ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How long must we put up with intentionally disruptive Calvinists who have clearly decided that they are no longer interested in substantive debate or discussion?
How long must we endure those who on the one hand confess Christ as Lord, yet, instead of helping to share the Gospel to the lost, will on the other hand will actually root for the atheist, just for the sake of winning an argument?

Admit your error and seek God's forgiveness for failing to glorify Him to the unsaved and for raising a stumbling block to the weak in faith. Delete your post and I will delete my reply to forever remove your shame from the archives.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
How long must we put up with intentionally disruptive Calvinists who have clearly decided that they are no longer interested in substantive debate or discussion?

This is such a huge waste of time.
I disagree that this is a waste of time.

Any thread that is as long as this one is going to have some peaks and some valley's. I think it's a bit therapeutic to not always be dead serious. I also think it's good to occasionally stop, look around, and start a fresh line of discussion (within the context of this thread). Maybe that's where we are at right now.

I think it's clear that Nang and AMR enjoy TOL so you may as well befriend them. On the bright side you have been making some stellar posts and that makes it all worth it in the end.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
instead of helping to share the Gospel to the lost, will on the other hand will actually root for the atheist, just for the sake of winning an argument?
Clete isn't "rooting for the atheist".

Instead he is pointing out that your theology struggles so badly to be coherent that even an atheist has his way with you.

I agree wholeheartedly with Clete on this. I think the mighty_duck made several points (one in particular) that was devastating to your position.

If our theology is so incoherent that atheists have such an easy time destroying it we should probably consider if there might be something wrong with the way we are presenting our theology.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Clete isn't "rooting for the atheist".

Instead he is pointing out that your theology struggles so badly to be coherent that even an atheist has his way with you.

I agree wholeheartedly with Clete on this. I think the mighty_duck made several points (one in particular) that was devastating to your position.

If our theology is so incoherent that atheists have such an easy time destroying it we should probably consider if there might be something wrong with the way we are presenting our theology.

Well, in defense, she has been here since before I have been and still needs Jesus.

I'm stilll praying for her often. A call to solidarity in prayer is no shameful thing and points well to what should be our unifiers.

I totally agree with the need to occassionally lighten up in your previous post also (sorry, have to spread more rep around.....Uggghhh! PM me worthy candidates please-the only thing I hate about rep points, I know, I know, its the program script and its fair, I just REALLY would like to give appropo rep sometimes where it's due :) ).
 
Last edited:

themuzicman

Well-known member
I don't think the debate really revolves around whether God elects, but rather how God elects: Individually or corporately.

Muz
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I don't think the debate really revolves around whether God elects, but rather how God elects: Individually or corporately.

Muz
It's good that you reiterated that point.

Sometimes I think settled viewers assume that OV'ers don't believe in election, which of course isn't the case.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
How long must we endure those who on the one hand confess Christ as Lord, yet, instead of helping to share the Gospel to the lost, will on the other hand will actually root for the atheist, just for the sake of winning an argument?

Admit your error and seek God's forgiveness for failing to glorify Him to the unsaved and for raising a stumbling block to the weak in faith. Delete your post and I will delete my reply to forever remove your shame from the archives.

Hey, God used a donkey to correct someone in error before....

(You don't know how hard it is NOT to use the biblical term for donkey, here....)

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
SIMPLY IN CHOOSING! It there really is a choice then the contingency lies in MAKING THE CHOICE! If there is a real choice to be made the future will be shaped by the choice made. The outcome will be determined more or less by the choice made.

Hi Philetus, welcome back! Sorry to delay answer, but I waited for a block of time, to go through your post and give decent reply.

Perhaps we have different concepts of "contingencies." I happen to believe that possibilities are quite limited (finite) in God's creation, and that all choices are moral in essence; thus one can only ultimately choose between what is right and what is wrong. I believe this is the scope of human cause and effect; which will either be blessed by God or overcome by God. Thus human contingency does not really exist. Our willfull influences are completely controlled by God, and our choices will always be worked to accomplish His ultimate purposes.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28




Has God given mankind a choice between life and death beyond the individual Adam?

No He has not.


You say that there is a good choice and a bad choice and that God already knew which choice Adam would make.

I do not believe God gave Adam any choice at all. God limited Adam and commanded Adam remain within his limits. However, God knew Adam would not do so.

Adam was never given the freedom to disobey God in rebellion against his limitations.


So in your view there is nothing that can be described as freedom. We say that's no choice at all.

I do not believe "free" will exists. I believe God created men with wills, but the will of man is limited (finite) and subject to the sovereign (infinite) will of God. Man is not free to willfully sin against God.


Let's talk about the not yet saved if there is even such a category in your view (not meaning the never to be saved or already elect). What about the not yet saved? Is there a God given choice between life and death for all who have sinned and if so, how do they make that choice? Or has Adam or God already made it for them?

Even the elect are saved by grace; not by choice. Until God regenerates His elect, they are dead in their sins and are by nature, just like the non-elect, children of wrath:

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, but God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved
us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:3-6


Please note: These verses describe how the elect are born again in Christ, and there is no mention at all of "choosing." Rather the revelation is of supernatural and spiritual resurrection from death to life.


Open Theists believe that God has given all mankind a degree of freedom and ability to actually MAKE choices. Some simple and mundane choices like what we shall eat and what we shall wear (which hold obvious contingencies that cannot be known until the choice is made and action taken) and some choices that hold eternal consequences.

Where do you find in Scripture that mankind can make choices unto everlasting life? Where exactly in the Bible does it say man can successfully "choose" live? (If you do a word study of the words "choose" and "choice," you will find the concept is only taught in regard to God choosing . . .not man.

I do not see divine approval in Adam's sin

Neither do I.

nor do I see God determining or knowing ahead of time what Adam would do.

I do. God knew, for God said, ". . for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17


No "ifs," or "choices" to do otherwise.

God had a sure foreknowledge of Adam's disobedience, but it came without approval, but only warning of sure judgment.

It honestly sounds like you are saying that Adam made the only real choice in human history.

Agam was commanded to follow God's word (Law). Adam was not given a choice to disobey God's word (Law). However, Adam was created upright and still lived in a state of innocence with the moral ability to obey God's word (Law) and not eat of tree. God did not force Adam to disobey. God's foreknowledge of what Adam would do, was not the cause of what Adam did.

Adam did not so much "choose freely" to go against God's word, as he failed to remain in innocent subjection to his Maker. Adam had the ability to continue in submissive fellowship with God, but threw it away due to his unbelief of God's word, and refusal to subject himself to creaturely limitations. He rebelliously attempted to breach his limitations, to become "like God." He believed the lie from the serpent, that the finite could be infinite "like God."

Adam attempted to usurp the will and word (Law) of God via his moral agency (will).




Actually, I'm saying that it is NOT necessary for God to dictate, predetermine or foreknow the thoughts, choices or actions of mankind in order to exercise His sovereignty over creation. I believe God has actually given us the right, power, and ability to make choices that help determine the future ... hence OPEN Theism.

And as a Calvinist, I say it is necessary that God's ultimate purposes be fulfilled; and they will be despite the corrupted cause and effects sinful men reap in their worldly lives through serving sin, death, and the devil.

Only Adam was able to exercise his will to serve God. But after the fall, he was no longer able, for God cursed him, separated from him, banned him from the garden and the tree of life, and left him enslaved to serving the devil, while inescapable consigned to death. And ALL of Adam's descendents are born into this same condition. All men are conceived in sin, and born sinners, unable to exercise their moral agency to serve Godly good. The wills of all men are in bondage to Satan, until and unless they are released from that bondage by the grace of God.

Only those born again (regenerated) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ can exercise human moral agency to serve righteousness:

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free
from righteousness . . .But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." Romans 6:20,22





The simple question is: Do we have a choice as to who we will serve?

No. That is what redemption is . . .being freed from slavery to Satan, to being a slave of Christ. There is no human choice in this, but the choice of who will serve God, is God's alone and the rescue from Satan comes solely by the grace of God.

Jesus Christ, by necessity, had to pay a ransom of flesh and blood, and fulfill all Godly justice under the Law, to work this release and accomplish this great salvation.



Now, who are "His people"? Those whosoever by grace believe or those individuals who are elected to believe.

Only God knows, and those who have been brought from death to life by the indwelling presence of His Spirit can know they are His elect. Christians can only evaluate whether others are "elect" or not, by looking for the spiritual fruits of the Holy Spirit in others.

Is there ever really a choice? I can't find one in the Calvinist's view.

There is no choice to transfer oneself from death to life. None. Dead men cannot choose to climb out of their graves.

That does not mean that the Calvinist denies the human will. Born again (regenerated) Christians are given new hearts, which creates new minds, which produces new wills, that evidence faith, repentance, and the good works of God. The will of the Christian is the product of the "mind of Christ" that dwells within through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.

Christians are given a new love of God's word (Law), and they are enabled, according to their new nature, to volitionally obey God. They willingly serve God and His righteousness. They exercise their moral agency in new submission to God; as their Lord gave them example while in His earthly visitation, by totally submitting His human moral agency to God above.

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30

" . . .O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matt. 26:39


Jesus Christ exemplified how the human will is to function . . .in complete submission to the sovereign will of God.

There is no greater freedom than having renewed fellowship with the God the Savior, and the desire to serve His righteousness!

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I disagree that this is a waste of time.

Any thread that is as long as this one is going to have some peaks and some valley's. I think it's a bit therapeutic to not always be dead serious. I also think it's good to occasionally stop, look around, and start a fresh line of discussion (within the context of this thread). Maybe that's where we are at right now.

I think it's clear that Nang and AMR enjoy TOL so you may as well befriend them. On the bright side you have been making some stellar posts and that makes it all worth it in the end.
Of course you're right. I don't really think its a waste of time, it just gets to feeling like it sometimes, that's all.

One thing's for sure. TOL would be a lot more fun (for me) if we could find a Calvinist who was actually interested in honest debate.

Knight said:
Clete isn't "rooting for the atheist".

Instead he is pointing out that your theology struggles so badly to be coherent that even an atheist has his way with you.

I agree wholeheartedly with Clete on this. I think the mighty_duck made several points (one in particular) that was devastating to your position.

If our theology is so incoherent that atheists have such an easy time destroying it we should probably consider if there might be something wrong with the way we are presenting our theology.
This was exactly my point, except that I don't think it would have been entirely inaccurate to say that I was rooting for the atheist to win. I actually enjoy it when my enemy fights my battle for me and wins. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The best thing in the world for AMR would have been to realize that this atheist just handed him his back side on a plate and then to do some serious reevaluation of what he (AMR) calls a rational worldview. So, in other words, I was rooting for the atheist but only because I saw the potential for real growth in AMR, not because I particularly like the idea of an atheist winning a debate. My goal is to expose error and if an atheist voluntarily helps that cause then as far as I am concerned both the atheist and whomever he defeats in a debate are all that much better for the experience. The errant Christian gets a good dose of humility and the atheists see a Christian (me) being intellectually honest. I basically cannot lose in such a situation.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Of course you're right. I don't really think its a waste of time, it just gets to feeling like it sometimes, that's all.

One thing's for sure. TOL would be a lot more fun (for me) if we could find a Calvinist who was actually interested in honest debate.


This was exactly my point, except that I don't think it would have been entirely inaccurate to say that I was rooting for the atheist to win. I actually enjoy it when my enemy fights my battle for me and wins. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The best thing in the world for AMR would have been to realize that this atheist just handed him his back side on a plate and then to do some serious reevaluation of what he (AMR) calls a rational worldview. So, in other words, I was rooting for the atheist but only because I saw the potential for real growth in AMR, not because I particularly like the idea of an atheist winning a debate. My goal is to expose error and if an atheist voluntarily helps that cause then as far as I am concerned both the atheist and whomever he defeats in a debate are all that much better for the experience. The errant Christian gets a good dose of humility and the atheists see a Christian (me) being intellectually honest. I basically cannot lose in such a situation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

All I can say to this, Clete, is you do a swell job of covering up your sins, and justifying yourself, all by yourself.

You evidence no conviction of sinfulness or need of a Savior. You think you are just perfect in all your ways.

We need a smilie that pats its own back . . .
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
All I can say to this, Clete, is you do a swell job of covering up your sins, and justifying yourself, all by yourself.

You evidence no conviction of sinfulness or need of a Savior. You think you are just perfect in all your ways.

We need a smilie that pats its own back . . .

If I am wrong do something more than simply say that I am wrong. Prove it or just shut up! I am not interested in what you think of me Nang. I am not your friend, I am not your ally, I am not under your authority in any way whatsoever and do not have to answer to you based on your simply having spewed your baseless personal opinions all over the place.

Now if you can demonstrate how I've done something wrong or at the very least make some sort of argument in that direction then I will happily respond to it in whatever way I find appropriate based on the merits of whatever points you've made but if you think for even one thousandth of a second that I am going to simply take your word for it that I've done something wrong, you can just forget it. As far as I'm concerned the more you personally dislike me, the better I must be doing!

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The errant Christian gets a good dose of humility and the atheists see a Christian (me) being intellectually honest. I basically cannot lose in such a situation.
There is nothing in your contribution to the thread in question that would support your notion that you are "seen" as intellectually honest. You have not engaged one bit other than to take a cheap shot at me. Do you prefer to let our Lord be maligned by a non-believer while sitting idly by, content with yourself? If you are so intellectually honest, engage honestly with Duck and I will be the first to rejoice with you should she be moved to repent. Otherwise, you would do well to proceed cautiously for God has placed this person in our path for a reason and He will not be mocked.

One thing's for sure. TOL would be a lot more fun (for me) if we could find a Calvinist who was actually interested in honest debate.
Pay close attention to the dialog between mDuck and myself. You will find (and should already observe) that I have no problems engaging as long as the discourse is civil. That is my non-negotiable condition. Once the discourse turns personal and vitriolic (as in your puerile style) what is going on is no longer discourse by any definition of the word, and I am under no obligation to subject myself to abuse. Moreover, you have observed that when the engagement goes south I am quite able to give as good as I get, too. I have seen how it wearies us both. Now we can continue in this manner, you being Philippic and me being mordant, or you can unconditionally accept my terms for civil discourse. No reply is necessary (although I doubt the eristic can forego). Just walk the talk and you will see the fruits of your civility.
 
Last edited:

SOTK

New member
Have you ever seen a Calvanist admit error?

Clete said:

I've been on TOL for four years, and can't say I recall a single TOL OVer ever admit they were wrong about a facet of OV Theology. Why should we be expected to waiver in our theology and you guys not? Personally, I feel the reason why most OVers expect us to waiver and not themselves is due to arrogance. From what I have witnessed and read of OVers, the theology pure and simply breeds it.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I think some Calvinists are arrogant. Conviction of truth is not tantamount to arrogance (Jesus and Paul were not arrogant, but humble).
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I've been on TOL for four years, and can't say I recall a single TOL OVer ever admit they were wrong about a facet of OV Theology. Why should we be expected to waiver in our theology and you guys not? Personally, I feel the reason why most OVers expect us to waiver and not themselves is due to arrogance. From what I have witnessed and read of OVers, the theology pure and simply breeds it.
TOL changed me from believing in a timeless, all-knowing, antinomy loving, non-calvinist into a proponent of the OV without me even realising it.

Some of the things I said about God before I came to TOL were, at best, absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top