themuzicman
Well-known member
Ever read John 6:44? sheesh..
Muz
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
Both lists.
lee_merrill
New member
Yes, now this is definite knowledge of a choice concerning salvation, and God decides that most will not have an opportunity to repent--this would be in contradiction I believe, to OVT views of salvation.
Eh? I'm not sure what you are saying here...Philetus said:
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
LOL.... You're so narrow minded you must use a 5" screen...
No, this doesn't show anything of the sort. God simply chooses at the time whom He will draw (probably based upon who actually hears the gospel), and only those are able to come to Christ. No exhaustive, definite foreknowledge necesasry (other than God knowing that He will do this to some group of people.)
Sheesh.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
I perhaps could put an insult in here in return?
But you know, saying "only a remnant will be saved" means we know there will be a remnant with salvation, this is not merely negative knowledge--but it came down to just Noah once, and how could this be known?
And also, OVT does not I think subscribe to God deciding that most will not be saved in a given group, this is hyper-Calvinism, and what those in the free will camp most object to, saying it's not fair that God should condemn people for not repenting, when God decided they would have no chance to do so.
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
There was no prophecy about Noah.
No. Hyper-Calvinism says that God picks the individuals who will and will not be saved before He created the world. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that God set the requirement that people hear and learn from Him before they are able to come to Christ. This, by its very nature, means that only a remnant (especially given that Israel was blinded to their Messiah) will come to God. There's no need for God to have a list. It's simple logistics and group dynamics.
Two very different things.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
Certainly, do you really not see the point here? it is that saying "some will be saved" as in "a remnant" may not be so easy to predict over hundreds and thousands of years, if all the righteous people came down to one person once.
I know that, I'm saying you are subscribing to God choosing that some will have no opportunity for repentance.
But (you should not ignore this question) is it then fair for God to condemn people for not repenting when they had no chance to do so?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This is humanistic elitism, not biblical truth.
The OVT'ers make man sovereign over God's choices. God becomes dependent upon His creatures, and His desire to save is conditional upon their actions. And some groups of men are more virtuous and wise than the majority, and these elite groups will get saved, because they alone can "hear" and act accordingly.
Bah . . .
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
Once again, you ignore the fact that God acts to bring this about. Your problem is that your theology focuses solely on God's knowledge to resolve these issues. And that's just not biblical consistent.
But not eternally choosing them, which Hyper-Calvinists do.
And I don't think God just randomly says that He won't draw some like the Calvinists do. There was a purpose for blinding Israel, and that was to produce the Messiah in an environ where what needed to happen would happen. Thus, from Israel, there would only be a remnant. God came in power and signs to make sure that there WAS a remnant. Had God not acted, there may not have been.
Thus, your claiming that "every Jew could have been saved" is just silly, given the condition of the Jews in Jesus' day. You'll also note that Paul uses this as an example and not a prophecy about the remnant.
That's a red herring. God condemns people because they sin, not because they don't repent and believe.
And, in that sense, it would be fair if God condemned every last human being, because we all sin. God is just and is primarily concerned with justice, not fairness.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
Of course he does, have I not mentioned that this is his sentence on earth? The difficulty is that this does not fit with the Open View.
I agree.
Well, I don't say it's absolutely impossible, but this is an incidental question.
I agree, though do people have a choice not to sin when they are born? Is it possible they could be perfect and go to heaven? But even that would require dying, which is due to sin.
If people have no choice but to sin in this life, then is the condemnation fair? Speaking here as a non-Calvinist--Calvinist though I be...
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Butting in . . .can't help it . . .
Two big problems.
1. You come close to judging infinite God according to your finite standards.
2. The teaching of federal headship, places the blame for this moral dilemma upon Adam, not upon God. Adam was created head of the human race. Adam was the one who consciously chose to gamble with the fates of his future progeny that were represented in his body and being. The only way to grasp the concept of federal headship, is to study the order of the Trinity and the substitutional cross work of Jesus Christ; vicariously performed on the behalf of the church body the Father gave Him to save.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." I Cor. 11:3
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." Ephesians 5:23
Nang
If the act is free, no He cannot.
Predictive determinism? Who said anything about that? I certainly didn't!
There are several things God knows for certain in advance, the free actions of men are not among them.
Do we human being ever have foreknowledge?
If we do it is extremely limited for our next breath is not guaranteed to us.
We do know that those events which God has purposed to bring about by His own power will come to pass. Beyond that I would say any foreknowledge claimed by any human being is dubious to say the least, except in a much looser sense of the term than we are using here.
How so?
There are several things that God absolutely knows for certain right this minute that have not yet come to pass. How is that not foreknowledge? Most of these things He not only foreknows but He has predestined them to happen! Indeed, He foreknows them BECAUSE He predestined them. By what convoluted definition of foreknowledge do you claim that this somehow doesn't qualify as bona-fide foreknowledge?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
Thanks for addressing these Clete.
How did Jesus know Peter would deny Him three times when Peter didn't even know? (I'm trying to fit your statement with scriptural instances-narrative btw).
"There are several things that God absolutely knows for certain right this minute that have not yet come to pass. How is that not foreknowledge?" -your end quote
Can you explain your understanding for me here? I'm seeing discrepancy between determinism and foreknowledge that continues to lend to this.
Thanks, how about the elder talking to John in Revelation? Was it just a fictional meeting or did it really happen? (I'm trying to understand what exactly took place there. Was it present meeting future or just fiction?)
I agree, but not all OVer's hold to that position. Do you happen to know how Bob E or Bob H might address this? I do quote you often for statements like this. Forgive extrapolation at times if I take it too far, but these are important kinds of statements for the rest of the ToL OVers to see. So....since I plan to quote you, you can give me any qualifiers I need before doing so, but I do plan on using your quote here in discussion with those who do not agree with this stance.
Lon said:
The discrepancy question at beginning will help me discern this more clearly if I could hold off until your next post (thanks).Clete said:
No, that makes sense, but it isn't the definition of foreknowledge, just one component that qualifies it. It falls within the broader context of foreknowledge (knowing beforehand). God has foreknowledge (which includes but is not limited to determinism).
Thanks again Clete,
Blessings in Him
Lon
lee_merrill
New member
I should have made it clearer that this question does not reflect my view, yes God is just, but these are the difficult questions asked of Calvinists, if Muz takes the Calvinist position here, he will need to answer the tough questions about this position. I believe there are good answers here, but this gets into my hope that all may repent, and also that God takes away the sin of the world.
Yes, and the silence of the other Open View people here speaks volumes. If not libraries?RobE said:
Only a remnant will be saved, and then after hundreds and thousands of years, all Israel will be saved, and salvation must be a free decision in the Open View, if any decision is, and how can this be prophesied?
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
Why doesn't that surprise me.I can't even remember what I say or believe half the time.
themuzicman
Well-known member
You have yet to make a case for this being a problem. You seem to assume that God is working before creation, rather than as the future unfolds.
There simply isn't an issue, here.
LOL..
Everyone will sin at some point. It doesn't matter that there isn't a definite one that each will commit. We all freely choose to sin, because we live in a sinful world and our natures desire sin.
No one has said that people have no choice but to sin. At each decision, not sinning is possible, but to come to every decision and not sin is statistically impossible.
Thus, we do freely choose to do so.
Muz
RobE
New member
Appeal to probability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.
This has the argument form:
Some examples are:
"There are many hackers that use the internet. Therefore, if you use the internet without a firewall, it is inevitable that you will be hacked sooner or later."
"AMD has been catching up to Intel in recent years. In a few years they will definitely take over Intel's position, and eventually put them out of business altogether."
"When soccer becomes popular in a town, hooliganism will become a major problem. Thus, if we allow a soccer team in our town, we will be overrun by hooligans." (also a False cause fallacy)
While not considered a "true" fallacy by some (because it is rarely used by itself), the appeal to probability is a common trend in many arguments, enough for many to consider it a fallacy of itself.
The logical idea behind this fallacy is that, if the probability of P occurring is approaching 1, it is best to assume that P will occur, since it will (almost) almost surely happen. The fallacy incorrectly applies a common tenet of probability: given a sufficiently large sample space, an event X of nonzero probability P(X) will occur at least once, regardless of the magnitude of P(X). This is derived from the definition of probability. The operative term is "given a sufficiently large sample space". Virtually all events are considered for probability within a finite number of samples, and the chance that X will occur in a given finite space S is directly proportional to S. Given a finite number of events S, each of which is X or not X, a sample space Y = 2PrS exists where one possibility is that all events in S are not X. Therefore, P(X in Y) = (Y-1)/Y. Because Y-1/Y < 1 for all finite Y, P(X in Y) < 1 regardless of P(X) or Y. There is thus always a chance that X will not occur, and therefore, no proof that X will occur given its probability. source
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.
This has the argument form:
Possibly P.
Therefore, P.
Therefore, P.
Some examples are:
"There are many hackers that use the internet. Therefore, if you use the internet without a firewall, it is inevitable that you will be hacked sooner or later."
"AMD has been catching up to Intel in recent years. In a few years they will definitely take over Intel's position, and eventually put them out of business altogether."
"When soccer becomes popular in a town, hooliganism will become a major problem. Thus, if we allow a soccer team in our town, we will be overrun by hooligans." (also a False cause fallacy)
While not considered a "true" fallacy by some (because it is rarely used by itself), the appeal to probability is a common trend in many arguments, enough for many to consider it a fallacy of itself.
The logical idea behind this fallacy is that, if the probability of P occurring is approaching 1, it is best to assume that P will occur, since it will (almost) almost surely happen. The fallacy incorrectly applies a common tenet of probability: given a sufficiently large sample space, an event X of nonzero probability P(X) will occur at least once, regardless of the magnitude of P(X). This is derived from the definition of probability. The operative term is "given a sufficiently large sample space". Virtually all events are considered for probability within a finite number of samples, and the chance that X will occur in a given finite space S is directly proportional to S. Given a finite number of events S, each of which is X or not X, a sample space Y = 2PrS exists where one possibility is that all events in S are not X. Therefore, P(X in Y) = (Y-1)/Y. Because Y-1/Y < 1 for all finite Y, P(X in Y) < 1 regardless of P(X) or Y. There is thus always a chance that X will not occur, and therefore, no proof that X will occur given its probability. source
I use this fallacy frequently when speaking with Clete. It's one of my favorites. Sin was never statistically necessary, so therefore --- it must've been foreknown.
I think we have a case of (T)otal depravity here. Will no open theist come forward to save the leopard(Muz) from the old Jack Russell(Lee)?
Last edited:
He didn't. At least not in the sense that we are discussing here. Peter could have repented.
I don't understand the question. My understanding about what?
Give me the Scripture reference so I can see specifically what you are talking about.
I cannot think of any qualifiers except to say that when quoting me you need to do so accurately and in context. That might sound obvious but you seem to have had trouble with this in the past.
You aren't making any sense to me, Lon.
Foreknowledge means to know something in advance. If God knows something (anything at all) in advance then He has foreknowledge. Simple!
It seems to me that you are needlessly complicating the issue.
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status