ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Arthur Brain]

If an agent, such as a sports player, is the one playing, then the actions do not exist in reality as an object of knowledge until they exist and play. Knowledge cannot proceed the existence of the event by the agent (it could be known if the agent was deterministically manipulated with no free will like a toy soldier).

You are assuming simple foreknowledge? timelessness/eternal now? but these cannot be demonstrated to be more than assumptions without evidence. The issue is the nature of creation and the future which is non-deterministic and non-existent (anticipatory vs actual).

This is common sense, but technical proofs are also available in the literature (modal logic, etc.).

Again, you're simply using your own experience of time and then limit God by it GR. If you were to *know* (somehow) that a baseball player was going to hit a home run and it came about then have you interfered with anything? Did God not know that by creating Man he would likely wish to engage in sporting activities down the line? Or fall in love etc?

If you wanna limit God's capabilities by your own reasoning then go for it. I ain't buying it though.

 

[godrulz]

Again, you're simply using your own experience of time and then limit God by it GR. If you were to *know* (somehow) that a baseball player was going to hit a home run and it came about then have you interfered with anything? Did God not know that by creating Man he would likely wish to engage in sporting activities down the line? Or fall in love etc?

If you wanna limit God's capabilities by your own reasoning then go for it. I ain't buying it though.

You can reason biblically and logically or fail to reason with illogic and error. Somehow? What is the mechanism, even for God? You are talking about present knowledge if an observer sees a ball hit in real time. This is certain knowledge for God and man. To say that God sees this hit before the player even exists is nonsense with nothing lost by rejecting it (since God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal, not crystal ball dependent in light of His ability). God knows the possibility of these things, but Steve Jobs was a bigger issue for Apple than God in eternity past (by God's sovereign choice to macro vs micromanage).

It is not a limitation on God to say He cannot know or do the absurd or logically possible/contradictory.

Not to be unkind, but I don't think you have wrestled with the academic, biblical nature of this debate to any great degree (I have for 30 years and want a cogent view, not a simplistic one that is indefensible in light of Scripture and logic).

Just as you are wrong about universalism, so you are wrong on this issue:chew:

 

[Arthur Brain]

All losers who miss the goal, fell when their representative (Adam)lost the game in the garden.

Ah, so you're a 'winner' then despite having the same 'representative' before you were even born?

Not by God.

By Adam.

God overrules the errors that caused the loss, by saving some from the loss.

Eh? How could Adam 'rig' such? How did God not see such subterfuge beforehand if He's Sovereign over all?

You are just angry because God did not decide to let the entire team off the hook for their failures.

Rather I get bemused and saddened by sick doctrines such as yours that think a loving God would set things up where fallible creatures are predestined to an eternity of that which hitler's death camps couldn't come close to, and by actual design....lain:

Oh please. "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked."



Nang

Oh of course not. He just creates billions of people and expressly dictates where they're headed before anyone's even been born Nang...

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You can reason biblically and logically or fail to reason with illogic and error. Somehow? What is the mechanism, even for God? You are talking about present knowledge if an observer sees a ball hit in real time. This is certain knowledge for God and man. To say that God sees this hit before the player even exists is nonsense with nothing lost by rejecting it (since God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal, not crystal ball dependent in light of His ability). God knows the possibility of these things, but Steve Jobs was a bigger issue for Apple than God in eternity past (by God's sovereign choice to macro vs micromanage).

It is not a limitation on God to say He cannot know or do the absurd or logically possible/contradictory.

Not to be unkind, but I don't think you have wrestled with the academic, biblical nature of this debate to any great degree (I have for 30 years and want a cogent view, not a simplistic one that is indefensible in light of Scripture and logic).

Just as you are wrong about universalism, so you are wrong on this issue:chew:

And yet again you do the same GR. One verse that comes to mind when reading you is regarding the 'wisdom of man'. You place limits on God and 'simplistic' as it may seem to you there is no reason to believe that God is restrained by your notions on what He's capable of. Maybe if you quit with the quasi intellectual claptrap you might see that which is in front of your face for once. What you declare I'm wrong about means absolutely nothing dude.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Faith (belief) is the evidence of salvation, not the means.

The means of salvation is the grace of God that grants repentance and provides faith to sinners; enabling them to believe in the gospel of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Therefore: Regeneration (being born from above by the Holy Spirit of God) precedes any human demonstration and execution of faith.

Nang

Exactly. Cogently and clearly stated.

AMR

 

[Nang]

Ah, so you're a 'winner' then despite having the same 'representative' before you were even born?

Thankfully, I have also been represented by the last Adam, Jesus Christ, by the pure mercy and grace of God.

Eh? How could Adam 'rig' such? How did God not see such subterfuge beforehand if He's Sovereign over all?

God created Adam in His image, which included the gift of secondary moral agency that enabled Adam to cause and effect his surroundings and well being.

Rather I get bemused and saddened by sick doctrines such as yours that think a loving God would set things up where fallible creatures are predestined to an eternity of that which hitler's death camps couldn't come close to, and by actual design....lain:

Hitler, etc. are manifestations and visible evidences of the wickedness and sinfulness of mankind, that Adam caused when he failed to submit his will to the higher will of God.

Oh of course not. He just creates billions of people and expressly dictates where they're headed before anyone's even been born Nang...

lain:

I really do not see where you find this worse, than those who claim that God loves all men, but fails to save all of them from hell.

Why are you so angry that God would choose to save some men from their original and deserved fate?

Do you not realize God could not create heaven on earth. For heaven is the realm of UNCREATED God.

As soon as man was CREATED he was less than God, but God predetermined to elevate men to His heavenly realm, through and in Jesus Christ.

Not all men, but many.

You are just angry because God did not CREATE what is UNCREATABLE.

And you are angry because God did not elevate all creatures to His spiritual realm, but only some. . . instead of marveling that God would sacrifice His only begotten Son to accomplish the salvation of many.

Why are you so angry in the face of such wonders and grace?

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Exactly. Cogently and clearly stated.

AMR

This does not explain why God saves some and damns many more that He could save if He would only decree it. It limits the love of God (makes it partial) and impugns His character by arbitrariness. Saying He does not have to save anyone is true, but still not an answer. Appealing to antimony or mystery when a more biblical, coherent view is available is also not a defense of the indefensible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Exactly. Cogently and clearly stated.

AMR

Well, as long as you're "chosen" at any rate. Everyone else can effectively go and fry.....

lain:

 

[Nang]

This does not explain why God saves some and damns many more that He could save if He would only decree it. It limits the love of God (makes it partial) and impugns His character by arbitrariness. Saying He does not have to save anyone is true, but still not an answer. Appealing to antimony or mystery when a more biblical, coherent view is available is also not a defense of the indefensible.

And you fail to explain why, if God supposedly loves all men and Jesus died for all men, and the Holy Spirit calls all men . . . why multitudes are still consigned to hell?

Is failure to save all, more holy, than 100% assurance that an elect will be saved without fail?

You did not marry all the women in the world. You only married one that you chose for yourself. Does that make you arbitrary? Unloving? Cruel to all the other women you could have had?

Your objections are silly, IMO.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Well, as long as you're "chosen" at any rate. Everyone else can effectively go and fry.....

lain:

Their TULIP and your universalism are both unbiblical views. There is an alternate view that mitigates the problems of your views (free will theism that includes the love and holiness of God).

 

[godrulz]

And you fail to explain why, if God supposedly loves all men and Jesus died for all men, and the Holy Spirit calls all men . . . why multitudes are still consigned to hell?

Is failure to save all, more holy, than 100% assurance that an elect will be saved without fail?

You did not marry all the women in the world. You only married one that you chose for yourself. Does that make you arbitrary? Unloving? Cruel to all the other women you could have had?

Your objections are silly, IMO.

Nang

Your wrong views of sovereignty/free will are the problem. In both our views, not all are saved (universalism). My view factors in that we are in the image of God and are significant others with a say so, not mere pawns in a cosmic matrix.

Reciprocal love relationships are not caused/coerced. Your view elevates a wrong view of power over a right view of love (which does not bring glory to God, but impugns Him). God's love is not divorced from His holiness. Your view is mechanistic, arbitrary, but my view is personal, loving, holy.

The analogy of marriage between two people and salvation is not parallel unless you want to argue for polygamy.

 

[Nang]

Their TULIP and your universalism are both unbiblical views. There is an alternate view that mitigates the problems of your views (free will theism that includes the love and holiness of God).

The end results of the Open Theism view is no different than the Reformed view.

It denies the success of a supposed universal atonement, and admits that indeed, only a limited number of souls will inherit heavenly glory.

The only difference, is you attribute the achievement of heavenly glory for some to the power of the human will, where Reformers give God all the glory for those whom He has willed to be saved.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Saying He does not have to save anyone is true, but still not an answer.

Er, it is not an answer you care to accept, despite the clear teachings from Scripture. It is the Biblical answer nevertheless. If you reject the salvation you are enjoying as the fruit of God's gracious actions, then please explain what exactly you think merits your salvation. :AMR:

AMR

 

[godrulz]

Er, it is not an answer you care to accept, despite the clear teachings from Scripture. It is the Biblical answer nevertheless. If you reject the salvation you are enjoying as the fruit of God's gracious actions, then please explain what exactly you think merits your salvation. :AMR:

AMR

In both our views, grace alone is the grounds (reason by which) of salvation. We do not initiate nor provide salvation, so you are attacking a straw man. You wrongly think the biblical conditions (not without which) of repentant faith/continuance in the faith are meritorious or self-righteous just because it involves mental/volitional response to the non-coercive/non-causative conviction/convincing of the Spirit.

In both our views, we do not initiate nor provide salvation. In my view, there is a culpable response that fits the imperatives of Scripture, while your view is deterministic/decretal based on a preconceived philosophy that is more problematic than you realize.

Repeat after me: faith is not a work; Arminianism is not Pelagianism; Open Theism is not Process Thought. Calvinism is not necessarily biblical/logical.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thankfully, I have also been represented by the last Adam, Jesus Christ, by the pure mercy and grace of God.

You mean as in Adam all die but in Christ all shall be made alive? Would it irk you to think that those, just as fallible as you, are actually reconciled as well?

God created Adam in His image, which included the gift of secondary moral agency that enabled Adam to cause and effect his surroundings and well being.

So.....God just hoped that Adam would use his 'secondary moral agency' for the good? If he had then none of 'his descendants' would have had to face hell? Is that what you're arguing?

Hitler, etc. are manifestations and visible evidences of the wickedness and sinfulness of mankind, that Adam caused when he failed to submit his will to the higher will of God.

Oh, well thank you Adam for being entirely the infectious cause of mass genocide, ethnic "cleansing" etc. Is he equally responsible for the altruism and bravery that people have shown amidst such atrocity?

I really do not see where you find this worse, than those who claim that God loves all men, but fails to save all of them from hell.

In some senses it isn't much worse, as I find the whole concept of eternal suffering abhorrent and at complete odds with a loving Creator.

Why are you so angry that God would choose to save some men from their original and deserved fate?

I'm not. I'd have to believe what you describe before I could get angry about it.

Do you not realize God could not create heaven on earth. For heaven is the realm of UNCREATED God.

As soon as man was CREATED he was less than God, but God predetermined to elevate men to His heavenly realm, through and in Jesus Christ.

Not all men, but many.

.

I wonder how many of those predetermined include those gassed in death camps or the Kurds under Hussein etc etc etc etc....why again should I 'realize' what God can't create as well? You're no better than GR in some respects in that regard....

You are just angry because God did not CREATE what is UNCREATABLE.

And again. Who are you to decree what God can create? You sure like to fling the accusations of being angry about but why? Because I don't believe as you?

And you are angry because God did not elevate all creatures to His spiritual realm, but only some. . . instead of marveling that God would sacrifice His only begotten Son to accomplish the salvation of many.

Why are you so angry in the face of such wonders and grace?

Nang

And again. Why do you accuse me of being angry? I don't believe you're correct Nang. I find your belief selfish, incorrect and abhorrent. Does that make me angry in itself? If so then you're angry every time you see a counter to it....

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Their TULIP and your universalism are both unbiblical views. There is an alternate view that mitigates the problems of your views (free will theism that includes the love and holiness of God).

It doesn't 'mitigate' it at all GR. I'm not sure you even know what love actually is....

 

[godrulz]

It doesn't 'mitigate' it at all GR. I'm not sure you even know what love actually is....

Your view is sentimental luv divorced from holiness/justice. The biblical view is love flowing out of holiness (you want mercy, but no justice which is false good news for the impenitent/evil).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Er, it is not an answer you care to accept, despite the clear teachings from Scripture. It is the Biblical answer nevertheless. If you reject the salvation you are enjoying as the fruit of God's gracious actions, then please explain what exactly you think merits your salvation. :AMR:

AMR

Do you honestly think that a loving God would create life and be ok with an eternal hell of suffering AMR? Never mind the 'biblical exegesis' for a minute but just this question.

:think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your view is sentimental luv divorced from holiness/justice. The biblical view is love flowing out of holiness (you want mercy, but no justice which is false good news for the impenitent/evil).

Is the grief a person has for a lost loved one 'sentimental' GR?! You really want to start getting off that tired horse because you sound more and more like a robot. Do you have any empathy for other people? or is that "sentimental" as well? You're as cold as my flippin freezer dude.

lain:

 

[godrulz]

Is the grief a person has for a lost loved one 'sentimental' GR?! You really want to start getting off that tired horse because you sound more and more like a robot. Do you have any empathy for other people? or is that "sentimental" as well? You're as cold as my flippin freezer dude.

lain:

God nor I delight in the death of the wicked nor do we delight in Hitler and Satan not experiencing justice in light of their overt rejection of God. We should grieve at the lostness of humanity, but rejoice in the provision to save them (if it is received vs rejected). Love is relational, not coerced. God is a responsible Moral Governor and you are asking Him to compromise truth for your emotional view that is myopic. The cross and Scripture become meaningless in your view (Jn. 3:16 is not divorced from Jn. 3:36; is Romans 1 missing from your Bible? I Jn. 5:11-13?).