Question About Open Theism

[Nick M]

Why is Classic versus Open theism a heaven or hell matter?

It isn't. Do you mean the false gospel of Calvinism? Classic what?

 

[Clete]

Why is Classic versus Open theism a heaven or hell matter? I really have never participated in debates about these two theologies.

I know of no Open Theist who would ever suggest such a thing. There are plenty of Classical theists who would do so! Calvinists in particular very often believe that the TULIP is the very gospel itself!

Biblically, however, all that is required to be saved is to believe the following things...

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Oh well, here are three examples I like to ponder regarding God's will and his knowing how everything ends and man's gift of freewill.

Queen Esther's uncle once posed this question to her [paraphrased]: Perhaps you were meant for a time like this and if you fail to pick up your destiny God will choose someone else. You will suffer while someone else accomplishes God's will and is rewarded.

After God rejected Cain's form of an offering He asked angry Cain this question, "Do you not know IF IF IF you do well you will be accepted?"

Samson was chosen before he was born to accomplish God's will to rid that area of the Promised Land of the Philistines. Along the way Samson did everything against God's will which should have stopped God's plan for him, but God used him anyway at the very end to kill more Philistines than ever before ...

All three of these smack of the co-existence of God's will and man's will.
Just because God knows how everything is going to turn out in the end does not mean an individual has to take the high road. I a person fails at his purpose from God, God will use someone else.

Personal experience for what ever it is worth. I think it sort of relates to this topic about God's will versus the free will behaviors of men. Our having a free will or refusing to listen to God's will is going to change the end God knows is ahead. [???] Still a seeker of how things work.

While driving my car the still small voice of God said: "Wreck."
I did everything I knew to be safe ... even took a longer but safer way home and remembered to use all my driving signals when needed. I got to my street with signals on for turning toward my house and wham!!! A woman on her phone slammed into the back of my car.

I asked God, "I heard your warning and did all I could to trust you. Why was I still in a wreck? He simply said, "You were listening." And I understood he meant she wasn't. This was an example of how she was living out her will not His; so, we were in a wreck.

Yet, God protected me. Car totaled but I was not hurt. A bit of back strain. The man in the car behind her's stayed until the police came and explained everything to the police. God took care of me even though she was not listening. She was speeding, had just passed him in a right turn lane that was running out, and was on her phone. I had my blinker on for my turn.

Okay, it wasn't God's voice. We can know this for a fact because you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Ps82]

It isn't. Do you mean the false gospel of Calvinism? Classic what?

I'm not even sure how to ask a question about them. I just study my KJV Bible and do not look into various differentiations of beliefs. I just looked up a quick explanation of Classic and Open theism and was wondering.

 

[Nick M]

I'm not even sure how to ask a question about them. I just study my KJV Bible and do not look into various differentiations of beliefs. I just looked up a quick explanation of Classic and Open theism and was wondering.

Don't be bothered by my often blunt replies. I don't read the KJV much because I don't speak early modern English. I don't see open theism and Calvinism at odds. Because Calvinism is just a false gospel. And open theism is a term someone came up with regarding how God describes himself in the Bible. Open theism (what the Bible says) is contrary to Calvinism fundamentals. But it is 2 different things as far as I am concerned.

 

[Idolater]

Impossible. Literally this is impossible.


Since when do we formulate our doctrines on extra-biblical sources, Idolater? Hmm?

I'm not formulating a doctrine, I'm floating a theory. I literally said and I quofe, “ Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70 ”, emphasis on MAY.

When I say "may", it means also, by implication, "may not".

They definitely were NOT expecting any such thing. Had they done so, they would not have agreed with Paul to stay in Jerusalem and minister only to the circumcision. In other words, they understood that Israel, as a nation, had been cut off and their promised kingdom wasn't coming - not anytime soon anyway.

You're presupposing your eschatological point of view.

No, you're bonkers if you believe this unbiblical nonsense.

Those of you reading my post, note that the "un-Biblical nonsense" is that Peter and Paul anticipated Trumpets would be fulfilled soon. That's what he's saying is "un-Biblical".

Those of you reading my post, notice how Idolater just moves effortlessly from the flat out lie of "all scholars agree..."

It's hyperbole.

But also this isn't a big part of the argument it's only establishing plausibility. It could be that both Paul and Peter show in their epistles an expectation that Trumpets would be fulfilled soon. That's what I'm arguing is plausible, and I'm basing it on the fact that one of the, and perhaps the most, popular theory among Biblical scholars, is that both Paul and Peter individually appear to expect Trumpets to be fulfilled so soon, that it might be within both of theirs lifetimes.

But it wasn't. “ Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70 ”

to now expecting you to accept

That's not in there, this is a discussion, I am proposing an idea. “ Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70 ” I don't "expect you to accept" anything. This is a discussion.

that idiotic claim as the gospel truth.

It's an idea, a theory, a hypothesis. A notion. A possibility. It's a candidate for an established fact or factoid, or truth. “ Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70 ”

My feeling is that he didn't even notice that he had done this when he wrote it. He is conditioned to believe whatever he's told to believe by his priest.


It's prima facia that it's neither!

No it isn't. You're presupposing your eschatology. You can't just say or act like you're right. This is discourse. And there are enough plausible holes in your theological theory Acts 9erism that we should be able to discuss it rather than just you treat non-Acts 9ers as all retards who don't deserve plain explanations ever. This gives us all the impression that Acts 9erism is all vibes, as the children say. It's built on sand and a house a cards.

Such stupidity.

Your idea is stupid if you're wrong.

Let's see how this works....

The Wright brothers, both of whom lived in the early 20th century, eagerly anticipated the development of commercial space travel. They both believed that flight technology was advancing rapidly and that human space travel could happen at any time. And all historians agree that they expected further breakthroughs in aviation, like any day now. But they both died before the Moon landing in 1969. So were they both bonkers? Or were they both right?

If it's plausible that Peter and Paul both anticipated Trumpets would be fulfilled very soon, like within their lifetimes maybe, then it occurring in AD 70 would be like the Wright brothers in your analogy. If the Wright brothers however had lived in like 100 BC, and it's c. AD 1900 and we still don't even have passenger jets, then I'd say the Wright brothers were getting a little ahead of themselves.

Do you see how ridiculous your form of argument is? You present a false dilemma based on an appeal to authority fallacy that is also obviously false in an attempt to support a theological idea that has no utility whatsoever

That's your opinion.

and that flat out cannot possibly be true anyway. Is this really the way you do your theology? Present an impossible idea and supported on a stool with two falsehoods for legs?

All I did was establish plausibility, which is a very mild way to analyze a proposition. First off, how plausible is this? If it's got low initial plausibility, that doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean you've got to do more work. And secondly, what are the other available proposals which compete against this idea I'm floating? How plausible are they? This is just a preliminary survey of the propositional landscape.

This conclusion doesn’t follow even from own argument. Even if Peter and Paul expected something to happen soon, that doesn’t prove it did happen. That’s like saying, "Since people in the 1800s expected the end of slavery worldwide, slavery must have been fully eradicated by then." That's obviously ridiculous.

Further,Hebrews speaks about Jesus as the fulfillment of the sacrificial system (e.g., Hebrews 9-10) but does not say that every Levitical feast has been completely fulfilled.

I know. Because Hebrews was written before AD 70. “ Trumpets may have been fulfilled in AD 70 ”, not before.

Even if Yom Kippur (i.e. the Day of Atonement) finds fulfillment in Christ’s atoning work

Which it does, explicitly. So that's, for the record, the Passover, Matzos, First Fruits, Pentecost and Yom Kippur, which are specifically said to be fulfilled in the New Testament. We're only needing Trumpets and Tents or Tabernacles to complete the set.

, that does not mean Trumpets was fulfilled in the first century. Hebrews 4 speaks of a "Sabbath rest" for God's people, but this is clearly pointing to a future, ultimate rest, not saying that the Sabbath was entirely fulfilled in the past. If anything, Hebrews 4:9 suggests that fulfillment is still incomplete.

Hebrews 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God​

Also, your argument seems to at least imply that no future prophetic events remain, but do you also believe the resurrection, judgment, and restoration of all things already happened? If so, you're embracing full preterism, which denies fundamental Christian doctrine. If not, then you have no reason to assume the feasts are all fulfilled either because the same logic would apply.

I believe in the Creeds. Christ will come again in glory to judge, and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the World to come.

 

[Nick M]

Those of you reading my post, note that the "un-Biblical nonsense" is that Peter and Paul anticipated Trumpets would be fulfilled soon.

Prophecy is conditional. They had reason to think it could be soon.

 

[Nick M]

I believe in the Creeds.

Do you know the parts that are wrong?

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen

 

[Idolater]

Do you know the parts that are wrong?

Yes:

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen

You're missing a clause, it's called "the Filioque" and it means, "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son."