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

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Christine

Hi :turbo:

I know this isn't directed at me, but I do have a response

While everything is predestinated, man is still held accountable for his actions. This may sound like a contradiction, but this is how God set I believe God set it up.

Does not compute. The reason it sounds like a contradiction is that it is incoherent.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Christine and Turbo, but I never agreed everything is predestined. What Calvinist ever said every all things are predestined. No one. But the feeble-minded Arminian can't Only His elect are predestined to receive His love and therefore be eternally His.

You're trying to put words in my mouth Turbo, and you know it. Man is responsible for all that he does. And furthermore, it all comes naturally for man anyway. My sinful nature isn't something I acquired on my own. I was born with it. You were too. Embrace that Turbo.

Point being, you will come to grips with it. In these days, or before the judgement seat of the Almighty God.

ARGHH!!!!! Now do you know why Open Theism makes me furious.

All these misconceptions they throw out:
Predestined to hell?
Choosing God?
God doesn't know all?
God is not eternal?
Man has free-will apart from God's will?
ARGHH!!!

Did the Holy Spirit impart these "truths" to you? Or is it just something that sounded good while you were reading Boyd, or Enyart, or any other heretical author?

You are rejecting a straw-man caricature. God knows everything that is logically knowable=omniscient. Open Theists do not deny that God is uncreated, eternal. Many do see that eternal means everlasting duration, not timelessness. In both views, God has no beginning or end, etc.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The Calvinist doctrine of immutability is utterly incompatible with the very gospel itself.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 6:17-18 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

There are more, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

This speaks nothing about Open Theism, there are other possibilities so don't jump into attacking what you think Open Theism teaches in attempt to evade the questions I've posed here. We'll get to Open Theism in due time.

My dear friend Cletus. I believe the title of this thread is "ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!" So, the teachings of open theism are what's at stake, nothing else.

You say that Open Theism makes you furious but it is you who are either unwilling, or unable to defend what you posit as not only AN alternative to it, but THE ONLY alternative to it! If you cannot defend Calvinism, why would I, or anyone else here, drop Open Theism in favor of it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Calvinism is NOT an alternative to the open view. It is the open view which has been portrayed as an alternative to foundational Christianity by renegade evangelicals such as Boyd and Pinnock.

I don't claim ever to defend Calvinism. However, its truths are Biblical and have been proven and defended for hundreds of years. The Open View, well, it has pretty much been denounced in most religious denominations as heresy.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,

Before I ask this, I am not trying to argue; I just am looking for the answer. You said:

Is not a change always for better or worse? [/

QUOTE]

This is a Platonic fallacy. Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and in relationship with God and man. As He grew and changed from baby to adult, He did not go from better to worse. Creation and incarnation involve changes in the universe and in the Godhead (the Word became flesh, He was not always flesh= change).

A clock changes dynamically. It is accurate only because it changes, not because it is static/broke.

I can change my plans, preferences, thinking, etc. Often this is a change from the worse to the better.

For God to have a succession of thoughts or feelings (self-evident in the Bible), does not diminish His perfection. He would be imperfect if He could not change as we can. His character and attributes are unchanging. His relations and experiences do change. Strong immutability is indefensible for a personal being (absolute changeless=static). God is immutable in some vs all senses. He is not fickle or arbitrary, but He does change in response to man's repentance/prayer or continued rebellion (e.g. Jonah; Hezekiah).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by natewood3

kidd94,



Love is not God's most important attribute as Open Theism would have you believe. God is no more loving than He is Therefore, God judges and punishes sin. Either the individual will bear his/her own sin, or Christ will bear his/her sin.

God's wrath, grace, mercy, justice, etc. flow out of God's love.

"God is love" I John 4:8

"God is light" I Jn. 1:5

Jn. 4:24 "God is spirit"

"God is sovereign" ? Hezekiah?

God is sovereign, but your definition of sovereigty is lacking. He is dynamic, responsive, creative, providential. He is not static and absolutely immutable or meticulously controlling (the logical outcome of your assumptions).

 

[Hilston]

You guys should be embarrassed. Calvinists (whoever you are) should not let these sloppy and shiftless comments go unchallenged, but you do. Why?

You Open Theists are fortunate that you don't have careful thinking and sharp-minded Calvinists to debate you.

Knight writes:
It was the ancient pagan philosophers that came up with the flawed logic that something perfect cannot change.

And that philosophy is so obviously wrong!

I challenge you to quote the philosopher(s) who said this, and then prove that you know what they meant by "change" and "perfection" in their vocabulary. Prove you know the difference between essence and morphology.

Like a bunch of Dan Rathers running around, you Open Theists make these general statements and then support them with the selective and anti-contextual evidence that only favors your view, not showing any care or concern about your readers, fans or critics and the fact that there are verses that do say God is unchanging (Ps 102:26,27 Mal 3:6 Joh 8:58 Heb 13:8 Jas 1:17).

Knight writes:
Well.... wrong that is when applied to a animate objects or a living beings. That pagan philosophy only makes any sense when applied to a INanimate objects, like bowling balls or a statue.

This only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

Knight writes:
A perfect clock changes ALL day long!!!

Oh, I see. So at some point, all this changing would mean that it's no longer a clock, right? Oh, wait a second, maybe you don't mean change in that way? But wait, the way you Open Theists talk, one would think that change should only be understood in the simplest of terms, since you don't lift a finger to give careful definitions for anything. It's so annoying. I know what would happen if I pressed you guys on this stuff: You would start to backpedal and say, "I didn't mean it in that way" etc etc etc ad a nauseum. You guys make me sick. :vomit:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
The Calvinist doctrine of immutability is utterly incompatible with the very gospel itself.

Prove you even understand the doctrine of immutability. I have yet to find an Open Theist who has a clue. It's embarrassing.

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is an Oak better or worse because it grew a leaf or dropped an acorn or went dormant in winter?

See what I mean? Good grief, you guys are pathetic. So God could lose something, or maybe something could go dormant, like His mercy or maybe His longsuffering? :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a mountain stream better or worse because eroded a portion of the bank and meandered to the south of it previous position?

Oh, I see. So because God moves and erodes things, that means He changes? Heraclitus would laugh you out of the room. :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a traffic light better or worse because the light changed from green to red?

That's exactly how I picture God. Green one moment, yellow the next, then red. That is what you're implying, isn't? Or maybe it's not that simple. Sheesh. :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
Is a car engine better or worse because cylinder 8 is firing at the moment instead of cylinder 7?

How insightful! God is so much like an 8-cylinder engine the way He has intake and compression and exhaust and stuff. Brilliant! :freak:

Clete Pfeiffer writes:
No! These things are not better or worse they are simply different!

But, isn't different synonymous with change? Oh, but you probably don't mean that kind of different. Or do you? What do you mean by different? What do you mean by change? What do you mean by Calvinism? It certainly is not like anything Calvin actually taught. Have any of you ever read a single word of Calvin? I've never met a more entertaining group of know-it-alls who don't know jack. You guys make me sick. :vomit:

Have a nice day.

 

[godrulz]

Sword (alternative interpretation vs your proof texts):

Have you read all of Boyd's works or just the anti-Open books (I read both sides for balance)?

Num. 23:19 (God is not a man that he should lie or change his mind)

This is not a proof text for strong immutability. In this case/context, God is not fickle or capricious like man. It is that He WILL not vs CANNOT change in this specific instance/matter. God will not reverse His decision, but in other cases He does (Jonah; Hezekiah). He is faithful and trustworthy (will not change). Other prophecies are conditional and He says He will relent/change IF they heed His warnings.

Mal. 3:6 This does not mean that He does not change in any way (incarnation/creation are changes). It refers to divine faithfulness. God is not fickle or capricious. His moral character and essential attributes do not change, but His dealings with man, His experiences, His relations can and do change (or God is a cosmic blob, impassible and immutable...your understanding of immutability is Platonic, not Pauline).

James 1:17 Again, God does not change in a whimsical way. He is stable and trustworthy. You cannot use this as a proof text to make a speculative doctrine of strong immutability in every sense.

Heb. 6 God has an unchangeable purpose. He desires to redeem a people for Himself. His promises are certain (I can have integrity and make a promise. Does that make me immutable in an absolute sense? We are in the personal and moral image of God. It is impossible for God to lie in a moral vs metaphysical sense. You confuse God's personality/attributes and morals (unchanging) with relations and experiences (which do change if we are alive). Will (act), intellect (think), and emotions (feel) require change, sequence, duration, succession. They cannot logically happen all at once ('eternal now'). The context is not a didactic portion on immutability, but an affirmation of God's consistency in His dealings and purposes/intentions. The Flood was a change in God's plans. If humans did not become so corrupt, there would not have been a flood.

Ps. 102:26,27 In contrast to man who will perish, God will remain the same and endure from everlasting to everlasting. This says nothing about God's relations and experiences which can change (He will not perish, but this does not mean He is absolutely changeless in every sense).

Jn. 8:58 "I am" This means that the Word preexisted and is YHWH of Ex. 3:14. He is the self-existing one with no beginning and no end. He is uncreated. It does not mean that He cannot change. After all, He did create and incarnate. His interactions with Israel, individuals, and the Church are dynamic, not absolutely unchanging.

Heb. 13:8 Jesus is unchanging in His character and essential attributes. He did experience change in space-time and became the God-Man forever (different relation in the Godhead than His preexistence before He became flesh...He has not always had a body).

Are these explanations plausible even if you disagree with them? If not, why not? (apart from a preconceived theology)? Do you have sloppy exegesis with eisegesis, or does your view come from inductive study (vs deductive)?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Poor Hilston... he has such a hard time with such simple concepts!

This has always been his downfall.

Tell us Hilston....

Which clock would be more perfect?

The clock that changes all day long?

Or... the clock that doesn't change at all?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Yes. And what is your point here? And please don't give me any more "change" openness jargon.

Answer me this....

YES or NO....?

God becoming flesh was a type of change.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 6:17-18 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

There are more, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

No there aren't more. These are the three verses of scripture that Calvinists use to prop up thier Aristitilian beleif system.

These verses are talking about God character, His personality, His righteuosness and Holiness. They are not saying that God does not change at all in any way whatsoever. Absolute imutability is not taught at all in the Bible, it just is not in there.

My dear friend Cletus.

Only the women in my life are permited to call me Cletus.

I believe the title of this thread is "ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!" So, the teachings of open theism are what's at stake, nothing else.

This thread was very obviously named in direct response to Knight's thread against Calvinism. And you are saying in one way or another that Calvinism is the absolute equivilent to Christianity itself. We have presented multiple evidences both logical and Biblical that Calvinism is untenable and yet you refuse to rebut those arguments and instead stomp your feet and insist that Open Theism can't be true because Calvinism is. Well sorry, saying it doesn't make it so.

Calvinism is NOT an alternative to the open view. It is the open view which has been portrayed as an alternative to foundational Christianity by renegade evangelicals such as Boyd and Pinnock.

Are you even capable of constucting a logical thought in your head? If the Open View is an alternative to Calvinism then Calvinism is an alternative to the Open View. Further, Calvinism is less than 500 years old.

I don't claim ever to defend Calvinism. However, its truths are Biblical and have been proven and defended for hundreds of years. The Open View, well, it has pretty much been denounced in most religious denominations as heresy.

Yeah by Calvinists like you! What else would you expect? Unfortunately for you and the other Calvinists in the world, saying that Calvinism is Biblical doesn't make it so. Prove it if you can, or admit that you cannot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

Poor Hilston... he has such a hard time with such simple concepts!

This has always been his downfall.

Tell us Hilston....

Which clock would be more perfect?

The clock that changes all day long?

Or... the clock that doesn't change at all?

The clock that changes all day long, of course. And guess what? The kind of change you're talking about is perfectly consistent with the Calvinistic concept of God's nature. But you wouldn't know that because you're too busy tilting at windmills to even know what you're talking about. :freak:

Are you surprised? Or do you just not give a rip?

Originally posted by Knight
Answer me this....

YES or NO....?

God becoming flesh was a type of change.

OH! Now it's a TYPE of change? Now you're being careful? See what I mean? This is exactly the kind of sloppy theological tripe that makes me marvel at the depravity of man.

By the way, the answer is YES. Would Calvin disagree? Do you even care?

But it's entertaining.

Rock on.

 

[natewood3]

Knight,

Animated objects or living beings change by definition.

You are making God on the same level as other beings...

A perfect God has the ability to relent... show mercy.... grieve... get jealous... get angry... forgive.... forget... and become flesh. God is NOT broken. God is alive! God is the Living God.

Immutability does not mean that God cannot respond or move. He does show mercy, forgive, etc. However, He does not do these things like a man or as a human would do these things. He does not change His mind, for example, like a man, for God is not a man that He should change His mind.

 

[natewood3]

kidd94,

What is God's most important attribute then...?

I do not see how you can think that God can have a "most important attribute," as if God uses part of His being more than others...

I do not believe any single attribute is more important than the rest...

 

[natewood3]

Clete,

Change does not imply improvement or worsening especially if it is part of one's nature to change. In that case, not to change would imply that something was wrong. If something does not change that should then chances are it is dead! Take the Oak for an example, does and dead stump of an Oak tree change more or less than one that is alive?
God is a living relational being. To suggest that He is immutable robs Him of the ability to even think, never mind have a genuine two way love relationship with another living being.

So God is not really immutable even though He says all over, "I change not"??? That confuses me...

What you are doing is making all of these examples apply to God; these things change, which are not for better or worse, so God must change and it not be for better or worse. Are ANY of those things you listed perfect?

Humans can change and it not be for better or worse, right? Are we perfect? Are we the reference point to show how God really is? I think not...We are like God, not vice versa...

BTW, most Calvinists would never imply that God does not think experience, emotions, etc...

 

[Hilston]

Natewood,

It's a waste of time. They don't care. You can quote Augustine or Calvin to them all day long, stating the explicit opposite of what they criticize, but they just don't care. Knight even exclaimed surprise at one point, saying something to the effect of "Wow, so Calvin does believe God changes." I thought maybe it might stick. But no. The Open Theists are so utterly incapable of arguing against the doctrine and prefer to argue against straw men that they will tenaciously continue to say that the Calvinists believe that God does not change in any way.

Total depravity in action, demonstrated by those who deny its reality. Delicious irony.

Here's another: The only thing that doesn't change in any way is the Open Theist's insistence that Calvinists believe that God doesn't change in any way.

 

[natewood3]

Hilston,

I think you are completely right...it is straw man after straw man.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hilston wrote
It's a waste of time. They don't care.

I'm hurt. I've actually tried to care about what you say, staying awake at night considering your posts. I have found it difficult that we so frequently are told we don't know a thing about TD or the nature of the Triune God, but you (and I've looked for it) have never offered what you think is the correct view.

Can you explain the Trinity and TD so we know your definitions of at least these 2 things?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,



So God is not really immutable even though He says all over, "I change not"??? That confuses me...

A change of mind or a change from Spirit to flesh does not imply that God changes in His character or personality, etc. How can that be confusing?

What you are doing is making all of these examples apply to God; these things change, which are not for better or worse, so God must change and it not be for better or worse. Are ANY of those things you listed perfect?

What does it mean to be a perfect Oak tree? Does it not mean that it grows, reproduces, goes dormant in winter and spouts new growth in the spring? The very definition of being alive implies constant and various types of change.

Humans can change and it not be for better or worse, right? Are we perfect? Are we the reference point to show how God really is? I think not...We are like God, not vice versa...

Was Jesus perfect? Did He not grow from a baby into a teenager and then into adulthood? Did He not learn obedience? Did He not make new friends and developed other relationships which He did not have before? Did Jesus not die? Did He not rise from the dead?
Jesus was perfect in every conceivable way and yet changed in the most important ways immaginable!

BTW, most Calvinists would never imply that God does not think experience, emotions, etc...

Well of course they wouldn't! (Actually some do, but most intuitively see the problem with such an implication). Despite what Jim says we are not arguing against straw men. In fact, if anything, it is Jim who has presented the straw man not me or any other Open Theist on this thread. I know that Calvinists believe that God loves and that God thinks etc. The point is that the theology that they believe is based upon the fact that God is utterly immutable. Augustine absolutely did believe that God was immutable and based his predestination theology on that premise. Luther failed to drop much of what Augustine taught and Calvin learned it from Luther and formalized it into what we call Calvinism today. Augustine, by the way, learned that God was immutable from Aristotle (Plato) not the Bible. In fact he refused to become a Christian until he figured our how to make the Bible agree with Plato. And so when a Calvinist permits God to have a new thought or to be mad at one point in time and then glad in another, they are destroying the very foundation of their own theology, most without even knowing that they are doing so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

No there aren't more. These are the three verses of scripture that Calvinists use to prop up thier Aristitilian beleif system.

I'll spend the weekend and study up on this some more, but I know there are plenty more passage in yours and my Bible that back this up.

These verses are talking about God character, His personality, His righteuosness and Holiness. They are not saying that God does not change at all in any way whatsoever. Absolute imutability is not taught at all in the Bible, it just is not in there.

See comment above.

Only the women in my life are permited to call me Cletus.

Forgive me then, Clete.

This thread was very obviously named in direct response to Knight's thread against Calvinism. And you are saying in one way or another that Calvinism is the absolute equivilent to Christianity itself. We have presented multiple evidences both logical and Biblical that Calvinism is untenable and yet you refuse to rebut those arguments and instead stomp your feet and insist that Open Theism can't be true because Calvinism is. Well sorry, saying it doesn't make it so.

No, you have no presented any evidence that Calvinism isn't Biblical. Some of your views and opinions? Yes, you have done a good job of that. Keep up the good work Clete. Why don't you, or I guess I could do it, start a thread dealing with some of these controversies such as God's immutability.

Are you even capable of constucting a logical thought in your head? If the Open View is an alternative to Calvinism then Calvinism is an alternative to the Open View. Further, Calvinism is less than 500 years old.

Just because something is the alternative of something else, doesn't mean it goes vice-versa. The open view is an alternative to fundamental Christianity. Fundamental Christianity is NOT an alternative to the open view.

Yeah by Calvinists like you! What else would you expect? Unfortunately for you and the other Calvinists in the world, saying that Calvinism is Biblical doesn't make it so. Prove it if you can, or admit that you cannot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

C.H. Spurgeon once said That doctrine which is called "Calvinism" did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Holy Spirit of God, from diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them from the Holy Ghost and from Jesus Christ, the great founder of the Christian Church. We use the term then, not because we impute an extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with the fact.

The main doctrine the opposition has with Calvinism is of the plan for salvation. The doctrines that make up the plan for salvation are:

1. The loving election by the Father.
2. The powerful redemption accomplished by the Son.
3. The effectual calling by the Spirit.

These were defined, defended, and expressed by the Synod of Dort in 1618; also in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. Later they were expressed in the Old Baptist Confession of 1689, later adopted by the Philadelphia Association, out of which Southern Baptists came.

Clete, I am not on a mission to prove to you that Calvinism is just another word for "evangelism" or Christianity. I know you are an ex-Reformer as well. So you know the truths the Reformed doctrines spell out. And you do not believe them for whatever reason. Possibly it is because you do not understand them.

I don't understand a many thing from the words of Christ. Like why He only calls a few unto His grace, and casts others into the Lake of Fire. I know it is only for His glory, but that doesn't help me understand it. However, I do believe that it is true. And that is all that is required of me - to have faith, or to believe. And God empowered me to have the faith required to believe. So, the difficult theologies of Calvinism really do not bother me anymore, because God has granted unto me His Spirit that injects truth upon me.

Calvinism isn't a school of thought. It is an imputation of the power of God by the Spirit upon a believer.

 

[Hilston]

Yorzhik,

How long have you been debating "Calvinists"? Have you ever bothered to look up the term "total depravity" in any Calvinistic or Augustinian literature or a theological dictionary? Chances are, it's the one I espouse.

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I'm hurt. I've actually tried to care about what you say, staying awake at night considering your posts. I have found it difficult that we so frequently are told we don't know a thing about TD ...

The facts can't be denied. Every time the term is raised, I roll my eyes when I see what is understood by it.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
... but you (and I've looked for it) have never offered what you think is the correct view.

I have. I've given whole paragraphs of excerpts from other literature as proof that Open Theists do not understand the term. These excerpts were read and acknowledged, yet the insanity persists. What else do you call it when people are repeatedly corrected, yet persist in their error? Insanity.