ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

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).

Again, thank you for agreeing with me here in condemning the divergence in others about what we agree is orthodox/orthoprax. You will take heat for this and as you've always supported me and I will support you when it comes but you'll have to let me know when to read those on my iggy list. We are orthodox together on what we expect believers to be producing. Those without godliness here are getting no more of my time until they repent. My iggy list is my proverbial dust-shaking.

Final word to them: Walk the talk or scripture is specific about what to do with you.

 

[Lon]

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

"All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

On this Nang agrees. You have to be more specific to get to the root of this but of course you knew that

 

[Lon]

Lon likes me, but not my theology.

Not true. I disagree with your theology, but I like that you are pursuing Him and so, see your theology much like my own: A work in progress. I don't like where the over-all is headed but I love your heart in it.

Also, I count you a brother in Christ so like is much too light.

(You were wrong on both counts )

 

[Clete]

Is "dim-whit" a word?

Actually, yes, it is.

I did add an erroneous "h" but it is still a word. "Lackings" is not a word no matter how you spell it.

I am not your enemy.

Oh yes, you are.

I do not dislike you.

You're also a liar.

I oppose your false ways and your tactics.

You make a fool of yourself with nearly every post.

 

[tetelestai]

I disagree with your theology, but I like that you are pursuing Him and so, see your theology much like my own: A work in progress.

:BRAVO:

 

[Nang]

Nang, did God want to harden pharoh's heart?

Here is God's answer: "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Exodus 9:16

God willfully hardened Pharoah's heart for His purposes.

Or did he want them free?

God freed the Israelites in order that His "name may be declared in all the earth." Exodus 9:16

One verse of Scripture answers both your questions, if you are open to the teaching.

Nang, the fact that he was dying for the world was hidden in scripture.

It is so "hidden," only according to the dispensationalists, but there is no Holy Scripture that reveals such to be truthful or actual!

The "mystery" was not a secret death of Messiah for "the world", but the fact that ALL kinds of men, and ALL nationalities would be saved and brought into the heavenly kingdom of God . . .and not just the Jews. (Ephesians 3:1-7)



Nang

 

[Clete]

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.

I don't dislike you godrulz. I just despise your chaotic charismatic doctrine and I think you can be a bit lazy in regards to making arguments but that's a long way from disliking you. I actually think you are a net asset to both Open Theism and TOL.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[tetelestai]

I actually think you are a net asset to both Open Theism and TOL.

Who then do you consider a net liability to TOL and open view theism?

Why?

 

[Clete]

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?

Actually what you've done here is a pretty fine imitation of liberalism, if you ask me. Its not as if we just jumped in and started treating these idiots this way. I REPEATEDLY tried to engage both Nang and Lon in honest debate and they both repeatedly refused.

Find me a person who wants to honestly debate and I'll debate. Until then I've stopped caring what the rest of the idiots around here like Nang and Lon think about anything. They have proven worthy of nothing but ridicule and that's all they will get from me.

If you find that too distracting then leave. If you really do believe that such activities is all we Open Theists have got then I dare to you engage the debate and make an argument. Otherwise, I don't care what you think either.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Who then do you consider a net liability to TOL and open view theism?

Nang is perhaps the biggest waste of band-width that TOL has ever seen.

Why?

Her posts are ridiculous, blasphemous, pedantic and asinine.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

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.

I think the confusion comes concerning where we start. We see God as first-cause AND foreknowing all which definitely drives the determinism factor here and in some respects demands a pre-programmed take but I don't believe those proofs necessarily line-up either from a Calvinist perspective or OV looking in. I believe the fact that some Calvinists acquiesce and even demand that all is fatalistically (lack of a better term) determined clouds because I'm nowhere convinced that such must be so. It does logically follow but we don't have all these pieces and I state that rather strongly and emphatically. Compatiblism is saying it is possible specifically because we don't have pieces. You and some Calvinists say we have a couple of more but I'm unconvinced of the placement in the puzzle that is determinism/culpability. They don't look right to me and I don't accept the premise. This of course forces me to the compatible position but just understand that it is because I reject some of the logical proofs for such so it is much easier for me to have this view than for you to consider it with those pieces where you believe them to be in place. It at least helps to understand why I see compatiblism as logical and tenuable.

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.

I think we all do. There are pieces that are missing in our puzzles. One can have a more completed puzzle, I agree with you but I still question where one has a piece fitted. Some puzzle pieces can go anywhere and work but the picture looks wrong to me, even if the colors match up, something doesn't quite look right so I actually take a few steps back and remove pieces to come to a compatible view. Again, I hope it at least helps you understand. I remove some of the pieces you use to say my compatible view is untenuable (I deny those truths that suggest it is incompatible).

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.

Exponentially we are all little kids still compared to our God so I disagree. Perhaps more elucidation from you will help me agree or be corrected.

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.

Yes, but being dynamic doesn't mean He is stuck in that consideration, merely that He is acting within it. It is both/and not either/or.
In a sense, we are agreeing on one point but saying 'there is more' not arguing against His relational qualities.

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

Shoot, I figured. As I said I've tried explaining this several times and have seen others address it as well. We, on this side, apparently see it as clear as day but are unable to convey it in such a way that it puts the concern to rest. I'll go back to my example:

Today, you watched a kid steal a bicycle.
Yesterday, I knew the kid was going to steal the bicycle.

This, as I see it, is the difference between EDF and present perfect knowledge with God. The question 'when' did we both know is a nonsequitur. Nobody really cares about that. The real question is 'why' didn't we do anything about it? 'When' has virtually nothing to do with anything. That's why I've always said that EDF has nothing much to do with this conversation and should be avoided until the pertinent ones are answered first.

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).

I agree with this to a certain degree but it isn't as clear and simple as you've laid it out imo. Where as the 'when' 'why' question is a impertanant complication, this one seems the opposite. I don't believe we have all pieces of this puzzle nor that God has to reveal them to us for us to logically assume we can figure it all out. My answer is: I don't know why God allows it but His character is such that we don't have to be able to figure it out. We can trust Him.

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?

In some ways, I agree with you and see our wills as part of this conversation but am forced to the compatible position because equally compelling to me is dichotomy with a sovereign God.

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).

Again, I do not like to be pressured here. You can say I like my cake and want to eat it to and I agree which is the compatible view. I don't like being pressured to take a stand on either extreme. Though I do not know the answer, I don't want to be forced prematurely to a position on extremes where I don't know the answer and assert that neither does either of those extremes. I assert that one of the other 'could' be right but that God has left us purposefully in the middle. Furthermore, that me moving to one extreme or the other must necessarily be a move on His part because I'm His workmanship.

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.

I disagree. God is wholly loving so that whatever He does or doesn't do is compelled from that trustworthy position. Whether He completely controls or allows is soley trustworthy (either way). I do not agree that manipulating is any cause for doubt nor that it makes Him insecure. With this view, secure isn't even a question that is asked or comes to mind.

 

[Nang]

I REPEATEDLY tried to engage both Nang and Lon in honest debate and they both repeatedly refused.

When?

Prove it . . .

I have never refused to give you decent answer; especially when you approached me privately via e-mail (but made short work of it by running away from our private talks).

You are not giving an accurate account, Clete.

And keep in mind, I have retained copies of our e-mail interactions.

Nang

 

[Lon]

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.

It is an initial indication rather than a proof unto itself. For me, it is the initial point of whether to consider or not the truth. This doesn't mean "stop filtering." It means, after passing the first, we can proceed onward. You can use the filter later on as well but for me, there is a trap. If you view one's doctrine as good and yet see the body as dysfunctional afterwards, you may have grown accustomed to the bad behavior. So for me, first things first and godliness in line with scripture is foremost.

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

Yes, initially, but remember it is only my first line of orthodox defense.

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

Acquiesced.

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

Habitually without restraint? An apple tree can produce a bad apple or two, I agree. This is different than all bad apples. It is important that we recognize process as well and I agree with you here also. Bad fruit today may be good fruit 5 years from now, but for the present, the fruit is inedible.

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.

I don't disagree, but I think you are painting too broadly.

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”

I mod another Christian forum. Members rarely need to draw my attention to ungodly behavior. I gently PM and admonish. I pray for those who are crossing the line. I expect them to tote a line of Christian expectation especially in our 'exclusive' section.

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”

Because I didn't and don't want to throw the baby out with the dirty water.
It is a concern for those who are OV that I care about to want to separate babies from bathwater (godliness from ungodliness). There is no use, rhyme, or reason to post on an OV website otherwise. I'm still trying to understand the OV and have my perceptions corrected. I definitely don't want to make a hasty decision concerning OV. Some have washed their hands already. I want to be completely and convincingly done before that point comes for me.

 

[tetelestai]

I REPEATEDLY tried to engage both Nang and Lon in honest debate and they both repeatedly refused.

Why then do you think that Godrulz (open theist) and lon (Calvinist) can engage in honest debate without name calling?

Just read post #531 in this thread for proof.

 

[Lon]

The "mystery" was not a secret death of Messiah for "the world", but the fact that ALL kinds of men, and ALL nationalities would be saved and brought into the heavenly kingdom of God . . .and not just the Jews. (Ephesians 3:1-7)

Nang

This would be my answer as well Nick. Nang said it exactly right.

 

[Lon]

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”

A few scriptural considerations:

Mat 5:22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says 'Fool' will be sent to fiery hell.
Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don't they?
Mat 5:47 And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don't they?
Mat 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Rom 12:9 Love must be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil, cling to what is good.

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse.

Rom 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people.
Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.
Rom 12:19 Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God's wrath, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
Rom 12:20 Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

2Th 3:14 But if anyone does not obey our message through this letter, take note of him and do not associate closely with him, so that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The "mystery" was not a secret death of Messiah for "the world", but the fact that ALL kinds of men, and ALL nationalities would be saved and brought into the heavenly kingdom of God . . .and not just the Jews. (Ephesians 3:1-7)



Nang

2 Cor 5
14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

We agree that were all dead means all.
But, somehow you have to make one died for all mean one died for the elect.

That's a major inconsistency within one verse.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nang, did God want to harden pharoh's heart?

Scripture says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says this.

Exodus 8
15: But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8
32: And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

Exodus 9
34: And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

Not sure how the calvinist would address this...

 

[Pam Baldwin]

2 Cor 5
14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

We agree that were all dead means all.
But, somehow you have to make one died for all mean one died for the elect.

That's a major inconsistency within one verse.

I don't agree that "all dead" here means universally. Paul is addressing the saints in Corinth. His point is that we were dead, and Christ died for us- the elect.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't agree that "all dead" here means universally. Paul is addressing the saints in Corinth. His point is that we were dead, and Christ died for us- the elect.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV).

The world is the elect?