ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

That is easy enough to figure out. They just claim it clearly doesn't mean what it clearly says!

No, we believe God presents conditions not 'to see how we respond' but to mold us and shape us, interject willfully into man's dilemma, for teaching (object lessons).

The problem isn't the condition, but how we perceive the reasoning behind the position. No points for stopping at the wall you've erected for yourself in dialoguing our positon. What I mean is, you can choose to stay blissfully ignorant or you can ask a series of questions and learn more correctly what our positiion is. Your logical loopholes don't work very well. They are clever little conundrums, but never get to the main point of the actual arguments and points of difference.

So either pidgeon hole and stay where you are at or learn something and appreciate how we interpret. The statement he made was honest, your answer wasn't. I'm not trying to whip you here, I'm trying to get you to think outside of your pidgeonhole. The subject matter doesn't fit.

In Him

Lon

 

[Lon]

So there is a connection between creation and justification, right?





Obviously.



So then, there is also a connection between justification and future glory, too, right?

Seems to me that salvation is part of the both the beginning and the end.



Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?

Their view of omnicompetence doesn't negate future determinations, just future knowledge. They believe God is potent enough (not omnipotent but powerful enough) to accomplish what He purposes. The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But you have zero basis for the claim of mere thousands of open theists. Drop this AMR point AMR. It is irrelevant and you know it. If one man is right and the rest of the whole world is wrong, then so be it. I'm not interested in winning popularity contests.

Trust me, if it were millions open theists would be making a very big deal about it. I gave you the source for my millions, please find a source for your implied statement that any claim that there are only thousands of open theists is incorrect.

The bottom line is that the response to a truth is not a valid test of that truth. It just isn't. You know what is a test of a truth claim, especially Biblical truth claims? Scripture and sound reason. NOTHING ELSE!

I never said truth was a popularity contest. I clearly stated that the numbers and years should give the reasoned person pause before they leap headlong into a radical redefinition of what so many other Christians believed for so long.

Do you believe that what we call Calvinism today was a NEW revelation or do you believe it to have been a return to the true Biblical faith that had existed all along? Did Paul believe the TULIP doctrines? Would Paul have endorsed the Westminster Confession?

Paul believed and clearly taught the doctrines that are embodied in the acrostic, TULIP.

You assume too much. You do not know me AMR. Why do I have to keep reminding you of that? You don't have any idea how I came to believe in open theism. You don't know what I studied, you don't know how long it took, you don't know what I believed before, nor why I believed it.
...
I have never suggested otherwise. This entire argument of your is stupid AMR. Where have I or any other Open Theist anywhere in the world ever suggested that these matters be taken lightly and that careful consideration should be cast to the wind? Where? Quote me one instance where anyone has ever suggested anything remotely like that. Just one quote AMR!

I know what I know from our discourse. You regularly dismiss commentary with a wave of the hand and some sarcasm. You hold in disdain the formally educated (as below once more). You claimed within TOL and at the reformed.org discussion group to have once been a Calvinist. The whys of these things do not matter. You are what you communicate, whether you intend it or not, which is why you should be more circumspect and less vociferous. But you appear incapable of doing either. You are like the beast of the field that is driven completely by instinctual urges. Clete simply cannot control himself. Everywhere you insert yourself into a conversation you bring vitriol and arrogant pridefulness. As I stated here, I have read all your words, and no thread exists where you have participated for any length of time that does not have you berating someone with the "I am right you are wrong" aphorisms. Even at reformed.org you did not take very long before you started the same behaviors (see here) as you exhibit here. Those are the pure facts, whether you admit them or not.

I reject Calvinism on the basis that it is not Biblical, it is irrational, it is pagan, and it is blasphemous, all of which I can establish.

Then please start a thread and lay out your arguments. I know many would be interested. In fact, world awaits Clete's refutation of Calvinism as logically incoherent and unbiblical. Honestly, do you ever step back, take a breath, and actually read what you write before reaching for the "Submit Reply" button?

Popularity is not a test for truth. In fact suggesting otherwise the ad populum fallacy.

I have already stated as much. No need to reach for the rationalist favorite bible commentary, the book of logical fallacies.

Why do you use the plural “revelations”? Do you hold to Sola Scriptura or not?
Most career theologians have not made a career out of studying the Bible but rather the study of their chosen theology and you are no exception. Professional theologians spend their entire lives entrenching themselves into a particular theological paradigm, not studying the Bible itself.

Someone inform Clete of God's general and special revelation to mankind. 1+1 = 2, thus "revelations". I guess it does prove beneficial to be formally educated at times, no? The disdain I claim you hold for the educated is established out of your own mouth. Stop declaring the contrary for your words betray you.

The word rationalism means something very specific and I very simply do not fall under that definition. As I’ve said before, the only difference between you and I concerning the issue of using sound reason is that I give it more than just lip service. I am actually willing to reject a truth claim based solely on the fact that it is irrational and you are not. That is not rationalism AMR! That’s being rational but it is NOT rationalISM. Rationalism is when you believe that all truth can be attained solely by way of the use of sound reason. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS SO!

Now, surprise everyone here and actually respond to that defense against your accusation rather than sticking your head in the sand and pretending like I didn’t just blow the whole idea out of the water. I am not a rationalist but hold tightly to both Scripture and sound reason just as Luther himself did and as you yourself claimed to do in your inaugural post on this website.

I need not point to the many TOL posts. I will instead point to this or that God died or this or this, finally, this (more of bad boy Clete's behavior getting called). You are convicted, Clete! A rationalist exposed!

If you want to poke fun at Wikipedia as a source I wouldn’t blame you in general but if you’ll look up the sources used in the articles you’ll find the information quite credible. If that isn’t good enough for you then how much money do you want to wager that I can find a dozen more sources that say almost exactly the same thing?

Oh, my. Do I really need to point you to something? Or a web site containing bias? Pick up Grudem, Erickson, Berkof, etc., just about any systematic theology textbook, even the older tomes by Hodge or Strong. All will define omniscience and immutability as I have. It is only the openness and process theology movement advocates that have sought to redefine the attributes of God to fit their theology. How many systematic theology textbooks do you actually own? Note: Enyart's The Plot is not a theology textbook.

Indeed! Progress is always a good thing. However, I would submit, and have done so already many times, that while you say that you give no special emphasis to any one of God’s attributes, the fact is that you do because you have no choice. There are passages which force you to make a decision about which of God’s attributes is going to take precedence of another and the Calvinist invariable puts that emphasis on God’s quantitative attributes (i.e. His power, His knowledge, His size, etc) rather than His qualitative attributes (i.e. relationship, personality, righteousness, justice, etc).

No, you have it wrong, Clete. None of God's attributes are held above His other attributes. Pick up that systematic theology book by Strong, for example, and read it carefully. You can download it at Google Books (in three parts). You just don't know what you are talking about because you have not objectively studied masters of the topic. You read with a red pencil in your hand, crossing out or writing "No!" as you read all driven by your closed minded inclinations.

The only thing that I would change is in point two, “cannot” should be “does not”. God is capable of exercising total control but chooses not to in order to make it possible for us to love Him.

I may concede this point if only to press onward. I know it is motivated by the open theist's view that God can somehow change His mind, even after He has decided to act in a certain manner. It is inexplicable, but I will yield to the modification.

I did not equivocate, AMR. I stated plainly that I believe most Calvinists are saved. There are some who believe in the wrong Jesus and have no understanding of what sin is or why they need a savior and are confused on those issues solely because of Calvinist doctrine and are therefore not saved. Those are, however, it would seem to me, to be in the minority. If you believe that God became a man and died in payment for the sin debt that you owe and that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved – period. I don’t care what else you get wrong. If you get that much right, you will be saved, although perhaps by the skin of your teeth. A man can unwittingly blaspheme God every day of his life and still be saved.

I will take that as a "yes" in my case, despite the weasel wording.

I have further read the same arguments from prominent Open Theism authors as well.

Again, from the biased comes the analysis.

But even if none of that were true. Would the fact that two and only two people in the whole history of the world had ever pointed out the connections between Calvinism and Plato, would that make their arguments invalid or false?

Again, I do not deny the connections between Calvinism, Arminianism, or open theism to the Greeks. In the end the result must be biblical. You assert my dogma is not. As above, I and the world awaits your proof.

This is a lie. An outright lie! This is just inexcusable!

I can quote your own precious Westminster Confession as well as several self-proclaimed Calvinist that would sooner die than admit that God is anything other than absolutely immutable because in their minds and according to the WCF any change would indicate a lack of perfection because the perfect can only change for the worse and God is utterly perfect in every respect. A line of reasoning which originated with Aristotle and introduced to the church by Augustine who when attempting to deal with the problem of evil said explicitly that he would automatically reject any explanation that required him to believe that God was mutable.

You tried to make this stick here and at reformed.org, but failed miserably in both locations. Please stop the Sophistry.

If this is all the Calvinist mean by immutable then why in the world isn’t there agreement on this point between the open theist and the Calvinist?

Two reasons. The first is that open theism trades too much away from God's perfections. You make the leap from an immutable God in attributes and characteristics to a contingent being. The second is that you and open theists won't seriously consider that perhaps, maybe, you are mistaken.

The answer is in the fact that you tacked on “and attributes” at the end of your definition. God’s attributes define God’s whole existence. If none of God attributes can change then God cannot change at all! What is it that you think can change about God that wouldn’t qualify as an attribute? It’s meaningless double talk. God can either change or He cannot. If He can change in any way whatsoever the it would not be accurate to refer to Him as being immutable. You might could refer to those parts of Him (Calvinist deny that God has parts by the way) that cannot change as immutable but to say that God Himself is immutable is to say that God cannot change in any respect.

No, because you rely upon your bible commentary, the dictionary, to define your terms. Yet the lexicon of theology is not a dictionary, it is the scriptures. The terms love, hate, justice, freedom, etc., mean something different in a theological context when dealing with a transcendent God. This is the one fundamental flaw in all your reasoning. It is the bane of rationalism.

If it’s so fallacious then prove it. Instead of just saying that we’ve misunderstood Augustine and Calvin, prove it. Prove that Calvin believed that God was in some meaningful way changeable without at the same time affirming that God was absolutely immutable and then discounting the contradiction as an antinomy.

See Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950.

See Calvin, Institutes 1.17.12-14. See also J. Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. (1554, reprinted, tr. John King; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 248-9; and J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony,(1563, reprinted, tr. C.W. Bingham; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979) 3. 334.9Calvin, Institutes 1.16.3. Berkhof's Systematic Theology reminds us that the Reformed concept of divine immutability does not deny the reality of God’s intricate involvement in time and space. “The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action.” L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1939, 1941, reprinted; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 59

Again, from the above I assert that you are uninformed. You don't take the time to formally study the masters. Calvin has taught the biblical philosopher-theologian to think God's thoughts after him. Calvin refused to elevate reason above Scripture. You should do the same.

 

[Yorzhik]

Their view of omnicompetence doesn't negate future determinations, just future knowledge. They believe God is potent enough (not omnipotent but powerful enough) to accomplish what He purposes. The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it.

Did you already answer my thought experiment. Ummm, you did. I remember now. you said it was interesting or some such.

Nevermind.

 

[godrulz]

Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?

You missed my point. We agree that justification, sanctification, and future glorification are all aspects of the redemptive process that makes us whole in body, soul, and spirit, in Christ.

I was talking about the OT issue of the future being partially open and partially settled. The implications for omniscience is a different issue than soteriological issues of justification/glorification (unless you insist on deterministic, fatalistic salvation trillions of years before the individual and their choices existed).

 

[Delmar]

Trust me, if it were millions open theists would be making a very big deal about it. I gave you the source for my millions, please find a source for your implied statement that any claim that there are only thousands of open theists is incorrect.
I never said truth was a popularity contest. I clearly stated that the numbers and years should give the reasoned person pause before they leap headlong into a radical redefinition of what so many other Christians believed for so long.
Paul believed and clearly taught the doctrines that are embodied in the acrostic, TULIP.
I know what I know from our discourse. You regularly dismiss commentary with a wave of the hand and some sarcasm. You hold in disdain the formally educated (as below once more). You claimed within TOL and at the reformed.org discussion group to have once been a Calvinist. The whys of these things do not matter. You are what you communicate, whether you intend it or not, which is why you should be more circumspect and less vociferous. But you appear incapable of doing either. You are like the beast of the field that is driven completely by instinctual urges. Clete simply cannot control himself. Everywhere you insert yourself into a conversation you bring vitriol and arrogant pridefulness. As I stated here, I have read all your words, and no thread exists where you have participated for any length of time that does not have you berating someone with the "I am right you are wrong" aphorisms. Even at reformed.org you did not take very long before you started the same behaviors (see here) as you exhibit here. Those are the pure facts, whether you admit them or not.
Then please start a thread and lay out your arguments. I know many would be interested. In fact, world awaits Clete's refutation of Calvinism as logically incoherent and unbiblical. Honestly, do you ever step back, take a breath, and actually read what you write before reaching for the "Submit Reply" button?
I have already stated as much. No need to reach for the rationalist favorite bible commentary, the book of logical fallacies.


Someone inform Clete of God's general and special revelation to mankind. 1+1 = 2, thus "revelations". I guess it does prove beneficial to be formally educated at times, no? The disdain I claim you hold for the educated is established out of your own mouth. Stop declaring the contrary for your words betray you.

I need not point to the many TOL posts. I will instead point to this or that God died or this or this, finally, this (more of bad boy Clete's behavior getting called). You are convicted, Clete! A rationalist exposed!
Oh, my. Do I really need to point you to something? Or a web site containing bias? Pick up Grudem, Erickson, Berkof, etc., just about any systematic theology textbook, even the older tomes by Hodge or Strong. All will define omniscience and immutability as I have. It is only the openness and process theology movement advocates that have sought to redefine the attributes of God to fit their theology. How many systematic theology textbooks do you actually own? Note: Enyart's The Plot is not a theology textbook.

No, you have it wrong, Clete. None of God's attributes are held above His other attributes. Pick up that systematic theology book by Strong, for example, and read it carefully. You can download it at Google Books (in three parts). You just don't know what you are talking about because you have not objectively studied masters of the topic. You read with a red pencil in your hand, crossing out or writing "No!" as you read all driven by your closed minded inclinations.

I may concede this point if only to press onward. I know it is motivated by the open theist's view that God can somehow change His mind, even after He has decided to act in a certain manner. It is inexplicable, but I will yield to the modification.

I will take that as a "yes" in my case, despite the weasel wording.

Again, from the biased comes the analysis.

Again, I do not deny the connections between Calvinism, Arminianism, or open theism to the Greeks. In the end the result must be biblical. You assert my dogma is not. As above, I and the world awaits your proof.

You tried to make this stick here and at reformed.org, but failed miserably in both locations. Please stop the Sophistry.

Two reasons. The first is that open theism trades too much away from God's perfections. You make the leap from an immutable God in attributes and characteristics to a contingent being. The second is that you and open theists won't seriously consider that perhaps, maybe, you are mistaken.

No, because you rely upon your bible commentary, the dictionary, to define your terms. Yet the lexicon of theology is not a dictionary, it is the scriptures. The terms love, hate, justice, freedom, etc., mean something different in a theological context when dealing with a transcendent God. This is the one fundamental flaw in all your reasoning. It is the bane of rationalism.

See Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950.

See Calvin, Institutes 1.17.12-14. See also J. Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. (1554, reprinted, tr. John King; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 248-9; and J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony,(1563, reprinted, tr. C.W. Bingham; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979) 3. 334.9Calvin, Institutes 1.16.3. Berkhof's Systematic Theology reminds us that the Reformed concept of divine immutability does not deny the reality of God’s intricate involvement in time and space. “The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action.” L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1939, 1941, reprinted; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 59

Again, from the above I assert that you are uninformed. You don't take the time to formally study the masters. Calvin has taught the biblical philosopher-theologian to think God's thoughts after him. Calvin refused to elevate reason above Scripture. You should do the same.

I prefer to study The Master!

 

[Philetus]

I did not ask you about your views of Justification in order to trip you up or find fault. This is good. I appreciate your giving answer; especially according to Scripture.

I agree. Jesus Christ, by remitting our sins, justified us before God, and made us fit and worthy to receive God's grace and to be imputed with Christ's righteousness.

Agreed.

Agreed, although as a Calvinist I believe it is important to include the quantifying verse that immediately follows:

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

Otherwise, one might misinterpret verse 18 as being universalistic.

But apart from that distinction, we are agreed that sinners were justified by Christ through His vicarious work on their behalf, not only by His perfect life of obedience under the Law, but by His sacrifice on the cross.

Right?

And I agree that this justification (forgiveness of sins) is God's provision of the "wonderful life sentence," as you put it. Through Jesus Christ, sinners are transferred from death to life.

Right?

Do OVT'ers believe Godly justification was planned?

One might. But, why underline 'many' only once in Romans 5:19? Paul (at least in this version/translation) uses it twice.

I don't ask that because I think we disagree, because I'm sure we do agree. The reason I ask is to point out how your view seems to me to be dependent on complicated redefining of every text and every word appearing in scripture. Both OVers and SVers make wild, exaggerated statements about the others views. At least it's fun. That's why I am not eager to get into a debate on 'Justification' with you. Godrulz has done a good job pointing out that 'justification' isn't the issue in the debate over Open vs. Settled views specifically. Your reply rightly points out the connection to the future and the past. If the justification of the 'many' was settled and known by God in the past ... what does our volition have to do with future glorification? If the settled view is correct then you are also correct that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all. So then we would have to talk about the first use of the word 'many' in Romans 5:19. And round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows.

For example, define 'planned' by the Encarta Dictionary and I'm sure we will agree that it was planned .... so where's the problem? Define 'planned' as exhaustive determinism and pre-knowledge of every future detail and we have an impasse and just talk 'past' one another.

Justification is 100% grace on God's part. Now underline ‘through faith’. Then lets talk about 'gift' and what it means to 'receive' a gift and then we can move on to …. Whosoever .... 'elect' ..... whatever ...... and when we get tired of underling and redefining we can go back to name calling ... which is at least more entertaining and perhaps less destructive than what we tend do with the Word of God.

I think we agree the fall was universal and not through any volition of our own. Yet, we all have sinned. Why? Could temptation have something to do with that? And what is temptation? Where does it originate? With God? The evil one? Our own hearts? The Open View also believes salvation isn't universal, (some might) but also that our volition has something to do with that. Neither can be 'proven' by the use of the word 'many' in any given proof text.

Can you imagine how much 'fun' we would be having if the scripture suggested that only 'some' fell through Adam's sin? It doesn't.
But,

Romans 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.​

might give us fits. Who's will? Who's hope? Does God hope?

Subjected to futility in hope,
Philetus



PS, Actually, the following comes from Peterson's The Message. But, If I had labeled it so would you have read it?

("There's no comparison between that death-dealing sin and this generous, life-giving gift. The verdict on that one sin was the death sentence; the verdict on the many sins that followed was this wonderful life sentence.")​

I read 'The Message' not because it is great for word study; it is not! I read it precisely because it defies my propensity to underline words to support my preconceived views about God and His Word and helps me listen more intently to what the Spirit might be saying to me in particular. Just though I’d throw that in.

 

[Philetus]

Their view of omnicompetence doesn't negate future determinations, just future knowledge. They believe God is potent enough (not omnipotent but powerful enough) to accomplish what He purposes. The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it.

Got butter?

No, we believe God presents conditions not 'to see how we respond' but to mold us and shape us, interject willfully into man's dilemma, for teaching (object lessons).

The problem isn't the condition, but how we perceive the reasoning behind the position. No points for stopping at the wall you've erected for yourself in dialoguing our positon. What I mean is, you can choose to stay blissfully ignorant or you can ask a series of questions and learn more correctly what our positiion is. Your logical loopholes don't work very well. They are clever little conundrums, but never get to the main point of the actual arguments and points of difference.

So either pidgeon hole and stay where you are at or learn something and appreciate how we interpret. The statement he made was honest, your answer wasn't. I'm not trying to whip you here, I'm trying to get you to think outside of your pidgeonhole. The subject matter doesn't fit.

In Him

Lon

Never mind. I found it.

 

[Philetus]

Ròm 8:19
Haitian Creole Version (HCV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible]

19Tout kreyasyon Bondye a ap tann konsa kilè pitit Bondye yo va parèt.

 

[Nang]

The implications for omniscience is a different issue than soteriological issues of justification/glorification

I really do not see how this could be. How does one compartmentalize truth from its whole?

The essence and attributes of God affect all His workings, and all His workings reveal His essence and attributes.

I asked the views of the OVT'ers of Justification to see if you folks have retained sound soteriological theology while fiddling around with the Person of God. For eventually the OV will scramble soteriology by scrambling the attributes of God, or else sound soteriology will win the day, and the OV adherents will abandon fiddling around with the Person of God.

It will be one or the other, and I was just curious to see where all of you stand in this point of time.

So far, I sense a great reluctance on the part of the OVT'ers to discuss Justification (which is really the Gospel, you know).

And I think it is worrisome that those who have been kind enough to give answer, cannot do so purely and strongly from their hearts and convictions, but have had to resort to dictionaries and Wiki to respond defensively, using Scripture minimally.

Not a good sign.

Which is too, bad, for it bodes ill for your future.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

I really do not see how this could be. How does one compartmentalize truth from its whole?

The essence and attributes of God affect all His workings, and all His workings reveal His essence and attributes.

I asked the views of the OVT'ers of Justification to see if you folks have retained sound soteriological theology while fiddling around with the Person of God. For eventually the OV will scramble soteriology by scrambling the attributes of God, or else sound soteriology will win the day, and the OV adherents will abandon fiddling around with the Person of God.

It will be one or the other, and I was just curious to see where all of you stand in this point of time.

So far, I sense a great reluctance on the part of the OVT'ers to discuss Justification (which is really the Gospel, you know).

And I think it is worrisome that those who have been kind enough to give answer, cannot do so purely and strongly from their hearts and convictions, but have had to resort to dictionaries and Wiki to respond defensively, using Scripture minimally.

Not a good sign.

Which is too, bad, for it bodes ill for your future.

Nang

Thanks, but that's enough butter, Nang.

 

[Nang]

Thanks, but that's enough butter, Nang.

I don't know what this means.

But it sounds like you are not interested in discussing Justification, further.

Lack of interest in focusing on the riches of God's gospel, is not a good sign on the part of those who desire to respected as profound and progressive "theists."

 

[Philetus]

I don't know what this means.

But it sounds like you are not interested in discussing Justification, further.

Lack of interest in focusing on the riches of God's gospel, is not a good sign on the part of those who desire to respected as profound and progressive "theists."

It means that you just ignored my post #887 replying to yours on justification in order to take a cheep shot at Open Theists.

Got lard?

You are just not worth it, nang.:wave2:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I prefer to study The Master!

Well, that is informative. Disingenuous flippancy is the best you can muster?

Then why are you bothering to be here? Perhaps to learn something that the more informed might know?

Let me know how you deal with issues like the Trinity, or obscure passages, such as 1 Cor. 15:29 all by your lonesome.

Get back to me after reviewing Acts 8:27-31.

:bang:

 

[Nang]

It means that you just ignored my post #887 replying to yours on justification in order to take a cheep shot at Open Theists.

Got lard?

You are just not worth it, nang.:wave2:

Your post #887 looked like a wholesale surrender, to me, and I was giving you another chance to re-enter the discussion and thereby elevate this web site to a love for the gospel . . .that's all.

:wave2:

 

[godrulz]

So far, I sense a great reluctance on the part of the OVT'ers to discuss Justification (which is really the Gospel, you know).

And I think it is worrisome that those who have been kind enough to give answer, cannot do so purely and strongly from their hearts and convictions, but have had to resort to dictionaries and Wiki to respond defensively, using Scripture minimally.

Nang

I think most Open Theists retain their denomination bias on salvation issues while embracing aspects of a different understanding of omniscience, immutability, etc. Like many anti-OT books, they make issues overlap and are really defending Calvinism vs Arminianism as much as Calv. and OT.

Most Open Theists are probably, basically Arminian in their soteriology. I see no conflict between justification/glorification issues and OT distinctives. OT is not an elaborate, systematic theology like Calvinism or Arminianism. There is room for a variety of soteriological views even with Calvinism, Arminianism, and OT. For example, I am OT and deny Augustinian original sin that is embraced by Calvinism and Arminianism. It is simply not related to OT issues, per se. I also hold to Moral Government Theology, which most Arminians and Calvinists reject. Again, it is not germane to OT anymore than justification is.

OT are orthodox/traditional on soteriological issues (not necessarily Calvinistic though, so your beef is really an Arminian vs Calvinism debate...but even then, all Protestants agree about justification issues even if we differ on things like free will, election, etc...again, not just an OT issue, but more Arminian vs Calv....and OT is NOT just Arm. since we disagree about some vs all issues).

An attempt to have a more biblical understanding of some of God's attributes (vs philosophically tainted) is not a denial of the essentials of the Christian faith, including justification.

You are attacking straw men and making a mountain out of a molehill due to your lack of understanding of OT.

 

[baloney]

Philiteus, as if open theists here don't claim that their view is the only view.

 

[godrulz]

Philiteus, as if open theists here don't claim that their view is the only view.

OT do not have all the answers nor do we agree on every detail (Boyd, Hasker, Pinnock disagree on many nuances). The same is true within Calvinism (4 vs 5 point, etc.) and Arminianism (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, etc.).

We do believe that our view is less problematic and more biblical at some points than other views. We also share many beliefs in common with the other views, but differ on precise understanding of doctrines. Even within traditional, classical circles, the attributes of God are being revisited (immutability, impassibility, etc. without embracing OT... e.g. Jay Wesley Richards 'The Untamed God' http://www.amazon.ca/Untamed-God-Philosophical-Exploration/dp/083082734X )

 

[Philetus]

Philiteus, as if open theists here don't claim that their view is the only view.

There are many and various views. You should get one.

 

[Philetus]

Your post #887 looked like a wholesale surrender, to me, and I was giving you another chance to re-enter the discussion and thereby elevate this web site to a love for the gospel . . .that's all.

:wave2:

:vomit: