Lon
Well-known member
Thanks for the correction here.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
What is a human spirit?
How is a sin nature the same as a human spirit?
Here is what I am taught:
Everyone is born spiritually dead. We are born dichotomous (body and soul), at regeneration we become trichotomous (body, soul, and spirit)
At conception the penalty of Adam’s sin is passed on to the newly formed human life. At birth God imparts a human soul. At the imparting of the human soul the sin nature is activated (God’s perfect justice for Adam's sin), thus total depravity.
At physical death the body returns to dust. The soul never dies, even for unbelievers. One’s soul either spends eternity with God, or everlasting damnation in hell. The old sin nature also “dies” at death; it is part of the body even though it is invisible to us.
The "Spirit" is God the Holy Spirit. At regeneration our souls are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. There is only one Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit. After regeneration we live in a constant battle in our very own soul between the Holy Spirit and the old sin nature.
P.S. My belief that God imparts a human soul at birth in lieu of conception or gestation is not a very popular belief amongst anyone who calls themselves a Christian. It is virtually impossible to discuss it since it always turns into an abortion debate. I am against abortion, but believe the soul is imparted at birth.
Also, some people (traducianists) believe the human soul is genetically created in lieu of God imparting the soul (Creationists). However, Creationists differ on conception, gestation, or birth as to when the soul is imparted.
Thanks, and look forward to hearing the Calvinists and open theists views on this.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is the existing energy and motivating powers in any creature. Humans possess a unique human spirit, created in the image of God. It is this spirit/soul of man that has been corrupted by sin; manifesting as physical death afflicting the body of man. Animals possess animal spirit depending upon their species. Anything that breathes manifests spirit. And sin has brought death to all creaturely spirits/souls in bodily form.
The humans spirit has become a sinful nature. "Nature" is a definition of the spirit of any entity. Cows have a distinctive bovine spirit and nature. Dogs have a distinctive canine spirit and nature. All innocent spirits and natures manifest according to how God made them.
Man has a very distinctive human spirit, in that man was created in the image of God, but his nature that was designed to reflect the majesty of God has been distorted by sin, and is now declared totally sinful because of the fall.
Yes. In that man is born separated from God and only inclined to do evil.
It does not mean man is born without spirit. It means that man is non-functional in spirit towards God. Man is born at enmity against God because of God's curse against his spirit/soul. Every man is born subject to death in soul/spirit due to sin. Humans have spirit, but it exists only temporally, under an inescapable death penalty.
Can you quote Scripture that distinguishes between soul and spirit? I know what you are tying to convey, but one must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says, and so far, I have not found distinction made in the bible between soul and spirit.
I would say that human life is the result of creation of soul; thus, the fetus is affected by the corruption of sin upon conception. (Psalm 51:5)
Agreed.
Disagree. The soul is equivalent to the human spirit and the human spirit defines the human nature, which has inherited the corruption of Adam. This corrupted human nature/spirit/soul is eternal. Only the body dies, and then only temporally, but will be raised on the last day to suffer the "second death" which is the eternal death sentence imposed by God against human body and soul/spirit.
Born again believers are resurrected in soul/spirit by the Holy Spirit of God, in that corruption is forgiven and the Holy Spirit comes to abide as the "paraclete" (he who walks along with) and indwell the human body and soul. This spiritual resurrection guarantees the final bodily resurrection of every Christian person.
Yes, all these opinions exist. I as a Calvinist, believe that in fact, all human souls/spirits are known to God before the foundation of the world, and at the moment of conception, each are given a body in womens' wombs.
The tragedy is, this impartation of body to soul/spirit is tainted by sin and all come into this world only to suffer the wages of sin which is death.
Only the sacrifice of the body of the Christ, who imparts His soul/Spirit to His elect children through His resurrection powers, can provide redemption from death and the terrible fate imposed upon humanity.
Nang
These views are not germane to the soteriological camps, so it is a matter of personal preference.
I believe we are trichotomous from conception, not at birth or rebirth. I believe the redemption issues are more moral (not morality)/relational than metaphysical/physical.
Lon
Well-known member
No, that isn't why he is posted. It is rather the similarity in our appearance. I have no idea what show he's on now, but I've heard a bit. It is rather that I find this expression appropriate both for the resemblance AND thoughtful expression. I will think of another picture though, I had it before his offensive work.
Lon
Well-known member
Wasn't the question rather about God's determinism in such?
I'm saying that just because He foreknows, it is not necessity that it is decretive rather than prescriptive or even vise-versa. I tend to lean more to the unknown parameter: That we may make a guess but it is speculative. What I rather believe is, that despite any logical guess-work, especially as it becomes logically untenuable, isn't a necessary stance. It is a logical guess. Because the debate over it has gone on for centuries, I'm of the opinion that it is best to back up a step and note what is speculative isn't necessary for believing the truth of the matter. There are those who will be saved, and there are those who aren't and God foreknows them. Both the argument for and against are speculation arguments upon these given truths. I don't have to agree that He then becomes deterministic or without foreknowledge. Of the two, determinism is the easier for me to acquiesce and see, but I don't believe it a necessity other than going that direction to refuse to lose Definite foreknowledge of God. I believe it explicitly given (prognosis) in some scriptures and strongly alluded to in others (Ps 139 and Matthew 26:31-35).
Pam Baldwin
New member
I can't believe that this statement doesn't cause one to wonder.....who exactly runs things......God or people?
The fact that He is in control doesn't mean He is a "Freak". People that try and control things ( and people) can be labeled as such- if they are not supposed to be controlling whatever. But if a person is supposed to be in control (i.e. flying an airplane), one wouldn't call him a "control freak".
Pam Baldwin
New member
:BRAVO:
Pam Baldwin
New member
I don't know if this has been asked, so please bear with me. I seriously would like an answer to this.
What if God actually did create robots to love Him? Where do you get the "rule" that God cannot do this is He wanted to? Why is it wrong if He did? Where do you get your absolutes of "love and relationships must be freely chosen"? :turbo:
Is it because "love" is thought of as a feeling ? Isn't all love based on something? ( the feeling ) Even parents have a love for their children that was God-given.....I can honestly say that I loved my children above all other babies:baby:......but why do we have this "instinctive" love? Isn't it something that God gave us? Is it manipulative and not free will then?
.....for the record, I am not proposing that I think we are robots.....
Pam Baldwin
New member
:thumb:
Yes, nang, I agree.
It is not possible for God to be "arbitrary", He does everything for a reason. There is absolutely no randomness in the universe. It may look like randomness to our finite minds though.
God chose to do as He wills for reasons within Himself.
Pam
Pam Baldwin
New member
.....this sort of sounds manipulative.....if God knows that He could choose another course of action to get a person saved, why didn't He? Is it because you think that that person could never have been saved no matter what "course of action" God determined??
I can't speak for "Calvinists", but for myself. The reason is because to assert that God's "foreknowledge" means that He looked into the future to see (i.e. learn) who would and who wouldn't believe says that at some point God did not know all things.....and that is absolutley wrong!
Pam Baldwin
New member
No, according to you, Hell would be proof that God's Will is not done......and that would, in my opinion, knock Him off the throne.
Yes, except that my answer wasn't from the perspective of what we cannot know about God but what we can. Given what we know about God's character and creation, we KNOW that God does NOT know the future exhaustively nor is He able to know the future exhaustively. We can therefore state conclusively that God knows everything that He wants (or needs) to know of that which is knowable. The specifics of what that knowledge entails is irrelevant to the question.
At least not entirely so. I agree.
I mean we know with certainty that God does want to know when someone repents, for example, but whether God want to know something trivial or mundane, we cannot say with certainty.
When people say things like this it makes me think that they are not aware of what we are talking about when we talk about rationality. There is no such thing as rationality being "possible different". Rationality is not dependent on intelligence or knowledge or perspective or any other such subjective consideration. That's why rationality is such a powerful tool in the search for truth, it is NOT subjective. A truth claim is either contradictory or it is not. An argument is either fallacious or it is not. A premise is either true or it is not. A conclusion either follows or it does not. There is no inbetween, there is no gray, there is no shadow. What is true is true - period. Regardless of one's intelligence, knowledge or wisdom, there is no such thing as a truth claim that is both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.
Now, with the second half of this comment of yours, I have no quarrel. Unlike fallible human beings, God is able to never make a mistake in His reasoning. That doesn't mean that the rules of reason are difference for God, it just means that He never breaks them, which makes sense since those rules of reason flow from His very being in the first place. According to John chapter 1, Jesus, God the Son, is the very incarnation of Reason itself.
Criminals can change their mind about committing a crime without repenting of their sins. So long as an action is free, its commission cannot be known (absolutely) in advance. That isn't to say that it can't be expected and even planned for and used by those who are on God's side (and by God Himself) but expecting something to happen is not the same as KNOWING that it will definitely happen.
The Bible tells us that God knows us better than we know ourselves. That is to be expected since He is our creator. But that doesn't translate to exhaustive divine foreknowledge of all our specific actions.
I agree but that doesn't mean that there is no chance of his changing his mind. God can know that he will ALMOST certainly commit the theft in spite of his ability to do otherwise.
It's that 1% that makes you an Open Theist - even if you don't realize that you are one - yet.
The extent of the freedom is irrelevant.
Look, don't try to over analyze this. Its really simple. To have free will simply means that you have the ability to decide for yourself what you will do. The ability to decide implies the existence of alternatives from which to choose. Thus, to have free will means that one has the ability to do or to do otherwise.
There is no more detail required. You don't need the ability to do anything and everything that might occur to you in order to be free. You don't have to be able to leap in a single bound back and forth across the Atlantic, for example. Nor do you need to be able to turn yourself purple while watching Barney with your three year old. All you need is the ability to do or to do otherwise. Two or more options - that's it - if you have two or more option from which to choose then your choice is free.
As for the purpose of our existence, free choice is absolutely critical! Its importance cannot be overstated. Indeed, if we are not free moral agents, Christianity is false - period.
Why?
Because the purpose of our existence is to be loved by God and for us to love Him in return and to thereby love our neighbor as well. Love is the central theme to everything Christianity is about. Without the ability to choose, love is impossible because love is itself a choice that one must make for themselves. You cannot be made to love someone. Not even God is capable of forcing someone to love Him.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Control does not have to be meticulous, omnicausal, deterministic, coercive/causative, micromanaging (a sign of insecurity).
Control can be providential, macromanaging, responsive, loving, cooperative, taking into consideration other free moral agents, etc. (a sign of security, sovereignty, and omnicompetence).
Good parenting and the biblical model of God's providence is the latter concept.
Last edited:
Robots are cause-effect, programmer-program. They are not morally capable or responsible and cannot truly love.
Determinism is contrary to love, relationship, freedom, responsibility, etc. (self-evident concepts in Scripture).
God could make an automaton to bow down mechanistically, but this would not be true love or worship.
Reciprocal relationships must be freely entered into and maintained. This is evident in marriage, parenting, etc.
The Bible has imperatives to love, submit, etc. It is contrary to God's will for a parent to hate or abandon their kids, yet some do. This shows a measure of self-determination and autonomy, the opposite of robotics. People can divorce, contrary to God's will. People go to hell, contrary to God's will.
Unless you want to impugn the character and revelation of God, you must reject a deterministic worldview (e.g. B.F. Skinner's secular behavioralism).
The key is the Imago Dei, the image of God. If we are robots, then so is God. If we are personal, free moral agents, and we are, then this is a reflection of God.
There is no good reason or defense for God to save some but not save many that He could save if He wanted to. This is more akin to Satan who wants all to perish vs only some to perish like God (difference in degree, not quality or character).
Though Calvinists don't like the accusation, their view impugns God's character, makes His love partial and limited, creates a caste system (no fault of the individuals who are arbitrarily cosigned to heaven or hell based on decree vs a just basis in reality), etc.
To quote Nang...bah~!
I thought Nang's Calvinism was bad. I thought STP/Voltaire's MAD was bad.
You take the cake combining both badness?!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Clete, no doubt God's intention was for Adam and his offspring to love him. But, it seems that Adam's purpose was to "replenish the earth, subdue it, and have dominion", which is ultimately the purpose of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. In the end, the earth will be filled with those who are in Christ, he will subdue and exercise dominion over all creation.
Do you agree?