ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

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?

If the Calvinist version of God is correct then they could not just quit the game unless God had predestined them to quit, which of course, according to the Calvinist would somehow be playing right into God's hands. The God of Calvinism cannot be beaten not because He's competent but because He's predestined Himself to win. It has nothing to do with competence at all. Competence isn't even a word that could meaningfully be applied in any way to the God of Calvinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

If the Calvinist version of God is correct then they could not just quit the game unless God had predestined them to quit, which of course, according to the Calvinist would somehow be playing right into God's hands. The God of Calvinism cannot be beaten not because He's competent but because He's predestined Himself to win. It has nothing to do with competence at all. Competence isn't even a word that could meaningfully be applied in any way to the God of Calvinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You are mistaken in your attempt to evaluate the Creator, when it is you, the creature, who stands under Godly scrutiny and examination.

IOW's, until creatures are led to focus upon their individual sinfulness and depravity and lost condition before God, there can be no comprehension of their Creator. (John 3:3)

How dare the mortal made of dust, attempt to understand or judge the Immortal?

Was not that very lesson given through Job?

Nang

 

[Clete]

Hey Clete,

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

Did you find the link godrulz posted helpful?

If you missed it, here it is again...

http://www.opentheism.info/

It really is a good place to start, although I don't really agree with Sander's last paragraph. The Openness position concerning the lack of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is indeed a watershed issue and its importance cannot be overstated. But otherwise what is said on that page is quite good and would provide an excellent place to start a conversation on the subject. If you have any questions at all please ask them!


Speaking of asking questions...

Are you a Pauline Dispensationalist?

I ask because I came to Open Theism by way of Acts 9 Dispensationalism (i.e. very very Pauline) and so I thought perhaps you might end up taking a very similar tack as I did. The whole plot line of the Bible and the New Testament in particular makes so much more sense now. Acts 9 Dispensational Open Theism is the only theological system that I have yet found that is truly Biblically sound and rationally coherent.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BillH]

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

Nang, huh..I've been getting my head bashed in on another forum for 3 days...I come back to this one..and I get that from you...without even a hint of response.

Where are the following things in the Bible?

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

The list grows....three years ago I remember learning about 2 solas, not in the Bible..and now we have 5.

 

[Clete]

You are mistaken in your attempt to evaluate the Creator, when it is you, the creature, who stands under Godly scrutiny and examination.

IOW's, until creatures are led to focus upon their individual sinfulness and depravity and lost condition before God, there can be no comprehension of their Creator. (John 3:3)

How dare the mortal made of dust, attempt to understand or judge the Immortal?

Was not that very lesson given through Job?

Nang

No Nang, that was not the lesson at all. On the contrary, the lesson was, don't evaluate God foolishly. We are actually told to evaluate God many times in Scripture. We are told to test Him and see if He will not be faithful to His word and pour out blessings on those who obey His word. He sets before us, life and death, and tells us to choose and to do so wisely. Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" and Paul tells us that we will judge the angels themselves and that the righteous man judges ALL things.

And besides, I was evaluating the God of Calvinism, and comparing it to the true, living, personal, righteous, relational and loving of God of Creation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Notice that Nang made no actual arguments here but merely shot her mouth off with typical Calvinist mumbo-jumbo. I expect that no attempt will be made on her part to substantiate any claims she ever makes.

 

[Clete]

Nang, huh..I've been getting my head bashed in on another forum for 3 days...I come back to this one..and I get that from you...without even a hint of response.

Where are the following things in the Bible?

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

The list grows....three years ago I remember learning about 2 solas, not in the Bible..and now we have 5.

You'll never get anything substantive out of Nang, she is incapable of producing it.

I however would love to answer your question but I don't think I understand it. Could you clarify?

I mean I know what the five solas are....

1 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
3 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
4 Solus Christus ("In Christ alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("Glory to God alone")

But I'm a little foggy as to what you mean by the three forms of unity.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Nang, huh..I've been getting my head bashed in on another forum for 3 days...

I am sorry about this, BillH.

I come back to this one..and I get that from you...without even a hint of response.

Where are the following things in the Bible?

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

The list grows....three years ago I remember learning about 2 solas, not in the Bible..and now we have 5.

:sigh:

Do you not realize your approach is as old as all the anti-Trinitarian arguments?

Have you ever read the Canons of Dordt, or the Belgic Confession, or the Heidelberg Confession, or the Westminster Confession of Faith?

They are nothing more and nothing less than total synopsis of Holy Scripture.

The "5 Solas" are a confession of the teachings of the Holy Scriptures:

Sola Scriptura (by the revelation of Holy Scripture, alone)
Solus Christus (are souls given the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, alone)
Sola Fide (which is appropriated, understood, and confessed by faith in Christ, alone)
Sola Gratia (via the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ, alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of the saving grace of God, alone)


So what is your "Christian" objection?

Nang

 

[Clete]

Ah! I found it! Don't you just love Wikipedia!

Three Forms of Unity

This stuff is not in the Bible. All that crap that Nang listed just means she's a dyed in the wool Calvinist who doesn't know how to read the Bible for herself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Ah! I found it! Don't you just love Wikipedia!

Three Forms of Unity

This stuff is not in the Bible. All that crap that Nang listed just means she's a died in the wool Calvinist who doesn't know how to read the Bible for herself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is so sad, that those who claim to be Protestants, must go to Wikipedia to learn the basis of the Protestant faith.

Clete, what you consider "crap" is the confession of the Protestant believers for the last 500+ years.

All you do, is expose your ignorance and lack of theological teaching and learning.

And it brings me no pleasure to see your spiritual nakedness, even though I am being instrumental in uncovering it.

Nang

 

[Lon]

There is no such thing.

More on that in a moment...


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.


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

Yes, I was contemplating restating that after I'd posted and re-read. It isn't so much that I'm saying 'your' using human reasoning as to say this part of the discussion lends to human reasoning in analogy like a chess game, which ultimately is correlative but lack proper analogy. I also believe we bring our respective feelings to the table as well. For you, you'd seek analogy that isn't an affront to your freewill. For me, I seek to see a God who is not only competent, but knowing real outcome to His omnipotence.

As I've heard you guys speak of this, I believe the position needs to be stated in several ways, and with more clarity. Also there needs to be less conveyance of 'you've got it wrong and omniscience is logically impossible. Not because I don't believe it is your position, but because it gets opponents focusing on the wrong aspect of what you believe. It has taken me a few months, but I believe Omnicompetence with Omnipotence gives a sense of great foreknowledge, that is that what God sets to accomplish in the future will be accomplished, exactly as He plans. It isn't exhaustive foreknowledge at that point, but it brings us closer on table-talks. I would not have appreciated this if I hadn't stuck around long enough to get the drift.

At any rate, we seek analogy that fits our theological perspective and angle, and this is what I was trying to say about the 'chess board.' It is analogy from our human reasoning, and it is a hard one for me to connect with. I just cannot make the scenario connection with God in a game where the extrapolation is that He is cheating. I think purchase order manager would work better for both of us in analogy. He could know based on years of purchasing, which months to push product, and which ones to lay low. For a nonOVer it wouldn't bother anyone to say he actually knows omnisciently, perhaps a sci-fi comment, but it wouldn't lead to a real dilemma.

 

[Lon]

If the Calvinist version of God is correct then they could not just quit the game unless God had predestined them to quit, which of course, according to the Calvinist would somehow be playing right into God's hands. The God of Calvinism cannot be beaten not because He's competent but because He's predestined Himself to win. It has nothing to do with competence at all. Competence isn't even a word that could meaningfully be applied in any way to the God of Calvinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, it'd be built into the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. Competence would be a mute point implied.

 

[Clete]

It is so sad, that those who claim to be Protestants, must go to Wikipedia to learn the basis of the Protestant faith.

I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a Protestant.

Clete, what you consider "crap" is the confession of the Protestant believers for the last 500+ years.

It's crap.

All you do, is expose your ignorance and lack of theological teaching and learning.

Look who's talking.

And it brings me no pleasure to see your spiritual nakedness, even though I am being instrumental in uncovering it.

Liar. You live to see me naked. Don't tell Reader!

:kiss:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Posted by DFT_Dave
Maybe you don't build your theology on Greek philosophy but Augustine did by his own confession.

Posted by Lonster
Certiainly I agree, there definitely was influence of greek philosophy upon him, but I use scripture to back up claims of who God is. I do not believe He is unmoved, but that He is perfect. Our change is from lessers to glory, His is responsive change that entails His perfect love and care. This should have an OV thread btw, there is great room here for misinterpretation from those looking in, and in fact, the debate between Enyart and Cook pointed to this. There is a need to define 'unmoved mover.' I've been with you guys long enough to know we aren't necessarily in disagreement, but because it is a change in a doctrinal stance, it needs a good address.

An understanding of what is meant by "Unmoved Mover" must come from Aristotle. He originated it, he said, "There is something that is always moving the things that are moved...There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."

Posted by DFT_Dave
Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people." To repent is a change of mind and action.

Posted by Lonster
I agree with this, it is scriptural, but.... there are some logic problems we should discuss. Because God is perfect there is no 'need' to change. His change therefore must be seen as necessary for 'us.' I am not perfect so to even appreciate the sense of a sentence like this I'm scrambling. If you make a perfect anything, you could change it (like the colors, or wooden panels. It wouldn't necessarily make it less perfect, but what we do know is that from Everlasting to Everlasting God is the same Psa 90:2; Psa 89:34; and in Kings we also recon that Something in His very nature does not change. Therefore, there must need be a cogent theology that accounts for what we see. To simply say "God changes" is just as wrong to simply say "God never changes." There is great need to build a cogent doctrine.

That's why I said that God's character does not change. He always has been and always will be love, light, and justice, etc.. But the Bible clearly tells us that God can change his mind, make plans, and alter them.

Any kind of change for Aristotle is an imperfection. He defined four kinds of change that he saw in nature. "Change of what a thing is is simple coming-to-be and perishing; change of quantity is growth and diminution; change of affection is alteration; change of place is motion." He also said everything in nature "changes from being potentially to being in actuality; a thing changes, for instance, from being potentially white to being actually white."

In reference to God Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."

Posted by DFT_Dave
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the word became flesh and dwelt among us." This is greatest change of all. The Word becoming flesh not only speaks of change but also time and movement.

Posted by Lonster
Yes, but by the very act there is a transcendence of time at the incarnation. Once I was told by OV in here that when Joshua's day of battle extened, it was not the suspension of time, but it definitely was a time change. Whether by stopping all the universe, or by some other means, the concept of time was suspended. This gets very difficult in which to see clearly, but this moment in O.T. history transcends our understandings. Somehow that particular day had more hours involved with it. The pattern of perception of time was disrupted. All this to say, that God's time is different from ours (a day as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day).

It is very important that we define what we mean by time. Time is a characteristic of anything that exists and is active. Any kind of movement is a change of some type and incorporates the essence of time in three ways: 1. before and after; 2. past, present, and future; 3. duration. Time does not exist in itself as something material or as an invisible form of energy. The measuring of time is relative because it can be done in many ways in different places.

Einstein "If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."

Time exists in God because he is active in the world he has created--Revealed Theology. We know that God existed 'before" he created the world and so we can also say that the creation of the world is in his "past". Before the creation of the world there was "movement" within the Trinity. Love and communication are forms of movement. God endures forever, time for God is unlimited, he had no beginning and he will have no end.

Posted by Lonster
This is a pretty good start on this discussion. It was like I was reading your mind. At this point, it'd be awesome to start a thread concerning just this, because clarity is needed. If you'd like to move this post over to a new place along with your's and any other pertinent comments, I believe this would serve as a great thread all on it's own.

To understand the essentials of Greek philosophy, as I have outlined it, is essential in an understanding of what OV is and why it is so important. Augustine is one of many theologians who have attempted to synthesis philosophy with revelation and produced a theology of contradictions and confusion. Biblical terms and concepts must be defined and understood within their own context and not a Platonic one.

The key to understanding OV is not primarily in a concept of eternal time or a view of free will and foreknowledge, but in our understanding of God. God has "infinite potentiality". He has unlimited potential and freedom of thought and action in an eternity of unlimited time. God does not do everything all at once nor does he do anything carelessly.

If we can continue along this way, we can focus on key definitions, compare scripture with philosophy and see "if" and "how" theologians have combined them, and see if we are doing the same or not.

 

[DFT_Dave]

DFT - Great Response!! This is something I have always wondered about the Calvinist version of God - Can God really know what time it is? If God is in the "Eternal Now" and decides to jump into the present, doesn't he have to know exactly when to show up on the scene. Take all the OT examples of God jumping into time (or the present) to speak with prophets or the Israelites, didn't He have to make a "choice" as to when He would show up "in time" while yet being in the Eternal Now??

The Eternal Now concept of God is NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE! This is a philosophical concept and not one based on scripture. Not to mention that none of the intended recipients of God's word ever had this view of God. Clearly they viewed God in duration and reacted as such. When God speaks in either the OT or NT, the very fact that he puts one word in front of the other shows He is in duration. I am new to TOL, but I have been a Open Theist for almost 4 years and I must say I have been changed forever more as a result of it. What I see on this thread is a lot of people who refuse to use solid hermeneutics to interpret scripture and put Greek philosophy, seminary degrees above scriptures and common sense.

Sorry, I missed your earlier post. When God "speaks" is exactly the point. God uses "words" because they have the same meaning to us as they do to him. "The Word became flesh" is the most important statement in Scripture. The "logos" refers both to "words" and "logic".

 

[Clete]

Yes, I was contemplating restating that after I'd posted and re-read. It isn't so much that I'm saying 'your' using human reasoning as to say this part of the discussion lends to human reasoning in analogy like a chess game, which ultimately is correlative but lack proper analogy. I also believe we bring our respective feelings to the table as well. For you, you'd seek analogy that isn't an affront to your freewill.

It isn't about free will! I seek an analogy that is accurate Lonster, one which conveys the point in a meaningful way that we can relate too. In what way is the analogy flawed? Would a person who controlled the whole game (regardless of what sort of game it is) including the rules and each move his opponents make, be a competent player of that game?

If a football coach called the perfect play for his team every time because he also got to call the play for the opposition and therefore won every game, would the coach be considered a great coach or wouldn't he be considered more than just a little bit creepy?

How does that not exactly describe what Calvinism teaches about the way God runs the universe? Does God not control every thought, word and deed of every creature in all of existence? Is God not in direct control of every event that ever happens? How can such a God be credited for defeating His enemies?

For me, I seek to see a God who is not only competent, but knowing real outcome to His omnipotence.

Why?

As I've heard you guys speak of this, I believe the position needs to be stated in several ways, and with more clarity. Also there needs to be less conveyance of 'you've got it wrong and omniscience is logically impossible. Not because I don't believe it is your position, but because it gets opponents focusing on the wrong aspect of what you believe. It has taken me a few months, but I believe Omnicompetence with Omnipotence gives a sense of great foreknowledge, that is that what God sets to accomplish in the future will be accomplished, exactly as He plans. It isn't exhaustive foreknowledge at that point, but it brings us closer on table-talks. I would not have appreciated this if I hadn't stuck around long enough to get the drift.

I don't think I get your drift. Can you try to clarify this point?

At any rate, we seek analogy that fits our theological perspective and angle, and this is what I was trying to say about the 'chess board.' It is analogy from our human reasoning, and it is a hard one for me to connect with. I just cannot make the scenario connection with God in a game where the extrapolation is that He is cheating. I think purchase order manager would work better for both of us in analogy. He could know based on years of purchasing, which months to push product, and which ones to lay low. For a nonOVer it wouldn't bother anyone to say he actually knows omnisciently, perhaps a sci-fi comment, but it wouldn't lead to a real dilemma.

I happen to manage a warehouse and so this analogy is one I can connect with very easily.
A warehouse manager who can anticipate stock levels based on several factors, not the least of which is past order history, then he is likely to be considered a competent warehouse manager. But how would being called competent be at all meaningful for a manager who knew exactly what was going to be ordered because no one ever ordered anything that he didn't tell them to order? There's no planning necessary, there's no mind reading necessary, there no past order history necessary there's no skill of any sort needed at all. Such a manager wouldn't be competent at all, it wouldn't even be meaningful to call him a warehouse manager for that matter.

No, it'd be built into the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. Competence would be a mute point implied.

HOW SO? You keep talking about omnipotence and omniscience but what about the Calvinist doctrine of Sovereignty? That's where the problem comes in for the idea of omni-competence.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a Protestant.

Glad to hear your confession.

I never, ever, believed OVT'er were Protestants, so relieved to see the admittance of such.

So the question now is: If you are not Protestant, are you then Roman Catholic?

And if you deny being a semi-Pelagian Roman Catholic, what the heck are you?

Are you able and willing to formally establish your "new" religion, with spiritual and scriptural credentials?

Many are awaiting for an OVT formal Statement of Faith and By-Laws.

Nang

 

[BillH]

Well, I look above a few posts...and I collected that list of things from the previous posts...

...I was getting dragged over coals elsewhere becuase I am Catholic and I was trying to describe the administrative procedure of annulments....I plainly agreed that this administrative procedure is not found in the Bible (perhaps just a hint of it is seen in Ezra..though it's not at all clear there).....but as a Catholic I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. We have developed administrative procedures to govern the Church.

So now, I come back to this forum ..and I see all these other terms...that I am not familiar with...and I am trying to reconcile getting bashed over the head for a non-Biblical administrative procedure..and I am wondering why the same standard doesn't apply to this long list of "things" mentioned above.

Bill

 

[cellist]

Hi all,

I haven't been following this discuss closely but I just came across an article that I highly recommend. It is, Hellenistic or Hebrew: Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method by Michael Horton. I think both Reformed and OT would do well to read it. One of Horton's points is to demonstrate that Reformed theology differentiates between immutability and immobility. Just because God is immutable doesn't mean He is immobile. Here is a rather surprising quote from Charles Hodge of Old Princeton in Horton's paper;

ut nevertheless that He is not a stagnant ocean, but an ever living, ever thinking, ever acting, and ever suiting his action to the exigencies of his creatures, and to the accomplishment of his infinitely wise designs. Whether we can harmonize these facts or not, is a matter of minor importance. We are constantly called upon to believe that things are, without being able to tell how they are, or even how they can be. Theologians, in their attempts to state, in philosophical language, the doctrine of the Bible on the unchangeableness of God, are apt to confound immutability with immobility. In denying that God can change, they seem to deny that He can act.[emphasis mine]

And Cornelius Van Til writes;

Surely in the case of Aristotle the immutability of the divine being was due to its emptiness and internal immobility. No greater contrast is thinkable than that between the unmoved noesis noeseos of Aristotle and the Christian God. This appears particularly from the fact that the Bible does not hesitate to attribute all manner of activity to God .... Herein lies the glory of the Christian doctrine of God, that the unchangeable one is the one in control of the change of the universe.

Now keep in mind you Open Theists out there, I am not Reformed. I am Lutheran. But I find that OT continually paints a picture of Reformed theology that is highly exaggerated and full of half truths. You must have the intellectual honesty to represent your opponent’s position correctly. I continue to find that Calvinism is more nuanced than many realize, including those who call themselves Reformed.

Ciao,
Cellist

 

[Nang]

It really is a good place to start, although I don't really agree with Sander's last paragraph.

Isn't this the same Sander who teaches that the Father had no prior knowledge that His Son would die on the cross?

Nang

 

[Clete]

Glad to hear your confession.

I never, ever, believed OVT'er were Protestants, so relieved to see the admittance of such.

This is a lie Nang. You should repent. I wasn't twelve hours ago that you emphatically insisted that Open Theism was the bad fruit of Arminian theology.

So the question now is: If you are not Protestant, are you then Roman Catholic?

And if you deny being a semi-Pelagian Roman Catholic, what the heck are you?

Are you able and willing to formally establish your "new" religion, with spiritual and scriptural credentials?

Many are awaiting for an OVT formal Statement of Faith and By-Laws.

Nang

The term protestant referrers to the theolical tradition started by Luther, Calvin and other"reformers" who broke from the Catholic church. I've many times referred to the Open Theism movement as the Reformation Phase II although that is only accurate from a certain perspective. Open Theists agree, for the most part, with Luther concerning the things he took issue with against the Catholic Church and so are in that sense protestant but the Open View itself does not come from the reformation nor does it have anything to do with the Catholic church unless you want to suggest that our parting with Augustinian theology to be parting with the Catholics, which I suppose is somewhat accurate but also misses the point.

When I say that I am not Protestant it is really my intentional distancing myself from Reformed theology which really does go hand in hand with Protestantism. My theology is Biblical and rational and nothing more, the term Protestant simply carries to much baggage with it to be useful when applying to my theological positions.

Further, I am in large measure a Baptist. At least it is would be more accurate to call me a Baptist than it would be to call me a Protestant. The Baptist tradition has been around a whole lot longer than Protestantism ever thought about being and is likely older than even Catholicism. In fact there is no proof that Catholicism existed prior to about 400ad but we have quotations from Catholic priests which place the existence of Baptists (called ana-baptists at the time) some 200 years earlier than that. And so from at least two different perspectives it is not accurate to refer to me as a Protestant. Nor, by the way, is it accurate to refer to my theology as "new" any more than Luther's theology was new when he broke from the Catholic church. It wasn't new, it was simply more correct than what had been around for a long time just as Open Theism is more correct than the Calvinistic thinking that dominates the church today.

If you want a title to pin on me, "Christian" does fine, as does "Open Theist" and/or "Acts 9 Dispensationalist" or all the above.

And as for formal statements of faith, I don't really see the need but you guys keep bringing this up and I might just have to put one together just to shut you up about it.

Resting in Him,
Clete