ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lighthouse]

I see they have yet to answer my questions...

 

[godrulz]

does spiritual baptism = regeneration?

Context? When we are baptized into the Body of Christ upon initial repentant faith, we are justified. This is related to regeneration which is basically the same time/thing.

If we are talking about the infilling of the Spirit in Acts where believers (already regenerated) are empowered with the initial evidence of tongues (Pentecostal), then that is a different 'Spirit baptism'.

 

[godrulz]

This is the normal battle between the Armenians and Calvinist. OSAS is the crux of the division between the two. I don't think it can be avoided. The Openview is more Armenian and by in large believe that salvation must be maintained by the individual rather than God. There are truths maintained by the Calvinist like OSAS that I support but I reject the predestined salvation of the believer that the Calvinist teach. I support the free will of man to come to Christ to receive salvation as you do but I reject the OV/ Arminian position that it is us who must maintain it. To me, life is maintained by God. So yes we are caught in the quagmire of the centuries old fight between the Armenians and the calvinist.

Arminians and OTs do not teach that salvation must be maintained by man. The keeping power and grace of the Spirit maintains us, but not against our wills. Likewise, God's saving power and grace saves us, but not against our wills. The Bible portrays a cooperative element, a Godward and manward side, in salvation and perserverance. We are exhorted and commanded to yield, obey, abide, continue to trust, etc. We are exhorted to not wander, deviate, fall into sin, return to godless unbelief, etc.

God initiates and provides. This is the Godward and objective aspect. The subjective, manward aspect involves simple faith, appropriation of the provision, etc.

The view simply does not state that man independently saves or keeps Himself apart from the work of the Spirit in our lives.

e.g. I Peter 1:13-16; 2 Cor. 7:2; 2 Peter 1:3-11; Philippians 2:12-13; Philippians 3:12-14

God works in us and we work it out with loving obedience (Phil. 2). Regeneration is monergistic, but sanctification is synergistic (even Reformed theologians believe this).

 

[elected4ever]

elected4ever,

You have my support in countering the OVT claims; however, I must publically disagree with you regarding your belief that men receive salvation according to the exercise of their free wills. I say this, not to argue with you, which would be OT, but to clarify my Reformed position, and advocation of the five points of grace (TULIP). I believe sinners are saved solely by the will and grace of God.

IMO, OVT is the sorry and bad fruit produced by Arminianism.

Nang

We both know that no man comes to Jesus except the Spirit draw him. We also know that it is the will of God that all men be saved. We also know that all will not be saved. Jesus said that when he was lifted up that he would draw all men to Himself. Sense we know that Jesus draws all men and that it is the will of god that all be saved and we know that man does refuse the calling then TULIP becomes a fabrication and Clete is right in so stating. There is no such thing as irresistible grace.

We know that Adam, of his own free will chose to disobey god and with the Calvinist position that God is the cause of all things then we have a God that creates sin. The Calvinist has god as the author of sin. and god becomes unjust because he becomes the cause of eternal damnation and sin. God is essentially opposing His own will. That is strike two against the Calvinist. God is not the author of sin. Clete is right again. Gee, who would ever think that I, a bonafide Calvinist by cletes standards, would be defending him.

We know that God gave man dominion, authority, over the earth and in that capacity man has the right to decide what goes own here. If man has not the ability to choose then Calvinist have turned God into a liar and man has no choice and no God given authority concerning his domain as God directed. Oh my, Clete is right again.:doh: I will never live this down. Calvinism is just a fraudulent theological system. Making clams it cannot support. Three strikes and you are out!

 

[Clete]

Hey Clete,

What are the basic beliefs of Open Theism? I had never heard of it until
I joined this forum. thanks.

Great question STP; thanks for asking!

I'm at work at the moment and don't have time to answer but I will post, or maybe repost something as soon as time allows.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Hey Clete,

What are the basic beliefs of Open Theism? I had never heard of it until
I joined this forum. thanks.

http://www.opentheism.info/

 

[Lon]

On the contrary Lonster. Think this through again. It isn't Omnipotence that causes the trouble.

Why would a God need to be competent at all, say for example in the area of personal relationships (i.e. working with His allies and manipulating His enemies), in a world where He has predestined every detail of every event everywhere at all times? How competent of a chess player would you really need to be if you decided what the rules were, you decided when and where your opponent would move and you decided what the definition of victory was? The God of Calvinism isn't competent He's just a control freak.

And isn't that what we experience in our own lives? Have you ever met anyone who just had to control everything and everyone in their lives? Is it our experience that such people are competent or isn't it true that such people are the control freaks they are precisely because they are insecure in their ability to deal with life as it comes? If God really is controlling everything that happens all around us all the time then why don't we consider the control freaks in our lives to be godly people who are wise and worthy of emulation? Is it not the person who is unflappable and seemingly invincible in his dealings with other people no matter what comes up that we admire and intuitively understand as being smarter and more competent? Why would such be true of us and the opposite be true of God? Are we not made in God's image? Is wisdom somehow different for God than it is for us? It can't be, right?! God's character forms the very definition of not only wisdom and righteousness but competence as well and we know not only from God's word but intuitively as well what those things mean for He has written such things on our hearts.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That's human reasoning there. Of course a chess player that could read minds would always be competent which would make the point mute, but I'd not heard OV deny omnipotence. One did, but I assumed he was a noob. All powerful is very scriptural. What you are talking about is Omniscience and of course it also makes it a mute point, but I was aiming for something we'd both be on the same page on.

 

[Lon]

I did not know what it was about. I read much and rarely watch TV or movies. The movie was fairly clean. My wife wanted to see it. Do you always know what is garbage or not? My point is that your view on time/eternity could try to make sense of it. My view shows why it is impossible and incoherent.

Sorry bro, seems like we can't even tease one another without taking flak. It wasn't ruined, I'll see it eventually and probably moreso now, because of your recommendation. Of course you were pointing to a theological issue. It surprises me that you are taking flak on a movie. It speaks to your engaging and 'must read' style, so it has its perks.

Blessings in Him,

Lon

 

[Lon]

Well said my man, Clete.

Omni-competent vs. control freak

Even knowing your opponents every future move doesn’t require the competence to negotiate relationships with significant others who have a say-so in their choices and actions. Being Omni-competent doesn’t remove all the risks. They could just quit the game. Maybe that is why God allows us to win a game now and then. But, beating God at his own game isn’t really winning; is it?




E4E is going to have a field day with that one.:shut:

Well, that and 'bazaar' which is a kind of 'open market.'

It was bizarre, I was at Pike Street Market just the other day.

 

[Lon]

Is this thread about Open Theism or OSAS or what?

You know how it goes. It is just fishing unless someone gets hooked. I'm not naming names though......


(Cough....Godrulz....cough....Philetus....cough)

 

[godrulz]

Sorry bro, seems like we can't even tease one another without taking flak. It wasn't ruined, I'll see it eventually and probably moreso now, because of your recommendation. Of course you were pointing to a theological issue. It surprises me that you are taking flak on a movie. It speaks to your engaging and 'must read' style, so it has its perks.

Blessings in Him,

Lon

Actually, I did not recommend the movie. It did have good acting and some entertainment value. My wife is right brained so enjoyed it. I am left brained so was discombobulated by it.:dizzy:

 

[Nang]

Arminians and OTs do not teach that salvation must be maintained by man.

If one believes sanctification is synergistic, then one believes man must do his share of work to maintain and guarantee his own ultimate salvation.

Regeneration is monergistic, but sanctification is synergistic (even Reformed theologians believe this).

Not this Reformer, nor any of her teachers. Reformed theologians who teach synergisim in any form are not Reformed; they are Amyraldians or worse.

 

[Nang]

We both know that no man comes to Jesus except the Spirit draw him. We also know that it is the will of God that all men be saved. We also know that all will not be saved. Jesus said that when he was lifted up that he would draw all men to Himself. Sense we know that Jesus draws all men and that it is the will of god that all be saved and we know that man does refuse the calling then TULIP becomes a fabrication and Clete is right in so stating. There is no such thing as irresistible grace.

We know that Adam, of his own free will chose to disobey god and with the Calvinist position that God is the cause of all things then we have a God that creates sin. The Calvinist has god as the author of sin. and god becomes unjust because he becomes the cause of eternal damnation and sin. God is essentially opposing His own will. That is strike two against the Calvinist. God is not the author of sin. Clete is right again. Gee, who would ever think that I, a bonafide Calvinist by cletes standards, would be defending him.

We know that God gave man dominion, authority, over the earth and in that capacity man has the right to decide what goes own here. If man has not the ability to choose then Calvinist have turned God into a liar and man has no choice and no God given authority concerning his domain as God directed. Oh my, Clete is right again.:doh: I will never live this down. Calvinism is just a fraudulent theological system. Making clams it cannot support. Three strikes and you are out!

elected4ever,

I am very disappointed. Not having read enough of your views, I jumped to the conclusion we were on the same page from a few things you said, but apparently I was very wrong.

I am a five-point Calvinist, who believes in double predestination and holds to the five "sola"s, along with the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of faith . . . just to let you and others know my theological views.



Nang

 

[godrulz]

If one believes sanctification is synergistic, then one believes man must do his share of work to maintain and guarantee his own ultimate salvation.



Not this Reformer, nor any of her teachers. Reformed theologians who teach synergisim in any form are not Reformed; they are Amyraldians or worse.

R.C. Sproul and other Reformers in his devotional 'Tabletalk' seems to support this.

I think Anthony Hoekema (Reformed) and Walvoord (Augustinian-dispensational) in a book I just read 'Five views on sanctification' agreed with the Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Keswick perspective were in agreement. They all gave Scriptures showing a Godward and manward (have you not read about love, obedience, yielding, surrender, etc. throughout the NT in relation to sanctification?) element to our growth in Christ. The many exhortations, rebukes, and imperatives in the NT also support this principle.

 

[Nang]

R.C. Sproul and other Reformers in his devotional 'Tabletalk' seems to support this.

Unfortunately, R.C. Sproul is soft on Limited Atonement, and accomodating to Rome, too.

 

[godrulz]

Unfortunately, R.C. Sproul is soft on Limited Atonement, and accomodating to Rome, too.

Really? In my readings, he did not favor Catholicism at all. Calvin was also soft on limited atonement (he did not believe it but believed in general redemption cf. John 3:16...world, not elect).

 

[BillH]

I am catching up. Don't want to slow down the exchange. But is there an easy to point to set of references in the Bible to the following terms:

The 5 solas, the 3 forms of Unity, the Westminster Confession, limited atonement, general redemption, and "double predestination"?

 

[Nang]

Really? In my readings, he did not favor Catholicism at all. Calvin was also soft on limited atonement (he did not believe it but believed in general redemption cf. John 3:16...world, not elect).

I believe you are mistaken on both counts, but I also think this is OT to the OP, and should be discussed elsewhere.

 

[Clete]

That's human reasoning there.

There is no such thing.

More on that in a moment...

Of course a chess player that could read minds would always be competent which would make the point mute, but I'd not heard OV deny omnipotence.

OV does not deny omnipotence and a chess player that could read minds would be cheating, that's the opposite of competent - the exact opposite.

All powerful is very scriptural. What you are talking about is Omniscience and of course it also makes it a mute point, but I was aiming for something we'd both be on the same page on.

I do not deny that all the power in existence finds its source in God and that He has the absolute right to recall any power (i.e. authority) at any time and thus He is both omnipotent and sovereign but that isn't the point I am making.

The point I'm trying to make is that the God of Calvinism isn't competent at all, He's a control freak who cheats. He only looks competent because He's fixed the game in advance.

You called my analogy of a chess player "human reasoning" in an attempt to simply blow it off. But I submit that you cannot honestly blow it off in such a manner. The Bible talks about "man's reasoning" and how foolish it is and so when I say that there is no such thing as human reasoning that might come as a bit of a shock but that is basically what the Bible is saying when it talks about the foolishness of man's reasoning. The Bible doesn't teach that man has his reasoning and that God has His as though there are two legitimate methods of thinking. The point the Bible is making is that what SOME men CALL wisdom, is actually not wisdom at all and is actually foolishness. The Bible isn't trying to say that men are incapable of sound reasoning or that every thought of every man is somehow feeble and ridiculous. It simply means that fools will think foolishness to be wisdom and thus there isn't really any such thing and "human reasoning" except when you are saying that such "reasoning" is in fact foolishness (i.e. irrationality).

Now I realize that I just repeated myself a few times there but I hope doing so made my point clear. You cannot just blow off a valid analogy by calling it human reasoning. By calling it that, assuming you are using the term Biblically, you are effective saying that my argument is somehow fallacious and so you must show how it is fallacious for the accusation to stick. I submit that you cannot do that without rendering the term "competent" meaningless when applied to God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

I am catching up. Don't want to slow down the exchange. But is there an easy to point to set of references in the Bible to the following terms:

The 5 solas, the 3 forms of Unity, the Westminster Confession, limited atonement, general redemption, and "double predestination"?

. . .Snide . . .and childish . . .:baby: