ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
RobE
New member
Godrulz and Philetus
Godrulz and Philetus
The doctrine of sufficient grace is universally accepted. It just states that Jesus died and suffered so ALL could be saved.
With this said----Why won't some be saved if Christ's actions were sufficient?
The doctrine of saving(effecacious) grace simply points out that Christ's actions were sufficient; however, there must be an action on man's side of the equation for salvation to occur.
Do either of you disagree with this?
Rob
Godrulz and Philetus
Philetus said:
The doctrine of sufficient grace is universally accepted. It just states that Jesus died and suffered so ALL could be saved.
With this said----Why won't some be saved if Christ's actions were sufficient?
The doctrine of saving(effecacious) grace simply points out that Christ's actions were sufficient; however, there must be an action on man's side of the equation for salvation to occur.
Do either of you disagree with this?
Rob
RobE
New member
themuzicman said:
If you look at your will, you'll soon discover that other causes affected it, and formed the eventual outcome. Where free will occurs is in development of conscience and morals. That way, when you put your will into action it is really based on what you believe to be right(and you always want to be right). Aligning your will to God's(the only true FREE will) moves you towards eternal life instead of Adam's will which moves you towards death.
This is how the Lord, being the First Cause of everything in creation, remains unresponsible for your sins. He created everything that affects you, but you are the first cause in your own conscience. All heaven rejoices for the son that returns.
Muzicman said:
Why not? Is it because it's impossible to know something from nothing?
muzicman said:
You're right because foreknowledge and free will, as all have agreed, have nothing in common.
rob said:
MM said:
Well, that's what we're debating isn't it? In my view, yes he did!
MM said:
Yet that decision might be known if the agent did exist. How about speculating what that agent would do if we could make that agent exactly as we wanted him to be. Did Jesus die for your personal sins when you didn't exist?
Let's not forget that 'He enacted creation', all of it. And understands it completely. It also doesn't rule out the 'outside of time' theory or the 'carrying out of plans exactly' theory.
I'd like to point out at this juncture that if you believe that God knows the future then He knows your decisions before they are enacted, not before you make them. I know you're going to object to this on the basis that you can't know something from nothing; however.....
I encourage you to accept that God may have an ability to make something out of nothing and to know actions of a non-existent substance before He makes it and gives it motion; since He made all of creation out of nothing(I know- another logical absurdity)!
Rob
RobE
New member
themuzicman said:
Why must the agent exist? Can't I calculate the path of a billiard ball before it's struck?
In order for foreknowledge to exist then why does the agent have to exist in reality and not just theory?
Am I crazy to believe that God will live forever?
Thanks,
Rob
The Hebraic concept of eternal is endless time, not the Greekish concept of timelessness. God is from everlasting to everlasting (duration), not a simultaneous 'eternal now'. This is why the future is not there to know before it comes into existence in the present (then it becomes the fixed past).
RobE said:
God is uncreated and lives in an endless duration of time, not timelessness.
Balls operate under the law of cause and effect. There responses are predictable unless acted on from an outside source or supernatural intervention. This is a law for inanimate objects (though we can be subject to cause and effect, this is not how God governs moral creatures).
Animate creation operates primarily under a law of instinct. They are subject to cause/effect as objects, but they also have non-moral self-determination (locomotion, etc.).
Moral creation like man and angels operate under a higher law of freedom and love. Volitional choices, by nature, often have an element of uncertainty until they are made (hence they are known as possible/probable before they become certain/actual).
themuzicman
Well-known member
RobE said:
Sure, but a billiard ball doesn't have free will.
If the agent is making a free will decision, yes.
No.
Michael
Philetus
New member
ROBE
Yes, I strike the cue ball with the cue stick and the cue ball strikes the eight ball which goes into the corner pocket as I ‘foresaw’ it but didn’t know it until it went in the pocket. But, pool has nothing to do with salvation.
Sounds like a risk. Minor, but risk even at those odds. Don’t you mean infinity to 0, zip, nada?
I just fail to see where it has any bearing on the discussion of open theism. If you are thinking along the lines that God has determined that there will be no one who will come to the Father except through Jesus, then I agree. God’s absolute decree has closed the issue to speculation. All have sinned and God knew that all would sin (depend on the knowledge of good and evil rather than His Word to make their choices) and has determined that neither the law nor works would save anybody. But what the law failed to do, Christ has accomplished. The variable remains in that all the decisions about responding to God’s offer in Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit in working the wonder of grace are not yet made. That aspect of the future is still open. I know you don’t agree. Just don’t ask me to explain it any further until you tell me with statements, not more questions, what you do believe. I’ll just read it and accept it as your position.
I just disagree. God has foreknowledge only of the things he has sovereignty determined will in fact happen. (i.e. The day of Christ) He doesn’t care whether or not the eight ball falls into the corner pocket and doesn’t know the out come until it does.
Again you take part of the statement and leave the rest. There is not a future to be known in meticulous detail. (Eight ball in the corner pocket can be imagined but not known until after the fact.) Yes there is a future much of which remains unknown.
Yea. It is. Especially since this is the 8th or 9th 'single question' you have asked me.
Well #10 has 2 'single questions'. So, if three and four weren't questions thats eight ball in the cornner pocket and the game is over. (Just wanted you to know how much work it can be trying to follow you.) answers: A) Because some will resist his grace and decide to reject God’s offer of salvation. B) Yes, man must respond. I don’t disagree with either point. Grace is grace. I just don’t need to qualify it, categorize it or complicated it. How sad that even though God in Christ has paid the entire price to cover Joe's sins; Joe still has the power to reject it. I need to spend more time with Joe telling him about how much God loves him and less time trying to figure out how.
I don't mean that to be harsh, I'm just a hair away from being in the same place Clete is and giving up. Post some comments with content and without question marks or lets move on.
A friend who disagrees,
Philetus
Yes, I strike the cue ball with the cue stick and the cue ball strikes the eight ball which goes into the corner pocket as I ‘foresaw’ it but didn’t know it until it went in the pocket. But, pool has nothing to do with salvation.
Sounds like a risk. Minor, but risk even at those odds. Don’t you mean infinity to 0, zip, nada?
I just fail to see where it has any bearing on the discussion of open theism. If you are thinking along the lines that God has determined that there will be no one who will come to the Father except through Jesus, then I agree. God’s absolute decree has closed the issue to speculation. All have sinned and God knew that all would sin (depend on the knowledge of good and evil rather than His Word to make their choices) and has determined that neither the law nor works would save anybody. But what the law failed to do, Christ has accomplished. The variable remains in that all the decisions about responding to God’s offer in Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit in working the wonder of grace are not yet made. That aspect of the future is still open. I know you don’t agree. Just don’t ask me to explain it any further until you tell me with statements, not more questions, what you do believe. I’ll just read it and accept it as your position.
I just disagree. God has foreknowledge only of the things he has sovereignty determined will in fact happen. (i.e. The day of Christ) He doesn’t care whether or not the eight ball falls into the corner pocket and doesn’t know the out come until it does.
Once again you have given evidence that either you are unwilling to understand or do the homework necessary to at least understand OVT. Your statement #4 is not accurate.
AFTER! Unless, he has set the date and the time in the future and pulls it off himself. Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.
Again you take part of the statement and leave the rest. There is not a future to be known in meticulous detail. (Eight ball in the corner pocket can be imagined but not known until after the fact.) Yes there is a future much of which remains unknown.
Huh? I already answered this train of thought in the strongest terms I could.
Yes. You have already quoted some of them to support you view. We just disagree on how they are read. Proof texting is not helpful.
Yea. It is. Especially since this is the 8th or 9th 'single question' you have asked me.
Well #10 has 2 'single questions'. So, if three and four weren't questions thats eight ball in the cornner pocket and the game is over. (Just wanted you to know how much work it can be trying to follow you.) answers: A) Because some will resist his grace and decide to reject God’s offer of salvation. B) Yes, man must respond. I don’t disagree with either point. Grace is grace. I just don’t need to qualify it, categorize it or complicated it. How sad that even though God in Christ has paid the entire price to cover Joe's sins; Joe still has the power to reject it. I need to spend more time with Joe telling him about how much God loves him and less time trying to figure out how.
I don't mean that to be harsh, I'm just a hair away from being in the same place Clete is and giving up. Post some comments with content and without question marks or lets move on.
A friend who disagrees,
Philetus
Adam could have, but now that we are fallen, no one can. And if God knew Adam was goign to fall, why did He create him in the first place?RobE said:
patman
Active member
The Test of Adam
The Test of Adam
Could a man, other than Jesus, live an eternity without sinning? Is this a proof or a question?
OK. I know all mature humans in the flesh sin. The bible explains why:
1. We have an internal law(or the written OT law) that is meant for good.
2. Sin takes advantage of the law to produce evil
Romans 2
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
And yet we find out that man was created without the knowledge of Good and Evil. It was the eating of the tree that Man received the internal law. And that law is what sin uses to produce the evil we suffer from.
Adam was given only one law. One simple command. And the argument is "Adam was a man!! he is bound to sin." As though he couldn't resist eating from that particular tree.
I know I am a sinner, but I do not commit every sin. Can a man who dies and childless be accused of not raising his children to walk with the Lord? Are all people bound to sin against their bodies by abusing drugs?
There is no guarantee that someone will commit a sin just because there is a law against it. It turns out it is really the person's choice to sin a certain way or not to.
Are all humans murderers? Are all people haters of God? Are all computer hackers? Are all bank robbers? No.
So was Adam really prone to eat the forbidden fruit? Of course not. It was a choice. A choice that reveals the character of his heart in a way nothing else could. If God knew Adam well enough to automatically know what he would do in this situation, why put him through the test?
That question doesn't beg a REAL answer, it simply points out that God tested Adam to find out what he would do, implying he didn't know before.
Just like when he tested Abraham with the command to sacrifice his son.
Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Now he knows. Not before that moment, not before the world was created, not before God imagined man as a distant dream, but at that moment!
Adam was not Bound to sin out of nature. So God couldn't know he would sin for that reason.
Furthermore there is more evidence that God tests man is to discover previously unknown aspects of man's nature. So the test of the garden was just that... to discover what Adam would do. Not to set him up to sin. This is only able to be said when there is no 100% future knowledge.
This is not to say that the tree was only a test. It was also the opportunity for man to exercise the freewill given him. Adam just made the wrong decision and failed the worthiness test at the same time.
No where do we find the verse that said "Adam was foreknown to sin" or "Adam was bound to sin" or anything of the such.
So we compare Adam's eventual sin to a pool game?
Adam wasn't like a billiard ball. To say that he was means you may as well say he was a bullet loaded in a gun. The gun was pointed at the heart of the innocent victim. If that is how it is set up, the puller of the trigger is guilty of killing the innocent because HE KNEW what would happen. "The killer didn't do it with his own hands, the bullet did it. We cannot blame the shooter for killing the innocent when the bullet REALLY did it. Just because the shooter knew what would happen doesn't make him wrong!" Trying to justify the killer wasn't a killer is the same as trying to justify all future knowing God from creating a sinful world.
All this might sound good. But it is just my reasoning against others for the most part. And whatever is rebutted will probably be someone else's reasoning against mine... where is the absolute truth? The true test is "What does the Bible say about God's future knowledge?"
It says it is there in part. But it does not say it is there in whole. So we must commit ourselves to the word. God's future knowledge is what he reveals it to be... not what we reason it to be.
Thank you
The Test of Adam
Could a man, other than Jesus, live an eternity without sinning? Is this a proof or a question?
OK. I know all mature humans in the flesh sin. The bible explains why:
1. We have an internal law(or the written OT law) that is meant for good.
2. Sin takes advantage of the law to produce evil
Romans 2
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
And yet we find out that man was created without the knowledge of Good and Evil. It was the eating of the tree that Man received the internal law. And that law is what sin uses to produce the evil we suffer from.
Adam was given only one law. One simple command. And the argument is "Adam was a man!! he is bound to sin." As though he couldn't resist eating from that particular tree.
I know I am a sinner, but I do not commit every sin. Can a man who dies and childless be accused of not raising his children to walk with the Lord? Are all people bound to sin against their bodies by abusing drugs?
There is no guarantee that someone will commit a sin just because there is a law against it. It turns out it is really the person's choice to sin a certain way or not to.
Are all humans murderers? Are all people haters of God? Are all computer hackers? Are all bank robbers? No.
So was Adam really prone to eat the forbidden fruit? Of course not. It was a choice. A choice that reveals the character of his heart in a way nothing else could. If God knew Adam well enough to automatically know what he would do in this situation, why put him through the test?
That question doesn't beg a REAL answer, it simply points out that God tested Adam to find out what he would do, implying he didn't know before.
Just like when he tested Abraham with the command to sacrifice his son.
Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Now he knows. Not before that moment, not before the world was created, not before God imagined man as a distant dream, but at that moment!
Adam was not Bound to sin out of nature. So God couldn't know he would sin for that reason.
Furthermore there is more evidence that God tests man is to discover previously unknown aspects of man's nature. So the test of the garden was just that... to discover what Adam would do. Not to set him up to sin. This is only able to be said when there is no 100% future knowledge.
This is not to say that the tree was only a test. It was also the opportunity for man to exercise the freewill given him. Adam just made the wrong decision and failed the worthiness test at the same time.
No where do we find the verse that said "Adam was foreknown to sin" or "Adam was bound to sin" or anything of the such.
So we compare Adam's eventual sin to a pool game?
Adam wasn't like a billiard ball. To say that he was means you may as well say he was a bullet loaded in a gun. The gun was pointed at the heart of the innocent victim. If that is how it is set up, the puller of the trigger is guilty of killing the innocent because HE KNEW what would happen. "The killer didn't do it with his own hands, the bullet did it. We cannot blame the shooter for killing the innocent when the bullet REALLY did it. Just because the shooter knew what would happen doesn't make him wrong!" Trying to justify the killer wasn't a killer is the same as trying to justify all future knowing God from creating a sinful world.
All this might sound good. But it is just my reasoning against others for the most part. And whatever is rebutted will probably be someone else's reasoning against mine... where is the absolute truth? The true test is "What does the Bible say about God's future knowledge?"
It says it is there in part. But it does not say it is there in whole. So we must commit ourselves to the word. God's future knowledge is what he reveals it to be... not what we reason it to be.
Thank you
Actually, that was one of the questions I kept asking myself, when I was an Arminianist. I could never quite figure it out. And I figured that answer was that God didn't know. And since I believed He ecxisted outside of time, I figured that He had to choose to not know. But that didn't make sense either, because He would have to know things first, in order to choose not to know them.:dizzy:Philetus said:
Philetus
New member
Lighthouse said:
That rings true. Even now I find it hard to believe that I spent so much time frustrated by reading scripture and knowing that the Armenian position was inadequate to answer the Calvinist error, yet unable to voice a solution. I have found nothing really new in OVT. It has only voiced what I have always known and practiced. Perhaps that is why I see how difficult it is for them to grasp. I think there must be many, many more like us, honestly struggling to think through the issues. That is why I am so thankful for guys like you, godrulz, clete and others who entertain such diverse discussion and maintain balance in the midst of new comers like me and reactionaries like **** whoever.
Thanks.
Philetus
Summary/overview:
Open Theism affirms classical truths about who God is and His ways. Many confuse it with Process Theology or finite godism. Perhaps they are rejecting a straw man caricature of the view. Most anti-Open Theism books wrongly assume that Calvinism is the only possible understanding of biblical Christianity (so they would use the same arguments against all Wesleyan-Arminians), or that Open Theism is Process Theology (Open Theists reject Process Thought even though there is a similarity or two).
Even classical theologians are now recognizing that strong immutability is a platonic (philosophical concept of a perfect being), Augustinian concept that limits God. The biblical revelation is that God is immutable in His character and essential being, yet can and does change in His experiences, relations, emotions, plans, knowledge, etc. (weak immutability). I Samuel 15 has an example of how God changes His mind in some situations, but does not change in other situations. Also see Hezekiah, Moses, and Jonah.
The nature of time vs eternity also requires godly philosophy and logic to resolve. Is God a timeless, 'eternal now' being (Greekish, Platonic, Augustinian= he was influenced by Greek philosophy and admitted trying to reconcile the Bible with the pagan philosophy he loved), or does He experience an endless duration of time (sequence, duration, succession) like any personal being must to think, act, feel (presentism vs eternalism)? (Rev. 1:4, 8; Ps. 90:2). He is from everlasting to everlasting, with no beginning or end. He does not experience simultaneity, or creation and incarnation would be eternal.
There are two motifs in Scripture. Some of the future is partially open/unsettled, while other aspects of the future are closed/settled. Open Theism takes both sets literally, while Calvinism/determinism takes the latter as literal and the former figuratively. We should normally take God's self-revelation literally unless the language is clearly figurative (God does not have wings/feathers). Open Theism is about the type of creation God chose (genuine freedom/relationships vs determinism). It is an open creation, not a fatalistic one.
Sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control. God macro vs micromanages creation. He desired other give-and-take reciprocal love relationships (vs robots). This necessitated giving creatures genuine, significant freedom. This resulted in God chosing to not always get His way (omnipotence means that He can do all that is doable...He cannot create square circles too heavy to lift nor does He always use brute force to govern). God's sovereignty is providential, responsive, creative, not meticulous control.
Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. If the future is open, and it is, then God knows it as such (reality). He correctly distinguishes possible, actual/certain, probable, necessary (modal logic is relevant here). The past, present, and future are fundamentally different. The future is not a thing or place that one can go to or 'see'. The past is fixed and knowable, the present is reality and knowable, the future is not there yet, so to know a nothing is an impossibility. Aspects of the future that are known are brought about by God's omnicompetence/ability, not foreknowledge (try explaining simple foreknowledge without begging the question/circular reasoning; Is. 46; 48). Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical absurdity or contradiction. It is not a deficiency in God's omniscience (cf. not creating square circles is not a limitation on God).
This is one of the bigger debates in evangelical circles. Rather than dismissing Open Theism without understanding it, perhaps someone can dialogue with more substance
Open Theism does not deny any of God's attributes. It simply is a return to a more biblical, coherent understanding of them.
Open Theism affirms classical truths about who God is and His ways. Many confuse it with Process Theology or finite godism. Perhaps they are rejecting a straw man caricature of the view. Most anti-Open Theism books wrongly assume that Calvinism is the only possible understanding of biblical Christianity (so they would use the same arguments against all Wesleyan-Arminians), or that Open Theism is Process Theology (Open Theists reject Process Thought even though there is a similarity or two).
Even classical theologians are now recognizing that strong immutability is a platonic (philosophical concept of a perfect being), Augustinian concept that limits God. The biblical revelation is that God is immutable in His character and essential being, yet can and does change in His experiences, relations, emotions, plans, knowledge, etc. (weak immutability). I Samuel 15 has an example of how God changes His mind in some situations, but does not change in other situations. Also see Hezekiah, Moses, and Jonah.
The nature of time vs eternity also requires godly philosophy and logic to resolve. Is God a timeless, 'eternal now' being (Greekish, Platonic, Augustinian= he was influenced by Greek philosophy and admitted trying to reconcile the Bible with the pagan philosophy he loved), or does He experience an endless duration of time (sequence, duration, succession) like any personal being must to think, act, feel (presentism vs eternalism)? (Rev. 1:4, 8; Ps. 90:2). He is from everlasting to everlasting, with no beginning or end. He does not experience simultaneity, or creation and incarnation would be eternal.
There are two motifs in Scripture. Some of the future is partially open/unsettled, while other aspects of the future are closed/settled. Open Theism takes both sets literally, while Calvinism/determinism takes the latter as literal and the former figuratively. We should normally take God's self-revelation literally unless the language is clearly figurative (God does not have wings/feathers). Open Theism is about the type of creation God chose (genuine freedom/relationships vs determinism). It is an open creation, not a fatalistic one.
Sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control. God macro vs micromanages creation. He desired other give-and-take reciprocal love relationships (vs robots). This necessitated giving creatures genuine, significant freedom. This resulted in God chosing to not always get His way (omnipotence means that He can do all that is doable...He cannot create square circles too heavy to lift nor does He always use brute force to govern). God's sovereignty is providential, responsive, creative, not meticulous control.
Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. If the future is open, and it is, then God knows it as such (reality). He correctly distinguishes possible, actual/certain, probable, necessary (modal logic is relevant here). The past, present, and future are fundamentally different. The future is not a thing or place that one can go to or 'see'. The past is fixed and knowable, the present is reality and knowable, the future is not there yet, so to know a nothing is an impossibility. Aspects of the future that are known are brought about by God's omnicompetence/ability, not foreknowledge (try explaining simple foreknowledge without begging the question/circular reasoning; Is. 46; 48). Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical absurdity or contradiction. It is not a deficiency in God's omniscience (cf. not creating square circles is not a limitation on God).
This is one of the bigger debates in evangelical circles. Rather than dismissing Open Theism without understanding it, perhaps someone can dialogue with more substance
Open Theism does not deny any of God's attributes. It simply is a return to a more biblical, coherent understanding of them.
Chauvin-ist
New member
open theism will land you in hell, warning open theists since 2001
open theism will land you in hell, warning open theists since 2001
The problems with Open theism lie deeper than most critiques suggest.
Open theists like to picture the God of classical Christian theism as a distant, despotic, micromanaging sovereign. The god of Open theism, on the other hand, is ready to enter into new experiences and to become deeply involved in helping us cope as we, with him, face things we simply did not know would happen. They insist that God has knowledge, but not all knowledge, certainly not knowledge of the future acts of free beings. Such Open theistic inferences reveal a deep-seated devotion to Enlightenment categories and narrow unpoetic imaginations.
Ideas have destinations, and one of the consequences of our trying to read the Scriptures without any poetry in our souls will be the eventual destruction of any possibility of ministering to souls. Just imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the downcast—"I know not what the future holds, but I know Who also doesn't know much about it either."
open theism will land you in hell, warning open theists since 2001
godrulz said:
The problems with Open theism lie deeper than most critiques suggest.
Open theists like to picture the God of classical Christian theism as a distant, despotic, micromanaging sovereign. The god of Open theism, on the other hand, is ready to enter into new experiences and to become deeply involved in helping us cope as we, with him, face things we simply did not know would happen. They insist that God has knowledge, but not all knowledge, certainly not knowledge of the future acts of free beings. Such Open theistic inferences reveal a deep-seated devotion to Enlightenment categories and narrow unpoetic imaginations.
Ideas have destinations, and one of the consequences of our trying to read the Scriptures without any poetry in our souls will be the eventual destruction of any possibility of ministering to souls. Just imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the downcast—"I know not what the future holds, but I know Who also doesn't know much about it either."
- Status