quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim

I acknowledge the Lord God brings about His purposes(?) in and through every thought and deed I have . . . holds each person accountable for their every thought and deed. That God is active in my actions, and I am responsible for my actions.

Somehow though, I thing you and I may mean different things by that , Polycarp, that is, I see God as in control, but not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge , which I believe John Calvin and Augustine are suggesting and maybe you are, please explain.

I am Borg

---

quote:

---

God punished Assyria, not for punishing Israel, but for punishing Israel with arrogance, for failing to acknowledge that Assyria lives and moves and has its being only at the good pleasure of God who brought Assyria into its national power and who raised Assyria as an ax to strike Israel.

---

quote:

---

Did Assyria willingly destroy Israel? Yes. Did God coerce Assyria to sack and obliterate Israel? No, of course not.

---

quote:

---

Now, since your separation between “amoral choices” and “moral choices” does not stand up to Scripture, let’s ponder how the Scriptures portray God’s action in relation to human sinful action in such a manner that the sinning human carries out God’s action and at the same time God holds the sinning human fully accountable for his wicked deeds and God punishes the sinning human for those wicked deeds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Polyman: what about John's response can YOU refute? I am curious: is it a non-response when someone articulates a point of view with which you disagree?
To be frank, I am not sure what benefit I would get from responding to you. You come on, address the open theists about an issue and when you don't agree with their response you call them to repent. You chastise them. I am curious how you would feel if someone did that to you. I am really not interested in someone whose soul purpose is to make light of views I have spent considerable time studying. Perhaps when you want to address the subject in love and understanding we can have a go at it. I am not interesting in dialoguing with someone who does not take my views seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Doctor Boyd touches on something similiar when he discusses Peter's denial of Jesus and how Jesus could know. Admitting that God may have determined Peter's behavior in ONE case does not mean God acts that way all the time. What you need to do Polyman is to prove that this is the way God ALWAYS acts. You need to get going...
BTW, just because someone disagrees with your INTERPRETATION of the Bible doesn't mean they are wrong, Polycarp. It could be that you are the incorrect one here.

---

quote:

---

In this note I will respond to one of open theism's mutations. Open theism emerged upon the evangelical scene as the remedy for the alleged notion that historic Christian theism advocates a God who is coercive, who coerces humans against their wills. So John Sanders caricatures historic Christian belief concerning God’s saving grace as “divine rape because it involves nonconsensual control: the will of one is forced on the will of the other” (The God Who Risks, 240). He tells us, as if Christian theologians did not believe this: “The love of Jesus elicits our loving response and motivates our imitation of his love” (246). Then he repeats for good measure his chiding caricature: “God does not rape us, even for our own good” (246). But as criticism of open theism increased, open theism mutated. Greg Boyd, in Satan and the Problem of Evil, argues, “God’s design to have creatures who are capable of moral decision making requires a sort of covenant of noncoercion with each of them. . . . This means that his response to their evil choices must, under ordinary circumstances, stop short of coercion” (p. 183). Yet, as I’ve pointed out earlier, Greg also says that this “does not entail that God can never exercise coercive power in his interactions with free creatures" (p. 185). Greg does not seem to make the same restriction as we will see that TGB makes concerning this coercion. My point, of course, is that open theism has mutated. At its beginning, open theism was going to rescue Christianity from God's alleged coercion within the historic Christian views of God. Strangely, while historic Christian theology has never advocated the notion that God coerces humans against their wills but has affirmed the opposite, open theism now advocates that God, at times, does coerce humans against their wills. This is truly strange, but this is the problem open theism’s critics encounter. Who can anticipate open theism’s next mutation?

---

quote:

---

My contention is that in cases such as the Isaiah passage you cite, these are cases in which God acts unilaterally by using persons whose character has already been solidified to the extent that they are no longer truly free. (In Satan & the Problem of Evil, Dr. Boyd develops this theme of character solidification in great detail).

To the extent that the Assyrians described in Isaiah 10 had at that point in history already solidified their character, their actions were no longer free, and therefore God using them as pawns, if you will, at that point poses no violation of their moral agency (or libertarian free will), for they have already at that point ceased to be able to use their morally responsible freedom in any way but the way in which they have solidified it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

BTW, just because someone disagrees with your INTERPRETATION of the Bible doesn't mean they are wrong, Polycarp. It could be that you are the incorrect one here.

---

quote:

---

I am really not interested in someone whose soul purpose is to make light of views I have spent considerable time studying. Perhaps when you want to address the subject in love and understanding we can have a go at it. I am not interesting in dialoguing with someone who does not take my views seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polycarp
Now, let's get back to the issue of Isaiah 10:5-19.

---

quote:

---

Woe to those who enact evil statutes
And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,
So as to deprive the needy of justice
And rob the poor of My people of their rights,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Polycarp responding to Tom

You say, “For all the open view requires at rock bottom is freedom in the morally responsible choices we make.” Then you say, “Libertarian freedom doesn’t mean God cannot step in and determine any non-moral choice he would like to.” I could launch into an extended discourse about the dichotomy you have cut between what you call “morally responsible choices” and “non-moral choices.” (I will try to contain it to a few lines.)

First, may I suggest that you intended to distinguish between choices that are “moral in nature” (e.g., Should I lie or tell the truth?) and choices that are “amoral in nature” (e.g., Should I drive a Mazda or a Ford?)? As you have expressed the distinction, you have confused categories because you used two very different grammatical constructions (“morally responsible choices” & “non-moral choices”).

Iconoclast

You are misunderstanding what Tom Said.

Tom is saying that God can coerce someone on ANY decision but that if God does then God would not hold that person morally responsible for that decision.

Open Theism only requires that God allows us SOME free-will non-coerced decision making power. This is a reaction to the logical implications of deterministic Calvinism which says that all of the future is settled and therefore that all human decisions are coerced.

Polycarp, do you deny that this is the logical implication of deterministic Calvinism?

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TGB
RD: If anyone at all is robbed of their free will at any instance, i would argue that the entire open theist view fails.

Tom: Well, there we have it friends. The entire open view crashes to the ground. And so simple. But in truth the open view will be around in spite of this argument I think. For all the open view requires at rock bottom is freedom in the morally responsible choices we make. Libertarian freedom doesn’t mean God cannot step in and determine any non-moral choice he would like to. He can remove the freedom of Cyrus’ parents in naming him Cyrus. Big deal. He can also remove Cyrus’ freedom and determine his vocation as King. But these are choices over which God will not hold Cyrus nor his parents morally responsible.

---

quote:

---

Open Theism only requires that God allows us SOME free-will non-coerced decision making power. This is a reaction to the logical implications of deterministic Calvinism which says that all of the future is settled and therefore that all human decisions are coerced.

---

quote:

---

My point, of course, is that open theism has mutated. At its beginning, open theism was going to rescue Christianity from God's alleged coercion within the historic Christian views of God. Strangely, while historic Christian theology has never advocated the notion that God coerces humans against their wills but has affirmed the opposite, open theism now advocates that God, at times, does coerce humans against their wills. This is truly strange, but this is the problem open theism’s critics encounter. Who can anticipate open theism’s next mutation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Polycarp

May I speak with prophetic clarity and urgency to all? This passage of Scripture strikes at the very root of open theism. Open theism is founded upon the same assumption upon which Assyria acted against Israel. Open theism fails to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through our every thought and deed and who at the same time holds us fully accountable for our every thought and deed. It is both dangerous and wrong to assert that if God is active in our actions, then we are not responsible for our actions.

Iconoclast

I really don’t see how this passage strikes at the very root of open theism. In fact, I don’t really see how it even suggests anything contrary to open theism.

The Assyrians were an arrogant murderous bunch and God used them to punish Israel. It is pretty clear that God was not particularly happy with them being an arrogant murderous bunch and so brought about judgement for that. It doesn’t say that God made them an arrogant murderous bunch or coerced them into being an arrogant murderous bunch so what is the problem with this passage and open theism?

Open Theism affirms that God brings about his ULTIMATE purposes OUT of our every thought and deed but this doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING that happens is God’s will. My understanding of Deterministic Calvinism is that it says that EVERYTHING that happens is God’s will – it is part of God’s purpose. Do you deny this?

If EVERYTHING that happens is God’s will – part of God’s purpose – then why does Jesus tell us to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Doesn’t this imply that God’s will is NOT being done here on earth at the moment? If not, then there must be someone freely CHOOSING against God’s will. Therefore, there is such a thing as libertarian free-will where people are capable (at least sometimes) of freely choosing against God’s will. Sure, God is totally sovereign and so powerful that He can STILL accomplish His ultimate purposes but in that particular choice that is against God’s will, God’s sub-ultimate purpose / will was thwarted.

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 10:5-19

“Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
6 I send him against a godless nation,
I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
to seize loot and snatch plunder,
and to trample them down like mud in the streets.
7 But this is not what he intends,
this is not what he has in mind;
his purpose is to destroy,
to put an end to many nations.
8 ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says.
9 ‘Has not Calno fared like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad,
and Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—
11 shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’”
12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. 13 For he says:
“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued
their kings.
14 As one reaches into a nest,
so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations;
as men gather abandoned eggs,
so I gathered all the countries;
not one flapped a wing,
or opened its mouth to chirp.’”
15 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it,
or the saw boast against him who uses it?
As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up,
or a club brandish him who is not wood!
16 Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty,
will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors;
under his pomp a fire will be kindled
like a blazing flame.
17 The Light of Israel will become a fire,
their Holy One a flame;
in a single day it will burn and consume
his thorns and his briers.
18 The splendor of his forests and fertile fields
it will completely destroy,
as when a sick man wastes away.
19 And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few
that a child could write them down.

In other words, when Assyria devastated Israel, Assyria was the rod in God’s hand to punish Israel. Did Assyria willingly destroy Israel? Yes. Did God coerce Assyria to sack and obliterate Israel? No, of course not. God does not work by coercion (contrary to open theism’s acceptance of it as in your idea of “non-moral choices”). Assyria willingly did what God purposed for Assyria to do, namely sack Israel. And, when Assyria was finished destroying Israel, God punished Assyria, not for punishing Israel, but for punishing Israel with arrogance, for failing to acknowledge that Assyria lives and moves and has its being only at the good pleasure of God who brought Assyria into its national power and who raised Assyria as an ax to strike Israel.

So, the Lord speaks against Assyria, “Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!” [Hear the echoes of Romans 9:19-20?] Carefully observe that “Assyria” is the ax and rod. And carefully observe that God holds Assyria (the ax and rod) accountable to their sinful and arrogant manner as they carried out God’s appointed purpose for Assyria to be the rod by which he punished Israel. Neither Isaiah nor the Lord flinches at the analogy as if the analogy makes God accountable for Assyria’s sin. The Lord used Assyria as the ax to punish Israel. The Lord used Babylon as the ax to punish Assyria.

Isaiah 10:5-19 devastates open theism’s foundational and undemonstrated assumption. At its foundation, open theism takes for granted that there can be no real personal relation between God and the human apart from maintaining that God’s absolute sovereign authority is restricted in proportion to the freedom of the human. So, open theism assumes that either the human acts personally in a certain time and place or God acts personally in a certain time and place, but that they cannot both simultaneously and personally act at the same point of contact. Isaiah 10:5-19 puts the lie to such a notion. In this passage, God makes it clear that Assyria acts personally and accountably and that at the same time, Assyria does precisely what God purposed for Assyria to do, namely sack Israel. Assyria is the ax or rod in God’s hand, yet, after God has used Assyria to punish Israel, God will punish Assyria, not for punishing Israel, but for failing to acknowledge the Lord as God when they punished Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polycarp
To reply to your note I will simply repeat myself.

---