ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[DFT_Dave]

May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance.

You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever. Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.

Don't strain my little quip, my meaning is simple and clear.

I want to deal with "total deparvity", this house of cards stands or falls with it's first premise, without the "T" there is no "TULIP". Biblical theology of salvation is built on the Biblical revelation that man is created "tripartite" not a "duality", then all the verses about what we call "free will" make sense, but I will admit, if man were a "duality", we would have a problem.

I Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

We make decisions in our "soul" not in our "spirit". Our spirits are "dead" but our ability to understand the gospel is in our "mind" which is part of our soul. If our "mind", "emotions", and our "will" are part of our "spirit" then being spiritually dead would mean we would not be able to think, act, or feel anything.

--Dave

 

[Nang]

Don't strain my little quip, my meaning is simple and clear.

I want to deal with "total deparvity", this house of cards stands or falls with it's first premise, without the "T" there is no "TULIP".

This is absolutely correct, but is this the thread to delve into the doctrine of "Total Depravity?" I do not think so.

If you genuinely want to confront this doctrine, why not start a new thread, apart from discussion of the Open View?

Biblical theology of salvation is built on the Biblical revelation that man is created "tripartite" not a "duality",

This philosophical conclusion on your part is highly debatable, Scripturally and theologically.

Nang

 

[Clete]

That helps. Thanks!

Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?

Dave's response to this was brilliant and it was entirely on target and blew the whole argument right out of the water.

My response to this would be to point out the Calvinist's amazing ability to compartmentalize their theology to the point that such errors of logic can take place. It is remarkable to me how the Calvinist just forgets about exhaustive predestination/sovereignty when discussing total depravity and any number of other doctrines.

In your hypothetical you have to be consistent and say that the one acting on the incapacitated person's behalf is the same person who caused the incapacitation in the first place and then after having caused the incapacitation offered a choice that he knew the person was incapable of making and so then "graciously" made it for them. It would be like a man setting your house on fire and then once you've passed out from heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation asking you whether or not you'd like for him to put the flames out and rescue you, and then onced he reaches down and rocked your head up and down indicating a "Yes, please save me!", he does so and afterwards says, "Aren't I gracious for having saved you from the flames?!"
It's sort of sick, don't you think?

Thanks for elaborating, Clete. Given that it is simple for a child to understand please explain to me in childlike simple terms.

Sarcasm?
Who are you and what have you done with AMR?!

"If we choose life" or "if we choose death" means you have actually made a volitional choice. Right? You thought to yourself, "here are my two options, A (life) and B (death), and I really like option A and so I choose option A." Am I correct? How is it then that you claim in the post "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Yet you have again stated above "we choose" life or death. How then does that "choosing" work?

How many different analogies do you want me to give? I've given two already which you've ignored; I'll give a third...

Let's say there are some men on one side of a huge chasm and let's say that it's the "wrong" side. The men have no natural resources, no engineering skills not that either would help because none of them have ever even conceived of the idea of a bridge anyway and so have no way to get to the other side by their own efforts. Let's further suppose that the king of the land on the other side sees the men's predicament and has not only the skills and the resources to build a bridge but has the desire and ability to do so. It's expensive but the lives of the men on the other side is worth it to him so he builds the bridge. He then goes to the men and says if you stay here you will die! PLEASE cross the bridge I've provided at great personal cost to myself and go over to the other side and live!

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.​

Would the men who took the king's offer be able to brag about how they saved themselves? Not rationally they wouldn't! Once the bridge was made the king could have prevented them all from crossing had he decided to do so and so even their crossing was at the pleasure of the king who built it.

Does that answer your question?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is absolutely correct, but is this the thread to delve into the doctrine of "Total Depravity?" I do not think so.

If you genuinely want to confront this doctrine, why not start a new thread, apart from discussion of the Open View?

This philosophical conclusion on your part is highly debatable, Scripturally and theologically.

Nang

Yes, this needs debate, and I like your response, but could we both agree as to what is a true contradiction. I have already granted that I would have to rethink the coherence of my theology if man were a duality, and that would affect my OV. The depravity issue has become a part of this thread already and I sometimes think there are too many threads, too shallow. We all learn more by digging more deeply. There are three posts I have made that have not received a single challenge even from you, and I would rather be challenged then complemented, but I am grateful for complements and I don't give enough of them. You are always in the "game" and have made some good "plays" but you have not "slam dunked" OV! I won't waste my time addressing you if can't work out your thoughts with more finesse, sophistication, and humility, I think you are capable.

 

[Nang]

Dave's response to this was brilliant and it was entirely on target and blew the whole argument right out of the water.

No it wasn't and no, it didn't.

It just opened up a diverging theological topic that should be discussed on its own.


The rest of your (theologically ignorant) post, AMR can and will easily answer.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance.

You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever. Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.

A Calvinist simply can't imply anything about all persons except total depravity. Once that concept is bought into, its all down hill. Everything else must be warped to fit.

You keep re-defining and dispensing grace in every particular situation. Situational grace? I don't think so. Pure grace is always sufficient; never to much - never to little. What difference does anyone's human incapacities or capacities make? To the Calvinists they are dead anyway. Only the non Calvinist can fully trust God to do the right thing in ALL situations.

Only non Calvinists and can talk about universal grace. God took the initiative and and the risk implied by grace and laid the sin of the entire world upon Himself. That is pure grace. Through that self sacrifice, God issues an invitation to whosoerver will. That too is pure grace. God calls, not coerces, every human being to heed His call through the Spirit. God enables every sinner with with sufficient grace (not irresistible) to respond OF HIS/HER OWN VOLITION! That too is pure grace. God even grants sufficient grace to reject His offer. That too is grace. And that leaves the future open to contingencies of human will. One might even say it is by grace that God leaves the future open to a certain degree. Grace sufficient to choose.

(Nang obviously doesn't understand that this goes to the very heart of the issue between the two views.)

You can't even entertain the concept of "pure' (universal) grace for all. You have to have TWO definitions: one for the elected damned and one for the elected saved.

The Open Theists simply trusts God to do the right thing. God is faithful both to Himself and His creation, always consistent in character and action, interactive by grace and no respecter of persons.


___________________
Are you going to respond to my earlier post to you? You know the one almost as long as the one it refers to?

 

[Philetus]

No it wasn't and no, it didn't.

It just opened up a diverging theological topic that should be discussed on its own.

Nang

Yes it was and yes it did!

:thumb: Dave!

The future is open precisely because God grants ALL (everyone) sufficient grace to actually choose to accept or reject HIS offer of salvation.​

 

[patman]

That was a lot of interesting math. How about something simpler.

In 458 BC King Artaxerxes I tells Ezra to go to Jerusalem (carrying a letter, see Ez. 7) commanding him to re-establish the law there--build a spiritual city of Jerusalem. In AD 33, Christ is crucified and His kingdom established forever. Between the two dates are 490 years, the seventy weeks. Tidy. Works for me.

To do that you have ignore half of the events that are supposed to happen... the 62 and 7 weeks were supposed to be the crucifixion, not the 70 weeks. and the end was supposed to be the at the 70 weeks.

Not to mention Christ's own depiction of when the end was to come.

I would like to see you address my entire point to sauptopaul..

 

[patman]

So, why can't God make a covenant for as long as it 'will' last or for whatever effect He deigns in foreknowledge without being considered a lie?

Hey Lon,

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Could you re-word it?

Thanks

 

[Nang]

Yes, this needs debate, and I like your response,

Super!

but could we both agree as to what is a true contradiction.

Not without getting into specifics, friend.

I have already granted that I would have to rethink the coherence of my theology if man were a duality, and that would affect my OV.

I saw a mention of this, but forgive me for what I might have missed prior to only recently becoming a contributing member of this site.

The depravity issue has become a part of this thread already and I sometimes think there are too many threads, too shallow.

So you think it would be appropriate to deviate from the OP regarding the teaching of OVT, to discuss the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity?

We all learn more by digging more deeply.

Hopefully . . .but all within one thread, supposedly devoted to explanation and apologetics of the OVT view?

There are three posts I have made that have not received a single challenge even from you,

Well, only because I considered them off topic. What do you want to cause . . .my ban within days of entering discussion? I know well the protocol of these sites, and the excuses opposing administrators can use, to silence those who do not conform to their views.

and I would rather be challenged then complemented, but I am grateful for complements and I don't give enough of them. You are always in the "game" and have made some good "plays" but you have not "slam dunked" OV!

In my humble opinion, I am not required to "slam dunk" the OVT. My duty, before God, is to simply witness to the truth of the Holy Scriptures. That is as far as I go.

The rest of the "slam-dunking" is up to Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit, who is commissioned to convict the world of righteousness and of judgment. (John 16:8)

Nang

 

[patman]

Oh, please. Nehemiah 9:8 clearly says God kept His word. Just because the prophecy was not totally fulfilled in Joshua's day, does not mean God did not give Israel victory over the inhabitants of the land, as promised. Nor, does it mean the prophecy was not eventually fuffilled.

Please......

God did give them the land, we don't debate that. We debate that he didn't also utterly drive them out.

That's just another example of how you don't understand what is going on, yet you made your conclusion anyway.:doh:

 

[Nang]

Only non Calvinists and can talk about universal grace. God took the initiative and and the risk implied by grace and laid the sin of the entire world upon Himself. That is pure grace. Through that self sacrifice, God issues an invitation to whosoerver will. That too is pure grace. God calls, not coerces, every human being to heed His call through the Spirit. God enables every sinner with with sufficient grace (not irresistible) to respond OF HIS/HER OWN VOLITION! That too is pure grace. God even grants sufficient grace to reject His offer. That too is grace. And that leaves the future open to contingencies of human will. One might even say it is by grace that God leaves the future open to a certain degree. Grace sufficient to choose.

(Nang obviously doesn't understand that this goes to the very heart of the issue between the two views.)

Nang does not believe in "common grace." Nang and her Christian husband have fought a spiritual and theological battle against the fallacious teaching of a supposed "common grace" for years.

And Nang knows first-hand, this very subject is the root of most debate, error, and demonic heresy found within Christendom.

 

[Nang]

Please......

God did give them the land, we don't debate that. We debate that he didn't also utterly drive them out.

That's just another example of how you don't understand what is going on, yet you made your conclusion anyway.:doh:

Dear Patman,

Thank you for sharing your dismissal of Nehemiah 9:8.

I will take it into consideration of your overall viewpoint.

Sincerely,
Nang

 

[Philetus]

Nang does not believe in "common grace." Nang and her Christian husband have fought a spiritual and theological battle against the fallacious teaching of a supposed "common grace" for years.

And Nang knows first-hand, this very subject is the root of most debate, error, and demonic heresy found within Christendom.

I didn't say that Nang doesn't understand her own position.

But one would think that such an 'heretical' subject presented as a challenge to her view would warrant more than a plea to dash off to another thread.

I think it does more than touch a nerve. It attacks your whole system. So address it if it is the root of most debate.

Either God has granted every human being sufficient grace to choose or He hasn't. I've stated my position and my reasons for rejecting yours. Address the posts.

 

[Nang]

I didn't say that Nang doesn't understand her own position.

But one would think that such an 'heretical' subject presented as a challenge to her view would warrant more than a plea to dash off to another thread.

Is there something wrong with discussing serious matters in a thread of their own?

I think it does more than touch a nerve. It attacks your whole system. So address it if it is the root of most debate.

Oh, pooh. I would love to discuss Total Depravity, for indeed it is the foundation of my beliefs. I just do not think discussing such an important doctrine on this (infamous) thread is the place.

If you want to consider that as a cop-out, you are being silly.

Start new threads according to subject.

Ask me about Total Depravity.

Ask me about "common grace."

Give these important doctrines their own space and thread title. (For there is no basis to associate them with Open View Theology.)

It is easy to start a new thread. And the proper thing to do.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why would it be so bad if God allowed us to make the choice to accept God's gift of salvation?

After all, it isn't as if we did any of the work on the cross, yet God allows us to choose to accept or reject that work on the cross. I don't believe that making a choice is equal to performing the work that follows when that choice is made.

Apparently God wanted it this way. God wanted to have a two way relationship with His creation. Personally I think that is the power of the gospel.

Thank you for your responses, Knight! This is helpful.

If a person can choose, then that person can reject the "gift". I believe your answer would be "yes, that is correct." Why then is Christ's sacrifice not worthy in and of itself? Did Christ not pay the full measure of obedience to the law demanded by God? I believe He did and I believe you do as well. Then why is it that those that volitionally "choose" to reject this payment are then punished eternally? In effect, God punishes Christ and then punishes the person who does not choose wisely. This seems to diminish the work of Christ, implying that His atonement was necessary, but not sufficient.

You may counter, "Then what is the alternative? Should everyone be saved then?" But we know that the scriptures clearly teach that not all will "choose" wisely. So this cannot be the right answer or we have a contradictory bible. The only other alternative counter is that God chooses and those chosen are regenerated (quickened, made alive, from their spiritual death in sin) and sanctified. The scriptures are not contradictory on this point, so this must be seen as a proper understanding, in light of the sinfulness of the lost, if a person is intellectually honest with themselves.

My other observation is that others, and possibly yourself, believe that a person can actually make this choice, yet the lost are dead in their sins, not able to discern spiritual things, seeking only to sin more or sin less, yet never seeking God. How then can these lost persons "choose" to seek God unless God quickens them in the first place?

I raised this line of questioning earlier as a response to one of my posts describing the Arminian perspective on salvation. A response I received argued that open theism is not Arminianism. I maintain, that if a person believes that the lost possess some spiritual goodness that makes them able to choose God or not choose God, then that is part and parcel an Arminian doctrine.

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman View Post
Please......

God did give them the land, we don't debate that. We debate that he didn't also utterly drive them out.

That's just another example of how you don't understand what is going on, yet you made your conclusion anyway.

Dear Patman,

Thank you for sharing your dismissal of Nehemiah 9:8.

I will take it into consideration of your overall viewpoint.

Sincerely,
Nang

I think you both have a good point. Nang, I have no problem with your stance that God sufficiently or eventually fulfilled His word. But that is because I tend to be more narrative in my reading of scripture. I think that most Open Theists are or eventually become so. We still have that 'definitive' answer from God that Knight posted to deal with and that patman is grappling with. And rightly so.

Further, as important as it is, I'm not convinced that the issue of prophecy is the key to understanding the Open View. I think it is more of a nitpicking at things we can't fully grasp about the way God thinks than either view admits.

 

[Philetus]

Is there something wrong with discussing serious matters in a thread of their own?



Oh, pooh. I would love to discuss Total Depravity, for indeed it is the foundation of my beliefs. I just do not think discussing such an important doctrine on this (infamous) thread is the place.

If you want to consider that as a cop-out, you are being silly.

Start new threads according to subject.

Ask me about Total Depravity.

Ask me about "common grace."

Give these important doctrines their own space and thread title. (For there is no basis to associate them with Open View Theology.)

It is easy to start a new thread. And the proper thing to do.

Nang

Total Depravity and the denial of universal grace is the root of your view that the future is totally settled. You just admitted as much. Defend it ... here and now. Otherwise it is nothing more than a cop-out as you said.

 

[Philetus]

It’s called prevenient, common, universal, pure grace, AMR.

It precedes, comes in advance of something else: our response! It is a gift from a living dynamic God to all spiritually dead men. In and of itself it doesn’t save. Salvation requires faith. Faith comes through hearing and hearing also depends on grace. Grace is God’s great initiative to save all. Grace also is foundational to God’s patience and persistence. Grace not only precedes but also follows our decision. It is by grace through faith that we are saved. And it is by grace that believers are sustained. Depravity isn’t inability. Graciously God in Christ provides EVERYTHING we need to respond and live.

 

[Nang]

It’s called prevenient, common, universal, pure grace, AMR.

It precedes, comes in advance of something else: our response! It is a gift from a living dynamic God to all spiritually dead men. In and of itself it doesn’t save.

I have asked many persons this question, but have never, ever, received answer.

Where does Scripture teach a universal, "prevenient" grace, that is not efficacious?

Nang