ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Evoken]

Why did Delmar decide to use such an avatar?

 

[Nang]

Don't you recognize my dog?

Delmar!

Please take away that avatar . . .I can't bear it.

Please . . .

Nang

 

[Delmar]

Delmar!

Please take away that avatar . . .I can't bear it.

Please . . .

Nang

Ok

 

[Nang]

Ok

God bless you, and I thank you!

:kiss:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ok

Hooray! Thanks.

 

[godrulz]

Guess I lost the bet on Mystery making it 100 days.

What a rip off. Now who are we going to bang heads with?

 

[Clete]

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.

I'm no Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination but looking at the Strong's concordance gives me no indication that such a translation would be accurate. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

 

[godrulz]

The future is open.

The Bible seems to affirm the possibility of apostasy by genuine believers, e.g. Hb 2:1-3.

[
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?[/COLOR]

Prominent Open Theist, John Sanders, also argues against unconditional eternal security/OSAS. As a free will theism like Arminianism, conditional eternal security makes more sense. OSAS makes more sense to me in deterministic/TULIP Calvinism.

The problem here is that many TOL Open Theists also believe in Mid-Acts dispensationalism. This view has two NT gospels where the circumcision gospel were not necessarily secure and could apostasize, but the uncircumcision/Pauline/Gentile gospel could not fall away.

It is not germane to OT to believe in OSAS. In fact, most academic Open Theists probably reject it based on genuine, libertarian free will, even after conversion. Boyd and others have speculated on why we will not fall away or sin in heaven, despite free will. This is controversial and an issue in all views.

Personally, I also see the stern warnings about the possibility of falling away/apostasy. I don't think we can dispensationalize them away. I also affirm the security of the believer. The issue, then, is whether a believer can revert to unbelief, even as unbelievers can become believers. Unless we are sock-puppet robots, I do not see why this would not be true.

Just as the saving power and grace of God can be resisted before conversion (universalism is not true), so the keeping grace and power of God can be rejected after conversion.

 

[Nang]

Just as the saving power and grace of God can be resisted before conversion (universalism is not true), so the keeping grace and power of God can be rejected after conversion.

How sad . . .

Salvation is all up to you, then, isn't it?

You have to find the way to heaven, choose to go along with it, and then you have to maintain it.

So you are left with no assurance that you will ever see glory! You do not base your salvation on God's promises, at all, but only on yourself and your actions.

Very sad . . .

Nang

 

[Clete]

Prominent Open Theist, John Sanders, also argues against unconditional eternal security/OSAS. As a free will theism like Arminianism, conditional eternal security makes more sense. OSAS makes more sense to me in deterministic/TULIP Calvinism.

The problem here is that many TOL Open Theists also believe in Mid-Acts dispensationalism. This view has two NT gospels where the circumcision gospel were not necessarily secure and could apostasize, but the uncircumcision/Pauline/Gentile gospel could not fall away.

It is not germane to OT to believe in OSAS. In fact, most academic Open Theists probably reject it based on genuine, libertarian free will, even after conversion. Boyd and others have speculated on why we will not fall away or sin in heaven, despite free will. This is controversial and an issue in all views.

Personally, I also see the stern warnings about the possibility of falling away/apostasy. I don't think we can dispensationalize them away. I also affirm the security of the believer. The issue, then, is whether a believer can revert to unbelief, even as unbelievers can become believers. Unless we are sock-puppet robots, I do not see why this would not be true.

Just as the saving power and grace of God can be resisted before conversion (universalism is not true), so the keeping grace and power of God can be rejected after conversion.

There is no resolution to this debate (and several others) outside of the Mid-Acts Dispensational paradigm. You, Mystery and John Sanders can lob proof-texts back and forth with Charles Stanley and the rest of the Baptists (not to mention the Calvinists) all day long and twice as much on Sundays from now till the cows come home and nothing will be resolved.

Little else can be said without starting a new thread on Dispensationalism.
(Its so nice having no problem texts concerning such issues! ).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

How sad . . .

Salvation is all up to you, then, isn't it?

You have to find the way to heaven, choose to go along with it, and then you have to maintain it.

So you are left with no assurance that you will ever see glory! You do not base your salvation on God's promises, at all, but only on yourself and your actions.

Very sad . . .

Nang

Nice straw man caricture, the antithesis of what I believe and evidence that you do not understand the difference between the grounds (reason for/by which we are saved) and the conditions (not without which) of salvation.

Jude 24-25 Believers are secure in Christ! See, I can proof text too.

Hebrews 6:4-6 Apostates are not in Christ.

I Jn. 5:11-13 Those in Christ have eternal life; those who reject Christ do not have eternal life.

 

[godrulz]

There is no resolution to this debate (and several others) outside of the Mid-Acts Dispensational paradigm. You, Mystery and John Sanders can lob proof-texts back and forth with Charles Stanley and the rest of the Baptists (not to mention the Calvinists) all day long and twice as much on Sundays from now till the cows come home and nothing will be resolved.

Little else can be said without starting a new thread on Dispensationalism.
(Its so nice having no problem texts concerning such issues! ).

Resting in Him,
Clete

MAD is one possible resolution, but not the only one (nor the best one). I still maintain that a sound hermeneutic (literal, historical-cultural, grammatical-syntactical, contextual-theological) can resolve your problem texts/doctrines without a preconceived dispensational framework.

Moving right along (before I get banned for the first time)...:dog:

 

[Nang]

Nice straw man caricture, the antithesis of what I believe

I present no "straw man." I simply express my sadness regarding your words:

"The issue, then, is whether a believer can revert to unbelief, even as unbelievers can become believers. Unless we are sock-puppet robots, I do not see why this would not be true.

Just as the saving power and grace of God can be resisted before conversion (universalism is not true), so the keeping grace and power of God can be rejected after conversion."

It is obvious you believe God's will can be resisted and rejected by the will of man. This reveals you do not place any trust in God's promises . . .which is the sole grounds for saving faith and ultimate inheritance of glory.

and evidence that you do not understand the difference between the grounds (reason for/by which we are saved) and the conditions (not without which) of salvation.

I would argue (again) that the sole grounds of salvation, are the Covenant promises of God, which are unilaterally established and unconditionallyperformed, apart from the actions of willful men.


Nang

 

[godrulz]

Unless you are willing to concede that universalism is true, you must recognize a conditional element to salvation. You also cannot dismiss the warning passages to affirm the promise passages. Both are true, but not in a flawed, deductive theology.

You have a big problem with theodicy (problem of evil) if you deny free will and a warfare model to retain hyper-sovereignty and meticulous control models that are indefensible (except in Islam, maybe).

 

[Nang]

Unless you are willing to concede that universalism is true, you must recognize a conditional element to salvation.

Believing in Unconditional Election is opposite of Universalism, don't you know?

You also cannot dismiss the warning passages to affirm the promise passages. Both are true, but not in a flawed, deductive theology.

The promises of God do not come autonomous from the Law of God.

You have a big problem with theodicy (problem of evil) if you deny free will and a warfare model to retain hyper-sovereignty and meticulous control models that are indefensible (except in Islam, maybe).

I deny "free" will and accept the Scriptural teachings regarding evil.

And do not bother to attempt to intimidate me by comparing my Calvinistic beliefs to Islam. It only makes me angry.

Nang

 

[Clete]

godrulz,

Told ya!

 

[dale]

Believing in Unconditional Election is opposite of Universalism, don't you know?...
Nang

How is that, Nang? My understanding of Universal Salvation is the Unconditional Election of all. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

 

[Nang]

How is that, Nang? My understanding of Universal Salvation is the Unconditional Election of all. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

So I ask you, friend . . .

Who are the enemies?

Nang

 

[dale]

So I ask you, friend . . .

Who are the enemies?

Nang

I suppose anyone or anything that opposes Him.

 

[Philetus]

How much did you lose?

I figure about 36 days. :chuckle: