ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Philetus said:
If Abraham had not been obedient God would have chosen another and we might have been talking about Joe Shmoe as the father of the Jews.
Click to expand...

Gen 12:1-3 KJV is unconditional and is valid regardless of Abram's obedience.
The Covenant is between God and Himself (the seed of Abraham-Jesus Christ).
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Philetus said:
He doesn't!

The point is that God is free to shape His future anyway He chooses and can include or exclude anyone He wants to include or exclude on what ever grounds He chooses. What we have in scripture is the witness that God is faithful and has made a provision for inclusion which requires response and relationship. That is why we trust God and not a settled future. If the future is settled in meticulous detail, what's to trust? It might as well have already happened and we play no significant roll.

God could save everybody, so we have difficulty even questioning 'a remnant' especially in Open Theism. What we have is a whole crowd of past witnesses and the present witness of the church in the World. It is being added to as individuals are saved. The question "Will the Son of Man find faith on the earth" at the time of His return does not preclude the already existent 'remnant'.

A remnant does exist and will exist. It isn't a matter of odds. It's a matter of trust in the past examples and the present witness of the church and the hope and confidence we have in God.

Philetus
Click to expand...

Clarify? How can God save everybody? He would have to compromise holiness, justice, truth, etc. for universalism to be true. The governmental issues preclude Him from arbitrarily saving people. There are conditions that are necessary, not just nice.

He did not have to save anyone initially, but now that the plan of redemption is in place, He cannot be fickle (in light of His character) about salvation (hence double predestination is not an option). As you point out, salvation is relational and is not caused or coerced. It is more than will or will not (He wills to save everyone), but can and cannot, based on truth. He wants to extend mercy to all, but there are reasons He cannot do so (including man rejecting His provision).

Your inclusion/exclusion statements sound too arbitrary. Don't get me started on lex rex vs rex lex.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
godrulz said:
Most with Israel were unconditional: "I will...."

Some e.g. of covenants are Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Old, New, etc.
Click to expand...

Old - conditional, made with Israel

Abrahamic, Davidic, New (made with the Israel of God; those of Israel who were in Jesus Christ), the Land covenant - ultimately are made between
God and Himself (with Jesus Christ as the seed of Abraham/seed of David).
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
godrulz said:
The population is now greater than it was in the days of Noah, so there is more likely that a remnant would believe vs not a single person would come to faith. God's love and power is greater than you think?
Click to expand...
But this is still not certain, as long as free will decisions are unknowable.

"A remnant does exist and will exist. It isn't a matter of odds. It's a matter of trust in the past examples and the present witness of the church and the hope and confidence we have in God." (Philetus)

Yes, such as these examples:

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.
Acts 16:31 Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household."

God then knows who will trust him, such decisions are known.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
Clarify? How can God save everybody? He would have to compromise holiness, justice, truth, etc. for universalism to be true. The governmental issues preclude Him from arbitrarily saving people. There are conditions that are necessary, not just nice.

He did not have to save anyone initially, but now that the plan of redemption is in place, He cannot be fickle (in light of His character) about salvation (hence double predestination is not an option). As you point out, salvation is relational and is not caused or coerced. It is more than will or will not (He wills to save everyone), but can and cannot, based on truth. He wants to extend mercy to all, but there are reasons He cannot do so (including man rejecting His provision).

Your inclusion/exclusion statements sound too arbitrary. Don't get me started on lex rex vs rex lex.
Click to expand...
Godrulz, my friend;

We are in agreement about this!

How many times have you said that ability isn't the same as certainty?

Notice the bold could in my previous statement. I said could. Maybe what I should have said is 'He could have' or 'has the ability to'. I didn't say did or will or even might. God is free to do what ever God wants to do (e.g. save a remnant or everybody or nobody.) What God has done limits what He will do to some extent. It's relational, for sure. And our assurance is based on His faithfulness revealed in His Word and our own experience of His faithfulness. God can change His mind about the particulars, given changing circumstances, but to remain faithful to Himself and His creation He doesn't fudge on the general. Given the relational aspect of salvation how could He save anything BUT a remnant? That is all I was getting at.

Lee seems to be unwilling to give up what he thinks God can/could do based on what he thinks God has said He will do or even must do. Just look at all the speculation about the particular details that are subject to contingencies that Lee (and others) keep throwing up as proof of exhaustive foreknowledge, not to mention RobE chasing his tail for the past decade looking for middle ground.

We keep falling for it. We have been saying it over and over in basically the same way, using the same words ... why not stop nitpicking with each other and try to find a way to say it that pushes their envelope a little or totally ignore them and just work on it for a while. Sometimes you guys are worse than 'doctors of the law." If anyone departs from your buzz-words you flip out.

Sooooooo...........

My faith isn't based on Abraham's faithfulness, Jesus' ability to know what Judas would do, or any other particular historical fact in this fallen fickle confused world. Nor is it based on my hope that God can make it all work out in the future either through predestination or manipulation. My hope results from my faith, not the other way 'round. I trust God; not Abraham, not Israel, and not the church. They are all fickle. Only God is absolutely faithful. The faithfulness of the historical Jesus (His life, death and resurrection) is the only ground for faith I have and that alone gives me hope. His Spirit is present 'proof'. That is all I need. After centuries of being preoccupied with the future and dividing and destroying the unity of the faith maybe it is time to really come to terms with the fact that THE FUTURE DOESN'T EXIST except in visions, dreams and imaginations both divine and human.

The only reason we can expect God to make good on His word is that He isn't subject to Romans 7 the way we are. But, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that God could wash His hands of the whole mess and just forget we ever existed or else your future is almost as settled as theirs. That is why I trust in God -- not in any future open or closed. He alone is faithful and trustworthy and will not deny Himself. Fudge on Open Theism all you want. It isn't really even about the future anymore. It is about what God has done and what that means in the present -- being in Christ here and now.

Lest you think I'm miffed ... I'm not. It needs to be clarified! And Open Theist must not shrink back, but boldly go where their convictions and theology takes them. That requires risk.

Philetus
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Gen 12:1-3 KJV is unconditional and is valid regardless of Abram's obedience.
The Covenant is between God and Himself (the seed of Abraham-Jesus Christ).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Then it could have been Joe Shmoe instead of Abraham and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
Right, so why not apply the same principle to verses you mention? Given that "know" has several meanings.
Click to expand...

But none that alter the meaning of this context.

Deuteronomy 1:33 ... who went ahead of you on your journey, in fire by night and in a cloud by day, to search out places for you to camp and to show you the way you should go.

So then we should expect God to say "now I found a place for a camp"?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Depends on what the text intends to tell us. We don't get all the details. Just the ones God has for us.

Here's some context:

Genesis 15:8-9 But Abram said, "O Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?" So the Lord said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon."

So God's favor depends on God alone, and his blessing is dependent on him alone, so God knew here that he would bless Abraham, and also when he tested him.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. Doesn't change the rest of it. This is still just a pledge

So then if God knows all about us right now, then that's more relationship that if God doesn't know as much?
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Part of a relationship is the process of getting to know someone. Again, you're engage in equivocation to avoid the obvious.

Muz
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Gen 12:1-3 KJV is unconditional and is valid regardless of Abram's obedience.
The Covenant is between God and Himself (the seed of Abraham-Jesus Christ).
Click to expand...

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


​

If Abraham said he would leave, but never got around to it, would God still be obligated?

(Hint: No.)

Thus, it's conditional

Muz
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
Nope, a covenant, dependent on God alone, see the context!
Click to expand...

I saw the context.

So then God the Father doesn't have this part of a relationship with God the Son?
Click to expand...

Since we aren't told how this works, we don't know. It would seem that as one conceived the idea of creation and dealt with all the possible ramifications, that the others were learning as well.

Muz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top