ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

I appreciate your thoughts and interactions. As well, Judas could have repented, and Paul might not have repented. Regardless of what these individuals did or did not do, God would not give up on His plan of redemption and spread of the gospel. Jesus would still have died, but the events leading up to it would be recorded differently (Judas became a betrayer; He was not predestined in eternity to be one). If Paul was not raised up, Peter, John, James and others would have continued the expansion of the gospel. Other great leaders would also have joined them and the Spirit would continue to grow the church and evangelize the world. The Holy Spirit is more effective than mortal Paul. Notice the work still continues to the point of hundreds of millions coming to Christ without Paul being reincarnated.

All of these things were possibilities, but God(with the aid of foreknowledge) chose the one best course to achieve His purpose. Imagine all possible futures(all knowledge) laid out before you at creation. Wouldn't you choose the best possible course? I know Clete will say that there was probably more than one perfect choice, but once a choice was made it would be dependent on all subsequent choices to achieve its end. Not all situations have more than one best choice. Is God like man that He will change His mind with a change in the wind? Why should God change his plans?

 

[lee_merrill]

... sin is that which is contrary to the will of God.

Yet "the law was given so that sin would increase" (Rom. 5:20). This would be accomplishing God's stated purpose.

Am I the only one who believes that God has achieved His ultimate purpose through the acts of Jesus Christ(especially the evil act of His death)?

Not the only one, no...

The day will come when God will act IN absolute POWER to unilaterally bring an end to evil and the suffering it causes. God WILL accomplish His ultimate purpose and nothing can prevent Him from doing so. Until then, God is faithful, consistent and redemptive and acts in the POWER OF LOVE.

Amen.

To lump the cross into the same category as rape and murder is to divorce it from the resurrection ...

Not at all, Jesus was indeed murdered, and arguably raped, yet he triumphed "in it," not "in spite of it" (Col. 2:15).

The cross was the most powerful act of God in all creation and human history, not merely the result of evil men acting independent of God. That God gave His Son and orchestrated His own death for our redemption cannot find company or comparison with the sins it forgives.

It was a sinful act, however, is what I must insist on, and a sinful act that accomplished God's greatest purpose--and this was by God's decision.

"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:18)

God bless you,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Lee,

The law didn’t generate more sinning … the law made sin the universal agenda of humanity.

Laying down one’s life in sacrificial love is not sinful! Taking a life (murder) is. The sin is evil. The sacrifice is not. God didn’t endorse evil as the way to accomplish His purpose in salvation. God never stoops to our level of the end justifies the means. God over came evil with good. Jesus did not become SINFUL for us. HE who knew NO SIN became sin for us …. Christ became SIN for us. That is more than semantics. It is the difference between God being in anyway participatory in and accountable for our sin and becoming the propitiation for our sins.

Peace
Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Am I the only one who believes that God has achieved His ultimate purpose through the acts of Jesus Christ(especially the evil act of His death)?

The cross was a righteous, holy, loving act, though the murderers would be evil doing it if God had not decreed and initiated it. A holy God does not do evil, so the cross must be consistent with holiness.

Rape and murder are not parallel. They are not consistent with God's love, mercy, and justice, but are contrary to His holiness.

God did not change His plan of redemption because it was a perfect plan. However, He did change his mind about Hezekiah's death, in response to prayer, and added 15 years to His life (unless it was a change, God lied). God changes His mind in response to changing contingencies sometimes, while other times He does not change His mind and does things independent of changing contingencies.

 

[Philetus]

The cross was a righteous, holy, loving act, though the murderers would be evil doing it if God had not decreed and initiated it. A holy God does not do evil, so the cross must be consistent with holiness.

Rape and murder are not parallel. They are not consistent with God's love, mercy, and justice, but are contrary to His holiness.

God did not change His plan of redemption because it was a perfect plan. However, He did change his mind about Hezekiah's death, in response to prayer, and added 15 years to His life (unless it was a change, God lied). God changes His mind in response to changing contingencies sometimes, while other times He does not change His mind and does things independent of changing contingencies.

:up:

Ac 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Ac 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

2Co 13:4 For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you.​

God the Father did not murder God the Son. God sent His Son into the world (became flesh) to die … gave himself over to sinful men to be crucified. In laying down His life in weakness, Jesus satisfied the demands of the law and became the propitiation for our sin. In resurrection He gave us hope and life. He was crucified by sinful men and was raised by God’s power. You cannot divorce one from the other. God is in no way implicated in doing evil to accomplish a greater good by laying down His life lived in the flesh.

I lay it down ... I take it up. Only a holy God restrained by love could make such a claim.

 

[Evoken]

Don't make the mistake of the Catholic Church and make Catholicism, not Christ, a condition of salvation.

You once again demonstrate that you simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Catholicism. That The Church makes "Catholicism, not Christ, a condition of salvation" is a claim that only one who is unaware of the Christocentric nature of Catholicism can make.

You seem to have a tendency to make snide remarks against The Church in your posts, and for no apparent reason most of the time. In a previous post, you did this, even though you were not even talking about anything related to The Church. Yet, every time you make these sort of remarks, you spout ignorance or make your typical assertions which you offer with no solid support or argumentation.

If you want to talk about Catholicism, then let's talk about it. If not, then please stop spouting these derogatory soundbites, because if you don't then I will have to keep jumping on your head...

Every.
Single.
Time.

...you make them.


Evo

 

[godrulz]

You once again demonstrate that you simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Catholicism. That The Church makes "Catholicism, not Christ, a condition of salvation" is a claim that only one who is unaware of the Christocentric nature of Catholicism can make.

You seem to have a tendency to make snide remarks against The Church in your posts, and for no apparent reason most of the time. In a previous post, you did this, even though you were not even talking about anything related to The Church. Yet, every time you make these sort of remarks, you spout ignorance or make your typical assertions which you offer with no solid support or argumentation.

If you want to talk about Catholicism, then let's talk about it. If not, then please stop spouting these derogatory soundbites, because if you don't then I will have to keep jumping on your head...

Every.
Single.
Time.

...you make them.


Evo

I was picking on my fellow Protestants by pointing out that Jesus, not an organization or man-centered theology, is the way to eternal life (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16). I say the same thing to Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Pentecostals (my fellowship), Baptists, Muslims, etc.

I just earned a black belt. I will be forced to defend myself if you try to stomp on my head...every single time (note...your single word sentences/periods lack a subject and verb).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Dogmatic godrulz exposed

The Dogmatic godrulz exposed

You once again demonstrate that you simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Catholicism. That The Church makes "Catholicism, not Christ, a condition of salvation" is a claim that only one who is unaware of the Christocentric nature of Catholicism can make.

You seem to have a tendency to make snide remarks against The Church in your posts, and for no apparent reason most of the time. In a previous post, you did this, even though you were not even talking about anything related to The Church. Yet, every time you make these sort of remarks, you spout ignorance or make your typical assertions which you offer with no solid support or argumentation.

If you want to talk about Catholicism, then let's talk about it. If not, then please stop spouting these derogatory soundbites, because if you don't then I will have to keep jumping on your head...

Every.
Single.
Time.

...you make them.


Evo

Amen! Don't hope for godrulz to engage substantively in anything except Mormonism and Jehovah Witness topics. Those appear to be the only thing he knows something about. The rest he just robo-asserts and deductively interprets over and over again. The man is stuck on auto-pilot.

godrulzian-speak:
"proof text", "motifs", "See this link..", "a causative thing", "nuanced", "is godward not manward", "we are Imago Dei", "Word + Spirit= truth", "deductive", "Calvinism", "Catholicism", "Islam"

Mystery... godrulz is set in his ways. You have said all you can say to him and it's time you moved on.

godrulz... I think you are nearing the point where it's likely you are doing nothing more than provoking Mystery.

Hilston to godrulz here:
"You've never tried to get through to me, godrulz. You don't make arguments. You merely assert, and dogmatically at that. For example, rather than show me where my exegesis of Jn 9 is in error, you say "Try again on your exegesis of Jn. 9." How about throwing me a bone, GR? How about engaging in the actual discussion and, for once, proving your preconceived deductive theological claims?"

Everytime I post verses from the bible, godrulz, you NEVER have anything to offer but excuse after excuse. It's either a metaphor, or that's a bad translation, or it's not what some theologian teaches, or that's what so-and-so teaches, or some other mish-mash of mindless rhetoric.

Which of the two of us spends multiple hours typing up single posts in an attempt to either refute someone else's theology or to substantiate his own? When was the last time you (godrulz) ever spent more than 15 minutes typing up a post on TOL anyway godrulz? Have you ever?

If you (godrulz) don't want to substantiate what you say then I'd prefer you keep it to yourself.

You (godrulz) have been making this same lame assertion for over a year.

You (godrulz) have this habit of making declarations that seem to assume a counter position to positions that I haven't held...Interesting, but odd.

My own similar observations here and here and here

godrulz's view is:

...the average flunky here finds it too long to sift through...
...To share a few thought provoking ideas will hopefully whet the appetite for those who want to go deeper. I follow 700 threads.

Judging from the above, the "average flunky" here apparently thinks godrulz's superficiality is a waste of time. Nor is he as "thought provoking" as he arrogantly assumes. By "follow 700 threads" he means he robo-posts the same drivel over and over again. Lastly I don't think he understands the distinctions between "ideas" and "dogma".

 

[Spitfire]

You seem to have a tendency to make snide remarks against The Church in your posts, and for no apparent reason most of the time. In a previous post, you did this, even though you were not even talking about anything related to The Church.

It is nevertheless nice to know that he appreciates us at least insofar as we can be used as a bad example.

 

[godrulz]

The cat came back....with more ad hominem attacks...whatever...

Have you not seen my recent posts that are very verbose, thank you very much?

Mr. New kid on the block...show some respect.

People want a simplistic answer to complex issues. I will not be bullied into writing long posts that people will generally ignore. My days of writing long papers in school are over. Rather than solve all issues in a post or two, I point people to book length treatments of the subject that I have digested over decades, even as you have with Calvinism. The serious student will look for expanded, detailed explanations. The average forum reader will not read long posts, so I am being wise, not evasive.

If you want to keep talking to yourself or a small minority, go ahead. I will reason with a JW until Armageddon in detail. There destiny is at stake. I will be selective with a hard-headed Calvinist who is argumentative, but saved. When they continually reject insights to default back to their indoctrination, more light will not help. When they beg the question, why waste time?

If someone continually disrepected you and resorted to ad hominem vs dealing with arguments, I know you would dismiss them quicker than I would, Mr. Hypocrite.

 

[godrulz]

It's not easy being green (Kermit), a voice crying in the wilderness (JB).:mrt:

 

[Spitfire]

It's not easy being green (Kermit), a voice crying in the wilderness (JB).:mrt:

A lot of people here seem to like to cast themselves in that role. And, like I told Letsargue, just because everyone else disagrees with you doesn't mean you're right.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

People want a simplistic answer to complex issues. I will not be bullied into writing long posts that people will generally ignore. My days of writing long papers in school are over. Rather than solve all issues in a post or two, I point people to book length treatments of the subject that I have digested over decades, even as you have with Calvinism. The serious student will look for expanded, detailed explanations. The average forum reader will not read long posts, so I am being wise, not evasive.

Try to follow this carefully.

You write:
"Don't make the mistake of the Catholic Church and make Catholicism, not Christ, a condition of salvation."

This is similar to the thousands of your posts. No supporting information, pointers, etc. Where are they?

You are asserting, GR. Being dogmatic. When you have no warrant to be so unless you can back it up. You just blurt this stuff out and move on. As my previous post shows clearly, this is your tendency whether you are talking to "Calvinists" or not. Most of the items in my previous post were not quoting "Calvinists", so your comments are just plain wrong.

You are not "wise" as you think yourself to be. You are divisive in your behavior and unwilling to engage at any level of substance when you are challenged for your dogmatic assertions. Admit it and stop being a liar by saying you have thoroughly engaged elsewhere in your posts. Where is the substance behind your statement that "Catholicism is a condition of salvation"? Prove it or just admit you are a shallow man hiding behind a pretense of learnedness.

 

[godrulz]

JWs make being part of the mother organization (WT) essential for salvation. To be submitted to Jehovah is to be submitted to His organization.

Likewise, there is precedent for Catholics to make being part of the Catholic church (no salvation outside of it) evidence of being in Christ. The Church becomes important and critical. I have been told by Catholics that I am not a Christian because I am not part of the Catholic Church and in submission to the Pope, the vicar of Christ. As a Protestant, you must be aware of some of the historical statements and controversies relating to the mother church?

My beef is with those who think I must accept TULIP to be saved instead of receiving and trusting Christ alone apart from a theological system to have eternal life (Jn. 3:16). Some of the extreme Catholics and Calvinists here have come right out and said what I asserted, so I am challenging it with an equal assertion that should not need defending in detail when I give a few verses that explictly undermine the assumption of adding to the gospel.

Shoo fly, don't bother me. I hear your point, but you are not blasting the majority of others for doing the same thing, including yourself. Just because I am more active does not mean hunting season is on.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Likewise, there is precedent for Catholics to make being part of the Catholic church (no salvation outside of it) evidence of being in Christ. The Church becomes important and critical. I have been told by Catholics that I am not a Christian because I am not part of the Catholic Church and in submission to the Pope, the vicar of Christ. As a Protestant, you must be aware of some of the historical statements and controversies relating to the mother church?

Then take that up with the specific individuals instead of spreading inflammatory rhetoric that you are unprepared to back up. Is the Church important to you? Is the Church important biblically? It must be since Christ and the Apostles spent so much time writing about it, no? If a person professes to be a Christian and is not attending a Church because they consciously decide to avoid attending, despite the biblical admonishments, are they sinning? I am aware of many controversies surrounding Catholicism and Protestantism. I raise them when the context is appropriate. You just spout off. Don't you get it? What is your fundamental problem? Were you treated badly by Catholics or Calvinists sometime? There is an underlying seething of hatred in your posts for these are your favorite targets. What is your real "beef" for you are pathological in your behavior. Your comments about Catholicism derail the present thread. There are other forums to discuss this topic.

..so I am challenging it with an equal assertion that should not need defending in detail when I give a few verses that explictly undermine the assumption of adding to the gospel.

Then why not take up your "beef" with these persons directly instead of lumping everyone of a class into your own rhetorical buckets?

I hear your point, but you are not blasting the majority of others for doing the same thing, including yourself.

You are egregious in your behavior. I assert when given a warrant to do so by the person directly engaging me. They assert to me for we are engaged (a word you should learn) in a discussion. Moreover, I am prepared to spend the time and effort to defend my assertions--as your complaints about my lengthy posts so demonstrate. On the other hand you make dogmatic assertions 90% of the time in threads where you are not even a direct party to the discussions. You just pop in and drop your bombs. Sure you can post where you want, but, like I said, you are divisive in the content of your posts. They do not foster "thinking deeper" for you are careless in what you write. All your posts do is foster consternation at your dogmatism. Your profile says you have a theology degree. What was the denominational association of the seminary?

 

[godrulz]

Sometimes making an assertion or illustrative comparison is not all bad and valid. There are parallels between various views.

I believe ecclesiology is important.

I believe Catholics and Calvinists can be Christians.

We all have different styles, strengths and weaknesses. We all can't be like you, thank goodness.

My college was for practical ministry preparation, more heart than head, though accredited.

http://www.vanguardcollege.com/

It does not condone Open Theism. Some of my doctorate profs went to Calvinistic colleges and taught Reformed ideas, though the fellowship is more Arminian.

I am a student, not a scholar.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sometimes making an assertion or illustrative comparison is not all bad and valid. There are parallels between various views.

Agreed. There is a time and place for it. You seem unwilling to accede to this point.

My college was for practical ministry preparation, more heart than head, though accredited.

Well I thought it must have been some Reformed school and you were just rebelling. But I see it was one of those schools holding to unbiblical notions of non-cessationalism.






Notice how that last statement made you feel? What was your initial reaction? Oh, the nerve of this guy! I merely posted it to demonstrate how a wholesale assertion comes across. Think about it.

 

[themuzicman]

This is inaccurate, for the words "elect" or "elected," or "election," are used solely in reference to the "Elect of God," Jesus Christ, and His spiritual children.

The Greek word is "eklegomai", and it used here:

Acts 7:5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.​

That's not a reference to salvation.

And here:

27 but God has chosenthe foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosenthe weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen , the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.​

And unless God is saving foolish things, that's not a reference to salvation.

Further, the noun simply means "chosen." If God chooses Israel from among the nations to be His people, then they are His "elect", without reference to salvation.

You commonly make these pronouncements, but you rarely back them up with Scripture . . .reason being, there is no Scripture that speaks of election apart from salvation in Christ Jesus.

Why doesn anyone need to back up the definition of a word from Scripture? Do you get ALL the meanings of ALL the words you use from Scripture?

Right. I do exactly as you say.

Which is naive.

This is Muz talk . . .not bible talk. You cannot cite one instance where the word "elect" is used in reference to Old Covenant or physical birth.

Bzzzzzt... Sorry, that's incorrect. But thank you for playing.

Deut 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.​

Same Greek word in the LXX.

If you want the noun form:

Isa 43:20 "The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people .​

You've just been pwn3d.

God loves Jacob = salvation

God hates Esau = reprobation

Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Jacob=Israel. Esau=Edom. Read what Paul is citiing.

Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "[Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau , and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the Lord of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and [men] will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever." 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"​

This is NOT about their salvation.

You know, the former a vessel of mercy; the latter a vessel of wrath. (Romans 9:22&23)

Yup. Old Covenant and New Covenant, as has been exegted for you numerous times in the past, and for which you have no answer.

Romans Chapter 9 has all to do with individual salvations according to election. (Romans 9:11)

LOL... You just failed that test.

(A wise man told me once, that the Word of God cannot be refuted, but only refused. You do not refute Romans 9 and the teaching of election; you blatantly refuse it. Poor you.)

LOL... Yeah, I just figured I'd want to know what Paul meant, not how you want it to mean. My bad.

Just because Paul makes the distinction between the two brothers born of Isaac, does not limit Romans 9 to their national histories. Any more than Paul's reference to Moses and Pharoah limits the context to the parting of the Red Sea!

The Pharoah reference simply points out that God may act to bring someone to prominence just to tear him down to show God's glory. Again, nothing about Pharoah's salvation, here.

And who exactly do you think fulfilled the old covenant?

Christ.

How was the old covenant fulfilled?

Through living a sinless life.

For whom was the old covenant kept?

The world.


Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I'll try to remembe this quote the next time an open theists proclaims that God is responsible for evil if foreknowledge is true.

Just as thick as ever.

I have no problem with this, in fact I believe that it is true. I, however, have confidence that God has chosen the one best course to achieve His purposes and decreed that path as His course before the creative act. When you state, "The key, then, is for God to act in such a way that one of those infinite possible courses of the future occur. you are acknowledging that God must know the outcomes of His own actions. We are simply disagreeing over 'when' God made/makes the decision to act.

Yes. In one, Free will is possible. In the other, it is not.

This is the argument. You say that God is still making the decision based upon the will of His creation. I say that God made the decision which included those wills to begin with. Same basis, different conclusions.

Unfortunately, you cannot explain how free will decisions can be known before they are made.

My conclusion:

Thus, God does know the exact course of the future, and does know that His purpose will be accomplished, because He has chosen and decreed the precise and perfect path the future will take.​

Which is incompatible with free will.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

The law didn’t generate more sinning …

This is what God's purpose was, and I think it succeeded (see Romans 7!).

Laying down one’s life in sacrificial love is not sinful! Taking a life (murder) is.

I agree, and this sinful deed (the people crucifying Jesus, not Jesus sacrificing himself) was planned by God, for good.

God didn’t endorse evil as the way to accomplish His purpose in salvation.

Certainly. Yet he brought it about, for a purpose of redemption, for resulting good.

God never stoops to our level of the end justifies the means.

Yes, for the means is part of the end, not a compromise, "he triumphed over them in the cross."

Blessings,
Lee