 |
| 
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 1/28/2002 5:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | I've been investigating the openness view since the CT article a while back. So far, my every objection has been met satisfactorily. In fact, I'm surprised how anemic many of the defenses of traditional theology have been.
However, the one issue that is still not settled in my mind is salvation (no small topic!).
Can someone address, in brief, views on whether salvation is really by God alone, by faith alone, according to an openness perspective? If all other moral choices are freely chosen without God's foreknowledge, is this not true of salvation? Logically, then, doesn't it place us back in the middle of arguments about works-based salvation, the corruption of the will, etc.?
In addition to brief responses here, links or references to discussions from openness scholars on this topic would be appreciated.
Much thanks, in advance.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/28/2002 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
Terry,
good question. i'm going to chime in first and i know others will be able to expound on what i'm going to say.
intially it seems that we would be choosing to save ourselves, and we would be getting ourselves to heaven, based on works. but God in his grace has created a way for us, a bridge over the gap. now the way is already there, we don't create it by what we do. we simply accept the gift that the father has placed before us. this then is not a works-based salvation. we are accepting the grace that God has so greatly lavished upon us. it is by faith that God has provided this way for us that we are saved.
future moral choices made are not known by God and salvation, being a future moral choice, therefore is not known by God.
hope this helps,
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sean_m
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/28/2002 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | I would like to add a very quick point
John 12:36 (I think) - Jesus says that when He is lifted up from the earth (on the cross) he will draw all men to him. This verse seems to imply that the power of the spirit is working in all men (at least the ones who have heard of Jesus). This would imply that any salvation is being caused by Jesus' death. Romans 9 (somewhere...you can tell I'm not a scholar) says that salvation is dependent on the work of Jesus, but just because something depends on something else doesn't mean that it's the ONLY factor in it. Someone, please exegete the verses a little bit better for me, thanks.
Sean
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/28/2002 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
This would imply that any salvation is being caused by Jesus' death.
Sean-
Not "caused" by his death, only "made possible" by his death. God takes the initiative. Without it, nobody would find salvation. But it can be refused.
I'll try to write more later. I'm interested in this too.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/29/2002 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | And let us remember something very important: it is NOT "work" to exercise the faith God gives you ("you" being anyone)to believe the call of God to be saved. Oh, it's work emotionally and mentally to believe sometimes (as God is helping you but you struggle with Satan on the other side of your shoulder and with intellectual questions), but it's not earning God's salvation.
"For by grace you are saved, not of yourselves" does not preclude "working" through things to get there. Who hasn't done that? But it's certianly not earning one's way to heaven.
The Open Theist doesn't have a problem with God having offered up His Son, sending the Spirit to do the work and expecting people to listen, as He assists them, just as you would expect someone to listen to something that's important to you.
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sean_m
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/29/2002 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sean-
Not "caused" by his death, only "made possible" by his death. God takes the initiative. Without it, nobody would find salvation. But it can be refused.
I guess I should have clarified what I meant by caused. I don't mean cause as in a sufficient cause, per se, but a necessary cause, as without that cause, salvation is impossible (what you were hitting at), and that it starts the salvation process. I personally think the human role in the salvation process isn't one of acceptance, but one of either doing nothing or rejecting it...but, that's just my thinking (it gets the same results as the typical position, and avoids Calvinist charges of any work on our behalf saving us). I use cause for both interchangably, sorry. Should be clearer  . Anywho, hope this helps.
Sean
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/29/2002 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | An openness advocate could (and should) embrace the same view of salvation as has been embraced by all Arminians, Weslyans and the eastern orthodox Church. The only view it decisively rules out is the Calvinist view, for Calvinism holds to unconditional election and irresistible grace, both of which are incompatible with any affirmation of free will. In my view, without God's grace and the persistent work of the Spirit in our life, no one would be saved. But its one thing to say that we cannot believe without God's grace and his Spirit. It's another thing to say that given God's grace and the work of the Spirit, we cannot help but believe.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/2/2002 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | >>The only view it decisively rules out is the Calvinist view, for Calvinism holds to unconditional election and irresistible grace, both of which are incompatible with any affirmation of free will. <<
As I have read, openness theology does not make God’s irresistible acts and human free will incompatible. In fact, most “Openist” writing acknowledges that God does step in to history and determine things (how else prophecy without foreknowledge?). Therefore, salvation could be one of those things. There are indeed times when God hardens hearts, and other times when He meets you on the Damascus road.
Of course, Saul’s experience wasn’t precisely Calvin’s & Luther’s irresistible grace, but it’s about as close as you could come in a narrative depiction.
>>In my view, without God's grace and the persistent work of the Spirit in our life, no one would be saved. <<
Ok, there’s the Arminianism that you mentioned.
>>But its one thing to say that we cannot believe without God's grace and his Spirit. It's another thing to say that given God's grace and the work of the Spirit, we cannot help but believe.<<
This is a useful distinction. But, once we get to the point of accepting that God does indeed determine some of our moral choices, I don’t see that there’s logical room to deny that he determines this one, at least some of the time for some people.
Let me make another distinction between something I think openness theorists ascribe to, and something you’re resisting, and you tell me where the difference lies: God uses persuasion to move people toward him. He can arrange circumstances, sovereignly use people who listen to his voice, and so forth. He can also, and has not irregularly, performed some sort of miraculous sign to prove he is the one true God.
Now, if any rational person sees the waters part, sees God light the soaking logs with fire from heaven, sees the lame walk, they are going to Believe. When God shows himself in these ways, how is he not effectively determining people’s belief in him? It’s not the mysterious inner-working Calvinistic determinism, but a miracle all but removes choice.
Moreover, if God injects himself into history sometimes, he could do it all the time (how many people have gone to hell for lack of a Damascus road experience?), but chooses not to. In essence, this is God choosing/determining salvation.
And, to address the most obvious objection: one might say, “God’s miraculous signs don’t determine faith in him because many people saw (Jesus’ many miracles, the children of Israel in the fiery furnace the Nuggets beating the Lakers) but denied him and refused to believe.”
But then there’s verses like Romans 9:18, or John (12:39-40), citing Isaiah: ‘For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart and be converted’
Granted, the NT uses “they hardened their hearts” interchangeably with “God hardened their hearts” (cf. Jn 12:37-38). But doesn’t that make the point?
People can’t believe in and submit to God without grace.
God shows grace & mercy to whomever he wishes.
Some, he persuades hardly at all (general revelation only)
Some, he persuades with a sweet small voice (but presumably loses some to the other side’s machinations and the lust of the flesh)
Some, he treats to miraculous signs that are faith-determining except that…
Some, he gives signs to, then hardens their hearts so they don’t believe
Therefore, he condemns some to eternal separation and brings some to heaven.
Perhaps my beef with openness theology on this point can be summed up more philosophically: If openists (I can’t be the first to coin that word) admit that God sometimes determines history and overrides free will, on what grounds do they deny that he does it in every case?
BTW: even if the answer is, “they can’t,” I don’t think this is a damning critique of the theory.
Sorry for the delayed reply--business keeps me away too long sometimes.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/2/2002 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Terry,
The context of Jn 12:37-38 has nothing to do with predestination in the Calvinistic sense. Isaiah didn't say "Sorry, you won't be able to believe whether you'd like to or not...sorry, you're not chosen". That's not the point.
Look at 12:37. The heart of the passage is that THEY wouldn't believe when it was so obvious that they should have. But notice verse 42: "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him...for they loved the praise of men more than God".
The issue is simple, clear and unmistakable in plain ol' language. Some believed, some didn't. Christ's miracles helped some to believe but didn't have an affect on others. It isn't God here having pretermined that the Pharisees won't be able to believe (remember, some did believe, like Nichodemus); some of the rulers will believe (many Pharisees were rulers); and others will and others won't and so on. Not the context.
The cry of Jesus often was "Why in the world won't you believe"? In John 8:24 there's His heart-cry to the Pharisees: "You will die in your sins if you do not believe...". I don't think He was thinking after this "Poor fellows, already chosen not to be able to believe. Sorry". See what I mean?
Anyway, thought I'd offer this as some help as you work through this.
Thanks mucho,
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/2/2002 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | First reply to Starkman...
>>And let us remember something very important: it is NOT "work" to exercise the faith God gives you ("you" being anyone) to believe the call of God to be saved<<
I’m sure you could get an argument on that (not really from me, though). I find it interesting, though, how, in the evolution of the salvation argument, foreknowledge has sort of become the tail wagging the sola-gratia dog.
Historically, a major Christian concern has been magnifying God. Understandable and admirable. But, in one of the most important areas, salvation, it’s normal for Christians to think and talk as if our choices are the determining factor, making God a bit player in this crucial drama. (The openness view reverses the logic, showing that God working within limitations is even more glorified.)
Traditional logic is this:
The Bible places a wide gulf between works and grace.
Since works can be broadly defined as “anything we do” whereas grace is “anything god does for us”, then even choosing or exercising faith is a “work”.
Therefore God must both change us (uncorrupt our wills) such that we become believers.
This is what happens when you let philosophy determine your theology.
>>"For by grace you are saved, not of yourselves" does not preclude "working" through things to get there. Who hasn't done that? But it's certianly not earning one's way to heaven.<<
Yep, we agree on the last statement. Let me trace back though so my point of concern is clearer.
Openness theology suggests (I think!) that I freely choose to believe in Christ.
God does not determine this, although his generic and specific working, persuading and spirit-working provide the necessary preconditions (prepare the soil, as it were) for me to be able to freely choose. (not sure that makes sense, but ok).
The definition of “free will” entails that my will and mind were un-corrupted enough to choose God freely once he made ‘the call’. (This is really Luther’s main area of contention with Erasmus).
Thus openness theology seems to deny the bondage of the will.
Thus openness theology seems to argue against original sin (yes, a big leap to the last one, but I don’t have time or energy to connect the dots here).
See why this is a concern for me? At the very least, I would like one of the proponents of the open view to address this area. In _The Openness of God_ for instance, the authors pretty much dance around the topic. This makes me want to dig deeply and ask “Why?” It is not, after all, an unimportant concern to a Christian theology.
If they have addressed the topic in some depth, can someone point to some citations?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/2/2002 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Second reply to Starkman...
>>>The context of Jn 12:37-38 has nothing to do with predestination in the Calvinistic sense.<<<
Perhaps, but Rom. 11:6-8 seems quite clearly in the context of salvation and makes a very similar point.
>>>Isaiah didn't say "Sorry, you won't be able to believe whether you'd like to or not...sorry, you're not chosen". That's not the point.<<<
We might disagree then, since that’s pretty much how I take the verses at face value. There could be something non-obvious at play, but several verses in the NT seem to say that because people did something to anger God, or as a people had a history of rejecting him, so he clouded their minds and eyes so they could not accept or receive salvation (‘gave them over to their lusts’ and so forth).
I am not pushing this point as a Calvinist. Regardless of whether it was by predestination or on some on-the-spot decision, God seems to frequently assure the fates of (groups of) people.
>>>Look at 12:37. The heart of the passage is that THEY wouldn't believe when it was so obvious that they should have. But notice verse 42: "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him...for they loved the praise of men more than God".<<<
I did mention this in my post. They hardened themselves, then(?) God hardened them (which seems redundant if they had truly rejected him in the first place). As I said, the two phrases often appear together and basically seem interchangeable. Perhaps a careful exegete could help me out.
>>>The cry of Jesus often was "Why in the world won't you believe"? In John 8:24 there's His heart-cry to the Pharisees: "You will die in your sins if you do not believe...". I don't think He was thinking after this "Poor fellows, already chosen not to be able to believe. Sorry". See what I mean?<<<
I believe I do, but let me restate my concern since I seem to be unclear. “Already chosen” doesn’t matter to me and isn’t the key concern of these passages at any rate.
I have always thought that there is biblical evidence that God basically got fed up with Israel and decided to blind them to their Messiah to provoke them to jealousy as payback for their philandering with other gods. In this reading, I think the cry of Jesus was for all those he knew wouldn’t believe, if not because he ‘ordained it from the beginning of the world’ then just because he knew the people he was dealing with.
As a first step, I just want to see if openness theologians assert that salvation is always entirely a free choice. If not, does God sometimes ‘make’ people believe? Alternately, does he sometimes keep people from seeing/understanding the message and responding?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/3/2002 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hey Terry,
A few thoughts on your posts:
quote:
Traditional logic is this:
The Bible places a wide gulf between works and grace.
Since works can be broadly defined as “anything we do” whereas grace is “anything god does for us”, then even choosing or exercising faith is a “work”.
Therefore God must both change us (uncorrupt our wills) such that we become believers.
This is what happens when you let philosophy determine your theology.
First, works are NOT anything we can do. Works are anything we do to try and EARN God's favor!
There's nothing to be earned by simply having believed God and taken Him at His Word. Can I possibly take credit as having earned God's favor by simply believing Him? Heavens no! God EXPECTS to be believed just as much as a parent expects there children to believe them. There's no bonus points towards favor with God. It's merely the way we are created to interact with God. It is the ONLY thing we can do that doesn't qualify as a work! This is why Abraham was credited righteousness with God - Genesis 15:6. Faith in God will always be the only path we are given to come into relationship with God...the path we are naturally expected to exercise. There's no philosopy determining one's theology here. It's solid Bible. It's just unfortunate that simple, common faith is thrown into the category of a work. (and I'm not saying you believe that faith is a work, Terry. I noted what you said about it in your post)
quote:
Thus openness theology seems to deny the bondage of the will.
Thus openness theology seems to argue against original sin (yes, a big leap to the last one, but I don’t have time or energy to connect the dots here).
Absolutely not (and again, I'm not saying you believe that openness theology seesm to deny the bondage of the will. I'm just commenting). There is NO salvation apart from the Holy Spirit calling, wooing, pulling, preparing, etc. However, there is the free will aspect which isn't violated by God doing this anymore than there isn't the violation of a father trying to counsel his children - children coming into adulthood - to not do wrong things. As human beings we live everyday in relationships with others along the same exact lines God has set for us. It's right in front of our noses everyday!
Perhaps we all should do some re-thinking and reconsideration about the meaning of what Paul was quoting in Romans 3:10-18. Perhaps it isn't easy enough to just say "Oh, well, mankind can never desire God in any form, fashion or manner, whatsoever. He can't even begin to like God. As a matter of fact, every single actually hates God with everything in them. Thanks be to God that He counters this in us". Perhaps the context of that Roman passage (those trying to live by the law - EARN their favor before God - should be considered. Perhaps those quotes are very much erroniously applied when this kind of thinking is involved! Consider the following:
In the book of Daniel, he has his dreams in chapter 2. As he explains the dreams to the king, he utilizes the word "all" as in 2:39. This kingdom is generally the Grecian kingdom under Alexander the Great to come. But...did Alex conquer the whole...I mean the WHOLE world? No, he sure didn't. Yet Daniel says "all" the world is conquered by him. Hek, even Britain and the US, bigger kingdomes than ol' Alex's didn't conquer all the world.
Daniel's concern isn't about military powers. The context is the same as in all God's Word: God working out His plan to bring about salvation to the people of the world, Jew first and Gentile second. Everything else is peripheral. These kingdoms are of interest to God's plan. "All" the earth isn't. But all that these kingdoms do on earth and all the earth that is of importance to this particular purpose of prophecy within the scope of God's plans is the issue.
What's this got to do with Romans 3 and works? Simply an example to show that it's just not as simple as saying "anything we can do" must therefore include everything. There's a context. There's a purpose. What fits that purpose is to be held doctrinally. What doesn't is peripheral.
quote:
>>>The context of Jn 12:37-38 has nothing to do with predestination in the Calvinistic sense.<<<
Perhaps, but Rom. 11:6-8 seems quite clearly in the context of salvation and makes a very similar point.
The context of Romans 11 is the TEMPORARY blindness of Israel (having rejected the Messiah) so that the Gentiles can come in. Note 11:11-26 - the context is that Israel didn't believe; the Gentiles did. The context is not about sending some to hell and saving others. (and again, I'm not saying you adhere to that belief). The passages of 11:6-8 are in the greater context of this issue.
Look at the quotes in Romans 11:8-10. The one from Isaiah alone is worth noting because the context of those passages in Isaiah have nothing to do with God saying "Well, guess I'll harden your hearts now". Note Isaiah's whole point - Israel won't listen, period, to the prophets! Note particularly chapter 29 (from where Paul quotes Isaiah). Note 29:6 and most importantly 29:10-14. These passages show a) punishment to come - a nation that just won't listen by their own free will (this was the whole message of several of the prophets: "You just won't listen, will you, Israel"); b) worse, a people who draw near to God with mouth and lips but no heart (better to just be a heathen than to play games with God!). It is THIS context that Paul is working in. Nothing about some go to heaven, so go to hell, some appointed to believe, some not. Israel has promises that God will keep, but they're in blindness DUE TO THEIR OWN FREE WILL DISBELIEF! And it's worth nothing that most of the passages that seemingly deal with predestination in some isolated sense are in the context of Jew and Gentile!
quote:
>>>Look at 12:37. The heart of the passage is that THEY wouldn't believe when it was so obvious that they should have. But notice verse 42: "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him...for they loved the praise of men more than God".<<<
I did mention this in my post. They hardened themselves, then(?) God hardened them (which seems redundant if they had truly rejected him in the first place). As I said, the two phrases often appear together and basically seem interchangeable. Perhaps a careful exegete could help me out.
Note Romans chapter 1. Note particularly verses 26 and 32. It is never that God just says "Hey, let's harden someone today. Who shall it be? Hmm, let's see...ah! YOU!" People who reach a place where God finally has to say, "Fine, have it your way. Hardened you will be" is when and only when He does this! I mean, again, our own daily relationships with people should clue us in (after all, we're made in the image of God): would we just damn someone or harden someone? No. And Scripture doesn't support God doing this either.
Pharoah, in Romans 9 is used to support God hardening people for no other reason other than what's going on in God's head. Not the case. In Exodus the context of Pharoah is clear: he wouldn't believe even if God Himself appeared and said "Knock it off, okay!".
quote:
I have always thought that there is biblical evidence that God basically got fed up with Israel and decided to blind them to their Messiah to provoke them to jealousy as payback for their philandering with other gods. In this reading, I think the cry of Jesus was for all those he knew wouldn’t believe, if not because he ‘ordained it from the beginning of the world’ then just because he knew the people he was dealing with.
I'd agree. That's the thrust of the prophetic passages in the prophets whom Jesus quoted.
quote:
As a first step, I just want to see if openness theologians assert that salvation is always entirely a free choice. If not, does God sometimes ‘make’ people believe? Alternately, does he sometimes keep people from seeing/understanding the message and responding?
Scripture (when considering both OT and NT in contexts) never seems to make anyone believe what they do not wish, nor does He ever make them not believe unless they've already chosen to be hardened by rebellion and stiff-necked uncircumcised hearts!
The concept of open theology (note: the "concept", not an exact of what every open theist believes) is simply that God has granted free will, the highest of the qualities of life, perhaps second only to the ability to love. It means that God works with what He's been given to work with: a fallen world. It means God has given relationship (down here) for us to understand more of how He relates with us. It's real, live, vivacious relationship. There's no "I'm hardening you just because". Nor is there "Say, you're going to believe in Me whether you want to or not". Not much difference in many respects than Arminianism except open theology just doesn't believe that the future is exhaustively known by God. Really, that's all there is to it.
For the conversation,
Starkman
(I kind of rambled here. Sorry!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/4/2002 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman says
>>>First, works are NOT anything we can do. Works are anything we do to try and EARN God's favor!<<<
I think we probably have similar enough views on a definition of works that we don’t need to pull it in to this topic (by all means, you or others can do so, but it seems a side issue). My only point was that determinism/EDF has become the hallmark of Calvinism when it really, historically, was a less important issue than—and in large part a result of—the quest to assure the “solas”.
It’s really the “solas” I’m concerned with. Perhaps others have essentially left this topic alone because they feel that Arminianism (and Wesleyanism) have addressed the issue sufficiently. G.Boyd seems to suggest as much with his answer to my first post (“OV’s can be Arminian, Wesleyan, etc. just not Calvinist”). For me, there’s still ground to cover and I see a lot of insufficient answers in OV texts for what is a fairly important topic. It could be, as I mentioned, I’m just missing the good citations, in which case books and page references would help. Also, other views or responses are welcome!
Starkman says: >>>There is NO salvation apart from the Holy Spirit calling, wooing, pulling, preparing, etc. However, there is the free will aspect which isn't violated by God doing this anymore than there isn't the violation of a father trying to counsel his children - children coming into adulthood - to not do wrong things.<<<
Ok, let’s run with the example and tie in a biblical one:
My kids (Saul and Pharisina) are trying to decide if they should eat a cookie before dinner, an act I’ve specifically forbid. They have considered my command, their own hunger, and the scrumptiousness of the Pepperidge Farm Milanos in the cupboard. When they get home from Damascus Middle School, each one will have to decide if they will obey or not. Knowing, as I do, their proclivities, I know they will almost certainly choose to eat a cookie. As Saul heads for the kitchen, I grab him and throw him to the ground. I proceed to blindfold him, shout at him that he’s being bad and hurting my feelings by disobeying me, and encourage his friends to escort him to his room for three days (still blindfolded) where he can think about whether he really SHOULD eat a cookie. However, I don’t “force” him to not eat a cookie. He is free to come back in to the kitchen and grab one any time.
Now, assuming the kid is not insane, he will not eat a cookie at this point.
But he still exercised his free will.
For little Pharisina, I do none of this. She eats the cookie. It tastes good. Some of her friends say, “I can’t believe you ate a cookie after what your dad did to Saul!” Little Pharisina, though, knowing I’m a good and caring guy, simply refuses to believe that I would do such a thing—after all, she didn’t see it. And Saul might just be making up stories to scare her (he’s a mean and vindictive sort, always breathing threats and murder).
My friend Calvin has no problem with this. In my inscrutable wisdom, I decided to persuade each child differently. To Cal, the fact that one got the message and one didn’t is all a part of my (admittedly mysterious) plan. My friends Armin and Wesley, on the other hand, think, “Hey, those kids made a choice and they both knew what they should do. Their dad tried to tell them.”
To put a finer point on it: I knew all along that both kids were allergic to an ingredient in the cookies. After a while, Pharisina eats too many, the toxins build up; she dies. I lament that she didn’t listen to my clear warnings. Now, I didn’t PLAN her death since way back, but to many observers it seems as if I could have done more. . .
Starkman says >>>Scripture (when considering both OT and NT in contexts) never seems to make anyone believe what they do not wish, nor does He ever make them not believe unless they've already chosen to be hardened by rebellion and stiff-necked uncircumcised hearts!<<<
We disagree here (why harden someone's heart that is hardened--is that even logical??), but there’s certainly room to take either side in the argument.
Let me put a different spin on it. Scripture is very clear that God topples governments, orders his people to kill other tribes, appoints leaders, and in many other ways, intervenes in history to see his will done.
Now, those tribesmen did not “choose” with their “free will” to die. In a non-trivial sense, God made the choice for them. (Incidentally, this doesn’t particularly bother me, but that’s another thread for another day.)
So God leaves their wills inviolate, but kills their flesh, sends them in to slavery, etc. etc. To me, this kind of historical intervention makes the line between “free will” and “determined” moot. If God wants me to be someone’s slave, or to be dead, he can do it, as long as he doesn’t “force” me to do something (Sproul makes a distinction between necessity and compulsion that I’m not crazy about, but it seems to fit here).
The Damascus road experience certainly seems to be another example of an “all but changing someone’s mind for them” scenario. Let’s say God doesn’t want me to get a job—he can make my car break down (I think that exact example has been addressed). Sure he didn’t “change my will” but he made it physically impossible to exercise it the way I’d like, his interference notwithstanding.
And thus my questions from the first post:
1) Is salvation really by God alone, by faith alone, according to an openness perspective?
2) If all other choices are freely chosen without God's foreknowledge, is this not true of salvation making salvation essentially “up to us”?
And I’ll add a third here:
3) If God so determines the phenomenological world such that only one choice is effectively possible, and OV allows this (admits it), does this make the (only?) major difference between traditional theology and OV the belief in EDF?
And from my first set of replies
4) If God does intervene occasionally in this world to limit our choice set, on what grounds does OV contend he does not (ever or even regularly) do it as regards salvation?
And perhaps the crux
5) IF God does intervene sometimes and all but force people to believe, doesn’t the fact that he refrains from intervening to that extent in every case amount to God determining who is saved and who isn’t?
By the way, if 3, 4, & 5 truly reflect the OV, it isn’t much different from several determinist folks as presented in Sproul’s _Willing to Believe_, except for EDF. (God makes choices necessary, but without compelling or forcing compliance.)
Terry “Picking up the Lingo” Baxter
Edited by - terry_baxter on 02/05/2002 10:45:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/5/2002 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Terry,
quote:
As Saul heads for the kitchen, I grab him and throw him to the ground. I proceed to blindfold him, shout at him that he’s being bad and hurting my feelings by disobeying me, and encourage his friends to escort him to his room for three days (still blindfolded) where he can think about whether he really SHOULD eat a cookie. However, I don’t “force” him to not eat a cookie. He is free to come back in to the kitchen and grab one any time.
The fact is that many do go and eat the cookie again - though, I don't think I agree that God treats us quite like your analogy, but I see your point. As en example God's approaching Saul, who became Paul, was to tell him "Um, you're kicking against the pricks, dude. Best to knock it off". Paul was blinded for three days BUT he still could have said, "Sorry God, I'm not going along with this". Jonah could have done this (and did), all of us could have. It'd be awefully stupid to do so, but nevertheless, we can rebell.
Note: Jonah is a prime example of someone in disobedience to God regarding the task he was given to complete. He simply doesn't want to. Okay, he finally gives in and does (there's much more to it than this, of course), and he STILL complains! He could have earlier on said "No, God, find someone else". You see this kind of stiff-necked rebellion in Romans 1. There simply are some who despite what God does they won't believe of bow.
Incidentally, I agree: it isn't logical to harden someone who's already hardened. It is, however, completely logical to ensure permenant hardening of an already hardened heart - ensuring no turning back - one which has insisted hardness before God to the point of "I'll not only never turn to you, God, but I'll make sure I take down as many others as I can". Saul (afterwards Paul) SEEMED to exhibit this kind of attitude, but God knew that his heart wasn't hardened against God but just messed up. Pharoah's heart, on the other hand, is clearly hardened towards God no matter what kind of grace God showed Pharoah. The whole plague issue proves it. God's statement "I know Pharoah won't believe you" to Moses - not because God initially made it impossible for Pharoah to do so, but because God knew Pharoah was too far gone.
God's having given us freedom falls into two categories: vertical - between us and God; we were NEVER given freedom to choose our own way and be successful by it. "You eat of the fruit of the tree, you die!". Plain and period. We were created to serve God, worship Him and so forth. Anything otherwise wasn't built into the program of vertical faith. So, in this regard we really don't have an argument with God. We weren't created to function disobediently or rebelliously before God. And yet we try. God still allowed free will to Adam and Eve. If there were ANY children to have guarded so carefully, they were the ones. Yet, God still allows them to choose. Oh, death results from their choice. We simply don't have the "right" to do as we please in all things.
The other freedom is horizontal: before man, before ourselves and before the world. Here we have lots of lattitude, lots of freedoms. Many of them have no bearing on our relationship before God. Yet, there are those areas, even though this is horzontal, where God says yes or no.
quote:
Let me put a different spin on it. Scripture is very clear that God topples governments, orders his people to kill other tribes, appoints leaders, and in many other ways, intervenes in history to see his will done.
Now, those tribesmen did not “choose” with their “free will” to die. In a non-trivial sense, God made the choice for them. (Incidentally, this doesn’t particularly bother me, but that’s another thread for another day.)
So God leaves their wills inviolate, but kills their flesh, sends them in to slavery, etc. etc. To me, this kind of historical intervention makes the line between “free will” and “determined” moot. If God wants me to be someone’s slave, or to be dead, he can do it, as long as he doesn’t “force” me to do something (Sproul makes a distinction between necessity and compulsion that I’m not crazy about, but it seems to fit here).
Examine the passages where God seems to just wipe people's free will out, where he just seems to kill people for no reason or what have you. I think you'll find that there's context for most every passage. Oh, yes, there's those challenging passages that aren't so easy to square, I admit, but in general what God said to Moses in Exodus when God showed his "backside" to Moses applies: "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and trugh..." Ex 33:6-7
Remember: our free will is limited vertically much more than it is horizontally. If God kills some one, that's His right. He never said "Oh, and you have free will to decide to live or not" after the fall. God does as He wants. But He's always given to showing mercy when someone bows before HIm. Nineveh after Jonah preached to them; the pagan Pharoah of Egypt when he found out that Abraham was married to Sarah; Saul who became Paul; etc. The track record's clear, but we should never construe freewill as unlimitted unrestraint.
quote:
And thus my questions from the first post:
1) Is salvation really by God alone, by faith alone, according to an openness perspective?
2) If all other choices are freely chosen without God's foreknowledge, is this not true of salvation making salvation essentially “up to us”?
1. Yes, salvation is from God. How else could it be otherwise? Eph 2:8-9. Again, holding to an OV concept is ONLY (in concept, mind you) to hold to a God who allows the exercise of certain free will.
2. All other choices are NOT freely chosen without God's foreknowledge. He can inspire, move, influence, pursuade, command, etc. He's not violating, however, that particular aspect of freewill you have: horizontal. And if you choose vertically to not obey Him, God is not then going to say "Why, you, obnoxious, little snot, I'll make you love me". He does, however say (and apparently not to often because of His grace) "Alright, alright. If sin and rebellion and evil is what you really want - after all, I can read the heart - then have it your way."
OV doesn't say God doesn't know the future, it merely states it's not exhaustively known. If God states "such and such will happen", it is possible that that too can be open to change, MOST ALWAYS it is seen so, when it happens, when people repent or pray to Him. This is real, life stuff, the same way we are with people. We say "such and such" and change, repent, alter, etc. Oh, there are those things that will come to pass as God has said, to be sure.
quote:
And I’ll add a third here:
3) If God so determines the phenomenological world such that only one choice is effectively possible, and OV allows this (admits it), does this make the (only?) major difference between traditional theology and OV the belief in EDF?
(I might be missunderstanding you here, but I'll give it a go)
God doesn't determine that there's only one choice; there's two (vertically speaking now): live or die. And believe you me, many choose to die. But they certainly can't say that God didn't give them the choice.
quote:
And from my first set of replies
4) If God does intervene occasionally in this world to limit our choice set, on what grounds does OV contend he does not (ever or even regularly) do it as regards salvation?
He does it all the time. It's the Holy Spirit constantly moving to move men into relationship with God. No violation of your pure free will, but you still only have two choices when confronted with the truth. As Jesus said "You will die in your sins if you do not believe that I am. You shall die in your sins" John 8:24
quote:
And perhaps the crux
5) IF God does intervene sometimes and all but force people to believe, doesn’t the fact that he refrains from intervening to that extent in every case amount to God determining who is saved and who isn’t?
I think it's more clear now that God doesn't force anyone to believe.
Finally, I apologize here, Terry. I've given half-thought given answers in some of this. I'm a tad rushed and I do apologize if you're ready to strangle me - you and the others reading this - saying to yourself "Dumcuff! That's not what I was talking about". I do apologize. I sure enjoy the conversation, though! I certainly don't mean to bogart the conversation, either. I'm sorry if I am.
Not as thoughtfully worked out this time, and sorry for it...
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/11/2002 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
future moral choices made are not known by God and salvation, being a future moral choice, therefore is not known by God.
June, speaking of salvation, I have always disagreed with the Southern Baptists (and other churches that teach the 5th point of Calvinism) on the issue of "Once Saved, Always Saved ... ", "Perserverance of The Saints", "Eternal Security" or whatever you may want to call it.
Proponents of this doctrine sometimes say "My GOD is not an Indian giver; He does not take back what He gives. Some of the Anabaptists such as the Conservative Mennonites (Arminian in nature) teach that "GOD is not taking back anything (in reference to backsliders) since one does not fully recieve his/her salvation until the time of judgement at the Second Coming of Christ."
Eventhough this probably has nothing to do with Open Theism, I kind of hold to this way of thinking. I do not know if Dr. Boyd will agree with the Mennonites or not but I agree with Dr. Boyd that Open Theists should probably stick with the Classical Theists' view on salvation. I don't think Open Theism changes our mode of salvation.
B. Winningham
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 2/12/2002 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | b win,
i hold to that too. i don't believe in 'once saved, always saved'. although i guess i never reallythought about why i hold to that. got any thoughts about why you hold to it?
*going to study up on subject*
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 2/21/2002 2:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Terry,
I would like to make a couple observations in response to your questions regarding the OV and salvation.
First, as with Armininism, the OV recognizes a role of the individual will in coming to a saving faith. It is a matter of saying "yes" or "no" to God. This "yes" is not a work on our part. In fact, it requires a tremendous amount of humility because it involves receiving salvation, and reconciling the relationship with our God, on God's terms.
Any serious reading of scripture will tell you that when it comes to salvation, God plays the dominant role. He states the need, and defines the way of reconciliation, his spirit works in us to bring about faith, and later regenerates us, and works to make us more like Christ.
The problem is that people do not like tension in our ideas. If people invented magnets, they would all be one pole or the other. What a crazy idea to have two opposite poles!!! (It's an analogy, please don't any criticize my science.) But we are not God.
Throughout the Bible we have the tension of God challenging us to make a choice. Even if we allow these "open" texts to be anthropomorphic, it would appear that God wants us to at least respond as if it is literal. Nowhere do we see God saying that we must choose whether to server him only until we figure out that he is speaking to us in anthropomorphic terms.
In the same way, it does not say that we always must say ?yes? to God. Clearly not everyone does. Is that because God did not ?choose? some people? I think the Bible does not support that argument. Instead, it suggests that some people resist his gracious offer.
Our logical systems force us into tight little loops. Logic will lead us to one extreme or the other. Logic can argue that God does choose and our choice is not significant. However, scripture says our choices are significant, and God goes so far as to reinforce it by holding us accountable for our choices. Here is the tension again.
We need to recognize the limitations of our logical and philosophical systems. A may lead to B, but in God?s world, it could also lead to C. The God of the Bible is notorious for not doing things the same way more than once. First you strike the rock, the next time you speak to the rock. Sometimes he makes mud with his spit to heal the blind, but that is not a formula that we can apply all the time. God is ?not a tame lion?, as CS Lewis put it.
God wants us to live with the tension, because it teaches us to trust Him. He wants us to trust him in our daily lives. We are to be open to the unexpected. For humans who tend to reduce things to the familiar, that is a hard lesson to learn.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/21/2002 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Very neat, Wing. I like it!
Although I haven't gotten full-blown exegetical responses to some of my questions, with each response in this thread and others, I get a bit closer. Your answer is helping to put some pieces together.
I may have a longer response later.
Go, under the mercy
T
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 2/22/2002 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Terry / Starkman,
a quick comment on the salvation 'by faith' vs that 'by works' thinggy...
there is good evidence/scholarship to suggest that maybe this was never an issue with Paul at all...he never thought of it in the 'Luther-Erasmus' sense...Paul could've been combating ethnocentric exclusivism by BOTH Jews (clinging on to 'national privilege') and Gentiles (assuming that non-Christian Jews have been totally rejected by God)...
legalism (the traditional understanding of justification 'by works') was probably not an issue with Paul...he was dealing less with soteriology than with ecclesiology...less with HOW one gets into God's people, than with WHO God's people are...
see the works of JDG Dunn, NT Wright, Mark Nanos, EP Sanders, Kiesler, etc.
if they're right, it's really a whole new ball game already, ;>)
blessings,
AL | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/22/2002 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Alwyn,
You're point is well made. I don't believe, too, that I argued soteriology or election in my previous posts, particularly as if from Pauline perspective (looking over my posts to see what all I did write!!!).
It seems very sure to me that Paul was quite concerned with the relationship between man and God, comprising both Jew and Gentile, IN VIEW of the work of God in the Christ; all that preceded Christ was simply a means of speaking both of Christ to come and of the then means by which one could discover God's ultimate plan for relationship between Himself and mankind: Abraham's calling, the choosing of Jacob, the Law and Tabernacle, the Temple...the sacrifices!
The open view verses EDF; Calvinistic verses Arminianism thought; soteriology (as an issue in and of itself) is just not Paul's concern. How God created the availability of relationship between Himself and the world is! And your thoughts add to this, Alwyn!
For the relationship,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/22/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a quick comment about one point that was raised in this thread by Dr. Boyd, free will may be impossible for those outside of Christ, only when we submit to God, are we set "free indeed." There is room inside God's will for human wills "sing to the Lord a new song."
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Beavis
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 23
| Posted 2/25/2002 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Folks I would to pose a question here that many seem to overlook. Why is or must Indefinate divine foreknowledge predicate indefinate divine predecision. And more importantly why must you apply this in such narrow true/false terms. It seems to me one is not dpendant upon the other. Is it possible that even if god possesed perfect forknowledge it would not at all interfere with free will, to put it in terms of lost vs. the elect; even if God knows someone is in fact going to hell why is He obligated to stop that individual? As to the free will of the elect well, therein is a whole other matter, I mean this in response the individual who referred to the 'Gift' of slavation that 'find' that 'bridges' the gap.
Well, fist of all it is not truly a gift. A gift requires no reciprocal consideration at all. An open offer however does if one wishes to accept that offer. The consideration in this case is You must repent and believe the Chist is Son of God who died in order to save mankind from seperation from God. To repent is to give up one's assumed soveregnty and accept the God as Father, Husband, Master,Brother, teacher counslor, and last but not least Prince of peace. You give your self in return he gives himself in current form of his holy spirit. The people of Christ's time would have seen it that way as well, see the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. In the setting this was presented the perspective bridegroom, would in those days, Go to a womans father and offer him something in return for the promise that he could marry his daughter on a date that both parties agreed to. The Dowry as it was called sealed the deal so that no one else would get there first so to speak. After all, weddings in those days were no small affair and so it took a certain amount of preparation on both sides. As to how this relates to this topic, Wuold like to point out that is one instance in which Christ refferes to his offer as being similar to the wedding covenant, the exhange in both situations prohibits forfeiture and second, it entitles each to certain rights,in the God/Human scenario it is his right as your Father to direct you and your right as Son/Daughter to inherit eternal life. As to the relation of this to the will question. To Acept is 'free' bondage and to reject is bound autonomy. There freedom int this sense becomes somewhat limited.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:15 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 |
|
|