ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

See, here a doctrinal statement would help clarify. As long as one doesn't exist, nuance will continue to be problematic and even the OV will be divergent, unclear, and non-unified.

That's just silly!

I have made my position perfectly clear (even in your own post you quoted my position).

The open theist position (on just about every single topic) has been made a billion times on this very thread.

This is just plain silliness!

Furthermore.... if you have a question (even a YES or NO question) just ask it! I promise to give you a straightforward, direct, to the point, answer.

 

[themuzicman]

Can you simply state the OVT theological premise for their views?

God is righteous. God is just. God is love. God is sovereign. I think we all agree on these things.

When God created, all that He created was "very good." (Gen 1)

The only logical way for a righteous God who created a very good world to see His creation marred by evil is for one of His creations to have sufficient freedom to choose to commit evil, in spite of being instructed to do good, with God's sovereignty, His just nature, His rule over creation made clear in the consequences for doing evil. (See Genesis 2, where God commands Adam and Eve. See Romans 5, et al. for the necessity of justification before God to receive eternal life.)

Inexplicably, Adam sins. God's just nature is satisfied for the moment in cursing Adam and Eve (and the serpent), and God's loving nature extends to His creation in promising redemption.

The knowledge of good and evil arouses our passions, and sin begets more sin (Rom 7:5). As mankind reproduces, evil grows and pervades the earth, in spite of God's attempts to reach man (See Cain, Enoch, et al.)

In the time of Noah, the creation which God declared "very good" has descended to where God regrets creating as a result of man's sinful works. (Gen 6)

God's just nature is about to be shown through His sovereignty over the earth, and He is about to wipe it out.

Thus, the premise is that God does not have anything to do with the existence of sin, and man's free choice to sin created a circumstance where God wishes He had not created Him.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Greek philosophy teaches that what is perfect cannot change (otherwise it would change from perfect to less than perfect).

However that philosophy breaks down when discussing living things or animated things.

Pardon me, but we are discussing God Amighty, not the animal world.

A perfect clock MUST change, otherwise it is broken.

Pardon me again, but we are discussing God Almighty, not clocks.

A perfect living being MUST change otherwise it is dead.

Illogical.

God changes because He is capable. Capable of acting and reacting to His creation.

Apparently you don't know what the word repent means and frankly I don't feel like explaining it to you.

First, all you are relying on is the finite usage of the word "repent," which (as Lon has already discussed) infers a necessary turning away from something not correct or right. This definition applied to Godly "repentance" cannot stand the scrutiny of sound, biblical theology at all, for it forces the premise that God is often wrong.

It isn't wrong to react to changing circumstances, read Jeremiah 18.

Omniscient God is never surprised by earthly events, and certainly does not "react" to what He has ordained with full knowledge of outcome.

How does God being sovereign deviate from His ability to react to freewill agents?

God is either a reactionary, dependent upon the actions of His creatures, or God is sovereign, with unconditional rule over His entire creation.

Which premise is your's? The former or the latter?

You cannot hold to both.

God is sovereign, there is no power greater than He.

Logical. I say Amen.

Yet God has control over His own faculties, God has control of His own sovereignity, He can delegate authority to others if He so chooses because He has the power to control His own power.

For some reason, I have trouble believing sin was caused by God "delegating authority."

God having "power to control His own power" is redundant if not nonsensical.

Nang, do you believe that God has control over His own power?

Knight, I do not believe there is any necessity for God to control Himself. What reason can you give to even make this statement?

Nang

 

[Mystery]

Knight, I do not believe there is any necessity for God to control Himself. What reason can you give to even make this statement?

:doh:

It's the fruit of the Spirit you ninny! :rotfl:

 

[Philetus]

One can do everything right and have someone else mess it all up, and leave you wishing you hadn't done it in the first place. It seems that you're playing word games, here.

Muz

:up:
:jazz:
Calvinism is all word games.

I wonder at times if we aren't buying into part of the problem when we acknowledge even the need for 'a systematic theology' to explain such a simple straight forward approach to the reading of scripture as Open Theism. I think Augustine has set the agenda for way to long. Its the same as AMR's stooping to belittle the Narrative in God's word. I wonder if he has ever heard the term "Narrative Theology". He has split so many hairs in wrongly dividing the word that he doesn't seem to remember the story line. He has made a career and idol of historical and literary criticism and can't remember the flannel-graph-board. Sad.

There is only one problem, one reason that prevents anyone from understanding (even if they don't accept) the simple foundational premise of OV ... predetermined / preexistent formulas that are two costly to give up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Pardon me again, but we are discussing God Almighty, not clocks.

God is the living God. God is not an inanimate object.

Illogical.

It isn't illogical for living things to have the ability to change. In fact living things have that ability by default.

We have a word that describes living things that cease the ability to change and that word is.... dead. :dead:

First, all you are relying on is the finite usage of the word "repent," which (as Lon has already discussed) infers a necessary turning away from something not correct or right. This definition applied to Godly "repentance" cannot stand the scrutiny of sound, biblical theology at all, for it forces the premise that God is often wrong.

I feel very comfortable using the word as God used the word.

Omniscient God is never surprised by earthly events, and certainly does not "react" to what He has ordained with full knowledge of outcome.

That statement flies in the face of the entire Bible.

God reacts to His creation on almost every page of the Bible, starting in Genesis and ending in Revelation.

God is either a reactionary, dependent upon the actions of His creatures, or God is sovereign, with unconditional rule over His entire creation.

That is a false dilemma. God is reactionary AND sovereign!

God is sovereign - He is the most powerful being in existence, yet He reacts to the changing conditions in creation.

There is nothing illogical about that.

The United States is a sovereign nation, yet we can react and interact with the world around us.

God having "power to control His own power" is redundant if not nonsensical.

Knowing that you think that statement is redundant says a lot about your ability to critically think this issue through.

Knight, I do not believe there is any necessity for God to control Himself. What reason can you give to even make this statement?

I want to know if you believe God has the ability to use His power the way He sees fit.

I want to know if you think God can delegate authority or power to other entities if He sees fit.

Or.... do you believe God cannot control His own power and does not have the ability to delegate or give power to other entities.

 

[Nang]

God is righteous. God is just. God is love. God is sovereign. I think we all agree on these things.

That is the problem. You OV'ers are trying to use our premise, but differing as to conclusions.

I say you are being illogical to attempt to do so, for your conclusions deviate from this premise.

When God created, all that He created was "very good." (Gen 1)

The only logical way for a righteous God who created a very good world to see His creation marred by evil is for one of His creations to have sufficient freedom to choose to commit evil,

This deviates from the premise that God is just. A just God would not give permission or choice to a good creature to disobey His righteous law. Thus, I say no such "freedom" was ever given to Adam.

Adam sinned because he was not the perfect man. God created him a natural man, lacking divine attributes, to compare him to the Perfect Man, Jesus Christ who was to fulfill the ultimate purposes and good pleasure of the God you described in your first sentence.

God's just nature is satisfied for the moment in cursing Adam and Eve (and the serpent), and God's loving nature extends to His creation in promising redemption.

I agree with this conclusion because it remains true to the premise.

The knowledge of good and evil arouses our passions, and sin begets more sin (Rom 7:5). As mankind reproduces, evil grows and pervades the earth, in spite of God's attempts to reach man (See Cain, Enoch, et al.)

In the time of Noah, the creation which God declared "very good" has descended to where God regrets creating as a result of man's sinful works. (Gen 6)

God ordained to show His just judgment against sin by flooding the earth and destroying all but a remnant of mankind. This does not violate the first premise that God is righteous, just, loving, sovereign.

To infer God "regretted" any of His creative actions, or that He found it necessary to change an original plan, deviates from this premise. It is subtle, but erroneous, and illogical.

God's just nature is about to be shown through His sovereignty over the earth, and He is about to wipe it out.

Yes.

Thus, the premise is that God does not have anything to do with the existence of sin, and man's free choice to sin created a circumstance where God wishes He had not created Him.

Muz

You now state a different premise. Which is my point. Your conclusions force a different belief than what you stated in your first sentence. You have taken away from your statement of belief that God is Sovereign, by adding the (unscriptural) proposition of human free choice and the inference that God's original plan went wrong.

 

[themuzicman]

That is the problem. You OV'ers are trying to use our premise, but differing as to conclusions.


This deviates from the premise that God is just. A just God would not give permission or choice to a good creature to disobey His righteous law. Thus, I say no such "freedom" was ever given to Adam.

I disagree. Justice only means that evil is propitiated. It doesn't mean that evil does not occur. We say that justice has happened when a criminal is punished for his crime, not when crime cannot occur.

So, you're deviating from the definition of justice.

Adam sinned because he was not the perfect man. God created him a natural man, lacking divine attributes, to compare him to the Perfect Man, Jesus Christ who was to fulfill the ultimate purposes and good pleasure of the God you described in your first sentence.

Apparently you missed the verse in Genesis 1 where man is "very good."

And you don't have any support for this assertion.

God ordained to show His just judgment against sin by flooding the earth and destroying all but a remnant of mankind. This does not violate the first premise that God is righteous, just, loving, sovereign.

If God caused the sin that He was judging (as you claim), then that isn't just.

To infer God "regretted" any of His creative actions, or that He found it necessary to change an original plan, deviates from this premise. It is subtle, but erroneous, and illogical.

I disagree. I never said that God found it necessary to deviate from His plans. You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now.

You now state a different premise. Which is my point. Your conclusions force a different belief than what you stated in your first sentence. You have taken away from your statement of belief that God is Sovereign, by adding the (unscriptural) proposition of human free choice and the inference that God's original plan went wrong.

Not at all. The foundational nature of God leads directly to this conclusion, once we ditch the Calvinist impositions.

Muz

 

[Nang]

God is the living God. God is not an inanimate object.

It isn't illogical for living things to have the ability to change. In fact living things have that ability by default.

The fact that God is the living God, makes it illogical to call Him a living "thing." Or even to compare Him to "living things" which seems to be the foundation for your beliefs. You evaluate the Creator according to the qualities of the creature.

We have a word that describes living things that cease the ability to change and that word is.... dead. :dead:

Death is not cessation of the ability to change. Death is the cessation of drawing breath.

I feel very comfortable using the word as God used the word.

Where does God's word define death as you just defined it as being the cessation of ability to change? You can't just make things up and say they are biblical. Cite the Scriptures, please.

God reacts to His creation on almost every page of the Bible, starting in Genesis and ending in Revelation.

Reacts or interacts?

That is a false dilemma. God is reactionary AND sovereign!

Illogical.

God is sovereign - He is the most powerful being in existence, yet He reacts to the changing conditions in creation.

There is nothing illogical about that.

Not if your premise is that God is a Reactionary as well as a Sovereign.

Is this your formal OVT statement of belief?

I want to know if you believe God has the ability to use His power the way He sees fit.

God is omnipotent and wise.

I want to know if you think God can delegate authority or power to other entities if He sees fit.

God delegates saints the authority to proclaim the gospel, and He empowers them to serve righteousness through the presence of His Holy Spirit, but neither delegation is autonomous from His Righteous Person and Truth. Neither of these gifts from God has anything to do with "free" will to deviate from His holy Law.

Or.... do you believe God cannot control His own power and does not have the ability to delegate or give power to other entities.

You cannot force me to answer the way you want me to answer. So I will repeat. There is no necessity for God to control His own power, and there is no Scripture that teaches God ever delegated His power to enable creatures to rebel and sin against His Law and Person.

If these questions reflect your beliefs and theological position, I can only assume your premise is that God empowered Adam (and all of mankind) to freely sin.

???

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Where does God's word define death as you just defined it as being the cessation of ability to change? You can't just make things up and say they are biblical. Cite the Scriptures, please.

You are getting lost.

I was referring to the word repent. I was merely responding to your earlier assertion.

Reacts or interacts?

Both.

Illogical.

How so? Don't just assert it, make a point! Back up your claim.

God delegates saints the authority to proclaim the gospel, and He empowers them to serve righteousness through the presence of His Holy Spirit, but neither delegation is autonomous from His Righteous Person and Truth. Neither of these gifts from God has anything to do with "free" will to deviate from His holy Law.

Lucifer is a angel (a fallen angel) is he autonomous?

Or are you claiming Lucifer's actions are righteous because he is not autonomous and therefore given no authority to act in opposition to God's will?

Is Lucifer righteous? Or unrighteous?

You cannot force me to answer the way you want me to answer. So I will repeat. There is no necessity for God to control His own power, and there is no Scripture that teaches God ever delegated His power to enable creatures to rebel and sin against His Law and Person.

Are you saying God's creation does not have the power to rebel against Him?

If these questions reflect your beliefs and theological position, I can only assume your premise is that God empowered Adam (and all of mankind) to freely sin.

???

:duh:

That is after all... the story of the Bible.

 

[Nang]

Lucifer is a angel (a fallen angel) is he autonomous?

Nothing created is autonomous from the Creator.

Or are you claiming Lucifer's actions are righteous

Nope.

because he is not autonomous and therefore given no authority to act in opposition to God's will?

Where do you read God granted Satan authority to rebel? Where do you read God gave Satan power to work iniquity and deceive the human race?

However, I do not want to be distracted into discussing the fall of Satan. I notice this is the MO of the OV'er . . .changing the subject of discussion is a favorite ploy.

Are you saying God's creation does not have the power to rebel against Him?

I have not said . . . but I will say now, the creature does not have the moral right to rebel against his Maker. And God would certainly not authorize or empower a creature to do so.

That is after all... the story of the Bible.

Maybe we are getting somewhere. You are stating it is the belief of the OVT that God has authorized and empowered mankind to freely rebel against His Person and truth. That IS consistent with your conclusions and teachings.

From this premise I can only conclude the OVT blames God for sin.

And I can say, I disagree. What you call "empowerment" to exercise "free" will, I call moral failure.

Nang

 

[Lon]

That's just silly!

I have made my position perfectly clear (even in your own post you quoted my position).

The open theist position (on just about every single topic) has been made a billion times on this very thread.

This is just plain silliness!

Furthermore.... if you have a question (even a YES or NO question) just ask it! I promise to give you a straightforward, direct, to the point, answer.

Well, my questions would lead to a systematized understanding of OV. Why not just write it? Doesn't the Bible school or Denver have a doctrinal statement?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, my questions would lead to a systematized understanding of OV. Why not just write it? Doesn't the Bible school or Denver have a doctrinal statement?

Uh yeah... but this isn't exactly an OV specific statement.

 

[Clete]

Scripture. God's direct revelation. John 14:6 You believe the same thing here.

David Koresh used Scripture to convince his followers that he was Christ! Many of the Dividians still believe he was God to this day!

Why are they wrong?

Obviously there are truths so clear they cannot be missed.

And yet people miss them all the time!

Why do you suppose there are people who call themselves Christians but deny that Jesus us the only way to God?

Do you see dichotomy somewhere on this? Why ask something we both understand to be true?

Because I do not believe you have the tools to defend your belief and it is my hope to demonstrate that too you.

Are we back to one-liner questions and one-liner answers? Say it. Spend time here. Expand on it. These can so easily rabbit-trail into meaninglessness, so you know I don't prefer the one-line approach.

I have to start somewhere Lon. I am not attempting to be evasive or to play tricks on you. I want for you to see where your beliefs lead you and there isn't any other way to get there except to go one step at a time. If you'll bare with me, these leading questions do lead somewhere, I promise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have not said . . . but I will say now, the creature does not have the moral right to rebel against his Maker. And God would certainly not authorize or empower a creature to do so.

What do you think happened in the garden?

God said....

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

God DIDN'T want Adam to eat from the tree, do I need to explain what happened next?

Furthermore... why would God specifically instruct us to not rebel if we had no such ability? (Numbers 14:9, Joshua 22:17-19, Joshua 22:29, 1Samuel 12:14-15, Isaiah 1:20, Hosea 7:14)

Maybe we are getting somewhere. You are stating it is the belief of the OVT that God has authorized and empowered mankind to freely rebel against His Person and truth. That IS consistent with your conclusions and teachings.

From this premise I can only conclude the OVT blames God for sin.

I guess you can conclude anything you like. :kookoo:

 

[Lon]

Uh yeah... but this isn't exactly an OV specific statement.

Thanks Knight (needs scriptural references now )

 

[Lon]

David Koresh used Scripture to convince his followers that he was Christ! Many of the Dividians still believe he was God to this day!

Why are they wrong?

Scripture, not just part, or most, but all. We know 1) because truth produces Godliness (1Ti 1:5) 2) The Apostles said if one teaches and it leads to ungodliness, it isn't of Him (2Ti 2:19 -whole chapter) 3)The Holy Spirit convicts(1Co 2:13) 4) history of acceptance vs. rejection of doctrine(1Ti 1:10 2Ti 4:3 Tit 1:9 Tit 2:1)
5) the faithful are promised to be kept in Him (Php 4:7)

And yet people miss them all the time!

Why do you suppose there are people who call themselves Christians but deny that Jesus us the only way to God?

1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Because I do not believe you have the tools to defend your belief and it is my hope to demonstrate that too you.


I have to start somewhere Lon. I am not attempting to be evasive or to play tricks on you. I want for you to see where your beliefs lead you and there isn't any other way to get there except to go one step at a time. If you'll bare with me, these leading questions do lead somewhere, I promise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I understand, but it is in leading that one might feel like they are being led. I'll humor, but please come to a point soon. These stretch out and are lost so quickly in thread otherwise.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Uh yeah... but this isn't exactly an OV specific statement.

I read this before joining. Indeed, it is not an open theism statement. Why not? What prevents this from being more explicit?

Similarly, the DBC statement or PK's church statement leave much, er, open. Why not shout the open theism aspects from the rooftops?

To see how a church should be laying everything out on the table, compare the above statements to this one or especially this one.

 

[Clete]

Scripture, not just part, or most, but all. We know 1) because truth produces Godliness (1Ti 1:5) 2) The Apostles said if one teaches and it leads to ungodliness, it isn't of Him (2Ti 2:19 -whole chapter) 3)The Holy Spirit convicts(1Co 2:13) 4) history of acceptance vs. rejection of doctrine(1Ti 1:10 2Ti 4:3 Tit 1:9 Tit 2:1)
5) the faithful are promised to be kept in Him (Php 4:7)

Your entire post begs the question Lon. You are only answering with more Scripture. David Koresh would have done the same thing. And more than that, he might have complained that since you reject him as Messiah, you cannot hope to understand the Scripture because Scripture is about him and your mind has been darkened by sinful flesh.

Why is your argument right and Koresh's wrong? How is what you are doing to defend your claim that Jesus is the only way to God, any different than his defense that he was the Christ?

What's the difference between the two arguments?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I read this before joining. Indeed, it is not an open theism statement. Why not? What prevents this from being more explicit?

Similarly, the DBC statement or PK's church statement leave much, er, open. Why not shout the open theism aspects from the rooftops?

To see how a church should be laying everything out on the table, compare the above statements to this one or especially this one.

For once I have to agree with AMR. But it isn't just Open Theist churches and organizations, its everywhere, including most Calvinist churches. I've looked and looked and looked for "Statements of Faith" that actually told me something significant about what the church teaches that is any different than any other church. Most of what you find is bland and very "safe". They have the feel of something that was arrived at by some committee and which was intended to make sure no one got offended by anything. TOL's statement is vastly more offensive than most you find in mainstream churches. It's last statement concerning God's followers being commanded to judge is about as provocative as anything you'll ever find in any statement of faith.

Statements of faith should be informative beyond just the basics of the Christian faith which virtually no one who calls himself a Christian would dispute. One should be able to read the statement and have a pretty good idea just what sort of church they would be getting involved in should they choose to attend. Activists churches should mention something about that in their statements of faith, churches that teaches murderers and adulterers should be executed should bring that up in their statements as well. If the church teaches that women are welcome to hold positions of authority that should be mentioned. And those are all relatively minor in that they are very specific and so even if a statement neglects such things as those, they certainly should mention whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, Open, Dispensational, Covenant or whatever other major category best fits their teaching but nearly none of them do. In short Statements of Faith should be thorough and substantive rather than the inch deep excuses for statements of faith that most churches whip up most probably for no other reason than to satisfy some state requirement which has to be met in order to become incorporated and get their tax except status.

Resting in Him,
Clete