ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

God does have the power to stop things, but has wisely allowed creatures to have significant, finite, irrevocable freedom. A deterministic view that negates genuine freedom ultimately is a biblical compromise to retain a skewed view of sovereignty divorced from love, relationship, freedom (TM).

It is difficult to see whether you over-evaluate or not enough but please consider again: determinism is synonymous with allowing. We are exchanging over what is desired here and not much else. In both of our views, God allows, ordains, determines. I've determined that my children will not play in the street. I've determined that I don't want to see my kids injured. One is more specific in that it is not going to be a free choice of theirs but they do freely choose to comply with my wishes that they not play in the street (example, we live in a culdesac).
My determination to keep them from harm is less enforceable. I could bubble-wrap them, make them sit and have a obstacle-free yard. So I uphold freedom you are arguing for here. I don't use free-will because it is a loaded term carrying all kinds of definition baggage but I believe we are created displaying creativity ourselves. We aren't robots but we are creatures with assembly stamps and marks.

Allowing something to happen is not condoning, desiring, intending it for a higher good (flawed logic on your part?). We allow our children to do stupid things because we choose not to micromanage them and allow them to grow to maturity, even at great risk. This is the price of love and reciprocal relationships vs robotics, owner-animal, etc.

Again, as a parent, I think there are both at work here. I allow my kids to learn things on their own (intending it for higher good). I don't believe love needs to pay the high price here for things to work. I can spank, restrict, or whatever else to keep my kids from the greater damage and this is as if not more loving than watching them get hit by a car from playing in the street. Parenting is dynamic guiding and I think your OV agrees with this but I believe it always has been the traditional theological position as well.

I do not assume that God knows the future exhaustively, so your argument stalls there. There are implications in a deterministic vs non-deterministic view. One of us is wrong on basic assumptions.

I'd say it would have to be you. There is no problem with God predetermining His dynamic involvement any more than doing it on-the-fly.
This is a hang-up I'm still perplexed over. I cannot imagine another way to make this any plainer. We are only talking about 'when' not about 'when' for our disagreement. I'd think we answer similarly if not exactly as to the 'why's.'

God does not have secret wills, contradictory wills, multiple fancy wills that act as loopholes to get God off the hook, etc. I do not need mental gymnastics to explain the obvious.

Yes He does. This is part of being relational. He'll exercise His parental will by allowing us to learn hard lessons on our own on some issues, will intervene and hedge us in on others, and will totally keep us from even seeing the danger in others. As a parent, I do not explain myself to my kids on every issue and it'd be wrong to explain they cannot go outside today because of attempted child-abduction. All they know is that today is board-game day, and it is enough. I totally disagree with you here.

You rightly claim that God is good, righteous, etc., but leave things as a mystery when in fact there is a logical, theological problem that can be resolved with a more cogent theological worldview. I can claim and support these things. I think you can claim them, but use the 'mystery, antimony' loophole. Yes, there are mysteries, but there is more light on this issue than you realize.

After we get past the point where we understand that our arguments are mostly about 'when's' and that our 'why's' are the same, I think we both are left with some mystery. Why does God not stop evil from happening? Why doesn't he stop that guy before he does what he is going to do? We both agree that God detests it. I don't see any more light in your 'why' than mine. Scripture gives us reasons for why things are happening the way they are. I believe God is more interested in souls than the physical tents that they dwell in and that His business has more to do with that purpose than stopping crime.

Do not underestimate the bias you bring to the text when you define sovereignty as control and free will as compatibilistic (not true in human authority, so why must it be true in divine authority? God is omnicompetent vs omnicausal, secure, not insecure, in His providential rule).

This needs more elaboration.
First, why isn't human authority compatible?
I've always thought it was.

Second, why must a God who knows the future be seen as insecure? It doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't it actually make Him the most secure?

 

[godrulz]

This is indirectly related to open theism.

Luke 4

5: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

How was this possible?

He probably had a photo album or slide show to show the extant kingdoms of the world. I do not see a reference to future, but present kingdoms.

Would it have been a vision/apparition or something? Would it be pointing in various directions as a gesture representing the kingdoms?

The answer is not an Open Theism issue if it is about present or past kingdoms. What is your answer/speculation?

 

[godrulz]

I agree and disagree. The high road is verification. You are correct and this is a repeat of what I told Godrulz: There are unbelievers in every camp, no question. TOL is an OV website and owned by them. What they condone, allow, ordain is important for an initiate theology. While immaturity is expected, I appreciate Godrulz making a stance against this kind of behavior.

Paul's letters were half doctrinal and half practical application. Belief (orthodoxy) does affect practice (orthopraxy).

I would think this would be more applicable with things like sanctification, not whether God is timeless or experiences endless time, whether God micro or macromanages, whether the future is settled or only partially settled, whether EDF is possible, the exact nature of free will, etc.

I am not sure behavior is tied into OT distinctives (we claim to affirm the great truths of Scripture that you do, but hope to understand them more biblically and less philosophically).

i.e. Are OT distinctives germane to character/behavior issues? I don't see the connection since their are good and bad eggs in all theological camps.

TOL should not become a stereotype or straw man caricature for mainstream Open Theism (I would suggest Sanders, Boyd, Pinnock, Hasker, etc. have been cordial despite the attacks on their credibility and integrity from the Reformed camp who arrogantly assume they alone represent true Christianity in its purest form).

 

[godrulz]

determinism is synonymous with allowing. We are exchanging over what is desired here and not much else. In both of our views, God allows, ordains, determines.

Semantical barrier? I see determinism as causation (active), not allowing (passive). Ware makes some distinctions here that have been critiqued. God does allow things without determining them. I allow my kid to ride a motorbike, contrary to my desire or determination.

So I uphold freedom you are arguing for here. I don't use free-will because it is a loaded term carrying all kinds of definition baggage but I believe we are created displaying creativity ourselves.

Olson (Arminian) makes a distinction between freedom and free will. It was a helpful insight. Free will is a means to freedom. I think Calvinism confuses some issues here due to TULIP, etc.

Parenting is dynamic guiding and I think your OV agrees with this but I believe it always has been the traditional theological position as well.


There is no problem with God predetermining His dynamic involvement any more than doing it on-the-fly.

Your parenting e.g. do not help me when I do not force my kid to stop riding a motorbike. Your e.g. may apply to little kids, not adults.

The Bible shows God responding to changing contingencies in real space-time. There is no need for predetermining things meticulously or trillions of years in advance. God is able to predetermine and/or respond, but it is more proximal. It is a humanizing of God to think He must have EDF or omnicausality in order to be 'in control' or bring His project to pass.

This is a hang-up I'm still perplexed over. We are only talking about 'when' not about 'when' for our disagreement. I'd think we answer similarly if not exactly as to the 'why's.'

After we get past the point where we understand that our arguments are mostly about 'when's' and that our 'why's' are the same, I think we both are left with some mystery. Why does God not stop evil from happening?

I lost you on this when/why thing. Could you rephrase it? I don't know that we are that close.

God allowing evil is tied into libertarian free will, love, relationships, freedom, image of God, etc. There is some mystery, but I think you have antimony (a problematic contradiction or compromise, not just something hidden).

First, why isn't human authority compatible?
I've always thought it was.

My point was that human kings/sovereigns rule without knowing or controlling every detail in their domain. They certainly retain 'control' despite individuals who rebel against authority or do their own thing even without the king's immediate awareness. If a king can be sovereign and in control without omnicausality, how much more our great God?

Second, why must a God who knows the future be seen as insecure? It doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't it actually make Him the most secure?

The issue is whether the future is inherently knowable in a contingent universe (determinism would make it possible, but at the expense of love, freedom, relationship, sound theodicy).

A chess player who responds to the opponent's moves is greater than one who knows in advance the other player's moves, or worse, controls them to the point of making bad moves for the opponent and only good one's for himself.

 

[tetelestai]

The high road is verification.

Thanks for responding Lon.

I agree with what you are trying to say. However, I could introduce you to some Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses that are as nice, moral, good, and mature as humanly possible.

The most important aspect of our theology is what kind of people it is making us into

Would Mormons and JW's be verification? Would these people prove that their theology is correct since it is the most important aspect?

Doctrine without life-change is dead.

I agree 100%, but part of "life-change" is setbacks, growing pains, etc.

So I very much disagree with you that sound doctrine can be divorced from practice, it cannot.

One of the “sound” aspects of doctrine is the fact that we commit sins.

An initiate theology necessarily must distance if it is to be viewed as divergent orthodox rather than ungodly heretical.

What OVT is doing in 2008 is no different than what Calvinism was doing in the 16th Century. Calvinism was an initiate theology at one time. Calvinism was, and still is considered ungodly heretical by some.

Rather what I was saying is that the righteous ones must denounce unrighteousness and ungodliness.

This is a slippery slope.

What are the “rules” for doing this?

Who determines who the “righteous ones” are?

Lighthouse thinks he’s the righteous one, you think you are the righteous one. It’s like that line from that Dire Strait’s song “Two men say they’re Jesus one of them must be wrong”

My call in thread was for this, not a wash of all that is OV.

Let me put it to you this way: The best argument you can make against open theism and for righteousness, is to let open theist’s call people morons, idiots, and stupid.

As Ronald Reagan used to say: “There they go again”

 

[Clete]

You are not well Clete, and I sincerely believe you should stop participating in discussions that arouse such unhealthy anger and vitriol.

You do no favors for the Open Theism cause, and bring disgrace upon the name of God; let alone your own name.

Nang

You are easily the biggest fool I have ever come across. I figure that anything you believe I should do is strong evidence that I should do the exact opposite. The more you dislike me the more I like myself. Therefore, because you said this, I will not stop participating in this thread. Indeed, I will use your foolishness as impetuous to find additional opportunities to berate you and your kind.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete is on my iggy list so I choose to ignore this from him as well.

Of worthy note is this: when OVer's come to this stance where they draw a hard-line in the sand between traditional and OV beliefs. We are no longer able to consider the theology as compatible. By their words, if we do not convert to OV, we are worse than unbelievers. We are 'stupid' 'idiots' 'morons.'

No, its when you say stupid **** like this when you are a stupid idiotic moron.

There is no requirement to convert, just to be intellectually honest and not to say stupid things and make arguments against positions that no one holds too.

TOL indictments:

Believers(?) express vitriol like this and the leadership condones it? This is Christian?

YES! Read you bible, Lon!

I don't like the re-definition of what a believer is supposed to be any more than I like what OV does with God's character and attributes.

Nobody gives a damn about what you like.

God becomes more relational:
OVers become more 'like' Him as they see Him.

AMEN!

If you think God is nice to His enemies, you've got an ugly surprise coming, Lon.

I'm honestly left for wanting. If that's God? Becoming just like Him? Is He really relational in the OV with such as these disciples?

If you reject God on the basis of my behavior, you will be one step closer to being saved than you are today.

Common sense says that the God of OV is anything but relational if this is the continued and praised character of his OV people.

Here's more of the stuff that causes me to call you stupid.

I'm no longer interested in explaining why its stupid to you. You are apparently incapable of getting it.

Several seem to be sucking lemons to me and I'm not being mean. I'm asking: Who wants to be a part of that kind of group?

No one!

That's the point!

In my church, you act like this, you are in for reprimand with the pastor for it (they try in love, if that doesn't do it, for the love of the rest of the body, they get the boot).

Exactly the course of action I've taken with you, except that I don't have the authority to give you the boot from TOL or from Christianity itself. If I did, I would excercise that authority but I don't so I do the closest thing to it that I can.

I don't know, the God of tradition seems to produce the kinds of people that line up with NT scriptures imo.

No one cares about your opinion.
Be that as it may, I'm sure that Jesus, Stephen, Paul and all the apostle were all executed because they are all so nice to their enemies.

Even if they were wrong on some theological points, at least they look like scripture says they will look like: Loving one another deeply from the heart. Returning good for evil.

They loved ONE ANOTHER, Lon! They hated their enemies. (Love and hate, in this context are not mutually exclusive but the point is that they didn't treat their enemies the same as they treated each other.)

Godrulz has been embarrassed by TOLers here and rightly so.

TOLers are often embarrassed by godrulz (small g) as well. He seems incapable of actually making an argument.

I see an OV rift in the near future.

That's because you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about.

GR and men like him will need to distance themselves from ungodliness or be implicated with them.

This sort of line is likely to work on godrulz. His theology is based primarily on emotional experiences. He is unlikely to have the foundation required to withstand an emotionally based attack, even if that attack is nothing more than a false guilt by association fallacy.

Knight, Delmar, anybody.
Does God want believers that look like NT descriptions of lovers of God and men? Does God really mean love your enemies and do good to them?

Harshly rebuking your enemy is loving him. Boldly proclaiming the unbeliever as damned and headed for Hell is a godly and loving thing to do. Telling the idiot that he's being idiotic is the godly thing to do. 'Nice' is not in the Bible! Being nice is unkind, unbiblical and ungodly.

The mistake you make is ignoring the fact that I have a history of giving people all the chances they need to repent of being an idiot. As soon as you stop saying idiotic things and start debating Open Theism on its actual merits and start responding to the arguments made against your own position with substance and respect then at that point you'll stop getting attacked by me.

Are we to take a united stand against all ungodliness or is the line drawn on the other side?

Wow! You really don't get it, do you?
Let me spell it out for you...

You're the ungodliness I'm drawing the line against, Lon!

Are we no longer to consider one another believers?

I do not consider you to be a believer. I have no evidence that you are. You seem to know nothing about who God is and I have no evidence that you know Him or that He knows you.

Should I move on and bag the idea that we have anything in common in Christ?

Yes! That would be a step in the right direction for you.

Do something with these hostile ones to show good faith. Reprimand them gently. Encourage their walk. Tell them in love their fruit is in keeping with a poor tree. I've tried nicely, sometimes strongly. I've PMed, gave pos reps. I've not called names. I've not lowered to banter.

No, you've just INTENTIONALLY ignored argument after argument after argument and intentionally argued against things that you know Open Theists do not believe and ignore every explanation and clarification that has ever been offered. In short, you've shown yourself to be here only to show off your own education and to bloviate endlessly about things that no one believes.

Is this people becoming what they believe God to be? Is this an accurate picture?

God judge between us.

Be careful what you ask for, Lon.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

Lon, who can be saved by calling on the name of the LORD? Just some by chance, none, all, which ones? Just wondering.

 

[Nang]

You are easily the biggest fool I have ever come across. I figure that anything you believe I should do is strong evidence that I should do the exact opposite. The more you dislike me the more I like myself. Therefore, because you said this, I will not stop participating in this thread. Indeed, I will use your foolishness as impetuous to find additional opportunities to berate you and your kind.


Resting in Him,
Clete

One is not labelled one's enemy on the basis of their foolishness, by normal people in this world.

An enemy is usually one considered a threat to the well-being of oneself.

You have no basis to hate me simply because you consider me stupid and foolish.

In fact, Holy Scripture gives you no basis or allowance to hate anyone, even if you feel threatened in some fashion. God has commanded you to love your enemies.

It is impossible for you to claim that your hate of me is an act of love. If there were any love in your heart, there would be no anger.

Your anger is the result of fear. You are fearful and insecure in your beliefs, to the point of thinking intimidation and insults will guarantee you will not have to explain yourself. You are using anger and insults to distract from your theological lackings.

You are spiritually empty and naked, Clete. It shows. People see you for what you are. You cannot cover your true condition with shouted, hateful epithets.

It would be healthier for you to cease from parading yourself on these forums. Just my opinion and suggestion, for the good of all.

For you are not easy to look upon . . .

Nang

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He probably had a photo album or slide show to show the extant kingdoms of the world. I do not see a reference to future, but present kingdoms.

Would it have been a vision/apparition or something? Would it be pointing in various directions as a gesture representing the kingdoms?

The answer is not an Open Theism issue if it is about present or past kingdoms. What is your answer/speculation?

Just asking. Wasn't there just one kingdom, at that present time?

 

[Clete]

Just asking. Wasn't there just one kingdom, at that present time?

STP,

Forgive me but I forget...

Do you buy this Open Theism stuff or are you simply an Acts 9 Dispensationalist?

If you are not an Open Theist, perhaps you and I could discuss it and give these other dim-wits an example what an intellectually honest conversation looks like.

If you are an Open Theist.... well.... never-mind then.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

Lon, who can be saved by calling on the name of the LORD? Just some by chance, none, all, which ones? Just wondering.

How about you, Nang?

 

[Clete]

One is not labelled one's enemy on the basis of their foolishness, by normal people in this world.

An enemy is usually one considered a threat to the well-being of oneself.

You blaspheme God every day of your life.
That makes you my enemy.

In addition to that you showed up here on TOL for the express purpose of harassing me personally! So not only are you a blasphemer but you're a hypocrite to boot!

You have no basis to hate me simply because you consider me stupid and foolish.

It isn't merely stupidity and foolishness. If you said stupid things about how bridges were made or how cars work or about who shot Kennedy or some other trival thing then you wouldn't be my enemy, you'd just be stupid and foolish.

In fact, Holy Scripture gives you no basis or allowance to hate anyone, even if you feel threatened in some fashion. God has commanded you to love your enemies.

Perhaps if you bothered to actually read the Bible for yourself it would help prevent you from saying such asinine things.

It is impossible for you to claim that your hate of me is an act of love. If there were any love in your heart, there would be no anger.

You blaspheme with such ease. It flows off your tongue as though you had been raised by Satan himself. You don't even know when you blaspheme, do you? You're sitting there thinking, "What the Hell is he talking about?", aren't you?

Incredible.

Your anger is the result of fear. You are fearful and insecure in your beliefs, to the point of thinking intimidation and insults will guarantee you will not have to explain yourself.

:rotfl:
Nang, the psychotherapist!

You are using anger and insults to distract from your theological lackings.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweaty.

And "lackings" is not a word, by the way.

You are spiritually empty and naked, Clete.

You wish I were naked! :hetro:

It shows. People see you for what you are. You cannot cover your true condition with shouted, hateful epithets.

The encouraging PMs and positive rep I receive shows that the people I care about see and understand what I am doing and why.

It would be healthier for you to cease from parading yourself on these forums. Just my opinion and suggestion, for the good of all.

In that case, you can rest assured that I will continue.

For you are not easy to look upon . . .

Nang

You just don't get it, do you?

I WANT for you to dislike me!

I WANT for you to display your hypocrisy by telling me that I shouldn't hate you.

I WANT for you to give me every excuse to insult you further.

I WANT for you to despise me with every fiber of your being!

That's the whole point!
Well, not the WHOLE point, but that a big part of the point, Nang! You're my enemy! You're not suppose to like me!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

How about you, Nang?

All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Problem is, no man wills to call upon the name of the Lord in his depraved and sinful condition, until and unless God gives him a new heart, mind, and will to love Him.

"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3:11

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

Without the calling, regeneration, and conversion initially worked in sinners by the Holy Spirit, no man would ever call upon the name of God.

 

[Nang]

And "lackings" is not a word, by the way.

Is "dim-whit" a word?

You're my enemy! You're not suppose to like me!

I am not your enemy. I do not dislike you.

I oppose your false ways and your tactics.

 

[Nick M]

All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Problem is, no man wills to call upon the name of the Lord in his depraved and sinful condition, until and unless God gives him a new heart, mind, and will to love Him.

"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3:11

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself

Once again, a settled theist is beaten like a rag doll by the words of God. For context he said when he is crucified, he will draw all men. According to John. So take it up with him, nag.

Jesus draws all men unto him, and all who call on his name will be saved. It is a reciprical love relationship. It can not be forced. He is the gentleman.

 

[Nang]

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself

Once again, a settled theist is beaten like a rag doll by the words of God.

Amusing . . .

For context he said when he is crucified, he will draw all men. According to John. So take it up with him, nag.

Context reveals Jesus was addressing an audience that included some Greeks. Jesus was promising His crucifixion would be for Greeks as well as Jews (all kinds of nationalities and all kinds of persons and all kinds of men).

However, context also shows that not all men will believe, according to the will of God, as taught by Isaiah in Isa. 6:9-10, which prophecy John quotes within the framework of the specific teaching to which you refer.

Finish reading the chapter, Nick:

"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."
John 12:37-41

Jesus Christ was not therefore lifted up for all men, for God Himself prevents many from believing in the Savior for salvation.

Jesus draws all men unto him,

Impossible contradiction, if you read correctly that God prevents men from coming to Christ by blinding them to the truth.

God determines who will call on His name; not sinners. Sinners are totally dependent upon the grace of God, to be drawn to the Son.

and all who call on his name will be saved.

Indeed.

It is a reciprical love relationship. It can not be forced.

"We love God because He first loved us." I John 4:19

He is the gentleman.

God is not a human and is not ever to be called a "gentle man."

My God is a consuming fire that does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

 

[Nick M]

Nang, did God want to harden pharoh's heart? Or did he want them free?

Nang, the fact that he was dying for the world was hidden in scripture. You are close on that. But he said all men. Deal with it.

 

[godrulz]

Lon likes me, but not my theology.

Clete approves of my Open Theism, but not my defense of it. He does not really like me.

Further reason to be a God vs man pleaser and to bless and love, not to be an accuser of the brethren.

 

[tetelestai]

Lon likes me, but not my theology.

And that is how it should be since you are both believers. Reading dialogue between you and Lon compared to posts that feature nothing but name calling, is a breath of fresh air.

we attend the most radically conservative church on the planet, otherwise known as Denver Bible Church, so we are able to fellowship with other right-wing, religious fanatics, homophobic, anti-choice, anti-public school believers and stay in our little bubble - which is quite nice. We wouldn't move for anything.

For whatever reason, the OVT’s that consider the DBC their church are far more like the Hollywood liberal left that they claim to despise.

When on TOL, these same “radically conservative” people stoop to name calling and personal attacks to everyone who does not believe exactly as they do (open view theism). This is what the far left is known for.

So Knight, Clete, Lighthouse, etc can you guys explain why the common denominator of DBC followers is ad hominen attacks, name calling, and imitating far left liberals?