ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

Talk about God being unjust. I seems to me it would be unjust for Him to send anyone to eternal punishment for their sins since His Son paid the price to redeem them. Reaping what you sow--that sounds like disciplinary action for corrective purposes. Eternal torment would be paying for your sins after Jesus Christ already did. Did God accept His sacrifice or not? I believe He did

God does not apply that sacrifice universally. If you reject the price Christ paid then you will be made to pay your own debt.

 

[Clete]

You are quite the glutton for punishment. One would think that after the beat down you got from Stevenw the last time you raised this question, you would just let it drop. (See here and here.)

Oh wow! I had forgotten all about that thread.

Thank you for bringing it up AMR! I just think it's hysterical that you think I was "beat down" in the thread. His entire argument was based on a claim that I never made! :rotfl:

Please! Anyone who is interested in this little side issue of justice, PLEASE READ THAT THREAD! I've also reopened it so that anyone who is interested in responding to the arguments made in that thread can do so there (that includes Nang if she is so inclined to do so). Here's a link directly to the thread....

Calvinism vs. Justice

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Talk about God being unjust. I seems to me it would be unjust for Him to send anyone to eternal punishment for their sins since His Son paid the price to redeem them. Reaping what you sow--that sounds like disciplinary action for corrective purposes. Eternal torment would be paying for your sins after Jesus Christ already did. Did God accept His sacrifice or not? I believe He did

An unbeliever won't go to eternal punishment for sin (2 Cor 5:19 KJV), but for rejecting the seed of Abraham (Jesus Christ). In accord with the Abrahamic covenant, they will be due a curse.

 

[Nang]

Oh wow! I had forgotten all about that thread.

Thank you for bringing it up AMR! I just think it's hysterical that you think I was "beat down" in the thread. His entire argument was based on a claim that I never made! :rotfl:

Please! Anyone who is interested in this little side issue of justice, PLEASE READ THAT THREAD! I've also reopened it so that anyone who is interested in responding to the arguments made in that thread can do so there (that includes Nang if she is so inclined to do so). Here's a link directly to the thread....

Calvinism vs. Justice

Resting in Him,
Clete

I read the thread, and found it painful on several counts.

First, because Clete did not debate the agreed issue, but rather attempted to deviate from Steven's point with various subjects meant to distract, while hoping he might appear smart and clever. Instead, Clete made a fool of himself, and it brought me no pleasure seeing it, considering Clete seems to think he was the victor. This is complete denial of reality, and very pathetic. I am beginning to feel sorry for Clete. He truly cannot see argument, let alone truth, and rarely refers to Holy Scripture, but relies on invention, a fantasy worldview, odd (almost irrelevent) logical arguments, and ad hominem to stay in the ring.

But Steven kept Clete on the ropes the whole time.

I won't even comment on how Clete misrepresented the Calvinist faith, let alone how he fails to grasp the doctrines of Godly justice and saving grace.

And please, moderators, do not give me any infractions for my speaking my opinion, here, because Clete invited me to read the account and respond. I have, and will hope I am not treated badly by TOL for doing so.

Nang

 

[Clete]

I read the thread, and found it painful on several counts.

First, because Clete did not debate the agreed issue, but rather attempted to deviate from Steven's point with various subjects meant to distract, while hoping he might appear smart and clever. Instead, Clete made a fool of himself, and it brought me no pleasure seeing it, considering Clete seems to think he was the victor. This is complete denial of reality, and very pathetic. I am beginning to feel sorry for Clete. He truly cannot see argument, let alone truth, and rarely refers to Holy Scripture, but relies on invention, a fantasy worldview, odd (almost irrelevent) logical arguments, and ad hominem to stay in the ring.

But Steven kept Clete on the ropes the whole time.

I won't even comment on how Clete misrepresented the Calvinist faith, let alone how he fails to grasp the doctrines of Godly justice and saving grace.

And please, moderators, do not give me any infractions for my speaking my opinion, here, because Clete invited me to read the account and respond. I have, and will hope I am not treated badly by TOL for doing so.

Nang

Saying it doesn't make it so Nang.

It boggles my mind what you guys count as valid arguments and what you call distractions from the main point. If you think I ever left the subject of justice vs. Calvinism, you are either stupid or don't know how to read.

If anyone changed the subject it was my opponent who asked me whether God could be considered just if He saved people in some arbitrary manner (which is factually the Calvinists position) and when I said no (duh), he argued as though I had said no to a quite different question. A point I basically ignored specifically because I did not want to distract from the primary topic of the debate.

I won the debate for one very simple reason. I made a valid argument which falsified his position and he repeatedly refused to even address the argument. When you do that Nang, that means you lose the debate. You don't get to just pretend like major arguments haven't been made and insist that the focus be shifted to some other issue.

And finally, when I invited you to respond, my intent (as any third grader would have understood) was for you to respond on the other thread! You just got through asking me to start another thread on the topic less than two days ago and now your groveling because you're afraid of being banned for what you think might be some minor infringement of the rules. Who in the world taught you how to think? If brains were dynamite and common sense was C4, you couldn't blow you way out of a paper bag! :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Just to let you all know, compatabilism (or some general form of it) is most likely the most widely held view in academic philosophy regarding the "free will" debate.

PS. Not saying that legitimatizes it, but just food for thought.

Given the historical tensions between two irreconcilable views how could it not be at least popular? It's more denial from both parties than merger.

 

[Philetus]

QUOTE=Nang;1488198

I do not see your logic here. If there is a good choice and a bad choice; both of which have promised consequences, where is the contingencies? Either the good cause will bring good effect, or the bad cause will bring bad effect. It is set in stone. No "ifs," about choosing between good and bad.

SIMPLY IN CHOOSING! It there really is a choice then the contingency lies in MAKING THE CHOICE! If there is a real choice to be made the future will be shaped by the choice made. The outcome will be determined more or less by the choice made. Has God given mankind a choice between life and death beyond the individual Adam? (The logic fallacy lies in trying to fit the others view into one's own, which we have already acknowledge as 'incompatible'.)

You say that there is a good choice and a bad choice and that God already knew which choice Adam would make. So in your view there is nothing that can be described as freedom. We say that's no choice at all.

Who are you talking about? Saved or unsaved people?

Unsaved people are in a state of sin, and the consequence is death. Doesn't matter what the specific sins are or what sins are avoided, that sinner is consigned to death because of sin. No contingencies. "The wages of sin is death. . ." Romans 6:23

Saved people are in a state of grace, and the consequence is life. Doesn't matter that sin remains in their members, that saved sinner is consigned to life because of the Covenant performed by Jesus Christ. ". . .But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

There are no other possibilities or destinies to speculate about. It is an either/or truth, with no middle grounds between death and/or life.

Let's talk about the not yet saved if there is even such a category in your view (not meaning the never to be saved or already elect). What about the not yet saved? Is there a God given choice between life and death for all who have sinned and if so, how do they make that choice? Or has Adam or God already made it for them?

I suppose you refer to God's command to Adam in the garden, forbidding he partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God never used an "if." This was a serious command, for God prophesied "in the day that" Adam would disobey he would surely die.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Genesis 2:17

God revealed His Law to Adam and warned of the consequence (death) Adam would suffer "on the day that" Adam rebelled.

Where do you see approval of God for what God knew Adam would do? Where do you see God giving Adam free choice to do what Adam did? There is no freedom in this command. There is no approval in this command. There is no permission or contingencies included with this command. This was a pure, holy, demand of God issued under His Law.

Exactly. How we read this leads us into how we read all of scripture. How we read all of scripture has a bearing on how we interpret this.

You seem to think that I equate God 'permitting' or 'allowing' sin with divine 'approval'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Open Theists believe that God has given all mankind a degree of freedom and ability to actually MAKE choices. Some simple and mundane choices like what we shall eat and what we shall wear (which hold obvious contingencies that cannot be known until the choice is made and action taken) and some choices that hold eternal consequences.

I do not see divine approval in Adam's sin nor do I see God determining or knowing ahead of time what Adam would do.

Correct. God loathes sin.


Correct. Sin has no part with God. God cannot even look upon sin.


I disagree. God does not "allow" sin. God punishes sin. Period.

Is the hang up 'allow'?

Correct. But not out of a moral freedom of any kind, but because of moral bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Adam broke God's command as federal head of the human race, and threw himself into bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil . . .which bondage all his descendents are naturally born into. Every person of the human race is conceived and/or born enslaved to serving Satan as their master, instead of God. God has departed from us all, and left us in the hands of the liar whom Adam chose to heed, instead of God. Calvinists call this the beginnings of the doctrine of "Total Depravity."

I just answered . . .the sinful nature is inherited from the first Adam. There is no escape from this corrupted and sinful human nature. So all are born sinners, and willfully commit their own sins to add to their disgrace before God; verifying His justice for consigning us all to death. And because the nature of man is so tainted by sin, every action he takes is sinful; even when he attempts to be morally right and civilly "good." God cannot look with favor upon those born of the first Adam; He abhors their proclivity and inclination to only sin out of self-serving heart motives:

"In these ways we continue; and we need to be saved. But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags . . ." Isaiah 64:5b&6a

" . . .They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1b

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3

"As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after god. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

The only one who taught that man is free to go against God, was the devil in the garden. He encouraged A&E to disregard God's command, eat of the tree, assuring them, "you will NOT surely die." (Gen. 3:4)

This was a lie, and it is a lie to this day.

Man is not free to disobey God and break God's Law. Man is not free to sin.





The choice to disobey God and sin, is not freedom of will, but suicide. The devil knew this, but A&E did not. They committed suicide and brought death to all mankind. And men live and breathe and still believe they are free to sin; that God allows them to sin; with various possibilities of pleasing God or finding excuses before God without repentance. This is suicide, and men follow this lie daily.







No point in addressing that "if." That is a contingency that does not exist. Adam was given command under the Law of God, and Adam broke that command. Adam offended holy God, and Adam was consigned to both physical and spiritual death, forever and ever. Where is the freedom in any of this? Where was the supposed choice? There was no choice. God commanded one thing . . . He forbid Adam to eat of that tree which would kill him. No choice there, unless Adam wanted to take heed to the warning, which Adam did not will to do. And God knew Adam did not have the heart to submit to His will in obedience. God knew Adam possessed no faith in God or belief in His word. God prophesied what Adam would do, willingly, and God warned Adam of the consequences of his actions.

This passage speaks of Godly grace. The mercy and gift of grace from God is the only escape from sin. Virtue and good works is not the antidote for sin. Only by God's forgiveness is rescue from sin known.

And of course, I believe we would all say that we are forgiven (justified) by faith in the cross work of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins. Right? So this faith referred to as saving faith, was the gift of God given to this woman to save her from her sins.

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



Yes.



Yes, according to her nature.

It honestly sounds like you are saying that Adam made the only real choice in human history.

Oh, I see a misconception on your part here, that I was not full aware of. It seems you believe for God to act as absolute sovereign, that He dictates the willful choices of all sinners?

God is sovereign over His creatures as Creator, and predestines the fate of all (life or death), but God also created man, in His image, accountable and responsible to subject the human will to the sovereign will of God. It is the natural resistence and failure to submit the human will to the will of God, that constitutes sin.

In the beginning, Adam was created in God's image as a morally responsible creature, with intelligence, creativity, sentient qualities, and ability to work secondary cause and effect, in submission to God's superior and sovereign morality, intelligence, creativity, consciousness, and cause of all things. Adam had the ability to fellowship with God, communicate with God, accept domain from God, and gifts from God (Eve), and fulfill human responsibilities according to Godly command. Adam knew God's goodness and greatness, and Adam was told about evil and death. Adam was put under the Holy Law of God and as designed, accountable to serve his Master in subjection, submission, humility, and thanksgiving.

Adam refused to submit his God-given abilities to his Maker, and fell into corruption, bondage, enslavement, misery, curse, and the sentence of death . . .not because God gave him a free choice to make . . .but because Adam despised how God had created him. Adam refused to believe he had to live a life of submission to the will of God, and when the serpent lied to Adam and told him there would be no consequence to rebelling against God's command, Adam fell out of fellowship and communication with his Maker, and the creation that Adam took for granted, corrupted and suffered death under his domain.

A&E reproduced as God commanded, but all their chilren were conceived and born under Godly curse and the sentence of physical and spiritual death. Adam never achieved becoming "like God," but instead simply subjected his will to Satan, rather than His Maker . . .for man was designed to submit and serve a master.

Now, due to Adam's federal headship over the human race, no man can serve God as Master, but are all in bondage to serving Satan . . .until and unless God extends His grace, and gives faith to individual sinners to believe in the redemption of the God/Man, the last "Adam," Jesus Christ.

Actually, I'm saying that it is NOT necessary for God to dictate, predetermine or foreknow the thoughts, choices or actions of mankind in order to exercise His sovereignty over creation. I believe God has actually given us the right, power, and ability to make choices that help determine the future ... hence OPEN Theism.

The woman's faith was evidence God had forgiven her sins, and saved her by His grace. Her faith was not caused of her volition, but a gift from God, according to His will to show mercy and grace. Faith does not come from within any sinner, but is imparted to regenerated souls by the power of the Holy Spirit. This faith of Jesus Christ is the gift that enables the sinner to newly submit his will to the will of God, to obey anew the holy laws of God, to love God and his fellow man, and to repent of sin in order to serve righteousness in a state of grace.

Secondary cause has to do with effect. When we exercise our wills to serve the devil, our master, the effect is evil and wickedness. When we exercise our wills anew, according to the Holy Spirit and truths of God's word, the effect is evidentiary faith, repentance, fruits of the Spirit and righteousness.

Yes, we are willful creatures, who have the volition to cause and effect, but always according to whom we submit and serve. Our moral agency (wills) never work automously from God, or free from the sin. We serve one or the other, thus it can never be said man has a will that is "free."

The simple question is: Do we have a choice as to who we will serve?

Don't know why? . . .the gospel is simple and straight-forward. All men are sinners, serving sin, death, and the devil and need to be saved from deserved judgement of eternal death. The only way to be saved from this fate, is by the grace of God, who sent His Son to bear the sins of His people on the cross; justifying (forgiving) them, and calling them to trust in the Son and His righteousness works on their behalf, rather than their own deeds.

I understand and appreciate this opportunity to share my views about these matters of life and death.

I will look forward to your return on Monday . . .have a nice weekend.

Nang

No Christian of the Spirit could disagree. I certainly do not.
Now, who are "His people"? Those whosoever by grace believe or those individuals who are elected to believe.

Is there ever really a choice? I can't find one in the Calvinist's view.

Thanks Nang, I got home early and I probably should have waited until tomorrow night to reply. Oh well.

Philetus

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Best way to determine this usually is to look at the last few posts made by a person. Start here.

Close... I would start here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That was not the same question but even if it had been, the way she was acting at the time would have urned her the same answer she got.

Who you care to answer the question yourself?

What is justice?

It is my belief that the Calvinist cannot answer that question without tacitly conceding the Open View paradigm.

Asked and answered and proving your tacit assumption wrong. You could not refute it then, and cannot now. Go finish the immutability thread you started and gave up with the usual declaration of victory on July 22nd. Flashes in the pan never sustain much real cooking.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Saying it doesn't make it so Nang.

Yes it does when the evidence is clear.

1. Steve's suggestion:

Why not! Let's begin with the Justice of God for you (Clete) claim that God would not be just if He only saved one person

2. Thread started.

3. Clete 2nd post directly to Steve here (a surreal journey--alas, Clete took the blue pill)
“You take the blue pill, the story ends...you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” –Morpheus

4. Clete's third direct reply to Steve:

We are not debating whether or not God is just but what it means to say that God is just or whether such a concept has any meaning in the first place.

ta-da! Debate specific topic moves into left field. Clete, who opened the thread with with the specific intention of discussing Steve's subject, retreats into peripheral topics.

5. Steve even tries to reel Clete back into the topic at hand:

Let me remind you of the first sentence I posted after accepting your offer to discuss the justice of God

By then it is all over. Steve's affirmative that God is Just even if He saved only one person stood unrefuted.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

3. Clete 2nd post directly to Steve here (a surreal journey--alas, Clete took the blue pill)
“You take the blue pill, the story ends...you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” –Morpheus

Isn't it ironic how Calvinist's love to refer to the Matrix? :freak:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Isn't it ironic how Calvinist's love to refer to the Matrix?

Funny! Are you sure you really understand the proper use of the word "irony"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Funny! Are you sure you really understand the proper use of the word "irony"?

Yep, I'm sure.

Ironic, (in this case) happens to be the perfect word.

It's very possible you don't understand why it's ironic that a Calvinist would appeal to the movie the Matrix. Have you considered that?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yep, I'm sure.

Ironic, (in this case) happens to be the perfect word.

It's very possible you don't understand why it's ironic that a Calvinist would appeal to the movie the Matrix. Have you considered that?

You want irony? I can give you irony:

I can spell the word 'elect' using the word "clete".:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Morpheus: Do you believe in Fate, Neo?
No.
Why not?
Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
I know exactly what you mean.

Remember Neo, I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

 

[themuzicman]

Morpheus: Do you believe in Fate, Neo?
No.
Why not?
Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
I know exactly what you mean.

Remember Neo, I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

Calvinists must be "in" the matrix, and OVTs have escaped and see reality for what it is... Interesting...

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stipe View Post
Morpheus: Do you believe in Fate, Neo?
No.
Why not?
Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
I know exactly what you mean.

Remember Neo, I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

Calvinists must be "in" the matrix, and OVTs have escaped and see reality for what it is... Interesting...

Muz

Actually, I like the idea that I'm no longer in control of my life because I have chosen to follow the Master Jesus. When I was in control it wasn't good. Not good at all.

 

[Clete]

How long must we put up with intentionally disruptive Calvinists who have clearly decided that they are no longer interested in substantive debate or discussion?

This is such a huge waste of time.

 

[Stripe]

This is such a huge waste of time.

Have you ever seen a Calvanist admit error?

 

[Nang]

You want irony? I can give you irony:

I can spell the word 'elect' using the word "clete".:chuckle:

:rotfl: