 |
| 
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/18/2002 10:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's my question. Is the only distinctive of the OV with respect to Arminianism the idea of God's EFN? Are there other theological issues the OV differs with Arminianism on besides the partial openness of the future?
YBIC,
Winghead
P.S. I'm serious about this one. I am not just asking to see who "knows the right answers."
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
Edited by - winghead on 05/20/2002 8:44:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/21/2002 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay, I am getting no bites on this thread. Here's my thinking. In some ways, the Arminian position and the OV seem very close, except in the area of the openness of the future and foreknowledge. I am asking, be cause I don't know, if there is any other official distinction.
It may be that the OV is new enough that people do not know what else distinguishes it. Or, it might be that it is not a broad system, that spans many areas of theology.
For instance, take eternal security. I argued for eternal security and I was associated with the reformed position. Others associate the Arminian position with the idea that people can lose their salvation, and some of the OV'ers here seem to support that position. I, admittedly, do not know enough about the Arminian position to know if people can hold to eternal security and that position at the same time. I am sure some will argue you can't  . Does the OV have an official position on this?
Anyway, the reason I ask the question was to see if there was anything to the OV beyond what Greg has written on.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 5/25/2002 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Winghead,
You raise a difficult question to answer! You see, the question forces one to generalize and stereotype either all Arminians, Open Theist, Reformed, etc., for example, some who call themselves Arminians would hold to eternal security (heck, I used to be one of them). However, the question that must arise is, what makes an Arminian, Reformed, etc.? Does Jacobus Arminius’ writings define Arminians or the Remonstrants, Wesley, Fletcher, Watts, etc. Do you see the problem?
I feel Norman Geisler might be a good person to look towards in this situation, you see, while Clark Pinnok would call Geisler an “Arminian” (see Predestination & Freewill, 95), Geisler himself would consider himself a “moderate Calvanist” (Chosen But Free, 115-130). Sooo, what’s the difference…the difference between the moderate Calvanist and Arminian is hinged upon the eternal security issue. Geisler believes once you’re saved you’re always saved, while Arminians suggest a possibility of falling away. However, what’s funny is that in many other ways Geisler is theologically Arminian….Soooo, neither Calvanist or Arminians would probably want him in their camp, ya dig?
Now, this may be of interest to you, regarding eternal security, Arminius’ “Examination of the Perkins Pamphlet” gives testimony to this issue.
Arminius proclaims,
“In the beginning of faith in Christ and conversion to God the believer becomes a living member of Christ; and , if persevering in the faith of Christ, and keeping a conscience void of offence, remains a living member. But if it happens that this member grows slothful, is not careful over itself, gives place to sin, by little and little it becomes half-dead; and so at length, proceeding still further, dies-altogether, and ceases to be a member” (Arminius quoted in Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 219).
Hope this adds to the conversation  ,
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/25/2002 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Winghead,
As an Arminian (in the somewhat loosely defined term), I personally haven't found much difference in my doctrine or faith merely because I became a proponent of the open view.
I've always felt that if one is truely born again, one is forever saved. I think the admonitions of Scripture make it clear: those who endure to the end SHALL be saved. Peter tells us to confirm our faith to the end. Paul also. We have this little catch-22 called Time. We can believe all we want that we are saved, and we may be right, but time will tell!
So in this sense, nothing has changed for me. But whether my approach here to eternal security would qualify as Arminian (per Arminius's teaching), I don't know.
Hope that helps,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/26/2002 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, finally a response! I was beginning to feel rejected. 
Tiggers, you touch on an important point. There are variations within each positions. To make this more complex, each variation might interpret the same thing differently. For example, your Arminus quote can also be interpreted by an Eternal Security advocate that a person that gradually "dies" never fully took root in the first place (e.g., the seed that fell on rocky soil, or in the midst the weeds).
There seems to be several major areas of theology that are involved. It might look like this (assuming the formatting holds up in the post :
(The following was meant to be a table, but I can't make it look like a table.)
Topic OV Arminianism Calvinism
Election Corporate ??? Individual
LCFW Yes Yes No
Security "No" "No" "Yes"
Foreknowledge No EFN EFN EFN
Soteriology LCFW "Yes" LCFW "Yes" Divine Election
I am not sure how an Arminian views election, though I assume they would view it as "individual", based on God's EFN of our choices. Where I say "Yes" or "No" in quotes, are areas that people may not completely agree. These are areas where people do not take a position typical of the majority.
It appears that in the OV, many hold to the Arminian idea of the possibility of losing one's salvation, or falling away. This is not a requirement to embrace the presupposition of a partially open future due to LCFW.
Starkman:quote:
As an Arminian (in the somewhat loosely defined term), I personally haven't found much difference in my doctrine or faith merely because I became a proponent of the open view.
If the OV is primarily dealing with how God sees the future, as many suggest is the case, then it should not be surprising that people come to the OV without changing their position on other theological issues.
Starkman:quote:
We can believe all we want that we are saved, and we may be right, but time will tell!
You touch on an important point. We may look at an atheist and think they are not "saved", but they may come to know God, say, a decade later. It may be that God is working in their hearts to overcome their unbelief. On the other hand, a person may be very religious, and have the "game" down, but never really given their heart over to God. It would seem many of the Pharisees were in this position.
Tim:quote:
I believe that neither Calvinist, nor Arminians, OV, or mixed mutts deny this ultimate need for change; attributed to God.
THIS is KEY! And, if you think about it, it makes many of these discussions moot. It is also why I believe in eternal security. It is God who is at work in us (phil 2:13), and he will complete the work he has started.
[i}I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. Phil. 1:6 (NRSVA)
We are lapsing into the eternal security discussion, but I have a hard time keeping what God has done (and is doing) for us separate from the question of how our LCFW affects our walk.
It is also why I have often thought that we need to set these theological issues free from the constraining structure of Arminianism and Calvinism. Does this make sense to anyone else?
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/27/2002 3:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead: …we need to set these theological issues free from the constraining structure of Arminianism and Calvinism…
TIM: And the mixed mutt said, "Yes!"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/27/2002 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I hope that it is OK for me to put this here. (also on Tom's "ripped off" thread)
PoW writes:
Let me float a ballon.
It occurs to me that to a "classical" reader of OV rhetoric, that when an OV says that God is Open the "classic" person reads the OV as saying that God acts openly against a background of determined reality. More simple would be an open-acting posture against a loosly-framed broad-potential background. (I write as someone who recently painted a huge landscape-background for a school play.)
But a consistently Open person (And, I'm going to wonder outloud here whether very many actually exist!) would not actually view created reality as any more determined than God actually created it to be.
So, I'm wondering, is "Openness" really a change in view of God's sovereignty as sometimes, sadly, gets bantered about; or is "Openness" an acceptance in faith that even in the world that is big and scarry: God is the Lord; Our hope is in the Name of the Creator of the earth, the sea and all that is in them...; and even in a fallen world, God is still the Lord.
Artists work with half-done strutures all the time. For an artist, part of the plan is the getting-there. Part of what is 'done' is what is formed; but part of what is 'done' is also what potentialities are made room for.
I just think that God can 'make hay' from things that we would quickly give up on. ("A brused reed...a smoldering wick he will not extinguish!")
And for that reason, I really find a lot of the horror-story proofs for the Open-View to be simply horrable, and errant. And therefor I've asked this ballon.
What do you think?
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/28/2002 12:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear PotOnWheel,
I do not know where this will find its place, among many horror-story proofs for the Open-View. Since I wrote it before ever hearing of OV, however, it seems or appears to be somewhat similar to the idea.
I believe,
God, infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all those things, which are possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge or intelligence, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
What do think? More artificial eloquence, or that which allures and charms.
In God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/28/2002 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I believe,
God, infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all those things, which are possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge or intelligence, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
I hope it's okay if I jump in and say hooray! All the depth of thinking and trying to ascertain particulars about God's "operating"? (for lack of a better term) in his creation is summed up very well by what Tim wrote. Forget the weight that we may attach to particular theological positions. No matter what, if we say God can't or doesn't know or have the ability to change or control something, it's a case of the creature stepping over the line.
There's no comfort in thinking God has exhaustive foreknowledge which locks us into fatalistic determinism, and there's no comfort in thinking that God may not know something which leaves me fearful of the next day or minute for that matter. Yet at the same time, Scripture illuminates both of these concepts (that is, God knows all things past, present and future, and also yearns to see worship, faith and obedience from humanity that isn't controlled or predetermined) I think Tim's saying give God his due, bow down to his absolute authority, whatever happens in this world is never a "surprise" to him, accept our responsibilities, know that our prayers matter, fight the good fight, love one another, cling to the cross and celebrate with the fact that through Jesus, we are welcome into his house. Tim, if I'm wrong about any of this, straighten me out.
Thanks for saying it like it is.
Blessings,
R.J.
Edited by - allryledup on 05/28/2002 2:32:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/28/2002 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Nothing to straighten you out about allryledup, in your understanding of what you quoted. To God is All the Glory, Amen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 6/2/2002 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim Wrote:quote:
I believe,
God, infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all those things, which are possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge or intelligence, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
I agree. And, I it should be noted that the above statement should be something that can be said by the OV or the classical view. For some on the classical side, it probably does not go far enough, of course.
RJ:quote:
I think Tim's saying give God his due, bow down to his absolute authority, whatever happens in this world is never a "surprise" to him, accept our responsibilities, know that our prayers matter, fight the good fight, love one another, cling to the cross and celebrate with the fact that through Jesus, we are welcome into his house.
Tim and RJ's comments here reflect, I think, the attitude we all must take. Calvinists may try to argue that the OV leaves us with uncertainty, but that arguement the context in which all views must reside.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/2/2002 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Max Herrera wrote,
PART II -- Tim I need some clarification
It depends by what you by "as." If the referent to "as" is the object of knowledge, or if the referent to "as" is mode of God's knowing. Are you making the distinction between WHAT God knows? and HOW he knows it? For example, God knew that the creation of the world was a possibility, yet, He knew this certainly. Thus, the possiblity was in the coming to be of the creation, not in God's knowing it.
Thus, by not being explicit, you may be affirming that God does NOT know future contingents as actual, but only as contingent. Please be explicit and state your position clearly. Does God know future contingents as actual? In other words, does God actually know what man will freely do?
God's will being mutable would follow upon God's knowledge being mutable. Are you affirming that God learns? and if so from whom?
Moreover, the statement "prisoner of his own foreknowledge" implies that unless God knows the WAY we do, then he is a prisoner to his own foreknowedge. Thus, finite man becomes the measure by which we measure God.
Let's restate the same thing and use an infinite knowing God as the standard. "Man is a prisoner of his own ignorance, and God is unfettered in His infinite knowledge of all things including future contingents."
One may speaking poetically and use figures of speech as both you and I have to describe "prisoner, fetters . . ." However, after one is done with the rhetoric, one needs to give reason why one believes that God does not know actually know future contingents? I have responded the main proponents of neotheism in the book "Battle for God."
Would you please provide arguments why God cannot know future contingents if this is in fact what you believe? We have responded to Pinnock, Haskers, Boyd, and Sanders arguments? If you hold their view, would you please provide some new arguments?
I did not understand what you meant by "More artificial eloquence or that which allures and charms" would you please expound on the sentence fragment
In Him
Max
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/7/2002 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | The raging debate continues here...
Subject: foreknowledge Author: Tim Short Date: 6/6/2002 10:37:13 PM
Is this what your looking for Max,
God is without beginning or end of existence; possessing all knowledge, without treachery; exempt from error, with an unchanging character; all-powerful; that is, not dependent upon another power.
However, I do not believe it is possible for God not to know all possible futures, from eternity past. In addition, to believe there is only one possible predetermined future seems fatalistically absurd to me.
In God’s Love,
Tim
Subject: foreknowledge Author: Max Herrera Date: 6/7/2002 12:55:00 AM
Dear Tim,
That is close to what I was looking for. In my next missive, I will answer a couple of questions dealing with the attributes of God than can be answered yes or no. Depending on how you answer those questions will give an idea as to your belief system about God.
I am going to ask you some questions, if you do not mind, in reference to one of your last statements.
As you can tell, I have many typos in my statements, and I quickly type up my response and hit the submit button.
Did you have a typo in the statement "However, I do NOT believe it is possible for God NOT to know all possible futures, from eternity past". If this is not a typo, I agree with you, for in essence you are saying that God necessarily knows all possible future events.
As for your assertion, "to believe there is only one possible predetermined future seems fatalistically absurd to me", please substantiate why this is fatalistically absurd. It is one thing to make another assertion, it is yet another to be able to substantiate why what one is saying is true.
Also, please refer to the following link: http://www.mercydrops.com/battle/articles/neotheism.htm#_Toc513526806
An event can be determined in relationship to the Divine Intellect, but it is free in relationship to the will of the creature. Moreover, given that the mode of being of God and the creature are not the same, the same event is determined in respect to God's knowing, but it is free in relationship to the creature's willing. Thus, the same event can be determined and free in varying relationships. Therefore, fatalism does not follow.
Looking forward to hearing your substantiate why "having one possible predetermined future is absurd."
In your answer please remember, that God determines the ends and the means to those ends. Some means He determines necessarily. Some means He determines continently (through free-will). Therefore, there is no fatalism if one makes the distinction between THAT God determines all things and HOW God determines.
Love in Christ
Max
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:41 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 |
|
|