A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[Freak]

Dear Robin and Freak . . .
Robin stated . . .
And Freak responded sarcastically....I am assuming the point you were trying to make was the OV is wrong and Calvinism is correct.

The Open View is wrong not because of Calvinism but rather the Scriptural record militates against the basic premise of Open Theism.

Therefore . . .
Why would you mock open theism using Calvinism which is diametrically opposed to your views?

As I said before (and you even quoted me on this):

There are some biblical truths found in Calvinism but I do not find my identification in Calvinism. Rather I find it in Christ alone.

And could you humor me with an answer to all this even if you think it's petty of me to keep bringing up?

Well? Satisified?

 

[Freak]

Words like . . . "wrong" or "inaccurate" or "relent" or "repent" are only bad words if you have a fragile view of God and His power. So fragile that the hint of anything like these descriptions can break Him.

Yes. Certain words do God an injustice. Words like evil or perverse, for example, would not be good words to describe God. So, when you say God was once "wrong." I'm concerned in that the word you have chosen, in this case "wrong," to describe God is ill advised.

How would you describe the word "wrong?" When somebody does something wrong, it would be considered a mistake. Did God make a mistake along the way?

 

[Clete]

Knight, I did it because is appears to me that the Open Theist view is a relatively new movement with in Christianity. Besides, I was constantly being told that my views were Calvinistic, and I was frustrated....I guess you could say that my remark was a bit off the cuff. I should have thought that one out a bit more. Sorry for the confusion!

Part of that may be my fault as well Knight. I tend to respond to Arminianism exactly as I would Calvinism and sometimes end up calling it Calvinism. The two are so much alike in my thinking now that I can hardly tell them apart on practical grounds.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The Open View is wrong not because of Calvinism but rather the Scriptural record militates against the basic premise of Open Theism.

Saying it doesn't make it so Freak. Show us, if you can.

As I said before (and you even quoted me on this):

There are some biblical truths found in Calvinism but I do not find my identification in Calvinism. Rather I find it in Christ alone.

:blabla: Whatever.

Refusing a lable that fits you is a lie. If (and I do say IF) you believe in what distinguishes Calvinism as a theological system then you are a Calvinist. Ducking the label does you no good. If you quack like a duck and walk like a duck, you're a duck. Insisting that you're a flamingo doesn't change the facts.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Agape4Robin]

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. Yes? That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something.
Furthermore, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

(See in bold) This can also be interpreted as design.

God is saying that there was a point in the past in which He didn't imagine mankind would do such a horrible thing.

Certainly as man grew more and more wicked there came a point in time when God COULD imagine that man would do something so wicked but apparently there was a time when it hadn't entered God's mind . . . otherwise the verse simply is a lie.

Changing the word "heart" for "mind" makes no difference at all since God hasn't a physical mind nor heart and therefore we can understand it's a figure of speech to describe God's knowledge and or feelings about their actions.

God's heart or mind even as spoken of in this passage (for instance) is figurative speech used by the author to show emotion. I do not interpret this passage to be taken literally and do not assume that the writer "knows" the thoughts of God and would not presume to say so. Unless explicitly directed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Part of that may be my fault as well Knight. I tend to respond to Arminianism exactly as I would Calvinism and sometimes end up calling it Calvinism. The two are so much alike in my thinking now that I can hardly tell them apart on practical grounds.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete-
I know what you mean.....I don't really know what each teaches, so I can hardly say that I hold to one or the other. Perhaps any one here knows where I can find out about the two, so that I may at least understand them? Thanks in advance.

 

[godrulz]

I think hyper-Calvinism (TULIP) and Arminianism (the opposite of all 5 points) are more different than alike. They both believe in exhaustive foreknowledge, but for different reasons. This is not the hallmark or distinctive of the views, like it is for Open Theism. The bigger issue is predestination vs free will.

 

[Clete]

God's heart or mind even as spoken of in this passage (for instance) is figurative speech used by the author to show emotion. I do not interpret this passage to be taken literally and do not assume that the writer "knows" the thoughts of God and would not presume to say so. Unless explicitly directed by the Holy Spirit.

Well Robin isn't that just the point? This passage isn't quoted from the Tulsa World, it's quoted out of the Bible, all of which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do you have any reason other than your theology to take this passage figuratively? Is there anything in the text (something in the grammar, or the context or something like that) that would indicate at all that this is a figure of speech?

Also, if it is a figure of speech, what does the figure mean? A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn. What two concepts are being related to one another in this figure and what message is being communicated? The only two I can see here are "it never entered my mind that you would do this" and "I always knew you would do this". How is there a relationship between these two completely opposite concepts? Usually sarcasm is the figure being employed when one says one thing but is actually saying that exact opposite. Are you suggesting that this passage is being sarcastic? If so, I don't think that such a position could be substantiated but I'd be interested to read any attempt you would like to make toward that goal.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Just to give credit where credit is due, the sentence, "A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn." is a direct quote from something that Pastor Bob Hill wrote. I don't think I would have thought to put it those terms if I lived to be 10,000 years old. Pastor Hill is just brilliant and I thank him for his incredibly rich teaching ministry.

 

[Clete]

Clete-
I know what you mean.....I don't really know what each teaches, so I can hardly say that I hold to one or the other. Perhaps any one here knows where I can find out about the two, so that I may at least understand them? Thanks in advance.

Calvinism vs Arminianism

Try that one for starters. It will at least get you the basic differences. The author is a Calvinist but he does a good job of presenting both sides and then in part 5 expresses why he falls on the Calvinist side of the fence. Each of the 5 parts are pretty breif so it won't be overwhelming to read the whole thing. You might check out part 4 first, it has a side by side comparison of the two systems.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: But giving away power means God is then not omnipotent. "Omnipotent" means having (present tense) all power.

Godrulz: All power does not mean God exercises His power all the time or in every circumstance.

But it does mean he didn't give it up! There is a difference between saying God gave up some of his power (I would disagree with this), versus saying he doesn't exercise all his power, all the time (I agree!).

Knight: God is saying that there was a point in the past in which He didn't imagine mankind would do such a horrible thing.

But Eze. 20:25-26, God says "I defiled them" in this, "I did this to make them desolate," then how can we say God didn't imagine this would happen? "I did this," we read, though not "from his heart," to bring about good, even in this, even here.

Robin: God's heart or mind even as spoken of in this passage (for instance) is figurative speech used by the author to show emotion.

Certainly, that is a quite plain meaning, and indicates God's feeling about their actions, as Knight said, God takes no delight in evil, and certainly I agree...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I did it because is appears to me that the Open Theist view is a relatively new movement with in Christianity. Besides, I was constantly being told that my views were Calvinistic, and I was frustrated....I guess you could say that my remark was a bit off the cuff. I should have thought that one out a bit more. Sorry for the confusion!

:up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete-
I know what you mean.....I don't really know what each teaches, so I can hardly say that I hold to one or the other. Perhaps any one here knows where I can find out about the two, so that I may at least understand them? Thanks in advance.

I think in the context of this thread Calvinism is opposed to what you and Freak believe in that Calvinism rejects freewill yet you do not.

In most other contexts Calvinism and what you believe are very similar i.e., closed future(s).

 

[Freak]

Saying it doesn't make it so Freak. Show us, if you can.

Clete, I've discussed the issues with you over the years and you have yet to confront the truth I have presented. Why should I bother with someone like yourself that simply whines all the time.

Refusing a lable that fits you is a lie. If (and I do say IF) you believe in what distinguishes Calvinism as a theological system then you are a Calvinist.

Prove it. Prove that I'm a Calvinist. Either put up or shut up!

Ducking the label does you no good.

Are you mentally ill? I have never once identified myself with Calvinism or any other ism. I find my identification in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ unlike you. You find your identity in open theism and Hillism.

 

[Freak]

I think in the context of this thread Calvinism is opposed to what you and Freak believe in that Calvinism rejects freewill yet you do not.

I believe in God's foreknowledge and in free will, both biblical elements that are taught throughout Scripture.

Knight, as I mentioned earlier is that I what I see here is the long standing friction between two classic interpretations of certain doctrinal camps, namely: the Wesleyan\Methodist\Holiness vs. the Calvinistic\Baptist\Eternal Security (not sure if I have adequately defined these two major camps but I am sure that you know what I mean). The long standing tensions between these two aforementioned doctrinal viewpoints have been debated effectively and exhaustively by both sides for many centuries now, and both camps utilize much scripture and furthermore, each boast an impressive pedigree of adherents.

It is a non-essential what we are discussing.

Knight: How would you describe the word "wrong?" When somebody does something wrong, it would be considered a mistake. Did God make a mistake along the way?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete, I've discussed the issues with you over the years and you have yet to confront the truth I have presented. Why should I bother with someone like yourself that simply whines all the time.

Prove it. Prove that I'm a Calvinist. Either put up or shut up!

Are you mentally ill? I have never once identified myself with Calvinism or any other ism. I find my identification in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ unlike you. You find your identity in open theism and Hillism.

I am disapointed in you Freak. Clete is one of TOL's shining stars. Clete tirelessly answers question after question using biblical support.

Your accusation of him is way off base. I think you can try a bit harder to discourse in a manner more close to the way others on this thread are.

 

[Freak]

I am disapointed in you Freak. Clete is one of TOL's shining stars. Clete tirelessly answers question after question using biblical support..

You're right! Clete, I offer my apologies. I just get frustrated over your, sometimes, silly remarks.

 

[godrulz]

Open Theists believe in foreknowlege and free will but correctly understand and interpret them. A detailed Greek word study is in order to dispel preconceived misconceptions.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe in God's foreknowledge and in free will, both biblical elements that are taught throughout Scripture.

Knight, as I mentioned earlier is that I what I see here is the long standing friction between two classic interpretations of certain doctrinal camps, namely: the Wesleyan\Methodist\Holiness vs. the Calvinistic\Baptist\Eternal Security (not sure if I have adequately defined these two major camps but I am sure that you know what I mean). The long standing tensions between these two aforementioned doctrinal viewpoints have been debated effectively and exhaustively by both sides for many centuries now, and both camps utilize much scripture and furthermore, each boast an impressive pedigree of adherents.

It is a non-essential what we are discussing.

Robin had the courtesy of admitting championing Calvinism was an error. Why can't you do likewise?

Knight: How would you describe the word "wrong?" When somebody does something wrong, it would be considered a mistake. Did God make a mistake along the way?

I am not going to go in circles with you Freak re-answering questions over and over.

I have already answered this objection at least three times now, you can reject my answers if you like. I have no problem with that! But please don't simply re-ask the question over and over - that is a rude strategy.

 

[Freak]

Open Theists believe in foreknowlege and free will but correctly understand and interpret them.

Godrulz, a limited "foreknowledge" nevertheless. Just curious what did you think of the ETS ruling against open theism?

 

[Freak]

Robin had the courtesy of admitting championing Calvinism was an error. Why can't you do likewise?

Like I stated earlier, there are truths within Calvinism, I embrace, due to it's biblical support. But there are elements within Calvinism that are clearly in error.