 |
| 
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/15/2003 9:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | www.carm.org/open.htm
I'm pretty new to the "open view theism" topic, just thought id like to spark some talk about what Matt Slick has to write about on his Christian Apologetics Research Ministry site.
 0CT0R0K | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/16/2003 2:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/16/2003 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Alright, Albert, who are you???! Are you someone else using another name (a la PoW, Fred, AL (and a bunch of numbers after "Al," but I can't remember them)? If not, nice to meet you!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/16/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | The FIRST SENTENCE of Slicks discussion on Open Theism reads:
"Open theism, also known as free will theism and openness, is the teaching that God does not know all things."
This says alot either about Slick's knowledge of open theism (viz. it is insufficient) or Slick's concern to fairly represent open theism (viz. he has none). After reading this sentence, I had no inclination to read further. Why waste time?
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/18/2003 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | I used to frequent the CARM forums before getting banned (I'd rather not get into the details of this right now). Slick is a bold advocate of Calvinism. To his credit he is also noncessationist. Open Theism is dangerous alright, but only dangerous to Calvinist philosophy. Most Calvinists cannot give a SCRIPTURAL answer that deals with how OV proves the inconsistency of their philosphy.
The Calvinists must heavily rely on a strong anthropomorphic interpretation of passages that cannot be clearly or consistently interpretted that way. They must also rely on the belief that their brand of theology has been around for centuries so it must be right. After all, Augustine taught it, Luther made similar references to it, Calvin taught it, bits and pieces of it are seen in the writings of the church fathers, etc.
They also must rely on strawman tactics. They create things about Open Theism, Arminianism, and other theological positions opposed to Calvinism, i.e., Open Theism believes that God doesn't know everything, Arminianism believes that salvation comes by works, etc. They make up these things in order to later knock them down and say, "see how easily we were able to refute the beliefs of __________"
They also like to poison the well. Referring to OV as socinian (or Arminian as Pelagian) will certainly have the weak minded afraid to explore the opposing view. Present this boldly to the audience while confidently presenting your theology as sent directly from Heaven, and you have won the battle (in your mind).
I have observed these things from two years of debating at CARM and other forums. I have met many Calvinists who love the Lord and are willing to discuss doctrine with the mindset that we are brothers in Christ. But I have met equally as many who are arrogant, mean, and believe that Calvinism is the only gospel. I was even told once in an e-mail (and I still have the e-mail to prove it) that I was going to hell for not embracing the teachings of RC Sproul, John Piper, Pink and others. Now that had to be the most humorous e-mail I had ever read.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | victoryword
Are you surprised that people who view God as a micro-managing control-freak are themselves micro-managing control-freaks?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika- your vindicative is so rude. 'Micro managing control freak'- I doubt even the strictest Calvinism advocates this nonsense. If you hope to win people to your view you're not getting very far.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika
I never thought of it that way before, but you're probably right (Hahahahahahahaha!)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Laika- your vindicative is so rude. 'Micro managing control freak'- I doubt even the strictest Calvinism advocates this nonsense.
Thank you for your concern. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/18/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | It cracks me up that you open theists get up in arms at things like bashing homosexuals or, heaven forbid, pointing out flaws, of which there are a plethora, with open theism, but when it comes to Calvinism, you might as well be the KKK of Open Theism with the way you hang Calvinists. It's no different than prejudicesness, but you're so blind to it you can't see it. RD is correct, you won't get far. Someone said that Open Theism is dangerous, but only dangerous to Calvinist philosophy. This is an ignorant statement. Open Theism is "dangerous" to far more than the Calvinist. It is dangerous to anyone, Calvinist or not, for the fact that it leads people away from the true God. Victorywood said how he's met equally as many who are arrogant, mean, and believe that Calvinism is the only gospel. Like the way Open Theists are arrogant, mean, and believe that Open Theism is the only gospel? Interesting.
Laika, I have zero respect for you based on the comments I've read of yours in here. You need to take RD's words to heart rather than respond with arrogance and sarcasm.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/18/2003 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | No one is perfect on this board, Fleetwood, so you are bound to see the imperfections come out. But wouldn't you think that you yourself could do much more to combat Open Theism by being prayer about it than by antagonizing those who believe it?
We're all here to discuss many things, Open Theism being one of them. So, please, discourse with us or pray about us. But please don't keep antagonizing us, despite our imperfections.
For respect for all,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/18/2003 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | RD and Fleetwood: I believe you were very rude and very mean to Laika. I will pray for the both of you. Fleetwood: try to remember that simply because a person believes homosexuality is a sin does not mean they are "bashing" homosexuals. One can disagree with another and not "bash" them.
BTW Fleetwood, why does it "crack" you up? If you think it is wrong, does people doing wrong bring you enjoyment?
Edited by - honorman on 07/19/2003 12:58:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/19/2003 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Fleetwood
Remember that I did say that I have met Calvinists who love the Lord and are willing to discuss doctrine with the mindset that we are brothers in Christ, therefore my post was not meant to be a Calvinist bashing post. I have friends who are Calvinist and we remain good friends. This is in spite of my Word-of-Faith beliefs which many people consider to be more heretical than OV.
But I tell you my friend, the reading of Calvinistic history seems to be full of incidents of Calvinist persecuting any and every person that has come to an understanding of Scripture that is different from their own. Augustine led the way in this type of persection and John Calvin followed suit. When I read books and webpages by Calvinists now that same spirit seems to be among many (not all) of them. Rather than attempting to win the so called heretic with love and prayer, many of them want to misrepresenting their opponent is the best way to rid them of the heresy.
Some Calvinists attempt to explain to me the differences between them and Hyper-Calvinism. Yet, the only difference I have seen is that one take the beliefs to the logical and practical conclusions while both groups believe the exact same thing.
Finally my friend, everyone who opposes a certain doctrine beleives that this doctrine is DANGEROUS. I have been told by many that my beliefs are dangerous. For example, I believe that Matthew 27:45 and 2 Cor. 5:21 shows that when Jesus became sin, God (the Father) turned His face away from Jesus, thus resulting in spiritual death as defined in Eph. 2:1-5. People tell me that this is dangerous because it undermines the Trinity. Some might falsely accuse me of denying the Trinity. Others have falsely accused me of denying that the blood is sufficient for our redemption.
The danger in believing in JDS (Jesus Died Spiritually) is often the danger invented by it's opponents. However, if God is as sovereign and meticulously controlling as many like to present Him, then why fear these dangers. Why even go to the point of misrepresenting your opponent to allay these dangers.
I have the utmost respect for Matt Slick and regardless of our differences, I still think well of him. He is my brother in Christ. But his essay on OV presents a danger made up in his own mind.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Finally my friend, everyone who opposes a certain doctrine beleives that this doctrine is DANGEROUS. I have been told by many that my beliefs are dangerous. For example, I believe that Matthew 27:45 and 2 Cor. 5:21 shows that when Jesus became sin, God (the Father) turned His face away from Jesus, thus resulting in spiritual death as defined in Eph. 2:1-5. People tell me that this is dangerous because it undermines the Trinity. Some might falsely accuse me of denying the Trinity. Others have falsely accused me of denying that the blood is sufficient for our redemption.
The danger in believing in JDS (Jesus Died Spiritually) is often the danger invented by it's opponents. However, if God is as sovereign and meticulously controlling as many like to present Him, then why fear these dangers. Why even go to the point of misrepresenting your opponent to allay these dangers.
Oh, this is so very terribly heretical. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | 
An icon of "OUR" resurrection, in Christ (Eph 2).
An icon of the "one of the Trinity" who died, willingly.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/19/2003 9:13:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
victoryword
...I have been told by many that my beliefs are dangerous. For example, I believe that Matthew 27:45 and 2 Cor. 5:21 shows that when Jesus became sin, God (the Father) turned His face away from Jesus, thus resulting in spiritual death as defined in Eph. 2:1-5.
What can I mention that would help?
quote:
The danger in believing in JDS (Jesus Died Spiritually) is often the danger invented by it's opponents.
Maybe you can explain what they say. But in the mean time...
"Jesus became sin..." Jesus became the effects of sin, which is death. Our salvation required someone not libel to the reality of the effects of sin to voluntarily accept our "curse" for us upon Himself.
God (the Father) turned His face away from Jesus... Jesus experienced, personally, in his humanity, the most terrible abandonment that any human ever did, AND HE DID SO VOLUNTARILY. As God He never left the fellowship of the Trinity; but PERSONALLY, "one of the Trinity died" (as one council of Church Fathers declared).
...resulting in spiritual death...(as defined in Eph. 2:1-5)
quote:
Ephesisns 2:4 ...but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly [places], in Christ Jesus...
I really want to just quote something really wonderful here. Its an Easter Sermon by St. John Chrysostom--a man who took persecution for his stand on the faith. Look at the Ephesians passage quoted: "made us alive together with Christ." We, burried with Christ who took our death upon himself--who died "for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification."
quote:
Let no one grieve at his poverty,
for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.
He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."
Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/19/2003 11:39:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/19/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Open Theism is dangerous alright, but only dangerous to Calvinist philosophy.
It seems to me that there are non-Calvinists on record as disagreeing with this. Take, for instance, William Lane Craig. On p. 59 of _Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views_, he says: "I agree with Boyd that such passages do undermine a Calvinistic conception of an all-determining God." This and other things I've read have led me to believe that Craig is not a Calvinist. Yet on p. 55 of that same book, Craig says: "Gregory Boyd espouses a view that threatens to undermine divine omniscience." If Craig believes it's dangerous to undermine divine omniscience, then he apparently also believes that Open Theism is dangerous.
quote:
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
Do you believe that pi is bigger than 3?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/19/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry
It wasn't my intentions to turn this into a debate on the "Jesus Died Spiritually" doctrine. I was simply using that as an example of how people can take any of their "favorite doctrines to hate" and consider them "dangerous." If you want to discuss those doctrines with me, e-mail me and I will show you a forum where they can be better debated. I probably should have realized from experience that a mention of my beliefs would cite debate.
But let me forwarn you that I really don't give a patooty what the church fathers say and what someone's orthodox interpretation of Scripture says or even what some well known theologian says. I am only concerned with what Scripture says plain and clear. Let me also warn you that I can quote theologians, scholars, wewll known historical heroes of the faith, etc. that would also support my views.
However, I do not want to debate my views here that has nothing to do with OV. I come to this particular forum to understand more about the OV theology. I am willing to debate, but not here.
victoryword@yahoo.com
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | V.W., the "Church Father" that I would quote most of all would be the Apostle Paul. (and did in that post)
Open a thread on the "Jesus Died Spiritually" doctrine and see what you get.
==================================================
BTW -- looking a bit at what you've written. It doesn't seem that you resent when there is concorndance between some of the things you are saying and quotes you use from such Greek Fathers as Sts. Irenaeus and Chrysostom, and the Reformer John Calvin. And when did any of them go off without their best efforts with Scripture. (Don't go "high horse" on us.) As to those critics your site complains about, maybe you just need better 'packaging' with your articles: get to the thesis more directly, and let it stand on its own feet.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/19/2003 8:23:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | BACK TO THE MAIN POINT OF THIS THREAD:
quote:
www.carm.org/open.htm
I'm pretty new to the "open view theism" topic, just thought id like to spark some talk about what Matt Slick has to write about on his Christian Apologetics Research Ministry site.
0CT0R0K
| | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/19/2003 8:59 PM (GMT -6) | | thank you, POW!
Now, back to topic of CARM.org ... on the surface, I'm getting the impression from what Matt says that the Open View exposes a God that is "weak", and not all-powerful. This makes me go hmmm ...
0CT0R0K | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/20/2003 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Octorok, your impression is correct. Matt rightly defines the god of open theism. This god is weak and not all-powerful. Someday I hope you will be able to see it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Well Albert, if you're going to play this way, I can chime in and say that you believe in a God who does nothing to stop the rape of small children, mass murder, and other horrors. Your God is at the mercy of human choices, therefore humans can and do thwart God's will on a regular basis. Your God created and started a universe not knowing what would happen (gross negligence, if not recklessness) and, although he is omnibenevolent, he cannot stop wickedness and apparently cannot stop the downward spiral of the earth and humanity. So what, he loves and cares about us, if it's a love without teeth.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:12 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt, one of the lessons I'm learning as my daughters get older, is that love for my daughters means letting them become more independent, take risks on their own and be held responsible for their choices. Total control is NOT an attribute of love.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | So is it an attribute of love then, for you to see your daughter cross the street, a car comes and hits her, and you stood there and did nothing, b/c you didn't want to control the situation?
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
| 106 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:25 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|