Pam Baldwin
New member
...He talked to Adam, He talked to Cain......
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
...He talked to Adam, He talked to Cain......
My additions complete, logically and grammatically, what Schaeffer was saying. The Trinity experiences sequence of activity in love, communication, and in the creation of the world, and that's exactly what Schaeffer was saying. I confirmed that with his daughter, Debbie and son in law, Udo Middleman. I went to meetings they held in New York, where I live. Francis Schaeffer died in 1984, the book, and now a theology, called the openness of God did not come until 1994. The Schaeffer's were not part of the controversy that we have today but they still knew the problems they would have within their denomination if they had been.
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Today.html
Hi Pam :box:
I believe that Cain was a believer when God talked to him. Adam is more complex, but without getting into specific details, I do not believe God ever directly spoke to unbelievers. (God spoke to Saul, who became Paul, who then became a believer, but I can't think of any example where God spoke to an unbeliever, and they remained an unbeliever)
How as a Calvinist can you on one hand believe that man is so spiritually dead, totally depraved, and incapable of making the decision to believe, but on the other hand believe that God was directly communicating with such incapable, totally depraved, spiritually dead people?
Hello Dave:
I checked out your website. Looks like you have spent a lot of time on it.
This caught my attention:
So basically what you are saying is this: (let’s use a football game as an analogy)
The refs are God. Army is playing Navy. God has determined Army to win, and told everyone through prophecy that Army will win. God lets the game begin, and lets each team do what they want (free will). However, Navy scores so the refs have to start calling some penalties so Army can score. Navy scores again, so the refs have to call even more penalties so Army can score. Finally the refs call enough penalties against Navy so that Army eventually wins the game, and all of God’s prophecies play out.
Thus we have Dynamic Free Theism :bang:
Just like Dynamic Free Theism, the refs didn’t know everything ahead of time. They didn’t know every detail of every play. They didn’t know the final score. They didn’t know who would be injured. They didn’t know who would win the coin toss. They didn’t know what type of weather there would be at kickoff, but they did make sure Army beat Navy.
(did you happen to notice that the refs had to compromise their integrity in order to fix the game?)
Don't know who this dude is, but he asks a good question to open theists. (the video is a little poor, but the audio is good)
| Question for Open Theists | |
?:think:It appears his old site is gone, so I don't know if it is on the new site (verses).
www.gregboyd.org
Let's hear you blather for a bit.
SO you're saying that Adam and Cain didn't believe in God?
In order to present a complete response I would need a transcript of the audio.
I can say that the reference to God's wing is not an anthropomorphism, because wings are a physical animal trait, not a physical human trait.
Also, the Bible clearly states that God is spirit, and therefore not physical. At least not in the corporeal sense. However, He has appeared as such, and even manifested as such in Christ. And Christ still has His physical body.
I will also say that God certainly has a spiritual body. But saying that someone has a hand in a situation is not literal. Not even when speaking of humans. It's a figure of speech. God having His hand upon the Israelites falls into this category. However, to say the eyes of God are upon us is different. While that certain phrase [I'm watching you, etc.] may not always it is at times. God has eyes. End of story.
The issue is how God obtained the knowledge. And there are only two ways for that to happen. Either He planned it, and is in complete control [Calvinism Spectrum] or it already happened [Timelessness, Eternal Now, Arminianism Spectrum].
What are possible reasons for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if He wanted to?
So far, I have heard about mystery, antimony, etc.
Some have said it is to demonstrate God's attributes of justice and mercy. There is no chance that all would believe, so there would have been unbelievers to damn without a decree. The cross is also sufficient to demonstrate both attributes, regardless what individuals do.
Others say it is for God's glory since no one deserves to be saved (true). Why person x vs y (arbitary...huh? ARBITRARY!) or why more damned than saved?!
Can you think of a good reason that does not impugn God's character and ways as to why x is saved and y is damned? I assume you buy into unconditional election (which necessitates double predestination, as much as it makes you guys squirm to admit it).
Back to Olson...I think his point stands...Satan wants all men to be damned; your view of God has Him wanting some men to be damned...not a real difference in character, just quantity?!
So? I have said the same thing over and over. I am a proponent of the two motifs of Open Theism.
The dude in the video is me in my younger days, undercover, playing devil's advocate against OT.
I did not watch the video, but OT's recognize figurative language. We also take passages at face value when the context warrants it. There is a big difference between the figure of speech of wings vs God changing his mind, etc. (Sanders does a good job of anthropomorphisms/anthropopathisms in 'The God who risks' early chapters).
Did you happen to catch the part where he calls out Jesse Morrell?
This is the point of the dude's video.
How can OVT’s on one hand say yes to anthropomorphisms, and then say no anthropopathisms? How is this not arbitrary? Or if you do acknowledge some anthropomorphisms, then how do you distinguish when and when not to?
P.S. Godrulz, is there anyway you could start referring to open theists by calling them OV, or OVT instead of OT? OT is Old Testament. Thanks
Like my OT, context determines what is figurative or literal. OV used to be a beer in Canada, but keep reminding me (I agree with your concern). This is why we need hermeneutics and must look at each passage on its own merits.
Allegory, types, figures of speech, etc. all have unique issues.
We know that God cannot have literal wings based on other relevant verses. However, passages that show God changing His mind can be taken at face value, even if they contradict traditional bias (you assume what God must be like, but it could be Platonic, not biblical). What does it mean if not what it says? How else could God convey that He changes His mind as a personal being other than what He said? In your view, there would be no way for God to communicate the opposite of your conclusion, so you have a problem. I am not sure if you get that, but Sanders and Boyd rightly expand on this issue. There are credible answers, so keep open.
Not bad. But calling the refs God will not do, false analogy. God has still made the call but leave the refs as refs. When or if God causes someone to do something, call a penalty, the ref at that moment is not "free". Just as Pharaoh was not free when God "hardened" his heart. God does not compromise his integrity as long as he told Navy ahead of time that they would not win.
--Dave
Lon
Well-known member
I believe your interpolation suppositional (Calvinists believe in a relational God). Schaeffer was a Calvinist Infra/compatible.. You do agree with that don't you?
Lon
Well-known member
I know, which is why I say you often have anti-blinders on. You would agree more than disagree with much of Calvinism if you removed the blinders.