ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

I think amillennial views rely on an allegorical vs literal approach.

Reciprocal love relationships...I like it (?John Sanders).

I would part ways with Pinnock if he is leaning toward annihilationalism or universalism (I think Sanders also toys with non-traditional views in this area).

"Reciprocal love relationships" ... Don't know if it's used or just came with the territory.

Most would. Most did. I haven’t found anything that would place him in the universalism camp.

I do know that Pinnock finds that middle ground (can’t think of the term right now, your the lable guy) that salvation is through Christ alone, but not only evangelical 'Christians' will be saved.

I just want to thank you for your friendship and time. I’ve got to chase some of these notions to their end. Wish I could drop by Canada to pick your brain in person. Cyber space has been loads of help but it has its limits.

Hats off to King William!
Always your friend,
Philetus

 

[patman]

If you think God is fooling with you then don't change you mind and we will see if God fools with you are not.Wont to take that chance?

I think you are trying to make a point here, there are words, and they come together in what should be a string of words making a question or something.



Are you trying to scare me into believing like you?

 

[patman]

So your question is "How can God sigh if He already knows an outcome?" If I am reading you correctly. Your answer then is "Because He didn't know, and is relational." Again if I understand your position correctly.

An alternative is this: 1) God isn't like us. We must be very careful to make sure we understand God for who He is. It is easy to anthropomorphize what we read in scripture. If OV should have a caution, this would be my stressed point over anything else. We often transcribe our own feelings and thought upon others and get it wrong. It is egocentric, and it comes naturally to us. The caution here is to make sure we are empathetic to God's position and transcendence. He is above His creation (us Ecc 8:17. 2) If God is all-knowing (EF) then we need to remember that God isn't like a man nor does He think like one Numbers 23:19 Isaiah 46:9-10 His Words stand forever, which means they are not only accomplished, but are written both before and after the fact (Psalms 119:89 this one is key, some things are 'very settled').
3) Translating all Hebraic thought is a difficult manuever. When we see God repenting of an action, נחם (nâcham) it means He sighed (or breathed)deeply.
God can know all things and yet be relational and He has emotions.

If I'm an automotive engineer who builds wonderful cars, and I custom build one for a demolition derby, I know the car will be ruined, but when I see it, I'd repent even more that I made it. For me, captured in time and space, it is upon the results that I repent, for God, it is a heavy sigh upon seeing man's condition. Because He is relational to us, even if the event is known (like it is past already) He still relates to us in our moment of time. For this, you would agree. It isn't that SV doesn't see God as relational to us in time at all. It is that He is both relational to, and outside of it.

Hey Lonster, I didn't think you would ever talk to me again.

My point to E4E was in response to the, what I think of as, ODD thought process the SV has to go through to come to in order to believe.

If God repents from something he said, SV says he meant to repent all along, even when he originally said he would do what he repented of. That's just ODD.

The verses you shared are great. As an Open Theist I completely agree. His words are here to stay.

I am just going to quote those:

19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Yeah, I think so. But the logic shown by many S.V. means God did lie, do you agree? And repent in the fashion of repenting of lying is not the repenting that God does and proudly proclaims he will do in the event that we repent first.

I know you may never become an Open Theist. All along you have shown no interest in changing your mind no matter what we showed you because it just wasn't for you. But on the other hand, I did make the change. I can't believe I read verses such as the ones you present in the way I did. The OV makes much better use of scripture.

 

[patman]

I think a view many open theists have is that Christian thinking was eventually mixed up with Greek Philosophy and that is how the idea of an immutable God came about.

But didn't the old Jewish beliefs, the people who wrote the Old Testament, believe in an all knowing God and that is where Christians inherited this belief from?

Also, didn't the Jewish people believe that good works take precedence and faith means little without it?

One more thing, weren't the Jewish people not overly concerned with the afterlife and didn't really believe in hell etc. It seems that open theists mistakenly try to use the Old Testament to back their own beliefs without considering what the true belief of the people who wrote it was.

Check out these sources for the backing of my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_Christianity

Hello baloney. Welcome to TOL and the most interesting thread on the internet, "Open Theism!"

Open Theist believe God is all knowing. The "catch" is we do not believe there is a future as in, a place or thing. Without the future being a thing, it is not someTHING God can know.

And this is a broad statement, Open Theists believe God has some future knowledge... in that he knows what he will make happen, and that he is smart enough to figure many things out without a magic 8 ball(that's my choice of future knowledge aside from God).

Going to heaven is kinda of a new thing. Not all open theists will agree with me, but heave is a place Christians who came after the apostle Paul will go. Hell has always been in the Bible too, but earth is the place Jews will go to when they are resurrected. Hell is throughout the entire OT too. I never understood why people say it isn't there.

 

[godrulz]

Has anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.ca/Wideness-Gods-...5702435?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179890049&sr=1-2

I would have concerns with conclusions that one can be saved if sincere and seeking in other religions. This would be highly exceptional and would still require faith in Christ.

Until I read the book (I probably would not buy something that seems to be a compromise of the gospel), I have no right to tar and feather. So, if someone else can use their hard earned money, let us know what he is getting at.

Philetus, I think this is part of the red flag I had. I like Pinnock as a whole, but he has had to restate his position on Scripture, etc. I hope he does not go to far from strong biblical principles for speculative things (affects credibility).

 

[Nang]

I don't see how any of you can tolerate this ding bat.

The sons of God are only called "ding bats" by the children of the devil.

Which reveals the spirit Clete serves . . .

Nang

 

[baloney]

Interesting ideas, Pat. I have to say you are stepping outside the boundaries of what Scripture says and delving into moderrn physics and philosophy.

That's all right, but you seem to doing the same thing that Christians in the Middle Ages are accused of doing by delving into philosophy. Remember Christian theologians only delved into the philosophy to defend the Church against ideas that were being rediscovered from the Greeks.

In fact, some of the Greek arguments against Christianity seem to follow open theism thinking.

Define what you mean as "thing" when you speak of the future and how do you perceive what "future" is.

 

[Philetus]

Has anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.ca/Wideness-Gods-...5702435?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179890049&sr=1-2

I would have concerns with conclusions that one can be saved if sincere and seeking in other religions. This would be highly exceptional and would still require faith in Christ.

Until I read the book (I probably would not buy something that seems to be a compromise of the gospel), I have no right to tar and feather. So, if someone else can use their hard earned money, let us know what he is getting at.

Philetus, I think this is part of the red flag I had. I like Pinnock as a whole, but he has had to restate his position on Scripture, etc. I hope he does not go to far from strong biblical principles for speculative things (affects credibility).

I haven't read it. What I have read are reactions/responses to it. Most raise the same concern as you. I have it on order at the university through inter-library loan. (Seems my tradition is 'tight' about buying books they disagree with also.:chuckle: )

I think what Pennock has tried to do is address the questions and challenges of religious pluralism by taking a high Christology and relate it to the question of those "outside the pale" of the Gospel. I have to confess I don't see that much difference in giving those 'left behind' a thousand years to do what everyone else had a life time to do. I'm eager to read it to see where he comes out.

So, in your more blueprintish interpretation of Revelation, can God save whoever he wants? Can those who 'show up' in the last hour expect to be paid the same as those who have labored in the vineyard all day? I'm with you on the side of caution for now, but I have to wonder if that isn't because I might be a little miffed at God for being that loving and gracious, especially after spending most of my fifty plus years pushing for privatized repentance and new birth. It will be interesting to see what Pennock has to say.

Just thinking out loud; trying to regain my status as a heretic.

 

[Philetus]

The sons of God are only called "ding bats" by the children of the devil.

Which reveals the spirit Clete serves . . .

Nang

Lets all play, "Which Ding Bat Gets the Last Word"

 

[patman]

Interesting ideas, Pat. I have to say you are stepping outside the boundaries of what Scripture says and delving into moderrn physics and philosophy.

.....

Define what you mean as "thing" when you speak of the future and how do you perceive what "future" is.

Modern physics? They say the future exists don't they?

And philosophy? All that says the opposite too, doesn't it?

I am here simply saying time is event after event after event. The future is simply the events that might happen, but have not. We measure time, yes, we forecast it, but it isn't like it is a building or a string with knots tied in it for sam becket to leap around in.

In fact those are the ideas that lead people to think time is something that can be manipulated. Really, all there is, is the present. The past is gone, the future is theoretical. It's not philosophical at all.

And I am not stepping outside of what scripture says. Show the verse that says God knows the ALL of future. Show the verse that says time is a thing. Show the verse that says there is fate.

You are new here. You have no reason to really have respect for me yet, if you ever will. But one thing I do is try to keep to scripture. I am very well versed, I have studied prophecy and Open Theism. I too used to be a Closed Theist and through scripture (not the arguments tailored to where things went wrong) I was convinced that OT was the most accurate depiction of scripture.

I invite you to discuss this, but my invitation stands for you. Please, provide the verse that contradicts what I said here.

 

[patman]

Lets all play, "Which Ding Bat Gets the Last Word"

Woooo that's a wonderful game! Pheletus, I am more righteous than you because I only condemn christian's I don't like.

Beat that!

 

[godrulz]

Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory may lend some support to Open Theism.

Philetus: God can save whomever He wants. There will be many swept into the kingdom during the Tribulation period. Those who convert on their death beds will share our destiny, but your life time of service to God will have different rewards/responsibilities. Being saved by the skin of your teeth is not the way to go.

Those who are saved still come through the exclusivicity (is that a word?) of Christ. John 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16, etc. still stand. God will not save people apart from the person and work of Christ. Salvation is not in Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, etc. I hope Pinnock is not compromising the narrow Way.

 

[patman]

Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory may lend some support to Open Theism.

I do not believe physics or science has anything to offer the closed view. After all, we are SPIRITUAL beings too... are spirits forever tied to physical laws?

 

[Yorzhik]

I think a view many open theists have is that Christian thinking was eventually mixed up with Greek Philosophy and that is how the idea of an immutable God came about.

That's what Augustine said. But was he really that influential? I'd say yes, but you might say no.

But didn't the old Jewish beliefs, the people who wrote the Old Testament, believe in an all knowing God and that is where Christians inherited this belief from?

It is suggested that perhaps David had a more transcendent view of God, but the other writers of the OT wrote OV, although I'm guessing you'll say the commentaries peg them as SV.

Also, didn't the Jewish people believe that good works take precedence and faith means little without it?

Yes, as God wanted.

One more thing, weren't the Jewish people not overly concerned with the afterlife and didn't really believe in hell etc. It seems that open theists mistakenly try to use the Old Testament to back their own beliefs without considering what the true belief of the people who wrote it was.

Oh, I think you are right here to a great extent. Most Christians have a skewed view of hell. But that is another subject.

Check out these sources for the backing of my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_Christianity

First, they don't back your argument as much as you think they do, and second, they are written by the same major modern thinkers that you fall in with.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh, yes, and welcome baloney!

 

[Philetus]

Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory may lend some support to Open Theism.

Philetus: God can save whomever He wants. There will be many swept into the kingdom during the Tribulation period. Those who convert on their death beds will share our destiny, but your life time of service to God will have different rewards/responsibilities. Being saved by the skin of your teeth is not the way to go.

Those who are saved still come through the exclusivicity (is that a word?) of Christ. John 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16, etc. still stand. God will not save people apart from the person and work of Christ. Salvation is not in Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, etc. I hope Pinnock is not compromising the narrow Way.

I'm not sure its spelled rite but yeah, it's the write word. No other way! But as Pennock's title suggest there is a wideness .... Jesus took his place between two 'thieves'. What an incredibly gracious, loving, omnicompetent God we serve … well at least trust to do the right thing.

 

[Philetus]

Woooo that's a wonderful game! Pheletus, I am more righteous than you because I only condemn christian's I don't like.

Beat that!

:rotfl:
Righteous dingbat!

 

[Philetus]

Welcome to the mayonnaise jar, Baloney! With a screen name like that, I can't wait to see the avatar you come up with.

Really, welcome to the fray.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

ex·clu·siv·i·ty

exclusivity

I found it. I found it.

GR, does that mean that we are exclusively His or is He exclusively ours?

(you will have to tell me when to stop):chuckle:

 

[patman]

:rotfl:
Righteous dingbat!

:shocked:

Now we know you are going to hell!!!!

I know it's a far drive, but bring some funyon to stack on and wear a sweater(I hear it is still cold in hell), but bring back a t-Shirt! And tell Clete not to stay too long while you are over there.