Clete, you said “I know nothing at all about Socinians or what they believed, nor do I care. My theology is not born out of their belief system as this is, as far as can recall, the first time I've ever heard of them.”
Well, this just reveals your ignorance of history and historical theology.
“My theology is Biblical and of sound reason and nothing more.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing.
“If you wish to debate me you will have to do so on the basis of Scripture and plain reason.”
I never said anything about debating you. If that is what you think everyone wants to do, then you are apparently an egomaniac and think that its all about you. Be that as it may, given your apparent lack of even how to spell certain basic words, I am a little uncertain at the prospect of debating you. If you can’t spell the concepts correctly, how could I expect you to even understand the issues involved?
“Pointing out all the idiots of history that happened to have gotten a particular point of truth correct won't effect me in the slightest, nor will it prove my theology wrong. Your guilt by association technique will not work.”
LOL… so these “idiots” got some part of theology right… and these “idiots” believe the same as you do!?!?! Lol… and the connection you have to them is… that they are…. idiots…?
You said “God is in no way dependant on anything. Any one who says otherwise is wrong - open theist or otherwise.”
Oh… so God is in no way dependant on man’s (libertarian) free will decisions for what He says and does… or who He saves? Well if God is not dependent on anyone regarding these things, especially, who is saved, then what is salvation dependent on? God? So… you are a Calvinist then….? Lol…..
You said “I absolutely do not believe that God is in a "hand's off" mode.”
Oh… so you don’t believe that, for the most part, God does not intervene in the free choices man makes? For if God does not intervene in the free choices man makes, there are literally billions upon billions of choices made every day that God, in His sovereignty, has (supposedly) decided to “sovereignly” be “un-sovereignly” involved in!! For God to be uninvolved, for the most part, in these free will decisions is to choose to be uninvolved in the most important aspect of the events that happen on this planet, i.e. the choices mankind makes, and the ramifications these choices make on others. That ends up putting God in a fairly “hands-off” mode, for that is the criterion that free will theism operates on, that man is incompatibly free.
You said “He is not, however controlling our every move. If He were, He would be unjust by His own standard.”
Oh really? What standard is this? I guess God is “unjust” quite a bit then ehhhh? Because God does as He wills with us, His creatures, He is the potter and we are the clay, and He controls whatever pleases Him to control, a man’s tongue, the roll of the dice, the heart of a king, He directs Israel’s enemies to have dominion over the Israelites and then punishes them for what they did, he had control over all the sinful actions that Joseph’s brothers did to cause him harm, though God meant it all for good, so too is it for all those who are called according to His purpose, that all things work together for the good, etc etc etc…
.
Pro 16:1 esv The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
Pro 16:9 esv The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.
Eph 1:11 esv In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works
all things according to the counsel of his will,
You said “No such historical linkage can be demonstrated between the Greeks and the modern open theism movement as none exists.”
Really? Well I am not surprised at how you err in this, seeing as you were ignorant of the Socinians as well, so that you are likewise uninformed regarding the roots of Open Theism in Process philosophy and the philosophy of the indeterministic Greeks is not all that surprising. John Sanders himself admits that one aspect… in fact one might say, the crucial aspect of Open Theism. Libertarian free will, has it’s roots in ancient Greek thought, and can be found in Philo, and some of the early church fathers, eg Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origin, and likewise has ties to the(in)famous Augustine!! Lol.. albeit the “early” Augustine.
You said “Their (the Reformers) correct adoption of Sola-Scriptura”
I seriously doubt that you know what the Reformers meant by “sola scriptura”.
You said “In fact, the movement (open theism) is perhaps the most purely Biblical movement in the last 1000 years of Chuch history.”
This is the gist of what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other like groups say as well… that the church was hopelessly lost until “they” came around. Riiigghhttttt…..
anyway, the movement is not totally new at all, for instance, many of it’s ideas concerning what kinds of things God can know are what the Socinians believed during the 1600’s. Calvin battled them, as did Francis Turretin as well as other Reformers.
You said “Saying it doesn't make it so.”
Lol.. saying its not doesn’t negate it.
You said “You don't know me very well, do you?”
Lol.. very true, you don’t know me very well either, now that this is settled… we can be moving right along…
You said “You might want to stick with what you know and stop guessing.”
Lol.. right back at ya!!! Roflol….what do you know about what I know? Don’t be a hypocrite, if you are going to accuse others of what you are doing, that is exactly what you end up being.
As it is, I know a fair amount about Open Theism. Here are the books I have read on the subject:
The Coming Evangelical Crises, in particular the chapt by Robert Strimple “What Does God Know?
The Openness of God by Richard Rice
Grace Unlimited by Clark Pinnock
Predestination and Free will edited by the Basingers…
No One Like Him by John Feinberg
God the Father Almighty, A Exploration of the Divine Attributes by Millard J Erickson
No Other God by John Frame
The Battle for God Norm Geisler and H. Wayne House
Creating God in the Image of Man? The New “Open” View of God- Neotheism’s Dangerous Drift by Norm Geisler
The Freedom of God and The Bondage of the Will, 2 volumes edited by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware
God’s Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware
Beyond the Bounds edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor and Paul Kjoss Helset
And lastly, I might add that Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology fo the Christian Faith spends quite a bit of time dealing directly with Pinnock and the open view.
I have also read many many articles on the net regarding the controversy as it pertained to Boyd’s membership in the General Baptist Convention, eg the dialogs between Greg Boyd and John Piper and others as they spoke to the subject of the membership being revoked and the controversy itself.
Also, I was around during the original formation of theologyonline, and was very active during the first several incarnations of the site, so I have also spent a great deal of time and effort on coming to understand and critique the view on a practical level.
Lastly, I finished just short of a Master’s Degree from a Christian College, majoring in Biblical Counseling and double minoring in Apologetics and Systematic Theology, I am no scholar per se, but I have logged in quite a bit of time on the subject, so don’t assume you know the extent of what I know on the subject, especially don’t do so while criticizing ME for not knowing the extent of your knowledge on the subject, which, BTW, I never did… so don’t assume because you know what happens when anyone assumes, right? Lol…..
You said “You look silly when you make such blatently erronious and ignorant comments to the point I nearly decided that engaging you on this topic would be a waste of time. The only thing that made me decide to give you the benefit of the doubt was the fact that your so new to TOL. I gotta at least give you a chance.”
Oh… so gracious of you… thanks for taking it easy on me. Lol
That you have condescended to speak to one so lowly as myself makes me feel… well… the emotions that are washing over me right now are just too profound for words…. Lol…. Seriously, I do appreciate it…. As I do realize that as compared to most of the regulars here at TOL, at least back when I was an active participant—so I am not too sure how many of them are still around, anyway, in comparison, you probably did in fact take it fairly easy on me, thanks.
You said “Besides, it seems clear that you've run into lots of free will theists who probably do teach that salvation is not "all of grace" as you put it.”
Lol… well… to be fair, coming from the soteriological perspective that I come from, anyone who teaches a synergistic view in regard to the gospel, Roman Catholics, liberal Lutherans, Arminians/Semi-Pelagians and Pelagians of every stripe… all deny that salvation is all of grace, so, you are probably right, it won’t be the last time lol…..
You said “Rest assured, I am not one of them - although I have no doubt whatsoever that this is not the last time you will make the accusation against me.”
Well… keeping in mind what I just said above… you are probably correct.
Lastly, you said “I can tell that you put this line in here as basically a jest but let me just say, since you brought up opinions, that I couldn't possibly care less about opinions (my own included). When discussing theology there is very little room for opinions. What I'm interested in is what you (or whomever) can establish as truth, whether it's Biblical, historical or simply of plain good old fashion logic, I don't care, but opinions are rubbish and will be basically ignored (at least by me anyway).”
Well for the most part I say Amen!! Realistically, however, none of us is so pure in our theology that there doesn’t exist opinions of every sort. None of us is without sin, therefore none of our various theologies is perfect, and all contain presuppositions both on the conscience and unconscious levels, however, it is our somber duty to weed out these unbiblical notions whenever possible.
On that note, the Reformers taught sola scriptura… which made Scripture the final arbiter in all theological disputes, but, they did not believe in solo scriptura, that is, they had a healthy respect for traditions. That is to say, they did not have the arrogant perspective that no one before them had the Holy Spirit. They believed very strongly that God gave teachers to the church, e.g.
1Co 12:28 esv And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.”
Eph 4:11-12 esv And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
(12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,”
So we are being unbiblical if we refuse to avail ourselves of the teachers that God has given to the church, though of course we must test all things and prove all things. I think Charles Spurgeon had some wise words to say on this subject as he lectured his students:
“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”
http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/c&cl1.htm
blessings
