Enyart is OSAS, but you are wrong to think that non-OSAS denies God's power to keep us (Jude 24-25). The problem is that just as His saving power and grace can be resisted/rejected (vs universalism), so His keeping power/grace can be rejected/resisted. There is a conditional element in salvation/perseverance because things are relational/love-based, not mechanistic/deterministic. If you want to whine about God keeping us/power, then you will have to be a false universalist to be consistent (Lk. 7:30; Mt. 23:37 just because God's will is not always done due to free will, it does not mean God is not omnipotent).
Proof from the Bible that God is In Time
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
So which brand of open theism is the right one? Yours or Bob's?
Another point that I would like to bring to the discussion is that the answer to hyper calvinism isn't hyper arminianism.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible says both. That we are commanded to believe in God and predestination under the heading of God's Sovereignty.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible says both. That we are commanded to believe in God and predestination under the heading of God's Sovereignty.
You're an idiot.
The problem with open theism and God changing His mind is that it leaves the Bible and prophecy for the future up for grabs. It also makes God "indecisive".
God does not change His mind concerning salvation, we change ours.
Bob and I agree about the gist of Open Theism. The OSAS is more of his Mid-Acts dispensationalism issue. So, we agree on issues of omniscience under Open Theism (common belief), but disagree about issues of OSAS, two gospels (which you also disagree with?), a MAD issue (I am not MAD like he is).
Open Theists also disagree on various points. Most prominent, academic Open Theists are closer to Arminianism (another free will theism) than Calvinism (logically OSAS/POTS due to decretalism/determinism).
I respect Bob Hill, but believe he is wrong and unbiblical on this point (same with me and Sproul, Piper, Packer, etc., Calvinists). Yet, we all love and worship Jesus as the risen God-Man (core vs peripheral issue).
Diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot be equally true. Contradictory views are not equally valid. Defaulting to Calvinistic antimony, mystery, etc. is not legit if the problem is in fact a logical conundrum.
I concur that the truth is not at the extremes. The extremes would be Hyper-Calvinism vs Process Thought. Your view and mine is more in the middle, left or right of center.
I would say Arminianism is more defensible than Calvinism and that Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will, relational theism than Arminianism. Molinism is a mess.
Free will is true, determinism is not. The problem is not with God's sovereignty or determinism, but a wrong view of sovereignty as meticulous vs providential control and the fact that God determines some vs all things (free will is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility).
This is not true. Most prophecy is declarative, conditional, not predictive, unconditional. God changes His mind wisely in response to changing contingencies, not in a capricious, fickle way like we do.
God is not indecisive. He changes His mind sometimes, but often does not when it is not wise to do so. Your view makes prayer vapid.
I'm not sure what open theism has to do with either Calvinism nor Arminianism.
My point was if you argue for both you will use the language of both.
Ugh! can you hide your Biblical knowledge in some more technical terms? I doubt it, you have them all covered until someone invents more.
Really so you can tell me when God changes His mind? you can tell me the wisdom of God? When is this "sometimes"?
That's the problem of open theism it directs people away from God. For you to even claim that you know when God changes His mind is to replace my study of God's word.
Just because you think that's open theism doesn't mean it is.
And we are made incapable of changing it back, because you cannot unknow what you know.
So where does "open theism" draw the line? Where they say?
Which line?
Right.
Dishonesty and obfuscation; why am I not surprised?
It's not my problem that open theism claims that God changes His mind but can't convince me where.
The Bible explicitly says that God changed His mind 39x (in I Sam. 15, He changed His mind in once case and then later refused to change His mind in another case...both were consistent with His character and based on contingencies that He allowed). Hundreds of other verses show that God can and did change His mind, while others show that He does not always do so if not wise to (or that He does it righteously, not in a fickle way like unstable people do).
The fact that you don't see this motif means you put your false views above the Bible.
- Status