ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Jerry Shugart]

godrulz,

You said:

I do not have the context in front of me, but I am thinking it refers to physical death when relating to Adam and us.

Then if that is what you think please address the following.

Christ is not speaking of "physical" death at Romans 5:12.Men do not die physically because they sin.Since man has been denied to eat of the "tree of life" all men die:

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life"(Gen.3:24).

The Lord did this so that man would not "live forever"(Gen.3:22).

Since then it has been "appointed" that men will die physically:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb.9:27).

All men die spiritually when they sin.They are not born spiritually dead.

And that is exactly what happened to Adam when he ate from the forbidden tree:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"(Gen.2:17).

Adam died spiritually the same day that he ate of the forbidden tree.He did not die physically on that day.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[godrulz]

Physical death came to all men/mankind as a consequence of Adam's Fall.

Spiritual death occurs when we individually sin. Adam was the first to experience spiritual death. We follow in his footsteps as we personally sin.

God's penalty for sin, in general, is physical, spiritual, and eternal death (separation). Adam, Eve, and their descendents experienced physical and spiritual death secondary to sin. Death spreads to all, because all sin. The entrance point was the original Fall.

Most commentators seem to feel Rom. 5:12-21 is about the outward, visible experience of physical death (as I said...this does not contradict your valid points in the previous post).

The context is a contrastive parallelism between the work of Christ (and its results in justification/reconciliation) and the work of Adam (and its results in sin and death).

Theories include the federal headship view of Adam (representative) and the natural or seminal headship of Adam (physical).

I prefer the idea that Adam's sin resulted in physical depravity to the human race, including death, and that our personal sin leads to moral depravity through our choices.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: A one day old baby does not have the mental and moral capacity to make choices.

But then they never have a choice? Surely they don't stay infants forever. This is God's decision to save them, no matter what, with no possible choice otherwise, ever, on their part? This is Calvinist election.

They cannot receive or reject Christ before they can even say "Daddy".

Can they not, though?

Psalm 71:6 From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother's womb. I will ever praise you.

And "ever praise you," does this not include infancy?

Matthew 21:16 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise'...

It does, and they can indeed praise God, and respond to him (as in Lk. 1:44), and come to him, and also turn from God, even in the womb (Ps. 58:3 et al).

Ps. 51; 58 and other places is an Hebraism, an idiom. Can a one day old baby tell lies? From as long as the Psalmist can remember, he was a sinner.

John the Baptist leaping in the womb is an idiom? Infants praising God is a Hebraism? And on what basis do we conclude that the Psalmist doesn't really mean from birth, especially since he goes farther! "From my mother's womb," now how can this, or "from birth," possibly mean "for as long as I can remember"? "From my youth" would mean that, and he says that (Ps. 71:17), and he says more, too, to being old and gray now (v. 18), is this another idiom? Surely it means he is gray-headed now, and he is quite plainly covering his whole life, from birth, through youth, to old age.

Does this mean a 1 minute old baby prays and reads the Bible?

Not reading, certainly, but is praise not prayer?

Lee: "Because all have sinned," though, says Paul (Rom. 5:12), not because Adam sinned.

Jerry: Christ is not speaking of "physical" death at Romans 5:12.Men do not die physically because they sin.

Do they not, though? I would second what Godrulz said, and say that this does indeed refer to both spiritual and physical death, and the "second death" in the lake of fire.

Ezekiel 18:4 The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Ezekiel 18:13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

A baby in a womb can respond to music and the mother's voice. John could respond to the presence of God, but this does not mean that he used his will and intellect to praise God. I would not make a doctrine that is contrary to self-evident experience based on a Psalm and a Hebraism. You will not find a didactic passage that says the fetus has moral and mental capacity. Do not read too much into the text.

 

[ChristisKing]

A baby in a womb can respond to music and the mother's voice. John could respond to the presence of God, but this does not mean that he used his will and intellect to praise God. I would not make a doctrine that is contrary to self-evident experience based on a Psalm and a Hebraism. You will not find a didactic passage that says the fetus has moral and mental capacity. Do not read too much into the text.

LUK 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

The baby was not "responding to the presense of God" as an animal would by just "leaping into the air," as you are suggesting. But rather the Holy Spirit is revealing that the baby is responding ""for joy"" at "the presense of God," and more specifically at the presence of Christ, which was a great"joy" to His people, but He was very bad news to others who had quite a different "immoral response," such as Herod and those who immediately tried to kill Him! This seems to be "a very morally proper" thing for the prophesied Elijah to do, the one who was to come to pave the way of the Lord, doesn't it seem to you? How can the prophesied baby do a morally proper act of leaping for joy at the presence of the Savior if, as godrulz teaches, "it does not have the mental and moral capacity to make choices?"

Do not read too little of the text.

 

[Battuta]

The posts have made for good reading lately, but I'm curious as to how any of this is relevant to open theism, which happens to be the title of this thread.

I go with:
1-open theism
2-a distinction between sin and a sinful nature
3-the day Adam sinned he was condemned to die spiritually, and something we call a sinful nature was formed in him. He did not die physically.
4-all who live eternally will have had to choose Christ, even if they died before birth and had some opportunity later.
5-all who will die in the lake of fire rejected Christ previously. They received some sort of viable chance.
6-a father with a sinful nature is apparently going to pass on a sinful nature to his offspring.

So I would like to ask godrulz, do you think (1) is incompatible with (6)? Why or why not?

 

[Clete]

A baby in a womb can respond to music and the mother's voice. John could respond to the presence of God, but this does not mean that he used his will and intellect to praise God. I would not make a doctrine that is contrary to self-evident experience based on a Psalm and a Hebraism. You will not find a didactic passage that says the fetus has moral and mental capacity. Do not read too much into the text.

I think ChristisKing is right on this one. If you applied such rules consistently you would have to reject such things as Satan taking a third of the angelic hosts with him in his rebellion and about a hundred other widely accepted Biblical teachings that are taught by some other means than a "didactic passage".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

The posts have made for good reading lately, but I'm curious as to how any of this is relevant to open theism, which happens to be the title of this thread.

I go with:
1-open theism
2-a distinction between sin and a sinful nature
3-the day Adam sinned he was condemned to die spiritually, and something we call a sinful nature was formed in him. He did not die physically.
4-all who live eternally will have had to choose Christ, even if they died before birth and had some opportunity later.
5-all who will die in the lake of fire rejected Christ previously. They received some sort of viable chance.
6-a father with a sinful nature is apparently going to pass on a sinful nature to his offspring.

So I would like to ask godrulz, do you think (1) is incompatible with (6)? Why or why not?

Open Theism incorporates a wide variety of views and doctrines. There is no formal systematic theology on every point. It is more Arminian than Calvinistic. Open Theism is not really relevant to the issues of point 6. Most Open Theists come from traditional backgrounds (Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.). I would think most hold the classic Augustinian view on Federal Headship and 'original sin."

I am in the Open Theist camp, but also appreciate Moral Government Theology (Finney and others..New England Theology). Semi-pelagianism would see sin as a wrong moral choice/lawlessness, and not as a substance that can be passed on to offspring.

So, 1 and 6 are compatible, but 6 is not compatible with Finney's theology (and others). I believe a sinful nature is formed in the individual through repeated choices, but that it cannot be passed on as a thing. I think this is confusing metaphysics (stuff, substance, essence) with morals (realm of free moral agency and volition). Sin cannot be passed on if it is rooted in the will instead of genetics. Likewise, righteousness is also not genetically passed on. We form habits, character, natures, and destiny through choices, not genetics. Genetics would seem more compatible with Darwinism or B.F. Skinner's determinism (behaviorism/conditioning).

 

[godrulz]

I think ChristisKing is right on this one. If you applied such rules consistently you would have to reject such things as Satan taking a third of the angelic hosts with him in his rebellion and about a hundred other widely accepted Biblical teachings that are taught by some other means than a "didactic passage".

Resting in Him,
Clete

There can be truth in non-didactic passages (historical narratives, etc.). My concern is wisdom literature and figurative language. e.g. some see Proverbs 8 as Christological. In fact, it is simply a personification of Wisdom in contrast to other passages that personify Folly. Psalms and Ecclesiastes are heart expressions of men. Not every thought is 'true' or revelation from God. Some is the wisdom of man under the sun (earth) or the misunderstanding of man without God's wisdom (cf. Job). Even Paul distinguished his personal ideas from Christ's revelation (re: marriage, etc.).

 

[ChristisKing]

Physical depravity includes the fact they we all die as a consequence of Adam's fall. Women have pain in childbirth. Weeds grow, etc. ...

This is another huge hole in godrulz teachings.

GEN 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

GEN 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;...

Obviously when God warned Adam "thou shalt sure die" He was also speaking to Adam's posterity and when He punished Eve He was also punishing her posterity. For all still die and all women still experience great pain at childbirth to this day. God speaking to and punishing Adam and Eve's posterity for their sin?!? Where is the "free will" of their posterity in this?

 

[Battuta]

Thank you, godrulz. I will try to give Overstreet's arguments some thought.

Responding to ChristisKing on his post 439, which I won't quote because it needs to be seen in context, I agree with godrulz when he claims his view on the sinful nature (earned vs. inherited) is not necessary to open theism. It is optional. I think it deserves its own thread.

 

[godrulz]

This is another huge hole in godrulz teachings.

GEN 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

GEN 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;...

Obviously when God warned Adam "thou shalt sure die" He was also speaking to Adam's posterity and when He punished Eve He was also punishing her posterity. For all still die and all women still experience great pain at childbirth to this day. God speaking to and punishing Adam and Eve's posterity for their sin?!? Where is the "free will" of their posterity in this?

There is a difference between physical consequences of the Fall remaining throughout creation groaning until He redeems all of creation at His coming, and the individual, personal consequences of sin. If I murder someone, there are consequences. This is independent of Adam's sin. Each context determines whether physical, spiritual, or eternal death is in view (or maybe more than one). Adam died spiritually when he sinned. Physical death was introduced into the human family as a result of His fall. We are each responsible for our own sin. If we die eternally separated from God, it is due to our own sin, not Adam's sin directly. Physical death is common to all men. Believers are not immune, but will one day be resurrected. Eternal death only applies to unbelievers.

 

[ChristisKing]

Thank you, godrulz. I will try to give Overstreet's arguments some thought.

Responding to ChristisKing on his post 439, which I won't quote because it needs to be seen in context, I agree with godrulz when he claims his view on the sinful nature (earned vs. inherited) is not necessary to open theism. It is optional. I think it deserves its own thread.

I think the disbelief in the biblical doctrine of Original Sin is very consistent with open theism and godrulz and Jerry are completely consistent when they argue and teach against it. I think it is important for everyone to see this consistency and and how it ties-in to open theism and how easily it was defeated in this thread.

 

[Clete]

I think the disbelief in the biblical doctrine of Original Sin is very consistent with open theism and godrulz and Jerry are completely consistent when they argue and teach against it. I think it is important for everyone to see this consistency and and how it ties-in to open theism and how easily it was defeated in this thread.

It was not defeated nor is it tied to Open Theism. Is that what your intention has been throughout all this time, to attempt to weaken Open Theism by arguing for Original Sin?
I'll agree that you've done a descent job of making an argument for the doctrine, although you have a disturbing habit of glossing over important counter arguments. But be that as it may, it has nothing to do with Open Theism; the two doctrines are compatible either way. You've not proven conclusively that Original Sin is a correct doctrine, but even if you had, you'd have done no injury at all to Open Theism. Open Theism simply teaches that the future is not exhaustively settled because we have a genuine free will for which we are genuinely responsible. Original sin or no, whether we can really choose what we do or not is not impacted in the slightest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

I think the disbelief in the biblical doctrine of Original Sin is very consistent with open theism and godrulz and Jerry are completely consistent when they argue and teach against it. I think it is important for everyone to see this consistency and and how it ties-in to open theism and how easily it was defeated in this thread.

Most Open Theists lean to Arminianism or had that background. Hence, most believe in 'original sin'. It is not an issue in all the material I have read on OT.

There is a difference between a biblical doctrine and an Augustinian theory.

How does original sin relate to OT? OT is mostly about the nature of the future/omniscience and does not make an issue of most other classic doctrines. The only connection I can see is that OT is a sub-type of Arminianism and they are both free will theisms. If you believe in a causative nature back of the will and deny genuine free will, then your argument is against free will theism in general. OT just happens to be more in that camp than deterministic Calvinism and fatalistic Islam.

If you want to stereotype, perhaps go after those who appreciate the teachings of Charles G. FInney. He was not an OT, but he was against the errors of hyper-Calvinism.

 

[Clete]

Most Open Theists lean to Arminianism or had that background.

[snip]

The only connection I can see is that OT is a sub-type of Arminianism and they are both free will theisms. If you believe in a causative nature back of the will and deny genuine free will, then your argument is against free will theism in general. OT just happens to be more in that camp than deterministic Calvinism and fatalistic Islam.

I'm really not sure where you get this. All the people I know who hold to an open view used to be Calvinists or else came to be a Christian as an Open Theist and were never Calvinist or Arminian. As far as I can tell, it is Arminianism that is a subtype of Calvinism not Open Theism. Arminians, while they SAY that they believe in free will and even make it a central doctrine of theirs, the fact still remains that they do not believe the future is open at all and thus the belief in a free will is inconsistent and illogical.
Also, all of the Open Theists I know do not believe that you can lose your salvation. This point in their theology is debated hotly within Arminian circles but from what I've seen it is easily the most harped on issue in any Arminian church, which leads to legalism.
The rest of Arminian theology is based upon maintaining the free will of man but since they believe that God exhaustively knows the future, this is all discounted because it is logically contradictory. In effect, Open Theism destroys Arminianism in the same way that it destroys Calvinism, by exposing the self contradictory nature of their theologies. Open Theism is just as incompatible with Arminianism as it is Calvinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

I understand the legit. concerns you have. Your idea that OT are former Calvinists or converted that way is anecdotal. We can find just as many who had Arminian background and see a common free will theism, even if inconsistent due to foreknowledge issues. OT has some similarities with Arminianism and some with Calvinism. It also has many differences with both. One can classify things in a variety of ways, so we can look at the trunk or feet of an elephant. It depends what aspect of the total theology one wants to emphasize.

Here is one summary that shows some overlap:

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties)

No= Arminian and OT (contingencies)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (decree=certainties)

Arminianism (simple foreknowledge= certainties)

No= OT (uncertainties)


OSAS is usually associated with TULIP/Calvinism. Arminians and many Open Theists reject unconditional perseverance. Enyart and Mid-Acts is an exception. He is not a major scholastic OT, nor are all his views typical OT. OSAS is not an issue with OT, but it seems to me if God does not exhaustively know the future, then He would not know who would be saved in the end trillions of years ago. OSAS smacks of determinism and is contrary to the free will theism of OT and Arminians (who wrongly think that simple foreknowledge is not problematic for libertarian free will).

 

[godrulz]

http://www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/


Articles on original sin...

 

[Clete]

I understand the legit. concerns you have. Your idea that OT are former Calvinists or converted that way is anecdotal. We can find just as many who had Arminian background and see a common free will theism, even if inconsistent due to foreknowledge issues. OT has some similarities with Arminianism and some with Calvinism. It also has many differences with both. One can classify things in a variety of ways, so we can look at the trunk or feet of an elephant. It depends what aspect of the total theology one wants to emphasize.

Here is one summary that shows some overlap:

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties)

No= Arminian and OT (contingencies)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (decree=certainties)

Arminianism (simple foreknowledge= certainties)

No= OT (uncertainties)


OSAS is usually associated with TULIP/Calvinism. Arminians and many Open Theists reject unconditional perseverance. Enyart and Mid-Acts is an exception. He is not a major scholastic OT, nor are all his views typical OT. OSAS is not an issue with OT, but it seems to me if God does not exhaustively know the future, then He would not know who would be saved in the end trillions of years ago. OSAS smacks of determinism and is contrary to the free will theism of OT and Arminians (who wrongly think that simple foreknowledge is not problematic for libertarian free will).

Well, I don't have any objection to the idea that Open Theism has some things in common with Arminianism. It's just the idea that the OV is a dirivitive of, or is a sub-type Arminianism that I have an objection too. It very clearly is not. Saying that it is would be similar to saying that a mouse is a subtype of cat because they both have a heart, lungs, four legs and a tail. You'd have to just clamp your eyes shut and ignore glaring and important differences to make such a claim.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnmnbvc]

The Open View makes prayer, evangelism, social responsibility, change, etc. real, not illusory. God is not the static, impersonal being of Greek philosophy. He is not absolutely immutable (strong) in every sense. His essential character and attributes do not change. He does change in His experiences, thoughts, actions, emotions, relations, etc. This is not a negation of perfection, but the glory of God as a personal, dynamic, responsive being.

And thats the way YOU want it to be and thats you why you believe that

Why do you think children always, without exception, picture God as a man(with a body) in the sky? Because thats all their minds can comprehend

Im not trying to offend you..but you have an immature view of God. This view is held by those who cant comprehend more than it. You cant see how its possible how God can be timeless so you must deny tons of scripture to support your view. All you can say it that its all greek thought as if that somehow wins the argument.

You have created the god of your understanding--- a man in the sky. I wish I could help you..but in my experience your type believes what he wants.

I am not Calvin guy either--nor of the other camp. I believe freewill and Gods choice is a mystery that cannot be understood by our childlike minds. I have spent much time thinking about it but I am not so bold as many here to proclaim the mysteries of the universe.