ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[DFT_Dave]

Posted by AMR
Of course I have formally studied the original works. What does it matter if they are a synthesis as long as they ultimately biblical? The proper and logical conclusion for pure actuality is not that the world is eternal if you synthesize the concepts with biblical revelation.

Then would you agree that the logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal in its Greek form with out the synthesis of Biblical revelation?

 

[Nang]

Really? Why not?

There is no reason for God to change. He is perfect as He is.

And what does that have to do with my question?

Everything.

If God was omnipotent He would be able to change, whether it was necessary or not. And an immutable being cannot change, no matter what. So how can God be both?

You are presupposing that because God is immutable, that He lacks an ability of some kind, but God is perfect, lacking nothing, so there is no reason or necessity for God to change.

 

[Lighthouse]

There is no reason for God to change. He is perfect as He is.

That really doesn't answer the question. You're only repeating yourself. And what did God mean when He said He changed His mind about letting Israel have a king, when they wanted one? Or about Nineveh, in the book of Jonah?

Everything.

No, it doesn't.

You are presupposing that because God is immutable, that He lacks an ability of some kind, but God is perfect, lacking nothing, so there is no reason or necessity for God to change.

Is God able to change? Whether or not He needs to is irrelevant.

 

[Nang]

That really doesn't answer the question. You're only repeating yourself.

Of course. I am giving you the answer; the only answer.

And what did God mean when He said He changed His mind about letting Israel have a king, when they wanted one?

God had purposed for kings to rule in Israel from eternity; He ordained the circumstances of which you speak, to demonstrate the wicked hearts of men who would desire a mortal's (earthly) rule rather than Godly (spiritual) rule.

Or about Nineveh, in the book of Jonah?

Judgment came upon Nineveh, as prophesied. The prophecies (and types) of Jonah were all completed and fulfilled.

Is God able to change?

You keep repeating your presupposition that God is lacking in ability. God does not lack. God does not change. There is no necessity for God to change. God lacks nothing, and is perfect.

Whether or not He needs to is irrelevant.

To make your presupposition logical, of course it is relevant. If, as you propose, God is lacking abilities, then it would be necessary that He change in order to improve. Aren't you going to stick with your own premise?

 

[Clete]

There are no "issues" with the presupposition made by the Calvinist: that God is the presupposition and that nothing at all can be known by mankind unless one presupposes God exists. Just because you may disagree with the doctrines of divine timelessness, exhaustive knowledge and predestination, man's responsibility, total inability (depravity), and limited atonement, does not invalidate the fact that Calvinism holds together by these tenets and that there are no contradictions in its doctrine. I am regularly bemused by those that would claim they have discovered the new truth that purportedly invalidates two thousand years of beliefs and proper analysis by the greatest minds of the theological ages. These persons should take up their issues with the very first Calvinist, the Apostle Paul.

And I am regularly bemused by people who claim to have a rational theological worldview and then follow those very claims with a fallacious 'appeal to authority' argument.

The length of time that someone has been wrong is not evidence that they have been right all along, nor is their ability to convince others of the rightness of their error.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

And I am regularly bemused by people who claim to have a rational theological worldview and then follow those very claims with a fallacious 'appeal to authority' argument.

The length of time that someone has been wrong is not evidence that they have been right all along, nor is their ability to convince others of the rightness of their error.

Resting in Him,
Clete

This response is bereft of spiritual substance.

It is merely the personal opinion of a mortal who calls himself, "Clete."

 

[Lon]

And I am regularly bemused by people who claim to have a rational theological worldview and then follow those very claims with a fallacious 'appeal to authority' argument.

The length of time that someone has been wrong is not evidence that they have been right all along, nor is their ability to convince others of the rightness of their error.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is if these other views have been seen before and negated. OV is not a new concept by your admission and has equally troubling logic problems as we've discussed. It would be important to recognize long standing tradition where these thoughts and ideas come back into play. In the past, OV types of theology have been pwned, it is worth a repeat of traditional debates and discussion.

 

[Nang]

It is if these other views have been seen before and negated.

I really believe it is encumbent upon the OVT'ers to systematically "negate" the Westminster Confession of Faith, point by point, and article by article (as well as the Heidelberg Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of
Dordt . . .) if they think they are in position to redefine the Protestant faith.

If OVT'ers are unwilling to redefine historical Christianity known as "Protestantism," without giving answer to the historical Scriptural and Protestant Confessional standards, then they must present a new, worldly witness of a new standard of "Christianity";
a "new" definition of their Christian belief.

But . . .WHERE IS THE OVT "STATEMENT OF FAITH?"

OV is not a new concept by your admission and has equally troubling logic problems as we've discussed. It would be important to recognize long standing tradition where these thoughts and ideas come back into play. In the past, OV types of theology have been pwned, it is worth a repeat of traditional debates and discussion.

Not only logical problems, but exegetical problems, spiritual problems, prophetic problems, historical problems, Scriptural problems, etc. . . . for there is no logical, exegtical, spiritual, prophetic, Scriptural (Godly) precedent for the teachings of OVT.

(This OVT heresy is just a new version of the original, ungodly lie, told to A&E in the garden, IMO.)

Nang

 

[Clete]

It is if these other views have been seen before and negated. OV is not a new concept by your admission and has equally troubling logic problems as we've discussed.

I do not recall any such discussion. I know of no "equally troubling" problems of logic. There is a single paradoxical issue that I am aware of but exactly zero fallacies - zero!

It would be important to recognize long standing tradition where these thoughts and ideas come back into play.

Why?

In the past, OV types of theology have been pwned, it is worth a repeat of traditional debates and discussion.

Such issues are alway worthy of debate but not because of the traditions of men.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Nang,

The only standard of Christianity is the Bible. That is sort of the whole point. You and your ilk rely on the traditions of men instead of the plain reading of Scripture.

Further, no such point for point refutation is necessary. The entire system of Calvinism is founded firmly on the basis of God's absolute immutability. Virtually every major point of the doctrinal system is derived from that single premise. Destroy that premise and the whole house of cards come crumbling to the ground.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

This response is bereft of spiritual substance.

It is merely the personal opinion of a mortal who calls himself, "Clete."

AMR did actually engage a logical fallacy. That is not my opinion, it is a fact. Get over it.

I notice that there is no such comment made in response to AMR's post which actually did offer nothing but his personal opinion.

 

[Mr. 5020]

(This OVT heresy is just a new version of the original, ungodly lie, told to A&E in the garden, IMO.)

The serpent told Adam and Eve that God didn't know the future?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The entire system of Calvinism is founded firmly on the basis of God's absolute immutability. Virtually every major point of the doctrinal system is derived from that single premise. Destroy that premise and the whole house of cards come crumbling to the ground.

Actually, Calvinism rests upon all the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God, not elevating one above the other.

I suspect, Clete, that you might misunderstand immutability and all the associated implications on the attributes of God. A God that is immutable is unchangeable. Yet if God can change, then it means God aquires something He did not have prior to this change. This would mean God would be better, more complete, from this new acquisition. Therefore, God was not previously perfect for He must have lacked some perfection since He changed. Is the God of open theism is not an already perfect God, or is the God of 2007 much more perfect than the God of 6,000 B.C.?

A God that is immutable must always exist, for whatever is not immutable can potentially cease to exist. Is the God of open theism subject to non-existence?

A God that is immutable is unified in simplicity, for an absolutely simple being cannot be more than one. To be more than one means that a being is composed of parts, but an absolutely simple being has no composition of parts. Absolutely simple beings cannot be divided. An immutable God is an absolutely simple being, indivisible, and cannot be more than one being. Therefore there is only one God. Yet a God that can change is not composed of absolute simplicity. A God that changes is comprised of what changes and what do not change. In fact, if every part of a non-simple being changes then an entirely new being exists. Can the God of open theism to be relied upon since this God is always changing, even possibly becoming an entirely different God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And I am regularly bemused by people who claim to have a rational theological worldview and then follow those very claims with a fallacious 'appeal to authority' argument.

The length of time that someone has been wrong is not evidence that they have been right all along, nor is their ability to convince others of the rightness of their error.

Hundreds of years of scrutiny by scholars and theologians have failed to undermine the tenets of my and many others' beliefs. You can dismiss that by hand-waving, vainly hoping to claim some measure of equal footing with these centuries of scriptural analysis, but the fact stands.

If open theists claim to have discovered the new truths of God's special revelation then why are we not witnessing a global awakening to these new truths? Surely God would not hold these revelations back and the spread of open theism would be exploding across the land. Moreover, seminaries would be populated with ever-increasing open theist theologians to train up new pastors, missionaries, etc. Journals and books would be appearing with frequent positive open theism discourse. The greater open theist minds would be coming together, formulating doctrinal statements and articles of faith.

 

[Clete]

Hundreds of years of scrutiny by scholars and theologians have failed to undermine the tenets of my and many others' beliefs.

That simply isn't true AMR. There were thousands of people who didn't believe it then and there remain thousands who don't believe it now. I then could make the same argument you are making and say that hundreds (even thousands) of years of the Calvinist error has failed to undermine the tenets of thousands upon thousands of believers who have stayed loyal to the true tenets of Christianity as taught not by the traditions of men but by the Scripture and that alone.

You can dismiss that by hand-waving, vainly hoping to claim some measure of equal footing with these centuries of scriptural analysis, but the fact stands.

The fact stands that a great number of people have bought into a false paradigm, yes. I never denied that. Which are there more of, AMR; Calvinist or non-Christians? Which has existed longer and with larger numbers? Why couldn't the unbeliever make the exact same argument you are making for the truth of their worldview? The answer is they could and they have.

If open theists claim to have discovered the new truths of God's special revelation then why are we not witnessing a global awakening to these new truths?

Because they are not new and no one but you and other Calvinists have ever called them new.

Surely God would not hold these revelations back and the spread of open theism would be exploding across the land.

I wonder how many times this same argument was made against Luther and Calvin in their day? :think:

You're a veritable fountain of fallacious reasoning.

Moreover, seminaries would be populated with ever-increasing open theist theologians to train up new pastors, missionaries, etc.

I have no doubt that this will eventually be the case, although it may not be. What we know for sure is that for now, your error is shared with the religious establishment.

Journals and books would be appearing with frequent positive open theism discourse.

Books on the subject of open theism keep popping up all the time and I would expect that journals published from within the religious establishment to be almost universally negative for the first several decades. It will take a generation, if not two, before Open Theism could even possibly grow to the point of becoming anything close to being within the religious mainstream. Until that happens one should expect that in such journals that a challenging worldview would be routinely misrepresented and negatively reacted too.

The greater open theist minds would be coming together, formulating doctrinal statements and articles of faith.

I really don't understand your allegiance to such documents. The only thing I can think of is that it is perhaps a vestige of your career as a seminary professor.

I personally don't see the need, except perhaps to rob you and Nang of an opportunity to nag us about it seeing as you two are the only one's (to my knowledge) who have ever brought it up and Nang only nags about it because you did. The fact is that Open Theism is not all that different from any other sort of Christian theism. We simply believe that the future is not exhaustively settled. Any Christian who excepts that single premise can rightly consider themselves an Open Theist whether they understand the implications of that premise or not. In regards to a full discloser and examination of the implications of the future not being exhaustively settled, there are many places one may go to read about them and to fully understand the issue, not the least of which is this very website. The point being that Open Theism is not a complete reformulation of the Christian faith as Calvinism and other forms of Reformed theology were in their early days and so formal documents on the order of the WCF are unnecessary.

I do have to admit that it would be an intriguing project. A point for point refutation of the WCF would take forever but the document could prove very helpful in lending the movement additional credibility within the minds of academics. The question remains, however, whether credibility with such is really desirable in the first place. Becoming entrenched in the religious establishment has as many cons and it has pros, not the least of which we are seeing right here. If not for the religious establishment you wouldn't be here presenting one fallacious 'appeal to authority' argument after another. I really recommend that you examine yourself and discover whether you truly hold yourself to the standard of sola scriptura because your comments here would seem to belie any such claim.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Actually, Calvinism rests upon all the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God, not elevating one above the other.

Saying it doesn't make it so AMR.

Your founding father (Augustine) flatly and repeatedly stated his unconditional allegiance to the absolute immutability of God. He refused to even become a Christian until it was explained to him how the Bible could be interpreted figuratively so that God's immutability could be retained and proceeded to build his entire theological worldview around that single attribute and the others which Aristotle logically derived from it. Calvinism is nothing but reformed Augustinian theology and Augustinian theology is based entirely on the Greek (i.e. Platonist) concept of deity.

I suspect, Clete, that you might misunderstand immutability and all the associated implications on the attributes of God.

I understand the doctrine completely and I also understand how the TULIP doctines (for example) follow logically from it.

A God that is immutable is unchangeable. Yet if God can change, then it means God aquires something He did not have prior to this change.

This is not what change means. There are many things which change all the time without acquiring anything they didn't already have but I'm not even going to press that point at this time. As far as I'm concerned you just cut your own theological head off.

Did God always have a physical body with hands and feet and eye balls and nose hairs?

Did God always have scares from having been killed on a Roman cross?

Has God always had a new and ever lasting glorified body which retains those scares?

Has God always been a man (i.e. a human)?

Had God always had the experience of being dead?

Is God still experiencing death right now?

Is there anything in the entire gospel story that is not all about God acquiring all sorts of things that He had never had before?

This would mean God would be better, more complete, from this new acquisition. Therefore, God was not previously perfect for He must have lacked some perfection since He changed. Is the God of open theism is not an already perfect God, or is the God of 2007 much more perfect than the God of 6,000 B.C.?

This is also fallacious reasoning.

A change is not necessarily for the better or for the worse. Many changes can be made which are qualitatively neutral and if it is in the nature of a thing to change (i.e. any animate thing such as a clock or a relational person) then immutability would be considered a flaw.

A point which Augustine, Luther and Calvin entirely ignored. I have a difficult time believing that it was not intentional.

A God that is immutable must always exist, for whatever is not immutable can potentially cease to exist. Is the God of open theism subject to non-existence?

How does it follow necessarily that something which is mutable can potentially cease to exist?

Show me the syllogism - if you can.

A God that is immutable is unified in simplicity, for an absolutely simple being cannot be more than one. To be more than one means that a being is composed of parts, but an absolutely simple being has no composition of parts. Absolutely simple beings cannot be divided. An immutable God is an absolutely simple being, indivisible, and cannot be more than one being. Therefore there is only one God.

Do you not believe that in God, unity and plurality are both equally ultimate concepts?

If not, how do you solve the problem of the one and the many?

If so, how does what you said above not conflict with that presupposition?

Yet a God that can change is not composed of absolute simplicity. A God that changes is comprised of what changes and what do not change. In fact, if every part of a non-simple being changes then an entirely new being exists. Can the God of open theism to be relied upon since this God is always changing, even possibly becoming an entirely different God?

God's character does not change. That is to say that those things which make God who He is (His qualitative attributes), do not change.

Psalm 102:27, James 1:17, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 6:17 & 18

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

2Co 12:9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.

Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. 11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.​

Actually, Calvinism rests upon all the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God, not elevating one above the other.

That is inaccurate. Immutability is the god of Calvinism.

I suspect, Clete, that you might misunderstand immutability and all the associated implications on the attributes of God. A God that is immutable is unchangeable. Yet if God can change, then it means God aquires something He did not have prior to this change. This would mean God would be better, more complete, from this new acquisition. Therefore, God was not previously perfect for He must have lacked some perfection since He changed. Is the God of open theism is not an already perfect God, or is the God of 2007 much more perfect than the God of 6,000 B.C.?

I think you misunderstand perfection and have bought into the mistaken notion that change is the equivalent of imperfection.

If Jesus is God in the flesh then he lacked the existential knowledge of suffering prior to the incarnation and crucifixion. That didn’t make God less perfect. In fact it was essentially God’s perfection (Holiness) that prevented him from relating to sinful man in a loving reciprocal relationship. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus informed the Godhead as nothing else could. The suffering of Jesus didn’t make God less perfect but it did make possible a better, more perfect covenant. It is not God who is made perfect in love. God is love. We are the ones made perfect in love; something that was quite impossible before Christ learned perfection through suffering. God is never more or less perfect. And God can change without becoming more or less perfect. But, with out change toward the sinful state of man, man dies and God remains alone; something God is obviously unwilling to do even if He must change and become man in order to save man from himself.

You are correct that the God of 6,000 b.c. isn’t the same as the God of post resurrection Easter, but quite incorrect in insinuating that God is more or less perfect because of it. Yet, because of that change we are given the grace to become ‘more perfect’ in Christ.

A God that is immutable must always exist, for whatever is not immutable can potentially cease to exist. Is the God of open theism subject to non-existence?

A God that is immutable must always exist … ALONE! The God of Open Theism is subject to risk because He chooses not to exist alone. He is willing to risk even His own death for our redemption.

A God that is immutable is unified in simplicity, for an absolutely simple being cannot be more than one. To be more than one means that a being is composed of parts, but an absolutely simple being has no composition of parts. Absolutely simple beings cannot be divided. An immutable God is an absolutely simple being, indivisible, and cannot be more than one being. Therefore there is only one God. Yet a God that can change is not composed of absolute simplicity. A God that changes is comprised of what changes and what do not change. In fact, if every part of a non-simple being changes then an entirely new being exists. Can the God of open theism to be relied upon since this God is always changing, even possibly becoming an entirely different God?

Yeah, like Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Your monotheism has excluded Christ Jesus. Your reduction of God to ‘absolute simplicity’ is simply not biblical.

 

[Philetus]

God has always known perfection, but did not know perfection through suffering. That was something God had to learn and could only learn through his own suffering. That is why, rather than simply sending others to the cross, God went to the cross for others.

 

[Philetus]

Immutability is the god of Calvinism. Calvinists make every word that proceeds from the mouth of God servant to it.

Your founding father (Augustine) flatly and repeatedly stated his unconditional allegiance to the absolute immutability of God. He refused to even become a Christian until it was explained to him how the Bible could be interpreted figuratively so that God's immutability could be retained and proceeded to build his entire theological worldview around that single attribute and the others which Aristotle logically derived from it. Calvinism is nothing but reformed Augustinian theology and Augustinian theology is based entirely on the Greek (i.e. Platonist) concept of deity.

 

[godrulz]

I believe in weak vs strong immutability: God changes in some ways (relations, experiences, thoughts, feelings, actions), but not in other ways (character, attributes).

Calvinists also argue against Arminianism, so its rejection of Open Theism is in a similar vain. Calvinism/determinism assumes it is true and argues against any form of free will theism. The fact that OT is a bigger issue now than in church history is not proof of anything. The church has been wrong on some issues for centuries, hence the Protestant Reformation. The early church was also influenced by various heresies. Augustine was not immune from philosophical influence and neither is pro-Augustinian Calvinism.