Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Dunemeister
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2011
Total Posts : 2
 
   Posted 7/9/2011 7:17 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Italics added)
I'm new to open theology, and I am looking for help in understanding how this particular passage can be dealt with. For this passage says that those who have been predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son are limited to those whom God has foreknown. Thus it seems God's foreknowledge -- whether understood cognitively as the Arminians or affectively as the Calvinists -- determines who will be so predestined to glorification (ultimately). There seems little room here to say that the membership of the people of God is really "open". At least, I don't yet see it. If it could be explained to me, it would help a lot, as I see a lot that is hopeful in open theology; however, theological issues like this one prevent me from embracing it wholeheartedly.
 
Hoping that brighter minds than mine can illuminate this issue for me.
 
Grace and peace,
 
Dunemeister

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 7/9/2011 8:09 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Welcome Dunemeister. See my comments on the recent thread ("Calvinist and Open Theist) under "Tearing Down Walls" on this forum. It deals with how open theism can be true and Rom. 8:28 can still mean just what you're thinking it means. And you are right; open theism does solve problems that the alternatives can not.

Open theism does impose some constraints upon the exegesis of certain passages. But they're not as constraining to hermeneutics as many suppose.


 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/9/2011 10:27:18 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 7/10/2011 7:09 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Do these help Dunemeister?

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-romans-829-30/

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 7/10/2011 8:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for the links, Tom.

Greg: Note that what is loved ahead of time in both Romans 8:29 and 11:2 is a corporate body, not particular individuals. When individuals freely accept the conditions of participating in that corporate body, all that is true of that body becomes true of them.

Jeff: How does God get to the belief THAT there will be, in the future, individuals who "freely accept the conditions of participating in that corporate body" if God also, per Romans, claims there are none that seek Him? And what does "those He glorified" mean? Greg doesn't really work it all out. That's the problem.

Not saying his approach is futile--some of it I use for my own view in Ephesians 1. But he just hasn't explained everything that needs to be explained with that approach.


 

Back to Top
 

Dunemeister
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2011
Total Posts : 2
 
   Posted 7/14/2011 10:13 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
yes, those links help, Tom. And I think Boyd's response puts me at ease with respect to this particular passage. I'm willing to accept Boyd's interpretation as a working hypothesis to see how it fits with the remainder of Romans. I have a feeling that Romans 9 will be a tougher nut to crack, but I'm going to meditate on it a while before reposting.
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 7/16/2011 9:40 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/predestination
 
 


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 7/16/2011 10:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quoating Hopko
 

We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him and who are called according to his purpose.

God works together for good for all those who know him and who are called according to his purpose. Here we could say a few words about being called, because the Scripture speaks about those who are called, and those who are chosen, and those who are faithful. The Apocalypse, for example, speaks about the disciples of Christ being—I always liked it in Slavonic, it was called “zvanih, izabranih, i vjerni.” There’s even a title of a book with those words: Called, Chosen, and Faithful.

In fact, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, who is the new head of the external affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, his mother, when he was a small boy, wrote a book. The title of her book was these very words, in Russian, Called, Chosen, and Faithful. In Greek, I believe it would be “klitoi, eklektoi and pistoi.” In any case it does not matter, because in English, you have it very clear: called, chosen, faithful.

There is such a thing as “the elect”—not only those who are called, but those who are chosen: The chosen people, the elect people. This would also be the teaching of Holy Scripture, very clearly, that God calls and chooses, or he elects, or he appoints, those whom he knows will cooperate. He does not waste his divine energies. He knows whom to choose and whom to call.

He called the Jews because he knew that in Israel he would have people in each generation who would cooperate. He would have Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. He would have Moses; he would have the prophets. Most of the people would be apostate; most of the people would be sinners and idolaters, and God knows what, breaking the laws, but there would always be those people who would cooperate with God, and they are the ones whom he chose. They are the elect.

I think we should always remember that if people are elected, if people are chosen by God, there’s two things we must remember. They are chosen because they are willing, freely, to cooperate; freely to cooperate, like St. Paul. He was knocked down on the Damascus road and became the Apostle to the Gentiles because he was willing to be converted. He was willing. When he was knocked down he didn’t say, “Oh, I am having a hallucination; I thought I saw Jesus; I must be going crazy.” No, he was ready to respond. He was ready to convert. He was ready to surrender, but in his total freedom of his humanity.

Of course, our freedom even is supported by the grace of God. We cannot be really free unless the grace of God is in us, otherwise we are in the hands of the devil, and we are not free. But this mystery of human freedom, it remains forever, so God knows whom to choose.

So the first thing we have to say is, the elect are those chosen by God and called by God, that he knew would cooperate. Jesus teaches in the Scripture that in some sense, everybody is called. In the synoptic gospels it says “many are called.” Actually, it says, “the multitude are called.” In other words, God would call every human being, but only a few are chosen, only a few are elect, because not everyone is willing to cooperate with God. The elect are those who are freely willing to cooperate with God.

But also, the other thing about the elect is, they are willing to suffer. If you are chosen by God, you are chosen to suffer. If you are appointed to God, you are appointed to suffer with him, even to die with him. I once heard a Calvinist teacher, a very wonderful man, Samuel Terrien. He was a linguist and he wrote about the Old Testament. He wasn’t much of a theologian or an exegete; he was more like a linguist.

 


(o)

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 7/17/2011 8:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
 
Bruce, I do think some of the exegesis can be done more parsimoniously for an Armenian approach if you posit divine foreknowledge as your post does. But divine foreknowledge has exegetical and logical problems of its own. So these arguments need to be made in a fair way such that all the problems are dealt with openly and forthrightly. Otherwise, parsimony/analogy and non-contradiction aren't the real criteria for plausibility evaluation in exegesis after all. And that would merely obligate us to determine and articulate what actually ARE the plausibility criteria to be used in intellectually honest exegesis. Logic is a harsh mistress.


 

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/1/2011 4:58 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks, Similitude


(o)

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads