Arminians' Dilemma

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

How so?

Most approaches/applications of Calvinism deny the timelessness of God by projecting time upon Him and ascribing an Ordo Salutis to salvation. It's the same way ALL views that appeal to an Ordo Salutis deny God's sovereignty.

Calvinism is a much-overused generality, just as all Arminians are Pelagians by degree.

Agreed. God's immutability is righteous, and God's righteousness is immutable.

Exactly.

 

[Nang]

Most approaches/applications of Calvinism deny the timelessness of God by projecting time upon Him and ascribing an Ordo Salutis to salvation.

I believe the Ordo Salutis reveals the will of Sovereign God and explains the purpose of the eternal decrees; all of which will be manifested in the creation (time). How in your thinking, does that damage the timelessness of God and His (covenanted) purposes?

It's the same way ALL views that appeal to an Ordo Salutis deny God's sovereignty.

Does this criticism touch upon the lapsarian views somehow?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I believe the Ordo Salutis reveals the will of Sovereign God and explains the purpose of the eternal decrees; all of which will be manifested in the creation (time). How in your thinking, does that damage the timelessness of God and His (covenanted) purposes?

It likely doesn't for you.

Does this criticism touch upon the lapsarian views somehow?

Yes.

 

[Nang]

It likely doesn't for you.



Yes.

I hold to the Supralapsarian view of the decrees. Does this belief, that God has revealed what His purposes were prior to creation, generate your criticism? Are you against determining Ordo Salutis (decrees) altogether?

If so, what is your exegesis of Romans 8:28-30?

(And I ask not in argument, but truly would like your full take on this subject.)

 

[Clete]

Your immediate dilemna is that I'm not a Calvinist. (In your unfettered rage, you must have missed the part where I insisted Calvinism demeans the sovereignty of God that it espouses; and projects created time upon a timeless God.)

There's no rage and I didn't miss it. Notice the qualifiars used throughout my posts "If you're a Calvinist" and "you (i.e. Calvinists)", etc. You're defending Calvinism and and I simply was responding to you in that context.

Your more over-arching dilemna, despite an alleged multi-decade foray into refuting Calvinism, is that you don't understand the depth, breadth, and height of the meanings of most key words you use and refer to; and that you don't understand the difference between Greek noun constructions and English noun constructions.

Nor could I care less. It's the concepts that matter and its the responsibility of those defending a position to articulate it in English if they choose to debate me on the issue. Did you mean to imply that Calvinism can't be made sense of in English?

You actually share a good number of my own criticisms OF Calvinism; but you're so blinded by arrogance and a hate-agenda, you don't even realize I'm not advocating for what you insist. You're just on a tyrade, and presume I'm somehow included in your target practice. I'm not.

There no tyrade. I despise Nang but that's because the only reason she's even on this website is because she followed me over here after I made of fool of her idiotic husband on a website intended to defend Reformed doctrine. I have no such feelings toward you however and have not displayed any. All I've done is simply responded directly to what you said. No insults, no "yelling", no anger, just simple responses to accusations of ignorance made ny you toward me, not the other way around.

I reconciled the false dichotomy of Arminianism versus Calvinism long ago, without being either.

That's easy. They're both false. Arminianism is just soft Augustinianism. Its just been "reformed" in a different and even more intellectually inconsistent manner.

Neither God's Immutability nor God's Righteousness are mutually exclusive.

God is NOT immutable and so I agree.

A true Theodicy reveals exactly that; and I've met no one else who can reconcile it, so you're in a comfortable majority who are uninformed according to God's Word and Spirit.

No one can reconcile it because it is a self-contradictory, made up fantasy derived from pagan Greek philosophy (according to Calvinist's own arguments in their own foundational documents) that has nothing whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity or even a rational wordlview of any sort, Christian or otherwise.

If you're an apostate and heretical Open Theist, then there's not much need in us conversing. If you're just an anti-Calvinist, then there's some possibility of cordial convo (though you've demonstrated none so far on your own behalf).

Open Theism is heresy now, is it? That's a laugh!

On what basis?

Please say something that I can't turn around and use to say that any doctrine that has come along since Luther is false on the same premise.

Are you an Open Theist?

Of course! Note the John Sander quote and Open Theism link at the bottom of every one of my posts. The link addresses directly the accusation of heresy that ONLY those who DO NOT know what they are talking about make. I strongly suggest you read it before attempting to establish that Open Theism is heretical. That is, unless all your interested in is throwing around baseless accusations and making ad-hominem arguments.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There's no rage and I didn't miss it. Notice the qualifiars used throughout my posts "If you're a Calvinist" and "you (i.e. Calvinists)", etc. You're defending Calvinism and and I simply was responding to you in that context.

Nor could I care less. It's the concepts that matter and its the responsibility of those defending a position to articulate it in English if they choose to debate me on the issue. Did you mean to imply that Calvinism can't be made sense of in English?

There no tyrade. I despise Nang but that's because the only reason she's even on this website is because she followed me over here after I made of fool of her idiotic husband on a website intended to defend Reformed doctrine. I have no such feelings toward you however and have not displayed any. All I've done is simply responded directly to what you said. No insults, no "yelling", no anger, just simple responses to accusations of ignorance made ny you toward me, not the other way around.

That's easy. They're both false. Arminianism is just soft Augustinianism. Its just been "reformed" in a different and even more intellectually inconsistent manner.

God is NOT immutable and so I agree.

No one can reconcile it because it is a self-contradictory, made up fantasy derived from pagan Greek philosophy (according to Calvinist's own arguments in their own foundational documents) that has nothing whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity or even a rational wordlview of any sort, Christian or otherwise.

Open Theism is heresy now, is it? That's a laugh!

On what basis?

Please say something that I can't turn around and use to say that any doctrine that has come along since Luther is false on the same premise.

Of course! Note the John Sander quote and Open Theism link at the bottom of every one of my posts. The link addresses directly the accusation of heresy that ONLY those who DO NOT know what they are talking about make. I strongly suggest you read it before attempting to establish that Open Theism is heretical. That is, unless all your interested in is throwing around baseless accusations and making ad-hominem arguments.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yes, since I don't always read sigs, I had not noticed your obvious identification as an Open Theist. (And I had unsubscribed, so I just saw this.)

I actually took the time to read your link, even though I'm very familiar with the doctrine. I am more convinced than ever of the likelihood that Open Theists do not and cannot have salvific faith. There is no more demeaning anthropomorphization of God than that depraved doctrine.

Open Theism is an extremely recent innovation of modernity within the last half-century, and has no tenable historical validity in the Christian faith. It qualifies as blasphemous.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I hold to the Supralapsarian view of the decrees. Does this belief, that God has revealed what His purposes were prior to creation, generate your criticism? Are you against determining Ordo Salutis (decrees) altogether?

If so, what is your exegesis of Romans 8:28-30?

(And I ask not in argument, but truly would like your full take on this subject.)

I'm not sure I can justify casting pearls before swine amongst some who are on TOL by posting publicly. It entices constant drive-bys and ad hominem from many.

First, Lapsarianism superimposes time constructs upon a timeless God; and it presumes human logic and anthropomorphic presuppositions relative to the creature for the Creator.

The simple answer is that proginosko (foreknow) is Believers communing from time into timelessness, being hypostatically translated into Christ and having put on His prosopon; partaking of the divine nature by living and moving and having their being in Christ, with the outer man crucified with Christ and the inner man resurrected and seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

There is no "when" for God, so there is no linearity or elapsation or duration or sequentiality for Him. There isn't an ontological and economical timeline of thought and volition for potential Lapsarian variants as Ordo Salutis. That's actually a Reductionist approach to God.

 

[Clete]

Yes, since I don't always read sigs, I had not noticed your obvious identification as an Open Theist. (And I had unsubscribed, so I just saw this.)

Totally understandable.

I actually took the time to read your link,

Amazing! Not one percent of people on this site who see that link have ever clicked on it, never mind taken the time to read it.

...even though I'm very familiar with the doctrine.

While I have no doubt that you believe that you're familiar with it, I doubt that you're familiar with its philosophical base. In other words, you know the doctrines, not the reasoning behind those doctrines. Otherwise, it would be very unlikely that you'd have written the next two sentences.

I am more convinced than ever of the likelihood that Open Theists do not and cannot have salvific faith.

Based on what?

• Do Open Theists believe in the existence of the Triune God who created everything that exists from nothing (apart from Himself, of course)?
• Do Open Theists believe that God the Son became a man, whom we call Jesus, lived a perfect, sinless life in the flesh and then willingly died on the cross in payment of mankind's sin debt?
• Do Open Theists believe that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, rose this same Jesus from the dead three days later?
• Do Open Theists preach, as Paul the Apostle did, that those who call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead will be saved?

YES, YES, YES and YES!

There is no more demeaning anthropomorphization of God than that depraved doctrine.

Open Theists are not the one's that came up with the idea that man was created in God's image. I'm pretty sure that was Moses.

Regardless, this is another logical fallacy. You're committing an A-Priori fallacy, also called a Taboo Fallacy. It's committed when you declare some idea or doctrine false on the basis that is it conflict with a given, pre-set belief, dogma or doctrine. You're basically saying that Open Theism is false because you disagree with it. That's not a valid argument. I could, for example, turn around and make the opposite argument by claiming your doctrine is false on the basis that it makes out God to be completely foreign to anything similar to a human being. My making such an argument would be no more logically valid than your doing so is.

This is so because God is who He is. Whether you think He too similar to human beings has no bearing on the subject. Open Theists make no effort whatsoever to anthropromorphize God. We simply form our theology proper in a logically consistent manner that BEGINS with nothing at all other than Scripture and sound reason alone. If that yields a theology proper that depicts God in a way that makes Him more similar to human beings than your doctrine does, then so be it. God is who He is - period.

Open Theism is an extremely recent innovation of modernity within the last half-century, and has no tenable historical validity in the Christian faith.

While I do NOT concede the truth of this claim, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. You're making an appeal to antiquity/tradition fallacy. What's old is not true by virtue of it's age nor is the new false by virtue of the same.

It qualifies as blasphemous.

By what standard?



Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

\

I don't need to explain or to even understand the manner in which Calvinism projects time-based activity upon a timeless god.

Calvinists do NOT project "time-based activity" upon a timeless God.

Other than declaring Him . . . CREATOR.

So what is your argument?

Your argument follows and reveals nothing but unbelief and lack of faith in the wisdom and good purposes of God:

That article very clearly articulates the Calvinist understanding of predestination and sovereignty based on the premise of their god's immutability. None of which, once again, regardless of the pretexts the author cites, is in any way biblical or even rational.

But God the Creator is immutable. Denial of this divine attribute is the root of the Open Theist heresy.

Incidentally, by 'pretext' I mean a proof-text that only seems to suggest what the user intends when the doctrine is brought to the text a-priori, which, it would seem, is the only way a Calvinist knows how to use the bible. They bring their beliefs, fully intact, to the reading of scripture and therefore see their doctrine everywhere and then use what they see to argue for the belief they brought to the reading. Calvinism, in this regard, is no more valid than the con artists on "Christian" television who sell miracles to old women. Every toaster that didn't burn the bread is seen as a miracle to them just as every passages of the bible that talks about God predicting the future as proof of predestination. Real theology goes in the other direction. I've even come across Calvinists who understand the direction in which their logic is going and insist that it is the correct direction and that any other direction will be false because their doctrine must be presupposed in order for any logic to work in the first place. No telling what line of logic they used to reach that conclusion or which direction it went in but, hey, if you're going to be irrational, why bother making any sense?

Bah . . you prove to be a theological dolt . . .

One last thing. I've been debating Calvinism and its corollaries for decades.

How old are you? 40?

You're not the first person who wanted to pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that I very much do know what I'm talking about. There is nothing, and I do mean precisely that - nothing - that you can tell me or argument that you can make in defense of Reformed Idolatry that I haven't seen, read or heard dozens of times. Calvinism is irrational stupidity from tip to toe and I've proven it over and over and over again. At the end all you will do, if you're 10X more intellectually honest than the vast majority of Calvinists, is to admit that you cannot reconcile your doctrine with justice, love, kindness and any other aspect of righteousness apart from rendering those terms meaningless when applied to the god you worship. All you've got is to admit that your god is somehow both arbitrary and righteous and that you can't figure out how that works. In effect, you (i.e. all Calvinists) choose immutability over righteousness because its not immutability that you render meaningless, its righteousness.

Resting in Him,
Clete

May God show His mercy and grace to Clete, and reveal to him Christ's immutable righteousness, for once and for all. . . and save Clete from the terrible theological error he holds.

 

[Samie]

AFTER 20 pages, the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

What caused the dilemma?

It's the centuries-old lie that people are born spiritually dead in sin. And Arminians teach that to be spiritually alive, the spiritually dead MUST first do SOMETHING - believe. And that despite Christ's own words that apart from Him, man can do NOTHING. For the Arminians, they tell people who they consider spiritually dead being NOT in Christ yet, to do SOMETHING: Believe. Not very much unlike telling the unconscious to rise up and go to the doctor so he can be revived.

But Arminians, like ostriches burying their heads in the sand so as not to see the coming danger, simply pretend there is no dilemma.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

AFTER 20 pages, the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

No, your premise is fallacious according to Greek grammar. You're as wrong as the Arminians and Calvinists, and you're unknowingly representing a false gospel and artificial Christian faith.

The 20 pages is because of your willful ignorance and beligerant obfuscation, etc.

 

[Samie]

No, your premise is fallacious according to Greek grammar. You're as wrong as the Arminians and Calvinists, and you're unknowingly representing a false gospel and artificial Christian faith.

The 20 pages is because of your willful ignorance and beligerant obfuscation, etc.

No, it is not fallacious. It is what Christ said:

ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. apart from Me, you can do NOTHING.

He was addressing His disciples, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. If people now can do SOMETHING while apart from Christ, then they are better off than His disciples.

Now show me that Christ's statement in Greek does not really mean as translated in English Bibles and what should be its correct translation if you were to correctly translate it. BUT, if your translation simply means the same as translated in English Bibles, then my premise is correct, and you are proven wrong.

Your turn. I'll wait.

 

[Clete]

Calvinists do NOT project "time-based activity" upon a timeless God.

Other than declaring Him . . . CREATOR.

So what is your argument?

:rotfl:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

Your argument follows and reveals nothing but unbelief and lack of faith in the wisdom and good purposes of God:

That's because you see everything through Calvinist colored glasses.

"Calvinism is false." rings in your ears as "Christianity is false."

But God the Creator is immutable. Denial of this divine attribute is the root of the Open Theist heresy.

No it isn't the root but it is true that I am fully persuaded that immutability in the classical sense is false.

Here's why...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
14 And the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Luke 2: And the Child (note the capital C) grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Matthew 28:5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”​

In short, God became a human, grew up, died and rose from the dead.

Deny those changes and you'll die in your sin.

Bah . . you prove to be a theological dolt . . .

Bah...you prove to be just a regular off the shelf dolt...

How old are you? 40?

46 actually.

I've been debating Calvinists for my entire adult life, since before I was married which was coming up on 25 years ago.

May God show His mercy and grace to Clete, and reveal to him Christ's immutable righteousness, for once and for all. . . and save Clete from the terrible theological error he holds.

Whatever! You believe that your god predestined me to say every word I've ever said or ever will say! Every argument I've ever made, every thought I've ever had, was planned, predestined and made to happen by the god you pretend to worship. (I say, "pretend" because your god does not exist.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

AFTER 20 pages, the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Liars go to Hell, Samie.


You should be careful to remember that this thread is all still here for anyone to read.

 

[Samie]

Liars go to Hell, Samie.

Are you saying you're among them, Clete?

You should be careful to remember that this thread is all still here for anyone to read.

That's precisely the reason why I am saying after 20 pages the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved because the 20 pages prove it.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, it is not fallacious. It is what Christ said:

ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. apart from Me, you can do NOTHING.

He was addressing His disciples, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. If people now can do SOMETHING while apart from Christ, then they are better off than His disciples.

Now show me that Christ's statement in Greek does not really mean as translated in English Bibles and what should be its correct translation if you were to correctly translate it. BUT, if your translation simply means the same as translated in English Bibles, then my premise is correct, and you are proven wrong.

Your turn. I'll wait.

It's sad and baffling that you think man does anything to accomplish his own salvation anyway. Begin there. You're a Pelagian, so I wouldn't be worrying about Arminians or Calvinists too much. You're headed off the same cliff as Barth and the entirety of Third Wave Charismaticism and their false Christology, etc.

 

[Samie]

It's sad and baffling that you think man does anything to accomplish his own salvation anyway.

What made you say that? That's not what I believe.

Begin there. You're a Pelagian, so I wouldn't be worrying about Arminians or Calvinists too much. You're headed off the same cliff as Barth and the entirety of Third Wave Charismaticism and their false Christology, etc.

Seems like you've fallen down your own cliff. Do you have anything to say to what I asked? Here again:

No, it is not fallacious. It is what Christ said:

ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. apart from Me, you can do NOTHING.

He was addressing His disciples, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. If people now can do SOMETHING while apart from Christ, then they are better off than His disciples.

Now show me that Christ's statement in Greek does not really mean as translated in English Bibles and what should be its correct translation if you were to correctly translate it. BUT, if your translation simply means the same as translated in English Bibles, then my premise is correct, and you are proven wrong.

Your turn. I'll wait.

Seems you can give no translation. Are you throwing in the towel too soon?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Totally understandable.


Amazing! Not one percent of people on this site who see that link have ever clicked on it, never mind taken the time to read it.


While I have no doubt that you believe that you're familiar with it, I doubt that you're familiar with its philosophical base. In other words, you know the doctrines, not the reasoning behind those doctrines. Otherwise, it would be very unlikely that you'd have written the next two sentences.


Based on what?

• Do Open Theists believe in the existence of the Triune God who created everything that exists from nothing (apart from Himself, of course)?
• Do Open Theists believe that God the Son became a man, whom we call Jesus, lived a perfect, sinless life in the flesh and then willingly died on the cross in payment of mankind's sin debt?
• Do Open Theists believe that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, rose this same Jesus from the dead three days later?
• Do Open Theists preach, as Paul the Apostle did, that those who call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead will be saved?

YES, YES, YES and YES!


Open Theists are not the one's that came up with the idea that man was created in God's image. I'm pretty sure that was Moses.

Regardless, this is another logical fallacy. You're committing an A-Priori fallacy, also called a Taboo Fallacy. It's committed when you declare some idea or doctrine false on the basis that is it conflict with a given, pre-set belief, dogma or doctrine. You're basically saying that Open Theism is false because you disagree with it. That's not a valid argument. I could, for example, turn around and make the opposite argument by claiming your doctrine is false on the basis that it makes out God to be completely foreign to anything similar to a human being. My making such an argument would be no more logically valid than your doing so is.

This is so because God is who He is. Whether you think He too similar to human beings has no bearing on the subject. Open Theists make no effort whatsoever to anthropromorphize God. We simply form our theology proper in a logically consistent manner that BEGINS with nothing at all other than Scripture and sound reason alone. If that yields a theology proper that depicts God in a way that makes Him more similar to human beings than your doctrine does, then so be it. God is who He is - period.


While I do NOT concede the truth of this claim, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. You're making an appeal to antiquity/tradition fallacy. What's old is not true by virtue of it's age nor is the new false by virtue of the same.



By what standard?



Resting in Him,
Clete

I think the one thing that is most apparent to me, regardless of doctrinal disparities, is that you have a balanced and courteous manner of discourse (even though it takes a few posts to realize your intensity is not overtly condescending and adversarial).

In that light, it compels me to make a clear distinction between individuals and doctrines themselves when referring to terms like heterodox, heresy, schism, and blasphemy, etc. So when I say Open Theism is on that scale, I'm not judging hearts but judging the "thing" that is Open Theism as a doctrine.

I understand the philosophical premise behind Open Theism. It's driven by Modernism and other factors from a contemporary western mindset and worldview that is, at its foundation and core, eisegetical with artifical presuppositions and expectations (I would even say entitlements).

I don't have much desire to discuss or debate Open Theism. Its proponents are generally not going to yield ground for any reason. And I've grown to understand the Epistemological reasons why that is true; so it's really an exercise in futility for me personally. Others seem compelled to debate ad infinitum with Open Theists. I don't consider it to have enough validity to do so.

As for Open Theists affirming the four foundational things you listed, first of all it's difficult to throw such a blanket over all Open Theists.

My greatest overall theological concern in general is that most modern western professing "Trinitarian" Believers aren't Trinitarians according the authentic historical doctrine, with only a vague conceptual understanding relative to the English term "person/s" for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has rendered the Trinity as three conjoined individuals like divine siamese-triplets (or worse).

So... My preeminent concern is that the majority of Open Theists are NOT valid and authentic Trinitarians, but not because they're Open Theists or overtly denying the Triune God. Most aren't aware of the history of Theology Proper, and presume that their perceptions are all validly Triune.

I've also found the same concerns to be true of Christology for most modern western professing Believers. There's a nebulous generality for most, and a disturbing number say things that indicates they have no idea what the minutiae of historical Christology includes.

So I'm not convinced Open Theists validly affirm the Trinity doctrine OR orthodox Christology; though not because they're Open Theists, but because they are modern western English thinkers and speakers without a foundation corrected by an understanding of Greek translated into English.

Unitarians, Arians, and Sabellians all believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. So that's a crucial affirmation; but non-Trinitarians make such affirmations, and with subtle differences in understanding and application.

As for calling on the name of the Lord and being saved; again many from various and sundry opposing doctrinal beliefs affirm this, and with a fairly wide disparity as to what it means.

Are Tritheists within the faith? Are Nestorians, etc. within the faith?

My great concern is that Open Theists are outside the faith. But the same issue of universality applies to this statement as to your questions. All Open Theists aren't saved or lost because of Open Theism.

As for my reference to blasphemy, I'm not sure Open Theists have a grid to process that answer. That's what concerns me that it is blasphemy. True blasphemy would be so willful that it defies any consideration that it is, indeed, blasphemy.

I'll have to say, if I was going to discuss or debate Open Theism with anyone, it would probably be you. Your posts are cogent, and you have an emminently rational approach.

One last comment would be regarding logical fallacies. I don't automatically consider the lengthy and variable list of logical fallacies to be "law" or the absolute. First of all, man's logos is not God's logos. And second, logical fallacies are too often employed as a massive nearly-impenetrable screen to avoid anyone actually approaching a specific topic at hand.

I've seen many examples of Atheists so perfecting the employment of logical fallacies as the gauntlet for discussion, that the entire discourse is merely the navigation of every logical fallacy without ever touching actual topical subject matter.

The Christian faith has a history and heritage, with boundaries and perimeters for all areas of doctrine. I'm not engaging in logical fallacy to build upon that history or to reject more modern alleged innovations that have already been addressed in some manner throughout history. And it's a valid heremeneutic to question late innovations in history since the onslaught of extreme autocentrism from Modernism and the Enlightenment forward.

The Reformed tradition is that of the Church always reforming, according to the Word of God. I don't dismiss Open Theism merely because it's modern. I reject Open Theism because it's anthropocentric and at odds with Christian orthodoxy in many crucial ways.

Stack this concern upon the overall concern that most modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists or Modalists, and most have and abberant view of Christology (AND... most I've personally known or encountered are Dispensational Futurists, as well); and I have grave concerns for anyone adamantly adhering to Open Theism.

 

[Zeke]

What made you say that? That's not what I believe.
Seems like you've fallen down your own cliff. Do you have anything to say to what I asked? Here again:Seems you can give no translation. Are you throwing in the towel too soon?

That would be a good start, Only Greeks can be saved didn't you know that?

 

[Clete]

PPS,

I understand the value of "standing on the shoulders of giants" as Isaac Newton put it. It wouldn't make any sense to force everyone to reinvent the wheel on their own. But you have to have some means of objectively determining that the shoulders you're perched on are those of an actual giant rather than just a really big midget (intellectually speaking, of course).

Here's the question I'd like for you to consider...


If man's logos is not God's logos how could you ever make such an objective determination in any theological matter?

How could any theological truth be known if we permit our doctrine of God to be what cannot be seen by us to be anything other than irrational?

I mean, isn't that what you mean when you say that man's logos is not God's logos; that what we see as irrational doesn't mean its false when applied to God; that the rules of reason apply to everything in our experience except for God?

How would one even begin to develop a theology proper if the rules of reason do not apply? Why even bother doing so? Why not just believe what you want to believe? If reason doesn't apply, how could anything you want to claim as theological truth be falsified?

Resting in Him,
Clete