Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[patrick jane]

Did you just say something?

What?

you are an enemy of The Cross, IMO - Hush child

 

[Stripe]

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace.

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

Or, the third option: All men are born with the capacity to choose, but all choose to reject God and thus all require salvation — save one.

 

[Stripe]

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners and go to hell that never got a chance to hear the gospel?

People do not go to hell because they do not hear the gospel.

How would that be any different?

How would what be any different?

If God elected a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation according to his divine purposes (Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Peter 1:1-3; Rev. 5:9b) and only saving those any different than God not revealing his gospel to parts of the earth where people have never heard it and die in there sins? .

:dizzy: Grammar is your friend.

 

[musterion]

Or, the third option: All men are born with the capacity to choose, but all choose to reject God and thus all require salvation — save one.

Yep. That's why His wrath at unbelief is perfectly justified. God spoke to Cain as if he had the power of choice...tried reasoning with him...and God through Paul pleads with unbelievers to be reconciled. If no one has the power to do what God wants apart from Him first making them ABLE to hear Him and WANT to do what He wants, none of this makes any sense.

But then, gnosticism never was keen on linear thinking.

 

[musterion]

Lon, just fyi, I have you on ignore for the duration until I hear back from Bore. We've gone round and round on this so I already know pretty much what you'll say. It's his reply I'm interested in at this point. Nothing personal, thanks for understanding.

 

[musterion]

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace (prevenient grace as the Romanists and Arminians assert) such that the person can actually participate in their re-birth (synergism)

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

Like Stripe pointed out, taking God at His Word and heeding His plea to be reconciled automatically negates absolute monergism (which is how you conceive of it) but absolutely does not demand synergism. There is zero/zip/nada effort or merit involved in simply believing what God says to believe to be saved. It's just the opposite: it's humbling into the dust for the very reason that we CAN'T participate in saving ourselves. "To God be the glory," ALL of it. But we're all still responsible to answer to the light we received.

Incidentally...the sleazy ploy of caricaturing sola fide as synergistic whenever it's proclaimed by non-Calvinists shows just how shady and warped Calvinistic thinking has gotten.

 

[Lighthouse]

Does God ever learn anything?

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

 

[musterion]

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

Oh, now, God was just pretending to go down and find out. He didn't really mean it. It's a figure of speech. Ancient allegorical idiom. Poetical license. Non-literal literalism. Or something, anything, other than the flat meaning of the Words.

 

[intojoy]

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

Context?

 

[musterion]

Ah, you're taking it out of context, Lighthouse.

See? I knew of of our reformed divines would 'splain it to us.

 

[intojoy]

Ah, you're taking it out of context, Lighthouse.

See? I knew of of our reformed divines would 'splain it to us.

Ahh, that's what it means
Hehe

 

[Desert Reign]

This is the question I have agreed to answer from an open theist perspective.

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners and go to hell that never got a chance to hear the gospel? Unless . . . you don't believe that we are all by nature sinners and under God's wrath for our sin.

I have to say it is a pleasure to get the chance to answer this question. But when I have answered it, Mr Orr has agreed to answer the converse question from a Calvinist or reformed perspective.

If I secretly compel you to perform an act, then publicly condemn you for performing it as if YOU CHOSE to do it (which you did not because you didn't HAVE the power of choice), what words would describe me and my actions in this illustration?

So let me begin by summarising the open theist position. Well, it is my position, not necessarily that of other open theists. Although I am reasonably confident that it is their perspective as well.

1. Going to hell does not mean everlasting pain and anguish. Whilst the fires of hell may never go out, each person that goes there is destroyed soon after getting there. That is what fire is for. That is the second death.
2. God is not responsible for the choices of individuals in an open world.
3. God is completely just and judges according the heart, not according to the outward appearance. The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity. The Bible says nothing about this subject.

These three points combined represent probably most of what is significant about open theists' views on judgement and sin.

Some details:
Your question asks:

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners...?

I emphasised the relevant text. Sin can only be committed with knowledge and intent. The (reformed) doctrine of original sin (of course this doctrine did not originate in the reformation but in my view it was the reformation that promoted it in its most crystal clear form)... By the way, I am defining sin in the present context as the deliberate and willing commission of a wicked act. In this context I am not defining it as merely the breaking of some law, though, hopefully, you would expect that law generally would be consistent with goodness. Paul is obviously concerned to make this very point when he says that human beings from Adam to Moses still sinned even though the law was not given. (Rom. 5) Sin is punishable by definition... Therefore the doctrine of the original sin and culpability of every individual from birth is self-contradictory. This fits in with my schema I gave recently for deciding if some or other theology was correct. The doctrine fails the first test of coherence. Therefore we do not go any further with it. We do not attempt to justify it by other methods such as proof texting from the Bible. All the many texts which its supporters adduce from Scripture cannot overcome its inherent incoherence.

To get round this problem, reformed theology emphasises man's tendency to sin as being the grounds for God's judgement rather than the actual commission of sin. One might call it moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts doesn't actually resolve anything. In fact it makes it even harder to justify. Taking this view, one would conclude that both babies and the heathen are worthy of judgement from the time of birth (or conception, though that is not an issue here). To justify this view, the reformed need to resort to a new concept that is not in the Bible. There is no such thing as the fall of man in the Bible. The only time the phrase itself occurs is in the paragraph heading in Genesis ch. 3 in some Bible translations. And that is of course just an editor's comment. Of course, reformed adherents will counter that the mere absence of a particular phrase doesn't prove that the concept itself is absent. But clearly, man after the eviction from Eden is the same man as before. And when God regretted that he had made man, remember that he did not regret that man had fallen. He regretted that he had made man at all. Man with the potential to sin is how man was made, not how man became. If it were true that all men were born sinners and born culpable and worthy of the judgement of hell, then yes, God would be unjust. Happily that is not the case. There is no need here to refute all the many proof texts which Calvinists use to support this doctrine. I certainly can. But as I have said before, it is tedious. The doctrine is incoherent and needs to overcome this hurdle before we talk about scripture.

At any rate, this is the open theist position. We deny that man is by nature sinful and/or that the tendency to sin is culpable in itself. Only the actual of commission of sin is culpable. Men will be judged according to their deeds, not according to how they were made.

So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds.
It is possible that a wicked person would have repented if he had heard the Gospel but there again life is full of what ifs and what could have beens. That is the open view position. The course of history is what it is. You cannot change the past.

Psalm 37 for example confidently proclaims that God will justify the righteous and punish the wicked. This is why it is necessary to proclaim the Gospel. Because the future is open. The future is worth making better. The Calvinist gospel can be summarised by "You may have been lucky enough to be one of the elect, so repent and if you are one of the lucky ones then you will believe and get saved."

Paul gives a little pointer to the career of those who have not heard the Gospel when he proclaims

and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, <sup class="versenum">27 </sup>that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Notice how Paul, when preaching to the unchurched, to rank heathens, does not begin with the 'four spiritual laws'. He does not tell them that they are all sinners condemned to hell. Surely he would have done this if the doctrine of original sin was correct? Instead he speaks of the possibility of these men groping for God and finding him and he speaks of God overlooking the times of ignorance. This is perhaps just an inkling into Paul's concept of the heathen and perhaps on its own it is not sufficient to justify a specific doctrine of salvation without explicit belief in Christ but whatever it is, is certainly anything but the Gospel according to Calvin.

++++++++++++++++++++

I hope the above is seen as a straight answer to the question as posed. I now expect Mr. Orr to answer the question as put to him. As posed. This does not mean arguing that man had free will. The question (which I consider to be very well put) asks about choices, not about will.
I look forward to hearing your answer within 24 hours as agreed.

 

[musterion]

 

[Lon]

Or, the third option: All men are born with the capacity to choose, but all choose to reject God and thus all require salvation — save one.

How then is there not one who 'chooses' to not reject God?

Because there are none, it seems that such is a great stretch of the imagination, doesn't it?

Not only that, your #3, looks exactly like AMR's #1 to me. How is this not just #1?

 

[Lon]

Ah, you're taking it out of context, Lighthouse.

See? I knew of of our reformed divines would 'splain it to us.

Absolutely. If God didn't know, He isn't God. There is no way you can be a little god of your own universe, or else you are a Mormon, and God isn't God. It might 'look' good on paper, but the logical end of a God who is subject to His Creation, means He is a 'created' god and someone or something is greater than he.

The OV doesn't realize it, but literally, by this kind of statement, you logically make God the same as all the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods: one made by human imagination. It is a huge philosophical proof, but God MUST know all or else He is a creation made by the universe. It takes awhile to explain why this is true, but it is absolutely true (if I have to go to the long proof, I'll probably do so in another thread or try and find where I proved this in the Open Theism 1,2,3 threads).

Reiterating: If God literally had to 'come down to see' then He isn't and cannot be God. He is exactly as the Mormons claim: A glorified man, if such is the case. Just so you know it isn't just me, there are plenty of Open Theists who agree with me on this point. They too believe God is a made-up God if He literally had to come down 'to see.'

 

[Desert Reign]

Incidentally...the sleazy ploy of caricaturing sola fide as synergistic whenever it's proclaimed by non-Calvinists shows just how shady and warped Calvinistic thinking has gotten.

I like your incidentals!

It was interesting that the reformers lied about this. They proclaimed that it was only by faith that one could be saved and everyone, as they expected and intended, latched onto it because it was an implicit rejection of indulgences. And of course everyone was ready to pile onto that bandwagon.
But having got people on the bandwagon, the true colours of the bandwagon became apparent: there was absolutely nothing at all that you could do to be saved. From your perspective it was just luck. Not by faith alone, not by scripture alone. Not by anything at all.
At least the Catholics could buy indulgences!

And the jailer cried 'What must I do to be saved?' And Paul answered 'Nothing. You just need to be lucky.'

 

[Lon]

I like your incidentals!

It was interesting that the reformers lied about this. They proclaimed that it was only by faith that one could be saved and everyone, as they expected and intended, latched onto it because it was an implicit rejection of indulgences. And of course everyone was ready to pile onto that bandwagon.
But having got people on the bandwagon, the true colours of the bandwagon became apparent: there was absolutely nothing at all that you could do to be saved. Not by faith alone, not by scripture alone. Not by anything at all.

:nono: It is just the way Calvinists 'think.' That isn't sleazy.

It is my estimation, as a Calvinist, that it doesn't matter if you recognize all comes from Him or no. He is able to save to the uttermost those who are perishing.

In analogy, it is a bit like the life-ring: You can say you held onto the life-ring, but... 1 Corinthians 4:7 and John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 and Acts 17:28 Are we really automatons? Really? In light of these scriptures, is it possible? Can it be? :nono: We have no 'gift' of freewill. Can Christ save you anyway? Yeah, He did, even providing the strength and even 'idea' to hold on to the life ring.

 

[Desert Reign]

I wrote

3. God is completely just and judges according the heart, not according to the outward appearance.

And then I said

At any rate, this is the open theist position. We deny that man is by nature sinful and/or that the tendency to sin is culpable in itself. Only the actual of commission of sin is culpable. Men will be judged according to their deeds, not according to how they were made.

I just want to clarify, in case anyone thinks I have contradicted myself, that the reformed view of man's sinfulness being a tendency to sin is merely a statistical tendency (my choice of words). The heart refers to the intentions. God doesn't judge you merely for having a likelihood of sinning, even if that likelihod is 100%. Judging the heart is not the same as judging on the basis of your tendencies. Babies do not have such intentions.

I could here take the opportunity for a side-swipe against Arminianism. Because they actually do believe this, namely that God has predestined judgement against you on the basis of what you will do, not what you have done. Whilst I feel that the Arminian answer to this question is generally even more incoherent than the Calvinist one, what is most wrong with the Arminian picture is that paints a grotesque picture of the fatherhood of God, who by this view punishes his children on the basis of what they have not yet done. A bit like the father in the literary caricature who gives his son the cane for no reason other than to remind him not to do anything wrong and so to convince him that he is bad by nature.

The open view is a holy view. It is realistic and truthful and provides the proper ground for believers to come to maturity as responsible individuals held by the incomparable love of the Father.

 

[musterion]

I like your incidentals!

It was interesting that the reformers lied about this. They proclaimed that it was only by faith that one could be saved and everyone, as they expected and intended, latched onto it because it was an implicit rejection of indulgences. And of course everyone was ready to pile onto that bandwagon.
But having got people on the bandwagon, the true colours of the bandwagon became apparent: there was absolutely nothing at all that you could do to be saved. From your perspective it was just luck. Not by faith alone, not by scripture alone. Not by anything at all.
At least the Catholics could buy indulgences!

And the jailer cried 'What must I do to be saved?' And Paul answered 'Nothing. You just need to be lucky.'

True, true.

And the jailer cried 'What must I do to be saved?' And Paul answered 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ...if you can.'

 

[Lon]

I wrote

The open view is ...is realistic and truthful ....

:think:

Remember in our 1-on-1 when I told you that the OV hermeneutic isn't realistic and doesn't understand 'truth' other than what is simplistic?

Look:

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

Oh, now, God was just pretending to go down and find out. He didn't really mean it. It's a figure of speech. Ancient allegorical idiom. Poetical license. Non-literal literalism. Or something, anything, other than the flat meaning of the Words.

For these two, God doesn't even know what is knowable AND it is consistent Open Theology or they would not repeat the error. They literally have no hermeneutic rule to stop them.

In the One-on-One, this is exactly what I told you.