ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

The bulk of the posts in this thread have been related to the differences between orthodox theism and open theism. From what I can see, there are 3-6 persons representing classical theism and the remainder are open theists participating in this thread. I do not think that the doctrine related posts to date have been off topic. I believe there have been several posts about immutability in this thread already (some by me). Surely impassibility is not unrelated to immutability.

I guess I am confused as to the exact nature of this thread. If it is intended for just open theists to discuss their system of beliefs, just let me know. Am happy to comply and butt out.

Classical theism IS (without question) the orthodox view of the church in the west!

That doesn't make it 100% correct.

Orthodox just means 'held by the majority'.

If Orthodox means correct ... then is Jesus orthodox ... well, that is if you let everybody vote.

AMR, don't you know the nature of a spitting contest when you see it? After all you and Nang have done more spiting on this thread than I have witnessed anywhere on TOL. And the worst thing about it is you don't even see it in yourselves, you even deny it.

If Calvinism is correct by virtue of its being held by the majority ... then burn me at the stake. And if your claim to orthodoxy is your claim to legitimacy then you need to kiss the pope's ring among other things.

Philetus

 

[Stripe]

Based on that I would like to ask AMR (through an intermediary it seems necessary):
If two of God's attributes, his justice and his mercy, are equal and immutable attributes how is it that some of humanity is saved and some is not?

 

[Philetus]

Based on that I would like to ask AMR (through an intermediary it seems necessary):
If two of God's attributes, his justice and his mercy, are equal and immutable attributes how is it that some of humanity is saved and some is not?

You on ignore too?

Before long, AMR will be talking to himself and then he can vote himself the most orthodox member in his group.

sad

 

[Stripe]

Yeah, but I've been on ignore longer than you have

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Based on that I would like to ask AMR (through an intermediary it seems necessary):
If two of God's attributes, his justice and his mercy, are equal and immutable attributes how is it that some of humanity is saved and some is not?

A fair question.

Calvinists are generally in one of two doctrinal camps with respect to the divine decrees of God. By divine decrees, I mean: The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

In eternity God decreed, without any foreknowledge and only with the counsel of His own sovereign will, the following:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

Here we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, assured by his omnipotence, immutability, and omniscience. Thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position above, that is, election comes "subsequent to the fall", is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

The view below is known as the supralapsarian doctrine, defining election "before the fall".

Supralapsarians hold the decrees to be:
1. To elect some to salvation and to reprobate others to damnation for His glory (double predestination)
2. To create the world
3. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
4. To provide a savior for the elect in the atonement of Christ

The so-called "hyper-Calvinist" position directly above (I prefer, like Sproul to call this "sub-Calvinism") is known as supralapsarian as it shows that election comes “before the fall” of mankind. For the hyper-Calvinist, God’s decretive will begins with predestination, and the second to fourth decrees are the means to that end. Thus, election and reprobation pertain to man as created, creation is for the sake of salvation/damnation and the fall of mankind serves God’s elective purpose. The supralapsarian doctrine of decrees would have one believe that mankind was created for the sake of election and reprobation—that God created in order to save and condemn. That sin becomes a necessary means to the fulfillment of God’s plan. That creation and the fall serve predestination.

The supralapsarian position was the work of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law (and one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who formulated it after Calvin died in 1564. I don’t believe Beza would have succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been around. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. Some also know this view as one of double predestination since both the elect and the non-elect (reprobate) are included in God's decrees. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I do not hold to the supralapsarian position. In other words, I am not what is often called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian (“subsequent to the fall”) confessional view of God’s decrees.

By the way, the above is summarized from a wonderful little book, Why I am Not An Arminian, by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams. A good read for anyone wanting to know more factual information about Calvinism and the Reformed tradition.

 

[Clete]

Absolutely. And also love. If love were diminished then God would be utterly justified in leaving us to our fate. God must have priorities when it comes to his treatment of us or we'd be space junk...

And by extension, we then should have priorities in regards to the way we interpret Scripture, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Stripe]

And by extension, we then should have priorities in regards to the way we interpret Scripture, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely, and that should have been a given without going through all that thought process anyway. Also, we should have priorities on how we treat each other.

Can someone interpret AMR's answer to my question for me. I'm just happy to be off ignore I'm too embarrassed to admit I didn't understand a word he said.

 

[Yorzhik]

So you don't see the contradiction? Okay.

I must not have been clear before. I said state your doctrinal/theological point and no word games.

Word games? I don't think this hypothetical could be more simply stated. You've accused me of "playing games" too quickly. The theological point comes from the discussion of the hypothetical.

And, by the way, a hypothetical is a valid object of discussion. Or do you disagree and think that hypotheticals are out-of-bounds in a discussion?

So if you see a contradiction or whatever, then state what you see or whatever. I will gladly respond.

Great! Is this a promise?

The hypothetical:
God can sit in front of you at the kitchen table, and with exhaustive foreknowledge can tell you what you are about to do. If you have the will and the ability to do other than what He tells you you are about to do, then a contradiction would exist.

The contradiction is: if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, then you cannot also have will.

But before you do, please see a discussion on a related topic here. Feel free to incorporate the point made at this link into whatever you are trying to demonstrate with these silly questions.

Again, you've accused me of being silly too quickly. I've read the post, and it does not address they hypothetical.

 

[themuzicman]

Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian all affirm the atemporality and orthodox definitions of omnipotence, and omniscience.

I guess you will have to look over the following and determine which resonate or do not with you:

Open Theism Tenets
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions

Gen 6:6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."​

The word "sorry" has the sense of "be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one's own doings" (Princeton abridged BDB)

2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational

Exo 32: 14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.​

3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen

Jer 3:6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7 "I thought, `After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.​

4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated

Deut 11:31 "For you are about to cross the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and you shall possess it and live in it, 32 and you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the judgments which I am setting before you today.​

Deut 11: 23 then the Lord will drive out all these nations from before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you​

Judges 1:27 But Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; so the Canaanites persisted in living in that land . 28 It came about when Israel became strong, that they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but they did not drive them out completely. 29 Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who were living in Gezer; so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them. 30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; so the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labor. 31 Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, or of Achzib, or of Helbah, or of Aphik, or of Rehob. 32 So the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land ; for they did not drive them out.​

5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him​

Sounds like Scripture supports OVT to me...

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The contradiction is: if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, then you cannot also have will.

Why not? What is will but doing what you are most inclined to do at the moment. Some things God ordains that I do, some things God just permits me do according to my own self-determination. All of this is related to proximate and antecedent notions of how our choices are directed. A large tar pit of debate best left to the philosophers. I prefer to rest comfortably with the biblical theology explaining the notion of "will" and "freedom".

All things God does are according to His own good purposes for His own glory. That is comforting as I am certain that everything assuredly will work out as God has planned and my eternity is assured.

That God has a specific plan for each and every one of His creatures is not something I see as a denial of a so-called "free will" I supposedly am owed. I do not merit as such, for if I had it, I would be forever lost in my sins. I make choices every day that are meaningful and have impact. The choices I make are the choices God wants me, and sometimes demands, me to make. I am as "free" as my Maker expects me to be. Only the Potter is free in this universe. Anyone expecting more has no biblical warrant to such.

 

[Philetus]

Gen 6:6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."​

The word "sorry" has the sense of "be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one's own doings" (Princeton abridged BDB)

Exo 32: 14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.​

Jer 3:6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7 "I thought, `After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.​

Deut 11:31 "For you are about to cross the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and you shall possess it and live in it, 32 and you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the judgments which I am setting before you today.​

Deut 11: 23 then the Lord will drive out all these nations from before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you​

Judges 1:27 But Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; so the Canaanites persisted in living in that land . 28 It came about when Israel became strong, that they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but they did not drive them out completely. 29 Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who were living in Gezer; so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them. 30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; so the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labor. 31 Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, or the inhabitants of Sidon, or of Ahlab, or of Achzib, or of Helbah, or of Aphik, or of Rehob. 32 So the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land ; for they did not drive them out.​

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him​

Sounds like Scripture supports OVT to me...

Muz

"A handful of scriptures and a short essay ought to do it."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Gen 6:6​

Exo 32: 14​

Jer 3:6​

Deut 11:31​

Deut 11:23​

Judges 1:27​

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him​

Sounds like Scripture supports OVT to me...

Forming doctrine around narrative passages, esp. from the old testament, is not warranted because you ignore the didactic passages that "teach" us. Yes, God is love. God is also a consuming fire and is Holy (these last three are all from didactic passages!).

Sounds like you need to read more here.

 

[Yorzhik]

Why not? What is will but doing what you are most inclined to do at the moment. Some things God ordains that I do, some things God just permits me do according to my own self-determination. All of this is related to proximate and antecedent notions of how our choices are directed. A large tar pit of debate best left to the philosophers. I prefer to rest comfortably with the biblical theology explaining the notion of "will" and "freedom".

All things God does are according to His own good purposes for His own glory. That is comforting as I am certain that everything assuredly will work out as God has planned and my eternity is assured.

That God has a specific plan for each and every one of His creatures is not something I see as a denial of a so-called "free will" I supposedly am owed. I do not merit as such, for if I had it, I would be forever lost in my sins. I make choices every day that are meaningful and have impact. The choices I make are the choices God wants me, and sometimes demands, me to make. I am as "free" as my Maker expects me to be. Only the Potter is free in this universe. Anyone expecting more has no biblical warrant to such.

Well, that's fine. I'm trying to address what you say here in the hypothetical, but you don't seem to want to answer it. You just re-stated your position/assertion.

Perhaps we can take this one step at a time.

Can God sit with you at the kitchen table? I'm asking if God can only do what He did with Moses (Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.)

 

[themuzicman]

Forming doctrine around narrative passages, esp. from the old testament, is not warranted because you ignore the didactic passages that "teach" us. Yes, God is love. God is also a consuming fire and is Holy (these are didactic passages!).

Sounds like you need to read more here.

LOL!

This isn't the foundation for OVT theology. This is God clearly speaking or acting in ways that affirm what you deny! I've formed no doctrine here, Mr. Religion. I've just shown where your objections to what OVT implies are simply Scriptural. It wasn't even hard.

And OVT in no way denies that God is just or any of the other biblical attributes of God. It simply brings out a long neglected attribute to its place in theology.

Muz

 

[Delmar]

Can someone interpret AMR's answer to my question for me. I'm just happy to be off ignore I'm too embarrassed to admit I didn't understand a word he said.

Translation: "If I use words nobody can understand, they can't prove I didn't answer the question." AMR is not a Mensa member for nothing!

 

[Philetus]

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

Narrative?

Can God be so un-Christ-like?

Is God not long suffering? Or is that just 'narrative' also? I think AMR needs to go back to his Bible Story Book (with pics) for a while. He is lost in his own words and has forgotten what it is to 'hear'. He only r-e-a-d-s! He has become so good at historical and literary criticism, that he no longer remembers the story.

After the bible stories, maybe Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative would help.

P

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete View Post
And by extension, we then should have priorities in regards to the way we interpret Scripture, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely!

 

[Philetus]

Absolutely, and that should have been a given without going through all that thought process anyway. Also, we should have priorities on how we treat each other.

Can someone interpret AMR's answer to my question for me. I'm just happy to be off ignore I'm too embarrassed to admit I didn't understand a word he said.

No.

 

[Philetus]

Translation: "If I use words nobody can understand, they can't prove I didn't answer the question." AMR is not a Mensa member for nothing!

Ok, I stand corrected. Somebody can!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

LOL!

This isn't the foundation for OVT theology. This is God clearly speaking or acting in ways that affirm what you deny! I've formed no doctrine here, Mr. Religion. I've just shown where your objections to what OVT implies are simply Scriptural. It wasn't even hard.

And OVT in no way denies that God is just or any of the other biblical attributes of God. It simply brings out a long neglected attribute to its place in theology.

Muz

Aforementioned verses related to love, fire, holy are all teaching verses. Love is nowhere neglected in any doctrines. Open theism commits the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. The doctrine of God should grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.

 

[themuzicman]

Aforementioned verses related to love, fire, holy are all teaching verses. Love is nowhere neglected in any doctrines. Open theism commits the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. The doctrine of God should grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.

This is simply incorrect. OVTs believe in eternal judgment. OVTs embrace all the proper attributes of God as revealed in Scripture. In fact, OVTs do this better than Calvinists, because we DO take into account God's nature as a loving God.

The reason you see a lot about God's loving nature from OVT is because this is the major point of contention between Calvinists and OVTs regarding God's nature. All the atemporal and omniscient arguments arise out of this one, because it is God's loving nature and desire to love, in concert with God's other attributes and evidence in Scripture that guides the OVT in understanding God's transcendent attributes such as being temporal, and the nature of the universe, such as having an unknowable future.

You also see a lot about Calvinist's meticulous control view of sovereignty, since this is the opposite of God having a loving nature. Seems to me that Scripture tells us the latter directly, but the former not at all.


I take it that you're abandoning your objections to OVT because of the obvious Scriptural evidence?

Muz