ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

I think most Open Theists retain their denomination bias on salvation issues while embracing aspects of a different understanding of omniscience, immutability, etc.

Undoubtedly this is so, but I do not believe it will be a successful experiment. For the reasons I have already stated: Truth is a whole, for the essence and attributes of God affect all His workings, and all His workings reveal His essence and attributes.

OVT'ers can come together in strong agreement regarding omniscience (or lack, thereof) and mutability in the Person of God, but their "various views" of His works of redemption will deteriorate, to the point that the OVT'ers will be left without a soteriology at all.

Like many anti-OT books, they make issues overlap and are really defending Calvinism vs Arminianism as much as Calv. and OT.

Well, that is not surprising, because these are the only two systematic views existent with Christendom. One is either semi-Pelagian, or one is Calvinist. I agree with Lonster's assessment in post #882, who said, "The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it."

Most Open Theists are probably, basically Arminian in their soteriology.

Yes, this would be so, for one functions according to his supposed "free-will" or one functions by faith in God's sovereignty. It is an either/or condition, unless one completely abandons theism altogether and adopts paganism in one form or another.

I see no conflict between justification/glorification issues and OT distinctives. OT is not an elaborate, systematic theology like Calvinism or Arminianism.

That is what I am trying to determine. Do the OVT'ers bother to formulate a soteriological or ecclesiastical view, amongst their ranks, at all?

There is room for a variety of soteriological views even with Calvinism, Arminianism, and OT.

There is NOT! There is only ONE gospel.

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.

Well, I would say you do not embrace Christianity at all, then. You are a humanist/rationalist; not a biblical theologian.

OT are orthodox/traditional on soteriological issues

You are contradicting yourself, for you just said there is "room for a variety of soteriological views." Which would not describe "orthodox/traditional" at all.

(not necessarily Calvinistic though,

Well, no, not according to you, for you have already stated: "Most Open Theists are probably, basically Arminian in their soteriology."

(I found this post very hard to follow, for you seem to be just rambling.)

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.

It is incorrect to say all Protestants agree about justification issues. Arminians diametrically oppose Calvinists regarding obtaining justification as well as maintaining the justified state.

Free-willers credit themselves for working their justification through their choices and good deeds; where the Calvinist teaches justification was accomplished by, and is maintained by, Sovereign God on behalf of His elect people.

..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).

Sigh. I wish you would make up your mind. You just said OT is orthodox/traditional, but now you say OT and Arminians disagree about some issues.

First, I do not believe Arminians are orthodox, but if they were, it would only be because they all agree on Scriptural doctrine and church tradition. Which they don't, and if you differ further with them, you can hardly call the OVT "orthodox/traditional."

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.

When one denys any part of the Personhood (essence) of God, their soteriological beliefs will eventually crumble, because the ONE gospel of Jesus Christ reveals all the true and perfect attributes of God. In the case of the OT, their soteriology (whatever that may be) will suffer, probably due to neglect and lack of studious attention.

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

I feel you have given me much greater insight into the OT.

I must say I do not believe your future looks very hopeful, because your focus seems to be too much upon yourselves and not enough on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Nang

 

[godrulz]

No wonder Clete bangs his head on a wall.

The issue is not free will vs sovereignty, but free will vs a flawed understanding of sovereignty (providential vs meticulous control; macro vs micromanaging; responsiveness vs determinism).


Our view of time vs eternity affects our understanding of God's omniscience, for e.g. I agree that there are practical and related implications for how we understand God and His ways. This is why I think it merits our time and energy to know Him in spirit and truth and not misrepresent his character and ways (as Calvinism does ).


Sorry for the rambling...shift work and heat exhaustion from running at noon when I should not have been...too old and out of shape...

There is only one gospel. Calvinists, Arminians, and Open Theists affirm the person and work of Christ. Nuanced views on sanctification or perseverance of the saints are not salvific. Some are academic and debatable (for centuries, in fact) without denying the person and work of Christ. Christ, not Calvinism, is the grounds of salvation. Faith, not theological perfection, is one of the conditions of salvation.

I do not claim to be a theologian. I am a student, not a scholar.

 

[Nang]

No wonder Clete bangs his head on a wall.

The issue is not free will vs sovereignty, but free will vs a flawed understanding of sovereignty (providential vs meticulous control; macro vs micromaaging; responsiveness vs determinism).

Sovereignty is an absolute. Take away meticulous control, micromananging, and determinism, and sovereign is no longer sovereign.

Our view of time vs eternity affects our understanding of God's omniscience, for e.g. I agree that there are practical and related implications for how we understand God and His ways. This is why I think it merits our time and energy to know Him in spirit and truth and not misrepresent his character and ways (as Calvinism does ).

Misrepresenting Calvinism will not cut it. Poor attitude on your part.

Plus, anyone who truly knows God in Spirit and Truth, does not deny the Word of God that teaches original sin.

There is only one gospel.

Amen.

Calvinists, Arminians, and Open Theists affirm the person and work of Christ.

I disagree.

Arminians deny the atonement of Christ was 100% efficacious, and claim the work of Christ made salvation only a hypothetical possibility, conditional upon human free choice to accept and believe His Person.

And OT denies His Person, by denying His perfect attributes and essence.

Denials of the Person and work of God, are not affirmations of the Person and work of God.

Nuanced views on sanctification or perseverance of the saints are not salvific.

If one cannot believe in a God who perfectly, thoroughly, and permanently sanctifies and preserves ("keeps") those for whom He has died for, fails to comprehend and believe the grace and Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christ, not Calvinism, is the grounds of salvation.

Good statement! With this, I totally agree.

Faith, not theological perfection, is one of the conditions of salvation.

Faith is not a condition of salvation; it is the fruit of salvation.

 

[godrulz]

Still sounds straw manish to me.

Also, you beg the question by assuming what you are trying to prove by your definition of sovereignty. There are various possible models of sovereignty or how a King can rule a kingdom (secular or spiritual). Your hyper-sovereignty view is an assumption, not self-evident from Scripture.

It is a lesser sovereign who must rule coercively rather than responsively. The blatant rebellion and evil in the universe is evidence that your model of sovereignty is flawed and does not match Scripture nor reality.

 

[Nang]

Still sounds straw manish to me.

Also, you beg the question by assuming what you are trying to prove by your definition of sovereignty. There are various possible models of sovereignty or how a King can rule a kingdom (secular or spiritual).

They are not Biblical.

Your hyper-sovereignty view is an assumption, not self-evident from Scripture.

"Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases." Psalm 115:3

It is a lesser sovereign who must rule coercively rather than responsively.

God in heaven rules graciously and justly; not "coercively." And God is not a reactionary, but King and Ruler. (Talk about Greek thought tainting one's views!)

The blatant rebellion and evil in the universe is evidence that your model of sovereignty is flawed and does not match Scripture nor reality.

Yep. You told me, and I can now see, the root cause of your resistence. You deny original sin. Thus, you must deny the wisdom with which God deals with original sin and the total depravity of His creatures.

You and I should talk about original sin . . .any time you want to broach the subject, let me know.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

There are other threads about original sin. The bottom line is that we are all sinners in need of a sinless Savior. We cannot save ourselves. It is almost a moot point whether we are sinners because we sin (biblical), or we sin because we are sinners (Augustine who was bound by his own personal sin without victory).


Oh, yeh. Calvinism relies on proof texts (like Ps. 115) to support a deductive theology. It needs to be more inductive and contextual/exegetical. It does not please God to see children raped and killed. Some things happen that are contrary to His will, by His sovereign choice. They will be judged in the end, but free moral agents, not God, will be found to be culpable. Granting men free will does not make one responsible for what moral agents do with that will (which by nature may obey or disobey, love or rebel...cf. parenting).

It pleases God to create significant others with a say-so, not robotic automatons. It pleases God to create us in His free image, not as deterministic B.F. Skinner beings. It pleases God to judge sin that man, not God, introduced into His perfect creation.

We agree that God does what He pleases, but disagree as to what pleases Him (heinous evil does not please Him).

Macro vs micromanaging...your God is too small (Phillips)...God does not have to micromanage due to His glorious attributes and character. You underestimate His ability because you look at things through human eyes (ironic, is it not?).

 

[Nang]

It does not please God to see children raped and killed. Some things happen that are contrary to His will, by His sovereign choice. They will be judged in the end, but free moral agents, not God, will be found to be culpable. Granting men free will does not make one responsible for what moral agents do with that will (which by nature may obey or disobey, love or rebel...cf. parenting).

It pleases God to create significant others with a say-so, not robotic automatons. It pleases God to create us in His free image, not as deterministic B.F. Skinner beings. It pleases God to judge sin that man, not God, introduced into His perfect creation.

You answer your own gripe. God gave man moral agency (volition to cause and effect), and man, not God, introduced sin and death into His "good" creation.

The rest is history.

We agree that God does what He pleases, but disagree as to what pleases Him (heinous evil does not please Him).

I would be the last person who says God is pleased with the sins of men. But God, as Judge, must deal with the sins of men. When He does, sinful men should not find fault with Him. Evil manifested is God's judgment against sin. Death is the highest evil, and "death is the wages of sin." Romans 6:23

Macro vs micromanaging...your God is too small (Phillips)...God does not have to micromanage due to His glorious attributes and character. You underestimate His ability because you look at things through human eyes (ironic, is it not?).

God, by necessity, will micromanage to save His creation. Nothing or no one else is going to do so, or is capable of doing so.

Why does that anger you?

Do you think God's creatures can bring good out of the tragedy they have caused?

Nang

 

[Clete]

Would someone be willing to respond for me to post 883?

I'm tired of repeating myself and I see nothing worth responding too where I wouldn't be doing exactly that.

If no one wants to respond to the whole thing perhaps someone could just point out the the flaws in his logic. The places for example, where, rather than responding to what I said in refutation of his points, he simply repeated his points, exactly as I asked him not to do. I seriously don't think I've got it within me to do this any more. How much of this insanity is one man supposed to take?

 

[godrulz]

God, by necessity, will micromanage to save His creation. Nothing or no one else is going to do so, or is capable of doing so.

Why does that anger you?

Do you think God's creatures can bring good out of the tragedy they have caused?

Nang

Do we mean different things by micromanage? God does not need to dictate what I eat or wear today to remain sovereign over the universe or global affairs. He does not need to position every insect on the planet in a certain way for the crucifixion and resurrection to be carried out. He does not have to see people raped and murdered in order to bring His glorious purposes to pass. Scripture and reality support macromanaging, including incorporating our choices, not micromanaging moral and mundane choices exhaustively (they would not be contingent choices if He did).

An omnicompetent God does not have to be omnicausal in order to be sovereign.

I must admit that I think my understanding resonates better with reality and Scripture than your ideas (I am proud to be humble).

 

[Nang]

Do we mean different things by micromanage?

Maybe . . .

God does not need to dictate what I eat or wear today to remain sovereign over the universe or global affairs.

God does not dictate to you what to wear or eat, that is your choice, but God gives you your choice, by providing you with clothes to wear and food to eat.

Now, just imagine an existance on this earth, without these Godly provisions. You would have NOTHING from which to "choose," would you?

He does not need to position every insect on the planet in a certain way for the crucifixion and resurrection to be carried out.

This is kinda silly talk, but if God had not kept insects from eating the wood of the cross, the infidels would have had no material from which to hang the Christ!

So if the God who provided the wood of the cross, and the Savior to hang there for the sins of His people, was not ordained by God . . .why believe in the decree and power of God to raise His Son?

There has to be some supernatural belief in God in order to be a Christian!

Remove all sovereign micromanagment of creation by God, and you remove God.

He does not have to see people raped and murdered in order to bring His glorious purposes to pass. Scripture and reality support macromanaging, including incorporating our choices, not micromanaging moral and mundane choices exhaustively (they would not be contingent choices if He did).

Sorry, that is simply a form of humanistic unbelief called Deism.

An omnicompetent God does not have to be omnicausal in order to be sovereign.

I must admit that I think my understanding resonates better with reality and Scripture than your ideas (I am proud to be humble).

Your false humanistic "humility" will not save you.

Only confession that God is Sovereign King over His entire creation is salvific.

Nang

 

[Delmar]

God does not dictate to you what to wear or eat, that is your choice, but God gives you your choice, by providing you with clothes to wear and food to eat.

Are you saying it was not foreordained that I would eat watermelon today?

 

[godrulz]

Deism is a far cry from providential sovereignty. You lack credibility in a debate. I see why Clete is tired of wasting time with you. You are reactive, not responsive.

Who made the car you drive or the computer you type on. Does God drop clothes and food out of the sky at your house? Does making man with creative ability rob God of His providence, sovereignty, or control?

Who gave name to all the animals? God or Adam?

What is the cause of me typing this random messgjqer=90gj-qet4iobhjio-qt9bg9ephbvui9pbv9pehbioncxkl n?

God is not omnicausal. God is omnicompetent. This fully supports a biblical view of sovereignty.

 

[godrulz]

Are you saying it was not foreordained that I would eat watermelon today?

His view does not resonate with reality nor Scripture. Your mundane example is proof that an omnicausal view is an overstatement and extra/contrabiblical.

In an effort to give God glory, it makes Him a fixed, fatalistic being with the same creation, rather than a creative, dynamic, responsive, Living God.

The Cosmic Chessmaster analogy has merit in this discussion.

 

[godrulz]

Nag...er...Nang: Do you think it is possible that I am a fellow believer (affirm Deity and resurrection of Christ, Word of God, salvation by grace through faith), despite my Open Theism understanding of creation and the future?

 

[Nang]

Are you saying it was not foreordained that I would eat watermelon today?

Who designed, created, and provided watermelons?

If you ate a watermelon today, it is only because God provided you a watermelon.

(Hint: Choice is not as determinative as creation.)

 

[godrulz]

Who designed, created, and provided watermelons?

If you ate a watermelon today, it is only because God provided you a watermelon.

(Hint: Choice is not as determinative as creation.)

Just because company x provides the materials for company y to make a car, does not mean company x is the cause or maker of the car. Just because God gives us creative free will, ability to procreate (we, not God, has volitional sex), etc. does not make Him the first or primary cause of everything.

Did God invent or make plastic? Giving us intelligence does not make Him the cause or provider, directly.

Does God or perverted men make porn movies (free will can also be abused, but contingently, not of necessity)?

Can man breed plants and animals and come up with new variations? Does this still make God the first cause?

trbhjhj=9[e4jh=9r4jnh=9wrjnh=90rtnhj=rnyju Me or God?

Do watermelons fall out of the sky at your house? I must go to the store. Do I cut them, open my mouth, eat them, or am I a puppet on a string, locked in an illusory Matrix?

 

[Nang]

Just because company x provides the materials for company y to make a car, does not mean company x is the cause or maker of the car.

God did not provide material for man to make watermelons. God created watermelons. God is the first cause of watermelons.

:yawn:

 

[Delmar]

Who designed, created, and provided watermelons?

If you ate a watermelon today, it is only because God provided you a watermelon.

(Hint: Choice is not as determinative as creation.)

I do, of coarse, believe that God created watermelon, but some people do not eat watermelon. Did God foreordain that I would eat watermelon today?

 

[godrulz]

God did not provide material for man to make watermelons. God created watermelons. God is the first cause of watermelons.

:yawn:

He also gave man and animals the ability to procreate and plants to propagate. An intelligent Creator can make things that do not need to be micromanaged. We are stewards of the planet. Have you noticed we are not doing a very good job? If God was micromanaging, we would still be in Paradise.

Aren't you going to take my bait and say I am not a Christian because of my Open Theist leanings?

 

[Nang]

I do, of coarse, believe that God created watermelon, but some people do not eat watermelon. Did God foreordain that I would eat watermelon today?

How would I know whether you ate watermelon today, or not?

And what does it matter whether I know if you ate watermelon today, or not?

You either did, or you did not, but if you did, God gave you the watermelon to eat.

Praise God for the watermelon that Delmar ate (or did not eat)!

Nang