ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Where?

You cannot use the nation of Israel as an example of being corporately "elect." "Delivered," yes. "Baptized," yes. "Sanctified," yes. "Elect," no.

LOL.. So sayeth the great theologian and oracle of God, Nang!

There is no such teaching in the bible about an "election to the Old Covenant." The Old Covenant was the Law, and all mankind is born under that covenent.

Election has to do with grace, found in the Savior, who successfully kept the old covenant through obedience to the law.

This is where you go batty, Nang. One can be elected to something other than salvation. You takethe term "elect" and make it some kind of sacred word that can only be used in the sense of salvation. One can be "elected" to the Old Covenant through physical birth and not be saved. The Old covenant is just used as an example of how corporate election works.

Can you cite Scripture that says this? I read Scripture that says God chooses individuals to love, according to election, before the individuals are born to do good or evil:

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." Romans 9:11

This is speaking of Jacob and Esau, and is not in reference to their salvation. If you want to get technical, this is from Malachi, and refers to the nations of Israel and Edom, founded by Jacob and Esau respectively!

You take this verse wholly and completely out of context. Not that this is unusual for you.

This is a totally unconditional statement, inspired by God. Who are you to teach differently?

I teach what the bible says, not what I want it to say. This isn't referring to the individuals' salvation, but rather whom the old covenant was to be fulfilled through.

They believe because they are elect. They are not elect because they believe.

Again, no scriptural foundation.

Godly election is the first, unconditional cause of grace and faith; belief is the effect. Not vice versa.

Again, unscriptural.

You keep saying the same old refuted lines, Nang, assuming that repeating them makes a difference.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

You are right . . . I have picked up a judgmental fault from reading "Clete" posts . . .shame on me!

I was sincere in my sorrow. You have been one consistent Calvinists who at least sticks to her guns. I respect that! Most of the posting on this thread opposing Open Theism in the recent weeks has been tail chasing or so bizarre you can’t make heads or tails of it. You at least seem to have more of a grasp on your opponent’s view and deal with it head on from your POV. But, I do encourage restraint here in making such claims as to another’s salvation. Think what you will. But make your concerns in that a matter in PM and private prayer. That’s all. Otherwise … you’re a lame-brained-knuckle-headed Calvinist who hasn’t got a clue. IMHO of course. :chuckle:

And if a spirit of criticism is all we catch here we will all be doing well.

 

[Nang]

One can be elected to something other than salvation.

This is inaccurate, for the words "elect" or "elected," or "election," are used solely in reference to the "Elect of God," Jesus Christ, and His spiritual children.

You commonly make these pronouncements, but you rarely back them up with Scripture . . .reason being, there is no Scripture that speaks of election apart from salvation in Christ Jesus.

You takethe term "elect" and make it some kind of sacred word that can only be used in the sense of salvation.

Right. I do exactly as you say.

One can be "elected" to the Old Covenant through physical birth and not be saved. The Old covenant is just used as an example of how corporate election works.

This is Muz talk . . .not bible talk. You cannot cite one instance where the word "elect" is used in reference to Old Covenant or physical birth.

This is speaking of Jacob and Esau, and is not in reference to their salvation.

God loves Jacob = salvation

God hates Esau = reprobation

You know, the former a vessel of mercy; the latter a vessel of wrath. (Romans 9:22&23)

Romans Chapter 9 has all to do with individual salvations according to election. (Romans 9:11)

(A wise man told me once, that the Word of God cannot be refuted, but only refused. You do not refute Romans 9 and the teaching of election; you blatantly refuse it. Poor you.)

If you want to get technical, this is from Malachi, and refers to the nations of Israel and Edom, founded by Jacob and Esau respectively!

Just because Paul makes the distinction between the two brothers born of Isaac, does not limit Romans 9 to their national histories. Any more than Paul's reference to Moses and Pharoah limits the context to the parting of the Red Sea!

I teach what the bible says, not what I want it to say. This isn't referring to the individuals' salvation, but rather whom the old covenant was to be fulfilled through.

And who exactly do you think fulfilled the old covenant?

How was the old covenant fulfilled?

For whom was the old covenant kept?

Again, no scriptural foundation.

Again, unscriptural.

You keep saying the same old refuted lines, Nang, assuming that repeating them makes a difference.

Here's back atcha . . .:spam:

 

[Nang]

Upon what do you base that assessment?

Like I said, I thought you were an atheist due to what I took as opposition on your part to biblical truths that have been posted by others.

That does not mean I judge your eternal fate. You could always prove me wrong, and reveal you are my brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to Godly election and grace.

You are perfectly welcome to show me up by testifying as to your position in Christ Jesus.

What do you consider to be the basis for your salvation? Are you secure with full assurance of your salvation?

Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

Like I said, I thought you were an atheist due to what I took as opposition on your part to biblical truths that have been posted by others.

That does not mean I judge your eternal fate. You could always prove me wrong, and reveal you are my brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to Godly election and grace.

You are perfectly welcome to show me up by testifying as to your position in Christ Jesus.

What do you consider to be the basis for your salvation? Are you secure with full assurance of your salvation?

Nang

Jesus is my Lord and Savior. He has saved me by grace alone through faith alone and that faith is a gift from God, freel offered, freely accepted. I am not an apostate.

 

[Nang]

Jesus is my Lord and Savior. He has saved me by grace alone through faith alone and that faith is a gift from God, freel offered, freely accepted.

"Accepted," how? Free will, or regeneration of the Holy Spirit?

I am not an apostate.

Good! :up:

How do you define apostate, BTW?

 

[Clete]

You are right . . . I have picked up a judgmental fault from reading "Clete" posts . . .shame on me!

John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.​

 

[Nang]

John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.​

Does this mean I did good?

 

[Philetus]

:doh:

 

[lee_merrill]

You made points in what post?

These points were what I meant:

If God is not in control of every evil event, accomplishing exactly his own good purposes, then he is not omnipotent--if evil can thwart the will of God, and bring about in some sense, second best.

There is no way to in each instance "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21) if God is not in control of sinful actions, if evil can really win to some degree, at times. How is it better if there is irremediable evil, outside the bounds of what God would rather have happened?

1 Jn. 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

But if the devil really does accomplish some of his purpose, to "steal, kill and destroy," and if there is sometimes no remedy, then the devil's work is not destroyed.

Rom. 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

And if a spirit of criticism is all we catch here we will all be doing well.

Well, no, this would be bad indeed, apart from the affectionate jibes you illustrated, those are not a problem. But real cutting remarks...

James 4:11-12 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you-- who are you to judge your neighbor?

"Because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. " (James 2:13)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Jesus came to oppose evil (warfare model), not affirm it as God's will (blueprint model). Evil is contrary to God's will.

Just because God does not save everyone in the end does not make Him impotent. Just because God did not kill Hitler does not mean that He could not (omnipotent does not mean He always does what He can do or that He uses brute force in everything...just because I can wake up or sleep on my own does not mean God is not omnipotent).

God remains sovereign despite allowing some agents to act contrary to His will for a time. This does not mean that rape and murder are good or for a higher purpose. It does not compromise omnipotence to delay judgment, nor does working through situations mean He intended or condoned evil. Hyper-sovereignty without factoring in God's non-deterministic creation and delegation of power or ability to not use all of his power all the time will lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[Philetus]

These points were what I meant:

If God is not in control of every evil event, accomplishing exactly his own good purposes, then he is not omnipotent--if evil can thwart the will of God, and bring about in some sense, second best.

There is no way to in each instance "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21) if God is not in control of sinful actions, if evil can really win to some degree, at times. How is it better if there is irremediable evil, outside the bounds of what God would rather have happened?

1 Jn. 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

But if the devil really does accomplish some of his purpose, to "steal, kill and destroy," and if there is sometimes no remedy, then the devil's work is not destroyed.

Rom. 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.


Well, no, this would be bad indeed, apart from the affectionate jibes you illustrated, those are not a problem. But real cutting remarks...

James 4:11-12 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you-- who are you to judge your neighbor?

"Because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. " (James 2:13)

Blessings,
Lee

I think your apple slipped out of your dumpling, Lee. We are in agreement. There is a limit.

 

[Philetus]

Hey, GR. I hadn't read John Polkinghorne ..... Just got and read three chapters of his 2005 publication Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science an Religion I like his style. He is a thinker. I haven't found the title you mentioned earlier in this thread. Is it also Yale University press. Thanks for the recommendation.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Hey, GR. I hadn't read John Polkinghorne ..... Just got and read three chapters of his 2005 publication Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science an Religion I like his style. He is a thinker. I haven't found the title you mentioned earlier in this thread. Is it also Yale University press. Thanks for the recommendation.

Philetus

Egads, I have created a monster. I do not know John or his writings. He was quoted in a footnote by Gregory Boyd, whom I trust (though do not agree with everything).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

I doubt he is an open theist and hope he is not into process thought. Let me know what you make of him and his views. He no doubt has something to contribute.

 

[Philetus]

Egads, I have created a monster. I do not know John or his writings. He was quoted in a footnote by Gregory Boyd, whom I trust (though do not agree with everything).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

I doubt he is an open theist and hope he is not into process thought. Let me know what you make of him and his views. He no doubt has something to contribute.

After 25 years as a theoretical physicist, he became an Anglican priest. Don't worry. I read a lot of things, and people I don't agree with. My dad taught me how to think, not what to think. I just wish my mother had taught me to spell. The one letter I wrote my grandmother, she corrected the spelling and grammer and sent it back ... in love of course. She taught school in a one-room school house in the 1920s while my grandfather made moonshine. I'm a lot like him.

Thanks for the link.

 

[lee_merrill]

Jesus came to oppose evil ...

Certainly, we were instead discussing whether evil deeds can accomplish God's will.

... omnipotent does not mean He always does what He can do or that He uses brute force in everything...just because I can wake up or sleep on my own does not mean God is not omnipotent.

Agreed, the question, however, is whether sin thwarts the will of God, if so, then God does not now have all power, he is not omnipotent, if even by his own decision.

God remains sovereign despite allowing some agents to act contrary to His will for a time.

Indeed, the question is whether there is power (allowed by God though it be) that can thwart the will of God, it seems you say this is the case.

This does not mean that rape and murder are good or for a higher purpose.

Such as the cross...

 

[lee_merrill]

I think your apple slipped out of your dumpling, Lee. We are in agreement. There is a limit.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, yes, I agree...

"Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man,
do not associate with one easily angered,
or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnared." (Pr. 22:24-25)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Certainly, we were instead discussing whether evil deeds can accomplish God's will.


Agreed, the question, however, is whether sin thwarts the will of God, if so, then God does not now have all power, he is not omnipotent, if even by his own decision.


Again, the question is whether there is power (allowed by God though it be) that can thwart the will of God.


Such as the cross...

double :doh:

Lee, sin is that which is contrary to the will of God. It isn't that God doesn't have the power to stop it, but that he restrains the use of ultimate power temporarily affording freedom to live, sin, repent or not. The day will come when God will act IN absolute POWER to unilaterally bring an end to evil and the suffering it causes. God WILL accomplish His ultimate purpose and nothing can prevent Him from doing so. Until then, God is faithful, consistent and redemptive and acts in the POWER OF LOVE.

To lump the cross into the same category as rape and murder is to divorce it from the resurrection and to fail to see not only the work but also the person of God in Christ’s death and resurrection. The cross was the most powerful act of God in all creation and human history, not merely the result of evil men acting independent of God. That God gave His Son and orchestrated His own death for our redemption cannot find company or comparison with the sins it forgives.

 

[RobE]

There are several steps in between the beginning and the end of that statement. No one asserts this proposal as written. No one. This IS a strawman, and any reduction out of it is a strawman.

I'll try to remembe this quote the next time an open theists proclaims that God is responsible for evil if foreknowledge is true.

And, of course, RobE is unable to get out of his systematic theological mindset to see that there are many, probably an infinite number, of possible courses of the future that end with God accomplishing His purposes. The key, then, is for God to act in such a way that one of those infinite possible courses of the future occur.

And He has done just that.

I have no problem with this, in fact I believe that it is true. I, however, have confidence that God has chosen the one best course to achieve His purposes and decreed that path as His course before the creative act. When you state, "The key, then, is for God to act in such a way that one of those infinite possible courses of the future occur. you are acknowledging that God must know the outcomes of His own actions. We are simply disagreeing over 'when' God made/makes the decision to act.

Thus, God does not know the exact course of the future, and yet DOES know that His purposes will be accomplished, even if He doesn't know the precise path the future will take to get there.

This is the argument. You say that God is still making the decision based upon the will of His creation. I say that God made the decision which included those wills to begin with. Same basis, different conclusions.

My conclusion:

Thus, God does know the exact course of the future, and does know that His purpose will be accomplished, because He has chosen and decreed the precise and perfect path the future will take.​

 

[RobE]

Am I the only one who believes that God has achieved His ultimate purpose through the acts of Jesus Christ(especially the evil act of His death)?