ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[themuzicman]

Jim...

How does a dead man hear the gospel?

I thought most people believed that you had to hear the gospel before you died. Once you're dead, you're judged, right?

Michael

 

[Philetus]

Jim...

How does a dead man hear the gospel?

Jn 11:14 “Lazarus is dead.”
Jn 11:43 “Lazarus, come forth!”
Jn 11:34 “And he that was dead came forth.”

Just want to help Jim out. "Walk-ins welcome, Jim"

Walk-outs welcome, too.
Philetus

 

[RobE]

Responsible Answers

Responsible Answers

Then why wasn't Judas drawn like the other apostles?

So God fixed the game beforehand according to you. :rotfl:

Huh? There's a far cry from determining the entire course of history and arranging circumstances for His purposes to come about.

Not really. It makes God responsible for the betrayal of Judas in your theology. That's why you reject foreknowledge---responsibility.

Explain,
Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Not really. It makes God responsible for the betrayal of Judas in your theology. That's why you reject foreknowledge---responsibility.

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.

Michael

 

[Sozo]

Jn 11:14 “Lazarus is dead.”
Jn 11:43 “Lazarus, come forth!”
Jn 11:34 “And he that was dead came forth.”

Just want to help Jim out. "Walk-ins welcome, Jim"

Walk-outs welcome, too.
Philetus

Where does the bible claim that this story is representitive of salvation by grace through faith?

 

[Hilston]

First, I use an analogy to show how man responding to God's offer of salvation through the propitiating act of Christ isnt "saving oneself", and you go off on how the analogy doesn't fit your soteriology. Strawman #1.

Au contrare. Your analogy shows how a person saves himself. He must grab the rope. He must hang on. He must want to live. He must believe that the rope will save him. All these things rely upon the person being saved. This undermines the Biblical analogies of one being dead, spiritually unresponsive, having dead ears unable to hear, needing to be given life, not merely resuscitated. It is the logical conclusion of your analogy. Show me I'm wrong.

Then, after making it obvious that grabbing the rope isn't "saving yourself", and that the analogy to believing as the condition of salvation isn't "saving yourself", either, you go on to claim that Open View Theists say that "man saves himself." Strawnan #2

The only thing you made obvious is that you're confused about the sufficiency of Christ's finished work. It really is finished, Michael. On your view, it's not. Jesus should not have said, "It is finished!" when He died, but rather, "Let's see if this works."

How does a dead man hear the gospel?

Jn 11:14 “Lazarus is dead.”
Jn 11:43 “Lazarus, come forth!”
Jn 11:34 “And he that was dead came forth.”

Since Lazarus was truly dead, how was he able to hear? What made his 4-days-dead ears function? Anyone?

His hair was perfect,
Jim

 

[themuzicman]

Au contrare. Your analogy shows how a person saves himself. He must grab the rope. He must hang on. He must want to live. He must believe that the rope will save him. All these things rely upon the person being saved. This undermines the Biblical analogies of one being dead, spiritually unresponsive, having dead ears unable to hear, needing to be given life, not merely resuscitated. It is the logical conclusion of your analogy. Show me I'm wrong.

OK, this is called "taking an analogy where it wasn't intended to go." The point wasn't to analogize an entire soteriology, but to demonstrate that responding to an offer of salvation from certain death isn't "saving yourself."

We can talk about what "dead" means in Eph 2:1 in another post, if you want.

The only thing you made obvious is that you're confused about the sufficiency of Christ's finished work. It really is finished, Michael. On your view, it's not. Jesus should not have said, "It is finished!" when He died, but rather, "Let's see if this works."

Another strawman.

Since Lazarus was truly dead, how was he able to hear? What made his 4-days-dead ears function? Anyone?

I fail to see the relevance of Lazarus being raised from the dead.

Is local strawman 503 in the yellowpages?
Michael

 

[Philetus]

Where does the bible claim that this story is representitive of salvation by grace through faith?

It doesn't. But, that wasn't the question. It's just another angel for the head of the pin.
Philetus

 

[Hilston]

OK, this is called "taking an analogy where it wasn't intended to go." The point wasn't to analogize an entire soteriology, but to demonstrate that responding to an offer of salvation from certain death isn't "saving yourself."

Sure it is! If you don't respond, you die. If you do respond, you're saved. You. Save. Yourself. Jesus is just a Rope.

We can talk about what "dead" means in Eph 2:1 in another post, if you want.

Sure. How about this one?

Another strawman.

No, that was mocking. Try to keep up.

I fail to see the relevance of Lazarus being raised from the dead.

Rather stupid story, isn't it? Why would God include such an irrelevant story in the Bible? Obviously, the errors of the Open View's Trial-And-Error God extend beyond allowing people like Stalin and Bin Laden to exist. [Hint: That's mocking, too; no straw-man intended].

Mighty, mighty monster sound,
Jas

 

[themuzicman]

Sure it is! If you don't respond, you die. If you do respond, you're saved. You. Save. Yourself. Jesus is just a Rope.

See? You don't get it. Jesus isn't the rope. Faith is the rope.

Sure. How about this one?

Do dead men walk?

Rather stupid story, isn't it? Why would God include such an irrelevant story in the Bible?

Once again, you demonstrate your unique powers in being unable to get the point. The story of Lazarus has no relevance to soteriology. None.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

The Glory of the New Covenant
2 Cor. 3
7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect (or contemplate) the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

2 Cor 4
4The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

Your erroneous understanding of OVT negates your judgments. Neither God nor His Glory is static. You continue to place a veil over the Gospel. It is you who limit God and refuse to allow His glory to shine in the transformed lives of believers. Your God is too small. Too limited.

Hilston: Since Lazarus was truly dead, how was he able to hear? What made his 4-days-dead ears function? Anyone?

Some things are just beyond you, Hilston.

Your posts seem to equate being ‘spiritually dead’ with total non-function instead of dis-function. God is able. If he can make himself heard by a four-day-dead guy, surely he can make himself heard by those who have been blinded by the god of this age. It’s not really that complicated, but, it does require a thimble of faith.

Hilston: What's the difference between the guy who doesn't take the rope and the one who does?

He drowns.
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Once again, you demonstrate your unique powers in being unable to get the point. The story of Lazarus has no relevance to soteriology. None.

Muz

One word sentences seem to help the slow of hearing.. :duh:
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Obviously, the errors of the Open View's Trial-And-Error God extend beyond allowing people like Stalin and Bin Laden to exist. [Hint: That's mocking, too; no straw-man intended].

Mighty, mighty monster sound,
Jas

Not only does the God of the open future allow for people like Stalin and Bin Laden to exist, God’s future is not threatened by their existence even if they refuse His offer of salvation. If your mocking OVT then you are neither accurate nor entertaining. If you understand OVT then you know that it even allows for monstrous blowhards.

“Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Acts 2:40
Philetus

 

[seekinganswers]

Pelagius was too extreme. He was also misunderstood and misrepresented at times.

I might be sort of semi-Pelagian (?Finney).

Man cannot save himself.

Finney, as one who comes out of the Awakening tradition begun by Edwards, would have spoken of the need for a crisis experience that brings about guilt and ultimately leads to a release of that guilt in a cathartic moment. This is hardly "semi-Pelagian" as it comes out of the Reformed tradition (hyper-Calvinism) in the utter sinfulness of man-kind. There is absolutely nothing redeemable within humanity, so God must break into the human realm of the mind and bring an individual to himself in an irresistable way (through a conviction of guilt and a nominal forgiveness).

The awakening tradition (ironically the foundation for revivalism and evangelicalism in the United States) completely alienates the Wesleyan tradition that develops from Wesley's "methodist movement," Methodism (not in our Modern form of it, but as posited by Wesley himself) is a parallel and often contrary tradition to the revivalism and "Awakening" movements found in the United States' tradition. Edwards was a contemporary of Wesley, and he was not an Arminian but a Calvinist. So at the foundation of Finney's framework (which builds off of Edwards) is a very drastic notion of original sin that utterly destroys any hope within humanity of redemption. There is nothing redeemable in humanity for Finney and Edwards (the only hope we have is to see how guilty we are and hope for an experience of God's forgiveness, which we can't even initiate, nor does our guilt require that forgiveness follow). This is drastically different than Wesley, who speaks of "preventing grace" which means that humanity is not utterly depraved only because God continues to sustain us in a way where we cannot bring the Creation to utter ruin. There is still hope for humanity with Wesley, whereas Finney and Edwards are quite clear that there is no hope at all.

Now of course, the Awakening tradition does not isolate itself, but begins to merge with the other movements that could be found in the developing United States, so that in the end evangelicalism in a lot of ways merges traditions (often times in a very messy way; this is why I make a distinction between the present form of Methodism and the Methodism posited by Wesley). But at the heart of our current understanding of justification and salvation is the very thing that you despise, Augustinian original sin. Now why on earth could this be? Might it have to do with the fact that in Luther and Calvin the original sin doctrine (which the Catholic Church before them had not really grabbed a hold of) was reinstated? Luther's treatment of the doctrine of original sin is much more developed and much more forcefull than Augustine's. I just find it ironic that at the very heart of Protestantism is this vicious holding on to this very doctrine that you detest, godrulz. Luther can only proclam sola scriptura and sola fide because those statements are grounded in the very conception of a strong original sin doctrine.

As you can see, I don't much care for either Pelagian or Augustinian views on sin. I prefer the rich foundation that the scriptures offer for understanding sin. And the real issue for the scriptures is not an understanding of sin as such (in other words a sin inherent within itself; sin as an ontological reality). Sin only is brought to light in the light. In other words, our sin is not a reality in itself; it is a darkness that is only made apparent in the light of Christ, and in the light of the true Creation. Sin is not a reality, it is a corruption of what truly is.

Thus, even in your "relational" understanding of sin, I must confess that I find it all too embodied in an ontological understanding of sin rather than sin as a void of ontology (sin is still an ontological question, but does not consist of its own ontology). You see, in your relational view you presuppose that there are two relationships that one can have with God: a right one and a wrong one, and they are both ontological relaties. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that sin is truly a relationship. When one sins, one does not cease to be a member of God's Creation (one becomes less of a Creation, but one does not transform into something other). God continues to be the Creator and we continue as God's creation. God doesn't treat us as something else. The only relationship that exists is that of God as Creator and we as the Creation (unless we are talking about God in God's self, i.e. Trinity; and even there the Creation is not another, but is wrapped up into that very relatedness of God; God's Trinity is not transcendant but from the beginning is very immanent in the Creation).

I hope this helps illustrate some of my qualms.

Peace,
Michael

 

[RobE]

Think Fast!

Think Fast!

:wave:

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.

Michael

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Rob

 

[themuzicman]

:wave:

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Rob

Before.

Michael

 

[Clete]

Prove to me that your view doesn't make you your own savior. Show me the logic.

If a man is drowning and someone on a boat says to him, "I'll pull you out if you grab hold of this rope!"

If the man refuses to grab hold of the rope, is the boat pilot, the rope, or the man himself responsible for his own death?

If the man grabs the rope, who should get credit for having saved his life? Wouldn't the saved man sound like a lunatic if he went around bragging about how he saved his own life by gropping frantically for that rope? Would anyone in their right mind give this guy credit for saving his own life? Of course not. It's ridiculous. He was saved by the pilot of the boat who could have just as easily ignored him and left him there to fend for himself. Had he done so he would have been dead in the water - literally and figuratively.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.​

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Michael: Before.​

Did the Devil make Judas do what Jesus foretold Judas would do,

or

Did God arrange for Judas to betray Christ,

or

Did God simply foresee what Judas would do?

Precisely Please,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Basis of your faith.

Basis of your faith.

Because Adam remained sinless on his own accord. How do you get glory from another's actions?

Oh I don't know, maybe because God's teaching Adam and Eve guided them into being His people, rather than rejecting Him?

Yet this would be cooperation. God wouldn't have ALL the glory in this scenario would He?

Do you honestly think Adam and Eve would get credit for doing what they were told to do?

Do you honestly think you get credit for doing(believing in Jesus) what you were told to do?

If not, then why would you get discredit for not doing what you were told to do?

Sincerely,
Rob

 

[godrulz]

What about Galatians 2:20, godrulz?

Paul was making a true statement about his experience. I do not think it is a sinless perfection statement. He is referring to his identification with Christ in death and resurrection. We die to Self and experience new life in Christ as Christ lives in and through us. This must be balanced with other verses (I Jn.) and other exhortations/warnings in his letters about believers who lived in the flesh or sinned. Romans 6-8 is also instructive about flesh vs spirit. It is a powerful verse, but is not a proof text in itself.

I am not sure what you are suggesting from it. Paul was yielded to the indwelling Christ and walking in His love and power. He also was obeying the light he had (search use of 'obedience' in Pauline thought...2 Cor. 7:2; Rom. 6, etc.). This should be the normative experience of believers. It does not mean that a pastor cannot commit adultery. I am sure you are not saying that a person has no genital control after salvation or that Jesus is living His life through the person causing them to sin and sleep with the church secretary.