ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
docrob57 said:
The wording is awkward, but he is onto something. Elect vs non-elect (double predestination) is problematic in light of God's impartial love, efficacy of the atonement, and His justice/holiness. Hyper-sovereignty distorts His other attributes (so we must understand what it is and is not).
docrob57 said:
Justice is not in isolation from his other attributes. If justice was the only issue (but it is not), then no one would be saved without a plan of redemption.
Justice flows out of His love. It is warped to think that God must damn some in order to demonstrate justice or grace. His love is impartial always seeking His glory and the highest good of man. He wants to extend mercy and forgiveness, but has governmental issues that would make it unwise to do so for everyone (the universe would reign with sin and chaos). The cross made it possible for mercy, love, holiness, and justice to meet. His death was effective and intended for all. It was not limited to an elite class. It is only appropriated by those who believe. God does not give faith to some and withhold it from others that He could give if He wanted to. Our faith or rejection is within our realm of responsibility. God grieves when we reject His love and grace. Your view makes Him delight in the arbitrary damnation of the masses. God delights in His justice for those who reject Him, but He does not make some reject and others believe.
God would compromise His love and justice if He arbitrarily saves some from eternity past while damning others that He could save if He wanted to. He is not willing that any perish but wants all to come to repentance. He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe (Acts). Man, not God, is responsible if they perish. He has done everything He needs to do. The ball is in our court.
First off, I agree with Scripture that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. Second, no Calvinist who believes himself to be elect and who has any clue is going to consider himself part of an "elite." We should and do believe that our election has absolutely nothing to do with us and everything to do with God. We do not believe that either election or reprobation are arbitrary (at least I have not heard that expressed). We believe that God has a purpose behind His decisions, but that these purposes are not correlated to any virtue that He finds in us. God has every right to condemn everyone. He spares some due to His love. It is about Him, not us.
Again, "arbitrarily" doesn't come into it. Your statement typifies those with your view. It implies that there are some God cannot save. In this, though it sounds nice, you deny God's power and sovereignty. If you insist that God will not override free will, you imply that God either voluntarily or due to His own inability transfers sovereignty to man, at least partially.
I agree that man is responsible for His sin.
All views agree that God is sovereign, but we understand sovereignty differently. Even in human government, we have a spectrum from dictatorship to passive figurehead. God is more democratic than dictator (is that fair to say?)....i.e. He created significant others with a limited say so and limited freedom, yet He is the final say so in the end.
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Swordsman, who started this thread, started with this statement.
But in 2 Peter 3:9, it says: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
But in 2 Peter 3:9, it says: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
civitasdei
New member
Swordsman said:
You're not even talking about open theism. I came from Huntington University and studied under John Sanders and Bill Hasker, and I attended several conferences on open theism as an undergraduate, so I've heard it straight from the horses' mouths that open theism is not essentially about being saved by one's own initiative, even if some open theists might in fact believe that.
Open theism, of course, is a brought title that has many people coming to it from many different places for many different reasons, so what I say won't be true of all open theists by any means. But from what I've heard in conversations with Sanders and Hasker, and in conversations with others at conferences, is that open theism is often fundamentally about creating a "relational" theology, where God dynamically interacts with human beings in a drama of love. Human free will is only a little part of that bigger picture, and free will doesn't need to be understood in some absolute sense: we still are slaves to sin and still need God's grace to even open up the possibility of choosing God.
Open theists certainly tend to see a god who exercises meticulous control over creation, who is immutable and impassable and incapable of dynamic interaction with free creations, as a stale god who is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Only a fool makes open theism about one's free will; it is fundamentally about God, His goodness, and His irresistible beauty.
civitasdei
New member
godrulz said:
Thank you for the kind compliment.
It certainly was a privelege to spend time with them, but it was heartbreaking at the same time, espeically with Sanders. He was genuinely one of the nicest and most caring men I've ever met, and yet knowing that he had to deal almost daily with attacks on his character and his standing before God was deeply troubling to all of us students of his. And then when radicals in the United Brethren denomination started forbidding their youth from attending Huntington because of Sanders' presence there, the fundamentalist-leaning board of trustees was all to eager to use that as a chance to get him out there. Watching radicals put a good man and his family out on the street can really shake up one's faith. If Sanders hadn't handled the situation with such Christ-like patience, I might have found myself disgusted by Christianity altogether. People accuse him of leading impressionable youth on a path to hell, but he's been one of the most important influences in my life in keeping me focused on God.
I wish so much that our modern society wasn't so completely consumed by political correctness. There have been times in history when being radical wasn't looked down on as being somehow wrong or even evil. And the most tragic thing is that this attitude of politically correct moderation has reached clear to the very core of the Christian church. If we lived in different times with a different social climate I believe that we would be facing a theological reformation the likes of which would make Luther look like a choir boy (oh wait - he was a choir boy! Oh well, you know what I meancivitasdei said:
) Instead, it seems every month or so I hear a new story about how good men of God who want nothing more than to present a rational theology, as you so eloquently put it, are marginalized and systematically ignored and even vilified. Resting in Him,
Clete
I was watching a movie recently. It's title is A Murder of Quality. Based on the book by John Le Carre. He also wrote the screenplay. Near the beginning of the film one of the characters is explaining his problems with God. He says that God is consistent, but explains that that is a problem. He says this, "...what on earth is the point of praying to someone who's so perfect that he never changes his mind?"
Philetus
New member
docrob57 said:
OV isn't the disease; it is the cure. (My good friend godrulz is apparently still in recovery. But then aren’t we all? The residual thinking from SV contaminates nearly every conversation about the Gospel. Our liturgies and hymns are full of it. We have been sick for a long time. The faith of the church has been hijacked by the SV and is no less in need of reform than in the days of Calvin and Luther. Perhaps that is why so many are leaving the main line denominations and seeking a hearing of the Gospel that rings true with both scripture and praxis. ) Dispensaries of the cure are springing up all over the world.
And I agree that there is no middle ground. The proponents of the settled view are culpable no matter how soft their take or how sensitive to the plight of the lost they may be.
Just because everyone lives as if the future is open and even though some may minister as if the future is open, they are still guilty if they misrepresent the truth about God. Preaching and teaching the settled view suppresses the truth about God. Plain and simple. Maybe it is time they found more of a balance between preaching what they practice (the way they live in and do ministry in Christ) instead of trying futilely to practice what they preach.
I'm sorry but I just have to strenuously disagree with this. This is like classifying animals based on the length of their tale and then saying that a Pug has more in common with a pig than it does an Irish Setter. It just doesn't make any sense!godrulz said:
I agree that open theist believe in free will and that they share that in common with Arminians but that in no way makes us a subset of Arminianism because free will theism is not what defines Arminianism. Open theist agree more often with Arminians than we do with Calvinists because often the central point of contention has to do with predestination vs. free will but again, that does not make us a subset of Arminianism because that is not what defines either an open theism or Arminianism.
Open Theism has to do with the belief that the future is not settled and NO ARMINIAN ON THE PLANET BELIEVES THAT! Arminians believe, among other things, that God exhaustively knows the entire future and NO OPEN THEIST ON THE PLANET BELIEVES THAT!
How hard is this to figure out? Open theists are not Arminians in any sense! Just because we share a common conclusion on a specific doctrinal issue doesn't make us the same or even similar any more than a Calvinist is an Armenian because that both believe that a guy named Jesus died and rose from the grave.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete said:
I understand what you understand on the issue.
Open Theism is like Arminianism in some ways (more than just the free will issue), but unlike it in other ways. Calvinism and Arminianism have some things in common, but not other things.
My list of beliefs was not meant to be subset, etc., but a list of major views along the spectrum of determinism to libertarian free will (some open theists are more extreme about free will than others).