 |
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/9/2004 7:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
If one portion of mankind is unconditionally predestined for salvation, then it cannot be that the rest aren't unconditionally predestined for damnation. The latter implies (nay, logically requires), the former.
John
Ok...and what's your problem with this?
It's not about me. 
Primarily, if the above scenario were true, then God's word contradicts itself in many, many places in which God's loving redemptive purpose for the whole world is clearly stated.
quote:
And it's more to say that we all deserve damnation.
Desert requires genuine responsibility for one's actions.
quote:
?: What does grace mean in OT?
As far as I know, it means the same thing as the Bible means--the sheer unmerited favor of God, by which pardon is offered to all, grace to believe is imparted to all (prevenient grace), justifying grace is given to those who repent and believe the gospel, sanctifying grace is given to those who continue in the faith, and glorifying grace is given to those that persevere to the end. In none of the above cases is grace ever earned or deserved. Any amount of right living a person may do is first because of the grace of God working within them, and secondarily is only their duty, and no one can ever receive credit for doing one's duty.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
justvisiting
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/9/2004 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 12/10/2004 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | justvisiting: I would not be surprised if my message is "censored" or completely removed. It seems that there is no room here for opposing opinions that are so opposing as to say that open theism is false, heretical, or that it has personally harmed someone's life.
ataraxia: Then you don't know our site very well. Your post doesn't need to be removed necessarily. It's perfectly fine to come here are "argue" (with reason, points to make, etc.) the point that open theism is heresy. There IS room for that here. If you thought otherwise, you thought wrong.
justvisiting: ...from 20+ years of walking with the Lord, being in godly churches and learning from godly people, and from studying the Bible... it is from that, that I feel compelled to call it heresy and to say it is false. And from my own personal experience with it and being at a church led by an open theistic pastor, I feel compelled to share the personal affects it had. But I do realize that it will be offensive to those who hold it near and dear to them, and I am sorry for that.
ataraxia: Why should any open theist be offended my YOUR experience? Experience says a lot, especially when it's supporting an argument (which there is none in your post). But your experience is your experience. No open theist could be offended by it. Of course, if you take what you've just said here and replace "open theistic pastor" with "Calvinist pastor," then it could perfectly represent the experience many people have had with determinism. The line of folks whose lives and faith have been damaged or destroyed by Calvinism stretches around the globe at the equator. And if you add to it the number of atheists who don't believe because they feel the only available faith option is Calvinism, then you could stretch the line to the moon and back. Does their experience prove that Calvinism is heresy?
But none of this is offensive per say, nor do you not have the freedom to share personal experience on this site (except for the naming of specific people and churches, which we prefer people not do). If you want to argue open theism is heresy, then you'll have to define heresy, define the open view, and then actually argue that open theism IS heresy. That'll take some doing. But unfortunately no one person's "experience" can do that, since we can line up experiences that show the opposite of what your experience shows.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
morenever
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/10/2004 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE: "As far as I know, [grace] means the same thing as the Bible means--the sheer unmerited favor of God..."
MN: agreed that any grace that affects us is unmerited, by us, but would you say that any of the graces you list would exist for us without the cross of Christ purchasing that grace, thus merited by Christ? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/10/2004 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | For Justvisiting-
Sorry that you had a bad experience with Open Theism... I read your post, and (in case you read this) I just have one question for you:
Just because you had a bad "experience" does that make Open Theism wrong?
Experience does not equal right or wrong... would you agree to that? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/10/2004 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | A true story: A good friend of mine in high school and college came to believe in determinism/Calvinism/ predestinarianism, from which he concluded that everything that anyone chose was predestined, period. He (quite logically) concluded that his desires for fun, illicit sexual activity, drinking, and getting high were something GOD has placed in his heart, AND that it was God's will that he ACT upon those desires.
As a result, my friend adopted a "let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," "party hardy!" mentality. Last time I heard from him he was an alcoholic, druggie, and unashamed womanizer, AND he would smile as he talked about how it all was predestined to happen anyway.
Point is, ANY belief system can be abused for selfish ends. And any belief system can be made into something it was never intended to be by its formulators. Lots of folks have taken Paul's teaching on grace to mean antinomianism is true, but that doesn't nullify Paul's TRUE teaching in the least.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/10/2004 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
Of course the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language. Nobody can prove otherwise."
quote:
Unfortunately, you didn't give any citations, so we have no way to check your assessment here.
"The point is, if we don’t decide ahead of time that this passage can’t be saying what the passage clearly seems to be saying—viz. if we don’t label it an “anthropomorphism” because it doesn’t agree with our Hellenistic preconceptions of what is and is not dignum Deo (viz. worthy of God)—we cannot help but conclude that this passage reveals the Lord as genuinely facing an open, indefinite, future."
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=533
Greg: I was myself wondered where and when I said "the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language". Thanks for supplying the reference. But, unfortunately, the reference doesn't say what you quote me as saying. I've always held the Bible uses anthropomorphisms. I just haven't come across any good arguments for thinking that God changing his mind or speaking of the future in subjunctive terms are in this category. Indeed, if they ARE anthropomorphisms, I'm not at all clear what they intend to communicate. We easily surmise that God's "right arm' refers to his strength. His "eyes roaming the earth" clearly refers to his omniscience. But what does "he changed his mind" (39 times) refer to if indeed God DOESN'T change his mind?
Anyway, for the record, I don't deny the Bible has anthropomorphic language.
But, having said that, this is the least of the problems of cepoteet's presentation of my "logical" fallicies.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/10/2004 7:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Anyway, for the record, I don't deny the Bible has anthropomorphic language.
But, having said that, this is the least of the problems of cepoteet's presentation of my "logical" fallicies.
Greg
Dr. Boyd, thank you for answering my post. I was hoping you would get involved at some point. I appreciate the consideration of my thoughts.
I have a few questions for you directly (if you would please take the time). You'll have to excuse me if I ask a question you have answered elsewhere as I am trying to get a hold on the doctrine of the "openess" of God.
1) How can we possess Libertarian free will with the extensive verses in the Bible that speak of our spiritual death (Genesis 6:5, Ezekiel 16:16, Mark 10:26-27, Romans 3:10-12, to name a few)?
2) To justify true freedom, OT holds that an action can be only free if it is unknown, but tell me specifically why determinism and free agency are not compatible (Luke 22:22; Matthew 26:24; John 6:70, 71; 13:2, 27, James 1:14)?
quote:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Matthew 10:29-30
3) If we posses complete Libertarian free will, then is it possible that Jesus died for no one (that is we all could've chosen to deny Him), thereby making His suffering for nothing?
4) Do you truly hold that the foreordination of the Fall (or decree to permit sin) is inconsistent with God’s holiness?
quote:
O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
Psalms 139:1-6
5) How do you recognize the plethora of Bible verses that state that: "...[before the] foundation of the world" (Matthew 13:35, 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 4:3, 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8, 17:8)?
6) Doesn't OT turn God into an ignorant god?
quote:
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 4:3
7) What about this?
Currently, the classical doctrine of God is being challenged by one wing of the broad evangelical theological constituency. A major contribution from John Sanders, one of its representatives, has now appeared under the title The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. If Sanders is right, the first chapter of the Gospel According to Luke (vv. 26–38) should be read as follows: In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you." Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name of Jesus." [Thinks: "That's the way I'll put it to encourage her. Actually, if she does not cooperate, she will not be with child and her high favor will turn into crushing personal failure. Still, if she does cooperate, it is surely most unlikely after this announcement that she will give him any other name except the name of Jesus.] He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High [though there is no guaranteeing what he will do, and I suppose he could veer way off course]. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end [at least that is the scenario we have every ... (http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1999/novdec/9b6016.html)
8) How do you feel about the "openness" of God being rejected by the ETS?
9) Isn't rather scary to think that God can make mistakes?
<< I don't deny the Bible has anthropomorphic language. >>
10) So where and when does the Bible use and not use anthropomorphic language?
11) Would you please tell me what about my claims about the illogical nature of OT is incorrect?
12) Do you think I could pray really hard and change God's mind on reprobation?
Thank you for your response. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak off of the board through e-mail, phone, or similiar communication. I'd really like to get your perspective on this issue.
Thanks,
Chris Poteet
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | Anthropomorphism is not the only way of handling it. (Actually, saying that God literally changed his mind is an anthropo-something in itself.) As HEAVILY edited at the OT is, there is lots more possible. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Anthropomorphism is not the only way of handling it. (Actually, saying that God literally changed his mind is an anthropo-something in itself.) As HEAVILY edited_*_ at the OT is, there is lots more possible.
HEAVILY edited_*_ refers to the fact that the OT was written at various times, rearranged, re-edited, and ammended at various times to various effects.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Its like a whole sub-thesis of the OT is that those who once received prophecy of un-reversable judgement, later (when edited in Babylon) received hope that God would do different than he had before. What was to be certain, later was possible. Time happened, and circumstance. Names not in the original writing show up in the editing -- this time appropriate to the revelation God was giving through his prophets (and those of the 'school' of those prophets). Consider the content of First Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | And the most basic point to draw from that, for the Walmart crowd, is that the Scripture was not dropped whole-cloth; nor is to be read like a codebook full of prooftexts.
(Not suggesting anyone here does.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2004 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm following ya Jeff. I read Greg and Cepoteet the same way. So I'm not seeing all the plausible interpretations of "God changed his mind" that are not either literal (i.e., God really changes the plans he intentionally follows) or figurative (i.e., God doesn't change his mind because he's mind is eternally made up, thus divine "changes of mind" are metaphorical as are "God is a rock" and God "covers us with his wings"). I don't see all those other options either.
POW, at this point we're just talking about the "literary" options. You have literal vs figurative. I understand you to be saying there are lots of other literary options, lots of other uses of language.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/12/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | If you understand me, Tom, that's great. I don't know the terms. I just said "Anthropomorphism is not the only way of handling it. . .there is lots more possible." And I was refering to the very public exchange of internet posts of Boyd and Piper duking it out. Turf seemed to be staked on the basis of whatever was at hand, and Boyd seemed to seek shelter behind extreemly literal readings of passages, so as to adopt protection from the social enertia of how some people do that. Along that line, it became discussed whether anthropomorphism or literalism should be employed -- and the generalizations began being flung...
Politics does not belong in theology. It produces polemics, and all the rediculousness and a-historical nonsense that follows the polemicists.
Thanks.
Guess I'm done for now.
p o w | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I had no idea that was in your head when you said there were lots of other options for dealing with divine changes of mind. Politics never came to mind for me. Nor did I think of Greg nor Piper. Not even close. I'm just thinking of interpreting the text, POW.
So, let me understand you now. Do you or do you not feel there are other interpretive options regarding how to take the literary expression "God changed his mind"? I know of two options:
1) Literal: God intended one thing, was in the course of following one plan, and then intended another thing, commmitted to following a different plan--all in response to the choices and actions of others.
2) Figurative anthropomorphism: God's mind is eternally made up; he eternaly knows exactly what he and others will do, so God cannot be said to change his mind as in (1). Such descriptions are anthropomorphisms. God "changed his mind" is the the literary equivalent to "God is the 'rock' of our salvation," a strong "tower," and God "covers us with his wings like a hen."
Do you want to add a third? I'm still not following ya. If you do, what is it? If you don't, which of (1) or (2) do you go with?
Now, God's not a literal rock or tower, nor is God a literal chicken, but these expressions are "reality depicting." They are figurative, but they still truthfully describe some aspect or characteristic of God. God's a figurative rock = God is literarlly strong and dependable. God is a figurative tower = God literarlly protects and shelters us from harm, etc. If "God changes his mind" is THIS sort of literary device (as cepoteet is arguing), then somebody fill in the blank for me: God figuratively changes his mind = God literally...what? What IS being said about God? Is ANYTHING being said about God, any truth being held out to us in this revelation of Scripture? If so, what is it?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2004 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | cepoteet-
You've asked Alan and Greg about a number of passages I think. Among them was Gen. 18. It's an interesting passage, one often thought to constitute a real problem for the open view. If you're still around and interested, you can find one open theist's understanding of Gen. 18 (and a few other passages) here: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/Custom/4/Documents/beltstudies.htm
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 12/13/2004 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Cpoteet
I'm sure this isn't great etiquet, but I fancy having a go at answering some of your questions to Dr Boyd. I hope that's ok!
1) Why should spiritual death mean that we no longer have LFW? I do agree that when we sin, we become a slave to sin. But we don't loose our ability to choose at all. One may be unable to choose to stop drinking, but one can choose to go to AA and get help.
Ezekiel 18:4 says "The soul who sins will die." It is because of our LFW that we even have the possibility of choosing sin and therefore spiritual death. But being dead towards God doesn't mean we can't continue choosing.
2)Erm, probably best left to the Doc this one. I think this isn't a scripture question but rather a logic/meaning one. I would say that determined free-will is about as meaningful as a square triangle. Both parts make sense [determined = someone else chooses; free-will = I choose], but can't happen at exactly the same time; God can't choose and me choose at the same time - they're mutually exclusive events.
Of course, I can choose God's will. But it has to be me choosing God's will, not Him; He can't make me choose it.
Can you think of an analogy of determined freedom? Your one about the executioner doesn't quite work - The King determines that the executioner does the job, but not that the executioner takes sick pleasure out of it! That responsibility lands squarely at the door of the executioner.
3)There wasn't a possibility of Jesus dying for nobody because they'd already been several thousand years of believers that Jesus needed to die for too! He died for Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David etc. Their sins needed to be properly dealt with, not just with types and shadows. It's possible that nobody in the rest of history would choose Jesus after that point, but it's rather a statistical improbability! It also hasn't happened that way...
4)I don't understand your quotation of Psalm 139, as it's not talking about the foreordination of the Fall.
I've never thought about whether it's inconsistent with God's holiness, only why on earth would God want to foreordain the fall in the first place? He wants a creation that enters into free and loving relationship with him! He's not going to engineer the destruction of his plans! I think it's just a bit inconsistent with God's character in general.
5)Roger Forster talks about 'the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world'. That's the role of the Lamb - He's the one who gives himself sacrificially. When the Trinity were planning on making creation, it was Jesus who said that he would go and die should man decide to reject God.
6)God's not ignorant, in fact he 'over-knows' the future: He knows all the possibilities that will never happen. So when he takes a risk, he knows what he's letting himself in for.
I think that choosing Mary was a risk. But it paid off! I wonder if there were others that refused God's call? I know that happens today - Reinhart Bonke [or however you spell his name] was called by God to deliver gospels round the UK. When he asked the Lord 'why me?', the Lord said that he'd asked 5 others before him.
Best be off
love
Timlings | | Back to Top | | |
| 214 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:32 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 |
|
|