ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Nang]

Rom. 5 is the occasion of sin entering the human race through Adam

Yes, the tragic "occasion" Adam caused.

leading to physical vs moral depravity to all men.

Taught by orthodox Christians as the doctrine of "Original Sin" (which you deny).

Moral depravity is actualized in the individual when we individually sin (Rom. 1-3).

This is your version . . . ignoring the federal headship of Adam who represented the human race reproduced from his loins . . .and their inheritance of his corruption.

What is interesting to me, is that you deny this corporate, universalistic, inheritance of sin, while at the same time denying that grace matches your individualistic views of sin.

What you teach is that sin is individualistic but the remedy of grace is somehow corporate and thereby universalistic?

When the bible clearly teaches that the ramifications of sin are corporate, but the remedy is particular and individualistic, according to divine election and particular grace.

IOW's words, you think backwards (and most likely sleep upside-down, too!)

2 Thess. 2 is about the future great Tribulation and the Antichrist, not individual volition in the Church Age. Nice proof texting/eisegesis, young lady.

Gee . . .is there any mention in this passage about God restraining (restricting, or withholding) the totality of sin that the ungodly world is capable of causing? What do you think will be the very cause of the tribulation and the elevation of the man of sin, except God removing His restraining, restricting, and withholding hand from wicked men?

Nang

 

[godrulz]

God was in control of Adam, but God gave Adam the ability to have secondary cause and effect.

You wouldn't want to think God created Adam a robot, would you?

You are a waffling compatibilist (and I don't like your hat).:wazzup:

 

[Lon]

Nang, Hilston, etc....talk about confusion with your 'will' concepts/loopholes.

Like Luther, here I stand. I will not recant biblical truth to join your narrow camp (Calvin's one will assumption is the demise of his views).

Okay, there are tares in the field.
Did God allow them? Did they come up entirely unexpected like bad grapes? Did He know the enemy was planting them at the time they were being planted?

Explain the OV understanding of "will concepts" again. I'd bet about anything that it will be more confusing than what Nang, Hilston, AMR, and myself have posted concerning God's will in this thread.

 

[tetelestai]

Question for Open Theists:

In the Old Testament Jesus appeared several times as the pre-incarnate Christ. The appearance of Jesus in the OT is known as a Christophany.

So, how could the pre-incarnate Christ appear in the OT in a human form if He hadn’t yet received His physical body, or His glorified body?

The only answer that makes sense is if God is outside of time.

How can open theism explain a Christophany?

 

[Lighthouse]

Question for Open Theists:

In the Old Testament Jesus appeared several times as the pre-incarnate Christ. The appearance of Jesus in the OT is known as a Christophany.

So, how could the pre-incarnate Christ appear in the OT in a human form if He hadn’t yet received His physical body, or His glorified body?

The only answer that makes sense is if God is outside of time.

How can open theism explain a Christophany?

Yeah. Because that is the only way God could have done something like that.:kookoo:

 

[godrulz]

Question for Open Theists:

In the Old Testament Jesus appeared several times as the pre-incarnate Christ. The appearance of Jesus in the OT is known as a Christophany.

So, how could the pre-incarnate Christ appear in the OT in a human form if He hadn’t yet received His physical body, or His glorified body?

The only answer that makes sense is if God is outside of time.

How can open theism explain a Christophany?

Angels also appeared in a human form without actually being human by nature. A Christophany should not be confused with incarnation. Even non-Open Theists do not say a theophany/Christophany/Angel of the Lord is actually human just because He appears that way to them.

Using your logic, the Holy Spirit became an actual bird/dove instead of just appearing like one to us. Satan appeared as a serpent without actually becoming reptilian upon zoological dissection or DNA analysis.

Your assumption is wrong. A theophany is an appearance, not an actual, physical manifestation. Non-Open theists do not propose time theories to explain a Christophany, but agree with my ideas. I think you are out on your own limb on this own (I have never heard it as a possible argument against OVT or for eternal now).

Jn. 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11 does not necessitate eternal now theories, nor does a Christophany contradict OVT ideas about endless time. A Christophany is not an incarnation which happened later in the divine, temporal, endless sequence.

 

[themuzicman]

God was in control of Adam, but God gave Adam the ability to have secondary cause and effect.

You wouldn't want to think God created Adam a robot, would you?

I don't. But then I don't think God was controlling Adam into sinning.

OTOH, your theology makes it clear that Adam (and the rest of us) ARE robots from God's perspective. Nothing more than me programming a robot to set a building on fire. It may be the secondary cause, but it certainly isn't culpable for its actions.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

Question for Open Theists:

In the Old Testament Jesus appeared several times as the pre-incarnate Christ. The appearance of Jesus in the OT is known as a Christophany.

So, how could the pre-incarnate Christ appear in the OT in a human form if He hadn’t yet received His physical body, or His glorified body?

The only answer that makes sense is if God is outside of time.

How can open theism explain a Christophany?

While I admire the efforts of Tetelestai to present arguments that support the infinitude of God as outside of time, there is no clearer indictment against the Open View than its conception of God as finite. Open Theology should be renamed Open Anthropology, because, despite the protests from Open Theists to the contrary, the Open View measures all things by the standard of finite man, even God Himself.

For example, according to the Open View, God cannot have exhaustive foreknowledge, because that would implicate Him when evil events occur, making God responsible for not stopping the evil that He knew would happen. Open Theists hold this view only because they would never excuse a finite human being having such knowledge for not intervening when evil happens. They therefore cannot believe that God would have good and moral reasons for decreeing evil events, because they would never grant this to a finite man.

The same is true with God's meticulous control of the universe. Since the Open Theist cannot imagine a finite human being having such control without being a corrupt control freak, they cannot allow God to have such control either.

The same is true of God being outside of time. Since the Open Theist cannot imagine finite man being outside of time without abusing this power, neither can they allow God to be outside of time.

Finite man is the standard, the measure of all things, according to Open Theist assumptions. And by setting such a standard and applying them to God, their conception of God becomes one that is finite. He is not in control, as one would imagine a God to be. He does not know the future, as one would imagine of a God. He is not outside of time, as one would imagine of a God. Instead, He is a demigod, a half-god. He is more like man than God.

Furthermore, the Open View grants more power and influence to man than the Scriptures allow, thus making man more like God. Man himself becomes a demigod, according to Open View assumptions. And thus, Open Theism turns the entire created order on its head. They believe in a finite deistic sort God who is powerless to actually do anything to affect the course of history with any sort of certainty or hope. He certainly can't save anyone, not without the help of people, which doesn't amount to much of a salvation, since you basically have to save yourself. You are your own savior, with the aid of Jesus, the Salvation Assistant.

Finally, from where might one expect such a view to originate? Who do we know in history who has a tendency to make man more than man, and God less than God? Isn't there someone who once said, "Ye shall be as gods?" Isn't there someone who once questioned God's knowledge of the future and His judgment of good and evil, saying, "Ye shall not surely die [if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]"? Isn't there someone who has asked all the same questions that the Open View asks? The answer is obvious, and it should be equally obvious whence the Open View originated. All false religions and all false doctrines originate ultimately from Satan, but none is more Luciferian than the Open View, whose script comes directly from Satan's playbook.

Colors may vary,
Hilston

 

[godrulz]

Oh, brother, brother.

Without reading the whole pontifical diatribe (is that a legit phrase?), don't confuse Process Thought (finite godism) with Open Theism (i.e. straw man, mun). We are in the image of God, so we are like God in some ways, but not in other ways.

Just as Calvinists wrongly accuse Arminians of being Pelagians (some later Arminians did deviate from Arminius on some points), so Calvinists lump Open Theists in with views that Open Theists reject (one point of similarity hardly makes it identical).

 

[Clete]

While I admire the efforts of Tetelestai to present arguments that support the infinitude of God as outside of time, there is no clearer indictment against the Open View than its conception of God as finite. Open Theology should be renamed Open Anthropology, because, despite the protests from Open Theists to the contrary, the Open View measures all things by the standard of finite man, even God Himself.

For example, according to the Open View, God cannot have exhaustive foreknowledge, because that would implicate Him when evil events occur, making God responsible for not stopping the evil that He knew would happen. Open Theists hold this view only because they would never excuse a finite human being having such knowledge for not intervening when evil happens. They therefore cannot believe that God would have good and moral reasons for decreeing evil events, because they would never grant this to a finite man.

It is you who seem obsessed with this "finite man" idea. I've never seen a single argument presented by any open theist that employees such an argument. As such, your inserting the concept into our arguments does nothing to refute the arguments we actually do use. In short, it isn't that we can't grant it to finite man but that because of the definition of all kinds of Biblical concepts, like justice, love, relationship, etc, we cannot rationally grant it to anyone - including a God who was, is and forever will be.

The same is true with God's meticulous control of the universe. Since the Open Theist cannot imagine a finite human being having such control without being a corrupt control freak, they cannot allow God to have such control either.

Once again, your inserting arguments we've never made does nothing to refute the real arguments we have made. It has nothing to do with whether a human being can have such control, it has to do with whether anyone can.

The same is true of God being outside of time. Since the Open Theist cannot imagine finite man being outside of time without abusing this power, neither can they allow God to be outside of time.

Once again, your inserting arguments that we've never made does nothing to refute the arguments that have been made in favor of a rationally consistent and Biblically faithful theological system.

It has nothing to do with whether a human being could exist outside of time but whether such a concept is at all rational, which it is not. God can no more exist outside of time than He can exist outside of quality or outside of any other abstract concept that only exists within the thoughts of a thinking mind. Time is nothing but a means of discussing duration and/or sequence and thus existence itself implies the passage of time. If you exist, you have duration and so existence outside of time is a self-refuting concept and cannot be true for anyone whether human or otherwise.

Finite man is the standard, the measure of all things, according to Open Theist assumptions.

I would point out for those reading this that Jim knows that this is not true. He KNOWS that this is not true. He is intentionally deceiving people because he also knows that he is incapable of defeating the Open View position in any rational way as I have demonstrated numerous times on this website and elsewhere. Those who hold to a true position have no need to intentionally deceive their audience.

And by setting such a standard and applying them to God, their conception of God becomes one that is finite.

Actually by rejecting sound reason and exempting God from anything rational, all truth claims become unfalsifiable. Thus, since Jim's god is not required to be self-consistent (i.e. rational) then for all we know his god and the tooth-fairy might be the same guy. When you reject rationality, on what basis would you ever be able to prove otherwise?

He is not in control, as one would imagine a God to be.

The "one" doing the imaging being Aristotle.

He does not know the future, as one would imagine of a God.

The "one" doing the imaging being Plato.

He is not outside of time, as one would imagine of a God.

The "one" doing the imaging being Augustine.

Instead, He is a demigod, a half-god. He is more like man than God.

The God of Scripture is much more like a man than is the god of Aristotle, Plato, and Augustine is but I couldn't care less about their god. The God of Scripture is relational and He created mankind with the divine-human relationship firmly in mind. God loving us and our loving God is the entire point of our existence. Indeed, it is the point of the whole of creation.

Furthermore, the Open View grants more power and influence to man than the Scriptures allow, thus making man more like God.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Indeed, if Jim could establish this point he will have falsified Open Theism.

Man himself becomes a demigod, according to Open View assumptions.

This is just patently absurd. The Open View makes no assumptions in this regard. The Open View is little more than the logical conclusion of a consistent application of sound reason and the plainly read text of Scripture. Just because it leads to an understanding of mankind that is significantly different than what Aristotle thought should be permitted doesn't mean that we've turned man into a demigod. Mankind is what it is and the teaching of Scripture and the application of sound reason will reveal it as such. Nothing more nothing less.

And thus, Open Theism turns the entire created order on its head.

Again, I would point out two things.
1. Saying it doesn't make it so.
2. Jim KNOWS that what he is saying here is false. His clear intelligence leaves no other alternative.

They believe in a finite deistic sort God who is powerless to actually do anything to affect the course of history with any sort of certainty or hope.

The Open View actually teaches the exact opposite - which, once again, Jim knew when he wrote this.

He certainly can't save anyone, not without the help of people, which doesn't amount to much of a salvation, since you basically have to save yourself. You are your own savior, with the aid of Jesus, the Salvation Assistant.

Idiotic nonsense.

Scripture teaches that if you believe you will be saved and if you do not believe you will not be.

Did you get that? SCRIPTURE teaches that, not merely Open Theism.

Finally, from where might one expect such a view to originate? Who do we know in history who has a tendency to make man more than man, and God less than God?

Since Jim has failed to establish that Open Theism does any such thing the answer to this question is moot.

Isn't there someone who once said, "Ye shall be as gods?" Isn't there someone who once questioned God's knowledge of the future and His judgment of good and evil, saying, "Ye shall not surely die [if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]"? Isn't there someone who has asked all the same questions that the Open View asks? The answer is obvious, and it should be equally obvious whence the Open View originated. All false religions and all false doctrines originate ultimately from Satan, but none is more Luciferian than the Open View, whose script comes directly from Satan's playbook.

Guilt by association fallacy.

No such connection has been established, either theologically, Scripturally, historically or rationally. Calling a teaching a "doctrine of Demons" or the "Spawn of Satan" or some other horrific sounding thing has terrific emotional effect on an audience and usually engenders a raucous banter of "Amen brother!"s and "Preach it!"s from pew warming Calvinists, but it does nothing whatsoever to actually refute the actual doctrinal teaching of the Open View, which bares no resemblance whatsoever to the ramblings of a man who has been defeated so many times on this topic that he's clearly lost the ability to engage it honestly. He's been reduced to maniacal, unsubstantial emotionalism that is better suited to the silly conversations amongst teenage girls and the mindless chatter of frivolous, gossipy women.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

While I admire the efforts of Tetelestai to present arguments that support the infinitude of God as outside of time, there is no clearer indictment against the Open View than its conception of God as finite. Open Theology should be renamed Open Anthropology, because, despite the protests from Open Theists to the contrary, the Open View measures all things by the standard of finite man, even God Himself.

For example, according to the Open View, God cannot have exhaustive foreknowledge, because that would implicate Him when evil events occur, making God responsible for not stopping the evil that He knew would happen. Open Theists hold this view only because they would never excuse a finite human being having such knowledge for not intervening when evil happens. They therefore cannot believe that God would have good and moral reasons for decreeing evil events, because they would never grant this to a finite man.

It is you who seem obsessed with this "finite man" idea. I've never seen a single argument presented by any open theist that employees such an argument.

Note above, where I wrote "despite the protests from Open Theists to the contrary." Clete demonstrates perfectly what I'm talking about. The point is, Open Theists don't even understand the logical conclusions of their own humanistic arguments, as clearly evidenced by Clete's post. Not only that, but they refuse to see that their noble efforts of holding God to, and judging Him according to, such concepts as justice, love, relationship, etc. are actually a self-deceptive smokescreen by which they reduce God and measure Him according to the standards of man. To wit:

(1) Under the guise of "freeing" God from any association with evil, the Open Theist strips God of His essential and transcendent God-like attributes, i.e. His omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability;
(2) Under the guise of extolling God's hatred of evil, the Open Theist over-emphasizes God's imminent attributes, i.e. that He is living, loving, good, personal and relational, all attributes that could just as easily apply to my neighbor's dog.
(3) Under the guise of affirming justice, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man completely and totally autonomous by insisting that man's will must have libertarian freedom, otherwise God ostensibly could not justly hold them accountable;
(4) Under the guise of affirming "genuine" love (whatever that means), and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man the final authority by insisting that man must choose for himself whether or not God will save him.

As such, your inserting the concept into our arguments does nothing to refute the arguments we actually do use.

Clete makes the classic Open Theist mistake of confusing the critique of their arguments with a critique of the logical conclusion of their arguments.

In short, it isn't that we can't grant it to finite man but that because of the definition of all kinds of Biblical concepts, like justice, love, relationship, etc, we cannot rationally grant it to anyone - including a God who was, is and forever will be.

That is to say, that God is finite, according to Open Theist doctrine. Note that Clete has declared God is subject to the concepts of justice, love and relationship. Clete's God is subordinate, finite, not ultimate, not infinite. This again is the strategy of Enemy: to take Biblical concepts intended for finite man and to turn them around and use them against the infinite God, as if He could be subject to them. The very fact that the Open Theist presumes to sit in judgment of God demonstrates the depth of Luciferian distortion that pervades their thinking. Clete and I have been over this many times in the past. He didn't get it then, and he doesn't get it now. The only way someone can presume to judge God for His behavior is if man is more than man, and God is less than God. And there's nothing more Luciferian than that. Ask any Open Theist how he knows God is loving, just and relational, and you find out that their "trust" in God is existential and not essential. They trust God only "so far," preserving the possibility that God could change His mind about being loving, just and relational. Keep in mind that their Luciferian doctrine requires this, and they don't even realize it. Here is the Open Theist modus operandi, in a nutshell:

(1) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions (i.e. figurative language) in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's ignorance;
(2) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions (i.e. figurative language) in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's lack of foresight;
(3) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon finite and figurative descriptions of God as changing and emoting, and to explain them by declaring God's ignorance and lack of foresight.

The same is true with God's meticulous control of the universe. Since the Open Theist cannot imagine a finite human being having such control without being a corrupt control freak, they cannot allow God to have such control either.

Once again, your inserting arguments we've never made does nothing to refute the real arguments we have made. It has nothing to do with whether a human being can have such control, it has to do with whether anyone can.

See the limitations the finite man puts on the infinite God. According to the Open Theist, God is just a stronger, bigger, more powerful human. God is smarter, too, but not by much.

It has nothing to do with whether a human being could exist outside of time but whether such a concept is at all rational, which it is not. God can no more exist outside of time than He can exist outside of quality or outside of any other abstract concept that only exists within the thoughts of a thinking mind. Time is nothing but a means of discussing duration and/or sequence and thus existence itself implies the passage of time. If you exist, you have duration and so existence outside of time is a self-refuting concept and cannot be true for anyone whether human or otherwise.

There you have existentialism of the Open View. Bottom line of Open Theism: Man is the measure of all things. Since man is limited by time, so is God.

Finite man is the standard, the measure of all things, according to Open Theist assumptions.

I would point out for those reading this that Jim knows that this is not true.

I have come to find that I understand Open Theism, and what makes it tick, better than Open Theists. The fact that Clete so vehemently denies what I'm saying proves the case. One of two things are true: Either Clete knows what I'm saying is true and he is lying, or he doesn't see it and is gravely deceived. I'm inclined to think it is the latter.

He KNOWS that this is not true.

See what I mean? So deceptive and insidious is the Open View that it affects one's ability to think rationally. I've demonstrated this time and again. Have a look at the One-on-One dialogues I've had with Open Theists. It is abundantly clear which view is biblical and logical and which view must resort to unsupported claims, name-calling and insults. More on this below.

He is intentionally deceiving people because he also knows that he is incapable of defeating the Open View position in any rational way as I have demonstrated numerous times on this website and elsewhere. Those who hold to a true position have no need to intentionally deceive their audience.

Despite Clete's baseless claims, he will not be able to show where I'm being deceptive because he himself is deceived. He can say, "Open Theists don't make that argument," but I have shown how the arguments they do make logically lead to the very conclusions that Clete and other Open Theists irrationally deny.

And by setting such a standard and applying them to God, their conception of God becomes one that is finite.

Actually by rejecting sound reason and exempting God from anything rational, all truth claims become unfalsifiable.

On the contrary, the only way sound reason can even be used and truth claims can be falsifiable is if God Himself is not falsifiable. This is yet another example of the finite God of Open Theism. They deny His essential attributes and view Him existentially only. Only through the lens of humanism and existentialism is God falsifiable, and that is because Open Theism, despite its protests to the contrary, posits a finite God. You cannot falsify that which is required for rationality to work. It's like trying to prove or disprove the scientific method. You have to use induction to even get started, therefore it's not falsifiable. If you attempt to falsify the very foundation of rational discourse (God Himself), you can't even get started because you immediately begin to employ that which could not exist unless God Himself exists.

Thus, since Jim's god is not required to be self-consistent (i.e. rational) then for all we know his god and the tooth-fairy might be the same guy.

This is the difference between Biblical teaching and Open Theism: The Scriptures teach that no one can justly demand anything of God. God is infinite, unbounded, supreme. Nothing is greater than God; God is not subordinate to anything, not time, not man, not man's judgment, not man's will. God answers to no one. Ever. Whereas the Open Theist will readily and eagerly seize upon any verse they can twist to make God subordinate to time, man, man's judgment and man's will. The Open View teaches, as Clete does above, that God is subordinate to rules and is held responsible by finite man to a higher authority than Himself

When you reject rationality, on what basis would you ever be able to prove otherwise?

Amazing how the one accusing me of rejecting rationality impugns the very nature and character of Him Who is the very foundation of rationality.

The "one" doing the imaging being Aristotle. ... The "one" doing the imaging being Plato. ... The "one" doing the imaging being Augustine.

Three men who got it right. I find it fascinating that Aristotle, Plato and Augustine have become pariahs and personae non gratae to the Open View Community, but they don't even recognize the teachings of the true Enemy that saturates every fiber of their false doctrine.

Instead, He is a demigod, a half-god. He is more like man than God.

The God of Scripture is much more like a man than is the god of Aristotle, Plato, and Augustine is but I couldn't care less about their god. The God of Scripture is relational and He created mankind with the divine-human relationship firmly in mind. God loving us and our loving God is the entire point of our existence. Indeed, it is the point of the whole of creation.

What the Open Theist fails to grasp is that the demigod they describe is not capable of loving us or receiving love from us in terms that are consistent with Biblical teaching. The God of Open Theism doesn't really do anything. Ask any Open Theist: "What has God done for you lately?" You will get a blank stare. Go ahead. Ask one.

Furthermore, the Open View grants more power and influence to man than the Scriptures allow, thus making man more like God.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Saying, "saying it doesn't make it so," doesn't make it NOT so either. Fact is, Open Theists view man as his own savior, and Jesus is the Savior Assistant. I know Open Theists will openly deny this, but it's true. Ask them if Jesus can save a man who does not first request to be saved. If the answer is "no," then the Open View is granting more power and influence to man than the Scriptures allow.

Indeed, if Jim could establish this point he will have falsified Open Theism.

Q.E.D. It has been established repeatedly, and by Clete's own words, Open Theism has been falsified. Of course, he will never admit to this, such is the delusion of the Open View.

Man himself becomes a demigod, according to Open View assumptions.

This is just patently absurd. The Open View makes no assumptions in this regard. The Open View is little more than the logical conclusion of a consistent application of sound reason and the plainly read text of Scripture.

Through the distorting lenses of the Open View, the "plainly read text of Scripture" absurdly comes to the conclusion that man is able to thwart God's plans. Thus making man more than man and God less than God. There is neither "sound reason" nor "logic" present in such a statement.

Just because it leads to an understanding of mankind that is significantly different than what Aristotle thought should be permitted doesn't mean that we've turned man into a demigod.

Notice that the Open View demonizes Aristotle for positing a view the Open Theist doesn't like. But when the Open View is shown to align perfectly with the demonic lies of Satan, the Open Theist calls this a "guilt by association fallacy." (See below)

Mankind is what it is and the teaching of Scripture and the application of sound reason will reveal it as such. Nothing more nothing less.

Yet the Open View persists in making mankind more than what it is, and God less than what He is.

They believe in a finite deistic sort God who is powerless to actually do anything to affect the course of history with any sort of certainty or hope.

The Open View actually teaches the exact opposite - which, once again, Jim knew when he wrote this.

Notice the difference between what "the Open View actually teaches" and the logical conclusions of what they teach. As I've stated, the Open Theist doesn't realize what he believes. Ask the Open Theist what God can actually do. Since God's so-called "relational" attributes of being "good, personal, living, relational and loving" (i.e., dog-like attributes) take priority over everything else, then He really can't do anything, which is what has been demonstrated profusely in this forum for more than a decade. It is undeniably evident in the inability of any Open Theist to tell me one thing that God actually, actively is doing in their lives on a daily basis. Dear Open Theists, what is God actively doing in your life right this moment? The Open Theist has no rational answer.

He certainly can't save anyone, not without the help of people, which doesn't amount to much of a salvation, since you basically have to save yourself. You are your own savior, with the aid of Jesus, the Salvation Assistant.

Idiotic nonsense.

Scripture teaches that if you believe you will be saved and if you do not believe you will not be.

See what I mean? Clete takes the concept of coexisting states (belief and redemption) and turns them it into a contingent and causal sequence of events. Belief doesn't cause redemption. Christ's death causes redemption. Open Theism makes man into his own redeemer.

Did you get that? SCRIPTURE teaches that, not merely Open Theism.

Scripture teaches that Christ is the Savior and that His death is sufficient. Open Theism twists scripture to make man's decision the determining factor, thus making Christ's death less-than-sufficient to save.

Finally, from where might one expect such a view to originate? Who do we know in history who has a tendency to make man more than man, and God less than God?

Since Jim has failed to establish that Open Theism does any such thing the answer to this question is moot.

Anyone who can read without their Open View lenses cemented to their face will see that the case has been soundly established and that the question is not only relevant, but essential to understanding what makes Open Theism, and the Open Theist, tick.

Isn't there someone who once said, "Ye shall be as gods?" Isn't there someone who once questioned God's knowledge of the future and His judgment of good and evil, saying, "Ye shall not surely die [if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]"? Isn't there someone who has asked all the same questions that the Open View asks? The answer is obvious, and it should be equally obvious whence the Open View originated. All false religions and all false doctrines originate ultimately from Satan, but none is more Luciferian than the Open View, whose script comes directly from Satan's playbook.

Guilt by association fallacy.

Fascinating how a mere observation (a rather scathing one, admittedly) about the similarities between Lucifer's deceptions and those of Open Theism are taken by Clete as "proofs" that need some logical fallacy assigned to them. They were not intended as proofs, but comparisons. What is proven, however, is how powerful those comparisons must be for Clete to react so strongly.

No such connection has been established, either theologically, Scripturally, historically or rationally. Calling a teaching a "doctrine of Demons" or the "Spawn of Satan" or some other horrific sounding thing has terrific emotional effect on an audience ...

Contrary to Clete's claim, this is not mere name-calling. It's a description, and a compelling one at that. In order to understand the psychology and motives of the Open Theist mind, one must ask, what is the Open Theist's raison d'etre? The answer is: To secure for themselves freedom from God's decrees, total autonomy and final authority to themselves. And again, this should sound familiar, because the sin of seeking autonomous authority is the sin of Adam (i.e. humanism, existentialism, evidentialism), and is (almost) as old as time itself. Open Theists have succeeded in creating a God in their own image, the ultimate narcissism, and have thereby committed the sin of Adam -- "Ye shall be as gods" (i.e. "elohim"). They have sought to independently, on their own will, on their own judgment, authority and autonomy, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is, to acquire autonomous knowledge and judgment apart from God (as "gods" themselves, elohim). Such a specious theology seems powerful and compelling to the uninitiated, and directly appeals to the innate humanistic rebellion and sinful nature of man. This is the Broad Road, bidding welcome to the basest level of humanistic theology.

Open Theism, taken to its logical conclusion, impugns and denigrates God, thereby pulling Him down, making Him less God-like and more human-like ("Yea, hath God REALLY said?"). Open Theism exalts man's freedom and autonomy from God, thereby giving man the final authority of all matters concerning his own life and eternal state ("Ye shall be as gods."). Open Theism is nothing new. It started in the Garden of Eden, and has existed in one form or another ever since. Its goal is to question, judge and reduce God to something acceptable to sinful humanity (i.e. humanism). Its goal is to make God less than God and to make man more than man. It is theological humanism with a Luciferian impetus. With man as the final authority, God has become incidental, untrustworthy — the Sand God — not the Rock of Scripture. Here is God's answer to those who seek to bring God down and to raise man up:

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul My judgment? wilt thou condemn Me, that thou mayest be righteous?

And now for the inevitable self-delusion, name-calling and whining that we've come to expect from Open Theists who can offer little else against the sound argumentation and clear exegesis of the Settled View:

and usually engenders a raucous banter of "Amen brother!"s and "Preach it!"s from pew warming Calvinists, but it does nothing whatsoever to actually refute the actual doctrinal teaching of the Open View, which bares no resemblance whatsoever to the ramblings of a man who has been defeated so many times on this topic that he's clearly lost the ability to engage it honestly.

I understand the natural human reaction to pain and embarrassment is to forget or ignore those memories. But anyone who has followed my dialogues with Clete over the years knows that Clete has had his hat handed to him so many times that one wonders why he persists in making these laughable assertions, when anyone can search and see for themselves that the exact opposite of what Clete is saying is true. Shall I start posting links? Can anyone forget (except Clete) the multiple times Clete has said out of sheer desperation:

"Don't respond to my posts you fool! I wasn't talking to you nor am I interested in doing so. DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POSTS! Do not quote me, do not discuss me, do not discuss my beliefs, do not do anything that would acknowledge that I exist. As far as you are concerned I am dead. Now go away!"

I've honored his requests in the past. But he keeps coming back for more, expecting a different result.

He's been reduced to maniacal, unsubstantial emotionalism that is better suited to the silly conversations amongst teenage girls and the mindless chatter of frivolous, gossipy women.

Clete never learns. Like a has-been prize-fighter whose only victories have been against kids in the gym, he will try to forget the beatings he's taken yet again, go lick his wounds in the locker room, commiserate with his sycophantic and equally self-deluded and defeated entourage, and then come back with a renewed and delusional vigor, thinking maybe this time it will be different. What's one definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. And he calls me "maniacal" and "mindless"?

Actual size,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

Ah, yes. Hilston return to continue to wallow in his own vomit, twisting and tearing at his opponents arguments, and reaching conclusions based upon his own presuppositions, and failing to engage the argument any semblance of intellectual honesty, but rather engaging in his mastery of the straw man debate.

One can only imagine that the biblical foundation upon which OVT is built has frightened him to the point that this kind of thing is all that stands between him and the destruction of the systematic theology he has so vociferously defended in his own mind.

Hilston, if you want people to take you seriously, you have to take the topic seriously.

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

:blabla:

Windbag.

 

[Hilston]

Ah, yes. Hilston return to continue to wallow in his own vomit, twisting and tearing at his opponents arguments, and reaching conclusions based upon his own presuppositions, and failing to engage the argument any semblance of intellectual honesty, but rather engaging in his mastery of the straw man debate.

Muz, you beat me to the bale a long time ago. You may not remember, but in a discussion about "what God actually does" in the life of the Open Theist, you wrote to me:

You know, Hilston, if you'd renounce deism, and embrace theism, you'd find OVT much easier to comprehend.

Here's the link: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1054473&postcount=2470

You seem to have lots of advice for me. For example:

Hilston, if you want people to take you seriously, you have to take the topic seriously.

Maybe you can advise me in how have I not taken the topic seriously? Exposing the Luciferian components of Open Theism is about as serious as it gets, isn't it?

Windbag.

Reading is hard, isn't it? Maybe if I illustrated my posts in comic-book form, it wouldn't be as hard for you to follow.

On-the-go itch relief,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

Muz, you beat me to the bale a long time ago. You may not remember, but in a discussion about "what God actually does" in the life of the Open Theist, you wrote to me: Here's the link: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1054473&postcount=2470

Once again, you demonstrate your vomit. We were discussing your inability to grasp the idea that God may actually act to bring about His prophecies.

You seem to have lots of advice for me. For example:

Maybe you can advise me in how have I not taken the topic seriously? Exposing the Luciferian components of Open Theism is about as serious as it gets, isn't it?

No. In fact, your efforts are comical, because you fail to take the idea of Open Theism seriously, preferring instead to create straw men and burn them.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

Once again, you demonstrate your vomit.

Demonstrate my vomit? What does that even mean? I mean, one can demonstrate the act of vomiting. One could put one's vomit on display. But "demonstrate your vomit"? That's like saying, "you demonstrate your broccoli." It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to insult me, at least make sense. Like this: "Once again, you spew your putrid noxious bile of nonsensical insults all over yourself like a drunk on a three-day binge who can barely stand up long enough to find his way out of his dumpster."

... We were discussing your inability to grasp the idea that God may actually act to bring about His prophecies.

I happen to believe God acts ceaselessly to bring about His prophecies. Whatever it is you think I believe, you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

Maybe you can advise me in how have I not taken the topic seriously? Exposing the Luciferian components of Open Theism is about as serious as it gets, isn't it?

No. In fact, your efforts are comical, …

Can you rationally deny the similarities between your views and Lucifer's? How do you answer the charges, Muz? I'm sure there are those lurking who would love to see, for the first time ever, an Open Theist who could actually defend against my thesis.

… because you fail to take the idea of Open Theism seriously, …

Have you ever taken the idea of Settled Theism seriously? If so, I haven't seen it, further evidenced by the second sentence in your previous post. You seem to have no idea of what I actually believe.

… preferring instead to create straw men and burn them.

On the contrary, it's not a straw man. It's deadly accurate. Like most Open Theists, you may not realize the logical ramifications of your belief, but I've spelled them out for you. If you think those ramifications are non sequitur, I welcome your correction. If you prefer to continue with the pejoratives and false allegations, I'm fine with that, too. It's standard operating procedure with Open Theists, and I've come to expect it.

Driving on Slow Hand Row,
Hilston

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But he keeps coming back for more, expecting a different result.

Sounds like the definition of insanity, no?

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

Demonstrate my vomit? What does that even mean? I mean, one can demonstrate the act of vomiting. One could put one's vomit on display. But "demonstrate your vomit"? That's like saying, "you demonstrate your broccoli." It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to insult me, at least make sense. Like this: "Once again, you spew your putrid noxious bile of nonsensical insults all over yourself like a drunk on a three-day binge who can barely stand up long enough to find his way out of his dumpster."

I try to be concise.

I happen to believe God acts ceaselessly to bring about His prophecies. Whatever it is you think I believe, you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

And yet you seem incapable of grasping the concept of a god that could prophesy, knowing how His actions would bring about that prophesy, but not knowing the exact course of the future to get there.

Can you rationally deny the similarities between your views and Lucifer's? How do you answer the charges, Muz? I'm sure there are those lurking who would love to see, for the first time ever, an Open Theist who could actually defend against my thesis.

Perhaps you should demonstrate for us what Lucifer's views are, as you invoke your Father's name, and yet fail to expound for us.

OVT comes from a conservative exegetical view of Scripture that accepts what God says about Himself, rather than what Greek philosophy says about Him.

Have you ever taken the idea of Settled Theism seriously? If so, I haven't seen it, further evidenced by the second sentence in your previous post. You seem to have no idea of what I actually believe.

There are many settle theistic views. I have a fairly good grasp of supralapsarian Calvinism, infralapsarian Calvinism (single and double) and Arminianism. Remind me... are you one of those?

On the contrary, it's not a straw man. It's deadly accurate. Like most Open Theists, you may not realize the logical ramifications of your belief, but I've spelled them out for you. If you think those ramifications are non sequitur, I welcome your correction. If you prefer to continue with the pejoratives and false allegations, I'm fine with that, too. It's standard operating procedure with Open Theists, and I've come to expect it.

But there are two problems with your method:

1) You impose unscriptural presuppositions which OVTs do not accept, and then think that somehow they invalidate OVT.

2) You intentionally twist and misrepresent OVT, and somehow think that you're engaging in intellectually honest debate.

Thus, they are straw men.

So, when you're prepared to actually engage OVT in intellectually honest debate where you seek to understand the Scriptural foundations, rather than imposing your presuppositions, then you may have something to say. Until then, you're just another hack who is threatened by the refreshingly Scriptural theology that is Open View Theism.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

I happen to believe God acts ceaselessly to bring about His prophecies. Whatever it is you think I believe, you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

And yet you seem incapable of grasping the concept of a god that could prophesy, knowing how His actions would bring about that prophesy, but not knowing the exact course of the future to get there.

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully. The reason that God can be trusted to use evil for good (Gen 50:20) is because He knows the exact course of the future exhaustively. This is precisely why finite man cannot be trusted to use evil for good: because finite man does not know the future exhaustively. Anyone who has watched time travel movies understands the importance of knowing every single detail before one mucks around with the past. Even the best of intentions can have drastically undesirable results. It's common sense rationality to understand that one must account for every single detail of the future, from the beats of a cholesterol-ridden heart, to the beats of a butterfly's wing, in order to guarantee a particular outcome. While the Open Theist claims to trust that God can take care of the future, it's not a rational position to hold if God doesn't know the future exhaustively. Especially considering the Open-View belief that God could change His mind about the future and decide to pull the plug, chuck the whole mess into the dumpster, and start all over again. Or, according to the Open View, God could decide to stop loving, to stop being good, to stop being just, and to stop relating. On the Open View's assumptions, there are no guarantees. The idea that "a God could prophesy, knowing how His actions would bring about the prophecy, but not knowing the exact course of the future to get there" is completely non sequitur.

Can you rationally deny the similarities between your views and Lucifer's? How do you answer the charges, Muz? I'm sure there are those lurking who would love to see, for the first time ever, an Open Theist who could actually defend against my thesis.

Perhaps you should demonstrate for us what Lucifer's views are, as you invoke your Father's name, and yet fail to expound for us.

I already covered this. I'll re-type it here for your convenience:

One of Lucifer's strategies was to question God's authority ("Yea, hath God REALLY said?"). And the Open View claims that God is subject to the concepts of justice, love and relationship. Even though the Open Theist does not acknowledge this, such a God as they describe is subordinate, finite, not ultimate, not infinite. Here is how the Enemy compels men to question God's authority: He suggests that they take Biblical concepts intended for finite man and turn them around and use them against the infinite God, as if God were subject to them. This is exactly what Open Theism does. It subordinates God Himself to rules, administered by man. Whenever someone presumes to sit in judgment of God, he is questioning God's authority, just as Lucifer taunted Adam and Eve in the Garden. Furthermore, the only way someone can presume to judge God for His behavior is if man is more than man, and God is less than God. And this speaks to a second strategy of Lucifer, which is to elevate man ("Ye shall be as gods."). Open Theism does this by granting the authority to man to judge God.

OVT comes from a conservative exegetical view of Scripture that accepts what God says about Himself, rather than what Greek philosophy says about Him.

But unfortunately, that conservative exegetical view of Scripture is distorted by humanism (i.e., Luciferian strategy to elevate man and denigrate God). This is what I'm trying to show you in the above paragraph.

Have you ever taken the idea of Settled Theism seriously? If so, I haven't seen it, further evidenced by the second sentence in your previous post. You seem to have no idea of what I actually believe.

There are many settle theistic views.

Yet none of them posit the view that God doesn't act to bring about His prophecies, as you asserted.

I have a fairly good grasp of supralapsarian Calvinism, infralapsarian Calvinism (single and double) and Arminianism. ...

No, you don't. If you did, you would have never said this:

"We were discussing your inability to grasp the idea that God may actually act to bring about His prophecies."

Remind me... are you one of those?

No. I'm neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian.

On the contrary, it's not a straw man. It's deadly accurate. Like most Open Theists, you may not realize the logical ramifications of your belief, but I've spelled them out for you. If you think those ramifications are non sequitur, I welcome your correction. If you prefer to continue with the pejoratives and false allegations, I'm fine with that, too. It's standard operating procedure with Open Theists, and I've come to expect it.

But there are two problems with your method:

1) You impose unscriptural presuppositions which OVTs do not accept, and then think that somehow they invalidate OVT.

Please tell me, I sincerely wish to know what unscriptural presuppositions I impose on Open Theists. I do not want to argue against a straw man. I want to have as accurate a view of Open Theists as possible.

2) You intentionally twist and misrepresent OVT, and somehow think that you're engaging in intellectually honest debate.

When I describe the logical conclusions of Open Theism, I'm not debating. I'm refuting. There is no debate. In those refutations, I think you are confusing my critique of the logical conclusions of your view with what you actually declare as your view. There's a big difference, and you may be reacting to the former. If someone were to ask me what Open Theists believe, I would never say, "Open Theists believe that you have to save yourself." But I will explain how the logical conclusion of Open Theism is that Christ's death was not sufficient because man's permission (free will choice) is the determining factor in whether or not a person is saved.

So please indulge me, and set me straight on the unscriptural presuppositions I'm imposing on your view.

Many thanks.

Some assembly required,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully. The reason that God can be trusted to use evil for good (Gen 50:20) is because He knows the exact course of the future exhaustively.

This is an imposed presupposition. This is not a logical conclusion from this passage. There is no need fro God to have EDF to use evil for good, and to be trusted to do so.

So, here is exhibit 1 of how you impose your presuppositions.

This is precisely why finite man cannot be trusted to use evil for good: because finite man does not know the future exhaustively. Anyone who has watched time travel movies understands the importance of knowing every single detail before one mucks around with the past.

LOL... Time travel movies? Are you serious?

Even the best of intentions can have drastically undesirable results. It's common sense rationality to understand that one must account for every single detail of the future, from the beats of a cholesterol-ridden heart, to the beats of a butterfly's wing, in order to guarantee a particular outcome.

Again, presupposition. Entry #2. The problem isn't that the individual doesn't have EDF, but that the individual doesn't know what possible courses of the future will result from changing particular actions.

If one only knows the possible courses of the future, and how one's actions will impact those possible futures, your concern is assuaged.

This is also a misunderstanding that you have about OVT. You assume that because God doesn't have EDF that He doesn't know anything about the future, including possible futures.

The result is that you "dumb down" OVT so you can insult it.

While the Open Theist claims to trust that God can take care of the future, it's not a rational position to hold if God doesn't know the future exhaustively. Especially considering the Open-View belief that God could change His mind about the future and decide to pull the plug, chuck the whole mess into the dumpster, and start all over again.

Sounds as though you are telling God what He can and can't do.... Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Who are you to impose on God like this?

Or is your own puny little existence greater than God's will?

Or, according to the Open View, God could decide to stop loving, to stop being good, to stop being just, and to stop relating.

This is incorrect. This is your failure to understand OVT. OVTs still say that God, by nature, is loving and just and relational.

This element isn't much different than traditional theism.

On the Open View's assumptions, there are no guarantees. The idea that "a God could prophesy, knowing how His actions would bring about the prophecy, but not knowing the exact course of the future to get there" is completely non sequitur.

This is you imposing presuppositions again. You assume that, unless God has fixed the game beforehand, that He cannot prophesy. This is where you start to sounds like deist.

If God knows all possible courses of the future, without knowing exactly which one will actualize, and knows how His actions will limit those possible courses, then God would know how to bring about the things He prophesies without needing to know exactly how He is going to get there.

And you've clearly stated the reason that Calvinism embraces many of the things it does: It wants to impose upon God things that guarantee to man that God can do what He says He will do. Your insecurities about God and what He might do aren't a good reason to impose upon Him.

I already covered this. I'll re-type it here for your convenience:

One of Lucifer's strategies was to question God's authority ("Yea, hath God REALLY said?"). And the Open View claims that God is subject to the concepts of justice, love and relationship.

Umm... We view this topic the same way that you do. These things are God's nature. Anything you accuse us of in this respect, you endure, as well. Those living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Even though the Open Theist does not acknowledge this, such a God as they describe is subordinate, finite, not ultimate, not infinite. Here is how the Enemy compels men to question God's authority: He suggests that they take Biblical concepts intended for finite man and turn them around and use them against the infinite God, as if God were subject to them.

No concrete examples?

This is exactly what Open Theism does. It subordinates God Himself to rules, administered by man. Whenever someone presumes to sit in judgment of God, he is questioning God's authority, just as Lucifer taunted Adam and Eve in the Garden. Furthermore, the only way someone can presume to judge God for His behavior is if man is more than man, and God is less than God. And this speaks to a second strategy of Lucifer, which is to elevate man ("Ye shall be as gods."). Open Theism does this by granting the authority to man to judge God.

LOL... I assume you're being serious, but this is laughable. No OVT sits in judgment of God, nor does any OVT judge God.

I can only imagine the amount of twisting and imposition of presuppositions (as we've seen in this post already) that cause you to arrive at this position.

If anything, this is a settled theist problem. You make God into a slave of his nature. You've already said that God can't blow up this universe and start over. So, you stand in judgment of God in that claim.

Pot, kettle, black.

But unfortunately, that conservative exegetical view of Scripture is distorted by humanism (i.e., Luciferian strategy to elevate man and denigrate God). This is what I'm trying to show you in the above paragraph.

And the above paragraph is the biggest farce I've seen regarding OVT. Again, the amount of twisting and imposition of your own presuppositions you have to arrive at this conclusion is mind boggling. It is so horrible false, I don't even know where to begin.

This is your straw man, right here.

Yet none of them posit the view that God doesn't act to bring about His prophecies, as you asserted.

You just implied that when you claim that God cannot fulfill prophecy without fixing the game beforehand.

No, you don't. If you did, you would have never said this:

That's based upon statements by Settled Theists, including you, in this post.

No. I'm neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian.

Great.

Please tell me, I sincerely wish to know what unscriptural presuppositions I impose on Open Theists. I do not want to argue against a straw man. I want to have as accurate a view of Open Theists as possible.

Start with the ones I've pointed out in this post.

When I describe the logical conclusions of Open Theism, I'm not debating. I'm refuting. There is no debate.

Except that you do it in an invalid way. You assume your presuppositions, and impose them.

In those refutations, I think you are confusing my critique of the logical conclusions of your view with what you actually declare as your view. There's a big difference, and you may be reacting to the former. If someone were to ask me what Open Theists believe, I would never say, "Open Theists believe that you have to save yourself." But I will explain how the logical conclusion of Open Theism is that Christ's death was not sufficient because man's permission (free will choice) is the determining factor in whether or not a person is saved.

And this is biblically demonstrable. I've done so many times. The fact that you have a presupposition of individual election and irresistible grace because you demand guarantees from God doesn't void a proper exegesis of Scripture.

So please indulge me, and set me straight on the unscriptural presuppositions I'm imposing on your view.

1) individual election
2) irresistible grace
3) determinism
4) That God's nature somehow makes Him subject to man
5) That embracing what God says about Himself in Scripture somehow comes from "Lucifer."
6) That OVT is humanistic
7) That you have the right to demand guarantees from God.

I'm sure there are plenty more that will come up.

Muz