ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

Would anyone like to discuss Open Theism?

Is anyone willing to read all the posts refuting Open Theism, as well as all the contents of each post refuting Open Theism?

 

[godrulz]

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

Straw man again? Open Theism is theocentric. God alone provides and initiates salvation. Man cannot save himself. This is not diametrically opposed to God's sovereign gift of free will to man.

God alone is worthy of worship. A response of faith to God's convincing and convicting is not tantamount to finite godism or humanism. It is a biblical principle.

The sovereignty of God and human free will is compatible. Hyper-sovereignty and determinism is incompatible with free will. The problem is a wrong view of sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control), not a wrong view of free will. Your compatibilistic view makes free will illusory.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Mr. Religion,

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

Ktoyou,

I see some similarities, esp. with respect to God's omniscience and foreordination. There are differences. See here and here. My biggest grief with the Episcopal Church is (1) its stance on homosexuality; (2) ordained female clerics, and (3) emphasis on sacramental salvation. Sadly, the church has moved too far towards the left in order to appeal to too many.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

"He (God) does not always have to get His way..."
God does not have to "have a risk-free existence."
What kind of God is this? This is not the God of the Scriptures and you know this.

In one breath God is a made up term, "omnicompetent being", yet in another God is "the Sovereign". So your Sovereign God is not completely sovereign, but just "very competent".

I have no problems with my theodicy. The fall into sin took place because God permitted it, although (inexplicably), God is not responsible for sin. I can accept the fact that I won't fully understand the transcendent God's sovereignty and yet my personal responsibility for sin. Yet that is far better than to trade God's attributes for something "agreeable" to man's mind, thereby erecting a false god persons can "love" and "feel better about". Such a "cosmic democracy" is not what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures. A sovereign "reigns".

 

[godrulz]

Even an earthly sovereign does not micromanage the kingdom. Rebellion is dealt with, not attributed to the King.

God is not 'very' competent. He is OMNIcompetent. He does not have to micromanage to bring His purposes to pass. He can create significant others capable of chosing contrary to His will without undermining His providential rule.

A warfare model is more biblical than a blueprint model.

Rather than saying you cannot understand how to reconcile two ideas, yet accept them, why not consider a position that does resolve problematic issues without violating Scripture (though it violates a preconceived theology or a wrong understanding of sovereignty, free will, etc.)?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would anyone like to discuss Open Theism?

Discuss, yes. Endure rants and ravings, no thanks.

 

[Delmar]

Is anyone willing to read all the posts refuting Open Theism, as well as all the contents of each post refuting Open Theism?

I would rather read the Bible, which affirms the open view!

 

[Clete]

Discuss, yes. Endure rants and ravings, no thanks.

Well then lets do it!

A good start would be for you to respond to any one of the posts I've made which you promised to respond too and never did.

Posts 375 and 376

 

[Delmar]

For those who think that the Open View is a new thing let me remind you that Abraham believed that the future was not settled in advance.
Genesis 18
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. 23 And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”
27 Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”
So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”
29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”
30 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”
32 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

 

[Delmar]

... and Jonah believed that the future was not settled.
Jonah 4:2
Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

 

[Delmar]

God Himself told Solomon that the future was not completely settled in advance.
2 Chronicles 7
14 IF My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

 

[Nick M]

I don't understand how people can read conditional prophecy, and think we don't have a choice or not. Or that everything is already determined. That would make our salvation a bit like wrestling with Vince McMahon wouldn't it?

 

[baloney]

godrulz psalm 139 still completely refutes open theism. God knows every detail about us and knows the future and records it in his book of life before it occurs in time.

 

[baloney]

This seems to be open theism's argument;

If God knows our future decisions, then we wouldn't have free will because we have to choose that decision.

It is illogical. If God know the decisions we make in the present, is that taking away our free will from making the present decision?

How would knowing future events be any more restrictive.

 

[Ktoyou]

Ktoyou,

I see some similarities, esp. with respect to God's omniscience and foreordination. There are differences. See here and here. My biggest grief with the Episcopal Church is (1) its stance on homosexuality; (2) ordained female clerics, and (3) emphasis on sacramental salvation. Sadly, the church has moved too far towards the left in order to appeal to too many.

Yet, someone who is an Episcopalian might have Calvinistic leanings.

That was about as much agreement as I expected. It is true the Episcopalian stance on homosexuality is far afield to the point that some Episcopal churches are refusing the change, while other are leaving the Church over this issue. As to women clerics, I have little concern if women clerics would not act as a watershed for these other liberal movements, as it seems to and by measures I know not. As to the liberal direction, the fist two points are certainly indicative of this; the mainstream protestant churches are all embracing too much liberalism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Rather than saying you cannot understand how to reconcile two ideas, yet accept them, why not consider a position that does resolve problematic issues without violating Scripture (though it violates a preconceived theology or a wrong understanding of sovereignty, free will, etc.)?

Because to do so would be to trade too much for so little. You have traded away God's exhaustive foreknowledge, omnipotence, and omniscience, for something that "satisfies" your desire for autonomy, in effect, you have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom. 1:23).

You will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to your intellectual authority and moral evaluation -- unless God consents to trade places with you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well then lets do it!

A good start would be for you to respond to any one of the posts I've made which you promised to respond too and never did.

Posts 375 and 376

Am happy to do so under the following conditions...

1. We refrain from any and all personal diatribes that you frequently (and I infrequently) are so prone to rely upon
2. We refrain from any and all hateful vitriol
3. You confine yourself to the topic and not prideful boasts

See discussion between Evoken and myself for an example. Can you see how a fruitful discussion can take place when both parties leave their pride aside and treat one another respectfully? The discussion is a model of how proper discussion of God's sacred character and attributes should take place.

Can you commit to these conditions? Please answer "yes" or "no" without equivocation.

Then come, let us reason together. If you cannot, you are not worthy of the many hours I expend in creating cogent commentary.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For those who think that the Open View is a new thing let me remind you that Abraham believed that the future was not settled in advance.
Genesis 18
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. 23 And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”
27 Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”
So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”
29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”
30 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”
32 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

You misunderstand God's foreknowledge and foreordination. God had foreordained that when asked He would respond. Nothing in God's character or attributes changed. When we pray, prayer is the means for the links in the chain of predestination. Our prayers are in the predestination, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. Destiny decrees that we should pray—we pray; destiny decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

In short, Abraham's intercessory prayers fulfilled what God had ordained.

To deny this is to deny that God already knows what you need before you have asked. We have not because we do not ask, unless you would make Christ to be a liar.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

... and Jonah believed that the future was not settled.
Jonah 4:2
Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.

First, many passages attributing ignorance to God are clearly anthropomorphic—that is, describing God’s actions, feelings, and thoughts in human terms, and from a human perspective. This is clearly the case in several of the above examples, including Genesis 18, where in vv.1-15, God stops off for rest and food at Abraham’s home as a guest.

The free-will theists failure to here distinguish between the figurative and the literal in their interpretation is comparable to the Mormon’s conclusion that God must have a body since certain texts speak of “His strong right arm!” Pinnock and his open theist company would do well to note G. B. Caird’s useful work entitled, The Language and Imagery of the Bible.

Passages speaking of God’s relenting, repenting, etc., where judgments which He predicted would happen did not come to pass, often have to do with forewarnings which include the implicit condition all things remaining the same. Such prophecies are not simple glimpses of the future, but pictures of what is going to happen unless....

As I noted in a previous response above to your other example (Sodom, etc.), petitionary prayer is a means by which God's ordinations are fulfilled. Our prayers are in the predestination, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. Destiny decrees that we should pray—we pray; destiny decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God Himself told Solomon that the future was not completely settled in advance.
2 Chronicles 7
14 IF My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Again, see here and here.