ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
That is because it is a bad question shaped by a bad theology not scripture. It is based on totally depravity which the Calvinists equates with total inability. The scriptural response is pure, total, all encompassing grace, God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
Efficacious: Able to effect something; having the power to produce the desired result, (especially a cure or an improvement in somebody’s physical condition).
Grace is able to affect, has the power to produce, the desired result because God is 100% satisfied with Christ’s atonement for all sin and offers that atonement to whosoever will. In that sense it is completely efficacious. Rejection of the offer doesn’t minimize the efficaciousness of grace. It isn't by grace through nothing. It is by grace through faith.
“The most efficacious and the most immediate means which the Canadians have to protect themselves against the fury of their enemies, is to attack...” doesn’t guarantee that the Canadians will be successful in either their defense or their offense. (sorry, godrulz. just an illustration from the word source.)
Can one grieve the Holy Spirit? Is the work of the Spirit therefore 'not efficacious'? Does it always produce the desired result or does it lack the power to do so? Is any work of the Holy Spirit irresistible, whether by 'believers' or 'un-believers'?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete, I believe you overlooked my response to Dave’s very incorrect extrapolation of my question. No matter.
I appreciate the supposed dilemma some see with Calvinism’s doctrine that God exhaustively knows all things and His sovereignty extends to “every single molecule” in the universe. Not one given to equivocation let me be clear about this. I believe that all actions of persons, including their sinful actions, occur only with God’s permission. God permits, willingly, not unwillingly, all that that comes to pass, including mankind’s actions and ultimate destiny.
In some sense, this all must be in accordance with what God has desired and purposed. That some problems arise in this because we in our present level of knowledge are incapable of fully solving is not a sufficient ground for rejecting what our plain dictates of reasoning and the Scriptures affirm to be true. God knows the end from the beginning and the means to be used in attaining that end.
At this point I can hear the howls in the TOL aisles. “God is a despot!” Instead of emotionalism, let’s think more about this. While God’s sovereignty is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power, instead that power is coupled with God’s infinite wisdom, love, and holiness. When the doctrine is understood properly, it is reassuring and comforting. Would we prefer to have our affairs in the infinite power, love, and holiness of God’s hands or have our lives left to chance, fate, irrevocable natural law, or our own short-sighted and perverted selves? Persons who reject God's sovereignty should consider what alternatives they have left.
The idea which assumes that the serious intentions of God in some way and in some cases can at least be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast with the Biblical idea of His immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all the weaknesses of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a lack of power, or a lack of wisdom; but since God is unlimited In these and all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise, and to Him the causes for change have no existence. To suppose that God’s plans fail and that He strives to no effect, is to reduce God to the level of His creatures.
Scriptures supporting the Sovereignty of God:
Daniel 4:35: He doeth according to His will In the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?
Jeremiah 32:17: Ah Lord Jehovah! behold thou hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by thine outstretched arm; and there is nothing too hard for thee.
Matthew 28:18: All authority bath been given unto me (Christ) in heaven and on earth. Ephesians 1:22: And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.
Ephesians 1:11: In whom we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will.
Isaiah 14:24, 27: Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying, surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass . . . . For Jehovah of hosts hath purposed, and who shall annul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
Isaiah 46:9, 10, 11: Remember the former things of old; for I am God. and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure . . . . yea, I have spoken; I will also bring It to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it.
Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for Jehovah?
Job 42:2: I know that thou canst do all things, And that no purpose of thine can be restrained. Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens. He hath done whatsoever He pleased.
Psalm 135:6: Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath He done. In heaven, in earth, in the seas,
and in all deeps.
Isaiah 55:11: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Romans 9:20, 21: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
But what of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, some will ask? We must not confuse foreknowledge with foreordination. The former presupposes the latter, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. The actions of free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that I have determined already, and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it. "
Since God's foreknowledge is complete, God knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since God knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is clear that both the saved and the lost fulfill God’s plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, God could at least refrain from creating the lost. I conclude, then, that the Christian doctrine of the foreknowledge of God also proves His predestination. Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass. The whole difficulty lies in the acts of free agents being certain; yet certainty is required for foreknowledge as well as for foreordination. The Arminian and related groups’ arguments, if they were valid, would disprove both foreknowledge and foreordination. And since they prove too much I must conclude that they prove nothing at all.
So is God the author of sin? God leaves a person to his own nature, knowing that the person will sin. But the motive which God has in permitting it and the motive which man has in committing it are radically different. Many are deceived in these issues because they fail to consider that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly. Furthermore, every person's conscience after he has committed a sin tells him that he alone is responsible and that he need not have committed it if he had not voluntarily chosen to do so. God never permits sin unless, through His secret and overruling providence, He is able to exert a directing influence on the minds of the wicked so that good is made to result from their intended evil. But while God does overrule the sinful affections of person for the accomplishment of His own purposes, He nevertheless punishes them for their sin and makes them to stand condemned in their own consciences. As Tyler stated, "A ruler may forbid treason; but his command does not oblige him to do all in his power to prevent disobedience to it. It may promote the good of his kingdom to suffer the treason to be committed, and the traitor to be punished according to law. That in view of this resulting good he chooses not to prevent the treason, does not imply any contradiction or opposition of it in the monarch."
Then what of Adam’s fall in Eden?
God did not compel man to fall. God simply withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, a grace He was under no obligation to bestow. In respect to himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God it was certain that he would fall. Adam acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty. The Jews, so far as their own free agency was concerned, might have broken Christ's bones; yet in reality it was not possible for them to have done so, for it was written, "A bone of Him shall not be broken," Ps. 34:20; John 19:36. God's decree does not take away man's liberty; and in the fall Adam freely exercised the natural emotions of his will.
The reason for the fall was that "God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that He might have mercy on all," Rom. 11:32; and again, "We ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead," II Cor. 1:9. Can this not be more plain? For God’s perfectly wise reasons, He was pleased to permit Adam and Eve to be tempted and to fall, and then to overrule their sin for His own glory. Yet this permission and overruling of sin does not make Him the author of it. God has permitted the fall in order to show what free will would do; and then, by overruling it, He has shown what the blessings of His grace and the judgments of His justice can do.
My apologies. I definitely was not being sarcastic. I only wanted a directly simple answer, e.g., “Yes I believe I possess the spiritual ability to choose life or death.”, or “I in no way am able to choose life or death”, etc.
The Arminian and open theist limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons, while the Arminian nd open theist limits the power of it, for they say that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist the atonement is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian the atonement is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian and open theist places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I've never heard anyone here say that God isn't sovereign. Most non-Calvinists take God to be sovereign in that He is the standard of morality, and will ultimately judge the world. That's what sovereign normally means. Calvinists have taken this to an extreme, saying that God's sovereignty means that He has meticulous control over every aspect of the universe, including the decisions His creation makes.
So, once again, Mr. Religion seems to specialize in burning straw men, rather than engaging either scripture or the arguments of his opponents.
Muz
So, once again, Mr. Religion seems to specialize in burning straw men, rather than engaging either scripture or the arguments of his opponents.
Muz
elected4ever
New member
God is not a standard of morality, Mus. God is righteous. Morality is what man received when he ate the fruit in the garden.
themuzicman
Well-known member
God commanded Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the TKGE. That's a standard of morality.
Muz
God's being is the basis for absolutes and standards. Without God, relativism rules.
AMR,
I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN!!!
You simply cannot use your arguments against the Arminian to any effect against my theology. I do not limit the power of the cross, IN ANY WAY!!! The power of the cross, actually the blood shed there, is of INFINITE VALUE AND POWER TO SAVE!!!!
Indeed, its power to save derives directly from its infinite value for it is its value that does the saving!!!
Furthermore, so what if I did limit it? If I do limit it, which you will no doubt continue to insist, then I do so only so much as the Bible itself does. The Bible does not say that you will believe if Christ's blood was shed for you, it teaches that the blood of Christ has been shed for you and you will be save by that very blood IF you believe!
We are not saved by faith, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. Thus it is not my belief that saves me but the shed blood of Christ which He willingly shed on the cross for all man kind, as it is written...
I would have liked to have responded more thoroughly but I'm just too short on time. If there is something specific you would like me to address that I did not, just let me know and I'll hit it on my next post.
Resting in Him,
Clete
This is not Calvinist doctrine but your distancing yourself from the traditional view doesn't help you for everything that happens it permitted or else it wouldn't happen at all. God permits us to act of our own accord just as He permits asteroids to collide and the rings of Saturn to persist in their course. Everything that exists does so because God hasn't destroyed it and so your position is meaningless. Of course God hasn't detroyed the world because we're still here! :duh: Allowing something to happen is a far cry different that causing it to happen or making it such that it cannot be otherwise, which seems to essentially be your position and so your dilemma remains. God is still the hero arsonist who saves us from the house that he burned to the ground.
"some problems"? I think direct contradiction is more than just a "problem" to be solved. Besides who's rejecting "what our plain dictates of reasoning and the Scriptures affirm to be true" anyway? My entire argument has been based on both the presentation of sound reason and lots and lots of Scripture all of which you've ignored almost entirely. You've thrown in a list of proof texts which do not say what you are reading into them and when time permits I will respond to each of them but for now let me just point out that the Bible does not say that God KNOWS the end from the beginning but that He DECLARES the end from the beginning and in context it is referring to specific events which He prophecies will happen, not every event that ever happens.
This is flatly not true AMR! Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN!!!
You simply cannot use your arguments against the Arminian to any effect against my theology. I do not limit the power of the cross, IN ANY WAY!!! The power of the cross, actually the blood shed there, is of INFINITE VALUE AND POWER TO SAVE!!!!
Indeed, its power to save derives directly from its infinite value for it is its value that does the saving!!!
Furthermore, so what if I did limit it? If I do limit it, which you will no doubt continue to insist, then I do so only so much as the Bible itself does. The Bible does not say that you will believe if Christ's blood was shed for you, it teaches that the blood of Christ has been shed for you and you will be save by that very blood IF you believe!
We are not saved by faith, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. Thus it is not my belief that saves me but the shed blood of Christ which He willingly shed on the cross for all man kind, as it is written...
John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
I would have liked to have responded more thoroughly but I'm just too short on time. If there is something specific you would like me to address that I did not, just let me know and I'll hit it on my next post.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
The law is a basis of absolutes and standards and man changes them on a whelm. Morals are mans perception of good and evil. That is what man took upon himself in the garden. Righteousness is absolute.
God's moral Law is based on His being and character. It is not based on His whim (lex rex, not rex lex).
elected4ever
New member
The bases of God's law was His righteous character. It was given to show that the morality of man is inferior to the righteousness of God. The law did not define God. God defined the law. The law defined God's expectations of man and demonstrated that man could not keep even the the simplest of instruction.
godrulz and e4e,
You two are seriously off topic. If you want to wrestle with the specific issue of Euthyphro's dilemma outside the context of how it relates to Open Theism, please start another thread. The first iteration of this thread got to be forever long partly because people didn't really feel the need to stay on topic. Let's not make the same mistake twice, okay?
Thanks!
You two are seriously off topic. If you want to wrestle with the specific issue of Euthyphro's dilemma outside the context of how it relates to Open Theism, please start another thread. The first iteration of this thread got to be forever long partly because people didn't really feel the need to stay on topic. Let's not make the same mistake twice, okay?
Thanks!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Hello Knight,
Not avoiding your question, but I've decided to stay out of this debate for the
time being...I realize now that I need more study & thought about this topic
before I sound off.
thanks
Darn!
And just when I was on the verge of getting you to see the light! :idea:
All kidding aside I think all dispensationalists should be open theists. Open Theism is the only theology that can correctly explain God changing His plan and setting aside Israel and grafting in the gentiles. All of this makes God look a bit out of His mind if He planned it this way on purpose.
I am going on a vacation for 12 days maybe we can talk more when I get back?
themuzicman
Well-known member
This is what worries me about Open Theism. One should not adopt a particular view of God and creation because it helps you fix what is otherwise a broken ecclesiology.
Muz
Muz
Darn!
And just when I was on the verge of getting you to see the light! :idea:
All kidding aside I think all dispensationalists should be open theists. Open Theism is the only theology that can correctly explain God changing His plan and setting aside Israel and grafting in the gentiles. All of this makes God look a bit out of His mind if He planned it this way on purpose.
I am going on a vacation for 12 days maybe we can talk more when I get back?
I think many non-dispensationalists recognize this from Rom. 9-11; Acts, etc. There are also a variety of dispensational views with varying details. Before I was an Open Theist, I could concur with this as a simple Acts 2 dispensationalist.
Who is "adopting" anything? I am simply saying the two theologies work together brilliantly to paint a very coherent, logical, biblically accurate picture of God's word.
If it's right.... it's right!
Most Open Theists are not dispensationalists necessarily (especially not Mid-Acts). OT is not primarily about ecclesiology, but Knight does have a point (God changing His mind is an OT theme vs exhaustive foreknowledge).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Darn!
And just when I was on the verge of getting you to see the light! :idea:
All kidding aside I think all dispensationalists should be open theists. Open Theism is the only theology that can correctly explain God changing His plan and setting aside Israel and grafting in the gentiles. All of this makes God look a bit out of His mind if He planned it this way on purpose.
I am going on a vacation for 12 days maybe we can talk more when I get back?
This is the point I still have a problem with:
I have read the syllogism, but I still don't understand how God knowing what I will
decide to do tomorrow means that I don't have a choice of what to do tomorrow.
I'll keep reading the posts and thinking...
have a nice vacation
The fix isn't the reason its the result. If you find a correct theology one would expect for it to solve all sorts of what otherwise might have seemed to be unrelated problems. The more problems that a system easily fixes without having set out to do so, the more credibility the system should have. Buddhists would call it the Zen factor, I call it eloquence, others might refer to the principle as something else but by whatever name a rose is still a rose. And Open Theism mixed with Dispensationalism (Acts 9 Dispensationalism in particular) makes for one incredibly sweet smelling and dazzlingly beautiful rose.
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status