ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[docrob57]

God chose to use the gospel and human instrumentality (vs sky writing or angels) to persuade men in the power of the Spirit and His Word. It is more than God just wanting to give us some pleasure in the process. Logically and theologically, God should save everyone if it is just a matter of unilaterally saving the lost regardless of what we do or do not do in relation to our obedience to the Great Commission. Historically, hyper-Calvinism has led to a decline in missions and evangelism. Other groups understood that the gospel needed to be preached impartially to all men with the understanding that whomsoever will may come. All who repent and believe, as God commanded, will be saved. Elect vs non-elect is specious.

It is not human effort that saves people, yet God works through this means. Faith comes from hearing the Word, but how will they hear if we are not sent, go, and proclaim?

If one person or church refuses to obey, then He can raise up someone else. If 80,000 people die and go to a Christless eternity, we have some culpability. The stewardship of our time, treasures, and talents is keeping us from prioritizing the gospel. Some who die would have responded if they had a clear presentation of the gospel. They lacked the opportunity because we spend our money on pleasure, war, Hollywood, Christian entertainment, books, big homes and cars, etc. The lost are accountable before God for their godless lives, but the Church will have some responsibility if we failed to send, go, preach, teach, disciple, etc. A deterministic view puts all of the responsibility on God. A free will theism view recognizes that God alone provides, initiates, draws, woos, convinces, convicts, and regenerates, but not without the response of saints and sinners to preach (saints) and believe (sinners). Salvation is a reconciled love relationship, not a unilateral thing caused by God (if it was, all would be saved automatically).

I was with you for a while but then we lapse into the bad stuff again. But I think you give a clear presentation of how the OV (and to a lesser extent Arminianism) necessarily entails a "faith + works." doctrine. Why would all be saved if God acts unilaterally in it? THe problem is the assumption that salvation really has something to do with us.

Soli Deo Gloria, my friend!

 

[elected4ever]

It is that we do not know the the response to our actions. We do not know for what purpose we are given unction to do something. It may seem as if we thought of it and it was all our idea when in fact it was the movement of the Spirit with in to accomplish the will of God. It may even be that doing nothing also accomplishes that will of God also. Let me us this example , poor as it might be.

There was this preacher whom I had not seen in about 5 years,. I came into some money and decided that I would save as much as I could. One morning I woke and felt a real need to send a certain amount to this preacher. I did not know for what purpose I was to send it but I knew that he had need of it. I had not talked with him and knew nothing of any need or plan that he may have had. I was to give this money with out any conditions what so ever. So I did what every fiber in my body said was an unwise thing. I sent the money. I don't normally do that but there was a degree of trust built up knowing him for 20 or more years.

It turns out that I bought his round trip ticket to Romania where he preached the gospel to a very large gathering and many souls were saved as a result. He wrote me a letter confirming the result and thanked me for the gift and what it had allowed him to do. Again I must say that there was never any contact are solicitation made to me for any work. He just told me that he had ask the Father for for the money and he had not even told his church that he did not have the money for the ticket but the church had helped with preparations which would have gone for nought if the ticket was not purchased.

All our idea , all our will? I think not.

 

[godrulz]

I was with you for a while but then we lapse into the bad stuff again. But I think you give a clear presentation of how the OV (and to a lesser extent Arminianism) necessarily entails a "faith + works." doctrine. Why would all be saved if God acts unilaterally in it? THe problem is the assumption that salvation really has something to do with us.

Soli Deo Gloria, my friend!

Open Theists are a sub-type of Arminianism. We both vehemently deny faith + works (except Enyart Mid-Acts circumcision 'gospel' that is dispensational, not Open view). I stand firmly for Reformational truth about grace/faith alone in justification.

You may be misunderstanding by confusing grounds vs conditions of salvation. Faith is not a work. Jesus was asked what the workS of God were for life. He said the worK was to believe. Salvation and regeneration are strictly from God. We cannot save ourselves. However, His objective provision must be subjectively appropriated (hence all the emphasis on faith/belief). Eph. 2:8-10 shows that salvation is a free gift of grace. Faith is the root. Works are the fruit.

God alone gets the glory, as He should. This does not mean we are not culpable if we reject His love and grace. If we receive a free gift, it is also not meritorious or any glory to us.

As an aside, R.C. Sproul has influenced Chuck Colson from his conversion on. The holiness of God series he does has left many people in awe of the majesty and glory of God. This is not a Calvinistic revelation. It is possible for an Arminian or Open Theist to equally delight in the sovereignty, majesty, holiness, and glory of God. We can learn from each other. This sovereign God has created a partially open creation with significant others. This demonstrates His love and providence.

 

[docrob57]

Open Theists are a sub-type of Arminianism. We both vehemently deny faith + works (except Enyart Mid-Acts circumcision 'gospel' that is dispensational, not Open view). I stand firmly for Reformational truth about grace/faith alone in justificiation.

You may be misunderstanding by confusing grounds vs conditions of salvation. Faith is not a work. Jesus was asked what the workS of God were for life. He said the worK was to believe. Salvation and regeneration are strictly from God. We cannot save ourselves. However, His objective provision must be subjectively appropriated (hence all the emphasis on faith/belief). Eph. 2:8-10 shows that salvation is a free gift of grace. Faith is the root. Works are the fruit.

God alone gets the glory, as He should. This does not mean we are not culpable if we reject His love and grace. If we receive a free gift, it is also not meritorious or any glory to us.

I can't see anything that I disagree with there, so I will have to read it more closely later.

 

[Clete]

Open Theists are a sub-type of Arminianism.

This is so not true godrulz! Why do people keep saying things like this? You connect Open Theism and Arminianism because they both believe in free will, is that it? If so then you simply don't understand what Open Theism is. Here's a clue...

Calvinism and Arminianism both believe in a settled future.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

This is so not true godrulz! Why do people keep saying things like this? You connect Open Theism and Arminianism because they both believe in free will, is that it? If so then you simply don't understand what Open Theism is. Here's a clue...

Calvinism and Arminianism both believe in a settled future.

Resting in Him,
Clete

A dog and elephant both have 4 legs and two eyes. There are various ways to classify anything.

Open Theism and Arminianism are similar in that they are free will theisms vs determinism. This is a core comparison.

Arminianism and Calvinism are similar in that they believe in exhaustive, definite foreknowledge (unlike Open Theism).

Open Theism has more affinity with Arminianism than Calvinism (TULIP). This is generally accepted, so I would qualify things and not be so narrow (it depends on which points we are comparing/contrasting).

I usually refer to OT as an alternative, mediate view. In response to the post, it was not totally inappropriate to distance the view from determinism and affirm free will theism.

 

[docrob57]

A dog and elephant both have 4 legs and two eyes. There are various ways to classify anything.

Open Theism and Arminianism are similar in that they are free will theisms vs determinism. This is a core comparison.

Arminianism and Calvinism are similar in that they believe in exhaustive, definite foreknowledge (unlike Open Theism).

Open Theism has more affinity with Arminianism than Calvinism (TULIP). This is generally accepted, so I would qualify things and not be so narrow (it depends on which points we are comparing/contrasting).

I usually refer to OT as an alternative, mediate view. In response to the post, it was not totally inappropriate to distance the view from determinism and affirm free will theism.

I like to refer to the OV as Arminianism Gone Wild. Maybe I'll even make up some t-shirts. The problem is, of course, that most still have never heard of it. While I count this as a good thing, I am afraid the disease could spread.

 

[godrulz]

Hyper-Calvinism
Calvinism
Arminianism
Open Theism

Spectrum?

 

[Delmar]

It is that we do not know the the response to our actions. We do not know for what purpose we are given unction to do something. It may seem as if we thought of it and it was all our idea when in fact it was the movement of the Spirit with in to accomplish the will of God. It may even be that doing nothing also accomplishes that will of God also. Let me us this example , poor as it might be.

There was this preacher whom I had not seen in about 5 years,. I came into some money and decided that I would save as much as I could. One morning I woke and felt a real need to send a certain amount to this preacher. I did not know for what purpose I was to send it but I knew that he had need of it. I had not talked with him and knew nothing of any need or plan that he may have had. I was to give this money with out any conditions what so ever. So I did what every fiber in my body said was an unwise thing. I sent the money. I don't normally do that but there was a degree of trust built up knowing him for 20 or more years.

It turns out that I bought his round trip ticket to Romania where he preached the gospel to a very large gathering and many souls were saved as a result. He wrote me a letter confirming the result and thanked me for the gift and what it had allowed him to do. Again I must say that there was never any contact are solicitation made to me for any work. He just told me that he had ask the Father for for the money and he had not even told his church that he did not have the money for the ticket but the church had helped with preparations which would have gone for nought if the ticket was not purchased.

All our idea , all our will? I think not.

That is a really neet story and I don't discount it a bit, but you did give the money willingly, right? It does my heart good that you were willing to be of used by God! Not my will but thine be done :up:

 

[Delmar]

DocRob
I think perhaps E4E's story in #742 may point out the difference between our views. Is it your opinion that the according to the OV free will isn't free unless it is our idea? I do, in fact, believe that no one comes to the father unless the spirt draws him or, to put it another way, until the spirit plants that idea in his mind!

 

[godrulz]

The influence and persuasion of God is not coercive nor causative. The will and mind of the individual gave the money to the preacher. The will is why we are blameworthy or praiseworthy. Reward or punishment is based on our individual choices, not God's or Adam's. The many exhortations in Scripture are to be obeyed. It is self-evident that they can also be disobeyed (Deuteronomy). elected could have disobeyed God's prompting and not sent the money. This may have resulted in no Romania trip and some not saved. The Open View would also say that God is creative, resourceful, and responsive. He could move on someone else until another person obeyed and sent money to fund the trip with the same end result. God could also have dropped the money from the sky (not likely). He also could have raised up another servant of God in Romania to preach to such a crowd with similar results. God's influence and orchestration is not confined to meticulous control, decrees, or predestining every detail without alternate course reflecting a myriad of contingencies.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[docrob57]

DocRob
I think perhaps E4E's story in #742 may point out the difference between our views. Is it your opinion that the according to the OV free will isn't free unless it is our idea? I do, in fact, believe that no one comes to the father unless the spirt draws him or, to put it another way, until the spirit plants that idea in his mind!

From what I understand, the OV view of free will is that it isn't free unless the person who wills can make any possible choice at a given time. That is my understanding derived from conversations with Clete, who I know is an official spokesman for the cause .

What you suggest as your view is on the right track, but the Calvinist view goes a little farther. The Calvinist view is that God "regenerates" you, gives you the faith and calls you. At this point you will respond, and only at this point could you respond.

 

[docrob57]

The influence and persuasion of God is not coercive nor causative. The will and mind of the individual gave the money to the preacher. The will is why we are blameworthy or praiseworthy. Reward or punishment is based on our individual choices, not God's or Adam's. The many exhortations in Scripture are to be obeyed. It is self-evident that they can also be disobeyed (Deuteronomy). elected could have disobeyed God's prompting and not sent the money. This may have resulted in no Romania trip and some not saved. The Open View would also say that God is creative, resourceful, and responsive. He could move on someone else until another person obeyed and sent money to fund the trip with the same end result. God could also have dropped the money from the sky (not likely). He also could have raised up another servant of God in Romania to preach to such a crowd with similar results. God's influence and orchestration is not confined to meticulous control, decrees, or predestining every detail without alternate course reflecting a myriad of contingencies.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Are you sure you aren't a Calvinist?

 

[Delmar]

From what I understand, the OV view of free will is that it isn't free unless the person who wills can make any possible choice at a given time. That is my understanding derived from conversations with Clete, who I know is an official spokesman for the cause .

We can ask him but I doubt if Clete has a problem with what I said.

What you suggest as your view is on the right track, but the Calvinist view goes a little farther. The Calvinist view is that God "regenerates" you, gives you the faith and calls you. At this point you will respond, and only at this point could you respond.

Yes I do think I understand that difference, I just don't find it consistent with the overall message of the Bible.

 

[godrulz]

From what I understand, the OV view of free will is that it isn't free unless the person who wills can make any possible choice at a given time. That is my understanding derived from conversations with Clete, who I know is an official spokesman for the cause .

What you suggest as your view is on the right track, but the Calvinist view goes a little farther. The Calvinist view is that God "regenerates" you, gives you the faith and calls you. At this point you will respond, and only at this point could you respond.

Calvinism: Regeneration precedes repentant faith (monergism)....TULIP

Alternate: Repentant faith precedes regeneration (synergism)....non-TULIP

 

[godrulz]

Are you sure you aren't a Calvinist?

I reject compatibilism as incoherent. I am an incompatibilist who also rejects TULIP. Calvinism is the antithesis of my Open view understanding in many areas. I am Calvinist in the sense that I affirm the sovereignty, majesty, awe, and glory of God. I reject a decretal theology and determinism.

 

[Delmar]

I reject compatibilism as incoherent. I am an incompatibilist who also rejects TULIP. Calvinism is the antithesis of my Open view understanding in many areas. I am Calvinist in the sense that I affirm the sovereignty, majesty, awe, and glory of God. I reject a decretal theology and determinism.

I had to look up "compatibilism" ( I dispise theology speak in general) but :up:

 

[docrob57]

I had to look up "compatibilism" ( I dispise theology speak in general) but :up:

He sent me running to the dictionary too!

 

[Yorzhik]

We can ask him but I doubt if Clete has a problem with what I said.
Yes I do think I understand that difference, I just don't find it consistent with the overall message of the Bible.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Delmar again.

 

[Cliffracer RIP]

What's wrong with using your free will to choose god? Did god make you a machine or a human person with a soul.

If we are only saved externally by god's grace magically pulling us out of darkness, then god is logically responsable for all those who stay in darkness and not them, thus they shouldn't be punished but god should.