ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

Nang: The Lord does not delight in the death of the wicked.

No, of course not.

Neither do most human judges, authorized to impose capital sentence upon criminals deserving of death under laws of the land, take glee in the justice they must render.

God does not rejoice over creatures dying, but God does rejoice over justice seen and accomplished. It is the basic matter of right versus wrong. For God to excuse a criminal (sinner) without due sentence being met under law, would be injustice.

And that is the role kept by Jesus Christ. He satisfied all the law of God, legally propitiated God's moral wrath against His law being violated, and then vicariously paid the legal sentence brought against all His children, who were declared guilty of breaking God's law.

You and Calvin make the mistake of thinking God's will is the only will in the universe. It is not, by His sovereign will.

God's sovereign will, supercedes all other creaturely willfulness. If it does not, then God is not God.

Keep in mind it is not a Star Wars dualism of equals....hence no compromise of sovereignty (which is providential, not pan/omnicausal).

There is no such language of "dualism" and warfare between equal enemies in the Bible; nor is there any such concept taught by Reformers.

Such is notions of some kind of eastern religion picked up by t.v. brainwashing in the younger generations of this day.

"Po-Mo" philosophy, not classical theology.

The victory is assured and will be achieved...the kingdom is now, but not yet.

Incorrect. Cite Scripture, please.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

I said it is NOT an equal dualism.

There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if He only willed it. Double predestination is 'horrible', even in Calvin's mind (yet he believed it). God's love is not partial nor is the atonement limited. As long as one has a wrong view of sovereignty and denies biblical free will, the conclusions will be skewed (to match a preconceived theology that has flawed assumptions).

Ladd and Ridderbos develop the 'now, but not yet' theme of the rule of God in book length studies. The cross assured the victory, but there is still a warfare going on. People are sinning, suffering, doing evil, dying. Satan is an enemy that still prowls (see Gospel, Peter, Paul in Eph. 6, etc.). There is a fulfillment, but also an eschatological component to the kingdom (but you are probably amillennial).

 

[Nang]

I said it is NOT an equal dualism.

There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if He only willed it.

According to whose "reason" . . .God's or your's, Knight's or Clete's?

I will submit in faith to God's reasonings rather than the limited reasonings of you foolish men.

Double predestination is 'horrible', even in Calvin's mind (yet he believed it).

Maybe, according to your faulty and sin-tainted reasoning abilities.

If God reasons that He would predestine some men to salvation and life and predestines others to suffer eternal death and hell for their sins . . .then I will trust in God's reasoning, rather than yours. For I desire to live by faith, not by my finite understandings of things divine.

God's love is not partial nor is the atonement limited.

This is a universal statement that cannot be sustained from the Holy Word of God. Which, I note, you did not cite to sustain your claims.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

There is clear revelation about the nature of God's love and holiness.

You are adopting a wrong conclusion, accepting its incoherence because you assume it is correct. If it is not, a better resolution to the issues would avoid you having to accept unreasonable, unbiblical ideas.

We have given you the verses about unlimited atonement, but you rationalize or twist them away.

 

[Nang]

There is clear revelation about the nature of God's love and holiness.

You are adopting a wrong conclusion, accepting its incoherence because you assume it is correct. If it is not, a better resolution to the issues would avoid you having to accept unreasonable, unbiblical ideas.

We have given you the verses about unlimited atonement, but you rationalize or twist them away.

This response does not address my posts made to you this date.

It is not a reply . . .it is simply verbiage, meant to distract, I suppose.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

I said it is NOT an equal dualism.

There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if He only willed it. Double predestination is 'horrible', even in Calvin's mind (yet he believed it). God's love is not partial nor is the atonement limited. As long as one has a wrong view of sovereignty and denies biblical free will, the conclusions will be skewed (to match a preconceived theology that has flawed assumptions).

Ladd and Ridderbos develop the 'now, but not yet' theme of the rule of God in book length studies. The cross assured the victory, but there is still a warfare going on. People are sinning, suffering, doing evil, dying. Satan is an enemy that still prowls (see Gospel, Peter, Paul in Eph. 6, etc.). There is a fulfillment, but also an eschatological component to the kingdom (but you are probably amillennial).

:thumb:

The kingdom has indeed been inaugurated but is now 'in part' because it continues to meet with resistance. It will indeed be complete and total when every knee shall bow and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord. God is able and will see to it. Until that time (in the meanwhile) it remains to be seen just who will and who will not submit to His Lordship by grace through faith expressed in obedience. God's sovereignty remains in tact though challenged by sinful man. His absolute sovereignty will be fully expressed when God's Spirit no longer strives with man, no longer convicts, convinces or calls men to salvation.

I’m troubled when Open Theists minimize the importance of the reign of Christ in the present (the NOW of the kingdom) and relegate the Kingdom overwhelmingly if not totally to the future (the NOT YET of the kingdom). I could be wrong but it is at this point that I think the Calvinists find a chink in Open View Theism and inconsistency in its theology (though they haven't a petal to count on). If it is not through the Spirit of the risen Jesus, the Holy Spirit) that God primarily expresses His governing or reigning power in the world today, then explain the warfare model to me. If the kingdom isn’t about submitting to the rule of Jesus Christ as Lord over all things for the church, then by all means what is it? Explain it to me.

There is certainly a fulfillment, AND also an eschatological component to the kingdom. But is the NOW of the kingdom not also a reality? Or is 'both now and not yet' meaningless for those who hold that the future doesn't yet exist as actual.

but you are probably amillennial

I am amillennial. Not because of the traditional teaching of amillennialists. I am because I'm and Open Theist. Go figure. I'm not saying that all Open Theists must be, but I think it warrants discussion and a closer examination even if this isn't the place for it. (But you brought it up.)

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

God's sovereign will, supercedes all other creaturely willfulness. If it does not, then God is not God.

Nang

The rest of your post is based on a misreading of GR's post.

The part quoted above is based on a misreading of Scripture. I'm sure we had this discussion but if you must ask:

Gen. 2
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."​

God is God even when His sovereignty is challenged through willful disobedience.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Phil. on a roll. Even if the laws of the land are broken with consequence, the ruler is fully sovereign and unchallenged in office (Queen, King, President, Prime Minister, God).

It takes an allegorical approach to be amillennial vs normative literal approach.

Just because OT does not believe the future exists like the present does not mean we do not understand now but not yet. I think many OTs affirm eschatological views that affirm fulfillment of prophecy since much is under God's control (Second Coming, Kingdom, Judgments, etc.). I am not sure why OT would mitigate against now/not yet.

As well, why would you conclude amill. based on OT principles (?non sequitur)? Many Arminians are pre-mill/pre-trib while affirming an open future and free will (though EDF due to 'simple foreknowledge').

 

[lee_merrill]

So, is there anything that God does NOT know about the future ... like how long it will take for you to change your mind?

Well, he knows about who will be saved, and who will not.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Well, he knows about who will be saved, and who will not.

Blessings,
Lee

Hey Lee,
He knows 'about' who will be saved and who will not?!?!?

:shut:

That wasn't the question.

 

[Philetus]

Phil. on a roll. Even if the laws of the land are broken with consequence, the ruler is fully sovereign and unchallenged in office (Queen, King, President, Prime Minister, God).

:chew: Jelly roll maybe. :chuckle:
I'm not always comfortable with lumping God's sovereign reign with the sovereignty of Queen, King, President, and Prime Minister. To me it justifies (or at least makes plausible the Calvinists concern that we are reducing God to a mere mortal equivalent of authority. I know we aren't but they aren't hearing us. I think OV needs to assume more responsibility and not just dismiss it as hardheadedness on their part.

Consequences for sure! But, I see a marked difference between "If you eat you will surely die" (sin pays a wage) and the underlying conventional interpretation 'if you eat I will kill you' as though God were more like an earthly legislator/executioner of the law than a just and loving sovereign who offers as well as provides salvation from our self destruction.

It takes an allegorical approach to be amillennial vs normative literal approach.

Yeah, to a great extent; though I prefer narrative prognosis/projection, to strict ‘allegorical’. But once again you are talking about the future not the present. How does your understanding of the warfare model relate to the NOWNESS of the kingdom? Or does it?

Just because OT does not believe the future exists like the present does not mean we do not understand now but not yet. I think many OTs affirm eschatological views that affirm fulfillment of prophecy since much is under God's control (Second Coming, Kingdom, Judgments, etc.). I am not sure why OT would mitigate against now/not yet.

It doesn’t necessarily. It is just where I’ve come out and I readily admit I’ve been influenced by Pinnock and Callen. It isn't a question of understanding but of experiencing. Of course OT affirms that the future is in God's totally able and omnicompetent hands. My concern is with the way even Open Theists buy into all the 'detailing' of prophecy.

As well, why would you conclude amill. based on OT principles (?non sequitur)? Many Arminians are pre-mill/pre-trib while affirming an open future and free will (though EDF due to 'simple foreknowledge').

I would say that most Arminians don't buy into a literal interpretation of the rapture, pre, mid, or post especially as depicted in the popular artwork and literature today. But either way I’m not trying to project either way. I’m asking about the NOW of the kingdom.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I’m troubled when Open Theists minimize the importance of the reign of Christ in the present (the NOW of the kingdom) and relegate the Kingdom overwhelmingly if not totally to the future (the NOT YET of the kingdom).Philetus

Christ isn't reigning on earth or in the heavens today. He is reigning in Heaven. The god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, is exercising his dominion over the earth and skies today.

 

[Philetus]

Christ isn't reigning on earth or in the heavens today. He is reigning in Heaven. The god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, is exercising his dominion over the earth and skies today.

Its raining here today too. :yawn:

 

[Nang]

I see a marked difference between "If you eat you will surely die" (sin pays a wage) and the underlying conventional interpretation 'if you eat I will kill you' as though God were more like an earthly legislator/executioner of the law than a just and loving sovereign who offers as well as provides salvation from our self destruction.

Be careful here . . .read the Genesis account again . . .God never said "if." God said, ". . .for in the day, that . . ."

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

God never gave Adam an "if" or a choice. This Scripture reveals legal command and prophecy. God prophesied that Adam would indeed, on a certain day, eat of the forbidden tree.

I would say that most Arminians don't buy into a literal interpretation of the rapture, pre, mid, or post especially as depicted in the popular artwork and literature today. But either way I’m not trying to project either way. I’m asking about the NOW of the kingdom.

This is a point of agreement between us. I also am of the Amillennial persuasion and believe that the many passages referring to an earthly kingdom have been fulfilled in this present "church age." The entire time from the first visitation of Christ to the second and last visitation of Christ, has manifested the kingdom of God on earth in the lives of Spirit-filled Christians, and this is the proper explanation of the "1000 years" taught in Rev. 20:4-6.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Be careful here . . .read the Genesis account again . . .God never said "if." God said, ". . .for in the day, that . . ."

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

God never gave Adam an "if" or a choice. This Scripture reveals legal command and prophecy. God prophesied that Adam would indeed, on a certain day, eat of the forbidden tree.

Maybe just a matter of translation. It surely is a matter of interpretation.

How you reconcile 'thou shalt not ' and the clear fact that they did as an absolute meticulous sovereignty of God is not clear to me. It sounds like God is either playing games with our existence or is double minded. I know neither you nor I buy either. I guess I just don't understand your POV, and I've honestly tried. "For in that day ... you will surely die" still doesn't equate to "I will kill you" for me and I don't see it as prophecy.

This is a point of agreement between us. I also am of the Amillennial persuasion and believe that the many passages referring to an earthly kingdom have been fulfilled in this present "church age." The entire time from the first visitation of Christ to the second and last visitation of Christ, has manifested the kingdom of God on earth in the lives of Spirit-filled Christians, and this is the proper explanation of the "1000 years" taught in Rev. 20:4-6.

Nang

Wonders never cease.

Not a real popular position around here, evidently. For me, as an Open Theist, it is so reassuring to read Revelation (though not exclusively) as a discipleship manual for Christians facing tough times in any age, knowing that God is faithful to His people (the church in particular) no matter how bad it gets in the world. God is in charge! And these present tribulations will end. Remain faithful as Christ is faithful. Jesus is Lord. The day will come when ALL the kingdoms of the world will be swallowed up in the Kingdom of our God. Until then it is conflict with the opposing forces who defy God and seek to steal, kill and destroy His good work.

Probably said to much, but thanks for helping rub out the assumption that just because we might disagree (even fiercely at some points) we still endeavor to serve the same resurrected Lord.

Anyway to halfway rep somebody? :chuckle:

Philetus

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Anyway to halfway rep somebody? :chuckle:

Philetus

Formula for a half rep: Positive rep (full rep power) + Negative rep (half rep power)= Half Positive rep.

:up:

 

[Philetus]

Formula for a half rep: Positive rep (full rep power) + Negative rep (half rep power)= Half Positive rep.

:up:

Is that absolutely true? :noway:

 

[Nang]

Christ isn't reigning on earth or in the heavens today. He is reigning in Heaven. The god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, is exercising his dominion over the earth and skies today.

Satan's powers were destroyed by the cross work of Jesus Christ:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" Hebrews 2:14

Thus, Scripture teaches Satan is spiritually bound:

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years" Rev. 20:2

This "thousand years" is figurative language describing the time between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ. It is during this period of time that all the saints will be fully gathered into the church body of Christ. These live and reign with Christ, whether still on earth, or in heaven with the Lord. (Rev. 20:4-6, I Peter 2:9)

It is the good news of the cross and the victory of Christ over death (The Gospel Message), that spiritually binds the devil. Christ is building His church, and the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Those named to inherit the kingdom of God are saved in this lifetime, without fail, by the power of the Holy Spirit, who is greater than the devil. The devil cannot interefere with the calling of the sons of God to glory, and doing the will of God, "on earth as it is done in heaven."

Nang

 

[justind.clark]

open

open

So, being new around here and not willing to rad all 7000+ posts in here, i have a question. Does my view line up with open theism or not, and has this already been discussed? I see it as follows; God's knowledge is so expansive that He knows how to work out every possible choice we could make to His will without knowing exactly which choices we will make. So it would look like a river that keeps splitting and God has no idea which way we will choose but he knows how to get us to his destination for us anyway. What do you think?

 

[themuzicman]

Sounds like a good start.