempts to define the tenets of the open theist faith.
Do you believe that the Reformation doctrines amounted to "new revelation, previously hidden for hundreds of years"?
If so, hidden by whom? God?
Do you not believe that the doctrines of Calvinism are and always have been Scriptural, that Jesus taught what would today be called Calvinism? Is it not your position that Calvinism was a return to the truth and not a discovery of some new previously unknown truth?

If not, your the only Calvinist in history to believe otherwise and likewise, The Open View is only a return to Biblical Christianity not a new revelation.

True enough. But observe the spread of the reformed doctrines globally as evidence of the truth of the doctrines.
Revival is not, nor has it ever been a test of doctrinal truth AMR! I can't even believe you said this. Dozens of false religions have experience huge world wide revival and explosive growth over decades and even centuries of time. By this reasoning Mormonism must be a revelation from God as must be Jehovah Witnesses and Islam, not to mention Catholicism and about a dozen other world wide religious movements.

And if it is "true enough" that the argument of "newness" was made against Luther and Calvin in their day and it wasn't valid then, what in the world makes you think its valid now?
Again, Open Theists are not suggesting that we though out generations worth of teaching just for the sake of doing something different. The basis of the Open View is decidedly Biblical and rational and only that. The quote in my signature line is not just a pithy saying. It is the heart felt conviction of every open theist I know of.

Yet we have Richard Rice, publishing probably the earliest treatment of open theism in 1979, and in nearly thirty years open theism remains on the fringes of Protestant theism. Nine years after Luther refused to recant at the Diet of Worms, nearly all of Germany became Lutherans. Two years after Calvin’s Institutes were published Calvinism expanded into France and spread through parts of Germany, the Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. It also predominated in the theology of the Anglican Church in England after 1558, only two short years following the appearance of the Institutes. So how is it you know “for sure” this entire establishment is in error?
The spread of Lutheranism was not due to the inspired truths contained therein, at least not directly. That is to say that it was not some supernatural miracle that God performed to confirm the teachings of Luther as truth. You and I both know that not everything that Luther taught was true. Luther, for example, was a rabid antisemite and wrote extensively about his hatred toward the Jews and even said that it was a sin to witness to Jews, who were the murderers of God. Hitler LOVED Luther and used the exact same arguments to convince a whole society that Jews were the enemy of God and everything good.

The reason why Lutheranism spread so rapidly is because of the printing press and the fact that the Bible had been translated into German. It's pretty difficult to remain a Catholic once you've actually read the Bible. And so the spread of Open Theism is fundamentally different than was the spread of the Reformation. The Reformation was about people reading the Bible and figuring out that they had been blatantly lied too. The open view is much more subtle than that. Its a change in what amounts to a single point of Biblical interpretation. It's a shift in paradigm not a change in availability of information. Thus your comparison is faulty and invalid.

For one thing, these theological journals and publications are where we can examine and test our own understandings against those of others, some of whom have spent years going deep into the scriptures. Theology and practice are separable only verbally and are inseparable for salvation. There are two basic questions in life: “who is Jesus?” and “who is God?” We all know how easy it is to create pictures and images in our minds, which turn out not to have any basis in reality. This is especially easy when dealing with something transcendent (like God) or seemingly paradoxical (like Jesus): there has to be some outside foundation against which we can check our interior life, so that we do not create some sort of idols or false ideas...and then go worshipping them.
This sounds like it should be the function of the Bible itself, not theological symposiums and journals. How is this not exactly the sort of thing that Luther was rebelling against? How is this not the exact thing that motivated Luther to translate the Bible into German?

Whatever happened to Sola Scriptura?

I don't need some ivy league theologian to tell me what the Bible says. I can read it just fine! When my preacher tells me to go home and study out what he is saying to see if it is true, I take him seriously and do exactly that.

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.​

I don't recall any such passage where anyone was extolled for their daily searching of religious text books or journals.

Looked at from another direction, if our view of the God is wrong, no amount of good works can erase the idolatry we have erected in our heart. So, both go together: faith (theology) and praxis (life). One guides, corrects, and balances the other. What if our faith is in something we have imagined? What if we have created an intellectual idol? Theology is the guarantor, the check point and touchstone, that our faith is legitimate.
You are wrong AMR. Theology is not our guarantor, Scripture and sound reason are. Scripture is from God, Logic is God (John 1:1). All truth, including doctrinal truth MUST be rational for God is Logic thus all things irrational are anti-Christ.

Now before you go throwing around the rationalism accusation again, I do not believe that man can acquire all knowledge from reason alone. Revelation is absolutely necessary and the Scripture itself is that revelation. My position is not one of rationalism at all. I merely insist, as you have yourself, that all truth is rational and I base that position on the revelation of Scripture which tells us that God Himself is Logos (Logic, reason, communication, thought, inferrence, etc, etc). It is therefore the Scripture and plain reason, as Luther put it, that is the foundation of sound doctrine, not the other way around.

I don’t think you appreciate the degree of change open theism imposes on traditional Protestant doctrine. Just to claim that anyone who assumes the future is unsettled misses the significance of the baggage that must accompany such an assumption.

I never denied the existence of baggage nor did I say that the difference was insignificant. I merely said that it is not a complete reformulation of the Christian faith and that anyone, whether they understand the baggage or not, who accepts the notion that the future is not settled is, in fact, an open theist. (I really wish you would stop trying to read stuff into what I say and simply take what I say at face value. It would save us a lot of time and frustration.)

The point I was making is fleshed out rather nicely in the following paper.

Is Open Theism Christian Theism? by Dr. John Sanders

The doctrine of God requires special attention because it forms the framework within which all other doctrines are developed. As I discussed above, not only is the doctrine of God foundational to theology, or the way a person believes, it is also foundational to the practical aspects of Christian life, the way one acts.
I agree with this point entirely.

Open theism’s re-definitions of the God of theism are:
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions
2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational
3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated
5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center
I would argue with how these are worded and the use of the term "redefined" as Open Theist didn't redefine anything, they simply took the Bible to mean what it says. The Bible is what defines God for us, not Open Theists or Open Theism. But otherwise, I would agree in principle with all of these points as well. You have no doubt loaded the terms used in these points with meaning that I would disagree with but be that as it may, as stated all five of these points are conceded.

From the above, I must disagree that open theism is not a “complete reformulation” of Christian faith.

Well you would be wrong. Read the paper I linked to above. There isn't so much difference as you suppose.

These re-definitions run counter to creeds that are over a thousand years old. Your implied argument that open theism is merely some nuances of the doctrine of God and therefore one should not expect widespread and serious discussions to be happening outlining these doctrines is unsupportable.
I never suggested that widespread and serious discussions should not be expected! On the contrary! There is an almost constant hum of discussion and controversy concerning the issue. There are new books coming out all the time. Nearly every major theological group in existence has come out with one position or another on the issue and even the two men who can be mostly credited for the modern open theism movement were not removed from their positions within the Evangelical Theological Society after having been the focus of no small controversy over the subject.

Where in the world did you get the notion that I made any such conclusion anyway?

I appeal to centuries of study of the scriptures, scrutiny by the faithful, and the results of these beliefs in the world around us. Would false teachings yield so much good? No one can deny the good coming out of the body of Christ.
Asked an answered.

Calvinism is no more valid based on its success in convincing people of the truth of its error than is Mormonism or Catholicism.

Again, my point is that this history cannot be dismissed as you are want to do. This history tells us that we have to be cautious and tread carefully.

Being cautious and reading the Bible carefully is precisely what I want people to do. I have never once suggested anything contrary to that.

You would just toss it all claiming that it is corrupted by pagan influences, Greek philosophy, etc.
No, no, no!

I've explained this to you before. I do not reject Calvinism on the basis that it is Greek! I love bubble gum and its Greek. Hoola hoops were a pretty good idea too and I especially like how easy it is to get around Oklahoma City because of the Greek concept of building cities in a grid pattern.

Look, here's the point of bringing up the whole Greek issue. Please pay special attention to this so that this won't have to be rehashed again a month from now.
The Open Theist claims that Calvinism is unbiblical, that it is not based on the Bible and that it is therefore false doctrine. One way of establishing that claim is to demonstrate Calvinism's Greek philosophical roots. In other words, if Calvinism isn't based on the Bible then what it is based on? The answer is, Greek Philosophy. And that isn't just a claim made out of thin air, we can prove it historically. We can show the quotes in known writings and show the historical linkage that exists from Aristotle to Bishop Ambrose to Augustine to Luther to Calvin (and a few inbetween). Thus the open theist brings up the Greeks to show the true roots of Calvinism not to argue on that basis that is it therefore false. I agree that many make that leap and in this case it is not an inaccurate conclusion and so we tend to let that stand but you have never seen me make the argument that because Calvinism has Greek influences that it is therefore false. I just do not believe that and would never make such an argument.

That is a telling action. It tells me you don’t appreciate the Aristotelian influence on the limited divine foreknowledge open theism claims. It tells me that you don’t respect the thinking of others, especially the great reformers, because they disagree with you. Lastly, it tells me that you don’t understand the history of the faith we claim. That the Church Fathers used the language of their culture to discuss as well as is possible what is beyond words (a transcendent being), doesn't make their discussion wrong, nor does it make them lovers of Greek philosophy by any means.
There own words prove that that they were lovers of Greek philosophy, especially those of Augstine. And what this whole commentary of yours shows me is that you've not been paying attention to what I say but rather have been reacting to what you think I'm getting at or what you've read others say which sounds something like what I say. You don't understand the arguments for the open view nor our arguments against Calvinism. No wonder our exchanges have been so completely fruitless. I recommend that you start over. Stop reading things into what I and others say and simply respond to what is actually said. If I make an error in reasoning (commit some fallacy or get some factual detail wrong) then say so and we will proceed from there but don't react to something you think I must believe based on what I've said. Just go with what I said. Perhaps that way we won't be at each other's throats so much.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nang,
How do you read Gal. 5 in light of 'Christ crucified'?

I read the entire Bible from the perspective of Christ crucified.

Galatians 5 teaches Christian liberty from the law that reveals and condemns fruits of sinful flesh. It was Christ crucified that removes human bondage to flesh; by exchanging new life through His Holy Spirit, thereby producing through the sons of God, the righteous fruits of God.

But I asked you first . . .can you delineate and expound to me the OVT teachings of the doctrine of Justification?



Nang
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
That being said, I have never suggested that we throw caution to the wind and accept Open Theism without careful consideration. I'm sure Luther felt the same way about his 95 thesis. It was not his intention to just flippantly throw away over a thousand years of teaching but to do so on the basis of Scripture and sound reason, precisely the same basis upon which I have been challenging the Settled View in all its forms including Calvinism.

I truly do not want to butt into this exchange between AMR and Clete, except to ask Clete if he even knows or has studied the content of Luther's thesis?

It was not even closely intended to be an "overthrow" of Catholicsm; Scriptural or not.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cite your source. (Not really - the point is that you don't know the actual numbers any more than I do.)
Gheez. Try here for starters. Again, I say millions.
Your very own Reformation is based on the very fact that millions and millions of people can be wrong for generations.
You missed my point which is that when there is a reformation the response should be dramatic. Open theists claim a new reformation is underway. Yet the response is lukewarm at best.
Do you not believe that the doctrines of Calvinism are and always have been Scriptural, that Jesus taught what would today be called Calvinism? Is it not your position that Calvinism was a return to the truth and not a discovery of some new previously unknown truth?
Reformed doctrine emerged more fully as a response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrant Articles published at Dort.
Revival is not, nor has it ever been a test of doctrinal truth AMR! I can't even believe you said this.
You took away from my words something unintended. I am saying that you and all open theists are hastily casting aside too much heavy lifting without proceeding with caution. I make this statement from observation of the casual manner in which you and others dismiss so much out of hand with no attempt at reasoned dialog.
And if it is "true enough" that the argument of "newness" was made against Luther and Calvin in their day and it wasn't valid then, what in the world makes you think its valid now?
As noted above, tens of millions versus thousands, suggests, but does not affirm, that something bears careful consideration.
The spread of Lutheranism was not due to the inspired truths contained therein, at least not directly. That is to say that it was not some supernatural miracle that God performed to confirm the teachings of Luther as truth. You and I both know that not everything that Luther taught was true. Luther, for example, was a rabid antisemite and wrote extensively about his hatred toward the Jews and even said that it was a sin to witness to Jews, who were the murderers of God. Hitler LOVED Luther and used the exact same arguments to convince a whole society that Jews were the enemy of God and everything good.
That Luther had faults is a non-issue, else you ignore the sins of many of the biblical authors.
The reason why Lutheranism spread so rapidly is because of the printing press and the fact that the Bible had been translated into German. It's pretty difficult to remain a Catholic once you've actually read the Bible. And so the spread of Open Theism is fundamentally different than was the spread of the Reformation. The Reformation was about people reading the Bible and figuring out that they had been blatantly lied too. The open view is much more subtle than that. Its a change in what amounts to a single point of Biblical interpretation. It's a shift in paradigm not a change in availability of information. Thus your comparison is faulty and invalid.
Please take some formal courses on these matters. You don't have a grasp of the Reformation at all. Or start another thread and I will be happy to deal with the topic in full.
I don't need some ivy league theologian to tell me what the Bible says. I can read it just fine! When my preacher tells me to go home and study out what he is saying to see if it is true, I take him seriously and do exactly that. I don't recall any such passage where anyone was extolled for their daily searching of religious text books or journals.

You are wrong AMR. Theology is not our guarantor, Scripture and sound reason are. Scripture is from God, Logic is God (John 1:1). All truth, including doctrinal truth MUST be rational for God is Logic thus all things irrational are anti-Christ.
Theology is all about what we believe. It is the study of God's revelations, which by definition includes the bible. In effect, all believers are theologians. Yet some believers have devoted many more years studying what they believe and teaching others, hence, making a career of their study of God's revelations. Please review Acts 8:27-31. You have often taken cheap shots at the highly educated. The message (unintended?) you send is that you feel you are not being treated as an equal in any discourse. You do yourself a disservice by this behavior.
Now before you go throwing around the rationalism accusation again, I do not believe that man can acquire all knowledge from reason alone. Revelation is absolutely necessary and the Scripture itself is that revelation. My position is not one of rationalism at all. I merely insist, as you have yourself, that all truth is rational and I base that position on the revelation of Scripture which tells us that God Himself is Logos (Logic, reason, communication, thought, inferrence, etc, etc).
As we learn from Mt. 18:16, the charge brought by two or three witnesses is established. I don't throw around the rationalism accusation lightly. In your case it is warranted and I have said as much only recently. But you have heard it before, within these forums from others. More importantly, you have heard it elsewhere. It seems that you need only enter into a new dialog with someone and the charge is inevitably laid at your feet. Why then do you reject the charges when so many make the same ones as I have done? If I am being told something negative about my behavior from all walks of life, I am compelled to pause and consider my behavior. Yet you seem to only redouble your efforts while ignoring the consequences. That behavior is inexplicable to me, especially since I think you have so much potential.

I never denied the existence of baggage nor did I say that the difference was insignificant.
The point I was making is fleshed out rather nicely in the following paper.
Is Open Theism Christian Theism? by Dr. John Sanders
...
Well you would be wrong. Read the paper I linked to above. There isn't so much difference as you suppose.
Sanders is hardly objective. In this paper he misrepresents classical theism's understanding of immutability and omniscience. Even when purporting to objectively compare and contrast "Classical Theism (Calvinism)" versus "Free Will Theism", he insists that classical theism defines omniscience as "God knows all that is logically possible to know" and immutability as "God never changes in any respect: will, thoughts, or emotions". Both definitions are incorrect and a professional philosopher like Sanders knows better.

Open theism’s re-definitions of the God of theism are:
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions
2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational
3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated
5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center

I would argue with how these are worded and the use of the term "redefined" as Open Theist didn't redefine anything, they simply took the Bible to mean what it says. The Bible is what defines God for us, not Open Theists or Open Theism. But otherwise, I would agree in principle with all of these points as well. You have no doubt loaded the terms used in these points with meaning that I would disagree with but be that as it may, as stated all five of these points are conceded.
I did not mean "redefined" in any pejorative sense, only that classical theism gives no special emphasis to any one of God's attributes, while open theism clearly believes that God's love is a dominant characteristic of God. I am encouraged that we have at least some framework for future dialog. I am going to press my luck and ask if you have any disagreements with the following characteristics of open theism:

1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires the our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make. (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)
Calvinism is no more valid based on its success in convincing people of the truth of its error than is Mormonism or Catholicism.
And things were going so well, yet you now degenerate into hateful rhetoric. You just can't help yourself.
Look, here's the point of bringing up the whole Greek issue. Please pay special attention to this so that this won't have to be rehashed again a month from now.

The Open Theist claims that Calvinism is unbiblical, that it is not based on the Bible and that it is therefore false doctrine.
I have asked you this before and you equivocated in your response. So I ask again, are you asserting that I am not a saved (born again) Christian? Since you are so interested in not rehashing topics, please settle this question for me, and all five-point Calvinists like me, without equivocating. Either answer the question clearly or cease the histrionics.

One way of establishing that claim is to demonstrate Calvinism's Greek philosophical roots. In other words, if Calvinism isn't based on the Bible then what it is based on? The answer is, Greek Philosophy. And that isn't just a claim made out of thin air, we can prove it historically. We can show the quotes in known writings and show the historical linkage that exists from Aristotle to Bishop Ambrose to Augustine to Luther to Calvin (and a few inbetween).
The "we" in your "we can show" is no doubt the two TOL Bobs (Hill and Enyart), who argue incorrectly that Augustine was so loyal to Plato. The two-Bobs could not be more wrong. Augustine rejected many Platonistic conclusions. The two-Bobs also like to selectively quote Augustine to bolster their own arguments that Augustine somehow believed in "absolute immutability". Augustine nor Calvin taught such a doctrine. You parrot what you see here and there, especially from the two Bobs, without studying all of Calvin's or Augustine's works. Any reference to absolute immutability of God by Augustine or Calvin was with respect to God's character and attributes. This open theist smokescreen is annoying and only hurts their cause, for it makes them appear fanatical and unlearned.
Thus the open theist brings up the Greeks to show the true roots of Calvinism not to argue on that basis that is it therefore false.
I don't know what this means. No one that is intellectually honest and learned of Calvinism, or Arminianism would deny the connection to the Greeks. The Greeks were doing some serious thinking about supreme beings, objective truth, etc. If only the open theists would admit the same, especially given the influence of Aristotle on open theism's limited divine foreknowledge. In fact, most of the big thinkers behind open theism are professional philosophers. Should I be whining about open theism's connection to godless departments of religion in universities? No. It makes no sense to anyone that understands theological development. Or are we to claim that formulation of doctrine should ignore the thinking of other minds, when and only if that thinking can be aligned biblically? Gheez. Like you I want to put the subject to bed and set the record straight.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Gheez. Try here for starters. Again, I say millions.
But you have zero basis for the claim of mere thousands of open theists. Drop this AMR point AMR. It is irrelevant and you know it. If one man is right and the rest of the whole world is wrong, then so be it. I'm not interested in winning popularity contests.

You missed my point which is that when there is a reformation the response should be dramatic. Open theists claim a new reformation is underway. Yet the response is lukewarm at best.
I did not miss the point. You just made the exact same point again! The expectation of a "dramatic response" does not follow! At least not the expectation of a positive one anyway. Jesus' ministry ended with not only His execution but the subsequent rejection of Him by the nation of Israel to the point that God cut them off and turned instead to the Gentiles. Hardly a warm response, that's not even lukewarm! And such has been the case throughout the Scriptures, the exceptions to which are few and far between.

The bottom line is that the response to a truth is not a valid test of that truth. It just isn't. You know what is a test of a truth claim, especially Biblical truth claims? Scripture and sound reason. NOTHING ELSE!

Reformed doctrine emerged more fully as a response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrant Articles published at Dort.
Unresponsive.

Do you believe that what we call Calvinism today was a NEW revelation or do you believe it to have been a return to the true Biblical faith that had existed all along? Did Paul believe the TULIP doctrines? Would Paul have endorsed the Westminster Confession?

WAS CALVINISM TRULY NEW?

If you say no then your entire 'newness' argument is destroyed because open theism is no more new than Calvinism was in the 1530’s. If you say yes then you are an odd bird indeed. No one other than you believes that Calvinism had been hidden by God and divinely revealed to Luther and Calvin.

You took away from my words something unintended. I am saying that you and all open theists are hastily casting aside too much heavy lifting without proceeding with caution. I make this statement from observation of the casual manner in which you and others dismiss so much out of hand with no attempt at reasoned dialog.
You assume too much. You do not know me AMR. Why do I have to keep reminding you of that? You don't have any idea how I came to believe in open theism. You don't know what I studied, you don't know how long it took, you don't know what I believed before, nor why I believed it. You just don't know anything about me. You make wild assumptions about a person’s whole life based on the narrowest context of interaction. You are on the internet AMR! You simply have no basis upon which to make such assessments about why people believe what they believe.

I've said it seemingly a million times and I say it now once again. I do not flippantly dismiss anything. I reject Calvinism on the basis that it is not Biblical, it is irrational, it is pagan, and it is blasphemous, all of which I can establish. I do not just make up accusations out of thin air and casually ignore all of history. Many of my arguments are based on history for crying out loud. All of which arguments you have systematically ignored or else refused to respond to in any substantive way.

As noted above, tens of millions versus thousands, suggests, but does not affirm, that something bears careful consideration.
I have never suggested otherwise. This entire argument of your is stupid AMR. Where have I or any other Open Theist anywhere in the world ever suggested that these matters be taken lightly and that careful consideration should be cast to the wind? Where? Quote me one instance where anyone has ever suggested anything remotely like that. Just one quote AMR!

That Luther had faults is a non-issue, else you ignore the sins of many of the biblical authors.
Talk about missing the point. You have to have known that this was not my point. But likening Luther to Biblical authors is laughable in any case.
My point was that the proliferation of Lutheranism is not evidence that Luther was right. A whole society bought Luther's antisemitism hook line and sinker and every last one of them was wrong for doing so. Popularity is not a test for truth. In fact suggesting otherwise the ad populum fallacy.

1. Most (or more) people believe X
2. Therefore x is true.

or the converse.

1. Fewer people believe X
2. Therefore X is false.

The ad populum argument is fallacious because the mere fact that most (or more) people believe something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or even reasonable.

You would do well to read the book entitled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay. It would put an end to your use of this argument in favor of Calvinism.

Please take some formal courses on these matters. You don't have a grasp of the Reformation at all. Or start another thread and I will be happy to deal with the topic in full.
Whatever AMR. Is this going to be your normal rejoinder? “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” Is that all the substance you can muster?

I am asking you point blank. Do you or do you not believe that the spread of the Reformation doctrines was miraculously accomplished?

Yes or no.

Theology is all about what we believe. It is the study of God's revelations, which by definition includes the bible. In effect, all believers are theologians. Yet some believers have devoted many more years studying what they believe and teaching others, hence, making a career of their study of God's revelations.
Why do you use the plural “revelations”? Do you hold to Sola Scriptura or not?
Most career theologians have not made a career out of studying the Bible but rather the study of their chosen theology and you are no exception. Professional theologians spend their entire lives entrenching themselves into a particular theological paradigm, not studying the Bible itself.

Please review Acts 8:27-31. You have often taken cheap shots at the highly educated.
As did Jesus.

The message (unintended?) you send is that you feel you are not being treated as an equal in any discourse. You do yourself a disservice by this behavior.
STOP TRYING TO READ MY MIND!!!

You suck at it, okay?!

I’ve never in my life had any such thought occur to me in the slightest. I’ve never thought that being treated as an equal with some theological big wig would be cool. NEVER!

As we learn from Mt. 18:16, the charge brought by two or three witnesses is established. I don't throw around the rationalism accusation lightly. In your case it is warranted and I have said as much only recently. But you have heard it before, within these forums from others. More importantly, you have heard it elsewhere. It seems that you need only enter into a new dialog with someone and the charge is inevitably laid at your feet. Why then do you reject the charges when so many make the same ones as I have done? If I am being told something negative about my behavior from all walks of life, I am compelled to pause and consider my behavior. Yet you seem to only redouble your efforts while ignoring the consequences. That behavior is inexplicable to me, especially since I think you have so much potential.
I reject the accusation because it makes no difference who says it or how many say it or how often they say it, they always simply say it. They NEVER make any attempt to establish the accusation and they universally ignore any refutation of the accusation and simply repeat the accusation over and over again like they are really trying to convince themselves and not me. You are no exception to this pattern of behavior! You act as if I should just take your word for it and that just isn’t going to happen.

You accuse me of promoting rationalism and when I demonstrate that I am not, you don’t respond to my defense with any sort of rejoinder or counter argument, you just repeat the accusation. The word rationalism means something very specific and I very simply do not fall under that definition. As I’ve said before, the only difference between you and I concerning the issue of using sound reason is that I give it more than just lip service. I am actually willing to reject a truth claim based solely on the fact that it is irrational and you are not. That is not rationalism AMR! That’s being rational but it is NOT rationalISM. Rationalism is when you believe that all truth can be attained solely by way of the use of sound reason. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS SO! The revelation contained within the Scripture is absolutely vital and could not have been discovered by mankind by either empirical or rational means, without God having revealed it too us. That single sentence utterly disqualifies me as a rationalist. You cannot be a rationalist and accept the existence of divine revelation. The two are mutually exclusive. Further, I do not reject knowledge which is gained by empirical science. In short, I do not rely entirely or even mostly upon the intellect as the basis of knowledge and I am therefore NOT a rationalist, I’m just not. I don’t care if Decarte himself showed up and said otherwise (which of course he wouldn’t), saying it doesn’t make it so.

Now, surprise everyone here and actually respond to that defense against your accusation rather than sticking your head in the sand and pretending like I didn’t just blow the whole idea out of the water. I am not a rationalist but hold tightly to both Scripture and sound reason just as Luther himself did and as you yourself claimed to do in your inaugural post on this website.

Sanders is hardly objective. In this paper he misrepresents classical theism's understanding of immutability and omniscience. Even when purporting to objectively compare and contrast "Classical Theism (Calvinism)" versus "Free Will Theism", he insists that classical theism defines omniscience as "God knows all that is logically possible to know" and immutability as "God never changes in any respect: will, thoughts, or emotions". Both definitions are incorrect and a professional philosopher like Sanders knows better.
Saying it doesn’t make it so AMR! :bang:

Do you have any intention of ever actually substantiating the claims you make? Or is it that you really do think that we should all just take your word for it?

Is Wikipedia objective enough for you?

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.

There is a distinction between:
• inherent omniscience the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known
and
• total omniscience actually knowing everything that can be known.
Many modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.[1] Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, chose to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely, and so embraced the doctrine of predestination.


Immutability is the doctrine of classical Christian theism that God cannot change; this has been variously interpreted to mean either that God's nature cannot change but that God can, or that God himself cannot change at all.
The doctrine of immutability means that God is changeless. This belief holds that any change in a being will result in a change either for the better or for the worse. Since God is the most perfect being, any change in him could only be for the worse, hence God cannot change.​

If you want to poke fun at Wikipedia as a source I wouldn’t blame you in general but if you’ll look up the sources used in the articles you’ll find the information quite credible. If that isn’t good enough for you then how much money do you want to wager that I can find a dozen more sources that say almost exactly the same thing?

Your suggestion that Sanders lied concerning the definitions of these terms couldn’t be more laughable and disgraceful. What did you think; that I or any number of others here on this website didn’t know enough about the internet to look up the definition for themselves? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Open theism’s re-definitions of the God of theism are:
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions
2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational
3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated
5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center

I did not mean "redefined" in any pejorative sense, only that classical theism gives no special emphasis to any one of God's attributes, while open theism clearly believes that God's love is a dominant characteristic of God. I am encouraged that we have at least some framework for future dialog.
Indeed! Progress is always a good thing. However, I would submit, and have done so already many times, that while you say that you give no special emphasis to any one of God’s attributes, the fact is that you do because you have no choice. There are passages which force you to make a decision about which of God’s attributes is going to take precedence of another and the Calvinist invariable puts that emphasis on God’s quantitative attributes (i.e. His power, His knowledge, His size, etc) rather than His qualitative attributes (i.e. relationship, personality, righteousness, justice, etc).

Incidentally, the use of the terms quantitative and qualitative is primarily for the purpose of simply making the distinction. It is not intended to suggest that there is something wrong with God’s power or size but merely that such attributes have to do with quantity rather than quality. A table maker, for example, can make two tables of totally different size and weight without having to make one worse in quality than the other because size does not speak to quality (necessarily).

I am going to press my luck and ask if you have any disagreements with the following characteristics of open theism:

1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make. (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)
The only thing that I would change is in point two, “cannot” should be “does not”. God is capable of exercising total control but chooses not to in order to make it possible for us to love Him.

Clete said:
Calvinism is no more valid based on its success in convincing people of the truth of its error than is Mormonism or Catholicism.
And things were going so well, yet you now degenerate into hateful rhetoric. You just can't help yourself.
How in the world do you get anything hateful out of that simple statement of fact?
It was a perfectly valid argument AMR! Mormons have convinced millions upon millions of people all over the globe that their lie is the truth. Does that make their lie true? NO! Of course not! But that is the exact same form of argument that you are using in defense of Calvinism and the argument is no more valid for you than it is the Mormon. That isn’t hateful, its just true! You really need to get a grip AMR. I am not being hostile here. Believe me, you could tell the difference if I were! I don’t know if its just a difference in how you and I relate to those around us or what but one way or another you’ve got me all wrong. You do not know me, okay? Stop reacting to me as though you do. You get it wrong every time!

I have asked you this before and you equivocated in your response. So I ask again, are you asserting that I am not a saved (born again) Christian? Since you are so interested in not rehashing topics, please settle this question for me, and all five-point Calvinists like me, without equivocating. Either answer the question clearly or cease the histrionics.
I did not equivocate, AMR. I stated plainly that I believe most Calvinists are saved. There are some who believe in the wrong Jesus and have no understanding of what sin is or why they need a savior and are confused on those issues solely because of Calvinist doctrine and are therefore not saved. Those are, however, it would seem to me, to be in the minority. If you believe that God became a man and died in payment for the sin debt that you owe and that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved – period. I don’t care what else you get wrong. If you get that much right, you will be saved, although perhaps by the skin of your teeth. A man can unwittingly blaspheme God every day of his life and still be saved.

The "we" in your "we can show" is no doubt the two TOL Bobs (Hill and Enyart), who argue incorrectly that Augustine was so loyal to Plato.
Resorting to “hateful” ad hominems are we?

Don’t be a hypocrite AMR. If you don’t want me to resort to histrionics then don’t do it yourself.

And no, it isn’t merely Bob Hill and Bob Enyart who make these arguments. I have been doing it now for a quite a considerable amount of time and have argued the point in many ways that neither of them have. As has Knight and Turbo and Poly and any number of people on this website who initially learned the arguments from Bob Enyart and Hill. I have further read the same arguments from prominent Open Theism authors as well.

But even if none of that were true. Would the fact that two and only two people in the whole history of the world had ever pointed out the connections between Calvinism and Plato, would that make their arguments invalid or false?

If not, then why did you bring it up?

The two-Bobs could not be more wrong. Augustine rejected many Platonistic conclusions.
No kidding. Both Bob’s would agree with you completely. That isn’t the argument and I think you know that. If you don’t know that then you need to stop commenting on what Bob Hill and Enyart say until you are actually familiar with their arguments.

The two-Bobs also like to selectively quote Augustine to bolster their own arguments that Augustine somehow believed in "absolute immutability". Augustine nor Calvin taught such a doctrine.
This is a lie. An outright lie! This is just inexcusable!

I can quote your own precious Westminster Confession as well as several self-proclaimed Calvinist that would sooner die than admit that God is anything other than absolutely immutable because in their minds and according to the WCF any change would indicate a lack of perfection because the perfect can only change for the worse and God is utterly perfect in every respect. A line of reasoning which originated with Aristotle and introduced to the church by Augustine who when attempting to deal with the problem of evil said explicitly that he would automatically reject any explanation that required him to believe that God was mutable.

You parrot what you see here and there, especially from the two Bobs, without studying all of Calvin's or Augustine's works. Any reference to absolute immutability of God by Augustine or Calvin was with respect to God's character and attributes.
This simply cannot be so! Every time an open theist makes that claim, that God’s character is immutable, do we get the reaction that says, “Yeah, exactly! That’s what Calvinism teaches!” or do we get hostility and accusation of heresy?

If this is all the Calvinist mean by immutable then why in the world isn’t there agreement on this point between the open theist and the Calvinist?

The answer is in the fact that you tacked on “and attributes” at the end of your definition. God’s attributes define God’s whole existence. If none of God attributes can change then God cannot change at all! What is it that you think can change about God that wouldn’t qualify as an attribute? It’s meaningless double talk. God can either change or He cannot. If He can change in any way whatsoever the it would not be accurate to refer to Him as being immutable. You might could refer to those parts of Him (Calvinist deny that God has parts by the way) that cannot change as immutable but to say that God Himself is immutable is to say that God cannot change in any respect.

This open theist smokescreen is annoying and only hurts their cause, for it makes them appear fanatical and unlearned.
Yeah, right!
If it’s so fallacious then prove it. Instead of just saying that we’ve misunderstood Augustine and Calvin, prove it. Prove that Calvin believed that God was in some meaningful way changeable without at the same time affirming that God was absolutely immutable and then discounting the contradiction as an antinomy.


I don't know what this means. No one that is intellectually honest and learned of Calvinism, or Arminianism would deny the connection to the Greeks.
Well be that as it may, Calvinists deny it all the time. They do so because they intuitively understand the implications of such influence and don’t want to admit that confirmed historical linkage between a known pagan and any so called Christian doctrine would be more than sufficient cause to call that doctrine into doubt and warrant an extensive reexamination of that doctrine with the pagan influence removed.

The Greeks were doing some serious thinking about supreme beings, objective truth, etc. If only the open theists would admit the same, especially given the influence of Aristotle on open theism's limited divine foreknowledge. In fact, most of the big thinkers behind open theism are professional philosophers. Should I be whining about open theism's connection to godless departments of religion in universities? No. It makes no sense to anyone that understands theological development. Or are we to claim that formulation of doctrine should ignore the thinking of other minds, when and only if that thinking can be aligned biblically? Gheez. Like you I want to put the subject to bed and set the record straight.
You still seam to be stuck on a misunderstanding of our use of the argument. We do not reject Calvinism on the basis of its Greek influence but on the basis of its Greek ORIGIN. We demonstrate the clearly lineage through history of vital Calvinist doctrines and show that their origin is not Biblical but pagan. We then insist, on that basis, that the doctrine should be reexamined Biblically. The Calvinist, most times, never allows us to get to the second part of that because they refuse to accept the clear teaching of history and acknowledge the genesis of their own beliefs. The point the Open Theist is making is basically to assert the consistent application of the Calvinist’s own policy of Sole Scriptura but they refuse almost every time. I can think of only one exception, you might be on the verge of being the second.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Philetus

New member
Nang: Nah . . .I am attacking the soft-belly of a beast . . .

But I asked you first . . .can you delineate and expound to me the OVT teachings of the doctrine of Justification?

Nang

Yeah .... with 100% complete self-satisfaction but, still not as well as clete or godrulz might. And besides ... it would just be bashing the hard head of the greater beast. :sigh:

Nang, we are just talking past each other. Neither is hearing the other. It's pointless. It's an impasse. Thanks anyway.

By the way. Did you see the news today that the Pope has come out and declared the RCC to be the only church ............ again? :rolleyes: God help us all. It really makes one wonder if the reformation really 'reformed' anything at all and if all the beast bashing here really make any difference. It kinda makes me wonder if any member of the body of Christ really cares a hoot what any other member believes or thinks. One thing 2000 years of church history has proven for sure; the only difference between a heretic and a martyr is who has the matches and the most paper to burn.

Keep preaching Jesus crucified.
Grace and peace,
Philetus
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Yeah .... with 100% complete self-satisfaction but, still not as well as clete or godrulz might. And besides ... it would just be bashing the hard head of the greater beast. :sigh:

Nang, we are just talking past each other. Neither is hearing the other. It's pointless. It's an impasse. Thanks anyway.

By the way. Did you see the news today that the Pope has come out and declared the RCC to be the only church ............ again? :rolleyes: God help us all. It really makes one wonder if the reformation really 'reformed' anything at all and if all the beast bashing here really make any difference. It kinda makes me wonder if any member of the body of Christ really cares a hoot what any other member believes or thinks. One thing 2000 years of church history has proven for sure; the only difference between a heretic and a martyr is who has the matches and the most paper to burn.

Keep preaching Jesus crucified.
Grace and peace,
Philetus

I take your reply as a "can't", or at best a "won't."

Which tells me OVT'er are not prepared to discuss orthodoxy. They are real interested in talking philosophy, traditions, and history . . .and more than willing to bash and insult questioning opponents . . .but very reluctant to engage in delineating their doctrinal views.

It would seem to me, that if the OV is "progressive" as its advocates claim, there would be enthusiastic attempt to redefine Justification.

Nang
 

Evoken

New member
By the way. Did you see the news today that the Pope has come out and declared the RCC to be the only church ............ again? :rolleyes:

Yes, good stuff! I am a bit dissapointed that the statement was not as direct and clear as it should have been, tho.


Evo
 

Philetus

New member
I take your reply as a "can't", or at best a "won't."

Which tells me OVT'er are not prepared to discuss orthodoxy. They are real interested in talking philosophy, traditions, and history . . .and more than willing to bash and insult questioning opponents . . .but very reluctant to engage in delineating their doctrinal views.

It would seem to me, that if the OV is "progressive" as its advocates claim, there would be enthusiastic attempt to redefine Justification.

Nang

Yeah, Thanks for making my point that it doesn't matter what I say ... you only hear what you want to. I'd have a better chance talking to a rock

Naw, we don't have to re-divine anything.

FROM: Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)

Justification / jus•ti•fi•ca•tion

1. Something that justifies: something, for example, a reason or circumstance, that justifies an action or attitude
2. Giving of reasons for something: the act of justifying something
3. (can I skip the one on alignment of margins?)
4. Christian doctrine: Christianity the Christian belief that people are absolved from all sin if they believe in Jesus Christ


Or we can just live with Paul’s statements:

Ro 4:25 - Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
(The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God.)

Ro 5:16 - And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
(There's no comparison between that death-dealing sin and this generous, life-giving gift. The verdict on that one sin was the death sentence; the verdict on the many sins that followed was this wonderful life sentence.)

Ro 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The song says it well: Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe.


Your turn ... you get the last word ... go ahead .... make one up ... and then redefine it for us.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The song says it well: Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe.


Your turn ... you get the last word ... go ahead .... make one up ... and then redefine it for us.

I did not ask you about your views of Justification in order to trip you up or find fault. This is good. I appreciate your giving answer; especially according to Scripture.




Ro 4:25 - Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
(The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God.)

I agree. Jesus Christ, by remitting our sins, justified us before God, and made us fit and worthy to receive God's grace and to be imputed with Christ's righteousness.


Ro 5:16 - And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
(There's no comparison between that death-dealing sin and this generous, life-giving gift. The verdict on that one sin was the death sentence; the verdict on the many sins that followed was this wonderful life sentence.)

Agreed.

Ro 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Agreed, although as a Calvinist I believe it is important to include the quantifying verse that immediately follows:

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

Otherwise, one might misinterpret verse 18 as being universalistic.

But apart from that distinction, we are agreed that sinners were justified by Christ through His vicarious work on their behalf, not only by His perfect life of obedience under the Law, but by His sacrifice on the cross.

Right?

And I agree that this justification (forgiveness of sins) is God's provision of the "wonderful life sentence," as you put it. Through Jesus Christ, sinners are transferred from death to life.

Right?

Do OVT'ers believe Godly justification was planned?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Nang:

Open Theists and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith alone, just as Calvinists do. OT is not primarily about soteriology, but the nature of creation and the nature of the future.

You may disagree about the order of regeneration and faith, but this is not tantamount to a denial of justification by faith by either of us.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nang:

Open Theists and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith alone, just as Calvinists do. OT is not primarily about soteriology, but the nature of creation and the nature of the future.

Oh.

Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?

You may disagree about the order of regeneration and faith, but this is not tantamount to a denial of justification by faith by either of us.

Not what I asked about.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Oh.

Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?


QUOTE]

Without creation, man would not exist to rebel and be redeemed. The new creation is impossible without the creation of man, obviously.

Those who are justified and remain in Him will be glorified. Salvation has a past, present, and future component, but the exact nature of the future (closed or partially open) is not relevant.

Your fatalistic, deterministic views are closer to Islam than biblical Christianity.

TULIP is a deductive assumption. Any denial of some or all of its ideas is not a denial of biblical truth or salvation in Christ.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Oh.

Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?


QUOTE]

Without creation, man would not exist to rebel and be redeemed.

So there is a connection between creation and justification, right?



The new creation is impossible without the creation of man, obviously.

Obviously.

Those who are justified and remain in Him will be glorified.

So then, there is also a connection between justification and future glory, too, right?

Seems to me that salvation is part of the both the beginning and the end.

Salvation has a past, present, and future component, but the exact nature of the future (closed or partially open) is not relevant.

Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't understand how people can read conditional prophecy, and think we don't have a choice or not. Or that everything is already determined. That would make our salvation a bit like wrestling with Vince McMahon wouldn't it?
That is easy enough to figure out. They just claim it clearly doesn't mean what it clearly says!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top