ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Mystery said:
That's interesting. Any idea why Philetus brought it to my attention?
Click to expand...
I can hazard a guess in that the clip contains Gen. 50:20 question from White to Sanders wondering what Sanders interpretation was. I suspect that Philetus wants your view.

In the full debate (not contained at the link posted by godrulz) Sanders did not fare so well. White had him wondering aloud why he wrote some things as if he had memory loss. He is definitely not a seasoned debater like White is. Best that he stick to writing books and papers.
 
Last edited:
Mystery

Mystery

New member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I can hazard a guess in that the clip contains Gen. 50:20 question from White to Sanders wondering what Sanders interpretation was. I suspect that Philetus wants your view.
Click to expand...
I would venture to say that it is not all that far off from Romans 8:28

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
Mystery said:
I would venture to say that it is not all that far off from Romans 8:28

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."
Click to expand...

That's the spirit.

Does Rom 8:28 say that “God causes all things” or "that God causes all things to work together for good ..."? Do you see a difference or not? Specifically in reference to Gen 50:20 and "you intended it for evil" but "God intended it for good".


(Actually it was godrulz's link.)
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
Mystery said:
Why are you asking me this? :idunno:

Where have I ever insinuated that God "causes ALL things"?
Click to expand...

I never said you did. I was just trying to get back on topic. I just wondered what your take on the subject was.

Are you just playing hide the piggies with me? You can't be that dense.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Sanders = open theist, author of A God Who Risks (good)
White = Reformed Baptist Pastor, frequent debater, most recently author of The Potter's Freedom (better)
Click to expand...

THE God who risks, not A god who risks :)a theology of providence IVP).

Genesis 50 simply does not have to be seen through a meticulous control model. God's intentions can be circumvented (many go to hell despite his desire to save them) or He can responsively, creatively mitigate free choice evil or bad intentions by His sovereign grace (but He does not always do so...millions of Jews died under Hitler).
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
Mystery said:
Maybe not, but you might be surprised how uninterested I can be. ;)
Click to expand...

You might be surprised how much I agree with what you are saying about our position in Christ. You can't seem get the chip off your shoulder long enough to discuss it. I still think you need to find a better way of saying it. Just MHO. And it surprises me not in the least that your own hobby horse is the only thing that interests you. That's more than obvious.

Knight was right ... your gift is "thread-killer".:D

Philetus
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
Nnooooo. Misery loves company. Don't do it, Len. :help: :sam:

Encore, Bravo.

(if this fails, don't let the door hit you on the way out:baby: )
Click to expand...

It just makes no sense at all trying to have a conversation with him about anything except his own sinlessness and that isn't worth discussing on his terms. I'm done trying. If this doesn't get back to Open Theism (you made a great effort, I tried to follow it) then whatever ... till then I'll just read.
 
Mystery

Mystery

New member
BACK ON TOPIC...


Delmar asked...

I thought I understood that you do not believe the future is entirely settled? Was I wrong. If I was not wrong, why do you believe the future is not entirely settled, since you do not believe in free will?
Click to expand...

In case you missed it...

Mystery said:
That is correct. The future is open.

I do not believe that anyone who is in Adam can have eternal life apart from God's plan of salvation (By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone) either now or in the future.

The will is never entirely free. I do not believe that anyone who has eternal life in Christ can perish, either now or at anytime in the future. I do not believe that God can lie, either now or anytime in the future.

I believe that when we come into this world we are dead to God, and in need of life. The only way for anyone in the future of their life to be saved is by the power of the gospel to everyone who believes it. That is the ONLY choice that a person has regarding salvation. There is no other way to be saved, and so man is not free to be saved any other way.

Once someone has believed the gospel and are now a new creation in Christ, they are no longer free to be otherwise. They have surrendered their will to God. That is, their will concerning who they are. We are no longer free to be anything other than what we are... a child of God.

So can you decide if you are going to have lunch at Taco Bell or Wendy's, of course you can, the future is wide open. But, it is closed concerning our identity, just as God's identity is closed, and both of us are free in the future to do those things that are available to us within the parameters of our identities.
Click to expand...
 
A

atdcross

New member
Is apsotasy consistent with the open view?

Is apsotasy consistent with the open view?

Mystery said:
The future is open.

The will is never entirely free. I do not believe that anyone who has eternal life in Christ can perish, either now or at anytime in the future...Once someone has believed the gospel and are now a new creation in Christ, they are no longer free to be otherwise.
Click to expand...
The Bible seems to affirm the possibility of apostasy by genuine believers, e.g. Hb 2:1-3.

They have surrendered their will to God. That is, their will concerning who they are. We are no longer free to be anything other than what we are... a child of God.
Click to expand...
It does not seem that a will surrendered to God necessarily excludes the possibility of apostasy, i.e. the forfeiting of salvation. The Bible seems to affirm the possibility for a genuine believer to revert and become an unbeliever once again. Why not? I do not think freedom of the will excludes the choice by a genuine believer to remain in or choose to fall away from the faith and, consequently, forfeit salvation.

...the future is wide open. But, it is closed concerning our identity, just as God's identity is closed, and both of us are free in the future to do those things that are available to us within the parameters of our identities.
Click to expand...
A believer's identity is not irreversible. A believer is "kept safe by the power of God" within the context of his faith; that is, God saves believers. A believer can "reverse" his identity by choosing to cease believing and, thereby, no longer be a believer with all that concept entails with respect to salvation (2 Pt 1:10-11; 2:20-22).

The purpose of God to save believers is closed. Which ones will believe and remain in the faith so as to finally obtain salvation in all its fullness is an open (Mt 24:13; Hb 4:1) .

That a believer can choose to no longer believe is not inconsistent with the "open view", is it? In what way?

Nor does the possibility of apostasy suggest that God is powerless or less than "almighty", or, if it does, how?
Click to expand...
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A great translation for Rom 8:28 But we know that [the Spirit] works together in all respects with those who love God for good.
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
That dog in your avatar is kind of disgusting. Is that the work of Michael Vick?
Click to expand...
Indeed. I have to put Delmar on ignore, not because I don't want to see what he has to say, but because the avatar is too painful to look at. I have a dog that is over 15 years old and nearing the end. I have enough pain for now.


EDIT: Curses! Cannot place an admin on ignore! Come on, Delmar! What is the point you are making with that you think no one gets?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top