ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

Good question. I assume you've done the historical work in tracking the movement of these tribes to give us a definitive answer.

No. I can give a definitive answer because God gives us a definitive answer.

Josh 15:63 As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.

Josh 16:10 And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers.

Jud 2:1-3 Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars. But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.
​

In other words.... even if these nations no longer dwell there (which they don't) they weren't driven out by God because God says He didn't drive them out. And He didn't drive them out due to Israel's disobedience.

 

[Nang]

Yet it was God Himself who said He DIDN'T drive them out.

I know God did not completely fulfill this prophecy, for this generation of Jews, because of their disobedience. But that generation of Jews, does not all Israel, make!

But here are two more Scriptures to factor in:

"Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites." Ezra 9:1

"Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth
out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Nehemiah 9:7&8

This prophecy of Joshua 3:10 is part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Which had temporal fulfillments, as well as spiritual significance for all the sons of God.

You see, you can appeal to whatever fantasy you like but God Himself claimed He didn't drive them out so you will have to take it up with Him.

I fear you are being quite short-sighted, and robbing yourself of enjoying the deeper, and richer truths of God.

 

[themuzicman]

Does national Israel exist today?

Doesn't matter. The text clearly states that Israel will go to war with each of them, and that Israel will emerge victorious over them because God goes before them.

That didn't happen.

You can wiggle all you want, but you wind up where you end up with all of your theology: Nice try, but that's bad exegesis.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Doesn't matter. The text clearly states that Israel will go to war with each of them, and that Israel will emerge victorious over them because God goes before them.

God gave them enough victory for them to occupy the land, as promised to Abraham. The fact the Jews were not 100% cleansed from these people, was due to their disobedience.

That didn't happen.

That is not the teaching of Nehemiah 9:8.

" And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Nehemiah 9:8

If the Holy Scriptures say that God has kept His Word, who are you, Oh, men, to say He has not!

You tread on very dangerous ground, IMO.

 

[Philetus]

God gave them enough victory for them to occupy the land, as promised to Abraham. The fact the Jews were not 100% cleansed from these people, was due to their disobedience.

Sounds like contingency on God's part.

 

[themuzicman]

God gave them enough victory for them to occupy the land, as promised to Abraham. The fact the Jews were not 100% cleansed from these people, was due to their disobedience.

Ah, so God didn't fulfill His prophecy, as a response to Israel's sin.. Interesting....

Sounds very.. OPEN ... to me.

That is not the teaching of Nehemiah 9:8.

" And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Nehemiah 9:8

If the Holy Scriptures say that God has kept His Word, who are you, Oh, men, to say He has not!

You tread on very dangerous ground, IMO.

Knight has already pointed out the verses in Joshua and the book of John where Jesus says otherwise.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you for your comments, Clete.

1. Do you believe that the sinner is dead, not just dying, but completely spiritually dead in their sins?
2. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing the sinner can do to save themselves, that is that the sinner cannot originate the love for God in their heart since the sinner is a captive and willing slave to sin unable to deliver themselves from its corruption?
3. Do you believe that the lost are able to only sin more or sin less, that is the sinner is wholly inclined to evil and therefore lacks any abilities of spritual discernment?
4. Do you believe that given the sinner's innate sinful state of mind, as a condition of his sinful nature, it is beyond the power of the the sinner's will to change it?

The answers are only a simple 'yes' or 'no' requiring no straining of the scriptures to elaborate an answer.

These would be simple 'yes' or 'no' questions if you definition of the terms weren't so loaded with your theology. As it is there is no way to answer these questions in a straight forward way as they are asked here.

You've asked effectively "Do I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

The answer is no, I do not. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Thank you for the rapid response, Clete.

Then if you do not believe that the lost are totally depraved, then you must believe that the lost are somehow able to cooperate in their own redemption. My point here is that previously you argued that my post on limited atonement was irrelevant to open theism. I disagree, as open theists hold that the sinner is somehow able to cooperate in their own salvation. Curiously, in your previous post you stated "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Then, how is it you became saved if there was no way you saved yourself--since from your statement you did not cooperate "in any way" with the process of your redemption? I genuinely want to understand how this happens from the open theist's perspective.

 

[Nang]

Ah, so God didn't fulfill His prophecy, as a response to Israel's sin.. Interesting....

Sounds very.. OPEN ... to me.

Oh, please. Nehemiah 9:8 clearly says God kept His word. Just because the prophecy was not totally fulfilled in Joshua's day, does not mean God did not give Israel victory over the inhabitants of the land, as promised. Nor, does it mean the prophecy was not eventually fuffilled.

Knight has already pointed out the verses in Joshua and the book of John where Jesus says otherwise.

Muz

Book of John?

 

[Clete]

Thank you for the rapid response, Clete.

Then if you do not believe that the lost are totally depraved, then you must believe that the lost are somehow able to cooperate in their own redemption.

Not in the sense you mean, no I do not believe that. However, you will, of course insist that this is what I do believe and so whatever, there is no point in quibbling over semantic issues. Suffice it to say that I believe what the Bible plainly teaches, that God gives us a choice to make and expects for us to make it.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Psalm 78:21 Therefore the LORD heard this and was furious;
So a fire was kindled against Jacob,
And anger also came up against Israel,
22 Because they did not believe in God,
And did not trust in His salvation.

And about a thousand other verses that could be quoted.​

My point here is that previously you argued that my post on limited atonement was irrelevant to open theism. I disagree, as open theists hold that the sinner is somehow able to cooperate in their own salvation.

Only by your own convoluted understanding of what it means to cooperate in one's salvation.
If you were stranded on a sinking ship and the Coast Guard came and plucked you off the ship, saving your life, and then later they heard you bragging about how you saved yourself by having gotten in to the basket, how much of a lunatic do you suppose the Coast Guard rescue swimmer would think you are?

Curiously, in your previous post you stated "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Then, how is it you became saved if there was no way you saved yourself--since from your statement you did not cooperate "in any way" with the process of your redemption?

The question is invalid. If presumes the truth of your position in order to argue for your position. I didn't participate in my own salvation any more than a drowning man participates in his rescue by sucking in a big breath of air once the life guard lifts his head above water.

I genuinely want to understand how this happens from the open theist's perspective.

Its pretty simple really. God through His infinite wisdom provided a just way by which He could set before us life and death. If we choose life, then the blood of Christ is put toward our account and our sin debt is thus paid in full. If we choose death, then we die the just death we deserve because of our own sin.

That's the gospel AMR. It's what the whole Bible is about and it's simple enough for a child to understand.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Suffice it to say that I believe what the Bible plainly teaches, that God gives us a choice to make and expects for us to make it.

Thanks again for responding, Clete.

Can you be more explicit here so I do not misunderstand?

Are you saying you made the choice of your own volition?

What exactly are the options for you to choose since God "expects" you to choose?

 

[Clete]

Thanks again for responding, Clete.

Can you be more explicit here so I do not misunderstand?

Are you saying you made the choice of your own volition?

How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?

What exactly are the options for you to choose since God "expects" you to choose?

Life and death; to believe the gospel or not; to love God or to hate Him. There are perhaps dozens of ways to put it but they are all effectively the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?

Life and death; to believe the gospel or not; to love God or to hate Him. There are perhaps dozens of ways to put it but they are all effectively the same thing.

That helps. Thanks!

Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How else does one make a choice besides by one's own volition? Wouldn't the alternative be considered coercion?

Well put. :up:

 

[DFT_Dave]

That helps. Thanks!

Suppose a person is unable to choose because of some mental incapacity. Is it ignoble for someone to choose for them, especially if the person choosing (1) is within their rights to so act for the incapacitated, and (2) has only the best interests of the incapacitated person at heart?

That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by the incapacitated he did not help for they will be :execute:

 

[Lon]

It is pointless to show you a analogy when you keep changing the rules instead of seeing its point. I know it is impossible to be dead on with a quick analogy, but when ever I present one to you, you pick at it or change it by throwing more into it rather than seeing a point.

That is all an analogy is, a tool to show a point. They may never match perfectly with the actual subject, but they are enough to get someone on the same page as you are.

You are still hooked on the analogy and not seeing my point which is:

If God knows the future, he knows everything that will happen. When the future is settled, there is no IF with God, there is only When. Thus, "conditional" doesn't exist for God, there is only "certainty". This means if God knows the entire future, and he says something will happen that doesn't, it is not an indication of a conditional promise, but a lie.

So, why can't God make a covenant for as long as it 'will' last or for whatever effect He deigns in foreknowledge without being considered a lie?

 

[Lon]

Alright, I give it a shot.

Thank you for your comments, Clete.

1. Do you believe that the sinner is dead, not just dying, but completely spiritually dead in their sins?
   Yes.
2. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing the sinner can do to save themselves, that is that the sinner cannot originate the love for God in their heart since the sinner is a captive and willing slave to sin unable to deliver themselves from its corruption?
   Yes.
3. Do you believe that the lost are able to only sin more or sin less, that is the sinner is wholly inclined to evil and therefore lacks any abilities of spritual discernment?
   Yes.
4. Do you believe that given the sinner's innate sinful state of mind, as a condition of his sinful nature, it is beyond the power of the the sinner's will to change it?
   Yes.

The answers are only a simple 'yes' or 'no' requiring no straining of the scriptures to elaborate an answer.

These would be simple 'yes' or 'no' questions if you definition of the terms weren't so loaded with your theology. As it is there is no way to answer these questions in a straight forward way as they are asked here.

You've asked effectively "Do I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

The answer is no, I do not. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, I'm putting our discussion on a backburner to watch this dialogue. Do not hesitate to bring it up at a later date if you desire, but I will lose the flow as this thread progresses at a very swift rate.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, it could have went differently, but contradicting the prophecy sometimes happens...

This is going to be a longer post. Please read it very carefully and think about it for a few days. You should understand that prophecy is there to inspire righteousness, it is not meant to be be 100% accurate. Accuracy was never God's intent for prophecy.

Are you familiar with the book of Daniel? There a lot of prophecies that you can track dead on, including many that involve the Messiah. But some of those didn't come to pass.

That was a lot of interesting math. How about something simpler.

In 458 BC King Artaxerxes I tells Ezra to go to Jerusalem (carrying a letter, see Ez. 7) commanding him to re-establish the law there--build a spiritual city of Jerusalem. In AD 33, Christ is crucified and His kingdom established forever. Between the two dates are 490 years, the seventy weeks. Tidy. Works for me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That person would, indeed, be considered noble by all those he helped, but not by those he did not.

May be true enough, if I were actually implying something about all persons. But I am not. Please read carefully. I am asking about the one, or maybe some, or even many for that matter, but not all of the incapacitated. Nor have I stated or implied that the incapacitated persons in question deserve any such assistance.

You've taken what I write too far in an attempt to be clever. Don't strain to interpret what I am writing, simply take the plain meaning.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Its pretty simple really. God through His infinite wisdom provided a just way by which He could set before us life and death. If we choose life, then the blood of Christ is put toward our account and our sin debt is thus paid in full. If we choose death, then we die the just death we deserve because of our own sin.

That's the gospel AMR. It's what the whole Bible is about and it's simple enough for a child to understand.

Thanks for elaborating, Clete. Given that it is simple for a child to understand please explain to me in childlike simple terms.

"If we choose life" or "if we choose death" means you have actually made a volitional choice. Right? You thought to yourself, "here are my two options, A (life) and B (death), and I really like option A and so I choose option A." Am I correct? How is it then that you claim in the post "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Yet you have again stated above "we choose" life or death. How then does that "choosing" work?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thanks for elaborating, Clete. Given that it is simple for a child to understand please explain to me in childlike simple terms.

"If we choose life" or "if we choose death" means you have actually made a volitional choice. Right? You thought to yourself, "here are my two options, A (life) and B (death), and I really like option A and so I choose option A." Am I correct? How is it then that you claim in the post "I do not, in any way, believe that I saved myself". Yet you have again stated above "we choose" life or death. How then does that "choosing" work?

Why would it be so bad if God allowed us to make the choice to accept God's gift of salvation?

After all, it isn't as if we did any of the work on the cross, yet God allows us to choose to accept or reject that work on the cross. I don't believe that making a choice is equal to performing the work that follows when that choice is made.

Apparently God wanted it this way. God wanted to have a two way relationship with His creation. Personally I think that is the power of the gospel.

CASE IN POINT:

Notice that we do not have the right to boast that we played a part in our salvation...

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Yet at the same time we CAN and SHOULD boast that we chose Christ, after all... who wouldn't want to boast about that?? It is better to be saved than to not be saved right?

Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

In conclusion....
We have no reason to boast that we played a part in the saving work that cleansed our sin, however we are stupid if we don't boast in the decision to follow the cross of our Lord!