Lon
Well-known member
Read Acts 15? Was there a difference? What was it? Why was it different?
You don't have to be, just entertain the difference to understand why Mid Acts sees this as important.
If I were to become Open Theist...
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Different because Gentiles were being welcomed into the body, something no one had thought would happen. But not because Jesus didn't know or command it, but because it was so foreign to the Jews' thought/upbringing that it remained a mystery and had to be revealed to Paul and Peter and James.
The question is whether MAD is correct on this point, not whether I can see their point. If all we do is see each other's points, but never strive to figure out which is correct, we all stay in our respective theological faults.
PureX
Well-known member
I had to look it up ... (wikipedia)
Open theism, also known as openness theology,[1] is a theological movement that has developed within Christianity as a rejection of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.[2] It is a version of free will theism[3] and arises out of the free will theistic tradition of the church, which goes back to the early church fathers.[4] Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.[5]
Open theist theologian Thomas Jay Oord identifies four paths to open and relational theology:[6]
Roger E. Olson said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[7]
So, it appears (to me) to be a slightly less 'absolutist' version of biblical literalism. But it is still based on biblical idolatry. As it still elevates the reader's interpretation of the text to the level of a divine mandate.
Open theism, also known as openness theology,[1] is a theological movement that has developed within Christianity as a rejection of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.[2] It is a version of free will theism[3] and arises out of the free will theistic tradition of the church, which goes back to the early church fathers.[4] Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.[5]
Open theist theologian Thomas Jay Oord identifies four paths to open and relational theology:[6]
- following the biblical witness,
- following themes in some Christian theological traditions,
- following the philosophy of free will, and
- following the path of reconciling faith and science.
Roger E. Olson said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[7]
Exposition of open theism
In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.[8][9] Thus, the future, as well as God's knowledge of it, is open (hence, "open" theism). Other versions of classical theism hold that God fully determines the future, entailing that there is no free choice (the future is closed). Yet other versions of classical theism hold that, though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God's foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism do not agree with the biblical concept of God; the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom; and/or result in incoherence. Open theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it.[10]So, it appears (to me) to be a slightly less 'absolutist' version of biblical literalism. But it is still based on biblical idolatry. As it still elevates the reader's interpretation of the text to the level of a divine mandate.
Derf
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Woot! Of course I'm happy you say that for obvious reasons
Also happy news.
True enough. I have no problem with you questioning such, just ask that you consider, planting a seed as it were...
I think you 'can' but thank you for considering. You don't have to become Mid Acts. I'm pretty sure I am Mid Acts (a new admission for me), but because I'm new, I welcome the same scrutiny.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, think I do: For me, considering another, even with strong convictions, helps one solidify one's own theology. It is testing ground to see how well it holds up.
yourpoint?
Member
No. Not where Open Theism is concerned. It is about a "God Who Risks" for man.
My question is about the draw. "What is the point of Open Theism?" Literally 'me and my freewill' and especially my freewill volition which is apparently (I wholly disagree) is the definition of love (it isn't).
So, while you are Open Theist, claiming it is about God, it is not. It is about you. Open Theism and a good bit of Free Will theism doesn't understand taking up a cross and denying self.
No, its about Open Theism.
Yes. Absolutely, every time. He decreed it. Relationship is genuine when we 'play our parts' rather than trying to maverick it all up.
Denying yourself, your 'free' will, taking up your cross and following Him. Why? Because your and my will stinks of sin infection. Rather, we are called to something much much higher. "You have heard it said, love your friends, hate your enemies, but I tell you "the bar is much much higher."
Sanders and many many Open Theists disagree with you. That you don't? Perfect!
God, first. Then whether you realize it or not, you. Not the good you suppose, but actual good and may well be very very different.
Both. It is His nature.
This is a poor question, like asking if God can make a rock He cannot pick up. You'll disagree, but it is really the same kind of contradictory question: God will not save all men.
Have you read Sander's book??? He says God risks, then admits it necessarily means 'mistakes.' Have you thought through logical conclusions of Open Theism parameters?
Incorrect. Open Theism takes analogical passages as 'literal'and literal passages figuratively, exactly backwards from the rest of us, not to mention becoming Judaized in theology. Yes the O.T. is valuable, not is isn't written 'to' us.
Live or die? Not a choice. One isn't preferable and it too a serpent to cause this. Until Satan 'gave' a free will (?) choice, no, they did not have a choice.
Not at all. If I play an online video game, I do choose, but nothing in that world is not known by the creators, there are no surprises.
Just the same as the video game isn't going to change, I still enjoy it, fully known, nothing I can do there that will surprise anybody. I still enjoy it. Is 'free' an illusion?
1) "Free" is a poor word to use for a theology moniker. It means very little other than 'self' which does take focus off of God and puts it on man. You'd think 'theo'-logy should be about God, I agree with you. However, 'we' are the point of the interaction so as He interacts with us, we consider 'how' and so Open Theism is good questions and speculation but ultimately fails to deliver 'theo'logy.
No, I absolutely do not.
"Bring?" No I absolutely do not (which doesn't at all automatically mean free nor open, that is a leap and a half).
Yep.
"Never?" You are making assumptions or not being careful here.
"Trust?" He does command that we not sin and according to John 3:17, we are condemned already. On this, it may be important that I do not believe in Tabula Rossa, clean slate anthropology. Nobody ever taught me to lie. Nobody ever taught me to disobey. I missed those classes but here I am killing it before Christ!
No, the Law was an educator. If you miss that, you miss a huge part of Paul's theology.
"We" did. "In that day, you will surely die."
No. Yet He is good. Open Theism isn't the answer to that question. It is hasty and simplistically wrong. I hasn't wrestled long enough with questions, just 'settled' for simplistic, somewhat rational, but missing. I was clueless, I remember clearly, when learning Algebra, "Who thought of this stupid stuff? Why do I have to learn this, it is ridiculous." Theology Proper tends to have that same response from Open Theism, relegating such to Greeks, rather than Muslims on the former, but it doesn't matter 'who' came up with that which doesn't 'look' plausible. It matters if we delve into Algebra and Theology Omnis and try to figure it out, not deny them outright. After 25 years looking, Open Theism never engages, rather dismisses. It make these conversations moot.
He isn't willing that any should perish. Thus is His Will thwarted? Is He making mistakes? Should He have hedged the tree? He does so 'after' Adam and Eve ate of it. Surely, if it was His will, that would not have happened? Open Theism doesn't tend to second-look at these, they have an answer: "simply eliminate what troubles the mind." Thus, no Omnis in Open Theism, yet, they must and do embrace them inconsistently and must. There is no other way for God to be their God without something omni embraced. It is very true if 'one' even one omni- then all omnis.
Because you made that logical leap. I kept working at it. For you? Open Theism: deny anything that troubles your mind instead of entertaining it over and over and over again until you figure out Algebra, Quantum Physics, and Theology Proper.
1) Are you correct? Did God create man knowing He is creating damned men? No. The serpent 'created' damned men. What God made was 'good.' See how 'men' come into your 'theo'-logy? You and most Open Theists (if not all) confuse anthropology with theology. They do indeed intersect, but keeping the categories separate will make you both a theologist and an anthropologist in proper respect.
Don't get me wrong, Double Predestination Calvinism is wrong too, but this again is because of confusing anthropology (what happens to men) and theology (Who God is and what He does). Being damned is never good.
I intimate both parties, Double-pred Calvinists and Open Theists, are incorrect rather. They are both wrong and confuse their -ologies.
Incorrect. Only Double-Predestination Calvinists believe this. While any other Calvinist might rightly be labelled "inconsistent' or "not Calvinists" especially since they disagree with Calvin himself, it is only the Double-Pred that believe this and it is heresy. IOW, most "Calvinists" do not embrace this at all. For me, the answer is simply a confusion of -ologies as if they are the same. It is largely an -ology conflation and problem. Such jumps between man and God with sloppy -ology bins.
I disagree, adamantly the Son was created.
I wholly disagree.
Oddly, you said God didn't make mistakes.It'd seem you aren't Trinitarian,Triune?
Your theological view of 'sovereignty' leads to the same conclusions Calvin had and you cannot
logically stop short of a God that makes no distinction between good and bad.
Lon
Well-known member
I know that is what Open Theists believe that, and I know the reasons they make that assertion, but one does not at all lead to the other. Example: I play a video game that is huge. There is nothing I can do in that game that developers didn't place there. It never means loss of my freedom as I play.
Derf
Well-known member
It seems like you have been leaning that way for awhile. And maybe you are, but I wonder how long you will stay.Woot! Of course I'm happy you say that for obvious reasons
Also happy news.
True enough. I have no problem with you questioning such, just ask that you consider, planting a seed as it were...
I think you 'can' but thank you for considering. You don't have to become Mid Acts. I'm pretty sure I am Mid Acts (a new admission for me), but because I'm new, I welcome the same scrutiny.
You are correct, of course, that considering other views can help to solidify one's own, but hopefully only by their bad arguments. If we solidify our own positions when there are valid arguments against our own positions, we deserve whatever derision is thrown our way.
Lon
Well-known member
And you can check out of this life as well, most do not. If you do, your choice: stop playing, as the analogy is appropriate and goes.
Lon
Well-known member
Who cares about "Derf's" Choice when you are stacked up against "God's" choice? Is that supposed to be preferable?
Let's visit it with me:
Who cares about "Lon's" choice stacked up against God's choice or will? Anybody? Anybody at all? Even in my case, not even me. His will is way more valuable, preferable, desirable, perfect-in-fact, compared to my fallible one. Do even "I" want my own theology named after my derelict will? Not a chance, not at all.
Robot? I'd WAY (WAY) rather be a robot following His will than a broken, misapplied, one that has a track record for never being as Good as His. It is exactly because Christ dwells me that I have made 'free' will decisions that aren't really free: They are pressed by His presence in my life. When someone asks 'what kind of ice cream would you like' in Christ, I most often say, "I'll take what is left." My 'will/choice' is totally negated at that point: I prefer vanilla, but the answer becomes His answer at that venture.
God made us stewards, and in that stewardship, 'our will' counts as we are responsible to carrying out His will. IOW, it still boils all, entirely, down to Him, Who He is Lord over. The rest of 'wills' out there? Against Him and worthy of no one's allegiance who loves Christ.
What 'knowledge of good and evil' allowed was 'our will (free will theism). In and of it, our learning and centering in Christ is about adopting His will against 'evil.' Thus "anyone who is in Christ, is free indeed." Galatians 5:1
Does Free Will theism, hold man's will 'as of paramount importance!"? Or do believers hold that God's will is of paramount importance? Which is actually 'the-ism?' Isn't the other rather 'anthopology' interested and not actually 'theology' but as an extension? IOW, let's get our 'the'ology ducks in the proper row. God-first. THEN let's visit free will under the clear and desirable parameters of "His Will" theology. Yes?
IOW, is your aversion is based on the will you want to follow when you label it 'free will theism?'
Conversely, I'd call what I believe "God's will, me following His will, theism" thus adopting a new will, His: as the difference. I do believe we are stewards (not owners) of the divided will, our desire isn't autonomy, but freedom 'from' something (Galatians 5:1) and anyone embracing that as their moniker, actually means that it is 'now' a will free from having to follow sin.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body [a]and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
If any Christian is pretending in their mind that God wrote the Bible, and so is taking every word in it as if it were coming from God's mouth, they have made the Bible into a false idol.
And if they are placing their religion as the 'gatekeeper' between all humanity, and God, they have placed their religion ABOVE their God and are using it to impose impediments upon their fellow human's access to God.
These are two very serious "sins" according to scripture, and yet we see a lot of self-proclaimed Christians engaging in exactly this kind of sinful behavior.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If we're not to take the Bible so seriously, then what do you propose instead, in order that we can discern His will and His Word to and for us and for our children and children's children? What is your thought?
PureX
Well-known member
No one said anything about not taking it seriously. There is plenty of wisdom to be gained from reading the Bible, as well as reading other religius scripture. And none of it requires that anyone pretend the words are coming from God's mouth.
The Bible is not intended to teach anyone "God's will". It's mostly intended to teach the reader humility. And that God's will is NOT ours to know. Mankind's original sin, after all, was presuming to possess the knowledge of good and evil, as if we are God's equals. And thereby we set ourselves up to stand in judgment of all we encounter, and then seek to "correct it" according to our own selfish ideas of what's "good" and what's not (what is good for us, and what is bad for us).
The "discernment" you are seeking comes from the divine spirit within you. Not from any words in any book, or from any religious dogma. It's the divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity ... and of honesty, humility, wisdom, and the willingness to be the embodiment of these in our lives. The words can help us to recognize this spirit within, or they can just confuse us. Which is why we should never make idols of them.
Derf
Well-known member
You don't think it is God's will that we don't murder? And isn't that revealed in the bible?
Lon
Well-known member
Selective reading on point. It starts with Jesus, 'Was He God?" "Did He exist." Agnostics and critics miss "critical steps" in analysis, purposeful obtusion for secular obvious reasons.
Your universalism is showing. Ideology is mutually exclusive. Attempts to blend are simply pick and choose for and from one's own desire. Such allows no dictation so your life-choice forces you to not listen to me on point. Go back to "Was Jesus God?" and "Did He exist?" He was and did, but you have to be honest with yourself. It is indeed the starting point. Answer the question honestly and the rest is a done deal. People have tried very hard to assert that He didn't/doesn't exist and have conveniently settled for their own peace of mind rather than any kind of honest look into facts.
Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic. Are you perfect? (no) then why are you looking within? I posit confidently you are not, but have built a facade for comfort. It is ultimately self defeating regardless of the guru's claim (read more deeply, they all never attained the koolaid).
I'm not even sure why you get into these conversations. You aren't ready and offer nothing on point. Your entrance is in fact, off topic because you aren't vested in the topic. Your comments are simply a push from your unitarian worldview as a commercial. It may indeed reflect 'why I am not an Open Theist' but you aren't engaging the point, just stating why you dismiss it and all other Christian theology.
yourpoint?
Member
Your "Example" does not show how "one does not at all lead to the other"; it only confirms my point.
When the developer creates a game and he forces you to play, knows you will not win, and charges you with the loss, there is nothing there that you can call "freedom". The developer predetermined your loss..., and..., you still have Calvin's dilemma. Many people would call it a scam and nobody would call it love.
Seems like your trying to claim "freedom" while trying to adhere to Calvin's 'Sovereignty'; you can't.