ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lighthouse]

Can you give me a reference to what this is about?

Ktoyou said she didn't understand what Lon was saying.

 

[patman]

If someone has nature X that doesn't mean they will always go by it because it is their nature.

A man has a "sinful nature"(not because God gave us one, we chose it), so can he never do right? No. He can do right, despite his nature.

Therefore, having a nature is not what causes one to act the way they do every time.

However, God has a righteous nature, yet he will always go by it. Why? In part, the reason is because he choses to, yet in part that his nature is to do so. God has freewill just like we do, yet he wills what is right because that is who he is.

Think about this:

A man who has a problem with mature content online installs software that prevents that content from being displayed. Now that man cannot look up such content. In essence, he has limited his freewill.

Now, it is not a question of what he wants to look up, it is a question of what he can he look up? What will his program allow him to see? Limiting one's actions. That is man's way of doing right, by limiting the wrong he can do.

God's way is not man's, in a lot of aspects. I believe this is one of them. God does not need to limit himself (nor does he need to be limited) to keep himself from being unrighteous. He is completely free, no parental programs are installed on his computer, so to speak. Yet he still doesn't do wrong.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I've gone back and read all the links in your post. I've answered the first one twice but you demonstrate no apparent willingness or openness so far to understand a different perspective in that discussion.

On the contrary I am willing and open to new perspectives. I just am unpersuaded by many after giving them due consideration. I don't reject them out of hand or with prejudice because I don't like or agree with the proponent. That behavior seems to be the modus operandi of many herein.

I, on the other hand, have been willing to understand your perspective.

I appreciate that. I do see this occasionally, but I have to wade through the rhetoric to get to it.

Referring to the eschaton, all the actions of everyone is caused by some previous thing. And since we are talking about the end, we are referring to the final choices by man. These choices were caused by prior things, including to a great extent choices made previously and made by other people. And by other people we can of course refer to other people in history. They made choices that affect me today and I end up choosing what I'm most inclined to choose whereas if God had decreed that they choose another way, then my inclination very well may be different by this time. Of course, those people were making choices based on their inclinations caused by events and choices even more prior to them. And what affected those even more prior choices were affected by events and choices even more more prior. And if can use a biblical construction, we can say that the more more more prior events and choices go to the beginning of time. If it had been decreed by God that Adam and Eve waited an extra couple years before sinning than my inclinations today may very well be different, and thus my choices would be different. Likewise for those people at the end of days. Right?

Firstly, using your analysis of events caused by previous events, we end up right on the door of my definition of free will. For libertarian free will cannot hold. For a starting explanation, see here.

Leaving that point aside and going with your tacit agreement that ultimately it all comes down to God's decree, where does it leave us? Firstly, I don't like entertaining the "what if God did this or that" scenario. We know what God did. So why not just stick to reality? But, again, to demonstrate that I am indeed willing to entertain your perspective, let's first set the record straight. I hold that God did not decree the fall of man. I am a compatibilist and infralapsarian, not supralapsarian. In other words, I am not what is often pejoratively called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian (“subsequent to the fall”) confessional view of the following logical ordering of God’s decree:

1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment
(see here and here for a more thorough discussion)

Note from the above that God is not the author of sin, whether or not Adam fell when he did or two years later.

Our ultimate natures are either regenerated (saved) or un-regenerated (lost).

The regenerated are God's predestined elect, that is they have been given God's free gift of regenerating grace so that they can believe. The elect can choose to sin or choose to not sin and seek to do good before God, thus pleasing God. The elect want to love God, that is, to obey God, thus the elect choose to do so. This nature has been given to the elect by the free gift of God’s grace.

The unregenerated are God's ordained reprobates, that is, they have been passed over, and thus, left in their volitional sin. The non-elect do not want to please God by loving God. They disobey God in all that they choose do. The non-elect cannot not sin. This nature has not been given to the non-elect. The non-elect’s nature was deservedly earned through the willful disobedience of Adam and imputed to Adam’s progeny. God did not place the non-elect within these dire circumstances, Adam did.

So, no matter when Adam ultimately sinned and plunged humanity and creation into corruption, the natures of the saved and the lost remain the same and their behaviors would be in accordance with these natures.

 

[PKevman]

God does not do evil because He is good and He is holy. His goodness and holiness do not negate the choice He has because God is alive. If God were a mute, false idol, THEN He would have no choice. Saying God has no choice is bad theology.

 

[Nang]

On the contrary I am willing and open to new perspectives. I just am unpersuaded by many after giving them due consideration. I don't reject them out of hand or with prejudice because I don't like or agree with the proponent. That behavior seems to be the modus operandi of many herein.

I appreciate that. I do see this occasionally, but I have to wade through the rhetoric to get to it.

Firstly, using your analysis of events caused by previous events, we end up right on the door of my definition of free will. For libertarian free will cannot hold. For a starting explanation, see here.

Leaving that point aside and going with your tacit agreement that ultimately it all comes down to God's decree, where does it leave us? Firstly, I don't like entertaining the "what if God did this or that" scenario. We know what God did. So why not just stick to reality? But, again, to demonstrate that I am indeed willing to entertain your perspective, let's first set the record straight. I hold that God did not decree the fall of man. I am a compatibilist and infralapsarian, not supralapsarian. In other words, I am not what is often pejoratively called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian (“subsequent to the fall”) confessional view of the following logical ordering of God’s decree:

1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment
(see here and here for a more thorough discussion)

Note from the above that God is not the author of sin, whether or not Adam fell when he did or two years later.

Our ultimate natures are either regenerated (saved) or un-regenerated (lost).

The regenerated are God's predestined elect, that is they have been given God's free gift of regenerating grace so that they can believe. The elect can choose to sin or choose to not sin and seek to do good before God, thus pleasing God. The elect want to love God, that is, to obey God, thus the elect choose to do so. This nature has been given to the elect by the free gift of God’s grace.

The unregenerated are God's ordained reprobates, that is, they have been passed over, and thus, left in their volitional sin. The non-elect do not want to please God by loving God. They disobey God in all that they choose do. The non-elect cannot not sin. This nature has not been given to the non-elect. The non-elect’s nature was deservedly earned through the willful disobedience of Adam and imputed to Adam’s progeny. God did not place the non-elect within these dire circumstances, Adam did.

So, no matter when Adam ultimately sinned and plunged humanity and creation into corruption, the natures of the saved and the lost remain the same and their behaviors would be in accordance with these natures.

Just to educate the audience, I am a Supralapsarian Calvinist, one of those called "hyper" and here is the Godly order that I believe is revealed in Scripture:


1. The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect.)

2. The decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners.

3. The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ.

4. The decree that men should fall.

5. The decree to create the world and men.*

(This is why I asked Clete to clarify when he believed God chose to send the one Man to counter the effects of Adam's actions. I believe God chose to do so before He created, and would still be interested in Clete's view of this.)



Nang

*Excerpted from "The New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith", by Dr. Robert L. Reymond, page 489

 

[PKevman]

(This is why I asked Clete to clarify when he believed God chose to send the one Man to counter the effects of Adam's actions. I believe God chose to do so before He created, and would still be interested in Clete's view of this.)

Do you consider eternity in the Lake of Fire one of the consequences of sin?

 

[Nang]

Do you consider eternity in the Lake of Fire one of the consequences of sin?

Yes. This is called the "second death," decreed by God against all wickedness existent outside of Jesus Christ:

"Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:14&15

 

[Mystery]

Saying God has no choice is bad theology.

Is it bad theology to say that God cannot (not will not) deny Himself?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1. The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect.)

2. The decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners.

3. The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ.

4. The decree that men should fall.

5. The decree to create the world and men.*

Nang, although I staunchly disagree with you, I will say that your view is far more consistent than the views of folks like AMR, who is still trying have his settled cake and eat it too.

I mean come on Calvinists... if you are gonna promote a settled view, go all the way, like Nang! In reality it's your only logical option! If you want to maintain a settled view that is. (although I realize it tastes bad in your mouth)

 

[dale]

LOL...

Persuasive argument you have there.... :doh:

Your own statements say otherwise.

Muz

Nothing I say would be persuasive if you continue to plug my statements into YOUR paradigm. I'm not making them from your perspective, but rather mine. Obviously I'm not able to get you to see my perspective.

 

[PKevman]

Yes. This is called the "second death," decreed by God against all wickedness existent outside of Jesus Christ:

"Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:14&15

Great, so we agree on the truth of judgment. That is good. Now let me ask you a follow up question that goes back to what you were saying earlier.

When did God create the Lake of Fire, and who was it for?

 

[elected4ever]

Just to educate the audience, I am a Supralapsarian Calvinist, one of those called "hyper" and here is the Godly order that I believe is revealed in Scripture:


1. The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect.)

2. The decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners.

3. The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ.

4. The decree that men should fall.

5. The decree to create the world and men.*

(This is why I asked Clete to clarify when he believed God chose to send the one Man to counter the effects of Adam's actions. I believe God chose to do so before He created, and would still be interested in Clete's view of this.)



Nang

*Excerpted from "The New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith", by Dr. Robert L. Reymond, page 489

There are no elect sinners, That is an oxymoron.

 

[elected4ever]

There was no decree that man should fall. If God did make such a decree please show it to me.

 

[Nang]

Great, so we agree on the truth of judgment. That is good. Now let me ask you a follow up question that goes back to what you were saying earlier.

When did God create the Lake of Fire, and who was it for?

I already answered the second half of your question here, and to answer the first part of your question, one would have to assume that the "lake of fire" was created when God created all things.

Here is a word picture given by Isaiah, that might partially answer your question:

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Isa. 54:16

 

[rehcjam]

Are Armenians just weak Calvinists?

 

[Nang]

Are Armenians just weak Calvinists?

Arminians oppose Calvinism, as do weak Calvinists.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I mean come on Calvinists... if you are gonna promote a settled view, go all the way, like Nang! In reality it's your only logical option! If you want to maintain a settled view that is. (although I realize it tastes bad in your mouth)

Mercifully, Calvinists disagree on very little. Supra/Infra being the major item. Reymond makes a strong case for the supra view, esp. given that he holds the decrees are executed in the reverse of their logical ordering. Others make equally strong cases for the infra view. Admittedly, I remain willing to consider the infra view, but for now will hold that God started out with a will to create.

Now contrast with open theism:
1. Eternal torment or annihilation
2. Unilateral divine intervention sometimes or never
3. MAD or no MAD
4. Future unknown or partially known
5. God can be mistaken or God just mistakenly learns
6. God changes His mind or changes His contingent planning
7. Natural vs. Free vs. Middle Knowledge
8. Saved can never sin or saved can still sin
9. God omni-competent or God omni-resourceful

Come on open theists, if you are gonna promote an open view, go all the way, like, well, er, no one!

 

[elected4ever]

If someone has nature X that doesn't mean they will always go by it because it is their nature.

A man has a "sinful nature"(not because God gave us one, we chose it), so can he never do right? No. He can do right, despite his nature.

Therefore, having a nature is not what causes one to act the way they do every time.

However, God has a righteous nature, yet he will always go by it. Why? In part, the reason is because he choses to, yet in part that his nature is to do so. God has freewill just like we do, yet he wills what is right because that is who he is.

Think about this:

A man who has a problem with mature content online installs software that prevents that content from being displayed. Now that man cannot look up such content. In essence, he has limited his freewill.

Now, it is not a question of what he wants to look up, it is a question of what he can he look up? What will his program allow him to see? Limiting one's actions. That is man's way of doing right, by limiting the wrong he can do.

God's way is not man's, in a lot of aspects. I believe this is one of them. God does not need to limit himself (nor does he need to be limited) to keep himself from being unrighteous. He is completely free, no parental programs are installed on his computer, so to speak. Yet he still doesn't do wrong.

I thought about it and have decide that your post is a bunch of bunk. When is the last time you saw a cow bark like a dog? It is not the nature of a cow to bark like a dog.

God is by His nature, God. God can act in no other manner. God nature is a righteous nature and He can act in no other way.

 

[PKevman]

I already answered the second half of your question here, and to answer the first part of your question, one would have to assume that the "lake of fire" was created when God created all things.

Here is a word picture given by Isaiah, that might partially answer your question:

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Isa. 54:16

And yet your view of why the Lake of Fire was originally created is not consistent with the clearly stated words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He said:

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

God said that everything He had created was good AFTER the 6th day of creation. So it logically infers that sin, Satan's fall, & man's fall had not happened yet. We are not told exactly when Satan fell either, but we know it was sometime after God had created everything.

The Scriptures are clear that the Lake of Fire was created originally to punish Satan and his angels when they rebelled against God.

In your scenario, why would the Scriptures not say that it was prepared for all sinners and all of the unGodly? Why does it specifically say it was prepared/created for the devil and his angels?

I will tell you why:

Because God never intended to send people to the Lake of Fire. It was not part of His original creation, and for people to sin was not part of God's intention or plan for mankind.

I agree that we cannot say exactly WHEN the Lake of Fire was created, but it would have been when Satan and his angels fell. This much is clear from the text, that man's fall occurred AFTER the Lake of Fire was created!

 

[themuzicman]

Mercifully, Calvinists disagree on very little. Supra/Infra being the major item. Reymond makes a strong case for the supra view, esp. given that he holds the decrees are executed in the reverse of their logical ordering. Others make equally strong cases for the infra view. Admittedly, I remain willing to consider the infra view, but for now will hold that God started out with a will to create.

LOL

Now contrast with open theism:
1. Eternal torment or annihilation

Calvinists are both of these

2. Unilateral divine intervention sometimes or never

Similar to supra/infra

3. MAD or no MAD

I know plenty of MAD who are Calvinist in their soteriology. I know Calvinists disagree on eschatology, too.

4. Future unknown or partially known

As opposed to atemporal or eternal?

5. God can be mistaken or God just mistakenly learns

As opposed to God determines/God forekows?

6. God changes His mind or changes His contingent planning

Not sure of the distinction, here.

7. Natural vs. Free vs. Middle Knowledge

OVT doesn't embrace middle knowledge.

8. Saved can never sin or saved can still sin

Are you familliar with E4E

9. God omni-competent or God omni-resourceful

Huh?


[/quote]Come on open theists, if you are gonna promote an open view, go all the way, like, well, er, no one! [/QUOTE]

Come on, Calvinsts! You've had 500 years! Go all the way to incompatiblism and making God responsible for sin, or become OVTs!

Muz