Yes U do, Miss Hairdo. See above post.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Yes U do, Miss Hairdo. See above post.
I have always seen this. This is why one of my pet interests is exposing the distortions of Calvinism in favor of Open Theism. TULIP drives me crazy, especially unconditional election.
Double predestination is horrific (Calvin was right calling it this, yet he believed it...must be self-hypnosis or the devil).
Was it Wesley who said that love like this makes one's blood run cold. Distorting the character and ways of God is serious stuff (but I still am not ready to lump them in with Mormons and Muslims since Calvinists affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, monotheism, use the Bible, etc.).
God does not always get want He wants because of His sovereign, voluntary choice to create significant others with a say-so.
Free will is self-evident. The root issue is still a wrong hyper-sovereignty view (vs providential control) divorced from love, relationship, and free will (self-evident).
Nang:hammer::box: Can I come down to Clete's level? Are you stubborn or stupid or both?
I am insecurely hiding behind my facial hair. Put me in a room full of people and I would be the introvert (unless drunk, which I don't do anymore).
Trust me...my wife of 23 years would never call me extroverted...unless in over compensation for insecure introversion.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Eh?
God is a loser because he created willful men?
C'mon . . .
God's will be done, no matter what. Despite any and all wrong actions and reactions of His willful creatures.
The only way to appreciate this truth is to study the Holy Scriptures that describe the end results of created time.
Wanna talk about that?
"Free" will is not evident in Holy Scripture. You cannot produce one verse that proposes, describes, or defines such a thing as human "free" will.
You are at Clete's level by issuing the following query:
I am beautiful and blessed by God; I am His chosen child; wonderfully made, graciously redeemed, and eternally loved.
I am Christ's and He is Mine.
Nang
Yes, you are a beautiful child or God in His image redeemed by the Son. This does not make your theology correct though.
God did not desire nor intend the fall of Lucifer and man, the killing of millions of Jews by Hitler, the brutal rape and murder of babies, etc. Allowing is not decreeing or predestining or causing or desiring.
Hell is proof of free will. God does not desire any to perish (that would be Satan), yet many do. Unless God causes people to rape and murder (good luck defending that one), then God is not omnicausal, determinism is flawed, and free will is self-evident.
God is free and we are in His image. Bondage vs freedom is another issue in addition to the means of free will (attribute of personal beings in the image of God, which we are; free will is not unlimited, so don't use that straw man).
God did not desire nor intend the fall of Lucifer and man, the killing of millions of Jews by Hitler, the brutal rape and murder of babies, etc. Allowing is not decreeing or predestining or causing or desiring.
Hell is proof of free will. God does not desire any to perish (that would be Satan), yet many do. Unless God causes people to rape and murder (good luck defending that one), then God is not omnicausal, determinism is flawed, and free will is self-evident.
God is free and we are in His image. Bondage vs freedom is another issue in addition to the means of free will (attribute of personal beings in the image of God, which we are; free will is not unlimited, so don't use that straw man).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This posts consists of nothing but your say-so. Thus, it is tainted human opinion, not God-given theology.
And since it is not biblical nor theological, but strictly inventive, emotional, and reactionary, you have no right to deem my Scriptural exegesis and theological conclusions, incorrect.
This post contains not one word of God regarding the various matters you touch upon and attempt to sell as Godly truth.
Nang
The thoughts are consistent with biblical principles and no different than your posts. We can all quote Scripture (I often gives links), but this does not mean we interpret and apply properly vs proof texting.
Calvinism attempts to justify its conclusions with texts out of context or philosophical rambling. God wants all men to be saved becomes all types of men. God loves the world becomes God only loves the elect, etc. Moral evil is not distinguished from natural disasters sent in righteous judgment, etc.
You have no good explanation as to why God saves some and damns others that he could saved if He only wanted to. We do not need a proof text for this, but sound logic consistent with revelation. You cannot reconcile your view with God's love and goodness (clear revelation) and must default to mystery or antinomy (cop out).
I can throw verses out, but you will just read them through your deterministic lens. It is not a matter of verse bashing, but sound reasoning from Scripture.
We can look at verses (and have), but you should also be able to interact with statements we both make without quoting verses all of the time.
Extroverted feeler?! Maybe online?
Growing up, I was insecure, introverted, shy, a loner. God has remolded me in many ways, but I am still more introverted, solitary, mind over feelings (ask my wife and kids...they would laugh at the idea that I was extroverted or emotional enough...they mock me for having online TOL friends vs real life friends...they put me down for being intellectual vs emotional).
Thx, I think?
I'm very surprised to read this. I would have pegged you for a feeler at a least.
Being a feeler isn't a bad thing, by the way. My best friend is a introverted feeler. It just has to do with which gene you got. Two thirds of men are thinkers but the world would be a boring place without the other third who are feelers.
Have you ever taken a personality profile test? I'd bet you're a lot closer to being in the middle between thinker and feeler than I am. I'm all the way to the thinker side of the spectrum. I'm also all the way to the introverted side of the spectrum as well. I suppose I'm just an extremist kind of guy.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What biblical principles?
You are not giving any biblical principles, but only your thoughts.
I am not advocating empty proof texting, but systematic theological reasoning according to the Holy Scriptures, put to the test; Scripture interpreting itself. You do none of that.
Read John Chapter 17 some time, and get in on the conversation between Father and Son. That will tell you what God wills; what Christ was commission to accomplish; and how the purposes of God will be realized.
Betcha you cannot find a quote from any of my posts where I have had to resort to "mystery" or "antimony."
Interaction conducted apart from referencing God's Word means zilch and produces zero results.
Nang
John 17 is fine by me, but it does not have to be read from a Calvinistic perspective.
e.g. corporate vs individual election will be an issue if we look at Eph. 1 or Rom. 9-11. You will point to these verses, but we will see them differently= stalemate.
Cults bash verses, so let's not be simplistic. Scripture is the basis, but there will be more to it than that on these issues.
e.g. corporate vs individual election will be an issue if we look at Eph. 1 or Rom. 9-11. You will point to these verses, but we will see them differently= stalemate.
Cults bash verses, so let's not be simplistic. Scripture is the basis, but there will be more to it than that on these issues.
Lon
Well-known member
I think you sometimes get caught in the middle (as do I at times). I've done that as Clete is on my iggy. However, I also wanted to discuss this troubling issue as it relates and doesn't to either or both TOL and OT. Is there any higher call for us than to challenge one another to godliness? If there is, I assert not much. We are to spurn one another on to love and good works which is absolutely sound doctrine. You've taken the hard stand yourself and stirred the coals before and I've backed you on it every time I've been in the thread where it is done. It is important. After saying my peace, we can all move on. We don't have to rehash what has already been said and I believe enough has been said here concerning expectations. I agree I'm more emphatic with many posts about measuring up to godly character but I believe rightfully so.
Lon
Well-known member
If this is too long, read the last sentence. These three paragraphs are support for the call and you can come back to any of the three to see my reasoning for the last sentence.
Perhaps one day I'll come to a much harder stance on my Calvinist leanings. If I do, I will be completely convinced from scripture and God's heart. I'm a fairly light-Calvinist as a noob. It has been about a year now. I'd guess, that you also see God's meticulous control at intervals in time because OV presses on the point. I do not have a problem with dynamic (changing) interaction as is called for. I don't believe a Calvinist has to extrapolate a hypothesis into this realm too deeply. It is enough to know that He is foreknowing of our actual choices such that He can change any course He wishes and let other courses go as He set them in motion. Because God is first cause of everything, I see His hand much more involved (dynamic, but consistently) and determining than OV tends to.
Even before I was Calvinist, I would have disagreed somewhat with a double-pred view but not to calling it heresy. In order for that to have stuck, it MUST deny a scriptural truth rather than a perceived one (such as LWF). Be careful in your assessment of going too far. Today, as a Calvinist, I still think it somewhat speculative (double-pred) but not antithesis of scriptures at all. There are good reasons from scriptural support to suppose in that direction. I disagree for other verses, but it isn't a heretical position like you are suggesting imo.
Definite foreknowledge is the presupposition and it has scriptural support (such as 'prognosis'). I believe, honestly, that it meant exactly that in NT Greek. It is watered down to best-human-educated-guess/prediction today. I don't think it accurate for what scripture says concerning God's foreknowledge. He 'knows' before. So, it important to see the point that drives exegesis so that we are more careful about what we call heretical just because it happens to step on our doctrinal toes. I do NOT do the same thing with you regarding loss of salvation. I believe you are wrong but I see in scripture where you get the idea and I don't believe it such that it is heretical. It can be devisive, but that's a different issue altogether.
Sorry this is long, all this to say, be careful how strongly you convey your dissatisfaction with Calvinist doctrines. I think you push too far and have become inaccurate in assessment.
Perhaps I am too anti-Calvinistic, but I honestly see it as defective and not without consequence (love truth; hate error).
Open Theism writings (talking to Nang) usually look at the biblical, philosophical, historical, logical, etc. basis of the view. The biblical evidence is the most persuasive in my mind. If I take something at face value (e.g. God changing His mind), it will be dismissed as anthropomorphic by Nang. If I see world/all men as such, but she limits it to elect, we will not agree on the verses.
Issues like endless time vs timelessness are touched on in Scripture, but require additional philosophical and logical support. Sanders is right to conclude that throwing out verses will not resolve our differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism) since we bring bias to the text.
Open Theism writings (talking to Nang) usually look at the biblical, philosophical, historical, logical, etc. basis of the view. The biblical evidence is the most persuasive in my mind. If I take something at face value (e.g. God changing His mind), it will be dismissed as anthropomorphic by Nang. If I see world/all men as such, but she limits it to elect, we will not agree on the verses.
Issues like endless time vs timelessness are touched on in Scripture, but require additional philosophical and logical support. Sanders is right to conclude that throwing out verses will not resolve our differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism) since we bring bias to the text.
Pam Baldwin
New member
....Or is it because there is so much that is wrong in mainline "christianity" , Satan building in the "mystery of iniquity"?? :think:
...as in Paul's days- everyone (except a few) had left him.....or the exhortaion to "come out from amongst them".....
....or how at a certain time "all the world" is deceived by Satan? Rev 12:9?
So.....is this a valid argument that you submit? Proof is that it was not mainstream?
Pam
Pam Baldwin
New member
.....So? I don't label myself a "Calvinist". I haven't studied Calvin's "teachings". If at times I agree with what he says, so be it, but please don't label me as such and conclude that is what I believe.
The context of your post seemed to be in defense of Calvinism. The concept of regeneration is clearly a Calvinistic, or at the very least an Augustinian theological idea and that doesn't really matter anyway. The point is that if a person cannot do otherwise, whatever they do is not moral in nature and thus cannot rightly be judged as evil by God or by anyone else. The point of my post was that your attempt to have your cake and eat it doesn't work, whether you call yourself a Calvinist is somewhat irrelevant to my argument.
Would you care to respond to my argument?
You do believe in an exhaustively predestined universe, do you not?
If not, where the need to dance around the issue? Why not then on what basis do you reject the notion that Pharaoh was able to repent? If so, then 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.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Typically, picking and choosing what parts of Calvinism you want to hang on too and which parts you want to reject isn't the way it works. Calvin was a fool but he was a consistent one. Most of what he taught is all logically linked together and it all flows from a very few basic premises. In other words, its sort of an all or nothing deal. If Calvin was wrong about one of his major distinctives he was wrong about them all because they all follow from his theology proper (i.e. his concept of who God is). So don't get too uptight when someone thinks you're a duck when you start quacking.
nicholsmom
New member
Once again, I am sorry that I used the wrong translation of the Bible in my last post - I did not realize that critical words were left out.
The Greek, eiÎkhÙ÷, or Eike (transliterated), carries with it the implication that the "cause" is not only just, but has purpose. So the cause is a purpose-driven one. So any anger toward a brother ought not to be a knee-jerk reaction, nor a strictly emotional one, but rather a purposeful intolerance of sin or foolishness (things that lead one toward hell) toward the redemption of a lost soul or sinful brother. To me there is a clear difference. Again, I do have a point below about the exclusive arena of God, but I hope that you will read this in order and all the way through as a kindness to me, your sister in Christ.
I can't say that I understood any of this because I have not yet found time to study dispensationalism in any sort of depth (it is some kind of dispensationalism isn't it?). Perhaps I'll get to that soon. Meanwhile, I'll err on the side of caution and assume that Jesus is talking to me - I may have liberties that I do not take at this time.
I do want to speak more about Christian behavior, if you will allow, though I don't intend to hijack this thread for more than this post.
Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
What fruit then? Paul expounds on this:
Galations 5: 22-26 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
I hope you won't mind if I remind you of some of those "passions and desires" that we are to crucify with the flesh:
Galations 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Yes, God showed outbursts of wrath, but then He is holy. He alone is holy and can therefore excercise righteous anger. I do not deny that we gain righteousness from Christ, but we are instructed clearly by Paul to crucify this "work of the flesh." So, once again, what is allowed to God, is disallowed to man - even those who have put on Christ and His righteousness.
(I want to make a point here that I think will anger you for a moment, Clete. I would appreciate it greatly though if you would get through the whole point before responding. It might at first seem to be an overstepping, but please bear with me through it.)
I submit to you that God the Father and God the Son do one thing (have outbursts of wrath) and tell us to do something entirely different (crucify such things with the flesh). This sort of unevenness is only just in this one case: the comparison of Creator and Created. God the Creator alone can condemn; He alone can know the hearts of man; His blood alone has the power and purity to save all of mankind. There are, in fact, countless things that are God's alone to do and to be, as you well know. That we are to be like Him does not include those aspects of God that we can never claim - we will never be God. We are called to obey, and Christ was clear in His preaching that we are to love one another.
So as my last point on this issue:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
Yes, I picked out just two from these, but don't think I miss the part that says "does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth." I think that the word "rejoice" has nothing whatever to do with railing - that is when Paul says "does not rejoice" he doesn't mean "rails against," and when he says "rejoices" he doesn't mean "rubs noses in" or "slaps people in the face with." Remember that among the fruits of the spirit is gentleness - not wimpiness, but gentleness.
I do have a point below about the singular priveleges of God, but here I would like to address this word "cause"
The Greek, eiÎkhÙ÷, or Eike (transliterated), carries with it the implication that the "cause" is not only just, but has purpose. So the cause is a purpose-driven one. So any anger toward a brother ought not to be a knee-jerk reaction, nor a strictly emotional one, but rather a purposeful intolerance of sin or foolishness (things that lead one toward hell) toward the redemption of a lost soul or sinful brother. To me there is a clear difference. Again, I do have a point below about the exclusive arena of God, but I hope that you will read this in order and all the way through as a kindness to me, your sister in Christ.
I can't say that I understood any of this because I have not yet found time to study dispensationalism in any sort of depth (it is some kind of dispensationalism isn't it?). Perhaps I'll get to that soon. Meanwhile, I'll err on the side of caution and assume that Jesus is talking to me - I may have liberties that I do not take at this time.
I do want to speak more about Christian behavior, if you will allow, though I don't intend to hijack this thread for more than this post.
Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
What fruit then? Paul expounds on this:
Galations 5: 22-26 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
I hope you won't mind if I remind you of some of those "passions and desires" that we are to crucify with the flesh:
Galations 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Yes, God showed outbursts of wrath, but then He is holy. He alone is holy and can therefore excercise righteous anger. I do not deny that we gain righteousness from Christ, but we are instructed clearly by Paul to crucify this "work of the flesh." So, once again, what is allowed to God, is disallowed to man - even those who have put on Christ and His righteousness.
(I want to make a point here that I think will anger you for a moment, Clete. I would appreciate it greatly though if you would get through the whole point before responding. It might at first seem to be an overstepping, but please bear with me through it.)
I submit to you that God the Father and God the Son do one thing (have outbursts of wrath) and tell us to do something entirely different (crucify such things with the flesh). This sort of unevenness is only just in this one case: the comparison of Creator and Created. God the Creator alone can condemn; He alone can know the hearts of man; His blood alone has the power and purity to save all of mankind. There are, in fact, countless things that are God's alone to do and to be, as you well know. That we are to be like Him does not include those aspects of God that we can never claim - we will never be God. We are called to obey, and Christ was clear in His preaching that we are to love one another.
So as my last point on this issue:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
Yes, I picked out just two from these, but don't think I miss the part that says "does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth." I think that the word "rejoice" has nothing whatever to do with railing - that is when Paul says "does not rejoice" he doesn't mean "rails against," and when he says "rejoices" he doesn't mean "rubs noses in" or "slaps people in the face with." Remember that among the fruits of the spirit is gentleness - not wimpiness, but gentleness.
nicholsmom
New member
I will accept this answer in the spirit in which it is given - we cannot fully grasp God's abilities and that's okay. What we do know about God is sufficient for us to follow, worship, and obey Him. Is that about right?
I would also mention that we cannot know with any certainty what information God would want to know regardless of His ability to know it. Also, rationality is possibly different for the much, much greater intelligence of God, so He can clearly see rational vs irrational with perfect accuracy, whereas we are limited in this regard.
I only meant it in regards to the question of the man stealing the bicycle. Is it possible for a man to be totally turned over to depravity? If so, then there would be no question in God's mind whether the man would change his mind during the commission of this crime. I really want to know what you think about how thoroughly God knows the hearts of man. I believe that God knows us better than we know ourselves - I think that you mentioned this belief to me yourself. God would know better than the thief whether there were any chance of his changing his mind about the bike. God would also have knowlege of police or other influential persons in the area at the time of the crime. I think that God would have a better than 99% chance of knowing that a crime was about to happen. Regardless, He certainly knows it while it is happening, and can stop it if He sovereignly chooses to do so - which I think He does on occation (I've heard reports of such).
To the idea that God would see a truck coming, you said:
So on this we agree. I had hoped so.
I agree that God has a better idea of man's heart than does he himself and will set aside the notion of exhaustive foreknowledge for the moment.
As to why God doesn't stop all crime, you say:
Precisely. We agree completely, as I had suspected. This, btw, was the point Lon was making that I was trying to simplify.
But then you added this...
to which I cannot agree. I don't believe that free will is "the whole point" of our existence, or that it is a requirement for "the whole point" of our existence to occur. On this point (free will) we disagree, mostly because I am not certain of the definition and extent of this freedom.
I love this:
Absolutely perfect. :up:
And this:
What a lovely picture of God's mercy and Grace. And yet, "Come, Lord Jesus!"