 |
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/12/2004 4:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Throughout the short life of open theism within evangelicalism (18 short years so far
Over twenty years ago I became an "open theist", so it's older than 18. Maybe even as old as 3 1/2 point calvinism... 
Of course, I'm counting open theism's published life within evangelicalism. It dates from Pinnock's essay in 1986, the year that Pinnock abandoned Arminianism and adopted open theism. 
So you claim to have been an open theist before Clark Pinnock became an open theist. Interesting!
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/12/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Throughout the short life of open theism within evangelicalism (18 short years so far
Over twenty years ago I became an "open theist", so it's older than 18. Maybe even as old as 3 1/2 point calvinism...
Of course, I'm counting open theism's published life within evangelicalism. It dates from Pinnock's essay in 1986, the year that Pinnock abandoned Arminianism and adopted open theism.
So you claim to have been an open theist before Clark Pinnock became an open theist. Interesting!
I worked in the bindery that printed both Richard Rice's book "God's Foreknowlege and Man's Free Will" and Forster and Marston's "God's Strategy in Human History" before 1986. In fact, those are the only two books I've ever read on "open theism". Don't confuse the term "open theism" with the ideas behind it.
We also printed JETS and I got to watch Gundry railroaded out of ETS, month by month, as it came down the bindery.
Of course, the origin of published "open theism" goes back to when Moses scratched "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" on parchment ~5000 years ago. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
I worked in the bindery that printed both Richard Rice's book "God's Foreknowlege and Man's Free Will" and Forster and Marston's "God's Strategy in Human History" before 1986. In fact, those are the only two books I've ever read on "open theism". Don't confuse the term "open theism" with the ideas behind it.
We also printed JETS and I got to watch Gundry railroaded out of ETS, month by month, as it came down the bindery.
I haven't made any confusion between the term "open theism" and the ideas behind open theism. I have spoken specifically about open theism as a published belief system within evangelicalism. It is documentable that Clark Pinnock was the first "evangelical" to publish advocacy of open theism. He did so in 1986. He made a radical shift during the year 1985 to 1986, for in 1985 he was obviously not an open theist by his own words in his own publications. Sometime during that year he read Richard Rice's newly reprinted book, God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will (1985), and adopted Rice's openness view of God. Pinnock tells us so in his 1986 essay.
Richard Rice, at the time he published his book (The Openness of God, 1979; later reprinted under the title God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will, 1985) was not regarded to be an evangelical. He was and remains a Seventh Day Adventist. The evangelical posture toward Seventh Day Adventism has changed significantly within the past twenty years, so, ironically, SDA folks are now admitted into membership in the ETS. BTW, SDA publishing houses refused to reprint Rice's book because his views were too radical for the SDA. So, Rice got his book published under a different title by Bethany House.
It's a strange world!
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/12/2004 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
It is documentable that Clark Pinnock was the first "evangelical" to publish advocacy of open theism. He did so in 1986. He made a radical shift during the year 1985 to 1986, for in 1985 he was obviously not an open theist by his own words in his own publications. Sometime during that year he read Richard Rice's newly reprinted book, God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will (1985), and adopted Rice's openness view of God. Pinnock tells us so in his 1986 essay.
Richard Rice, at the time he published his book (The Openness of God, 1979; later reprinted under the title God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will, 1985) was not regarded to be an evangelical. He was and remains a Seventh Day Adventist. The evangelical posture toward Seventh Day Adventism has changed significantly within the past twenty years, so, ironically, SDA folks are now admitted into membership in the ETS. BTW, SDA publishing houses refused to reprint Rice's book because his views were too radical for the SDA. So, Rice got his book published under a different title by Bethany House.
It's a strange world!
Forster and Marston book was printed prior to 1986 as well. I can't remember if it was the first printing or not, though.
And Michael Saia gave a seminar on OT's ideas in early 1986.
Do you have a link to the Pinnock essay of 1986? thanx
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/12/2004 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry
quote:
Open theism advocated even by the triumvirate (Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd) is continually morphing as its advocates encounter problems shown them by their critics. Since the modern advocacy of open theism first began in 1986 (in Pinnock's essay), I have watched open theism morph and transmogrify. I have watched this in this discussion. Not only does open theism undergo change, but also open theism changes longstanding theological terminology, such as "omniscience," as Mordecai has already argued in this thread.
Ron
Looks to me like you morphed about morphing. The above statement prompted my reply because I saw the change in the expressions of the open view during the years the same as you later describe as developement among traditional evangelical theology. I do not view these changes as a bad thing as you evidently don't view the changes in evangelical theology a bad thing.
Gerry
quote:
Though Arminians and Calvinists have not agreed on how God possesses his exhaustive knowledge of all his creation (past, present, and future), they have historically agreed that God knows in advance everything that will come to pass within his created order.
Ron
Do you discard the efforts of contemporary theologians who have done a study in comparing the traditional creed of exhaustive foreknowledge with a fresh study of scripture to see if the creed is able to survive the tenor of truth in biblical revelation? In the case of the open view it looks like you opt for the rule of tradition.
Gerry
quote:
Theological morphing entails the spawning of a new species that has no genuine organic development in continuity with the stream of historic Christian faith. Such is the nature of open theism.
Ron
As far as the ov having no genuine organic development with the stream of historic Christian faith, that would depend on who you read and what you have read. All of this has been covered in ov writings.
The sum of what I hear you saying is that the exhaustive foreknowledge historical creed is what you don't want scholars to mess with. An examination of the open view with bible in hand produces a steady stream of affirmations that this view of reality and God's foreknowledge is a biblical view. Comparing the open view with the exhaustive foreknowledge creed is the contention point.
I don't have the time now to reply in a manner your excellent post deserves but look forward to continued discussions.
Peace
Ron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Do you have a link to the Pinnock essay of 1986? thanx
I don't have any link to Pinnock's 1986 essay other than to the table of contents of the book on the IVP site. Here it is: http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=567. Strangely, the IVP page indicates that Pinnock's essay title is "God Limits His Kingdom." Actually, the title is "God Limits His Knowledge."
Here is a link to Pinnock's essay of 1985 that shows plainly that he was actually opposed to the very notion of open theism (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=9).
Gerry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rsirkel
Gerry
quote:
Open theism advocated even by the triumvirate (Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd) is continually morphing as its advocates encounter problems shown them by their critics. Since the modern advocacy of open theism first began in 1986 (in Pinnock's essay), I have watched open theism morph and transmogrify. I have watched this in this discussion. Not only does open theism undergo change, but also open theism changes longstanding theological terminology, such as "omniscience," as Mordecai has already argued in this thread.
Ron
Looks to me like you morphed about morphing. The above statement prompted my reply because I saw the change in the expressions of the open view during the years the same as you later describe as developement among traditional evangelical theology. I do not view these changes as a bad thing as you evidently don't view the changes in evangelical theology a bad thing.
I don't believe I morphed on morphing. I believe that I distinguished between what I mean by morphing and what I mean by developing. 
quote:
Gerry
quote:
Though Arminians and Calvinists have not agreed on how God possesses his exhaustive knowledge of all his creation (past, present, and future), they have historically agreed that God knows in advance everything that will come to pass within his created order.
Ron
Do you discard the efforts of contemporary theologians who have done a study in comparing the traditional creed of exhaustive foreknowledge with a fresh study of scripture to see if the creed is able to survive the tenor of truth in biblical revelation? In the case of the open view it looks like you opt for the rule of tradition.
No, I don't discard it. I myself examine the creed of the church by searching and studying the Scriptures everyday. I don't opt for tradition over Scripture. I embrace Scripture over any creed or confession. In the case of open theism, it is not a matter of opting for the rule of tradition. I have examined and I continue to examine the claims of open theists by the Scriptures. Their claims don't hold when examined by Scripture. So I don't embrace open theism. That, however, hardly means that encountering open theism has not strengthened my Christian beliefs. My faith has been significantly strengthened and reinforced because open theism has compelled me to examine the Scriptures afresh on the things open theists claim.
quote:
Gerry
quote:
Theological morphing entails the spawning of a new species that has no genuine organic development in continuity with the stream of historic Christian faith. Such is the nature of open theism.
Ron
As far as the ov having no genuine organic development with the stream of historic Christian faith, that would depend on who you read and what you have read. All of this has been covered in ov writings.
The sum of what I hear you saying is that the exhaustive foreknowledge historical creed is what you don't want scholars to mess with. An examination of the open view with bible in hand produces a steady stream of affirmations that this view of reality and God's foreknowledge is a biblical view. Comparing the open view with the exhaustive foreknowledge creed is the contention point.
I don't have the time now to reply in a manner your excellent post deserves but look forward to continued discussions.
Peace
Ron
No. Evidently I did not make my point clear, if this is what you conclude is the sum of what I have said.
I do not believe what I believe because any historic creed tells me that this is what I need to believe. I believe what I believe because the Scriptures lead me to these beliefs. Wonder of wonders! Most of what I believe has been already articulated in historic Christian creeds. How did this happen? It happened because Christians that long preceded me studied the same Holy Scriptures and came to the same beliefs because the same Scriptures led them to the same beliefs to which the Scriptures have led me.
So, the point of contention for me has been and remains this: what open theists affirm concerning God's knowledge and all future events, particularly future choices and decisions that God's sentient beings will make, and what the Scriptures affirm about the same.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/12/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry
quote:
So, the point of contention for me has been and remains this: what open theists affirm concerning God's knowledge and all future events, particularly future choices and decisions that God's sentient beings will make, and what the Scriptures affirm about the same.
Ron
quote:
"I have thought," said Dr. Andrews, President of Denison University (Baptist), at Granville, Ohio,"all the way from the top to the bottom of this subject, and I know that the absolute foreknowledge of the future choices of free beings acting under the law of liberty is an absurdity. I would say emphatically that either there is no contingency in human actions or else they can not be distributively foreknown. This is as clear to me as either of the three fundamental axioms of logic: A is A; A is not non-A; A is either B or non-B."
The Foreknowledge of God by L. D. M'Cabe, D.D., LL. D 1878
Scriptures do not affirm exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies. Scriptures give evidence that trials test faith and the man who stands true in them proves his faith genuine. Proving faith makes no sense if the outcome is foreknown.
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rsirkel
Gerry
quote:
So, the point of contention for me has been and remains this: what open theists affirm concerning God's knowledge and all future events, particularly future choices and decisions that God's sentient beings will make, and what the Scriptures affirm about the same.
Ron
quote:
"I have thought," said Dr. Andrews, President of Denison University (Baptist), at Granville, Ohio,"all the way from the top to the bottom of this subject, and I know that the absolute foreknowledge of the future choices of free beings acting under the law of liberty is an absurdity. I would say emphatically that either there is no contingency in human actions or else they can not be distributively foreknown. This is as clear to me as either of the three fundamental axioms of logic: A is A; A is not non-A; A is either B or non-B."
The Foreknowledge of God by L. D. M'Cabe, D.D., LL. D 1878
Scriptures do not affirm exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies. Scriptures give evidence that trials test faith and the man who stands true in them proves his faith genuine. Proving faith makes no sense if the outcome is foreknown.
Peace
Ron
Ron,
So we obviously disagree. My understanding of Scripture accounts for both contingency and foreordinaton. I, like Dr. Andrews, have also thought "all the way from the top to the bottom of this subject, and I know that the absolute foreknowledge of the future choices of free beings acting under the law of liberty is not an absurdity" but a wonderful harmony of divine making. But what does this prove? Nothing less than Dr. Andrews' assertion. 
Scripture affirms both exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future contingencies and the reality of those contingencies. Indeed, Scripture gives evidence that trials test faith and the man who stands true in them proves his faith genuine. Proving faith makes sense only because the outcome is foreordained by God whose grace establishes our faithful endurance.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/13/2004 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Proving faith makes sense only because the outcome is foreordained by God whose grace establishes our faithful endurance.
Not to most people.
Remember the scandal over "The $64,000 Question" and "TwentyOne"?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Quiz_show_scandals
People don't like fixed outcomes, whether it's gaming, gambling, sports, tests, pageants, lotteries, auctions, business, bids, bass fishing contests.
People see processes with fixed outcomes as fake and not real. "Tests of faith" with fixed outcomes are fake and make a mockery of the whole concept of "faith".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/13/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry
quote:
Proving faith makes sense only because the outcome is foreordained by God whose grace establishes our faithful endurance.
Ron
So if the outcome is failure God foreordained the lost soul to punishment and didn't provide the grace for the endurance?
God's grace helps us through the trial when believed.
I think you will have to retreat to mystery for your stand.
So how does saying God is omniscient prove He has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future choices of created beings. Just an assertion. You rest upon a faulty traditional definition of omniscience. It is just a dead branch, let God whack it off.
Peace
Ron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote: So if the outcome is failure God foreordained the lost soul to punishment and didn't provide the grace for the endurance?
I've made this into a NONAME quote.
Theology is not silly. But politics is. And the above is NOT a theological statement; it is a political statement. And its not only political and silly, its deformed.
The most famous Predestination document I can think of is the one that TULIP rather inaccurately summarizes. And the Canons of Dortrecht has STERN pastoral statements against BOTH presuming the non-election of ANYONE else, and against disparing of one's own election.
The quote-snip above stands condemned by the very document that it might appeal to. And that says something. Its WACKED.
My grandmother, of blessed memory, would never have uttered such trash. Her walk with Jesus would not permit her mind to wander so far away from faith.
OURS, the Canons say, is not to second guess. Ours is to be faithful. Wesleyan, Calvinist, Coptic, Franciscan...be faithful, and follow the thinking that the Bible DOES tell us to do: like in fear and trembling work (read "perspire" -- not replace grace with law) out your salvation.
God is, Matthew tells us, not a Father who would give us a rock and tell us its bread. Take everything the way Paul told us to: quote:
Ephesians 5
19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/13/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Billzbob
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: So if the outcome is failure God foreordained the lost soul to punishment and didn't provide the grace for the endurance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made this into a NONAME quote.
Theology is not silly. But politics is. And the above is NOT a theological statement; it is a political statement. And its not only political and silly, its deformed.
The most famous Predestination document I can think of is the one that TULIP rather inaccurately summarizes. And the Canons of Dortrecht has STERN pastoral statements against BOTH presuming the non-election of ANYONE else, and against disparing of one's own election.
The quote-snip above stands condemned by the very document that it might appeal to. And that says something. Its WACKED.
Ron
I don't understand your problem. Did you read the question out of context, or what? Whats your problem?
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Ron,
It did not appear to me that you held that position -- so I called it a 'no-name' quote. I'm not blaming anyone for it. (Especially not you.)
But, by the same token, what that snipped quote can represent is something that appears very commonly held, or at least wondered about. So, I used it as an example. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/13/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Ron: So if the outcome is failure God foreordained the lost soul to punishment and didn't provide the grace for the endurance?
billzbob: Theology is not silly. But politics is. And the above is NOT a theological statement; it is a political statement. And its not only political and silly, its deformed.
Tom: The belief that God ordains souls to punishment and executes this decree by withholding irresistible grace from them certainly qualifies as theology to me. It’s believed by people I’ve spoken with who have very little political anything invested in their beliefs. Furthermore, to believe something like this would be very far from silly. It’s a serious point of view. It could be deformed. But that doesn’t make it silly or untheological.
billzbob: The most famous Predestination document I can think of is the one that TULIP rather inaccurately summarizes. And the Canons of Dortrecht has STERN pastoral statements against BOTH presuming the non-election of ANYONE else, and against disparing of one's own election.
Tom: But that doesn’t make the belief assumed in Ron’s question silly or untheological. The Canons may warn against presuming the election of anyone to heaven or hell, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Canons do maintain all are unconditionally elected by God to one or the other even if WE can’t know what the fact of the matter is. It was Calvin’s belief that those who go to hell were elected unconditionally for hell by God.
billzbob: OURS, the Canons say, is not to second guess. Ours is to be faithful. Wesleyan, Calvinist, Coptic, Franciscan...be faithful, and follow the thinking that the Bible DOES tell us to do: like in fear and trembling work (read "perspire" -- not replace grace with law) out your salvation.
Tom: But Ron isn't second guessing anybody. He’s just asking for clarity. But we all know the answer to the question, and it’s “yes.” If God unconditionally determines all things, all outcomes (including the eternal punishment of those who didn’t experience God’s irresistible grace) are determined by God. It remains to be seen, however, whether those who believe all is unconditionally determined by God are able to make sense of warning passages in Scripture and other passages that tell believers they have to do something with regard to their salvation.
billzbob: God is, Matthew tells us, not a Father who would give us a rock and tell us its bread.
Tom: Quite right, God’s more honest than that. When God gives us a rock he tells us it’s a rock. Calvin tells us that God is the sort of person who has unconditionally decreed the eternal damnation of souls to hell. But I’m sure Calvin would agree that God isn’t the sort of person who would tell such folks that “hell” is “heaven.” God may unconditionally determine people for hell, and unconditionally determine all the sinful choices they make, but at least God’s not a liar. No, not that.
To comment on Ron’s question, outcomes are only ever considered “failure” from our point of view (and then only from the point of view of those of us who believe God’s will sometimes fails to be achieved). But for an all-and-unconditionally-determining God, there are no “failed” outcomes. All is success for God.
Tom
NB Rereading billzbob's last post, I'm unable to figure out his issue with Ron's question. For the record, my post responds to those who DO hold to such a view of God without assuming that billzbob holds such a view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/13/2004 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
quote:
To comment on Ron’s question, outcomes are only ever considered “failure” from our point of view (and then only from the point of view of those of us who believe God’s will sometimes fails to be achieved). But for an all-and-unconditionally-determining God, there are no “failed” outcomes. All is success for God.
Ron
Thanks for making the distinction about "failure", I won't use it anymore with determinists, though it does seem to leave them in la la land if they can't see any failed outcomes.
billzbob, thanks for the clarification. I thought you had one of those knee jerk reactions by seeing a statement and not a question and just opened up with automatic fire.
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Good, lets discuss this.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
NB Rereading billzbob's last post, I'm unable to figure out his issue with Ron's question. For the record, my post responds to those who DO hold to such a view of God without assuming that billzbob holds such a view.
BOTH what my grandmother KNOWS as being God's revelation, and what the Canons' preacher KNOWS as being God's revelation, do NOT proclaim anything other than that God "gives a loaf of bread." The statement that I clipped goes BEYOND revelation and beyond what is possible by theology soley, and dipping into politics, it says something that God does not say. Therefore it is not revelation and it is not theology; it is mere political perversion.
The TWO verses I gave (one from Matthew and one from Ephesians) are ample to provide revelation upon which to do theology. (Theology is what is based on and directed by revelation. All else is politics.) And that verse would agree with the experience as a daughter of God my grandmother had living her life with both joys and deep sorrows. God is our faithful Father, and loves us. THAT is revealed, and that is the proper subject of theology.
quote:
Ron: So if the outcome is failure God foreordained the lost soul to punishment and didn't provide the grace for the endurance?
billzbob: Theology is not silly. But politics is. And the above is NOT a theological statement; it is a political statement. And its not only political and silly, its deformed.
Tom: I fail to see your problem with Ron’s question. The belief that God ordains souls to punishment and executes this decree by withholding irresistible grace from them certainly qualifies as theology to me. It’s believed by people I’ve spoken with who have very little political anything invested in their beliefs. Furthermore, to believe something like this would be very far from silly. It’s a serious point of view. It could be deformed. But that doesn’t make it silly or untheological.
The belief that God ordains souls to punishment and executes this decree by withholding irresistible grace from them DOES NOT qualify as theology. It's politics.
quote:
billzbob: The most famous Predestination document I can think of is the one that TULIP rather inaccurately summarizes. And the Canons of Dortrecht has STERN pastoral statements against BOTH presuming the non-election of ANYONE else, and against disparing of one's own election.
Tom: But that doesn’t make the belief assumed in Ron’s question silly or untheological. The Canons may warn against presuming the election of anyone to heaven or hell, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Canons do maintain all are unconditionally elected by God to one or the other even if WE can’t know what what the fact of the matter is. It was Calvin’s belief that those who go to hell were elected unconditionally for hell by God..
That part from the canon I mentioned IS theology, and what is foundational to its prohibitions IS theology. But not everything of the Canon is theology. Some of it is politics (Goes beyond what God has revealed and the Spirit witnessed to. As per my definitions above of revelation, theology and not-theology.)
quote:
billzbob: OURS, the Canons say, is not to second guess. Ours is to be faithful. Wesleyan, Calvinist, Coptic, Franciscan...be faithful, and follow the thinking that the Bible DOES tell us to do: like in fear and trembling work (read "perspire" -- not replace grace with law) out your salvation.
Tom: Ron’s not second guessing anybody.
I did not saying that Ron did! The author of the Canon did not even know Ron
The point made is, that in contrast to second-guessing one's self or others, OUR lot is to be faithful, and to follow Eph. 5:19-21.
quote:
billzbob: God is, Matthew tells us, not a Father who would give us a rock and tell us its bread.
Tom: No, God’s more honest than that. When God gives us a rock he tells us it’s a rock. Calvin tells us that God is the sort of person who has unconditionally decreed the eternal damnation of souls to hell. But I’m sure Calvin would agree that God isn’t the sort of person who would tell such folks that “hell” is “heaven.” God may unconditionally determine people for hell, and unconditionally determine all the sinful choices they make, but at least God’s not a liar. No, not that.
I didn't know you believed that, Tom.
That's NOT what God reveals. And it is not theology. Its politics.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rsirkel
billzbob, thanks for the clarification. I thought you had one of those knee jerk reactions by seeing a statement and not a question and just opened up with automatic fire.
Peace
Ron
Thank you very much, Ron. Thank your for your gracious recovery. I can certainly understand your reaction. Lots of times 'responses' are give to people or the thesis of their last post. And I wasn't doing that. I guess maybe doing more than calling the snip a 'no-name post' might have helped. But then...who knows.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/13/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | billzbob: The statement that I clipped goes BEYOND revelation and beyond what is possible by theology soley, and dipping into politics, it says something that God does not say. Therefore it is not revelation and it is not theology; it is mere political perversion.
Tom: Are you saying the belief that God determines who gets saved and who doesn’t is not based (even IF wrongly) upon Scripture and so doesn't qualify as theology?
billzbob: The TWO verses I gave (one from Matthew and one from Ephesians) are ample to provide revelation upon which to do theology. (Theology is what is based on and directed by revelation. All else is politics.) And that verse would agree with the experience as a daughter of God my grandmother had living her life with both joys and deep sorrows. God is our faithful Father, and loves us. THAT is revealed, and that is the proper subject of theology.
Tom: You’re losing me. You have to know that those who belief God determines unconditionally who gets saved and who doesn’t base their beliefs upon the clear claims of Scripture. Are you arguing this belief of theirs is altogether unrelated to the interpretation of any Scripture whatsoever?
billzbob: The belief that God ordains souls to punishment and executes this decree by withholding irresistible grace from them DOES NOT qualify as theology. It's politics.
Tom: Wow, now I follow you. Well, you’re bolder than I would be. I actually grant that theological determinists (who claim God unconditionally determines who gets saved and who doesn’t and that irresistible grace is how God brings the elect to regeneration) are attempting to do theology and base their beliefs on Scripture. I wouldn't blow them off like this. But hey, it's your opinion. Cool. I disagree with their beliefs on this score too, but I wouldn’t charge them with pure politicking.
billzbob: That part from the canon I mentioned IS theology, and what is foundational to its prohibitions IS theology. But not everything of the Canon is theology. Some of it is politics (Goes beyond what God has revealed and the Spirit witnessed to. As per my definitions above of revelation, theology and not-theology.)
Tom: As per YOUR definitions of revelation and theology, OK. Hmm. Oh well. You know of course that labeling the belief that “God determines all things” not-theology and entirely unrelated to revelation isn’t an actual argument against the belief that God determines all things. And you know of course that at some point we’ll have to argue from Scripture WHY this belief is not biblical, at which point your labeling it "not-theology" and "politics" won't mean anything. My point: Argue first, THEN label.
quote:
billzbob: God is, Matthew tells us, not a Father who would give us a rock and tell us its bread.
Tom: Quite right, God’s more honest than that. When God gives us a rock he tells us it’s a rock. Calvin tells us that God is the sort of person who has unconditionally decreed the eternal damnation of souls to hell. But I’m sure Calvin would agree that God isn’t the sort of person who would tell such folks that “hell” is “heaven.” God may unconditionally determine people for hell, and unconditionally determine all the sinful choices they make, but at least God’s not a liar. No, not that.
Billzbob: I didn't know you believed that, Tom.
I don’t. But Calvin did and theological determinists do. I was expressing THEIR beliefs.
Just to be clear (if I haven’t completely missed the point here): Theological determinists (non-compatibilists and compatibilists) believe, based on their understanding of Scripture, that God unconditionally determines all things, including who goes to hell and who doesn’t. Are we talking about the same animal billzbob? I hear Ron asking, "If this is true, then don't determinists have to admit that 'failed' outcomes are God's responsibility?" A good question. But then your response lost me. You seemed to address Ron's question by stripping theological determinists of their claim to be basing their beliefs on Scripture and to be doing theology. I'm just saying that you can't just label their beliefs as "not-theology" and "politics" untill AFTER you've engaged their arguments (which I thought Ron WAS doing).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | billzbob: The statement that I clipped goes BEYOND revelation and beyond what is possible by theology soley, and dipping into politics, it says something that God does not say. Therefore it is not revelation and it is not theology; it is mere political perversion.
Tom: Are you saying the belief that God determines who gets saved and who doesn’t is neither revelation nor theology?
Bill: Well.... first (before you do theology--cause that's your task), is it revelation?
And compare it to the revelation you do have, and the theology that springs from that. That's the point.
And all I'm contributing is the Ephesians and the Matthew.
BOTH OF THESE PASSAGES WERE REALLY BIG IN MY LIFE DURING HIGH SCHOOL.
I JUDGE A LOT OF THEOLOGY BY THEM.
two cents... | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/13/2004 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Politicians go looking for the proof they want to find.
But I do notice that the Canons say that they can not know about others, and they dare not dispare for themselves. THAT limits everything that is within the scope of theology, of basing on revelation.
That "determinists" hold that "somebody" isn't elect is an abstraction, as they are forbidden (are you catching up with this Tom, or are you going to only be synical?) to go beyond revelation. But to actually fill in the blanks with actual people they have to go beyond theology. So, all there is left is abstraction. Theology does no damn. Only politics does. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/13/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Are you saying the belief that God determines who gets saved and who doesn’t is neither revelation nor theology?
Bill: Well.... first (before you do theology--cause that's your task), is it revelation?
Tom: Theological determinists argue it is. They point to specific passages that support their belief.
Are we to do this with every believer that disagrees with us? Somebody holds to a belief, based on their understanding of Scripture, and their belief contradicts my belief, based on my understanding of Scripture. Am I to label that person's belief not worthy of the name "theology" because it disagrees with my belief?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/13/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | billzbob: That "determinists" hold that "somebody" isn't elect is an abstraction, as they are forbidden (are you catching up with this Tom, or are you going to only be synical?) to go beyond revelation.
Tom: I'm quite caught up with it. And it's "cynical." Determinists don't view themselves as going beyond revelation in basing their belief that God elects some to glory and some to damnation upon the clear teaching of Scripture. God, they claim, has told us that not all are elect, and that God wants it this way. Tell them their beliefs are not worthy of the title "theology" if you wish. But you'll have to engage their exegesis at some point.
billzbob: But to actually fill in the blanks with actual people they have to go beyond theology. So, all there is left is abstraction. Theology does no damn. Only politics does.
Tom: To fill the blanks with the names of specific individuals they'd have to go beyond theology. But I never claimed theological determists claim to know WHO precisely the elect are. To claim that God actually fills the blanks with real people (whose identities are unknown to us) they don't have to go beyond theology.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 74 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:50 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 |
|
|