ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

If you want to repent of that ridiculous behavior and apologize for it, I am quite quick to forgive and perhaps then we could have a substantive discussion, but until then you can expect to be treated in with the respect that you have earned.

I repent from treating you as you treat others, and am sorry I made you angry, like you made us angry.

Will you forgive me and discuss Justification with me?

Nang

No. [???]

Please leave.

I'm confused

 

[Clete]

I'm confused

You would be.

When she repents I'll forgive, until then forget it.

 

[Lon]

You would be.

When she repents I'll forgive, until then forget it.

I guess proof is in the pudding, but I saw the words. So yeah, I'm a little confused.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by Clete
You would be.

When she repents I'll forgive, until then forget it.

I guess proof is in the pudding, but I saw the words. So yeah, I'm a little confused.

I guess it is Clete's way or the highway, no?:bang:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nang said "God does not dictate to you what to wear or eat, that is your choice" and I am simply trying to get a straight answer out of her. Did I choose
to eat watermelon last night, or did God foreordain it?I do believe God granted the ability to choose what I want to eat for a particular meal.God does not do evil that good may come of it! I do no believe that it is God's purpose for children to be molested, or for women to be raped. I do believe when these unspeakable things happen to a person God can teach them how to use it for good!

Rape, molestation, etc., pale by comparison to the crucifixion of Christ. Are you denying that God ordained His Son's atonement for our sins? Then why deny other "minor" evils (that is, when compared to our Lord's death) are under God's providential control? You are applying an egalitarian humanistic rationale to how you would like God to act. God is transcendent, beyond our full understanding. That does not mean we cannot know some things about God as He has revealed them to us. We know that all things work towards God's purposes for good. If sin is "senseless" then God is not in control and we are all doomed. Even sin works towards the purposes of God. Do you believe that some sinful acts serve no useful purpose in this world? That there is some sin that God sees no purpose in?

That we cannot fully understand God's sovereignty versus God's clear admonishment that He is sovereign and that we are responsible for our sins does not give us warrant to re-define God in our own image.

For more see here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To Nang:
You're either stupid or can't read, either way, please leave and stop wasting our time.

My arguments are both rational and easy enough for my 7 year old daughter to understand in most cases. As I said, you are either stupid or cannot read.

You are not only stupid but a liar.

AMR does nothing but repeat himself. He makes arguments from time to time but when those arguments are directly addressed and refuted he will not offer any rejoinder whatsoever. All he ever does and all it seems he is willing to do is repeat his original argument and/or accusations as though they were never responded too and then, I'm sure will take my refusal to repeat myself as proof that he's won the debate and you will follow right along behind him like the weak minded puppy dog that you are.

It's a perfectly good subject to discuss but you've already proven that you aren't here to discuss anything so why should I waste my time with it?

I have offered the Biblical view of the gospel many times. Please learn to read or find another hobby.

The subject is definitely worth the time, you however are not.

Trick questions? Hypocrite! This question you just asked is a manipulative trick question!

This also is an excellent example of one of many accusations that are thrown around by you and others like you which are never substantiated. The accusation is thrown out there without anything to back it up and then when defended against, the defense is never addressed. The accusation is simply repeated.

I've been on this website a fair bit longer than you have Nang. You showed up here with the specific intent of throwing garbage in my specific direction. If you want to repent of that ridiculous behavior and apologize for it, I am quite quick to forgive and perhaps then we could have a substantive discussion, but until then you can expect to be treated in with the respect that you have earned.

Translation; Clete is always correct. He is never wrong, nor uninformed. I ask again, as I have asked over and over, are there any items to which Clete will admit to have been wrong in his assumptions...ever...here at TOL? Clete believes that his responses are the end of the matter and everything else is just noise.

Clete believes Augustine was wrong.
Clete believes Luther was wrong.
Clete believes Calvin was wrong.
Clete believes Arminius was wrong.
Clete believes Pinnock was wishy-washy.
Clete disagrees with "some" of Boyd.
Clete disagrees with "some" of Sanders.
Clete agrees with all of Enyart.
Clete agrees with all of Bob Hill.
Clete agrees with Clete and can prove all the above. Anyone doubting as much is dismissed, usually with vitriolic prejudice; for once Clete says it is so, it is so.

See Clete, the defender of the truth, in action with this or this or this or this, and finally, this.

:bang: :bang:

 

[Delmar]

Rape, molestation, etc., pale by comparison to the crucifixion of Christ. Are you denying that God ordained His Son's atonement for our sins? Then why deny other "minor" evils (that is, when compared to our Lord's death) are under God's providential control? You are applying an egalitarian humanistic rationale to how you would like God to act. God is transcendent, beyond our full understanding. That does not mean we cannot know some things about God as He has revealed them to us. We know that all things work towards God's purposes for good. If sin is "senseless" then God is not in control and we are all doomed. Even sin works towards the purposes of God. Do you believe that some sinful acts serve no useful purpose in this world? That there is some sin that God sees no purpose in?

That we cannot fully understand God's sovereignty versus God's clear admonishment that He is sovereign and that we are responsible for our sins does not give us warrant to re-define God in our own image.

For more see here.

Jesus Christ went to the cross willingly.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus Christ went to the cross willingly.

Indeed, as was ordained before the foundations of the world were laid, no? How much more then should we not expect these "lesser evils" to be not under God's direct providential control? You're avoiding the point. Hiding behind God's purposes, while disclaiming other evils that are done, won't work.

 

[Lon]

Jesus Christ went to the cross willingly.

If I could add anything to this conversation, it would be that Sovereignty does not negate sin. Sin is the one act that is under His control but not His desire and we have a few verses that explain His position:

Mat 13:24 The Parable of the Weeds

He presented them with another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a person who sowed good seed in his field.
Mat 13:25 But while everyone was sleeping, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:26 When the plants sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the slaves of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?'
Mat 13:28 He said, 'An enemy has done this.'so the slaves replied, 'Do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, since in gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them.Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I will tell the reapers, "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, but then gather the wheat into my barn." ' "

We see with sin, there is an enemy, there is an unwillingness to harm any that are not weeds, and there is a plan for dealing with both. God is more grieved than we could ever be over the condition of sin. Sin cost our Lord His precious precious Son. Ephesians tells us that we may grieve God. Is God sovereign over His fields? Yes, this parable says that the wheat and tares will grow together so that none of His 'Wheat' will parish. If God reaches in and destroys wickedness, it has serious reprecussions.

In order to destroy weeds (wickedness and evil) His people will suffer. Why? I don't know at this venture, but God is not only Sovereign, He is loving, compassionate, caring, and close to us. I hate the news as much as anybody. Everyday disappearance of a child, random acts of abuse, bystanders who watch and do nothing make a sickening pit in my stomach, but God is not to blame for this. We are to blame for this.

Even our simple sins have dire reprecussions. We teach by example, we link to greater problems. When we look at porn, we support and industry that nurtures 'meat-market' mentality that causes some of our horrible crimes. When we covet, we emulate desire above another's possession. When we smoke weed, we support a very violent drug community that kill, steal, and destroy. Smoking it is smoking blood. God is not to blame for our predicament, we are. We've allowed sin to reign.

We are the salt of the earth and lights on a hill. If we are not vocal and visual, our salt loses flavor and our light is hid under a bushel. Salt preserves and flavors, if our society is falling ever further down, where is the salt? Where is the light? Our enemy wins victories that are meant to be ours. I believe God is Sovereign. I believe the conditions of sin are not His problem, they are ours. God could have erased and started over again, replanting. Or God could choose to allow the weeds to grow so that what belongs to Him is not destroyed.

In Him

 

[godrulz]

Nang: I think it is possible to have a Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theist world view and be a Christian (different ways to describe theological understanding/systems).

Do you think it is possible for me to be a genuine Christian and embrace OT distinctives? If I believe that some of the future is open, not settled, is that salvific truth that could send me to hell?

 

[Lon]

Nang: I think it is possible to have a Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theist world view and be a Christian (different ways to describe theological understanding/systems).

Do you think it is possible for me to be a genuine Christian and embrace OT distinctives? If I believe that some of the future is open, not settled, is that salvific truth that could send me to hell?

"could" is a tricky sort of question. I think any belief out of balance can have significant reprecussions.

"Could being JW send me to hell?" is similar, or Mormon. Could being Calvinist? There are potential problems. In some theological positions, the hole's are bigger and more dangerous. I think what you are asking specifically is if OT touches on Salvific issues? I would say there are potential problems that 'could' touch upon salvific issues, but I don't believe the issues at question are Salvific. They touch into some areas that are, but not generally specific to salvific issues that I'm aware of at this point.

Of course I'm still getting a grasp on OV and have only seen TOL's expression of it for the most part, but stated again, I am not aware of a specific Salvific issue.

Lammerson and Scott touched on God's ability to save that omnicompetence seems to address. This doctrine will need a solid doctrinal statement in the future to address questions like this specifically.

 

[godrulz]

I was asking Nang because she seemed to imply that being OT puts one outside of salvation. I want a straight answer since she wants to talk about justification. If she says I cannot be a Christian while being an OT, I will know that she does not understand the gospel and Bible and will cease wasting my time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nang: I think it is possible to have a Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theist world view and be a Christian (different ways to describe theological understanding/systems).

Do you think it is possible for me to be a genuine Christian and embrace OT distinctives? If I believe that some of the future is open, not settled, is that salvific truth that could send me to hell?

A most important question, indeed. I have read where you have confessed Christ, the second person of the triune Godhead, to be your savior. I have no evidence, other than what I see here on TOL wherein you defend many of the basic Christian doctrines as good works that manifest and substantiate your belief. But from this, and not being able to look into your heart, I see no reason not to count you an elected brother in Christ.

Having said this GR, we must be diligent that we do not erect false idols of God in our hearts and then go off worshipping them.

Open theism’s denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge fosters and encourages an adherence to a view of God which is very similar to the biblical idolatry denounced in Isaiah 40–48. What is true both of the God of open theism and of the idols of Isaiah is that neither can declare what specific future events will unfold, events that involve innumerable future free choices and actions of human beings.

I believe open theism has been taken “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men . . .” (Col 2:8). The open theist's view of God is not a mediating position between the classical view and the Arminian view of God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, I believe open theism is an extreme view outside the acceptable and reasonable boundaries of orthodoxy and must be rejected as as a heresy which significantly distorts the biblical portrayal of God as sovereign ruler over all His creation.

Moreover, as stated above, the belief that God is ignorant of the future is not orthodox and must be rejected on scriptural grounds (“I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come”; Isa. 46:10a; cf. Job 28; Ps. 90; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1), as such a belief has been rejected in the history of exegesis of relevant passages. Indeed, this issue was thoroughly discussed by patristic exegetes as early as Origen’s Against Celsus. I recognize that history does not determine doctrine. Yet, it provides powerful benchmarks against which to measure our exegesis. Open theist Gregory Boyd acknowledges that one must have compelling reasons to move outside the scope of historical theology. Even so, open theism has taken a cavalier view of historical theology in that it not only steps into a new arena of thought, but in so doing it destroys a view continuously held throughout history. It is one thing to reformulate a doctrine, incorporating new insights that are compatible with historical orthodoxy (e.g., dispensationalism). It is quite another to smash a tenet of historical orthodoxy and replace it with a novel idea. The open view of divine omniscience has done the latter.

In summary, all mainline evangelicals must resist the demonic temptation to keep the boundaries of the faith undefined. From their posted commentaries with respect to open theis, I believe many from the classical theism camp on TOL are bearing witness to this mandate.

 

[Philetus]

Reading this thread is like watching compost decay.

 

[Delmar]

Indeed, as was ordained before the foundations of the world were laid, no?

NO!

How much more then should we not expect these "lesser evils" to be not under God's direct providential control?

It wasn't evil, in any way, for God to provide a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

You're avoiding the point. Hiding behind God's purposes, while disclaiming other evils that are done, won't work.

I'm not hiding behind anything. God has not done evil ever! You pervert the truth!

 

[Delmar]

If I could add anything to this conversation, it would be that Sovereignty does not negate sin. Sin is the one act that is under His control but not His desire and we have a few verses that explain His position:

Mat 13:24 The Parable of the Weeds

He presented them with another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a person who sowed good seed in his field.
Mat 13:25 But while everyone was sleeping, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:26 When the plants sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the slaves of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?'
Mat 13:28 He said, 'An enemy has done this.'so the slaves replied, 'Do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, since in gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them.Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I will tell the reapers, "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, but then gather the wheat into my barn." ' "

We see with sin, there is an enemy

Yes, evil is an enemy not an ally

, there is an unwillingness to harm any that are not weeds, and there is a plan for dealing with both. God is more grieved than we could ever be over the condition of sin. Sin cost our Lord His precious precious Son. Ephesians tells us that we may grieve God. Is God sovereign over His fields? Yes, this parable says that the wheat and tares will grow together so that none of His 'Wheat' will parish. If God reaches in and destroys wickedness, it has serious repercussions.

In order to destroy weeds (wickedness and evil) His people will suffer. Why? I don't know at this venture, but God is not only Sovereign, He is loving, compassionate, caring, and close to us. I hate the news as much as anybody. Everyday disappearance of a child, random acts of abuse, bystanders who watch and do nothing make a sickening pit in my stomach, but God is not to blame for this. We are to blame for this.

Even our simple sins have dire repercussions. We teach by example, we link to greater problems. When we look at porn, we support and industry that nurtures 'meat-market' mentality that causes some of our horrible crimes. When we covet, we emulate desire above another's possession. When we smoke weed, we support a very violent drug community that kill, steal, and destroy. Smoking it is smoking blood. God is not to blame for our predicament, we are. We've allowed sin to reign.

We are the salt of the earth and lights on a hill. If we are not vocal and visual, our salt loses flavor and our light is hid under a bushel. Salt preserves and flavors, if our society is falling ever further down, where is the salt? Where is the light? Our enemy wins victories that are meant to be ours. I believe God is Sovereign. I believe the conditions of sin are not His problem, they are ours. God could have erased and started over again, replanting. Or God could choose to allow the weeds to grow so that what belongs to Him is not destroyed.

In Him

I agree completely that God allowed the weeds to grow, but He did not plant them!

 

[Nang]

Nang: I think it is possible to have a Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theist world view and be a Christian (different ways to describe theological understanding/systems).

Do you think it is possible for me to be a genuine Christian and embrace OT distinctives? If I believe that some of the future is open, not settled, is that salvific truth that could send me to hell?

The things that send any sinner to hell, is his unbelief and disobedience to the Word of God.

Every person confessing faith in Jesus Christ, must examine themselves to determine if they are being faithful to the Holy Scriptures. For it is the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13) who will be our Judge.

If OT strays from what the Bible teaches, or if a Calvinist denies a biblical doctrine, both souls are in danger of hell.

Why? Because it is imperative that one be anointed and indwelt by the Spirit of Life in Christ to be saved. And if one has the Holy Spirit indwelling, that person is promised to be led "into all truth." (John 16:13)

If one is not being led into all truth, or if one denies truth, or one is not growing in truth, or if one has no desire to learn truth, or if one despises truth, then there is evidence the Holy Spirit does not abide.

"So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. . . for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God." Romans 8:9, 14

What is evidence of the Holy Spirit abiding?

"The fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, FAITHFULNESS, gentleness, self-control . . .If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." Galatians 5:22, 23, 25, 26 (Emphasis, mine)

Reviewing this list is a pretty simple test that we all should take once in awhile, to determine whether indeed we are on the right track . . .don't you think?

". . .Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." Philippians 1:12b&13

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A Challenge To Clete

A Challenge To Clete

At this point I would be happy with someone who was interested in having an actual two way conversation about just about anything. I've never been so tired of repeating myself in my life and these guys just do it as a matter of course and think their making great points!

I have a proposal for you if you are up to the challenge. I moderate a list comprised of theologians and others with advanced training in theology. I would like to invite you to the list to have the "two-way" conversation about open theism you so desire. As I said, the list is moderated so anytime your posts include sarcasm or flippant commentary, those specific words will be edited out while leaving the substance of your remarks intact. If you can live with these constraints I invite you to the forum where you can, as you frequently claim, demonstrate your reasons why the reformed fathers were wrong and you are correct.

I must warn you that you cannot show up armed with what you have demonstrated in this forum as your best arguments. You will have to do better if you expect to show a group of numerous published theologians how wrong their beliefs are when compared to your own.

What say ye?

 

[Yorzhik]

Translation; Clete is always correct. He is never wrong, nor uninformed. I ask again, as I have asked over and over, are there any items to which Clete will admit to have been wrong in his assumptions...ever...here at TOL? Clete believes that his responses are the end of the matter and everything else is just noise.

Clete believes Augustine was wrong.
Clete believes Luther was wrong.
Clete believes Calvin was wrong.
Clete believes Arminius was wrong.
Clete believes Pinnock was wishy-washy.
Clete disagrees with "some" of Boyd.
Clete disagrees with "some" of Sanders.
Clete agrees with all of Enyart.
Clete agrees with all of Bob Hill.
Clete agrees with Clete and can prove all the above. Anyone doubting as much is dismissed, usually with vitriolic prejudice; for once Clete says it is so, it is so.

See Clete, the defender of the truth, in action with this or this or this or this, and finally, this.

:bang: :bang:

I think Clete has changed on some important things. He might have even changed to the OV on this forum!

But let me ask you something. What are you wrong about? Not something you were wrong about and changed, but something that you are wrong about, you know it, but you refuse to change your mind about. Anything come to mind?

 

[Lon]

Yes, evil is an enemy not an allyI agree completely that God allowed the weeds to grow, but He did not plant them!

Yes, but this admission subjugates you to the same accusation we always get.

If God allows, it first means 1) that He has knowledge of, and 2) that He is sovereign over the field.

We scream "God how could you allow....." and totally miss this parable in explanation. OV accuses, they need to read the same scriptures I do and quit coming up with ugly ignorant comments.

"The God of.....is...." thread is one of the worst, ignorant, mudslinging, anti-christian statements I've ever read from a supposed Christian. Albeit the Westbro community are the most caustic I've ever seen and a shame to all of us.

There is NO room in Christianity for such statements. Vinegar doesn't attract any animal that I'm aware of, and we are called to gracious quiet lives by our Creator.

I find very often the comment (and not just from OV) that "Jesus was caustic."
I agree, but this in my mind is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do."
There is absolutely no scripture calling us to be caustic. EVERY scripture calls us to be wise YET gentle in our approach. Every scripture calls us to be lights, salt, good things. If there is confrontation, we should pray, wait for the promise of the words to say we've been given.