The Sadness of Open Theism

[joelkaki]

Here is an actual quote from an actual website devoted to Open Theism (Open View)

God does not control everything that happens.

That is about the saddest, sickest thing I have ever heard. (I'm sorry for my very strong language at this point, but I believe this is a direct attack on the very nature and character of God--I do not mean to personally attack anyone, but I truly believe this system to be unbiblical and contrary to the very nature of God, and as it says in Job--"There are yet words to speak on God's behalf.) To say that God does not control everything that happens is to essentially say (whether OV's admit or not) that He is not omniscient. God does control everything that happens; if he did not, Romans 8:28 would hold no comfort for us.


Joel

[yxboom]

I agree completely with you. In your mindset and in your view it is a terrible thing to not have a meticulous dictator in control of everything you do. It is a very sad thing that when you do harm to another or yourself it is your fault and not Gods. It is a tragedy that when a person is murdered we can't find comfort in saying God in His great omniscient plan made it so. It is shameful that God is so impotent that unless He controls every aspect of every detail in His creation that He can not acheive His goals and His purpose. I do agree that in your point of view there is no comfort for the ailing unless it was due to God's own causing the ailing in the first place. It was God who ensured that child would starve so we can comfort in God's providence.

It is a smack on God's face that Open Theism exalts God's desire for mankind to enter into a reciprical relationship of love given freely without demand. That God would allow mankind freedom to reciprocate love and to be relational is an attack on the glorious God of Scripture.

You still have failed to address any Scripture or counter arguments made here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=23396#post23396).

[JCA]

02-24-2003 @ 02:42 PM
joelkaki:

Here is an actual quote from an actual website devoted to Open Theism (Open View)

God does not control everything that happens.

That is about the saddest, sickest thing I have ever heard. (I'm sorry for my very strong language at this point, but I believe this is a direct attack on the very nature and character of God--I do not mean to personally attack anyone, but I truly believe this system to be unbiblical and contrary to the very nature of God, and as it says in Job--"There are yet words to speak on God's behalf.) To say that God does not control everything that happens is to essentially say (whether OV's admit or not) that He is not omniscient. God does control everything that happens; if he did not, Romans 8:28 would hold no comfort for us.


Joel

I have to ask, but since when (and where) did Omniscience mean to control everything?

om·nis·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)
adj.

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
1) One having total knowledge.
2) Omniscient God. Used with the.

Strangely, I see no example of having all control..

Neither do the other Omni's mean that God excersizes FULL control over everything, or is responsible directly for everything that happens. If that was the case, then God is also responsible directly for every evil act that is made, I have no free will, and DDW can't get inside Yxboom's head - unless God says so.

In other words, all this is absolutely pointless, there is no free will, Christ died for nothing - except Gods amusement apparently - and a whole host of other things.

Now I can agree that God started a lot of things, buit to make Him responsible for everything even makes Him responsible for THIS post.. in which case, if I where you, I would pay close attention to. :brow:

Love and Peace

JCA

[geebob]

As JCA pointed out, you're confusing omniscience with soverignty, which is pretty weird considering most people confuse omnipotence with soverignty.

Also, this is hardly something to single open view out for. We have this in common with every free will theist from Arminians, to the Orthdox church, to the philosophy department at calvin College and many reformed scholars who's adherence to the reformed tradition cannot be reduced to a simplistic adherence to TULIP.


Now I can agree that God started a lot of things, buit to make Him responsible for everything even makes Him responsible for THIS post.. in which case, if I where you, I would pay close attention to.

:lol:

[joelkaki]

yxboom, I said I would be getting back to your and geebobs argumenst. I just have not had the time to deal with them adequately yet.

JCA, my mistake. When I said omniscience, I meant omnipotence.
Just caused by typing fast and not checking back over what I had written.


Joel

[yxboom]

Ok sounds good to me and I figured you meant omnipotence so I addressed it as if you had so said that.

[Bill K.]

Since I know many Open Theists and have found them to be quite jovial as people, I must assume you mean the sadness that Calvinists feel when their universal box is shattered by the success of the OV.

So, going along these same lines, I recall an article in Christianity
Today from some years back, written by two female Calvinists in which they exclaimed, "How wonderful it is to know that we can blame God for everything!"

Now, that makes ME sad.

There once was a time when defending God's honor "to do rightly" was a sign of great faith. Sadly, we have finally come to the place where some have chosen to throw in the towel and just say, "OK, I give up, God is the source of all evil."

He can hardly be pleased.

[Arminian]

:::::::sob::::::::bawl:

[joelkaki]

Since I know many Open Theists and have found them to be quite jovial as people, I must assume you mean the sadness that Calvinists feel when their universal box is shattered by the success of the OV.

Not the sadness Calvinists feel when the box is shattered. The sadness that God's very character is being attacked.


So, going along these same lines, I recall an article in Christianity
Today from some years back, written by two female Calvinists in which they exclaimed, "How wonderful it is to know that we can blame God for everything!"

That is not the view of most Calvinists, and certainly not mine.


Now, that makes ME sad.

That makes me sad too.


There once was a time when defending God's honor "to do rightly" was a sign of great faith. Sadly, we have finally come to the place where some have chosen to throw in the towel and just say, "OK, I give up, God is the source of all evil."

He can hardly be pleased.

God is most certainly not the source of evil. Sadly, we have finally come to the place where people are diminishing God's omnipotence and omniscience.

However, I will give Open Theists this: They do recognize that the traditional Arminian view cannot be held up logically. I think they run in the wrong direction, but at least they recognize the tension in the traditional Arminian view.

Joel

[joelkaki]

I agree completely with you. In your mindset and in your view it is a terrible thing to not have a meticulous dictator in control of everything you do. It is a very sad thing that when you do harm to another or yourself it is your fault and not Gods.

That is not sad at all. I do what I do willingly. God does not force me to do anything. I sin willingly. I don't need any coercion to sin. It is my fault. That is not sad to me.


It is a tragedy that when a person is murdered we can't find comfort in saying God in His great omniscient plan made it so.

That is getting closer to it. Romans 8:28 can hold no meaning in the Open View. Some of those things just might work out only for bad, not good, if God doesn't actually control everything that happens.


It is shameful that God is so impotent that unless He controls every aspect of every detail in His creation that He can not acheive His goals and His purpose.

So basically in your view, for all God knew, the cross wasn't going to work. All those Jewish leaders could have just believed Christ while he was on earth, and not decided to crucify Him. God didn't know for sure that Christ would go to the cross. The Jewish leaders and Pilate could have thwarted God's plan for salvation. That is sad.


I do agree that in your point of view there is no comfort for the ailing unless it was due to God's own causing the ailing in the first place. It was God who ensured that child would starve so we can comfort in God's providence.

No, but we can take comfort in the fact that even though God allowed that to happen, it will work for our good, but He works ALL THINGS for our good.


It is a smack on God's face that Open Theism exalts God's desire for mankind to enter into a reciprical relationship of love given freely without demand. That God would allow mankind freedom to reciprocate love and to be relational is an attack on the glorious God of Scripture.

I don't have a problem with OTheists trying to understand and convey the true meaning of God's love for us. However, I do have a problem when you try to recreate God in the image of man, so that he does not know the future, and does not control everything. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways; we cannot bring him to our level.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Neither do the other Omni's mean that God excersizes FULL control over everything, or is responsible directly for everything that happens.

He works ALL THINGS according to his plan. It is not that He just hopes all things go according to His plan. He works all things according to his plan. Sure, he uses secondary causes. He has also predestined the means, but he is not bound by them.


If that was the case, then God is also responsible directly for every evil act that is made, I have no free will, and DDW can't get insde Yxboom's head - unless God says so.

No, man is still responsible, because he does what he does willingly. God does no forcing or coercing. He doesn't have to. Man sins freely and willingly.


In other words, all this is absolutely pointless, there is no free will, Christ died for nothing - except Gods amusement apparently - and a whole host of other things.


Granted, free will in the sense you think of it does not exist. However, if the Open View is correct, then Christ's death on the cross was not guaranteed success.

Joel

[geebob]

He works ALL THINGS according to his plan.

So? That doesn't mean that he causes everything or plans everything. It means that he is resourceful to use whatever happens for his purposes.

[yxboom]

joel I hate to break it to you but by your responses you have more Open View tendencies than I am sure you are willing to admit. :hrm:

[Jaltus]

They do recognize that the traditional Arminian view cannot be held up logically. I think they run in the wrong direction, but at least they recognize the tension in the traditional Arminian view.So close and yet so far away. Need one point out the tension within the Calvinist system, namely a "good God" who damns people for whimsy?

Every theological system has tension. As long as it is a biblically mandated tension, then it is fine.

That is getting closer to it. Romans 8:28 can hold no meaning in the Open View. Some of those things just might work out only for bad, not good, if God doesn't actually control everything that happens. I agree that Romans 8:28 holds no meaning in the OV, which is why I am writing my dissertation on it ("A Critique of Open Theism from Romans According to the Arminian Perspective"). However, it does not mean God must have meticulous control, just that He must have some sort of foreknowledge, hence Romans 8:29-30.

[TheFiveSolas]

Need one point out the tension within the Calvinist system, namely a "good God" who damns people for whimsy?


Jaltus Jaltus, I'm surprised at you! :eek:

Can you name even one Calvinist that teaches what you just asserted?

I'm sure that what you said was simply meant as a caricature of the Calvinist's theology and not to imply that we actually believe (or teach) that God damns people on a whim.

For the record, Calvinists assert that when people are damned it is due to their freely chosen sinful actions (i.e., they were not forced to sin by God, but rather chose to sin for no other reason than they themselves desired and willed it). Or to put it another way, God's sovereignty in election and reprobation, in the Calvinist's view, asserts nothing more than God foreordains even the free actions of men. What necessarily follows from this is that God ordains what our actions will be AND also ordains that those actions are freely done by the person (i.e., without coercion or force). For example, God foreordained that I would FREELY (stemming from my own desire) choose to write this post. Therefore, it was foreordained that I would do nothing other than write this post AND when I did so it would be because I desired to do so and did so without being forced or coerced by God.

[joelkaki]

[Joel]He works ALL THINGS according to his plan.

[geebob]
So? That doesn't mean that he causes everything or plans everything. It means that he is resourceful to use whatever happens for his purposes

But see in your last sentence, you seem to indicate that something happens that he did not plan, and thus he uses those thing for his purposes. But that isn't what the text says. He works all things according to his plan. You make it sound as if he works the rusults of all things according to his plan. He sees what happens, and then works off of that basis. Unfortunately, that is not what the text says. It says he works the actual things themselves.

[yxboom]
joel I hate to break it to you but by your responses you have more Open View tendencies than I am sure you are willing to admit.

I don't have Open View tendencies thank you very much. I am firmly a Calvinist, and I think that OV is a gross misrepresentation of the God of the Bible.

[Jaltus]
So close and yet so far away. Need one point out the tension within the Calvinist system, namely a "good God" who damns people for whimsy?

He does not damn them for his whimsy. They are damned because they are lost in sin, and do not believe in the gospel. God could have just left it like that. He didn't have to save anyone. But he chose to save some and passed over the others. Why did he pass over some, and not just save everyone? I don't know. So if that is a tension, then yes, Calvinism has that tension. But like you say, there are biblically warranted tensions. (Although I'm not sure I would say this is a tension). His thoughts are not our thoughts, so I don't question Him.


Every theological system has tension. As long as it is a biblically mandated tension, then it is fine.

OK, sure. But I don't believe Armniniasm has a biblically mandated tension, but I won't that debate that here.



I agree that Romans 8:28 holds no meaning in the OV, which is why I am writing my dissertation on it ("A Critique of Open Theism from Romans According to the Arminian Perspective"). However, it does not mean God must have meticulous control, just that He must have some sort of foreknowledge, hence Romans 8:29-30.

OK, well at least we agree God knows everything past, present, and future.


Joel

[Jaltus]

You may want to correct your above post since you quote me but acknowledge it as coming from geebob.

[joelkaki]

OK, I'll change it. yx's statement is in there too.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Ok, thanks.

[Gavin]

Jaltus,
I agree that Romans 8:28 holds no meaning in the OV, which is why I am writing my dissertation on it ("A Critique of Open Theism from Romans According to the Arminian Perspective"). However, it does not mean God must have meticulous control, just that He must have some sort of foreknowledge, hence Romans 8:29-30.
How interesting! I would love to read it when you are finished. Where are you studying at while you write? TEDS still?

[geebob]

But see in your last sentence, you seem to indicate that something happens that he did not plan, and thus he uses those thing for his purposes. But that isn't what the text says.

The text does not say everything goes according to plan. He works everything into his plan. For him to still be working his plan is not what you would want to admit.

So something happens that God didn't plan. That doesn't mean that God can't use that event. God can bring good things out of bad circumstances.

[geebob]

2np post.

I suspect that what I wrote there also works for the problems that Jaltus argues regarding romans 8:28.

Arminian also gave another open view friendly interpretation. He and Jaltus got into it in a thread at TOL and I believe I archived it over their.

[geebob]

3rd post, scroll up.

Need one point out the tension within the Calvinist system, namely a "good God" who damns people for whimsy?

For a great thread on this, click here.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=408

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

Yup, still at TEDS.

geebob,

Arminians "out" came through a concept of corporate election, which I'll need to ask him about when I am writing my dissertation.

I may work on reposting some of my critiques so you guys can shred them. That way my dissertation will be stronger. Oh, I am still in communication with John Sanders, though I may need to formally ask him to be my 3rd reader soon. I plan on writing my proposal in May, and defending it in Sept or Oct.

[joelkaki]

[geebob]
The text does not say everything goes according to plan. He works everything into his plan. For him to still be working his plan is not what you would want to admit.

The emboldened section is certainly not what that Scripture says. Just a slight twisting; only one word, yet it changes the meaning so much. You say, "God works everything INTO his plan." The text says, "God works everything ACCORDING TO his plan." You make it sound like God somehow uses things that happen outside of his control to somehow try and help his plan. That is clearly not what Eph 1:11 says. It clearly says that he works EVERYTHING according to his plan. Every single thing that happens is according to God's plan. There are not some things outside of God's plan. I believe you are mangling this verse.


So something happens that God didn't plan. That doesn't mean that God can't use that event. God can bring good things out of bad circumstances.

Uh, where is your support for that first statement?


Joel

[geebob]

Oh, I am still in communication with John Sanders, though I may need to formally ask him to be my 3rd reader soon. I plan on writing my proposal in May, and defending it in Sept or Oct.

What? Really? good to hear it!

Arminians "out" came through a concept of corporate election, which I'll need to ask him about when I am writing my dissertation.

Actually, I don't think it did. I think that he said it was that God uses all things in the sense of good things as well as bad things. Not every single event that happens.

I may work on reposting some of my critiques so you guys can shred them. That way my dissertation will be stronger.

Don't know that I'll have much to say. I'm not the biblical exegete (but of course that doesn't always stop me :smile: )



Joel
The emboldened section is certainly not what that Scripture says. Just a slight twisting; only one word, yet it changes the meaning so much. You say, "God works everything INTO his plan." The text says, "God works everything ACCORDING TO his plan."

I don't see what the problem is. If he works everything into his plan then he works everything according to his plan. You're trying to force a semantical rigidity that isn't there.

You make it sound like God somehow uses things that happen outside of his control to somehow try and help his plan.

guilty as charged. Of course, beyond his control by his own choice I might add.

Uh, where is your support for that first statement?

It's evident from many scriptures. The marriage of David and Bathsheba for example gave us solomon, who was the wisest of kings. Of course he rebelled, but God used him any way.

[joelkaki]

I have a question for you OVers now. Nothing fancy, just need a yes or no answer.

Do you, when praying to God, ask for your request, and then say, "if it be your will" regularly?


Circle one:

Yes..........No
(Dumb me; no pencils allowed on the computer screen.)

Joel

[geebob]

I don't often do that though I should.

But it is not as if that is the piety that is consistently modeled for us by the heroes of the faith. Moses didn't say "if it be your will" in exodus 32. Amos didn't when he objected to God's plan to destroy the israelites, (and God actually did not go through with that plan until he convinced Amos it was the right thing to do).

So though it is demonstrated for us by some of the saints, it is not an absolute and it is not necessarily applicable to all situations.

[TheFiveSolas]

geebob,
Is it the view of OV'ers that in heaven we will not be able to sin? If so, how does this comport with the concept of libertarian free will?

If libertarian free will is true, then doesn't it follow that we will still have the ability to sin in heaven? Doesn't this mean that God cannot guarantee our sinless state in heaven?

Lastly, how can the Bible declare that our "names were written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world" IF God couldn't have known it since He cannot know the "free actions" of men?

I'll stop with just those few questions.

[Arminian]

Jaltus,

Arminians "out" came through a concept of corporate election, which I'll need to ask him about when I am writing my dissertation.

My "out" came through sticking to the immediate context, which even Moo mentioned. He (Moo) then went on the speculate and apply it to whatever he pleased, which I do not do. For an identical perspective to mine, see Jack Cottrell's commentary (IVP, 1998), and perhaps Godet's (I can't remember.). (Don't get me wrong, I really like Moo and miss him greatly since he went over to the "other side." I just finished his new NIV commentary on Romans. I wish we went to the same church.)

Keep in mind that Paul had just said that we will be saved if we suffer with Christ. That contidional colors what he is saying regarding "all things" working for us. That is, suffering brings us to salvation (cf. Cranfield) -- therefore the conditional. Paul is answering the question regarding the reason God allows his people to suffer.

As for my perspective regarding corporate election, watch my present "discussion" with Freak. I'm getting ready for a public debate, so I can't say all that I could because I'm being "studied." However, I will say enough.

[yxboom]

Joel:

Yes

[joelkaki]

yx:
Joel:

Yes

Thank you for giving a definite response. You have no idea (maybe you do; I don't know) how many people practically refuse just to answer a simple question.

Now, how does you answer fit in with your view? If you pray, asking God for something to happen, IF IT BE HIS WILL, then does that not contradict your view? If everything does not go according to His will and His plan, then why ask for it to go according to his plan?

Joel

[joelkaki]

[geebob]
I don't often do that though I should.

But it is not as if that is the piety that is consistently modeled for us by the heroes of the faith. Moses didn't say "if it be your will" in exodus 32. Amos didn't when he objected to God's plan to destroy the israelites, (and God actually did not go through with that plan until he convinced Amos it was the right thing to do).

So though it is demonstrated for us by some of the saints, it is not an absolute and it is not necessarily applicable to all situations.

It would seem that you contradict the clear evidence of Scripture here:

13 ¶ Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14 whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. Prov. 27.1 For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

In all of life, everything, we should be saying "if it be your will." I believe it is an absolute and is applicable to all situations.


Joel

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emboldened section is certainly not what that Scripture says. Just a slight twisting; only one word, yet it changes the meaning so much. You say, "God works everything INTO his plan." The text says, "God works everything ACCORDING TO his plan."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't see what the problem is. If he works everything into his plan then he works everything according to his plan. You're trying to force a semantical rigidity that isn't there.

I'm not trying to force any semantical rigidity. You clearly said something that was not in the text, and is opposed to the text. There is a HUGE difference between "working everything into his plan" and "working everything according to his plan." Surely you see it. If He works everything INTO his plan, then things happen outside of his plan, which he works into his plan to try to make the best of it. But if He works everything ACCORDING TO his plan, as the text says, then everything that happens happens becuase it was part of his plan. You cannot perform eisegesis on the text. You must exegete it. We cannot read our theologies into the text, but get our theology from the text.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like God somehow uses things that happen outside of his control to somehow try and help his plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guilty as charged. Of course, beyond his control by his own choice I might add.

Nothing is beyond God's control. If something was, then He ceases to be omnipotent. "By his choice.." OK, let's thing about this:
Part of God's essential nature and character and being is omnipotence.
By not being in control of something, he is no longer omnipotent.
If He chooses to not be in control of something, and thus not be omnipotent, then he is choosing something against his character.
God does not chooses against His nature. He always chooses according to his nature.
Not to mention, if he chose to not be omnipotent in a situation, then he changed part of his essential character.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, where is your support for that first statement?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's evident from many scriptures. The marriage of David and Bathsheba for example gave us solomon, who was the wisest of kings. Of course he rebelled, but God used him any way.

That in no way means that it was not part of God's plan for his own glory and his people's good in the first place.

Joel

[geebob]

5solas

Is it the view of OV'ers that in heaven we will not be able to sin? If so, how does this comport with the concept of libertarian free will?

There are two answers to this. Yes and the other one is no.

Of course the affirmative, that they will not be able to sin needs some explanation.

God desires that our love is genuine meaning that it arises from ourselves and not out of necessity that arises from Him. Thus he gives us libertarian free will. Our caracter forms in a libertarian free way. In heaven, our caracters, having been formed will no longer need libertarian free will.

Now I suggest another way of looking at this (actually, it's virtually the same). I insist that a choice is free in the self determining sense, not only if it is libertarian free in the strict sense of that term but also if the choice, though not a libertarian one, arises from a caracter that was formed with regard to this choice in a libertarian fashion. In other words, your choice to love God in heaven will be free because that choice will arise from your caracter which has choosen to love God on earth.

In that way of looking at things, our choices are still free.

Lastly, how can the Bible declare that our "names were written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world" IF God couldn't have known it since He cannot know the "free actions" of men?

There are several things going on with this passage. First of all, we should take note when the bible says "before the foundation" and "from the foundation". This passage says the names are written "from".

With that in mind, look at Luke 11:50-51.

...so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. (esv)

This has been going on from the foundation of the world. Likewise, so has the writing of names.

Also, there is an ambiguity in this as to whether this is the writing of the names or slaying of the lamb that is from the foundation. Different modern translations read disagree on the translation.

If it is the lamb that was slain, well if the martyrdom of able is something that happened at the foundation, certainly God's plan to sacrifice the son after Adam sinned is also at the foundation.

[geebob]

In all of life, everything, we should be saying "if it be your will." I believe it is an absolute and is applicable to all situations.

I geuss Moses, amos, etc. aren't the hero of the faith that I thought they were.

You clearly said something that was not in the text, and is opposed to the text. There is a HUGE difference between "working everything into his plan" and "working everything according to his plan." Surely you see it. If He works everything INTO his plan, then things happen outside of his plan, which he works into his plan to try to make the best of it. But if He works everything ACCORDING TO his plan, as the text says, then everything that happens happens becuase it was part of his plan.

no I don't see it.

You cannot perform eisegesis on the text.

ok. I won't.

Nothing is beyond God's control. If something was, then He ceases to be omnipotent.

Not if it is in his power to take control over it again. Of course He won't because that would be inconsistent with his decision to make us free. Just like it would be inconsistent for him to damn those who who believe in Jesus.

By not being in control of something, he is no longer omnipotent.

you're confusing omnipotence with soverignty, specifically meticulous soverignty. Omnipotence is about potential, soverignty is about putting that potential to use.

That in no way means that it was not part of God's plan for his own glory and his people's good in the first place.

And of course I reject that reading, and if you can understand the reading I give, then you know of a great example where God uses something that wasn't in his will.

[joelkaki]

geebob, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have to walk around all day muttering "If it be your will" to ourselves. But my point is that, as James tells us, if we must say "if the Lord wills" even in such a thing as traveling to a place (which would infer that he is in control of that situation), then surely everything else is under his control also; it is not just up to our "libertarian free wills." It is up to God, for all is under his control.

Joel

[yxboom]

02-26-2003 @ 10:15 AM
joelkaki:

yx:
Joel:

Yes

Thank you for giving a definite response. You have no idea (maybe you do; I don't know) how many people practically refuse just to answer a simple question.

Now, how does you answer fit in with your view? If you pray, asking God for something to happen, IF IT BE HIS WILL, then does that not contradict your view? If everything does not go according to His will and His plan, then why ask for it to go according to his plan?

Joel How ironic as I would ask you that if everything DOES go according to His will than why ask it. It seems arbitruarily redundant. That to me is like praying for God to be Holy or righteous or ending my prayer with asking that He be love.

I pray that God's will be done as I want to work together with Him submitting myself to Him and conforming my will to work His good pleasure. I ask that His will be done because I believe I can reject His will and grieve Him. I ask His will be done because I believe I can thwart His will. I ask God that His will be done because in this world........I don't see His will being done. I see evil and hate and I see children starving, being raped and murdered. I see God STILL in battle with evil redeeming what was lost with Adam's sin. So yes always I pray........Lord your will be done!

[joelkaki]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not being in control of something, he is no longer omnipotent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



you're confusing omnipotence with soverignty, specifically meticulous soverignty. Omnipotence is about potential, soverignty is about putting that potential to use.


If something is out of your control, it is out of your power to do something about it. Therefore if God is not in control of something, then it is outside of his power to do something about it. If something is outside of his power, then he is no longer all-powerful. Therefore, if God is not in control of everything, he is not omnipotent.

Joel

[geebob]

if we must say "if the Lord wills" even in such a thing as traveling to a place (which would infer that he is in control of that situation), then surely everything else is under his control also

I readily admit that I don't pray as I should even with regard to this. Nevertheless, a balanced biblical picture does not present this as absolute.

Again, this is not how all the saints prayed. There just simply is no denying that. And they still recieved positive results from God.

[joelkaki]

yxboom,

I get your point, but consider this: You claim that God does not know with certainty what will take place in the future. Now, if He does not know that, then his will or plan may not be the best possible plan, even though there may be a good possibility of it, since he is the ultimate predicter. Now, if it is possible that his plan may not be the best possible plan, then why should we pray for his will or plan to be done?


Joel

[yxboom]

You cannot perform eisegesis on the text.



ok. I won't.

:rofl:

[joelkaki]

The saints were not perfect. Just because we don't obey perfectly does not mean it still has some good results in the future. But we must still strive to obey.


Joel

[joelkaki]

According to the Open View, what do this verses mean?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37)

It would seem to contradict Open Theism completely.


Joel

[yxboom]

02-26-2003 @ 11:08 AM
joelkaki:

yxboom,

I get your point, but consider this: You claim that God does not know with certainty what will take place in the future. Now, if He does not know that, then his will or plan may not be the best possible plan, even though there may be a good possibility of it, since he is the ultimate predicter. Now, if it is possible that his plan may not be the best possible plan, then why should we pray for his will or plan to be done?


Joel Because I don't trust that God is a good guesser. God is infinately wise. Obviously with all the evil in place on earth His will is thwarted (in my p.o.v.) so He has this end outcome which we read in Revelation 22. But I learn in
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
God is longsuffering in His love for mankind. So I know the outcome will be one of love and reciprocity of His love between His saints and Himself. Many times God had a plan ie. Eli's descendants would serve as a priests for God but then He took the preisthood away from Eli. That Saul would be king and his descendants but God took it away and gave it to David. In the details yes God's plan often goes awry because men simply suck eggs but God is infintely wise and resourceful in that in a world corrupted in sin and at enmity with God He can bring the desired final outcome and because I trust in His wisdom I rest in the fact that I know His desired outcome is the best outcome even if there are a billion equal parallel "best" outcomes that matters none to me in that the best outcome God chooses is the outcome that satifies me.

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God is longsuffering in His love for mankind.

I think you need to read the context. It is not about mankind in general.


Joel

[yxboom]

02-26-2003 @ 11:22 AM
joelkaki:

According to the Open View, what do this verses mean?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37)

It would seem to contradict Open Theism completely.


Joel Could you please clarify for me, is this an Open View argument or a corporate v. individual election one? I would address it as the latter which would for the sake of flow of the thread by neccessity be another thread topic.

[yxboom]

02-26-2003 @ 11:34 AM
joelkaki:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God is longsuffering in His love for mankind.

I think you need to read the context. It is not about mankind in general.


Joel Ok the context says.....God is longsuffering toward us not willing that any should perish. Well it seems to me like the whole "Your will be done" prayer unreasonably redundant and incoherent with your reading. If Peter meant to say only the saints then you have 2 problems. First if you believe God needs to be longsuffering to His elect than God is failing miserably and second if He is being patient so that any of the elect would not perish........God is worried about what?! About those who by soveriegn election would perish. That is absolutely asinine would you agree and not to mention completely contradicting to perserverance of the saints.

So, could you please clarify for me what the context is saying cause I just am not getting it.

[geebob]

If something is out of your control, it is out of your power to do something about it. Therefore if God is not in control of something, then it is outside of his power to do something about it.

It's out of his control because he soverignly decieded to put it there. If he wanted to take control of it again, then he could. That would not be consistent with his decision to make free creatures. It's not truly beyond his power. It's beyond his intention.

[joelkaki]

joelkaki:

According to the Open View, what do this verses mean?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37)

It would seem to contradict Open Theism completely.


Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please clarify for me, is this an Open View argument or a corporate v. individual election one? I would address it as the latter which would for the sake of flow of the thread by neccessity be another thread topic.

It could be used for corporate vs individual election, but I believe it most definitely addresses the issue of Open Theism as well.

Joel

[yxboom]

Ok, I believe it is in reference to a corporate election. Now what?! :hrm:

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is longsuffering in His love for mankind.
I think you need to read the context. It is not about mankind in general.
Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok the context says.....God is longsuffering toward us not willing that any should perish. Well it seems to me like the whole "Your will be done" prayer unreasonably redundant and incoherent with your reading. If Peter meant to say only the saints then you have 2 problems. First if you believe God needs to be longsuffering to His elect than God is failing miserably and second if He is being patient so that any of the elect would not perish........God is worried about what?! About those who by soveriegn election would perish. That is absolutely asinine would you agree and not to mention completely contradicting to perserverance of the saints.

So, could you please clarify for me what the context is saying cause I just am not getting it.

Context is the verses/paragraphs/chapters around the verse, not the verse itself. You need to read 2 Peter 3:1-18:

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, Jude 18.1--0.1

4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Notice that there were these scoffers who were scoffing at the believers for believing in the promise of His coming. They were saying, "It's been this long, and God hasn't come back yet, so how can you think He's going to come." They were scoffing at the promises of God, trying to make the believers unsure of their hope in the promise of the Lord's coming.


5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Gen. 1.6-8

6 whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: Gen. 7.11

7 but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Ps. 90.4

The scoffers scoffings about the timing of the Lord obviously have no relevance.


9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Now to this famed verse so often taken out of the context of the preceding verses. The Lord promised he would return and fully finish our salvation by it. He is not slack. He is still coming. He is not willing that any of his people would perish. He IS going to come back and ultimately save them. He will not let them perish. What he promised, that He will do. All of his people would come to repentance before he returns. I think this repentance may also refer to repentance of sins in the lives of believers, judging from the upcoming verses, but that really does not affect the issue at hand one way or the other. The "any" is controlled by the "us." The us is clearly not mankind in general. The "us" is believers who have been scoffed at by the rest of mankind.


10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; Mt. 24.43 · Lk. 12.39 · 1 Thes. 5.2 · Rev. 16.15 in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 ¶ Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Is. 65.17 ; 66.22 · Rev. 21.1

14 ¶ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The reason I said "repentance" may have reference toward repentance in the lives of those already believers is that it talks about us needing to grow in grace and beware of errors of wickedness, etc. The Lord will not let us perish; He is coming back, and he wants us all to repent of our sins and be watchful for his coming.

Hope that explains it. When seen in the light of the other 17 verses of 2 Peter 3, the verse doesn't have quite the same meaning normally attributed to it.

Joel

[joelkaki]

All I want is just your interpretation of the verse, yx.

Thanks,
Joel

[Arminian]

2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

I'm going to have to side with Yx on this one. I'll throw the OVers a bone later today. Stay tuned.
:whip:

[geebob]

cool, and even though your not a real open viewer, I nominate you as honorary open viewer. :yipee:

[joelkaki]

OK, you are at liberty to disagree, but I don't really see how you can believe any other interpretation with the context saying what it does. I don't think the argument from the context can be disproven.


Joel

[geebob]

Arminian is a very rigorous exegete. When you say stuff like that to him, you better buckle your seatbelt.

[joelkaki]

OK.

Joel

[Arminian]

Joel,

Thanks for waiting. I'm in the process of building a home, so my schedule is unpredictable.

OK, you are at liberty to disagree, but I don't really see how you can believe any other interpretation with the context saying what it does. I don't think the argument from the context can be disproven.

First off, the most reliable manuscripts says that God is patient "with you," not "us-ward." But the question remains as to the application of "all." I think the evidence is pretty clear that the author sees his audience as being a part of a larger group which has members that will never totally repent. Hence, "all" refers to all people, without exception.


In the context of the debate over this verse, it's not uncommon for Calvinists to claim that the verse is influenced by God's patience with rebellious Israel, and therefore make the argument you just made and add that just as God's patience was applied to Israel (cf. Ex 34:6; Num 14:18), God's patience is only applied to believers. The problem with the argument, however, is that the examples only demonstrate that God was patient with a group of people who, for the most part, did not repent. The very examples used disprove the argument that employs them. We consistently see God showing patience to those who rebel, and that patience clearly does not guarantee their response.

Furthermore, Peter apparently sees the warning of impending wrath as an opportunity to repent. He employs the story of the flood illustrate this. Verse 3:6 mentions the flood in the same warning that you quoted. Notice how Peter also describes the story in 1 Peter 3:20-21:

1 Peter 3
19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

In the days of Noah, God also waited patiently for those disobedient people. Again, we have the same author saying the same thing about a group of people who in the end did not repent. In fact, it was the whole world that perished.

Now, just in case someone might argue that God was waiting for Noah to repent, 2 Peter 1:5 says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness." He certainly wasn't the one that God was waiting patiently for. In fact, Noah was sent out to those for whom God was patiently waiting.

So, if God is patiently waiting for "all," it certainly must be the same "all" for whom God was waiting prior to the flood. Therefore, since anyone addressed as "you" is included in the "all," it really doesn't matter how "you" is understood. "You" will always be part of all.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and of his own to bestow salvation upon the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, that that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must leard to enter in by this way. -- John Calvin

Also, Peter is arguing that believers are the ones that he believes will fall away and be condemned. But that's another issue...

[joelkaki]

First off, the most reliable manuscripts says that God is patient "with you," not "us-ward." But the question remains as to the application of "all." I think the evidence is pretty clear that the author sees his audience as being a part of a larger group which has members that will never totally repent. Hence, "all" refers to all people, without exception.



I don't see any evidence that is clear that the author sees the audience as being part of a larger group which has members that will never totally repent. I see no reason to think that all refers to all people without exception.

You have ignored my argument from the actual context (verses 1-18) of this verse completely. I need to see what I have said as being untrue before I consider changing it.

Now, having said all this, let me say this. I do believe that there is a sense in which God does desire every man to be saved. God does not delight in the death of his creation. He extends common grace to all men without exception, showing general compassion to them. So it does not delight him to send them to eternal destruction. But, for reasons unknown to us, he has not decided to save every single man. He knows His sheep. God extends saving, efficacious love to His elect, and is not willing that any of them should perish. I do not believe 2 Pet 3:9 specifically refers to every man without exception, but I do not believe that God delights in the death of the wicked in one sense. But my point still remains that 2 Peter 3:9 is not talking about all men without exception.

Arminian, I am not sure if I want to continue debating this issue about the context of 2 Peter 3:9 right at the present moment. This thread is specifically about open theism, and that is what I want to concentrate on here. If you want to start another thread on it, I might involve myself in it, but right now I want to discuss Open Theism.

Thanks,
Joel

[joelkaki]

This verse pretty much destroys Open Theism:


Psalm 139:16
"All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

First of all, David's days were ordained. Secondly, all the days were written in God's book BEFORE they came to be. God knows the certainty of the future.

Joel

[Jaltus]

That does not necessarily mean all of David's days were in fact ordained.

Only his ordained days had to be, the rest of his days were unimportant.

No, I am not OV, just responding like one.

[yxboom]

Speaking of books...
Ex 32:33
And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.

De 29:20
The Lord would not spare him; for then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the Lord would blot out his name from under heaven.

Re 3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Re 22:19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Seems like this passage pretty much destroys Calvinism or at least makes God a horrible book keeper. You would think God knows who will or will not appear in the book of life before they were even born so why write their names in the first place just to be blotted out? Worst yet God giving caution that their names might be blotted out.

[Gavin]

Seems like this passage pretty much destroys Calvinism or at least makes God a horrible book keeper. You would think God knows who will or will not appear in the book of life before they were even born so why write their names in the first place just to be blotted out? Worst yet God giving caution that their names might be blotted out.
It only hurts Calvinism if it is taken literally. God is not actually writing names down - it is symbolism for who has eternal life. It is not as though God made a mistake and said, "oh whoops! I guess you are not saved after all. Well, I better erase your name from my book then!"That does not necessarily mean all of David's days were in fact ordained.

Only his ordained days had to be, the rest of his days were unimportant.
Why is it all the Arminians always play devil's advocate for OV?

In order to hurt the OV, the text does not have to state that David's days were "ordained" (although it does say that, which hurts Arminianism). To damage the OV case all the verse has to say is that the days were foreknown (which is exactly what it says as well).

Secondly, I am not sure there is any kind of distinction to be made between David's "ordained" days and his "unimportant" days. At the end of the day, David's point is very simple: God has exhaustive knowledge of all David's ways. God hems David in, he knows his thoughts before they are on David's tongue, he has his days written out beforehand, so to speak, etc. And contrary to the OV claim that God's knowledge of the future hampers God's free relationship to his creatures, David rejoices in this reality: "such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to obtain."

[yxboom]

Why is it you as well as others who have responded assume any change is a mistake? It already questions your foundation as it becomes absurd. On another note, being blotted from the Book of Life was always a warning not an assurance that a person IS saved. How you manage to get that a caution for one not to get his name blotted from the Book of Life to mean it was symbolism for eternal life is quite the stretch. Furthermore why the caution if God already ordained every step and the salvation of those He elected anyway. Is it like those who are damned are going to care whether their name is blotted out since they had no say so in the matter anyway. Ever heard of the saying "throwing caution to the wind" it looks like that is the picture of Jesus speaking to the masses. Your point lacks too much for me to take serious consideration.

[yxboom]

Psalms 139:16
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
Although I have heard much better cases than what is proposed here I will take that simply refuted by Jaltus. The text can and I have read good cases that "they all were written" were the members of his unformed substance.....David's utero state. God knew explicitly all that would comprise David. The days were David's incubation that God looked upon...his intimate knowledge of David while in his mother's womb. So either you can insist on your argument which Jaltus refutes or you can offer a rebuttal to the reading that it was God's intimate knowledge of David in the womb that is being spoken of and nothing whatsoever about an exhaustive foreknowledge. Either way.

[Arminian]

Joe,

I don't see any evidence that is clear that the author sees the audience as being part of a larger group which has members that will never totally repent. I see no reason to think that all refers to all people without exception.

I said that for two reasons:

1) Peter uses the flood in his writings as a warning of the wrath of God, and when he describes it he says that God waited patiently for those who never repented. Peter clearly means to show that although God waited patiently, the day did come when those for whom he was waiting for did perish (in fact, every single one he was waiting for -- which was every human on the face of the earth -- DID perish). Then it should come a no surprise that in the very verses you are considering, he gives the same warning using the flood imagery in the verses you claim to have addressed. God's "patience" means the same thing in both instances (it refers to the entire world).

So Peter says that it is not God's will that anyone perish, so he waits patiently, and that's what he has done in the past (with disappointing results, I must say. cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21, 1 Tim 2:4).

2) Peter several times indicates that those who were once saved and turn back will be damned. Considering that you believe that God's patience is only directed at believers, once again we find an example that works against your argument.

You have ignored my argument from the actual context (verses 1-18) of this verse completely. I need to see what I have said as being untrue before I consider changing it.

I totally addressed the context of what you said. I demonstrated that Peter's idea of wrath/patience applies to the whole world. In fact, I'm the only one that addressed the imagery he used. The rest of what you said does not need to be refuted.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Why is it all the Arminians always play devil's advocate for OV?

Actually it's just honest exegesis. As you remember, I argued that when God says he will do something, it doesn't mean that he literally foresees it. Of course I DO believe God literally foresees it, but of what benefit is it that I lie or pretend not to understand the clear meaning of the text? Why would I want to pretend that I don't understand?


Also, even if I disagree with someone, why is it wrong to say that I see that they've found a way around my argument or that a particular point they made is accurate?

Yet perhaps you mean to ask why Arminains don't argue against OV. So you mean to say that you haven't seen Jaltus argue against it? :shrug:

[Jaltus]

It only hurts Calvinism if it is taken literally. God is not actually writing names down - it is symbolism for who has eternal life. It is not as though God made a mistake and said, "oh whoops! I guess you are not saved after all. Well, I better erase your name from my book then!"Why would it not be taken literally? How about giving some reasons instead of assertions.

Why is it all the Arminians always play devil's advocate for OV?Actually, I have met very few that do.

In order to hurt the OV, the text does not have to state that David's days were "ordained" (although it does say that, which hurts Arminianism). To damage the OV case all the verse has to say is that the days were foreknown (which is exactly what it says as well). Actually, the word used means "fashioned" or "formed," not ordained.

Secondly, I am not sure there is any kind of distinction to be made between David's "ordained" days and his "unimportant" days. At the end of the day, David's point is very simple: God has exhaustive knowledge of all David's ways. God hems David in, he knows his thoughts before they are on David's tongue, he has his days written out beforehand, so to speak, etc. And contrary to the OV claim that God's knowledge of the future hampers God's free relationship to his creatures, David rejoices in this reality: "such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to obtain."This is a solid rebuttal.

[Gavin]

Jaltus,
Why would it not be taken literally? How about giving some reasons instead of assertions.

Sorry. I guess I figured it would be a fairly undisputed point of agreement that God does not literally have a book in which he writes down peoples' names when they are saved.

Jaltus and Arminian respectively,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it all the Arminians always play devil's advocate for OV?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I have met very few that do.

Actually it's just honest exegesis. As you remember, I argued that when God says he will do something, it doesn't mean that he literally foresees it. Of course I DO believe God literally foresees it, but of what benefit is it that I lie or pretend not to understand the clear meaning of the text? Why would I want to pretend that I don't understand?


Also, even if I disagree with someone, why is it wrong to say that I see that they've found a way around my argument or that a particular point they made is accurate?

Yet perhaps you mean to ask why Arminains don't argue against OV. So you mean to say that you haven't seen Jaltus argue against it?

I was just observing (wondering) why Arminians, in general, and in my experience, seem to have considerably lesshostility toward the OV.

This is not to say that Arminians have not written against (e. g., Jaltus or Geisler), nor Jake, was I suggesting that one can never point out strengths in the opposing viewpoint.

I was just sort of wondering out loud about the different responses I have observed against the OV from Calvinists and Arminians.

Sorry if this came out the wrong way, and the idea that Jake was trying to communicate (I think), that it is totally legitimate (even necessary at times?) to point out strength's in an opposing viewpoint, is well taken. I need to improve at this.

Boom,

Why is it you as well as others who have responded assume any change is a mistake?
Well, I don't think all change is a mistake, and I apologize if I gave this false impression.

However, I remain convinced that verses that speak of God taking peoples' names out of the book of life are symbolic and do not militate against Calvinism.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

I was just sort of wondering out loud about the different responses I have observed against the OV from Calvinists and Arminians.

I guess it depends upon the individual's particular pet peeve. OV doesn't really bother me the way it bothers Jaltus, apparently. Also, I've benefited from OV books when I've had to focus on what the verse is really about and come away with a better understanding of the verse or even a better understanding of myself (the way I think) because of it (as I'm sure has happened to you, as well). So far I'm still learning from it, so I don't intend to try to stop it.

Also, there are presently no dominating personalies on the OV team in these boards. That kind of personality is the type I like to confront (hence my attraction to certain Calvinists). These OV'ers are all too nice for me. That type of defense defeats me every time (darn the luck!!). .:help:

On the other hand, I could also confront you an Jaltus on your shared view (to the degree that it is shared) of individual election, since I disagree with most of it. But I really enjoy playing defense and keeping the Calvinist swarm (the cranky ones) at bay.

[Arminian]

Also, concering 2 Peter 3:9, those who have ALREADY repented do not need to repent.

He is patient toward YOU .....

And then notice that he uses the indefinite pronoun "anyone." Reference is to anyone.

Couldn't be "us." The "us" already came to repentance. He is directing his warning and exhortation to those who have not come to repentance, any of them!

Moreover the "all" is anarthrous. It is referring to each and every.

Now for the bone I promised to thow to the OVers: The explanation Peter gives for Christ's delay is that God is waiting or the unrepentant to repent. Therefore, the reason Christ does not know the day of that he will return (where is that verse where Christ says that?) is that he does not know when God will finally be fed up. That day is in the future, which, according to OV, cannot be seen. If it could be seen, Christ would obviously know that day, wouldn't he?

[Gavin]

On the other hand, I could also confront you an Jaltus on your shared view (to the degree that it is shared) of individual election, since I disagree with most of it.

Jaltus is not a Calvinist.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Jaltus is not a Calvinist.

Correct. He is an Arminian. Arminians traditionally believe in individual (conditional) election.

[Gavin]

Correct. He is an Arminian. Arminians traditionally believe in individual (conditional) election.
Ah. I am not quite clear on what conditional election is.

[Arminian]

I am not quite clear on what conditional election is.

The election of those who meet the condition: faith.

[Gavin]

The election of those who meet the condition: faith.
Hmmm. Doesn't sound like much of an "election" to me, but I guess that is semantics.

How do you differ?

[Arminian]

How do you differ?

Read my "vessels" post. Corporate election....inclusion through faith. "

[Gavin]

Read my "vessels" post.
:doh: Oh no!

How many times have I heard that! It always comes back to the infamous "vessels post".

[joelkaki]

That does not necessarily mean all of David's days were in fact ordained.

Only his ordained days had to be, the rest of his days were unimportant.

No, I am not OV, just responding like one.


Whether all of his days were ordained or only some of them were is irrelevant to this particular point. If God ordained any of them, and knew for certain what they would be, then OV cannot be correct.


Joel

[Reba]

Joel,

I just found this thread! Interesting read... Your zeal for the WORD is a treasure.

Open thesim is as subtle as the serpent in the garden.

Gen 3:4
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
KJV

[joelkaki]

I totally addressed the context of what you said. I demonstrated that Peter's idea of wrath/patience applies to the whole world. In fact, I'm the only one that addressed the imagery he used. The rest of what you said does not need to be refuted.


You have ignored the immediate context of verses 1-18. Going to 1 Peter and other chapters helps us at some points, but I do not believe you have adequately dealt with the immediate context.

Like I said, though, I am not going to debate the ins and outs of the context of 2 Peter 3:9 with you on this thread; this is about Open Theism. If you want to start a thread on it, I might join in a little, but right now I want to discuss Open Theism.


Joel

[geebob]

Whether all of his days were ordained or only some of them were is irrelevant to this particular point. If God ordained any of them, and knew for certain what they would be, then OV cannot be correct.

I think the point of yx's post was missed. The days are written in the book. The metaphore of the book is obviously not used to depict what God will not revoke or take back as the verses cited by yx demontrated.

As for ordaining, I don't see why we should view everything that God ordains as something that God cannot take back as God can change his mind as he wisely deals with changes in circumstances.

And of course, evidence for all this is the incident were God adds 15 years to Hezekiah's life.

[joelkaki]

Here's proof that God predestined an individual to salvation, thereby dissolving OV claims that God does not know who will be saved.

"But when it pleased God, WHO SEPARATED ME FROM MY MOTHER'S WOMB AND CALLED ME THROUGH HIS GRACE." (Galatians 1:15).

Obviously this could deal with corporate vs individual election, but it is just as disastrous to Open Theism. God predetermined to save the Apostle Paul, an individual. He knew with certainty that Paul would be saved.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Um, everyone believes that God calls through grace. None of us are Pelagians.

We just happen to believe that God calls EVERYONE, or makes that call availible to all. In fact, I am going to post on that concept in a little bit. When I do, I'll slap a link on here to the thread.

[yxboom]

"Being seperated from his mothers womb and called" where does it state that Paul could not have refused his calling? Had he refused it would he have still penned those words?

[joelkaki]

"Being seperated from his mothers womb and called" where does it state that Paul could not have refused his calling? Had he refused it would he have still penned those words?

By your view, Paul's words have no meaning. Why would God bother with separating him from his mother's womb if it was going to be up to Paul anyway, and his call might not be effectual anyway? There would have been no point. God clearly separated Paul (Saul), chose him before he made any conscious choices, and called him through his grace. Those whom God chooses, whom He predestines, are justified, and are glorified.(Rom. 8:30).

Joel

[Arminian]

joe,

By your view, Paul's words have no meaning. Why would God bother with separating him from his mother's womb if it was going to be up to Paul anyway, and his call might not be effectual anyway?

Paul is quoting Jeremiah's call to be a prophet (Jer 1:5). This was neither Jeremiah's call to be saved nor Paul's. As for Paul's conversion, he describes himself as one "abnormally born," meaning that he had rejected the Gospel and Christ had to confront him so that he could take God's Word to the Gentiles. Paul also says that he is under compulsion to preach, whereas others who do so freely have a blessing from the Lord.

[Arminian]

joe,

You have ignored the immediate context of verses 1-18. Going to 1 Peter and other chapters helps us at some points, but I do not believe you have adequately dealt with the immediate context.

Once again.... I DID address the immediate context, AND I backed up my conclusions from the IMMEDIATE context with intertextual support!

You tried to make God's patience apply only to "us." That word is NOT in the text. However, Peter says several times that there will be scoffers "among you" who will try to confuse people.

Now, it's obvious that those who have repented no longer need to repent, so "we" don't need to do so. But some of "you" do! And what do we learn of Peter's view of God's patience? We learn that he sees God's flood as a demonstration of God's patience to the whole world, including all the scoffers from the flood to the present. Next time, however, God's wrath will involve fire.

[yxboom]

Arminian did an excellent post regarding those whom "He predestined, justified, and glorified" here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=23857#post23857).

[Hitch]

03-03-2003 @ 05:19 PM
yxboom:

"Being seperated from his mothers womb and called" where does it state that Paul could not have refused his calling? Had he refused it would he have still penned those words? Now where is that quote from Paul about how he chose to follow Christ?

The ones I see show Paul claiming Christ chose him.


Hitch

[geebob]

The ones I see show Paul claiming Christ chose him.

Sure thing. God chooses individuals for purposes. But never for salvation of damnation.

[Hitch]

03-04-2003 @ 03:28 PM
geebob:



Sure thing. God chooses individuals for purposes. But never for salvation of damnation. LOL So when Christ asys 'you have not chosen Me I have chosen you' to the disciples he wasnt concerned of their eternal welfare just that they did what they were told in the mean time.

But pry tell... were their lots of Apostles chosen that were not saved? Seems according to you salvation is not a prerequsite fo the 'puprposes' of an Aposltle,,, or anyone else God choses for that matter.

And this having mercy biz,,, just another scew up I suppose, after all the god of OV doesnt even know whats going to happen tomorrow so how could he possible know where to shed his mercy?

Hitch

[geebob]

LOL So when Christ asys 'you have not chosen Me I have chosen you' to the disciples he wasnt concerned of their eternal welfare just that they did what they were told in the mean time.

not only that, people who were not amongst the twelve disciples could also be saved.

But pry tell... were their lots of Apostles chosen that were not saved?

Judas.


besides apostles, we could say prophets were chosen. Balaam I believe was damned.

And this having mercy biz,,, just another scew up I suppose, after all the god of OV doesnt even know whats going to happen tomorrow so how could he possible know where to shed his mercy?

He often knows what is going to happen tomarrow. that doesn't mean he knows that everything about tomarrow is settled and knowable as certain.

And God is truly merciful as all men have a chance for salvation.

[Reba]

Salvation is NOT by chance

[Arminian]

Hitch,

So when Christ asys 'you have not chosen Me I have chosen you' to the disciples he wasnt concerned of their eternal welfare just that they did what they were told in the mean time.

Instead of coming to conclusions that are pleasing to you, why not let Scripture dictate?

Jesus picked the 12 out of a larger body of 72.

"Then Jesus replyed, "Have I not chosen you Twelve? Yet one of you is of the devil!"

How many more verses do you want that indicate the same thing? I can think of 6 off the top of my head.

[yxboom]

03-04-2003 @ 09:43 AM
Reba:

Salvation is NOT by chance .....and we now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

[joelkaki]

According to Open Theism, God does not know for certain the exact events that will take place in the future, except for certain "closed" events such as the incarnation, death of Christ. And OV tells us that when bad things happen to us (as far as I understand OV doctrine--not trying to create straw man at this point) it was not in God's plan. For instance, (I guess this shows it isn't a straw man), Gregory Boyd, one of the top leaders in the OV movement, said this,
"There was a young girl this year at Bethel who was killed by a drunk driver, and a lot of students were wondering what purpose God had in 'taking her home.' But this I regard to simply be a piously confused way of thinking. The drunk driver alone is to blame for the girl's untimely death. The only purpose of God in the whole thing is his design to allow morally responsible people the right to decide whether to drink responsibly or irresponsibly."

So Boyd claims that her death was not really in God's plan, and there really was not a divine purpose in her death. To sum up, when bad things happen to us, it wasn't necessarily or even probably in God's plan; He didn't know it was going to happen. God does not plan for such things to happen.

Let's see what Jesus really knew...

" 'Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wish; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.' This He spoke, signifying by what death He would glorify God." (John 21:18-19, NKJV)

This destroys Open Theism on two accounts:

1. Jesus knew for certain that Peter would not only die unnaturally, but the exact type of death he would die. (the statement together with other evidence seems to mean he would be hung upside down.)

2. There was a divine purpose in the death of Peter. It would have been exruciatingly (??) painful, but it was to glorify God. It was to bring glory to God. It was in God's plan for Peter to die that death, in order to bring glory to himself.

OV falls before the weight of Scripture.

Joel

[geebob]

I would not agree with either view. I know God has tragedies in his plans. but I don't find the sense in making it an absolute that every specific tragedy should be viewed as God's will.

Peter's manner of death would show his close connection to christ and how close he grew towards his savior. He would not go kicking and screaming pleading innocent to the charges of following Jesus. He would go in a matter of humility reluctant to die in the fashion not because he was terrified of the horrors of a torturous death but because of feeling unworthy to be sacrificed in the same manner of his Lord.

[joelkaki]

But you would agree that God does not know for certain the exact events of the future, correct? At least the ones involving the free will of his creatures, right?
John 21:18-19 clearly disproves that. Jesus knew for certain the exact type of death that Peter would die. There is no getting around it.

Joel

[geebob]

this post and my others that follow I believe answers your question.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=26299#post26299

[joelkaki]

So Peter's death was closed just as Christ's death was? Even if God did not know the exact individuals who would perform it, how would Jesus know the exact manner that Peter would die? You see, Open Theism really is quite ridiculous at this point:

Whatever seems to contradict an open future is closed. Whatever seems to offer no problem to OV is closed. You can't prove this. Anytime anyone confronts you with something unanswerable, you just say that particular thing was closed--very unconvincingly convenient. Also very sad. By saying all that, you basically say that a whole lot of the future is closed; look at the tons of prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments.

Joel

[Hitch]

03-04-2003 @ 08:53 PM
Arminian:

Hitch,



Instead of coming to conclusions that are pleasing to you, why not let Scripture dictate?

Jesus picked the 12 out of a larger body of 72.

"Then Jesus replyed, "Have I not chosen you Twelve? Yet one of you is of the devil!"

How many more verses do you want that indicate the same thing? I can think of 6 off the top of my head. Huh? Every passage will indicate Christ is choosing according to th e plan laid out from before th e foundation of the earth. Your point here is beyond my imagination.

H

[Arminian]

Hitch,

Huh? Every passage will indicate Christ is choosing according to th e plan laid out feom before th e foundation of the earth. Your point here is beyond my imagination.


It's a good thing we aren't depending on your imagination, then. I, however, quoted Scripture in response to your point which you are now trying to change.

[Hitch]

03-05-2003 @ 05:54 AM
Arminian:

Hitch,



It's a good thing we aren't depending on your imagination, then. I, however, quoted Scripture in response to your point which you are now trying to change. What are you talking about?

[yxboom]

03-04-2003 @ 10:04 PM
Hitch:

What are you talking about? Hitch, and that is what everyone is left asking you cause you stepped in front of a moving train with your reply and now you are attempting to side-step the fact your point was nonsense.

[Arminian]

Hitch,

What are you talking about?

What you don't want to talk about.

[yxboom]

03-04-2003 @ 09:17 AM
geebob:

But pry tell... were their lots of Apostles chosen that were not saved?

Judas.

[geebob]

Whatever seems to contradict an open future is closed. Whatever seems to offer no problem to OV is closed. You can't prove this.

If we can't prove that it's not closed, then it's not a problem. Then the Ov explicitely wins.

Anytime anyone confronts you with something unanswerable, you just say that particular thing was closed--very unconvincingly convenient.

Why? a closed future is simply intrinsic to the open view. If you deny a closed future, you deny the open view. So why should I be surprised that some of the future is closed?


Also very sad. By saying all that, you basically say that a whole lot of the future is closed; look at the tons of prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments.

We can't always know which prophecies indicate a certainty about the future and which ones are contingent. There are contingent prophecies as Jonah's threat to Nineveh shows, and Jermaiah 18 demonstrates that this is the norm for God.

[Hitch]

03-05-2003 @ 07:12 AM
yxboom:



Judas. [/QUOTE] Just as though Jesus knew huh?

[Hitch]

03-05-2003 @ 06:21 AM
yxboom:

Hitch, and that is what everyone is left asking you cause you stepped in front of a moving train with your reply and now you are attempting to side-step the fact your point was nonsense. LMAO In reality Boom NO ONE asked me that. Cute imaginination ya got there. And I find your typically unfounded comments nausiating.

Now why not come up with soemthing from Jesus , saying something contrary. And then you can add that to all the times Paul claimed that he chose to follow Christ, you guys did great with that one.


Hitch

[Hitch]

03-05-2003 @ 07:06 AM
Arminian:

Hitch,



What you don't want to talk about. You're right I dont care to discuss doctrines which always come up contrary to the recorded saying of Jesus Christ. But is sure if fun watching the quail scatter when Jesus speaks.

[Hitch]

And this having mercy biz,,, just another scew up I suppose, after all the god of OV doesnt even know whats going to happen tomorrow so how could he possible know where to shed his mercy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He often knows what is going to happen tomarrow. that doesn't mean he knows that everything about tomarrow is settled and knowable as certain.

And God is truly merciful as all men have a chance for salvation.


This god of yours is whimp. Did it take you long to design it?

LOL I wont even bother with the quote obviously if your god and your version of the holy spirlt are the same how would they know what to have recorded in scripture?

Hitch

[geebob]

If we can't prove that it's not closed, then it's not a problem. Then the Ov explicitely wins.

:doh:

I meant If we can't prove that it's closed, then it's not a problem. Then the Ov explicitely wins.


Hitch, did you give up? Why post something if you have nothing meaningful to say. I can conclude nothing from your comment except that your an angry thoughtless cur who is incapable of sustained dialogue. If you have anything else that is equally useless for our discussion, I will say good day to you and have nothing else to do with you.

[Reba]

:rofl:

[Hitch]

Hitch, did you give up

Nope. Just falling asleep waiting for all those quotes from Jesus that are conrtary to the one line I posted that bothers ya'all so much. I reckon its good I didnt post a hole paragraph of what Jesus said, that could geta guy stoned on this forum

That and all those quotes from Paul saying that he chose Christ rather than Christ chose him.

OVs and X9s sure dont like it when you quote Jesus, go figure. I

Take care

Hitch

[Ladd]

I'm enjoying your conversation. Just a quick point: someone brought up "God will be lost if He doesn't know the future" and 'His promises are worthless if He doesn't know the future' I looked up the phrase "I will bring it to pass" and found it in Isiaih 46 5-13. This shows how promises are to be fulfilled and also how He does know whatever future He chooses because He will bring it to pass. This is a God of POWER. I inject that to simply KNOW the future would be more of a weakness.

Ladd

[Arminian]

Silly Hitch,

It's time to stop pretending the issue is something other than what you said. He is what Geebob said and how you responded:

Geebob:God chooses individuals for purposes. But never for salvation of damnation.

Your silly response:LOL So when Christ asys 'you have not chosen Me I have chosen you' to the disciples he wasnt concerned of their eternal welfare just that they did what they were told in the mean time

But pry tell... were their lots of Apostles chosen that were not saved?

Silly Hitch, what do you think Jesus meant when he said that he chose "you Twelve, but one of you is of the devil"? Do you think that he is speaking of salvation? If you do, we will go on to examine the 6 other verses that describe all 12 being chosen. If not, then grow up.

Seems according to you salvation is not a prerequsite fo the 'puprposes' of an Aposltle,,,

It depends on whether or not you believe that Judas was ever saved to begin with. Either way, your argument fails.

[yxboom]

Welcome to TWeb Ladd,

Might I recommend principal of the skinned cat thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=287) and geebob's "Why libertarian free will" thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1201). Both very great threads started dealing with God's omnipotence in light of man's free will.

[joelkaki]

I'm going to be coming back with some more evidence for my view--just give me a little time--rather short of it these days.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Open Theists claim that God did not originally plan for the cross, for Christ's sacrifice. Plan A was for Adam and Eve to live in the state that they were created. God gave them the choice to stay in that state or die. They claim that God thought that they would obey him. They teach that he was surprised that they disobeyed. His plan A did not work. Because of man's free actions, God's plan was upset, and He had to come up with plan B. So His plan be was to have the seed of the woman come and die for the sins of anyone who would believe on him. Does this measure up to Scripture? Hardly.

"...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8). Jesus Christ was said to have been "slain from the foundation of the world." Not that he actually was killed before he was actually killed, but it was in God's purpose that He should be slain, a plan that did not come about as a result of suprise at man's actions, resulting in this "plan B." This was God's purpose from the foundation of the world. He knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him. He foreknew the future. And His plan was that Christ would come as the Seed of the woman and be slain. That was all determined from the foundation of the world. God was not surprised by Adam and Eve's disobedience. It was all part of His plan for his son to come and suffer for His people and ultimately bring glory to God.

Joel

[Hitch]

Perf

H

[Reba]

AMEN joel

[joelkaki]

Hmmm, I was kind of hoping to get some sort of response and refutation of what I just said. Or at least a comment saying why OVer's disagree/ how they get around that.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Sheesh, where did all the OVers go? I haven't seen a response by any of them in quite a while now.


Joel

[Arminian]

I've seen OV'ers discuss what you brought up, and I've never seen one disagree that Christ was the Offering since creation. I don't know why they would need to aruge against it.

[doogieduff]

I'm new on this thread and haven't read much of it, but I have a question for joelkaki in particular. According to your view: In God's eyes, has Revelation already happened?

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

One more thing as i am starting to catch up on this thread. On the first page of this thread you said,

Romans 8:28 can hold no meaning in the Open View.

I would disagree wholeheartedly. (My apologies if someone has already said this.) Let's read the entire verse:

Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

This verse tells me that if I love God (I do) and if I'm called according to His purpose, (as a Christian, I am) then all things will work together for the good. Does this mean every little thing? I don't think so. I think it means, I am saved if I love God and am called according to His purpose, hence when I die, everything will be worked out for the good as I will be sitting in Heaven. Is this not how you read this verse? It means just as much to me as a non-OV'er.

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

In your opening post you said:

Here is an actual quote from an actual website devoted to Open Theism (Open View)
God does not control everything that happens.
That is about the saddest, sickest thing I have ever heard.

Are you saying that you disagree with that statement? So you believe God controlled the planes that hit the twin towers? There is a huge difference between God being in control, and God controlling everything. God is always in control. He can do whatever He wants whenever He wants. If you believe God controls everything, then you believe God is the working hand behind all evil. I don't find this to be the case. I see myself as more than a puppet with God controlling my strings...

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

God didn't know for sure that Christ would go to the cross. The Jewish leaders and Pilate could have thwarted God's plan for salvation. That is sad.

This is also not true according to the open view. God predestined the crowd and Pontius Pilate.

Acts 4:27-28 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

God intervened here. He predestined the crowd and Pontius Pilate to do His will. There was no "thwarting of His will" as you have stated. Let me ask you this. Why would God have to do this, to predestine the crowd and Pilate, if He already knew it would work out fine. He had to predestine to make sure it came out according to His will! The fact that He predestined showed He was not sure it would. That's where God's omnipotence comes into play. He uses His power to make sure what He said comes true. Now, when was this predestined? Was it befre the foundation of the world? Maybe, but I don't think so. Could God have looked at the crowd, and Herod, and Pilate, and realized that they might have thwarted His will, and predestined them five minutes, 10 minutes, an hour before it happened? I believe that this is just as logical. How well do you know the Open View?

Also, check your Greek. This verse is much much stronger in the Greek than what they've put in our English.

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

I have a question for you OVers now. Nothing fancy, just need a yes or no answer.
Do you, when praying to God, ask for your request, and then say, "if it be your will" regularly?

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1 "Imitate me, just as i also imitate Christ." I follow this, and pray for strength and wisdom. Let me ask you this, according to your view, the future is set in stone. It has to come to pass just as God has foreseen it. If this is the case, can prayer have any effect? I mean, Hezekiah prayed and asked God to not let him die, even though God just told him he would surely die. What did God do? God added 15 years to his life! Prayer was effective here! Was God being truthful when He told Hezekiah to put his house in order for he was about to die? I think He was. According to your view, God knew inside that He was going to add 15 years to his life, but still told him to put his house in order for he was about to die. I think God saw his actual state and could clearly see he was about to die. I think God was being 100% honest in His words. Hezekiah prayed sincerely and God decided to use His omnipotence and add 15 years to his life. With your view, i can't see how prayer would ever be effective. I mean, let's say God knew you were going to do something tomorrow, and I asked you to try as hard as you could to do opposite of what God knew you would do. Could you do it? No! You're a robot. You have to do whatever God knows you're going to do. You can't change your mind at the last minute, nor can prayer change what the future holds for you. In the open view, prayer is a wonderful thing and can turn God to change His mind as we saw in 2 Kings.

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

Now, how does you answer fit in with your view? If you pray, asking God for something to happen, IF IT BE HIS WILL, then does that not contradict your view? If everything does not go according to His will and His plan, then why ask for it to go according to his plan?

Did Christ's will ever differ from that of God's will?

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

I may have missed it, but I never saw you answer yxboom's passages that showed that somebody's name could be blotted out of the Book of Life. If God does indeed know everyone who will be saved, why does He need to book keep them? Further, how can somebody's name be blotted out? According to your view, God could have written this book even before the foundation of the world. It would be perfect then wouldn't it?

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

Genesis 22:12 "And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, From Me."

Was God speaking the truth here?

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

If God can peek into the future and see everything beforehand, wouldn't every prophecy have to come true down to the minutest detail?

[Jaltus]

This verse tells me that if I love God (I do) and if I'm called according to His purpose, (as a Christian, I am) then all things will work together for the good. Does this mean every little thing? I don't think so. I think it means, I am saved if I love God and am called according to His purpose, hence when I die, everything will be worked out for the good as I will be sitting in Heaven. Is this not how you read this verse? It means just as much to me as a non-OV'er.Why do you think "all things" does not mean "all things" in Romans 8:28? Remember that PAS must be understood as inclusive unless there is a reason to think it is exclusive.

[doogieduff]

03-12-2003 @ 04:07 PM
Jaltus:

Why do you think "all things" does not mean "all things" in Romans 8:28? Remember that PAS must be understood as inclusive unless there is a reason to think it is exclusive.

Sorry, I didn't represent myself very well here. All things definitely does mean all things. I meant to say something to this extent. The verse doesn't say that God is going to make good out of things like 9/11 or Columbine. It isn't that God's plan has to make good out of evil right away. I hear too many people say, it's Ok about 9/11, God will work it into something good. I don't believe that's what this verse talks about. To me, this verse says that no matter how many bad things or evil things happen to you, if you love and believe, it will all be worked out in the end, when you go to spend eternity in heaven. So , definitely, all things that are evil or good, that happen to a Christian, will be worked out for the better in the end, because what's better than heaven?

[Jaltus]

Let me ask an intentionally leading question, then.

Are you a dispensationalist? The reason for my question is to find out whether or not you believe that once you are saved, you are forever saved.

[doogieduff]

03-12-2003 @ 04:47 PM
Jaltus:

Let me ask an intentionally leading question, then.

Are you a dispensationalist? The reason for my question is to find out whether or not you believe that once you are saved, you are forever saved.

I'm definitely a dispensationalist, and yes I believe in eternal security. Did anyone lose salvation in the Bible? You bet!

[Arminian]

It isn't that God's plan has to make good out of evil right away. I hear too many people say, it's Ok about 9/11, God will work it into something good. I don't believe that's what this verse talks about. To me, this verse says that no matter how many bad things or evil things happen to you, if you love and believe, it will all be worked out in the end, when you go to spend eternity in heaven.

As far as I'm concerned, "all things" is Paul's reference to what he said previously in the chapter concerning God subjecting all of creation to futility. Because of this, we look FORWARD in hope to life after death IF WE SUFFER WITH (identify with/ love) Christ. This is how all things work in that regard. I'll edit this later and add some more comments.