ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Pam Baldwin]

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...

Okay, here's a stab:

Ex. 9:16 states clearly that God raised up Pharoah in order to show His power.

The verses that you quote say that Pharoah hardened his own heart.

This is a point where I think that [calvinist] are misunderstood. I see continuously in threads that people say the calvinist believe that love is forced if they don't have a free will. This is not true.

God does the regenerating, and then we can and will love Him....nothing forced.
Same here, God does harden, He does "set up" Pharoah in his position, He does harden his heart. Pharoah does this out of his "will" too- his desperately wicked heart that can do no good.

Rom. 1 is a good chapter laying out the setting aside of the reprobate to do as he "wills"- God gave then over to their vile affections.....how do you reconcile that with saying 1 Peter 3:9 syas that God is not willing that none should perish?

 

[Pam Baldwin]

2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV).

The world is the elect?

The world is not everyone in the earth that was ever conceived. I thought that you understood that?

 

[Clete]

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.

godrulz doesn't debate anyone and therefore doesn't mind when his relatively unsupported points go ignored by whomever he says them too.

 

[Clete]

When?

Prove it . . .

I don't need to prove it, Nang. All these threads are still here for everyone to read.

This "prove it" line qualifies as yet another lie, by the way. You know full well that I bent over backward trying to get you to engage the debate for months and you flatly refused. And when you finally did engage it in some small way, I engaged as well and then it wasn't two days before it was you throwing the insults at me, which was your purpose for being here at the time.

I have never refused to give you decent answer;

You're a lying dog.

especially when you approached me privately via e-mail (but made short work of it by running away from our private talks).

How many lies can you compile in a single post?

You are not giving an accurate account, Clete.

All the threads are still here, Nang.

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

Post them!

Do you think I'm scared of our past? You're an IDIOT!!!!!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Okay, here's a stab:

Ex. 9:16 states clearly that God raised up Pharoah in order to show His power.

The verses that you quote say that Pharoah hardened his own heart.

This is a point where I think that [calvinist] are misunderstood. I see continuously in threads that people say the calvinist believe that love is forced if they don't have a free will. This is not true.

God does the regenerating, and then we can and will love Him....nothing forced.

Sounds lovely but this isn't what Calvin taught nor is it what Calvinism teaches. You make it sound as though once we've been "regenerated" (in quotes because it is an unbiblical term in the way Calvinists use it) that we then CHOOSE to love God. That isn't Calvinism. Calvinism teaches IRRESISTIBLE grace. Calvinism teaches that a person is regenerated and then cannot but love God, which is a contradiction.

Same here, God does harden, He does "set up" Pharoah in his position, He does harden his heart. Pharoah does this out of his "will" too- his desperately wicked heart that can do no good.

If Pharaoh could not have done otherwise then his actions were not moral in a nature and thus were not wicked.

God manipulated an evil man into doing more evil in order to demonstrate God's ability to easily overcome His enemies. The Biblical episode is chockablock full of valuable life lessons, not the least of which is the fact that it is a godly thing to use one's enemies to their own destruction.

Rom. 1 is a good chapter laying out the setting aside of the reprobate to do as he "wills"- God gave then over to their vile affections.....how do you reconcile that with saying 1 Peter 3:9 syas that God is not willing that none should perish?

How do you reconcile it? As a Calvinist I mean. Neither passage seems to make any sense at all from the perspective of an exhaustively predestined universe. What does it mean to give up on someone whom you predestined for Hell in the first place? What does it mean for God to not be willing that any should perish if He is the the one who predestined people to perish in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense.

I, as an Open Theist, believe that while their is life there is hope. Those that God gave over to their vile affections are all able to repent right up to the moments before their physical death. I concede that when God gives up on you that the likelihood of repentance is slim and in some cases perhaps impossible but even in that case there was a time when they could have repented before God gave them up at which time God's will was for them to repent and therefore not to perish just as Peter recorded.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I 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.

An actual argument! I can't believe it! I can't help but respond...

Your argument is founded upon a false premise. It isn't when you knew that's the issue so much as whether you actually knew.

You did not know that the kid was going to steal the bike in the sense of EDF. You had good reason to believe that he would steal the bike but that isn't the same thing. For all you knew, he might have gotten run over by a bus or simply changed his mind. Any number of unforeseen contingencies could have intervened to prevent the theft and thus you did not KNOW that he would steal the bike.

EDF, on the other hand, stipulated definite and exhaustive divine foreknowledge. It is the definite part that kills free will because it logically eliminates every option but the one known and without options there is no choice and without choice there is no freedom.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[nicholsmom]

You are easily the biggest fool I have ever come across.

Matthew 5: 21-22 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Perhaps you don't consider Nang to be "your brother," but what if she is? Should you risk "the fire of hell?"

You just don't get it, do you?
...
I WANT for you to despise me with every fiber of your being!

Matthew 5:18-19 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Will you teach (by baiting) Nang to break the 6th commandment - according to Jesus's interpretation of it (Matthew 5:21-22)? Then if you are in fact safe from hellfire (by Nang perhaps not being your "brother"), then you will at the very least be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Not a worthy goal in my mind.

...Do you think I'm scared of our past? You're an IDIOT!!!!!

Perhaps you should be scared. Again I remind you of the words of Christ Himself: Matthew 5:21-22.

 

[nicholsmom]

An actual argument! I can't believe it! I can't help but respond...

Your argument is founded upon a false premise. It isn't when you knew that's the issue so much as whether you actually knew.

You did not know that the kid was going to steal the bike in the sense of EDF. You had good reason to believe that he would steal the bike but that isn't the same thing. For all you knew, he might have gotten run over by a bus or simply changed his mind. Any number of unforeseen contingencies could have intervened to prevent the theft and thus you did not KNOW that he would steal the bike.

EDF, on the other hand, stipulated definite and exhaustive divine foreknowledge. It is the definite part that kills free will because it logically eliminates every option but the one known and without options there is no choice and without choice there is no freedom.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am intrigued by this argument. Please tell me the extent of God's knowledge. How exhaustive is it? I'm not talking about foreknowledge - just plain knowledge of current situations, men's hearts and intentions.

Does God really know the hearts of men? Or are there any who are absolutely determined to act without any reservation whatever? Are there men who are thoroughly given over to a reprobate mind?

Does God really see all things currently occuring (this would counter the being run over a bus idea)?

Most importantly, while a crime is being committed, God has the ability to stop said crime. Why does He not? He does not need to have any foreknowledge, He can act immediately and forcefully to prevent the crime, can He not?

 

[Lon]

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.

'kinds' Nang said all 'kinds'

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

'kinds' Nang said all 'kinds'

Then, it would follow that "all were dead" would refer to "all kinds" rather
than to every person born.

 

[Lon]

Then, it would follow that "all were dead" would refer to "all kinds" rather
than to every person born.

But it doesn't disclude 'all' to say 'kinds,' it just 'may' such that it accounts for your inconsistency.

I don't see it as inconsistent however:

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

The truth here is that all were dead because Christ died for all sin. This however is not universal salvation for scripture makes this clear. In paying the penalty for sin, it is done in such a way that whoever responds (v15) will be saved. Much like the parable of the wedding feast: "Compel all who will come." Some Calvinists make a jump here between God's foreknowledge and the outcome but I don't believe this logical jump has to be made. It is rather just trying to make sense of the two considerations. I don't believe that jump has to be made to remain Calvinist. The question can be left unanswered: I don't know how the two interact. I believe it left to God alone until or if He so chooses to explain it to us. Until such a time, I believe scripture as it says God knows the elect and that the sacrifice covers the sin of all who come and no longer live unto themselves.
There is no trouble for a believer here as the elect. The unbeliever is unresponsive so untroubled by the implications in a like manner such that it can be left as an open question without significant consequence. Rather it is a theological exercise on friendly terms between Calvinists and Arminians of faith over the consequences of the lost and our presuppositions of who will be saved. With OV, it becomes a dividing point between free-will and foreknowing sovereignty.

2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The truth here is that all were dead because Christ died for all sin. This however is not universal salvation for scripture makes this clear.

I agree. The payment for sin doesn't make one rigtheous, and we must have the righteousness of God to enter heaven. Though all sin has been paid for, and the gift is unto all, but it is only upon those that believe & receive the righteousness of God.

Romans 3
21: But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Nang]

I agree. The payment for sin doesn't make one rigtheous, and we must have the righteousness of God to enter heaven.

The real question is: How do sinners become righteous?

a. By their decision to believe the gospel?

b. Or by the legal imputation of Christ's righteousness?

(Answer is "b".)

Christ's blood offering for sin, remitted sin, making it legally viable for God to declare the elect pardoned. Christ's righteousness could not be imputed to His children, if He did not first fulfill all righteousness and forgive (justify) sin; erasing all offenses and crimes from the records of His people.

The teaching of Limited Atonement is not a teaching that Christ's death was limited or insufficient to remit the sins of all, but rather, the teaching that the "limitation" was the application of the blood which was determined by Godly election.

The remission of sins, and the imputation of righteousness, was limited and thereby applied only to the particular elect souls, given to Christ to save, by the Father.

Though all sin has been paid for,

Not all sin was paid for; else there would be no future judgment and anticipation of hell.

The value and worth of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save all, but His death and imputed righteousness is not applied to sinners universally. His atonement is limited according to God's Unconditional Election.

and the gift is unto all, but it is only upon those that believe & receive the righteousness of God.

This is a logical contradiction.

Salvation comes by the gift of grace. If that gift requires a human decision that either chooses to receive that gift or not, then grace is lost, for that kind of "belief" is a human action and work.

If the death of Christ is contingent upon sinners' choices to be effectual, then indeed His atonement loses value and becomes limited according to the will of man; rather than being invaluable and totally sufficient but efficacious according to the will of God.

Romans 3
21: But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

I underlined the most significant points in this passage, which is, righteousness belongs to God, and does not emanate from sinners. No sinner is inherently righteous. Only the Man, Jesus Christ proved to be righteous. No sinner can choose to be faithful and believe unto righteousness, without the regenerating power and Spirit of God.

Righteousness comes from God, to whom He wills to save, according to grace. All of the elect of God (who prove to be all kinds of men; a remnant chosen out of all the nations [Rev. 5:9; 7:9]) will believe the gospel, and exhibit faith in God, because all of these are also called and regenerated to new life by the Holy Spirit of the Christ who died for them . . .alone.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

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.



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?

Not only OT, but MAD is in their mix. If they have not cornered the market on truth, they are guilty of causing confusion and division.

 

[godrulz]

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.

I wonder if taking their attacks with a grain of salt is more realistic than escalating to disfellowshipping, etc. Like myself, sometimes I overreact due to personal insult/injury. We can maturely work through it by practical vs actual ignore rather than melodramatic martyrdom.

(I am rested, but writing like I am sleep deprived...oh no, dementia is setting in).

 

[godrulz]

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 )

We both desire to know and love God as He is; understand theology biblically vs traditionally (sometimes the same thing); we do not want to misrepresent Him and His ways; we are not both right on every or all points.

Love, humility, and uncompromised truth are possible. Speak the truth in love vs argumentum ad hominem.

We all have different styles and personalities, aptitudes, experiences, etc., so heart and head vs either/or are important.

In my old age (48), I think guarding one's attitude is an important skill in life.

 

[godrulz]

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

Better a net asset than an a**? I get it. (I don't think my Pentecostal experience is a factor...truth on fire is not a bad thing).

I think many of my posts are assertions to state my view, but once in awhile I do make systematic arguments (though your style is more detailed and organized).

In the end, I would rather defend the gospel and Deity of Christ to the Mormons, JWs, Muslims, atheists, etc. here than persuade a moderate Calvinist to be an Open Theist. It is interesting and ironic that people usually have to be 'converted' to Calvinism after they are converted to Christ. It is not a self-evident system in Scripture, but requires rationalizations and ideas foisted on the text.

 

[godrulz]

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

If you had this philosophy in marriage, you would end up divorced?

If we are all family and army of God (I know you doubt this for some in question), we should find a way to patiently dialogue if they are trying their best.

Most of us also once had a veil clouding our thinking (Catholicism, Calvinism, traditional ideas about eternal now/omniscience, etc.) until we 'saw the light'. Others were likely frustrated with us while we tried to defend our views until we had the paradigm shift (then we tend to become argumentative, bombastic...like a former smoker or something).

 

[godrulz]

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

Sounds like you need a lawyer...

 

[godrulz]

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, I think we are not extreme (hyper-Calvinism vs Process Thought), but more moderate within our deterministic vs free will camps.

Our views have some things in common, but are diametrically opposed in other ways.

I am not sure Lon is consistent to talk about determinism and 'allowing'. There is not an issue for God's character in allowing some things, but there is one in causing all things.