ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lighthouse]

baloney-
Do you care to answer my question?

 

[Yorzhik]

It is of critical importance, because everyone who grows up as a Calvinist will, at some point in there life, face a crisis and come face to face with the idea that whatever tragic situation they are going though, is happening because God wanted it to happen!
God wanted my Dad to leave my mom!
God wanted me to be raped!
God wanted a drunk driver to kill my family!
God wanted my children and grand children to reject Him and go to Hell because they were not "elected"!
It is a sick and twisted view of God and it is a lie from the pit of Hell!

Well said Delmar!

The Open View is all about what sort of God we serve or who God is. The Calvinist who doesn't or can't deal with the Biblical and rational arguments for Open Theism throws out the "humanist" straw man argument only to demonstrate their complete misunderstanding (usually willful misunderstanding) of the doctrine. All theological movements, including Calvinism, are fundamentally based upon a "Theology Proper" and Open Theism is no exception, which makes sense since theology is nothing more than the 'logos of the theos' or the logic (i.e. study) of God. If your understanding of God is wrong so will your theology be and conversely if your theology is wrong so will be your understanding of God. Thus the primary difference between Open Theism and Calvinism or Arminianism or any other settled view theology has primarily to do who God is.

Is God more like the creatures who, according to God's own testimony, were made by Him in His own image and likeness; enough like us that we can intimately relate to Him in ways that are meaningful and fulfilling for both Him and us, or is He like the gods of the Greeks, totally transcendent in every conceivable manner; so unlike us that we cannot help but contradict ourselves and sound silly when discussing even His simplest of attributes?

That is the fundamental question being debating between the Open Theists and everyone else.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well said, both of you!

It really is as simple as 'relationships'! God is person and personable. God seeks, pursues, and enters into give and receive relationships with His creatures. It frustrates me to no end that Calvinism has set the agenda for discussion for so long (even with Arminians) that even now every discussion is given to unraveling the knots they have made for themselves rather than simply pursuing what it means to experience and represent Jesus in God's world.

Closed minds = closed future
Open minds = open future

That may sound trite, but I'm convinced that until a person is convinced of God's nearness no amount of 'texting' of the scriptures seems to make a dent in their armor that keeps God at a distance, unable or unwilling to draw near to humanity.

God simply cannot be that un-Christ like. And Jesus could not have been that unlike his Father.

Philetus

Well said, the three of you!

I just posted this in another thread, but it is a great passage about God's relational nature, not a nature of meticulous control!

Concerning 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Look and pay attention to what God is saying, The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The passage concerns God's patience, and is a figure of speech. That's it. You don't need to be mystical or convoluted. God will wait a thousand years to accomplish something for us, but He loves us very much so it will seem like a day for Him. And if he has to wait a thousand years to accomplish something that could take a day, like waiting for us to respond to Him, then He'll wait. It's no big deal to God, really, He has all the time in the world.

 

[godrulz]

Even open theists believe that God predicts the future, you outrageously stupid idiot.

Would you please go away until you at least understand the issues being discussed here? You're such a huge waste of time for everyone here!


Resting in Him,
Clete

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[godrulz]

Now Clete admits that God does know the future after all this time of saying that OV couldn't because according to him the future doesn't exist yet.

Tell me, how could god cause events to "come to pass" without imposing his will on those events?

If you take Scripture at face value, there are two motifs: God knows and determines/settles SOME of the future, and God leaves some unsettled, hence unknowable as certain (known as possible).

If God decides to pour down giant hailstones in the future, He can predict this based on His great ability to do this unconditionally. If I intend to eat a hotdog at a certain time and place, I can declare this and bring it to pass by my ability to do so. This does not require simple foreknowledge, but simple ability to fulfill my prediction.

The things God predicts and declares, He can bring to pass (Is.). The fact is that God does not chose to micromanage, predict, bring to pass every minute detail in the universe from eternity past. I have genuine freedom to sleep in or get out of bed. This is not controlled by God nor predicted by Him before I was born. If it was, we live in a hyper-deterministic universe. God does not have responsible children or free moral agents in His image. He has puppets on a string, undermining love, relationship, freedom, responsibility. God, in His sovereignty, did not actualize this type of universe, though He could have. This is self-evident and consistent with Scripture, though patently contradictory to your preconceived theology.

 

[baloney]

Godulz, I am probably more "open theist" than you think.

I can just reconcile free will and God's providence not being frustrated and not destroying God's omniscience which beyond a doubt historically both hebrews and early Christians believed.

 

[Clete]

Now Clete admits that God does know the future after all this time of saying that OV couldn't because according to him the future doesn't exist yet.

Knowing and predicting (regardless of how accurately) isn't the same thing.

There are some things which God Himself intends to bring to pass by His own power and which are not conditional on the action or inaction of anyone else. These events God knows will happen. All other events are predictions and are subject to the principle taught in Jeremiah 18.

Tell me, how could god cause events to "come to pass" without imposing his will on those events?

Same way you do, only much more competently.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[baloney]

A person can predict the future by chance or insight. That does not make them a God. The test that God is God is that he knows the future not predicts it.

Jeremiah just speaks of god's providence not being frustrated.

I agree with some things appen out of necessity and some out of continbgency or proximation to God's goals.

Here's a question. Christ coming into the world happened out of necessity. Mary had free will. Could she have rejected receiving God into her womb.

 

[godrulz]

A person can predict the future by chance or insight. That does not make them a God. The test that God is God is that he knows the future not predicts it.

Jeremiah just speaks of god's providence not being frustrated.

I agree with some things appen out of necessity and some out of continbgency or proximation to God's goals.

Here's a question. Christ coming into the world happened out of necessity. Mary had free will. Could she have rejected receiving God into her womb.

The virgin conception was not based on free will, but intervention by God. God does not normatively mess with free will, but He can do so exceptionally. He also chose a vessel that was prepared in advance and willing. Mary was not violated, but rejoiced despite not fully understanding the significance of God's sovereign choices.

What would be a problem is if God made Mary do something immoral, contrary to His Word and her conscience.

God can and does intervene at times, but He does not always cause or coerce. Genuine, significant freedom is a gift in order to have love and relationship realities.

 

[baloney]

Does preparing a vessel not mean Mary would be free from original sin?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

All that in response to a one line post :jawdrop: I'm going to have to insist that you start trimming it back a bit!

You need to go back and read the entire thread that I jumped into late. The "one line" I responded to was the one started post that triggered a longer thread.

Your uninformed opinions about Calvinism are well known, so I can see how you would take issue with my post, despite its non-biased content, yet allow one from an OV-er that was just as long, yet full of OV dogma, to go uncommented as to its length.

Did you even bother to read what I posted? Or are you just sitting around with a ruler?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
Well said Delmar!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus
Well said, both of you!

Well said, the three of you!

Love fest? Sigh.

:dizzy: :help:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The virgin conception was not based on free will, but intervention by God. God does not normatively mess with free will, but He can do so exceptionally. God can and does intervene at times, but He does not always cause or coerce. Genuine, significant freedom is a gift in order to have love and relationship realities.

This is theological doubletalk. Where do we draw the line? Must we continually strain at every scripture verse to determine what is "nomative" or and exception to the "always" rule? No wonder there are no established statements of doctrine for open theism. Such a tome would be full of "if-then-else" subroutines, ultimately leading to infinite loops or completely dead sections never accessed. (Pardon the comp sci metaphor).

 

[Ktoyou]

Mr. Religion,

Based on your post 754 can you see how someone who is an Episcopalian might have Calvinistic leanings?

 

[godrulz]

Does preparing a vessel not mean Mary would be free from original sin?

Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. Catholic Mariolatry is extra/contrabiblical.

Original sin is Augustinian, not biblical. Despite Mary being a sinner by choice, she was still used by God to be the mother of Jesus the Messiah. A human womb is not sinful.

 

[godrulz]

This is theological doubletalk. Where do we draw the line? Must we continually strain at every scripture verse to determine what is "nomative" or and exception to the "always" rule? No wonder there are no established statements of doctrine for open theism. Such a tome would be full of "if-then-else" subroutines, ultimately leading to infinite loops or completely dead sections never accessed. (Pardon the comp sci metaphor).

Free will is genuine, self-evident, and the norm, by God's sovereign choice. He does not always have to get His way nor have a risk-free existence. An omnicompetent being can rule providentially without meticulous control.

This does not preclude the Sovereign from intervening when and how He wants, even at the expense of some creatures freedom. This is seen as exceptional, biblically and anecdotally.

Your theodicy is indefensible in light of reality and the explicit character of God.

 

[Nang]

Free will is genuine, self-evident, and the norm, by God's sovereign choice. He does not always have to get His way nor have a risk-free existence. An omnicompetent being can rule providentially without meticulous control.

This does not preclude the Sovereign from intervening when and how He wants, even at the expense of some creatures freedom. This is seen as exceptional, biblically and anecdotally.

Your theodicy is indefensible in light of reality and the explicit character of God.

You know how I read this . . .

Your religion is based upon your right, your duty, and your desire to maintain your belief in a human free will that can accomplish salvation from sin and achieve everlasting life.

Right?

Your religion has nothing to do with the attributes and works of God that deserve worship and adoration.

Instead, your religious focus is upon yourself and however, or whatever it takes to for you and others to make human free will accord with Scripture, in order to legitimize and propogate your so-called lifestyle, choices, and "theological" beliefs.

But such is not "theology."

It is humanistic apologetics, plain and simple.

Admit it. The Open View people desire to defend and maintain the free will of man, over and above all other pursuits.

Right?

Nang

 

[Delmar]

You need to go back and read the entire thread that I jumped into late. The "one line" I responded to was the one started post that triggered a longer thread.

Your uninformed opinions about Calvinism are well known, so I can see how you would take issue with my post, despite its non-biased content, yet allow one from an OV-er that was just as long, yet full of OV dogma, to go uncommented as to its length.

Did you even bother to read what I posted? Or are you just sitting around with a ruler?

In that post I was just doing my job as a moderator and reminding you that posts of excessive length are against the rules...and no I rarely bother trying to wade through posts that long. While it might seem like I live my entire life at TOL I am often just at the computer for five or ten minutes at a time, many times a day.

 

[Nang]

In that post I was just doing my job as a moderator and reminding you that posts of excessive length are against the rules...and no I rarely bother trying to wade through posts that long. While it might seem like I live my entire life at TOL I am often just at the computer for five or ten minutes at a time, many times a day.

Frankly, I believe this is wrong.

As moderator, it is your job to read all that is uploaded; whether it takes more than 5 or 10 minutes to read at a time, or not.

I suppose you limit your occasional responses, to 5 or 10 minutes of your time, also. (Probably because the likelihood is you post at work, on your employers' time.)

How can you absorb, meditate, and determine worth of posts, if you are simply scanning?

No wonder there is no spiritual development or correction occuring on TOL.

Nang

 

[Delmar]

Frankly, I believe this is wrong.

As moderator, it is your job to read all that is uploaded; whether it takes more than 5 or 10 minutes to read at a time, or not.

I suppose you limit your occasional responses, to 5 or 10 minutes of your time, also. (Probably because the likelihood is you post at work, on your employers' time.)

How can you absorb, meditate, and determine worth of posts, if you are simply scanning?

No wonder there is no spiritual development or correction occuring on TOL.

Nang

Wow I can't imagine anyone reading every bit of every post. I am sure glad the administrators at TOL do not expect that of me. I wouldn't last a week! Actually it isn't really my job at all to determine the worth of posts, It is simply my job to help keep order!
Edit: I don't post at work, by the way!

 

[Clete]

Would anyone like to discuss Open Theism?