Faith is not a work. We are saved by our faith in Christs work not by our works.
--Dave
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Faith is not a work. We are saved by our faith in Christs work not by our works.
--Dave
Lon
Well-known member
It is cute you think you could beat me at chess or softball (perhaps basketball, tho).
To be honest, I'm not sure I've actually told you why I believe God isn't constrained to time for you to say 'different reasons.' -"Check" (see there? I'll wait until your king cannot move first
)
Lon
Well-known member
Dave, it seems to me, that for the last couple of days, you are arguing simply because you are an open theist, not because you are engaging the conversation.
Imho, you are glossing over and randomly arguing 'for the cause.' That, at least, is how I've been reading you for 2 or 3 days now. I really don't think OV needs that kind of PR nor that it carries the thread well.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you agree with what Nang said here:
If faith is not the "means" of salvation then how do you explain the following verse?:
"...obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:9).
Earlier I said that according to the ideas of the Calvinists God is responsible for man being "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil."
But you asserted that God is not responsible for the way that the Calvinists say that people come out of the womb:
It is you who needs to dig deeper. In the very article which you cited we read:
"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).
So when we read the following we can know that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for man coming out of the womb corrupted and "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil":
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).
Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.
And you have no answer to this except a failed attempt to pervert what the Calvinists teach about who bears the responsibility for a man's corruption. Then to make matters worse you agree with Nang's words that "Faith (belief) is the evidence of salvation, not the means."
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Thus unmerited favor lies at the root. And your previous statement that God does not have to save anyone is "not an answer", is, actually, the answer. Don't be double-minded on this point, gr, and just admit you were being a wee bit too cavalier with your attempt to cover all possible "yeah, buts" in your post.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is plenty in the Bible that sends my humanistic tendencies aflutter. But, we need to recall that God's ways are not our ways and resist the urge to apply sentimental and/or humanistic notions in crafting a view of God that would never punish someone eternally.
Such incorrect intellectual idols place ourselves in mortal and perhaps even eternal peril. Rather, like the prophet who encountered a glimpse of the holiness of God, I try to remind myself that "...Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." (Isa. 6:5).
Denying the concept of eternal torment is a fundamental denial of the holiness of God. Once one is willing to limit what God's transcendental holiness entails, it is easy to add, in addition to your annihilationism, all manner of limitations to God's character, e.g., his omniscience, omnipotence and so on. Such persons ignore the full aspects of Isa. 57:15, preferring to focus on the fellowship aspects (God's immanence) in a way that denies God's transcendence. Out of these poor views comes all manner of nonsense, e.g., Jesus is my buddy, God is a benevolent Grandfather, etc.
Indeed, too many refuse to consider the absolute overpowingness, awful majesty, and the absolute unapproachability of the holiness of God; considerations that should awaken their sense of nothingness by comparison, their sense of absolute creature-consciousness, impurity, and sin as the prophet experienced in the previously cited passage in Isaiah.
You, AB, seem to think that such a holy God should ignore His aversion to sin and not punish it according to its demerit. Your creeping Socianism, and hence your "Other" label, has not gone unnoticed.
There is a reason why this one attribute of God is the only one that get's never-ending triple treatment in the heavenly court.
A recommended read that provides one of the best treatments of God's holiness:
The Holiness of God - R.C. Sproul
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry,
I don't know why you continue to repeat what you have already posted and has already been answered. I am wondering if you are overcome with emotion or something. Your basic refusal to carefully consider the responses provided preferring instead to simply re-state your arguments is not going to move the discussion forward. Why don't you try taking your rhetoric down a notch or two if you genuinely want to understand the Reformed view? As it is, you seem intent on teaching me what I believe. That won't do.
AMR
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Mister, you answered neither of my points. The first one I just presented to you so how could you have possibly answered it previously?
In regard to the second all you said was:
No, it is not something different than "Original Sin" because the following words are the results of the "corruption" which comes from original sin: "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil."
And that is exactly what Shaw is referring to here:
"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).
Do you still deny that the Calvinists teach that God bears the responsibility for man being "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil"?
Last edited:
It is cute you think you could beat me at chess or softball (perhaps basketball, tho).
To be honest, I'm not sure I've actually told you why I believe God isn't constrained to time for you to say 'different reasons.' -"Check" (see there? I'll wait until your king cannot move first
Your reading comprehension is poor, perphaps this is why you struggle with theology and logic. I did not say I could beat you at chess or... I said I have defeated your arguement. God cannot be outside of time--timeless, as you have said, and be in time at the same time with out contradiction. Maybe you have a friend, one with good reading skills, that can go back over this with you and help you understand what has been said.
A God who is outside of time is, logically, uncontstrained by it. See my post #3084 and my question as to why would time be a constraint to God even if he was in time.
--Dave
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, I know, Dave.Which is why your game analogies humored me (I do think, even if you aren't very good, that you could beat me at basketball).
At any rate, I answered this (remember analogies?). I said it was to be thought of the same way that you might interact with your fish. You can get wet, no question, but there is no constraint to that wetness.
My main points were:
1) time is a concept and measurement that is part of our physical reality.
When we are isolated from the world's indicators, we have little appreciation for time. It certainly is correct, that time passes, whether we are aware of it or not, but I maintain that this is a created element to our existence. If we could obliterate all our measurements for time, it would become a very vague concept to us and unimportant. I think of people I knew in Alaska, when I lived there. They really didn't pay much attention to time passing as the rest of the industrial world tends to.
2) We have both agreed here, but as you observed 'for differing reasons' that God is unconstrained by time. I would suggest, such an agreement puts you at odds with your other open theists on here. So, to me, this actually is more meaningful between you and I in this conversation, than it is for the general open theist populace. Perhaps I should have asked "in what way, different than my answer, is God unconstrained by time?"
3) and finally, that any agreement, whether my reading comprehension is good or poor, lessens significantly the impact of your contention that there is a logical incongruity.
4) though not a point made prior: I apologize for anything said that set you off or talked down at or to you. I perceived you as disengaging a few pages back and did not intend for my comments to be uncongenial, but good-natured teasing in response to some of your jibes. I will state, even though we often disagree, that the Dave I've gotten to know on TOL, I enjoy and like. Forgive any slights that may have conveyed otherwise. I embrace the TOL idea of speaking truth and standing for it, but I also want to be sure that any contention isn't lame character assassination. In other words, I want to combat your ideas without any purposeful maliciousness. Our disagreements are genuine and need to be aired as such, but it has not been my intention but to address and debate the points. If you would be so kind as to forgive any personal slights as applicable.
In Him
-Lon
Lon
Well-known member
Well, when you agree with me in one breath, and then say contradiction and irrational in the next....
Judging? Yes/no. Not in the sense of a court case, but more along the lines of a line judge/referee.
Why do I care? Between the two ways of debating, I believe the one where meaningful dialogue takes place for wading thru a topic is preferred, regardless of where one falls on the issue addressed. It is probably just me, but I don't like the fights in hockey as much as the actual game (just a personal preference). In forums, I try and stay away from stick fights as well.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If the law of "time" extends into the eternal state then God would be under the law of "time." He would be constrained by time. But we have already seen that He is not so constrained or under the law of "time" because the Scriptures show a speeding up of time with Him while there is also a slowing down of time.
If anyone is under the law of "time" then they are maseterd by time. But since God is not so constrained or limited by time then common sense dictates that He is not under "time."
Since "time" is made up of sequences of events that follow in chronological order then a man is restrained in the sense that he cannot jump ahead in the order of time and see things in the future.
But here we can see that God can do this very thing:
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
It is only "individuals" who are saved so therefore the verse is saying that in past times God chose individuals for salvation and his choice is based on the fact that He knows who in the future will believe the truth.
God is not restrained by the same chronological order of events by which men are restrained.
You are confusing "time" with "history". Human history is made up of a sequence of events/activity of man, time is when any particular event occurred in relation to other events and in relation to the movement of our planet as it spins and revolves around the sun. Once a year we move "time" forward one hour and then turn "time" back one hour as a measurement, but we do not and cannot move forward to historical events that have not yet occured nor backward to "historical events" that are no longer are occurring.
Time as a measurement does not constrain God, God does not revolve around the sun or anything else, but God cannot see the "historical events" of finite man that has not yet occurred because the "law of time" constrains man from having future activity.
The law of time does not prevent man from seeing what he has done in the future, the law of time prevents man from having future activity.
Your verse does not say what you say it does.
--Dave
Lon
Well-known member
Cannot? The OV asserts this, but I've seen no proof for this other than an OVer claiming it is logical. To me, this is quite presumptuous, to say what God can and cannot do based on one's logical parameters rather than Him telling us specifically what He can or cannot do.
I would go so far as to say the OV is entirely too bold in making these assertions. They portray as arrogant and God needing to bow to men in order to support their theology, rather than us bowing before Him and not going beyond what is written, especially concerning what God can and cannot do.
The weight of scripture, as far as I discern, asserts itself against such a notion which is only made to uphold the OV framework. There is no other compelling reason to adopt this notion. No scripture that, imo, supports it.
I'd ask a question here then: If you (general rhetorical 'you') are an open theist, would you say you are more committed to open theism or to God, most? Why such a bold question? Because one of us is wrong and I continually pray that I'm not so bound to my view that it replaces God and His Word in my life. I would hope the OVer, who is an incredibly small minority holding an extreme minority view, would do the same ten-fold.
Again, this reads as blind, bold assertion in light of visions God gives His prophets and apostles. Jesus told Peter of his future activity. John interacted with a future reality (just two readily apparent examples of many). However the statement above was meant to be conveyed (giving the benefit of doubt), it does not hold true to the majority of us who read scripture pushing against the idea.
I don't mind disagreement here, what bothers me is disagreement on such sparse and nebulous data where the only driving force for it is to uphold an adverse doctrine (hence the question above pitting devotion to a theology to devotion to Him).
Such is self-defeating, when the only reason for the assertion is to convince other's against their own understanding of scripture. Frankly, it isn't enough and those who tote that line appear more devoted to a theological idea. How can we be so bold as to tell God and others what He can and cannot do without crystal clear communication from Him regarding His relationship to time?
-Lon
genuineoriginal
New member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
genuineoriginal
New member
You don't find it silly that the argument hasn't progressed past "God loses His sovereignty to man if the future is not unchangeable?"
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The argument far surpasses your summary. Unfortunately, it is the Open Theists who cannot get past such a silly conclusion.
Nang