ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
STONE
New member
Closed: God exists outside of time, creating time (or the impression of time); here God knows all time: present, past and futre.
Open: God also inhabits time, and here also relates to man according to the reality of man within time.
Here time, choices, decisions, events unfold before both God and man.
Is eternity timelessness/'eternal now'? (pagan Greek philosophy)
Or is eternity an endless duration of time=sequence, succession? (biblical, Hebraic view)?
Time must be an aspect of God's experience or He is impersonal (no will, intellect, emotions, actions...these require sequence/duration to be coherent).
Much of this discussion should be under the "limited atonement" thread.
Jim fails to distinguish, as Scripture does, the grounds (reason for which) of salvation from the conditions (not without which) of salvation.
He also does not distinguish the universal, efficacious provision for all men and the appropriation by some men. In the end, many are lost and perish. His view, in his mind, seems like a total victory because He supposedly saved all he intended to. This diminishes his love because He does not save many that He could have saved. It opposes a wrong definition of sovereignty against a correct understanding of God's love.
Our view exalts God's goodness and greatness without diminishing His love or sovereignty.
As Moral Governor of the universe, He knows what parameters are needed for salvation and how we appropriate His provision. It is all for His glory and our good. If someone is outside of Christ, it is only their fault, not God's non-electing will.
Jim fails to distinguish, as Scripture does, the grounds (reason for which) of salvation from the conditions (not without which) of salvation.
He also does not distinguish the universal, efficacious provision for all men and the appropriation by some men. In the end, many are lost and perish. His view, in his mind, seems like a total victory because He supposedly saved all he intended to. This diminishes his love because He does not save many that He could have saved. It opposes a wrong definition of sovereignty against a correct understanding of God's love.
Our view exalts God's goodness and greatness without diminishing His love or sovereignty.
As Moral Governor of the universe, He knows what parameters are needed for salvation and how we appropriate His provision. It is all for His glory and our good. If someone is outside of Christ, it is only their fault, not God's non-electing will.
Depends on what context you are referring to. E.g., Ps 1:1, David does not refer to the same "ungodly" as Paul does in Ro 4:5 and 5:6.
Ro 5:6 refers to the elect of the Body of Christ. Not to the elect of the Kingdom (Jews and Gentiles of their respective dispensations). Paul's descriptions could not have applied to elect Israel (Peter for example) because, contrary to Paul's description, elect Israel was not "without strength" or "enemies" (Ro 5:10).
You're welcome. Thank you for your questions.
On the contrary, I not only distinguish between the grounds (foundational basis) of salvation and the conditions of salvation, but also the reasons (decretive purpose) behind salvation and the various aspects of Biblical soteriology (moral salvation, temporal salvation, sempiternal salvation, etc.).
Of course. Why would I make distinctions about something I view as patently unbiblical and logically untenable?
Don't forget, godrulz, I have ample scripture to support this thesis.
Whenever an Open Theist, or quasi-Open Theist mentions the word "love," I request a definition. I don't think you guys know what it means. Now's your chance. Then we can talk about how my view of God is more loving than yours.
Sozo
New member
I would rather doubt that God is amused by your mockery of His message concerning Christ.
You just don't get it, Jim.
In order for someone to save themselves, it has to be done their way, and according to their own plan and effort.
God has chosen how man will be saved, and unless we submit to His plan, no man will be saved.
His plan includes the death, burial, and resurrection of His Son.
His plan includes the shedding of Jesus blood for the propitiation of sins for the whole world and the redemption, and reconciliation which are found in Christ alone.
His plan requires that we repent of unbelief and receive His grace through faith as a gift.
His plan includes the exchange of our life for His, which is our salvation.
His plan requires that we come to Christ and not reject His way of salvation.
YOU, Jim, do not like God's plan, because you prefer to tell God that His plan is only sufficient if you do not have to respond.
YOU, Jim, do not like God's plan, because it requires you to humble yourself, and admit that you are in need of a savior. YOU would rather He just do it, without your acceptance of His love, grace, & mercy.
YOUR religion, makes me sick, and is an insult to the blood that Jesus shed for ALL men.
1) Some of these ideas are probably the trappings of man's ideas on the subject. What is sempiternal salvation? The ideas of decrees (supra vs infralapsarianism) is not even agreed upon in Calvinistic circles. Election/predestination is corporate, not individual.
2) Proof texts with alternate understandings that are plausible.
3) Love includes the concept of chosing the highest good of another. It is impartial. It is not selfish. How is it loving for God to save some based only on His will, and damn others He could save, but wills not to? Even Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. The glory of His death is that He died for all men, not just some men. Redefining world to imply elect in Jn. 3:16 is unfortunate.
We are in the moral and personal image of God. His image is defaced, not erased. Total depravity does not mean total inability.
Ultimately, who we are is from the hand of God. He is Creator; we are creature. God gave us free moral agency as a gift. This is why we are morally responsible and accountable. This is why God is not culpable for evil.
He gives us will and discernment, but we have an element of self-determination (vs fatalism) that inherently has the possibility of using or misusing the faculties He gives us. We can love or hate, love or be selfish.
STONE
New member
You are correct as to His revelation; at the same time you limit God to what we can comprehend, if I am understanding you.
You were talking about time "duration of time=sequence, succession"..."live, and move, and have our being";
Paul also was referencing that some of what Greeks believed was correct.
Last edited:
I don't mock God's message, but your perversion of it, as well as your blatantly incoherent assertions.
Who says? By your logic, if I shoot an intruder with my Glock 9mm according to the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with NRA guidelines, I did not save myself from the intruder. Glock and the NRA did.
I agree. But on your view, man must act in order to make effectual an otherwise insufficient work of Christ.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
Um ... see above.
Scriptures tell me that. So does logic. Logic will enable you to distinguish between being justified before God (Ro 5:9) and being justified before men (Ro 4:2) and being justified before oneself (Ro 4:3-5).
This is funny. My view requires the utmost humility, because we cannot even claim the merit of choosing to submit to Christ. On my view, it is all God's doing, full sufficiency; and none of my doing. I can actually say that Christ saved me. You cannot. You can proudly boast that you had the good sense to choose Christ and to appropriate His life to yourself. There is no humility there; you've become your own savior.
I appreciate my own depravity in contrast to God's holiness. My carnal mind was not able to submit to God's requirements (Ro 8:7). So Christ saved me from my own carnal mind and depravity. I can say Christ saved me and died specifically for me and secured my eternity with Him because He loved me personally. There is no personal and specific love on your view. It's generic and impersonal. The most you can say is that you were smart enough to choose a blanket provision that was universally offered to everyone.
I'm not the one whose assertions declare insufficiency in Christ's work. This all started with you hypocritically accusing someone else of disrespecting the blood of Christ. How fitting that we've come to this point again. The difference is, this time, you've abundantly demonstrated that it is you yourself who insult the work of Christ. You do so by assertions that logically require you to admit that Christ's work was insufficient to accomplish salvation for anyone. It's merely a provision, and man must become his own savior. On your view, no one can say the blood of Christ saved them from hell. The most they can say it, "I saved myself by appropriating the universal provision of Christ."
STONE
New member
Why
Why
-If we have free moral agency as a gift and God gives discernment and will, how is God so removed from our "responsibility"?
-Discernment is given by God. Is self determination given to us by God? How about our "nurture" and life circumstances...does the potter mold us through these?
Why
-If His personal image is defaced, how do we have "libertarian" free will?
-If we have free moral agency as a gift and God gives discernment and will, how is God so removed from our "responsibility"?
-Discernment is given by God. Is self determination given to us by God? How about our "nurture" and life circumstances...does the potter mold us through these?