ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[mtims540]

God is responsible for the type of creation He chose. He is not responsible for our abuse of His gift of free will. Sin originates in our wills and hearts, not the compulsion or desire of God.

1) I agree that God is responsible for the type of creation He chose. One down, two to go . . .

2) He is not responsible for our abuse of His gift of free will.

Uh, let me reword that a bit and see if we still agree; every man is held accountable or answerable to God for his conduct.

3) Sin originates in our wills and hearts, not the compulsion or desire of God.

Yeah, and uh, but I still think God shows His own response with ability toward this through the cross. That is to say God takes responsiblity for having put such a heart in man . . .

God made Adam the way he did with intend and purpose, planted the tree of good and evil in the garden with intend and purpose, none of this could not of happen outside of God’s will . . . :sheep:

 

[godrulz]

1) I agree that God is responsible for the type of creation He chose. One down, two to go . . .

2) He is not responsible for our abuse of His gift of free will.

Uh, let me reword that a bit and see if we still agree; every man is held accountable or answerable to God for his conduct.

3) Sin originates in our wills and hearts, not the compulsion or desire of God.

Yeah, and uh, but I still think God shows His own response with ability toward this through the cross. That is to say God takes responsiblity for having put such a heart in man . . .

God made Adam the way he did with intend and purpose, planted the tree of good and evil in the garden with intend and purpose, none of this could not of happen outside of God’s will . . . :sheep:

There is a difference between desire, intention, purpose, necessity, possibility, probability, certainty/actuality. The potential for the Fall does not mean that it was desired or intended by a holy God. His redemptive response after does not necessitate its certainty before (fall/redemption).

 

[TheOnlySaneOne]

Old pond — frogs jumped in — sound of water.

 

[mtims540]

---AAAH, very good. -- Does that mean that you're going to take the Word, just as it is, no matter how stupid it seems???? - That's the trick that no one can do.
*
----------------Paul---
*

If you are saying my thought seems stupid to you, I am fine with that . . . :cheers:

Another of my thoughts is that the only true free will is that which is in complete subordination to God's will, therein lies real freedom. :banana:

 

[Philetus]

mtims540,
Thanks for the clearification.

I do not believe there is only one will, I think there is only one will that is free, sounds like an oxymoron at first I know!

I believe I am a slave of righteousness by grace, not free will, which leads to life. And with death as the last enemy to be conquered, no act of will, will ever suffice . . .

Hope this answered your question? Its the best I can do right now . . . am a little after that drink

I think you have hit on a key to this whole issue. Try this on: All of our ‘decisions’ in the context of a fallen world are made based on the ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ Could such knowledge be the context for defining ‘limited free will’? Before the fall there was only one choice to make, acknowledge God or eat from the forbidden tree. That choice could not have been made based on such knowledge as good and evil because before the sin there was no such knowledge. After the fact to continue living in absolute free will leads to all the downward spiraling Paul described in Romans 1 and 2. Could the worm in the apple have been the deception ... Unlimited free will .... thinking our selves to be right and good by comparing ourselves to what we think is wrong or evil?

Now, God gives us a single choice to make: continue making our own decisions based on that fallen state or surrender our will and defer to the Lordship of Jesus (as “slaves of righteousness by grace instead of ‘unlimited free will’. In that regard, we have only one decision to make, but from the apposite point of view ... to repent and return. Once that decision is made by the grace of God all else is a matter of obedience to His will. So in a very real sense, ‘unlimited free will’ which could be viewed as a fallen state, is surrendered in obedience and the only freedom is to continue in Christ or not.

It opens up a real can of worms in all camps. This is NOT the position of OVT! It’s just thinking out loud keyboard style, but I’m curious as to what others might think. It doesn’t solve the issue as to one’s freedom to make that single choice or God’s pre-knowledge, but perhaps it finds some validity in the overall resolution of a “universal free will” that contradicts absolute meticulous sovereignty in a give and take relationship.

Just fishing.
Philetus

 

[TheOnlySaneOne]

mtims540,
Thanks for the clearification.


I think you have hit on a key to this whole issue. Try this on: All of our ‘decisions’ in the context of a fallen world are made based on the ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ Could such knowledge be the context for defining ‘limited free will’? Before the fall there was only one choice to make, acknowledge God or eat from the forbidden tree. That choice could not have been made based on such knowledge as good and evil because before the sin there was no such knowledge. After the fact to continue living in absolute free will leads to all the downward spiraling Paul described in Romans 1 and 2. Could the worm in the apple have been the deception ... Unlimited free will .... thinking our selves to be right and good by comparing ourselves to what we think is wrong or evil?

Now, God gives us a single choice to make: continue making our own decisions based on that fallen state or surrender our will and defer to the Lordship of Jesus (as “slaves of righteousness by grace instead of ‘unlimited free will’. In that regard, we have only one decision to make, but from the apposite point of view ... to repent and return. Once that decision is made by the grace of God all else is a matter of obedience to His will. So in a very real sense, ‘unlimited free will’ which could be viewed as a fallen state, is surrendered in obedience and the only freedom is to continue in Christ or not.

It opens up a real can of worms in all camps. This is NOT the position of OVT! It’s just thinking out loud keyboard style, but I’m curious as to what others might think. It doesn’t solve the issue as to one’s freedom to make that single choice or God’s pre-knowledge, but perhaps it finds some validity in the overall resolution of a “universal free will” that contradicts absolute meticulous sovereignty in a give and take relationship.

Just fishing.
Philetus

The old pond,
A frog jumps in:
Plop!

 

[mtims540]

mtims540,
Thanks for the clearification.


I think you have hit on a key to this whole issue. Try this on: All of our ‘decisions’ in the context of a fallen world are made based on the ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ Could such knowledge be the context for defining ‘limited free will’? Before the fall there was only one choice to make, acknowledge God or eat from the forbidden tree. That choice could not have been made based on such knowledge as good and evil because before the sin there was no such knowledge. After the fact to continue living in absolute free will leads to all the downward spiraling Paul described in Romans 1 and 2. Could the worm in the apple have been the deception ... Unlimited free will .... thinking our selves to be right and good by comparing ourselves to what we think is wrong or evil?

Now, God gives us a single choice to make: continue making our own decisions based on that fallen state or surrender our will and defer to the Lordship of Jesus (as “slaves of righteousness by grace instead of ‘unlimited free will’. In that regard, we have only one decision to make, but from the apposite point of view ... to repent and return. Once that decision is made by the grace of God all else is a matter of obedience to His will. So in a very real sense, ‘unlimited free will’ which could be viewed as a fallen state, is surrendered in obedience and the only freedom is to continue in Christ or not.

It opens up a real can of worms in all camps. This is NOT the position of OVT! It’s just thinking out loud keyboard style, but I’m curious as to what others might think. It doesn’t solve the issue as to one’s freedom to make that single choice or God’s pre-knowledge, but perhaps it finds some validity in the overall resolution of a “universal free will” that contradicts absolute meticulous sovereignty in a give and take relationship.

Just fishing.
Philetus

Excellent catch, keep drowning worms . . . you just caught me a fine fish for thought :think:

 

[mtims540]

There is a difference between desire, intention, purpose, necessity, possibility, probability, certainty/actuality. The potential for the Fall does not mean that it was desired or intended by a holy God. His redemptive response after does not necessitate its certainty before (fall/redemption).

I simply diagree in the most agreeable way I know how, our thoughts differ on the subject :doh:

 

[Letsargue]

If you are saying my thought seems stupid to you, I am fine with that . . . :cheers:

Another of my thoughts is that the only true free will is that which is in complete subordination to God's will, therein lies real freedom. :banana:

---NO, NO, -- I wasn't refering to your thoughts, -- Most people thinks that, most of what God says is stupid. I have to go along with God, no mater how stupid I may think it sounds.
---Sorry for the missu.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

 

[Philetus]

Do I think Nebuchadnezzar had any choice (free will) in what happened to him? No! But he was so blessed when he finally came to know the God who had humbled him (his will) that it was all worth it. Without the power of God's Spirit, Nebuchadnezzar would have never changed.

Now do I think Paul (his will) had any choice (free will) when he was struck off his horse and blinded by the glory of Christ? No!

This came to heart after that post, to try an explain the oxymoron thing if you will . . . share another :cheers:

mtims540,

I agree in both cases! BUT,

God drove Nebuchadnezzar mad therefore everyone who goes mad does so because God wills it?

I don’t think so!

Paul was knocked off his horse by God, therefore everyone who falls off a horse does so because God wills it?

I don’t think so!

The danger that OVT addresses for me is this making every event recorded in scripture into an absolute rule that God must always follow by recognizing that God is omni-competent and can decide when it is appropriate to knock someone off their high-horse and when to allow them to simply fall off.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

The old pond,
A frog jumps in:
Plop!

Before the water boils, you can always just jump back out.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Anybody know how to get the Firefox browser to refresh without posting?
Philetus

 

[mtims540]

mtims540,

I agree in both cases! BUT,

God drove Nebuchadnezzar mad therefore everyone who goes mad does so because God wills it?

I don’t think so!

Paul was knocked off his horse by God, therefore everyone who falls off a horse does so because God wills it?

I don’t think so!


Philetus

AGREED

 

[mtims540]

I think you have hit on a key to this whole issue. The whole key to the issue for me is acknowledging that there is only one will that is truly free from bondage and this has been a hard pill for me to swallow . . .

Try this on: All of our ‘decisions’ in the context of a fallen world are made based on the ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ Yes, but I believe this knowledge is debilitating my will, not freeing it.

Could such knowledge be the context for defining ‘limited free will’? I believe my will has limitation, yes, go on

Before the fall there was only one choice to make, acknowledge God or eat from the forbidden tree. Adam had to name the animals, but I get your point about the one choice . . .

That choice could not have been made based on such knowledge as good and evil because before the sin there was no such knowledge. Yes, the choice was made without the knowledge of good and evil, but I think sin or at least missing the mark had to exist, because they obviously missed the mark . . .

After the fact to continue living in absolute free will leads to all the downward spiraling Paul described in Romans 1 and 2. Could the worm in the apple have been the deception ... Unlimited free will .... thinking our selves to be right and good by comparing ourselves to what we think is wrong or evil?

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . changed the truth of God into a lie . . . yeah yeah, go on

Now, God gives us a single choice to make: JUST LIKE HE DID ADAM AND EVE

continue making our own decisions based on that fallen state or surrender our will and defer to the Lordship of Jesus (as “slaves of righteousness by grace instead of ‘unlimited free will’.

I still do not think I ever had unlimited free will, but every thing else is sounding cool . . .

In that regard, we have only one decision to make, but from the apposite point of view ... to repent and return. Once that decision is made by the grace of God all else is a matter of obedience to His will. So in a very real sense, ‘unlimited free will’ which could be viewed as a fallen state, is surrendered in obedience and the only freedom is to continue in Christ or not.

It opens up a real can of worms in all camps. This is NOT the position of OVT! It’s just thinking out loud keyboard style, but I’m curious as to what others might think. It doesn’t solve the issue as to one’s freedom to make that single choice or God’s pre-knowledge, but perhaps it finds some validity in the overall resolution of a “universal free will” that contradicts absolute meticulous sovereignty in a give and take relationship.

Yeah, I will just stay away from the rest of what you had to say, you said it, I will continue to say what I believe and why, hopfully we catch some more fish . . .

 

[Philetus]

ROBE,

Quick note to Philetus.....

I was wondering if you intended to answer my last post towards you. You asked me a specific question and I gave you a direct answer. I'm sorry if my posts seem disrespectful to you, but I've already discussed many of these things with Godrulz, Clete, etc..... My past discussions have covered many things over and over and over. Many questions go unanswered or incompletely answered. My follow up questions yield the same results. The circular logic which the O.V. uses to defeat foreknowledge is never ending because when a weakness is found it's not acknowledged.

Certainly you see the extent Clete and the others will make me go through just to agree to the Webster's definition of the word 'predict'. And that's just a word! Paqe after page after page. I guess I get frustrated. Onwards......

Anyway, does the above verse apply towards Adam or just those after Christ or just those that Christ knew? Does the Open View teach that there is a way to the Father other than Christ?

Rob

There has been a lot of tail chasing in this thread. That's for sure. It’s hard to keep up sometimes. I confess that sometimes your posts are a little hard to follow.

The circular logic which ANYView uses to defeat or support foreknowledge is never ending because when a weakness is found it's not acknowledged. That works both ways.

Your question as to the application of any verse requires context. I’m not sure exactly as to what you are asking there. The simple answer to your last Question is: NO, there is no other way to the Father than through Jesus Christ!

The only distinction (as I understand it) that OVT makes is that God sovereignly chooses to not know in meticulous detail the future that is contingent on the choices by agents of limited free will. The choice to respond to God in Christ is by grace through faith and in no way makes God less than God. The choice to respond to God in Christ in no way makes the responder the agent or author of his/her own salvation.

You may disagree. It’s your choice. But, to continue to have to restate the position is needless. If there is a direct challenge or specific question for clarification, it is welcome. It’s just hard to know sometimes if you are asking a question to make a point or if you are expecting an honest answer. I know, I’m guilty, too. I even enjoy the jousting. So, don’t stop.
arty:
Party on, brother. And don’t give up. I have too much to learn.
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

mtims540
QUOTE]I still do not think I ever had unlimited free will, but every thing else is sounding cool . . .

In that regard, we have only one decision to make, but from the apposite point of view ... to repent and return. Once that decision is made by the grace of God all else is a matter of obedience to His will. So in a very real sense, ‘unlimited free will’ which could be viewed as a fallen state, is surrendered in obedience and the only freedom is to continue in Christ or not.

It opens up a real can of worms in all camps. This is NOT the position of OVT! It’s just thinking out loud keyboard style, but I’m curious as to what others might think. It doesn’t solve the issue as to one’s freedom to make that single choice or God’s pre-knowledge, but perhaps it finds some validity in the overall resolution of a “universal free will” that contradicts absolute meticulous sovereignty in a give and take relationship.

Yeah, I will just stay away from the rest of what you had to say, you said it, I will continue to say what I believe and why, hopfully we catch some more fish . . .[/QUOTE]

I'm only suggesting that "unlimited free will' may in fact be a deception. In that sence we never had it.
I still maintain that the freedom to choose the tree in Adam's case and Christ in our own is freedom of will. That keeps the future open.

I’m not sure if I’m the fish or the fisherman. Either way … just food for thought.
Happy fishing,
Later
Philetus

 

[RobE]

ROBE,

Your question as to the application of any verse requires context. I’m not sure exactly as to what you are asking there. The simple answer to your last Question is: NO, there is no other way to the Father than through Jesus Christ!

The only distinction (as I understand it) that OVT makes is that God sovereignly chooses to not know in meticulous detail the future that is contingent on the choices by agents of limited free will. The choice to respond to God in Christ is by grace through faith and in no way makes God less than God. The choice to respond to God in Christ in no way makes the responder the agent or author of his/her own salvation.

Great!

I would like a rejoinder of why you asked me the last question about the logical conclusions of why God must have foreknowledge; and your comments on my answer.

I asked the question above because the open view says Adam's sin wasn't inevitable. My question above was based on the fact that: If Adam had not sinned, then Christ would have been unnecessary for Adam because Adam would have remained perfect in their view.

Now, with this in mind, I'll ask again: Is there any way to the Father except through Christ?

Friends,

Rob

 

[RobE]

This is a hypothetical, speculative question since the Fall did happen triggering the plan of redemption. If Adam and his progeny would have continued in relationship with God, would Christ have needed to die to redeem them? Adam depended on God for life abundant and eternal. Was Adam destined for heaven, or was the intention to live in paradise earth forever? There is a difference between fallen man needing a Savior, and God's 'very good' creation needing radical redemption if it persisted in a 'very good' state.

Adam would have needed or depended on Christ for his very life and eternal perseverance, even if he did not fall so far and hard.

Perhaps someone else could better answer you.

Godrulz,

Is there a way to the Father except through the Son?

Rob

 

[mtims540]

I'm only suggesting that "unlimited free will' may in fact be a deception. In that sence we never had it.

I still maintain that the freedom to choose the tree in Adam's case and Christ in our own is freedom of will. That keeps the future open.

There are parts of Open Theism and Calvinism as I understand it, I think are valid,

I do not think I can fully grasp the mind of God in my present state, so His foreknowledge can only be explored from evidence, which is weak in my mind, because I wasn’t aware or there with my own thoughts before God created, where I think His foreknowledge was being fully exercised.

I can look at Scripture to get ideas about God's foreknowledge and how it plays its role with the future, and can say at this point I believe God is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge, that I am a prisoner or slave of some sort, I say yes. That is to say, my will is not as free as I would like for it to be and that is God’s fault . . .

I see Adam being created from God’s perspective, not Adams will.

I see Good and Evil being set before Adam as God’s experiment, not Adams will.

I see God creating an adversary well equipped in deception, not Eves will.

See what I mean about who is truly free here to do as they will and who is trapped in that will, this experiment? :sheep:

 

[RobE]

This works for me :wave: : I think Adam needed Christ for the very life he had.

And now for the first question, do I actually think Adam was created perfect or God just saw Adam as a good created creature, there is a difference?

So to cut to the chase, I see God as having set the fall of Adam up . . . which means I do not think Adam was all that perfect in the first place, so uh, where do we go from here . . .

Adam was perfect in design and good in nature. But God didn't want slave or mindless servants; He wanted to be chosen and loved. Free Will was the tool for this. It was His desire for man to choose Him; even though, God foreknew some would not. Did God make their decision for them? No. He simply allowed it.

Rob