Nang
TOL Subscriber
God ordained enemies and false teachers as righteous judgment against unfaithfulness and unbelief.
See II Thessalonians 2:9-12.
Nang
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
God ordained enemies and false teachers as righteous judgment against unfaithfulness and unbelief.
See II Thessalonians 2:9-12.
Nang
LightSon
New member
v. 12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Since you are applying this passage to Open Theists, does it follow that you believe they are lost, as in "damned" and having "had pleasure in unrighteousness?"
The passage is eschatological and misapplied by Nang. Anyone could try to use it against any person or group they differ with.
:chuckle:
I was a little worried there for a bit but I had a feeling that might be the case because I couldn't figure out how that post fit with your previous ones. It reminded me of that old Bill Cosby "Noah" routine. I read your post and thought, "Am I on Candid Camera?"
You're probably too young to remember either Candid Camera or Bill Cosby's stand-up comedy but let's just say I'm glad it was a typo!
God bless you!
Resting in Him,
Clete
For the sake of you who seem to be quite sensitive to my harshness toward Nang, I'm going to try my best to actually respond to one of her posts without insulting her. Blood might start shooting out of my eyes, making it hard to type, so ignore any typos....
The Calvinist's favorite thing is to accuse the Open Theist of being humanistic, all the while it is they who rely on the traditions and popular opinions of men to confirm and establish their theology. They wave the banner of Sola Scriptura but undermine its meaning at every turn.
If anything it is the Calvinist who redefines everything under the Sun. I can't believe the number of lengthy conversations that Hilston and I have had where Jim wanted to redefine seemingly every word in the whole of the English language! I made an argument one time based on the fact that God is a person. His response was basically to tell me that he and the members of his church were working on figuring out what the Biblical definition of the word "person" is! At which time I pointed out to him that seemingly every one of our debates come down to his having to redefine really simply words and concepts in order to make them work within his theological worldview. That isn't the way its supposed to work. Words mean things and most (not all) Biblical concepts are simple enough for any third grader to comprehend.
WAKE UP!!!!!
The word "sovereign" has never meant omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent! That's the stuff Augustine added to the meaning of the word! The Bible doesn't say that God is those things! The words omniscient and omnipresent aren't even Biblical terms! If anything, the Open View accepts the word sovereign for what it actually does mean even when the word is used in reference to God Himself. God is sovereign! No Open Theist denies that in the slightest degree. The word sovereign does not mean that one has meticulous control of everything that happens. The Calvinist believes otherwise and so has the burden of proof. That burden of proof IS THE ENTIRE DEBATE! The Open Theist sees that this burden of proof has not been met and acknowledges the ramifications but that hardly qualifies as redefining the term. We are simply using the real definition, the definition of the word that is has in every other context outside of Augustinian theological circles.
[Oh! I can't see! The blood pressure has been building behind my eyes for a while now! Was that too insulting? It will have to do, it'll make too big a mess if I have to retype it!]
Resting in Him,
Clete
Saying it doesn't make it so. This whole website is dedicated to the task of establishing Open Theism, which has been done more times than I can count. You inability to see it does not speak to the veracity of the position since you seem utterly incapable of making a single rational argument against it.
I just love that Nang said this!
The Calvinist's favorite thing is to accuse the Open Theist of being humanistic, all the while it is they who rely on the traditions and popular opinions of men to confirm and establish their theology. They wave the banner of Sola Scriptura but undermine its meaning at every turn.
Once again, saying it doesn't make it so. Did you miss the part of my post where I said, "DON'T be a typical Calvinist! Make the argument!" Make an argument, Nang! If you can. No one here cares about your personal opinions.
This is simply an outright lie! There is no evidence that Open Theism has redefined any Biblical terminology. Indeed, it is a cornerstone of Open Theism teaching that we allow the Bible to speak for itself. One of the things we strive most for is a theology that does not require one to do anything at all but to simply read the Bible for oneself and to take it for what it plainly states. We acknowledge, of course, that there are figures of speech in the Bible but we only interpret something as a figure of speech when there is some compelling reason to do so and when we can explain what the figure of speech means and how that meaning is consistent with the context of the passage it is in.
If anything it is the Calvinist who redefines everything under the Sun. I can't believe the number of lengthy conversations that Hilston and I have had where Jim wanted to redefine seemingly every word in the whole of the English language! I made an argument one time based on the fact that God is a person. His response was basically to tell me that he and the members of his church were working on figuring out what the Biblical definition of the word "person" is! At which time I pointed out to him that seemingly every one of our debates come down to his having to redefine really simply words and concepts in order to make them work within his theological worldview. That isn't the way its supposed to work. Words mean things and most (not all) Biblical concepts are simple enough for any third grader to comprehend.
Hello? Nang! Are you awake! You haven't passed out on me or something have you?
WAKE UP!!!!!
The word "sovereign" has never meant omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent! That's the stuff Augustine added to the meaning of the word! The Bible doesn't say that God is those things! The words omniscient and omnipresent aren't even Biblical terms! If anything, the Open View accepts the word sovereign for what it actually does mean even when the word is used in reference to God Himself. God is sovereign! No Open Theist denies that in the slightest degree. The word sovereign does not mean that one has meticulous control of everything that happens. The Calvinist believes otherwise and so has the burden of proof. That burden of proof IS THE ENTIRE DEBATE! The Open Theist sees that this burden of proof has not been met and acknowledges the ramifications but that hardly qualifies as redefining the term. We are simply using the real definition, the definition of the word that is has in every other context outside of Augustinian theological circles.
On the contrary. I've lost count of the PM's and positive rep comments I've received over the years about my ability to calmly repeat myself a million times trying to get someone to understand a particular argument. You're simply transferring my hatred of you onto everyone in the room. In reality, I can count on one hand the number of people I routinely insult and/or get angry with on this website and they all deserve more than they get.
To late! You had your chance for that months and months ago. I tried and retried to get you to engage the argument and you refused. The only thing you are good for now is ridicule and scorn. You're a fool and until you repent of your foolishness, you will be treated as exactly that by me.
[Oh! I can't see! The blood pressure has been building behind my eyes for a while now! Was that too insulting? It will have to do, it'll make too big a mess if I have to retype it!]
I will do so for anyone but you, your husband, Ask Mr. Religion or James Hilston.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
So, are you Eastern Orthodox or Catholic?
Or do you use someone else's private interpretation of Scripture?
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Clete and Muzicman,
If our discussions were not a matter of spiritual life and/or death, I could enjoy a hearty laugh :rotfl: over the tactics employed by both of you.
Indeed, you are artful dodgers, continuously managing to avoid explaining OVT by shifting attention through constant criticisms of the Reformed faith ("Calvinism").
Have you fellas come up with an Open View statement of faith, yet?
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
You tend to do that when your exegesis has been exposed and you ahve nothing left to respond with.
Um... You're the one who keeps bringing it up as "the right theology" and we keep pointing out that your theology has many gaping holes. So, we're only moving to expose a presented and competing theology for the error riddled philosophy that it is.
Statement of faith? I don't imagine OVT has a big impact on the foundational doctrines of Christianity.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The primary argument I present to you, at this point, is that God is Sovereign Creator, Lord, and Savior.
That means that all things that exist were made by Him (revealing omnipotence), through Him (omnipresence), and for Him (omniscience).
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16&17
God rules His creation and heavenly realm as Sovereign King. It is access to this Kingdom of God that the Son of God has provided for an elect humanity.
"For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Ephesians 2:18
Sovereign God chooses who will inhabit and serve in His kingdom; not the servants.
"The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth." Acts 22:14
"Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, accordint to thegood pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:4-6
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48
Thus, my belief in the full sovereignty of God rules out the notion of sinful men possessing "free" wills. Such a notion was the initial lie of Satan to man in the garden, which has been perpetuated throughout the history of this world.
Humanity at large is held in bondage to this lie; refusing to submit to or acknowledge the wisdom of the will of God and thereby worship God as their Sovereign in all matters of life and death.
Any comments?
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Denial of the attributes of Sovereign God shakes the foundations of Christianity. It is amazing that OVT'ers cannot see the heresy of their beliefs, and that they consider themselves doctrinally sound.
You have been told this before, but I will say it again. You cannot continue indefinitely with your false teachings of the essence and Person of the Godhead, simply claiming your views are historical and traditional Christianity. If you cannot clearly make up a statement of faith that explains (and reveals) your core teachings, it means you are functioning as sneaks and hypocrites. Posing to be orthodox Christians, but teaching falsehoods. :down:
Nang
LightSon
New member
Nang, if we do not have free will, then why does scripture spend so much time appealing to our will? This makes no sense. It is a free will that responds to persuasion, which is what scripture repeatedly tries to do - persuade us to love God and be obedient. If we have no free will, and God has pre-ordained our every step, then such Biblical admonitions have no efficacy - Biblical warnings and charges to obedience become pointless if we have no freewill (i.e. choice) in the matter.
It seems to me that Adam chose to eat; if that wasn't his free will, then please tell me what it was?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Calvinists do not deny the willfulness of man. Man was made in the image of God as a willful creature. What Calvinists deny is that the will of man is "free" to disobey God without consequence. The will of man was created to submit and work in harmony with the sovereign will of God.
All the Scriptures that you are referring to, are not "persuasions," but reiterations of the moral laws of God. In the beginning, man was commanded under the law, to obey God and commanded not to partake of that which would give him knowledge of evil and cause death. Just because Adam did not obey these commands, does not change the commands (law). All the offspring of Adam are still existing under the same commands and moral law. All humanity remains morally accountable before God to do good and not do evil. The tragedy is, no man, due to the corruption of the human nature, is willing or able to obey God.
Thus God sent His Son as Savior, who was willing and able to perfectly obey God and thereby fulfill all human accountability before God on their behalf.
The Law reveals our sin. The Law tutors us and is meant to show us our need of a Savior. Once the Law through the Holy Spirit (the word of God) convicts us of our sin, repentance is granted, and faith in the Christ is worked by the grace of God.
"The Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to brings us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:22-25
Adam exercised his moral agency (will) in disbelief of God's word and in disobedience to God's word. Adam was not "free" to do so and the consequences were horrendous, and brought death into the world.
No man is "free" to willfully function in opposition to the goodness of God, for all men are born into this world accountable to the Law of God.
However, just as the devil lied to Adam and told Adam he was "free" to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil without suffering death, so the devil still lies to men, spreading the deception that men are "free" to choose to obey God or not. It is not true.
Man's will was created to submit to God's will. And that is exactly what Jesus Christ exemplified in His life and death. The Son of God lived His earthly life in total submission to the will of the Father, achieving true righteousness, under and according to the Law of God.
That is how the Christian is to live. The Christian has been "freed" to escape the bondage of sin, death, and the devil and live life, submitting their wills to the will of God. (Which means, the will is "freed" but still not "free." Even in glory, the saints will not have an autonomous, "free" will, but will serve God as His creatures.)
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
That's odd. OVT gets its doctrines of the sovereignty of God from Scripture. Are you saying that the foundations don't rest on Scripture?
Wow.. Major strawman. We don't depart with Christianity of the essence of the Person of the Godhead. God remains omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and triune.
The core of "OVT" remains as the core of Christianity. We embrace the apostle's creed, the nicene creed, the closed cannon established by the Easter letter, salvation by grace through faith, and a final bodily resurrection. These things do not change. We remain with the church on the nature of Christ (Chalcedonian creed), and other foundational creeds, as well.
We also believe that God is truly just and truly loving, and seek to embrace doctrines that reflect a truly loving and just God, something we find to be inconsistent in Reformed theology.
Your declarations that your theology is inerrant rings hollow in the face of your expression of it and it's failure to adhere to the context of Scripture.
Muz
LightSon
New member
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Apparently we have different definitions of "free will". To me it means the prerogative to make a choice (as in what Adam did), that was not dictated by divine fiat (i.e. as if Adam were a puppet). To you "free will" means being able to make a choice and "get away with it" as in "no consequences". Odd definition, since nobody is making such an argument.
How about this. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. " Romans 12:1
to beseech:
This is just one example. It sure sounds persuasive to me, but may now be off point since you agree that we do have control over our will, a will which can be affected by Biblical admonishment.
Apparently we have different definitions of "free will". To me it means the prerogative to make a choice (as in what Adam did), that was not dictated by divine fiat (i.e. as if Adam were a puppet). To you "free will" means being able to make a choice and "get away with it" as in "no consequences". Odd definition, since nobody is making such an argument.
How about this. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. " Romans 12:1
to beseech:
This is just one example. It sure sounds persuasive to me, but may now be off point since you agree that we do have control over our will, a will which can be affected by Biblical admonishment.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Man was created responsible to exercise his will according to the holy laws and commands of God. Therefore, I agree with you that man's choices are not the result of "divine fiat" but truly are the results of his own nature and desires.
It is common to confuse "divine fiat" with Godly ordination. Just because God ordained all things (working good out of evils) and predestined the fates of all men, does not make men puppets.
How can the gift of moral agency (will) be "free" from the will and laws of God? It cannot. All moral agency is responsible and accountable to the sovereign will of God. So where does the "free" part exist?
Good word study, but the context is Paul beseeching his fellow man to submit to God. It is not God persuading or "beseeching" obedience from His creatures.
God's word consists of commands, not pleas.
Nang
LightSon
New member
Nang, I see this quote in your footer. Forgive me if you've defended this before; I've just returned to TOL after a 2.6 yr hiatus.
Gen 6: 6,7
As we know, to "repent" is to have a change of mind. How do you resolve this apparent contradiction to the idea that "God never changes"?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The definition of the "repentance" is given in the same first sentence:
"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Genesis 6:6
God did not change His mind. The sin of man grieved God's heart, for their actions required His judgment. "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezekiel 33:11
However, "The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4
All things have been ordained to fulfill God's purposes and intents, including bringing judgment and elimination of all things wicked and sinful. It causes grief in God to have to deal with darkness and evil spirits, but the end result will be a Kingdom of God, inhabited with creatures, where there is no darkness or sin ever again.
Nang
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
So, when God said that creation was "very good", He was sorry that He had created, even then?
Or was God happy with creation back then, but sad that He had created in Noah's day?
Muz
Or was God happy with creation back then, but sad that He had created in Noah's day?
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God saw the necessity of eliminating all wickedness, sin, death, and the devil before He created. God purposed to give His Son a Kingdom where none of these things exist, so despite the grief sinners caused the heart of God, and the price the Son had to pay to provide remedy for the sins of men, God created anyway, and His creation before the fall of man was good.
What you are really inferring, is that if God can't change His mind, He should not have created any of us to start with. That is a little short-sighted and self-centered, don't you think?
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
Um.. you're ignoring the text and dodging the question. Was God sad that He created when He created, or was that change from His statement that creation was "Very Good?"
Did God regret creating as He created?
Actually, I'm trying to reflect what God has revealed about Himself in His Word, both in creation and in Noah's day. In creation, it was "Very good", which sounds as though God is pleased, but in Noah's day, God is "sad" or "relents" or whatever you want to call it, and His emotion towards creation is very different from what it was at creation.
So, God changes His mind about how He feels about creation. And that's just from reading the text. Why do you need to obfuscate to make the text go away?
Muz
- Status