ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[elected4ever]

Well it all comes back down to this for the Over and the calvanist. God's foreknowledge is causal. Both believe that. The Calvinist say that because God foreknew He set ever act of man as a design of God and therefore is the author of sin and evil as well as righteousness and good. The OVer thinks that because God's foreknowledge would be causal then God would not have know in advance of the event so deny foreknowledge all together even in the face of God's testimony to the contrary. To the Calvinist God becomes the author of sin and to the OVer God becomes a God of risk management. A gambler in the game of life with the life of men as the prise to be won or lost. Poor old man is but a pawn and not responsible for what he does or does not do. One says, "God made me do it" and the other says, "the Devil made me do it." In ether case man is but the dice being rolled in the game of human life or wondering if he was meant for hell or heaven.

 

[Clete]

Well it all comes back down to this for the Over and the calvanist. God's foreknowledge is causal. Both believe that. The Calvinist say that because God foreknew He set ever act of man as a design of God and therefore is the author of sin and evil as well as righteousness and good. The OVer thinks that because God's foreknowledge would be causal then God would not have know in advance of the event so deny foreknowledge all together even in the face of God's testimony to the contrary. To the Calvinist God becomes the author of sin and to the OVer God becomes a God of risk management. A gambler in the game of life with the life of men as the prise to be won or lost. Poor old man is but a pawn and not responsible for what he does or does not do. One says, "God made me do it" and the other says, "the Devil made me do it." In ether case man is but the dice being rolled in the game of human life or wondering if he was meant for hell or heaven.

This is just a lie. It's unbelievable that you just keep repeating this.

No Open View person that I know of believe that foreknowledge is causal. Why do you have to keep saying that over and over again? How many times do you have to be told before you'll get it?

Are you just saying it to be saying it? Trying to make us angry or something? Why can't you just debate what we actually believe? Is your position so weak that you have to force yourself to believe the straw men you erect are real and that you've done something important by burning them to the ground?

 

[Philetus]

DAVE,
That is awesome! I spent some time last week on your site ... didn't get to the evangelism page, but I plan to spend some time there. Thanks for the link.

I spend my life in the alley-ways, dumps, and under bridges. I do better on sidewalks than in sanctuaries. I've been at this now for 10 years. Don't get me wrong I love the church. But, my calling is the street. If I knew how I would post some pics of our alley work and the 'Church at the Dump". Use your imagination! It isn't Washington Square Park, but I'll bet you get the picture.

Most Christians have spent so much time in the church, preoccupied with the church, that they have either forgotten or never known what Jesus is doing in the world. It is amazing how the Gospel rings true with people who have nothing to defend and nothing to prove. How sad it is to find people who God is already working on/in through (natural revelation or universal grace ... His Spirit His way) rejecting Jesus because the message they heard from the church is inconsistent with what the Spirit is actually doing. Of course they can’t express this in ‘churchtalk’ so the church seldom understands if it is listening at all. It is so much fun to witness the work of Jesus and to be able to say, "Yes! That is God at work in your life to bring you into right relationship with himself. Want some more?" It is so much easier to follow Christ in the world than it is to lead or take Him there.

I find when on the street, that very often, the god that most people reject is the god that has been shaped in their thinking by more misinformation than Gospel? Sometimes I wonder if Paul wasn't talking about Calvinists (and even all us want-a-be-theologians) when he said, "... they exchange the truth about God for a lie. " We certainly do idolize our theologies when it is the simple Gospel that people need.

​

 

[Philetus]

This is just a lie. It's unbelievable that you just keep repeating this.

No Open View person that I know of believe that foreknowledge is causal. Why do you have to keep saying that over and over again? How many times do you have to be told before you'll get it?

Are you just saying it to be saying it? Trying to make us angry or something? Why can't you just debate what we actually believe? Is your position so weak that you have to force yourself to believe the straw men you erect are real and that you've done something important by burning them to the ground?

He can't get it, clete. God does all his thinking for him now that he is a new man in christ.:dizzy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by elected4ever View Post
Well it all comes back down to this for the Over and the calvanist. God's foreknowledge is causal. Both believe that. The Calvinist say that because God foreknew He set ever act of man as a design of God and therefore is the author of sin and evil as well as righteousness and good. The OVer thinks that because God's foreknowledge would be causal then God would not have know in advance of the event so deny foreknowledge all together even in the face of God's testimony to the contrary. To the Calvinist God becomes the author of sin and to the OVer God becomes a God of risk management. A gambler in the game of life with the life of men as the prise to be won or lost. Poor old man is but a pawn and not responsible for what he does or does not do. One says, "God made me do it" and the other says, "the Devil made me do it." In ether case man is but the dice being rolled in the game of human life or wondering if he was meant for hell or heaven.

It is getting old, E. You're not in the game. You're not even in left field. You're not even in the stands selling hot dogs! You're not even in the ball park. What universe are you from?

Man is the apple of God's eye, created in His own image, fallen and out of sink that image is marred not destroyed, yet still more like Him than not, and yes, in need of a savior to restore the relationship! WE have one! Calvinists, Arminians, and Open Theists all have the same redeemer! You need to quit thinking more highly of your self than you are capable of, get off your high-horse and join the rest of the church in hammering out the God-talk (theology) and quit making up your own version of the TRUTH. You’re not just wrong and confused; you’re toxic!

​

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well it all comes back down to this for the Over and the calvanist. God's foreknowledge is causal. Both believe that. The Calvinist say that because God foreknew He set ever act of man as a design of God and therefore is the author of sin and evil as well as righteousness and good. The OVer thinks that because God's foreknowledge would be causal then God would not have know in advance of the event so deny foreknowledge all together even in the face of God's testimony to the contrary. To the Calvinist God becomes the author of sin and to the OVer God becomes a God of risk management. A gambler in the game of life with the life of men as the prise to be won or lost. Poor old man is but a pawn and not responsible for what he does or does not do. One says, "God made me do it" and the other says, "the Devil made me do it." In ether case man is but the dice being rolled in the game of human life or wondering if he was meant for hell or heaven.

Unfortunately, your view is hopelessly irrational. Any attempt to combine a "closed view" with "free will" has never worked. The result is always been a manipulation of plain scripture away from a literal interpretation and a redefinition of Biblical terms. You can't even seem to honestly repeat the arguments we are making, in the same way, you misrepresent what the scriptures are saying as well.

 

[elected4ever]

It is not me that does not get it. I got it. All I have to do is read your post and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and there it is, stirring me right in the face. I here what you say and I see your desperation and fear.

Clete, you are afraid to give God your sovereignty and trust God with the decisions of your life. I believe you really believe that you must make the decisions for your life and you have turned into a legalist. You do not understand that you are no longer of the flesh and the flesh has no power over you anymore. You like so many others believe you have to maintain the grace that is in you. Not for salvation sake but for some other reason that you have con-cocked. You are not a secure person in your mind.

The Calvinist are full of fear. Not fear of God but fear of facing a world when they are the face of God and the decisions they make may be in error so God must make or has already made their decisions for them leaving them with no decision making responsibility.

Perfect love cast out all fear. I do not fear of offending God as you and others do. Why, because while I am in this world I am not of it. I am not under condemnation and my Father treats me as a son and not as a stranger of foreigner to the household of God that I formally was. I have lost the fear of sin and gained a love for righteousness. Sin can nolonger harm me. What is it going to do? Kill my body which is the body's just reward? So what, I have lost myself and gained all. That is something you or the Calvinist have yet to realize.

 

[Nang]

This is an entirely different point. God can show us what is right and wrong even if we will at times do the wrong thing. The difference between that and what I was asking Lon to understand is this: God added to the commands promises for those who obey/disobey them.

"Commands, promises?" What is this term?

A command is the Law. A promise is grace. You are muddling two different concepts and aspects of Godly economy.

You must understand what a lie is, right? If someone tells someone they will do something and know all along that they will not do it, that is a lie.

Yes. That would be a false prophecy. But the Law of God and His commands are not prophecy, but statements of legal fact. The Law given to Adam in the very beginning, was, "Believe God to live; disobey God to die."

That is not prophecy, nor promise, nor a conditional requirement. This is the Law and order of God's created universe.

And that very Law has not changed, just because Adam failed to believe God. The Law is the same today as it was in the garden. Men must believe God to live. That is not a lie. Even though men cannot do it.

But then that is why God sent the Savior, who could and did.

If the future is settled, and God promises things he knows he will break (no matter what the excuse) it is a lie.

God has never broken a promise. You are confusing Law with prophetic promise and thereby confusing yourself.

So, if the future is settled, you must face the fact that God can lie.

The future is determined. God cannot lie.

You must reject the verse that says God cannot lie, and you have to realize that under the settled view, you really can't trust God because he can lie.

No, I don't have to reject a single Word of God. I trust God completely to keep His promises and to fulfill every prophecy. I also trust the Son of God to keep the Law perfectly on my behalf. Jesus Christ believed and obeyed the Father in my stead, so that I might be made worthy to receive the promises of grace.

You cannot make promises out of Law, and you cannot make Law out of promises of grace.

Nang

 

[Yorzhik]

Ga, 67 posts in 2 days. One can't skip a single day around here can they?

 

[Philetus]

It is not me that does not get it. I got it. All I have to do is read your post and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and there it is, stirring me right in the face. I here what you say and I see your desperation and fear.

Clete, you are afraid to give God your sovereignty and trust God with the decisions of your life. I believe you really believe that you must make the decisions for your life and you have turned into a legalist. You do not understand that you are no longer of the flesh and the flesh has no power over you anymore. You like so many others believe you have to maintain the grace that is in you. Not for salvation sake but for some other reason that you have con-cocked. You are not a secure person in your mind.

The Calvinist are full of fear. Not fear of God but fear of facing a world when they are the face of God and the decisions they make may be in error so God must make or has already made their decisions for them leaving them with no decision making responsibility.

Perfect love cast out all fear. I do not fear of offending God as you and others do. Why, because while I am in this world I am not of it. I am not under condemnation and my Father treats me as a son and not as a stranger of foreigner to the household of God that I formally was. I have lost the fear of sin and gained a love for righteousness. Sin can nolonger harm me. What is it going to do? Kill my body which is the body's just reward? So what, I have lost myself and gained all. That is something you or the Calvinist have yet to realize.

WE DO GET THAT! That's the point. WE GET IT! Praise God.

What you don't get is that THAT has nothing to do with the discussion.

:bang:

 

[elected4ever]

WE DO GET THAT! That's the point. WE GET IT! Praise God.

What you don't get is that THAT has nothing to do with the discussion.

:bang:

What you don't get is that it has everything to do with this discussion

 

[elected4ever]

1 Corinthians 3:1 ¶And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 ¶Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 ¶For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sorry to interrupt, but I ran across this passage today in my study.

In reference to the propehcy of Psalms 2...Acts 4:25-28
How does verse 28 fit into the Open View?

thanks

 

[Philetus]

What you don't get is that it has everything to do with this discussion

WE ALL get what you said ... one way or the another. What we are discussing is which is the 'one way' and which is 'the other'.

 

[patman]

Sorry to interrupt, but I ran across this passage today in my study.

In reference to the propehcy of Psalms 2...Acts 4:25-28
How does verse 28 fit into the Open View?

thanks

The future isn't completely open. God planned before creation that Jesus would die for our sins if we sinned. He is wise enough to know how things will turn out most of the time, too.

The O.V. simply doesn't believe the future is totally settled...

 

[patman]

"Commands, promises?" What is this term?

A command is the Law. A promise is grace. You are muddling two different concepts and aspects of Godly economy.



Yes. That would be a false prophecy. But the Law of God and His commands are not prophecy, but statements of legal fact. The Law given to Adam in the very beginning, was, "Believe God to live; disobey God to die."

....

You cannot make promises out of Law, and you cannot make Law out of promises of grace.

Nang

You are the one who is confused. I am half tempted to make you just re-read my last post.

You were confused by this: " God added to the commands promises for those who obey/disobey them."

You thought I was making up a new word apparently. I could say "I added to 3 1 for those who needed extra" and you should understand those people got 4. Granted there are better ways to say it, but why didn't you realize that is what I was doing?

That kinda throws a lot of your points off if you didn't even know what I was saying before.

If you aren't going to take the time to read and understand what I am saying before you hit the reply button, you'll just have to ask someone else about the O.V. because apparently you don't really care enough to read what I have to say.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The future isn't completely open. God planned before creation that Jesus would die for our sins if we sinned. He is wise enough to know how things will turn out most of the time, too.

The O.V. simply doesn't believe the future is totally settled...

Hello Patman,

The scripture inidicates that God determined that the heathen (Rome) would
join with the rulers (of Israel) to bring about the crucifixion...could it have happened any other way without contradicting the prophecy of Psalms 2?

I guess I still don't completely understand the OV.

 

[Nang]

You are the one who is confused. I am half tempted to make you just re-read my last post.

You were confused by this: " God added to the commands promises for those who obey/disobey them."

You thought I was making up a new word apparently. I could say "I added to 3 1 for those who needed extra" and you should understand those people got 4. Granted there are better ways to say it, but why didn't you realize that is what I was doing?

That kinda throws a lot of your points off if you didn't even know what I was saying before.

I will stick with my points.

Law and Promise are two different things, and neither one are conditional. One does not receive the Covenant promises by keeping the Law. And the Law is not obeyed in order to receive reward. It is demanded and required that the creature obey the Creator; we must obey God or we die.

Law is kept as a matter of submission to the will of God. Promises are received, not by earned rewards, but strictly according to the grace of God.

IOW's I believe the reason all things happen, has nothing to do with the actions of sinners, but all to do with the good pleasure of God.

Admittedly, I may be taking this a bit afield of your intentions, but I do so enjoy my own posts!

If you aren't going to take the time to read and understand what I am saying before you hit the reply button, you'll just have to ask someone else about the O.V. because apparently you don't really care enough to read what I have to say.

It seems you are motivated to explain OVT, and I am motivated to explain contrasting Covenant Theology . . and will do so at any opportunity. Sorry if I abused your sensitivities this time. Maybe you should just shoot me.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you for your response, Philetus.

In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison,

Does scripture use rhetorical comparisons in any other place?

I would have to research more. I am certain it does occur elsewhere. Why do you ask?

God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.

None have any claim on God's grace? What about your so called 'elect'? Doesn't the "one portion of mankind (elect)” have a claim the rest could object to? That is such double talk that you can’t possibly call that PURE mercy and grace. You have to call that at best 50% mercy and Grace. No one objects to God’s decree that all mankind is under the curse of sin; nor would anyone in their right mind object to PURE mercy and Grace. What the Open View (and many others) object to is your Calvinistic (“Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself)”) twisted interpretation of God’s universal offer of salvation to ‘WHOSOEVER WILL’.

Actually, this is not doubletalk. By “none have any claim on God’s grace”, I mean no one in and of themselves. That does not imply that God does not bestow His good grace to some (e.g., the elect). You emphasis on “PURE mercy and grace” is redundant with God’s own pure attributes. Anything God does would be, by definition, pure. You are attempting to lift something out of the concept of God’s grace and make it distinct from what is already inherent in God’s nature.

No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.

Yeper! That’s correct! That is why we can call it Pure Grace and you can’t.

See my response above. All actions by God are in fact pure actions by God, whether we want to label them something else or not.

14. Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.

And again, you base your numbers on what exactly?

While God’s decree of election and predestinating love, is discriminating and particular, it is, nevertheless, very extensive.

"I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; and they cried with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb," Revelation 7:9-10.

I believe that God has elected untold millions of mankind to everlasting and eternal salvation and happiness. Exactly what proportion of mankind God has included in His purpose of mercy, we have not been informed. But, in light of the future days of prosperity which are promised to the Church, it may be inferred that much the greater part will eventually be found among the number of His elect.

On two occasions in Revelation 19 we are carefully told that the sword by which the victory of the Word of God is won proceeds out of the mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). I do not think this is a literal war, but that the conquest is accomplished by the spoken word—in short, by the preaching of the Gospel. Thus we have in front of us a picture of the victory of the Gospel of Christ in the world. All the imagery of the dreaded battle and its hideous details in Rev. 19 is to give us an impression of the completeness of the victory. Christ's Gospel is to conquer the earth; He is to overcome all His enemies.

We are living in a time that is relatively golden when compared with the first century of the Christianity, and this progress will continue until we shall see a practical fulfillment of the prayer, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." As we interpret the broader view of God's gracious dealings with the sinful world, we see that He has not distributed His electing grace with stingy hand, but that His purpose has been the restoration to Himself of the whole world.

The promise given to Abraham was that his posterity should be a vast multitude,—"In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore," Genesis 22:17; "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also be numbered," Genesis 13:16. And in the New Testament we find that God’s promise refers not only to the Jews as a separate people, but that those who are Christians are in the highest sense the true "sons of Abraham." "Know therefore, that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham"; and again, "If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise," Galatians 3:7, 29.

Isaiah declared that the pleasure of God should prosper in the hands of the Messiah, that God should see of the travail of Christ’s soul and be satisfied.

The idea that the saved shall greatly outnumber the lost is also borne out in the contrasts drawn in the Scriptures. Heaven is always pictured as the next world, as a great kingdom, a country, a city; while on the other hand hell is uniformly represented as a comparatively small place, a prison, a lake (of fire and brimstone), a pit (perhaps deep, but narrow), (Luke 20:35; 1 Timothy 6:17; Revelation 21:1; Matthew 5:3; Hebrews 11:16; 1 Peter 3:19; Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8-27). When angels and saints are mentioned in the Scriptures they are said to be hosts, myriads, an innumerable multitude; but no such language is ever used in regard to the reprobate, and by contrast the number of the lost appears to be relatively insignificant (Luke 2:13; Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 5:11). In the immense range of God's dominion, good is the rule, and evil is the exception. As Shedd writes, “Sin is a speck upon the azure of eternity; a spot upon the sun. Hell is only a corner of the universe."

But, some will ask, what about, "Narrow is the gate, and straightened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it," and, "Many are called, but few chosen," Matthew 7:14; 22:14? Do these verses not teach that many more are lost than saved? I believe these verses are meant to beinterpreted in a temporal sense, as describing the conditions which Jesus and His disciples saw existing in Palestine in their day. The large majority of the people about Christ and His disciples were not walking in the ways of righteousness, and the words here are spoken from the standpoint of that era rather than from the standpoint of the distant day of Judgment. In the verses we have before us a portrait representative of life as they saw it, and which would, for that matter, describe the world as it has been even up to the present time. But, as the centuries pass, is it never to be that the proportion following the two paths of sin or righteousness never reversed?

The verses in Matthew above are also designed to teach us that salvation is a path of difficulty and sacrifice, and that it is our duty to concern ourselves to the path with diligence and persistence. No one should assume his redemption is a matter of course. Those who enter into the kingdom of heaven will do so through many tribulations; hence the command, "Strive to enter in by the narrow door," Luke 13:24. The choice in life is represented as a choice between two roads, one broad, smooth, and easy to travel, but leading to destruction. The other road is narrow and difficult, and leads to everlasting life. As Warfield wrote, there is no more reason to suppose that this similitude teaches that the saved shall be fewer than the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25) teaches that the lost and the saved shall be precisely equal in number. And there is far less reason to assume that this similitude teaches that the saved shall be few comparatively to the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the Tares in the corn (Matthew 13:24) teaches that the lost shall be inconsiderable in number in comparison with the saved—for that, in fact, is an important part of the teaching of that parable.

Having said all of this let me caution that there is also no more reason to suppose that these scripture references to the two paths teaches that the number of the saved shall be fewer than the number of the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the lost sheep teaches that only one out of a hundred goes astray and that even the lost sheep shall eventually be brought back, which would indeed be absolute restorationism.

In summary, when we contrast the rapid spread of Christianity with the rapid disintegration that is taking place in all of the other world religions, it appears clear that Christianity is the future world religion. In the light of these facts we face the future confident that the best is yet to be.

17. The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.

Right again! But again, your interpretation and application stinks! All are 'elected' to receive or reject God's offer of salvation by GRACE through Faith but not all will respond favorably. Those who do are the 'elect' to receive power/the right to become children of God.
Universal curse/Partial solution? The Calvinistic view of God is of a weak, controlling despot that doesn’t know the first thing about love, redemption or relationship. The God that has all the power and freedom to love Jacob and Hate Esau and still goes to the cross to redeem ALL humanity is the God revealed in Christian scripture. Total solution.
Sunday School 101
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Clearly, I believe in limited atonement. Negative rhetoric notwithstanding, to prevent this post from being even longer, let’s examine at the matter more carefully in a separate post.

 

[Nang]

=Ask Mr. Religion
Clearly, I believe in limited atonement.

:cheers:

 

[godrulz]

Limited atonement may fit TULIP, but it is not biblical. Even Calvin believed in general redemption. God's love is not limited nor arbitrary. Double predestination was 'horrific' to Calvin, yet he did not have the sense to reject it.