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.

[doogieduff]

03-12-2003 @ 07:42 PM
Arminian:



As far as I'm concerned, "all things" is Paul's reference to what he said previously in the chapter concering 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.

I agree.

[Jaltus]

doogie,

Alright, then is you believe in OSAS, how can you square that with a belief in Open Theism? You see, the OV holds to the concept of free will, but OSAS means that man no longer has free will once saved. THat is a VERY contradictory understanding. Also, if one cannot lose salvation, it means at least one thing IS known DEFINITIVELY about the future, which also contradicts the OV. For that matter, you said that people in the bible lost salvation, so then Romans 8:28 was not valid for them, meaning that this scripture WAS WRONG.

I had actually anticipated you NOt holding to OSAS, so my set up was in some sense for naught. However, I think I will work this a different way.

[doogieduff]

03-13-2003 @ 01:02 PM
Jaltus:

doogie,

Alright, then is you believe in OSAS, how can you square that with a belief in Open Theism? You see, the OV holds to the concept of free will, but OSAS means that man no longer has free will once saved. THat is a VERY contradictory understanding. Also, if one cannot lose salvation, it means at least one thing IS known DEFINITIVELY about the future, which also contradicts the OV. For that matter, you said that people in the bible lost salvation, so then Romans 8:28 was not valid for them, meaning that this scripture WAS WRONG.

I had actually anticipated you NOt holding to OSAS, so my set up was in some sense for naught. However, I think I will work this a different way.

This is not contradictory at all. The Open View believes in free will, as the traditional view holds to absolutely no free will. I'm the first to admit that God can and did violate man's free will. God violated the free will of Herod, Pontius Pilate and the crowd, as He predestined them to elect Jesus to die. In the same manner, when someone accepts Christ as their Savior the Holy Spirit seals them for the day of redemption. I would say that's a good thing. God predestined things, and will make them come to pass, so sure He can and will violate our free will. But we're talking very minute details here. The traditional view holds to absolutely no free will at all, and the Open View holds to free will for the vast majority of the time. I mean, that's being nice to the number. Realistically, what? One thing you have shown out of how many millions of choices I had, have, and will have? Second of all, I'm glad for this violation of free will. I mean, more people will be saved because of it. Wouldn't you agree?

[doogieduff]

Would someone answer my posts on page 9?

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

I would like to clarify the OV position. You seem to have a slanted view of what it is we believe. You said,You see, the OV holds to the concept of free will, but OSAS means that man no longer has free will once saved. THat is a VERY contradictory understanding. Also, if one cannot lose salvation, it means at least one thing IS known DEFINITIVELY about the future, which also contradicts the OV.You seem to believe that if just one thing is known about the future by God, then that somehow nullifies the entire position. Actually, the reverse is true. If God chnges His mind, or shows that He doesn't know the future in just one instance, then total prescience / predestination is proven false. Predestinarians love Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam 15:29, which both say that "God is not a man that He should repent." However, in 1 Sam 15:11 and 15:35, God does repent... Hmmmm... I guess that's why context is important, huh? Let's look at one more portion of Scripture that shows God not knowing the future...Isaiah 5
5:1
Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill.
5:2
He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes.
5:3
"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
5:4
What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?A couple of huge points here... God EXPECTED good grapes, but received wild grapes. God asks, "What more could have been done that I have not done?"

Well, I guess He could have predestined them... :rofl:

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Jaltus]

Major problem, doogie, is that classical Arminianism is the traditional view. All the ECFs that were ante-Nicene held to an Arminian understanding, with the first "proto-Calvinist" being Augustine of Hippo.

As for the people surrounding Jesus being predestined to crucify Him, then why is it that they are still held responsible for such an act? You just became a compatiblist!

[Jaltus]

doogie,

You have 8 posts on page 9, which would you like answered, especially when they are all addressed to Joel?

[Jaltus]

You seem to believe that if just one thing is known about the future by God, then that somehow nullifies the entire position.No, that is not what I meant (though I could see why you would think that since I did not spell out exactly what I was talking about). My point was that if you nullify free will in the saved individual, then that person is no longer responsible for what they do, since their LFW is now gone. Thus, every sin committed while saved cannot be counted against them. Every good deed cannot be counted for them. Both of those concepts are completely negated by scripture! (the first by Ananias and Sapphira, the second by any passage dealing with rewards)

Trust me, I know the OV position quite well, I just find Ov with dispyism to be incoherent (with the possible exception of geebob's understanding since it is nuanced so well) or internally inconsistent.

[adam.naranjo]

Open theologians cannot offer the preconditions for the intelligibility of inductive principle. There ability to argue, predicate, or even live life intelligibly assumes that God controls all things...ALL things...ALL things does not stop at a certain level of particularity...ALL things includes ALL things EVERY thing...etc,.


Does evil come to a city, and I have not caused it? - God.

One more thing: you open theists need to take a hermeneutics class -- at a reputable school thats not trying to brainwash you.

[Jaltus]

I recommend reading Sanders' work in order to see a responsible (if occasionally out there) Open Theist. Other than his take on Judas, he is pretty solid (though I must say that his take on Judas is not unique to himself, nor even Openness).

No, I am not an OVer.

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

Actually, I would recommend Greg Boyd over Sasnders for a comprehensive explaination of the OV. I will address your concerns about the security of the believer in the body of Christ at a later time. I would ask that either you or Adam respond to Isaiah 5 first... BTW, Greg Boyd is not a Dispensationalist...

--Jeremy

[Jaltus]

I know. I am doing my Ph D diss on Open Theism. Sanders is much more sound (or tight) both theologically and philosophically. After all, Boyd contradicts himself in a matter of two pages!

[Sher]

Pardon me piping in here, :shy: but is the assertion that God is in control of every detail by controling every detail? Why then would He change His mind, if everything was preordained? Isn't this a waste of God's time and effort?

God created man, "was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" (Gen 6:6), God destroyed all man save Noah & Co. If God preordained the outcome, why not start creation with Noah? Or could it be that God chose not to control every detail and responded to the wickedness when finally nothing else was working (i.e., during Noah's 120 years of building). Likewise, Sodom & Gomorrah ... Gen 18:22-33 ... where "Abraham still stood before the LORD" asking "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" and asked in decreasing numbers about the righteous that might be in the city. We can surmise from God's omniscience that God knew what Abraham would, or in this case wouldnt', find. However, God didn't control Abraham, He allowed him to go look for himself.

I am not supporting OV, per se. I believe that God is in control; I just don't think He is controlling every aspect of our lives. :no:

If I have misunderstood the control point, please feel free to correct me. However, if I understand correctly, I query why someone opposing this viewpoint would ever feel there is a need for intercessory prayer, or a Savior for that matter? God could just control the actions of everyone, making us do His bidding .... The Holy Puppetmaster.

I understand that bad things sometimes come our way as punishment or instruction from God. But do you really think that God has His finger in every pie? Controlling each and every aspect of everything? Doesn't this open up a whole "Goddidit" blame thing? Did He make me blow my diet off by making me finish off that bag of Doritos while I read this thread? :xmm:

[Jaltus]

Calvinists: God has a finger in every pie.

Arminians: God looks at every pie, but lets most slide past.

OVers: God looks at every pie, puts His fingers in some, and messes up a small percentage of them through bad advice.

[Reba]

Sherbear, hi nice to see your here you said. . .


"I am not supporting OV, per se. I believe that God is in control; I just don't think He is controlling every aspect of our lives."


Could you list please the things which GOD is not in control of?

[doogieduff]

03-14-2003 @ 11:31 AM
Reba:

Sherbear, hi nice to see your here you said. . .


"I am not supporting OV, per se. I believe that God is in control; I just don't think He is controlling every aspect of our lives."


Could you list please the things which GOD is not in control of?

You're not reading what she said correctly. She said "God is on control, but not controlling every aspect of our lives." Nothing is out of the control of God as He is all-powerful. He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. In that sense He is in control. But God has chose not to play puppets with us and choose our every move. He gave us free will to do what we want. Let me ask you a question...Was God controlling the planes that went into the twin towers? Of course your answer is no. (At least I hope so.) In that sense, God was not controlling the situation , yet is in control of the universe as the most powerful being in the universe. Do you see?

[doogieduff]

03-14-2003 @ 09:55 AM
Jaltus:

Calvinists: God has a finger in every pie.

Arminians: God looks at every pie, but lets most slide past.

OVers: God looks at every pie, puts His fingers in some, and messes up a small percentage of them through bad advice.

Jaltus,

Would you answer all my posts on page 9, and are you going to answer Acts9_12 out's posts too? (They were directed to you.)

When did God ever give bad advice?

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

You said,Calvinists: God has a finger in every pie.

Arminians: God looks at every pie, but lets most slide past.

OVers: God looks at every pie, puts His fingers in some, and messes up a small percentage of them through bad advice.If you are doing your Ph D diss on Open Theism, and your conclusion is what you've posted above, I'm sorry. Scripture is very clear that God does not make mistakes. Since you have a knowledge of the Greek, then you affirm that God has a determined will boule that cannot be thwarted and a desired will thelema, that can be thwarted. God has a thelema will (wish, want, desire) for man, but man is the one who makes the mistake. For example, here is a thelema will of God.1 Thessalonians 4
4:3
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;Let me ask Jaltus, when Christians are sexually immoral, is God at fault, or did man fail? Again, God gives man the gift of contrary choice. If mans decision falls within the desire of God, then He blesses us. If we freely choose outside of God's desire, then we are punished.Ezekiel 18
18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
18:21
"But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
18:22
None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.
18:23
Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
18:24
"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.Sounds to me like the God of the Bible gives man the gift of contrary choice (free will) and responds according to man's free will choice.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Jaltus]

Quick reply to Act9_12Out:

God's BOULH is thwarted in Luke 7:30, so you might want to try again.

As for OVers believing God can make mistakes, you really need to read Boyd (God of the Possible, 103-106) and Sanders (The God Who Risks, 228-230), as both say flat out that God can make mistakes.

I believe in free will, I just happen to believe God gets nothing wrong and has perfect foreknowledge. That makes me an Arminian, not an OVer. Your argument assumes I am a Calvinist, which I most assuredly am not. You might want to rethink that yourself.

[Jaltus]

When did God ever give bad advice? I don't think He ever did, but OVers say that He can. In other words, ask one of them (which I thought you were, am I wrong?).

[Act9_12Out]

Quick reply to Jaltus:

Sorry, but you missed it... The lawyers and pharisees did not thwart the will of God.Luke 7
7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.This is direct response to John's ministry which was the boule will of God.Mark 1
1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
1:2
As it is written in the Prophets: "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You."
1:3
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.' "
1:4
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
1:5
Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.You see Jaltus, God required baptism for salvation for the nation of Israel. This was most definitely God's boule will. The lawyers and pharisees rejected the will of God for themselves not having been baptized by John. God's will did not change, nor was it thwarted, but rather, they rejected it for themselves.

BTW, I am not familiar with Boyd's claim that God made a mistake. Again, I want to make it clear that I do not believe that to be true.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I've been out of town for almost a week, so I'm a little behind on responding here, so you'll have to bear with me.

Joel

[joelkaki]

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?

I guess I can go ahead and deal with this question since it is not too time consuming.

I assume you refer to the Book of Revelation. First of all, I am a preterist (orthodox), and I believe that most of Revelation has already happened. As to the parts that haven't, this is kind of an odd question. It is not that God thinks it has already happened. It is so sure and definite to happen that it is as if it already happened (not really that God sees it as having already happened, but it is sure to happen). I believe God sees all everything from the beginning to the end. So he knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen at one time, he doesn't learn as he goes along. Yet he knows what has already happened, which is presently happening, and which will happen. I'm not presenting this well, I know, but I am not really sure as to your question. Could you perhaps explain further?


Joel

[joelkaki]

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. ”

Perhaps better stated, "Romans 8:28 can only hold a distorted 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.

I think it does mean every little thing. The verse doesn't tell us this will be true from our point of view when we get to heaven. It doesn't say that since we'll be in heaven, it all ended up OK, so in that sense it worked for our good. It says ALL THINGS work together for our good. Even the bad things work together for our good. So it may hold some meaning for you, but not the same meaning intended in the verse, nor the great meaning it can give non-OVers.



Joel

[Jaltus]

Good grief, Acts9_12Out, what is rejection of a plan but failure of that plan!

Are you sure you are not drd in disguise?

Literally, the verse says that the Pharisees "regarded as invalid God's" BOULH "for their lives."

If a plan is rejected or invalidated, how can it be said to be successful? If a plan is rejected, it is thwarted. Stop playing semantic games, the two are essentially equivalent in this case.

Let me put it this way, if Saddam rejects the plan of the US to attack him by launching nukes at us and disappearing from the face of the earth, would the plan to take him down be thwarted or not?

Obviously, it would be thwarted. You see, if a plan is rejected by those who it is for, the plan is THWARTED.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:57 PM
joelkaki:

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. ”

Perhaps better stated, "Romans 8:28 can only hold a distorted 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.

I think it does mean every little thing. The verse doesn't tell us this will be true from our point of view when we get to heaven. It doesn't say that since we'll be in heaven, it all ended up OK, so in that sense it worked for our good. It says ALL THINGS work together for our good. Even the bad things work together for our good. So it may hold some meaning for you, but not the same meaning intended in the verse, nor the great meaning it can give non-OVers.



Joel

Thanks for starting to answer a couple of my many questions for you. New light on Romans 8:28 has corrected me! I am completely wrong in what I said! Guess what? Check out the greek! This has added a whole new light to this entire discussion, and I think it proves a calvinist translated the bible. :wink:

The greek of Romans 8:28 shows that the word"good" is nowhere to be found! It was added. The actual correct translation of this verse should be:

"God works with those who love Him and those called according to His purpose, all things." This verse just says God works with us! (In time that is)

Amazing how somebody would pull a word out of nowhere just to fit their belief system. I was once told that to defend the Bible, you need to learn Greek, because about 50% of the time, the greek is needed in defending a particular verse. Guess they were right...

[joelkaki]

Thanks for starting to answer a couple of my many questions for you. New light on Romans 8:28 has corrected me! I am completely wrong in what I said! Guess what? Check out the greek! This has added a whole new light to this entire discussion, and I think it proves a calvinist translated the bible.

Actually it proves nothing of the sort.


The greek of Romans 8:28 shows that the word"good" is nowhere to be found! It was added. The actual correct translation of this verse should be:

It most certainly was not. I checked two different Greek New Testaments that I have, and it was there in both of them. What kind of Greek NT do you have?


"God works with those who love Him and those called according to His purpose, all things." This verse just says God works with us! (In time that is)

You got a mighty weird Greek NT, because here is the word-for-word in the Interlinear:
"But we know that to those hwo love God all things work together for good; to those hwo according to purpose called are."

That is bone literal, and so your claim is completely unfounded.


Amazing how somebody would pull a word out of nowhere just to fit their belief system. I was once told that to defend the Bible, you need to learn Greek, because about 50% of the time, the greek is needed in defending a particular verse. Guess they were right...

You need to check your Greek source before making such claims.

Joel

[joelkaki]

doogieduff, I just checked another Greek NT via the Internet, and it has "good" too--same word for word. So I'm afraid you are wrong about that one.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:38 PM
joelkaki:

doogieduff, I just checked another Greek NT via the Internet, and it has "good" too--same word for word. So I'm afraid you are wrong about that one.

Joel

Haha, you're right. My bad. I need to learn my greek I guess!

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

You say,Good grief, Acts9_12Out, what is rejection of a plan but failure of that plan!Jaltus, are you saying that God failed? I never thought I'd hear that one from you!

The point here Jaltus is that the boule will did not fail. If you read the accounts of John's baptism, you will see that everyone who desired to baptized to show their fiath unto God did exactly that. Christ waited until all the regions had an opportunity to exercise their free will and be baptized by John. Then Christ went out to John and was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15). God's will was most definitely accomplished. God asked man to show their faith by freely going out to John in the Jordan and be baptized for the remission of their sins. However, the lawyers and pharisees did not have their sins remitted, since "they rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (John)." God's will was in effect for those who freely chose to go out to John. Just because a few chose to "reject God's boule for themselves" in no way negates or causes God's will to fail for mankind. You contiunue,Are you sure you are not drd in disguise?I have no idea who that is...Literally, the verse says that the Pharisees "regarded as invalid God's" BOULH "for their lives."That's right! For their lives God's will did not fail in any way. They freely chose to reject it for themselves! You continue,If a plan is rejected or invalidated, how can it be said to be successful? If a plan is rejected, it is thwarted. Stop playing semantic games, the two are essentially equivalent in this case.Actually, they are totally different. God required water baptism for salvation. Many who went out to John were accounted righteous, and a few rejected it for themselves. In other words, God's will was clear. Many accepted the will for themselves, and the lawyers and pharisees rejected it for themselves. The will did not change, nor was it thwarted. Let me ask you this... Could the lawyers and pharisees be saved apart from John's baptism? You then give an analogy,Let me put it this way, if Saddam rejects the plan of the US to attack him by launching nukes at us and disappearing from the face of the earth, would the plan to take him down be thwarted or not?A better analogy that seems to be similar is:

President Bush's plan is to attack Iraq. If Saddam and his sons reject the plan of the U.S. to attack and launch nukes at us, the plan does not change. The U.S. will still attack, and attempt to gain control of Iraq. Now, if the majority of the Iraqi people surrender, and freely choose to follow whatever orders the U.S. Military has for them, then President Bush's plan has been fulfilled. However, Saddam, his sons, and a small group of freaks are still "kicking against the goads," and attempting to reject the original plan for themselves and refuse to surrender. The original plan of the U.S. was not thwarted, nor did it fail. You say,Obviously, it would be thwarted. You see, if a plan is rejected by those who it is for, the plan is THWARTED.How can it be thwarted if it is intended for a large number of people? If the majority accepts and the minority rejects, the plan is not thwarted. God's will still stands. A person could have only received salvation at that time if they went out to John in the Jordan and confessed their sins.

Here's another analogy... I know they all break down at some point, but you seem to like them. :smile:

My wife decides to make baked potatoes for dinner with all the fixin's. That is my wife's boule will. She is making baked potatoes for everyone who wants to eat. Your stomach cannot be filled tonight without eating the baked potatoes. However, I despise baked potatoes. I reject my wife's will for myself and choose not to eat. Everyone else in my household eats, and their tummies are filled. I, on the other hand, have chosen not to eat, and I am hungry. I have no way of having my stomach filled because I am stuck in my house due to this blizzard! Now, I ask, was my wife's will thwatred? No way! She still cooked the potatoes, and those who freely chose to eat were filled. I rejected her will, and did not eat...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

doogieduff,

Actually, you're on the right track. joel believes that God works all things for good. joel said "all things" means everything. Romans 8:28 is very specific. God works together with those who love Him and are called according to His purpose, all things for good. That's a huge difference from the english translations that say "God works all things together for good..." The condition is dependent on "those who love Him." God works together with those who love Him.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Haha, you're right. My bad. I need to learn my greek I guess!


Thanks for being willing to admit when you made a mistake. It is a quality that a lot of people don't have, and something that most people I have discussed would not admit. We all make mistakes, so we need to just do what you did and admit it.


Joel

[doogieduff]

03-14-2003 @ 10:49 PM
Jaltus:

I don't think He ever did, but OVers say that He can. In other words, ask one of them (which I thought you were, am I wrong?).

I do believe in the open view yet have never heard this. You said that OV believes God gives bad advice, so I asked you to show me where an OV'er ever said this. Are you misrepresenting our position?

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 04:51 PM
joelkaki:

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?

I guess I can go ahead and deal with this question since it is not too time consuming.

I assume you refer to the Book of Revelation. First of all, I am a preterist (orthodox), and I believe that most of Revelation has already happened. As to the parts that haven't, this is kind of an odd question. It is not that God thinks it has already happened. It is so sure and definite to happen that it is as if it already happened (not really that God sees it as having already happened, but it is sure to happen). I believe God sees all everything from the beginning to the end. So he knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen at one time, he doesn't learn as he goes along. Yet he knows what has already happened, which is presently happening, and which will happen. I'm not presenting this well, I know, but I am not really sure as to your question. Could you perhaps explain further?


Joel

Basically I have come to the conclusion that if God is outside of time, and people that are in heaven are also outside of time, then we must be sitting in the heavenlies right now watching this conversation! You see, everything has already happened in God's eyes, including the end times, so we must have already been raptured and entered into a timeless environment which means we are sitting up there right now! Do you see where I am going?

Also, there's about 5 other questions for you on page nine! Thanks!

(I was new to this thread when I started asking you questions, so if there were questions you had for ov'ers before that, then I missed them. If you have any questions for me, I'd love to hear them!)

[doogieduff]

Hey joelkaki! In case you missed it, you have a calling in "Coach's Quarters." Thought you would be excited to see that.

[Jaltus]

Jaltus, are you saying that God failed? I never thought I'd hear that one from you!I am an Arminian who does not hold to the classical view of God but to the nuanced classical view of God. In other words, I do not hold to impassibility et al.

The point here Jaltus is that the boule will did not fail. If you read the accounts of John's baptism, you will see that everyone who desired to baptized to show their fiath unto God did exactly that. Christ waited until all the regions had an opportunity to exercise their free will and be baptized by John. Then Christ went out to John and was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15). God's will was most definitely accomplished. God asked man to show their faith by freely going out to John in the Jordan and be baptized for the remission of their sins. However, the lawyers and pharisees did not have their sins remitted, since "they rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (John)." God's will was in effect for those who freely chose to go out to John. Just because a few chose to "reject God's boule for themselves" in no way negates or causes God's will to fail for mankind. ” [quote]Your major mistake here is that it was not God's BOULH for mankind they rejected, but God's BOULH for themselves. You are pushing catagories into this verse which are not there.

Drd is someone I argued with about this verse for nearly 4 months.

[quote]That's right! For their lives God's will did not fail in any way. They freely chose to reject it for themselves! Again, there is no difference between a plan failing and it being rejected. Either way it did not work due to their LFW. As an OVer, why are you even quibbiling over this? You should be on my side!

Actually, they are totally different. God required water baptism for salvation. Many who went out to John were accounted righteous, and a few rejected it for themselves. In other words, God's will was clear. Many accepted the will for themselves, and the lawyers and pharisees rejected it for themselves. The will did not change, nor was it thwarted. Let me ask you this... Could the lawyers and pharisees be saved apart from John's baptism? Well, first off I reject your dispensational model from the get go, for I believe that baptism was NEVER necessary for salvation, but that is a different argument. Let me state the case this way: God's will is for all to be saved. God's will according to you was that all men freely repent and get baptized. Therefore, if someone rejects baptism, aren't they rejecting God's plan? You have said that God's plan was for all to be baptized, these men rejected that baptism, so how cna you say that God's plan was not thwarted?

President Bush's plan is to attack Iraq. If Saddam and his sons reject the plan of the U.S. to attack and launch nukes at us, the plan does not change. The U.S. will still attack, and attempt to gain control of Iraq. Now, if the majority of the Iraqi people surrender, and freely choose to follow whatever orders the U.S. Military has for them, then President Bush's plan has been fulfilled. However, Saddam, his sons, and a small group of freaks are still "kicking against the goads," and attempting to reject the original plan for themselves and refuse to surrender. The original plan of the U.S. was not thwarted, nor did it fail. That was exactly my point, and you missed it. THe point of the plan was not just that all kinds of people be saved, but that Saddam himself would be saved. You are denying that it was God's BOULH for these Pharisee's to be saved. I disagree.

How can it be thwarted if it is intended for a large number of people? If the majority accepts and the minority rejects, the plan is not thwarted. God's will still stands. A person could have only received salvation at that time if they went out to John in the Jordan and confessed their sins.It can be thwarted if certain people specifically chosen by God refuse. The verse says quite plainly that God's BOULH for them was that they be baptized, yet they rejected that. It does not say that God's will was for a bunch of people to be baptized, and they opted to let others be those people. The verse specifically says FOR THEMSELVES.

My wife decides to make baked potatoes for dinner with all the fixin's. That is my wife's boule will. She is making baked potatoes for everyone who wants to eat. Your stomach cannot be filled tonight without eating the baked potatoes. However, I despise baked potatoes. I reject my wife's will for myself and choose not to eat. Everyone else in my household eats, and their tummies are filled. I, on the other hand, have chosen not to eat, and I am hungry. I have no way of having my stomach filled because I am stuck in my house due to this blizzard! Now, I ask, was my wife's will thwatred? No way! She still cooked the potatoes, and those who freely chose to eat were filled. I rejected her will, and did not eat...Again, you are assuming that your wife was not thinking of you when she p[lanned to make those potatoes, but God is omniscient and would be thinking of those whom He would want to fulfill His BOULH.

[doogieduff]

Hey Jaltus,

I'm on the outside looking in, and maybe I don't know what you and Acts 9 are talking about, but you seem to be making this way too hard or you're way too confused. Let's look at it this way...

What is God's will in 1 Timothy 2:4? It is that all men be saved. Can it be thwarted? Meaning can someone not be saved? You bet. So my guess is that when we look in the Greek we will find that it is the Thelema (sp) will. It is! Now let's go to Luke 7:30. What is God's will there? God's will is that for somebody to be saved at that time, they must go to John's baptism and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Can this will be thwarted? Meaning, can anybody be saved at this time by not going to John's baptism? No way! That's what the verse is talking about. Am I not on the same plane as you and Acts 9? Cuz this seems way to easy for me to see.

[Jaltus]

I don't understand your post.

Please explain this: Meaning, can anybody be saved at this time by not going to John's baptism? No way! That's what the verse is talking about. Am I not on the same plane as you and Acts 9? Cuz this seems way to easy for me to see.

I would argue that by not going to be baptized, the Pharisees were defeating God's BOULH for themselves (the word for plan or will in this verse). I am not sure what you are arguing here.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:12 PM
Jaltus:

I don't understand your post.

Please explain this:

I would argue that by not going to be baptized, the Pharisees were defeating God's BOULH for themselves (the word for plan or will in this verse). I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Exactly. They rejected it for themselves, but they did not reject God's counsel, which is "You must go to John's baptism and be baptized for the remission of sins." To reject God's counsel in this situation, they would have to be saved apart from being baptized which they didn't do. I think you're the only one having a hard time with this.

[Jaltus]

I disagree. The issue is not being saved apart from baptism, it is that they were not baptized. There is no mention in Luke 7:30 of salvation, only of baptism. You are placing salvation into the sentence, but it is not there.

29 And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

No salvation anywhere in here.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:00 PM
Jaltus:

I disagree. The issue is not being saved apart from baptism, it is that they were not baptized. There is no mention in Luke 7:30 of salvation, only of baptism. You are placing salvation into the sentence, but it is not there.

29 And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

No salvation anywhere in here.

Baptism for salvation is in Mark 16. (Specifically John's baptism) This is what Luke 7:30 is all about. So yes, it is about salvation. You need scripture to interpret scripture, I figured you knew that. Are you familiar with aorist participles?

[doogieduff]

Jaltus,

I thought of something before we go to that last post. It will tie in though. Basically, for us to figure out if God's BOULH will was thwarted, we must figure out what God's BOULH will is! Correct me if I am wrong, but you think God's BOULH will in Luke 7:30 is that all should be baptized? I'm talking everyone be baptized. Because that's the only way His BOULH will could have been thwarted (in your mind) in Luke 7:30 is that if His will was for everyone to be baptized. I don't think you can show me anywhere in the Bible that God's BOULH will was for EVERYBODY to be baptized.

[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. ”



Are you saying that you disagree with that statement?

Yes.

So you believe God controlled the planes that hit the twin towers?

I believe that the planes crashing into the towers was part of God's sovereign, predestined plan, for his own purposes. The men perpetrating the deed are still responsible, for they did it of their own will--God did not force them.


There is a huge difference between God being in control, and God controlling everything.

If anything is not controlled by God, then he is not in control. If that thing happened outside of his plan, and outside of his control, then he was not truly in control.


God is always in control. He can do whatever He wants whenever He wants.

Ah, but you see, it is not only that he can, but that he does. I can't think of the reference off the top of my head, and I don't have the time to look it up, but either in the Psalms or Isaiah or both it says that God does whatever he pleases. Again, if something happened outside of his control and his will, he would not be in control.


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...

No, we are much more than puppets. God does not force us to do anything. We do according to his predestined will at all times, with no forcing required. We do it willingly. How does God make sure that we always do without forcing us? I'm not sure, really. If I were to get someone to do something, I would have to force them against their will. But God is not like me; his ways are not my ways. He can do it without forcing anyone to do it; they always do it willingly.

Joel

[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.

That is not exactly the same thing I have heard from other OVers. They have said that God predestined for it to happen, but that He did not predestine individuals to commit it. If God does not know the future, as OVers say, then he really could not have known ahead of time that there would have even been someone called "Pontius Pilate" and so could not predestine him to do anything.


“ 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.

Did he predestine the individuals in the crowd? According to the Open View, he could not have, for he would not even have known that such individuals would have existed beforehand. The same with Pontius Pilate. If the future is unknowable for God, then it was impossible for him to know that there would be a Pontius Pilate, nor was it possible for him to know that Pilate would have become a ruler.


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.

No, not at all. For his predestination is the basis for his foreknowledge (OF EVENTS). Nothing could happen at all without him first predestining it to happen, and thus because he did from before the foundation of the world, he knew all that would take place.


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?

That sure is a lot of guessing to try to support the Open View. We need more solid evidence than you saying maybe it was kind of like this. The problem with that anyway, though, is that God predestined Christ to be slain from before the foundation of the world. So that plan was in jeopardy up until about 5 or 10 minutes before it happened. Surely you see that such an idea cannot be held up.

Joel

[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?

Yes, because not only does God predestine the end, but he has also predestined the means, and one of those means is prayer.


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.

Prayer is a means whereby God brings about his predestined, sovereign will. It is also as much for our benefit as anything. We need to spend time in communication with God for our own growth.

Joel

[joelkaki]

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

I'm not really sure as to your question here, so maybe you could explain further, for I don't see how that really has any relevance to what we are talking about.

Joel

[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?

I don't believe yxboom's comments on that were addressed to me if I remember correctly, and being such, I did not feel obligated to answer them (I think Gavin answered them anyway.) As Gavin said, it is most likely not a literal book. Your last questions are really about OSAS not the issue at hand, and so I will not answer them here; however, should you wish to start another thread with that issue in mind, I will come and participate.

Joel

[joelkaki]

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?

Yes. That does not mean that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would do. You would even agree that he knows the hearts of men, so he would have known whether Abraham feared him or not, but these tests are for the benefit of the creature as well. God is glorified in these as well. You see, open theism is just plainly against Scripture at this point:
You agree that God is omniscient (knowing all things). His knowledge is complete, he knows all. There cannot be more than what he knows. Yet you say that when something new happens, his knowledge is made greater. So basically, at creation, God really knew very little compared to what he knows now. If he is continually learning more things, and thus his knowledge is continually increasing, then his knowledge now is much greater than it initially was. Such belief is a gross attempt to recreate God in the image of man. His ways are not ways, and we should not try to make them such. God knows no more now than he did at creation, for he knows everything.


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

It is not that God "peeks into the future". God predestined the future, and so knows what will happen. Perhaps you could explain your point further, so I do not go off in the wrong direction.

Joel

[joelkaki]

doogieduff, I guess I have responded to all of your posts on page 9 now. How about taking a stab at this post of mine on page 9 copied below?

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

[Jaltus]

Baptism for salvation is in Mark 16. (Specifically John's baptism) This is what Luke 7:30 is all about. So yes, it is about salvation. You need scripture to interpret scripture, I figured you knew that. Are you familiar with aorist participles? First off, I teach Koine Greek, so I know aorist participles.

Second, you do use scripture to interpret scripture, but you do not allow parallel verses to overrule the context of a specific verse. If Luke wanted to talk about salvation, he would have included it. You are importing from another text because that is the only way your point can stand. Luke never offers baptism as salvific in his gospel. For that matter, I would take Romans to show you that baptism is not salvific, but your dispensational presuppositions rule out the true use of scripture to interpret scripture, since you hold to certain books of the Bible only being able to interact with others.

The bottom line is that Luke is talking about baptism, not salvation. He says explicitly that the Pharisees thwarted God's plan. I know of no other way it could be said more plainly in scripture.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:40 AM
joelkaki:

I believe that the planes crashing into the towers was part of God's sovereign, predestined plan, for his own purposes. The men perpetrating the deed are still responsible, for they did it of their own will--God did not force them.

That's pretty sick dude. My God doesn't need to murder people for His ultimate plan to come about. You say God did not force them, yet later in this post, you say we all do God's will without Him forcing us too. So basically God's will was to murder thousands of innocent people. Lovely.


If anything is not controlled by God, then he is not in control. If that thing happened outside of his plan, and outside of his control, then he was not truly in control.

If you are a parent and have two kids in a playpen, you are in control of them. Does that you mean you force their every move? Of course not. They still do whatever they want, yet you stand above them, ready to intervene whenever necessary.


Ah, but you see, it is not only that he can, but that he does. I can't think of the reference off the top of my head, and I don't have the time to look it up, but either in the Psalms or Isaiah or both it says that God does whatever he pleases. Again, if something happened outside of his control and his will, he would not be in control.

I agree here! God does do whatever He pleases, and one of those things is giving us free will and not predestining everything! That's what God pleases most man, a REAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP, not a bunch of robots.


No, we are much more than puppets. God does not force us to do anything. We do according to his predestined will at all times, with no forcing required. We do it willingly. How does God make sure that we always do without forcing us? I'm not sure, really. If I were to get someone to do something, I would have to force them against their will. But God is not like me; his ways are not my ways. He can do it without forcing anyone to do it; they always do it willingly.

Do you see your contradiction here? You say God's ways are not your ways, yet in the same breath you claim that you do His will, which means your ways are His ways! You claim to do whatever God wants you to do. So yes, your ways are God's ways... By the way, according to you, Adam and Eve followed God's will willingly, so why did God want them to sin then?

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:50 AM
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
That is not exactly the same thing I have heard from other OVers. They have said that God predestined for it to happen, but that He did not predestine individuals to commit it. If God does not know the future, as OVers say, then he really could not have known ahead of time that there would have even been someone called "Pontius Pilate" and so could not predestine him to do anything.

The fact that you didn't hear it from other OV'ers means nothing to me. Who says they believe what I believe? I showed you biblically that they all were predestined, and that's that.


Did he predestine the individuals in the crowd? According to the Open View, he could not have, for he would not even have known that such individuals would have existed beforehand. The same with Pontius Pilate. If the future is unknowable for God, then it was impossible for him to know that there would be a Pontius Pilate, nor was it possible for him to know that Pilate would have become a ruler.

Yes, He predestined the crowd also. Let's read the verse again:

"the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

The Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together (the crowd) to do His will. Why in your mind does God have to know something before the beginning of creation for Him to know it at all? God worked the situation out as it panned out. Remeber, HE"S ALL POWERFUL.


No, not at all. For his predestination is the basis for his foreknowledge (OF EVENTS). Nothing could happen at all without him first predestining it to happen, and thus because he did from before the foundation of the world, he knew all that would take place.

Where does it say that God predestined the crowd and Pilate before the foundation of the world?



That sure is a lot of guessing to try to support the Open View. We need more solid evidence than you saying maybe it was kind of like this. The problem with that anyway, though, is that God predestined Christ to be slain from before the foundation of the world. So that plan was in jeopardy up until about 5 or 10 minutes before it happened. Surely you see that such an idea cannot be held up.

God didn't predestine Christ to be slain from the foundation fo the world. Your misreading that Revelation verse, we'll get to that in a minute.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:04 AM
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
Yes. That does not mean that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would do. You would even agree that he knows the hearts of men, so he would have known whether Abraham feared him or not, but these tests are for the benefit of the creature as well. God is glorified in these as well. You see, open theism is just plainly against Scripture at this point:
You agree that God is omniscient (knowing all things). His knowledge is complete, he knows all. There cannot be more than what he knows. Yet you say that when something new happens, his knowledge is made greater. So basically, at creation, God really knew very little compared to what he knows now. If he is continually learning more things, and thus his knowledge is continually increasing, then his knowledge now is much greater than it initially was. Such belief is a gross attempt to recreate God in the image of man. His ways are not ways, and we should not try to make them such. God knows no more now than he did at creation, for he knows everything.

Ah, but you can't say say "Yes" here. If God was telling the truth, then apparently He did not know this from the beginning of the world. Of course, He was speaking His sentence about the entire event, not just right when Abraham lifted the knife. So the fact that God knows hearts helps my view in this instance. Don't accuse me of saying that God learns, because I don't believe that. God knew that Abraham would either obey or disobey. He learned nothing. Abraham did exactly one of the two things God knew he could do.


It is not that God "peeks into the future". God predestined the future, and so knows what will happen. Perhaps you could explain your point further, so I do not go off in the wrong direction.

The reason i bring this up is because the Daniel prophecy of 70 weeks came out to 69. The prophecy of Tyre did not come out anywhere near exactly. If this is the case, and God predestined 70 weeks, why was it only 69? If God predestined Nebuchadnezzar's army to "plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise" in Ezek. 26:12, then why in Exek. 29:18 did "yet neither he nor his army recieve wages from Tyre"? Your view does not make sense. According to you God screwed up. He predestined one thing, yet another happened.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:06 AM
joelkaki:

doogieduff, I guess I have responded to all of your posts on page 9 now. How about taking a stab at this post of mine on page 9 copied below?

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

Let's read the entire verse. (Did you purposely leave the rest out?)

Revelation 13:8 "All who dwell on the earth will woship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

What was the name of the book? You think it's "The Book of Life", but I might disagree. The name of the book was "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain." So no, this verse doesn't say it was God's plan for Christ to be crucified from the foundation of the world.

Also, if the book is called Book of Life, then the "of the Lamb slain" part of the verse refers to possession.

"Revelation 17:8b "whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world,"

You see, you're separating Rev. 13:8 into two parts, one about the book, and one about the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This isn't the case at all. It's the book which exists from the foundation of the world, not the Lamb Slain.

Any more questions?

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:29 AM
Jaltus:

First off, I teach Koine Greek, so I know aorist participles.

Second, you do use scripture to interpret scripture, but you do not allow parallel verses to overrule the context of a specific verse. If Luke wanted to talk about salvation, he would have included it. You are importing from another text because that is the only way your point can stand. Luke never offers baptism as salvific in his gospel. For that matter, I would take Romans to show you that baptism is not salvific, but your dispensational presuppositions rule out the true use of scripture to interpret scripture, since you hold to certain books of the Bible only being able to interact with others.

The bottom line is that Luke is talking about baptism, not salvation. He says explicitly that the Pharisees thwarted God's plan. I know of no other way it could be said more plainly in scripture.

You didn't answer my question Jaltus.

What was God's will in Luke 7:30?

This is very important for this issue.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

This is an aorist participle, so you of all people should know that this verse states "In order to be saved, you must believe AND be baptized.

I know your answer will be "But the second part of the verse says that those who don't believe aren't condemned!" This is true. But who is going to get baptized if they aren't even a believer? Of course no one. The point still stands that part a of the verse is an aorist participle and clearly states one must do both to be saved.

[Jaltus]

You didn't answer my question Jaltus.

What was God's will in Luke 7:30?

This is very important for this issue.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

This is an aorist participle, so you of all people should know that this verse states "In order to be saved, you must believe AND be baptized.

I know your answer will be "But the second part of the verse says that those who don't believe aren't condemned!" This is true. But who is going to get baptized if they aren't even a believer? Of course no one. The point still stands that part a of the verse is an aorist participle and clearly states one must do both to be saved.
If you want to argue from grammar, let us argue from grammar.

o pisteusaV kai baptisqeiV swqhsetai

You will note that there is a single article governing both participles. You will also notice that they are participles and not finite forms. This means, since they are articular, that they are not imperatival. That means your suggestion "you must" as a valid understanding is in fact false. This verse does say that if one believes and is baptized, they will in fact be saved. However, it does not require both. It could very well say if one believes, is baptized, and eats ice cream, you will be saved. Only one of those must be necessary in order for the statement to be valid.

As for the participles being aorist, that really means little here other than this is a noniterative event.

How about Mark 13:13 = Matthew 24:13

"but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." No mention of baptism there.

Mark 10:52
And Jesus said to him, "Go; your faith has made you well." Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

Mind you, the word translated "made you well" is "saved." Faith is what saves, according to this verse.

Luke 6:50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Again, faith saved.

Luke 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Hmmm, faith is what matters here.

Luke 8:48 'And He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace."'

It is faith again, and the words "made you well" is actually "saved."

Luke 17:19 And He said to him, "Stand up and go; your faith has made you well."

Faith and saved.

There is only one mention of salvation with baptism, every single other mention of salvation comes with FAITH, not baptism. You need to reread the gospels.

That means that what matters in the passage we are actually discussing is baptism and NOT salvation, especially since no occurrence of baptism in the entire gospel of Luke deals with salvation, AFAIK.

Your entire argument has fallen apart, assuming you do really use scripture to interpret scripture. you see, if faith is what saves, it needs only be mentioned by itself. However, if it is baptism AND faith that saves, then the gospel authors were wrong every time they mention salvation ONLY with faith and not with baptism.

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but...:brow:

I hope you don't misunderstand our position... Faith is definitely a constant in every dispensation. We make a distinction between the means and the method of salvation. The means of salvation never changes. When Abram "believed God that his seed would be like the stars of the sky," in Genesis 15:6, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram and accounted him righteous. When we trust in Christ as our Savior today, that same blood is applied to us, and we also are accounted righteous. The means of salvation is always the same... The saving blood of Jesus Christ. The means of salvation never changes.

However, we believe that the method of salvation changes. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show his faith. For instance, God asked Noah to build an ark "for the saving of his soul..." Today, God asks man to show his faith by believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead. What we are saying is that at the opening of the gospels, God asked man to show faith by going out to John's baptism (Mark 1:1-4). The water was in no way magical, and didn't magically wash away the sins, but God asked man to show faith by going out to John's baptism. If they went out to John's baptism, they were acting in accordance with the way God was asking them to show faith...

Now, on to the aorist participles. You say you teach koine greek? Where do you teach? What textbooks do you teach from? Everything I have read concerning aorist participles contradict what you are putting forth here.

In fact, the word "aorist" comes from the Greek word aoristos which means "undefined" or "undetermined." It simply implies that action took place in the past without regard to it's duration.

The aorist participle, however, is quite different. The two main ideas with verbs (aorist or otherwise) are time and kind of action. Participles are verbal in nature, and the time of action is not absolute with them. The "time" of the aorist participle relates to the time of action of the main verb. For this reason, the augment (which indicates action in the past time) is absent in participles. Again, the time in aorist participles indicates action prior to the main verb. In the case of Mark 16:16, the time of "He who believes" and "He who is baptized" indicates completion of those acts prior to the action of the future tense "will be saved."

The action of the first aorist participle o pisteusas "He who believes" must be completed before the action of the future passive indicative 3rd person plural sothesetai "Will be saved" can take place. In other words, a person must believe to be saved, right? On what basis do you deny the fact the the second aorist participle baptisthesis "He who is baptized" must be interpreted any differently?

If you say that "He who believes" (Aorist Participle) must be completed before "Will be saved" (Main Verb), how do you toss out "He who is baptized" (Aorist Participle) and interpret it differently?

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Jaltus]

Jeremy,

I teach at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I use (unfortunately) Mounce's grammar.

The theory of participles you are advancing is out of date by over 30 years. The aorist does not refer to past tense, it refers to an action seen as completed from the authors point of view (I refer you to Stanley Porter's Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament for a full, if overly complicated, explanation).

The aorist participle, on the other hand, does not refer to subsequent timing of an action, but rather to the aspect of the action as well. In this case, the author is saying that baptism will be completed before salvation occurs (one could argue the timing is irrelevant, but need not).

Bottom line, the only form of the Greek verb which necessarily carries a time embedded within the tense-from is the future.

Hence, my explanation is correct according to the predominant theory of how the Greek verb acts.

I hope you don't misunderstand our position... Faith is definitely a constant in every dispensation. We make a distinction between the means and the method of salvation. The means of salvation never changes. When Abram "believed God that his seed would be like the stars of the sky," in Genesis 15:6, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram and accounted him righteous. When we trust in Christ as our Savior today, that same blood is applied to us, and we also are accounted righteous. The means of salvation is always the same... The saving blood of Jesus Christ. The means of salvation never changes.Yeah, I understood that.

However, we believe that the method of salvation changes. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show his faith. For instance, God asked Noah to build an ark "for the saving of his soul..." Today, God asks man to show his faith by believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead. What we are saying is that at the opening of the gospels, God asked man to show faith by going out to John's baptism (Mark 1:1-4). The water was in no way magical, and didn't magically wash away the sins, but God asked man to show faith by going out to John's baptism. If they went out to John's baptism, they were acting in accordance with the way God was asking them to show faith...
I see nothing in any text that claims John's baptism was salvific. The baptism was part of the Jewish ritualized cleansing, and John took it upon himself (as God laid on his heart) to make it a baptsim of repentance.

You want proof that the baptism was not salvific?

Luke 7
29 And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Do you really think that all of these people were saved? John lets us know that, other than the 12, most of Jesus' followers left Him when His teachings became difficult.

In any event, this still does not change the fact that the Pharisees reject God's plan for their lives. After all, one could say that by rejecting salvation they rejected God's plan for their lives.

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

Please re-read my post. I never implied that aorist participles showed past time. I was speaking in general, referring to the aorist tense. I agree with you that aorist participles show completed time from the writer's perspective. My point was that the action of the aorist participle must be completed before the action of the main verb can take place. This is the current teaching concerning aorist participles. Bill Mounce's website teaches the same thing. I sure hope you don't buy Mounce's "adverbial" and "adjectival" aorist participles. That doesn't make any sense to me? Maybe you could elaborate?

I own Mounce's grammar, and own the teacher's edition of his workbook on CD ROM. Let's look at how Mr. Mounce translates what he refers to as "adjectival participles"...Answers to The Basics of Biblical Greek March 28, 2002 page 35

Answers to Exercise 29: Adjectival Participles

PARSING
1. fer ouvsh/ V pres act ptcp, gen sg fem, fevrw, while carrying
2. ejnec qev nt i aor pas ptcp, dat sg masc/neut, fevrw, after being carried
3. sarx ivn dat pl fem, savrx, to fleshes
4. poivh sa n aor act ptcp, nom/acc sg neut, poievw, after doing
5. bal ov mena i aor mid ptcp, nom pl fem, bavllw, after being thrown
6. pros elq ov nt wn aor act ptcp, gen pl masc/neut, prosevrcomai, after coming to
7. ej poiãh sa n aor act ind, 3 pl, poievw, they did
8. gravy a sin aor act ptcp, dat pl masc/neut, gravfw, after writing
9. khruvss ou si pres act ptcp, dat pl masc/neut, khruvssw, while proclaiming
pres act ind, 3 pl, khruvssw, they are proclaiming
10. baptiz o mevno u pres mid/pas ptcp, gen sg masc/neut, baptivzw, while being baptizedMr. Mounce rightly notes that many of his examples do in fact show past time. He clarifies, however, that it is past time from the writers perspective. Mr. Mounce also shows that the aorist participle shows completed action prior to the action of the main verb. Let's look at his translations from the same exercises.TRANSLATION

1. John 1:29 He sees Jesus coming to him and says, Behold the lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world.
2. John 4:26 Jesus says to her, I am he, the one who is speaking to you.
3. John 3:21 But the one doing the truth comes to the light.
4. John 12:45 And the one who sees me sees the one who sent me.
5. Mark 13:11 For you are not the ones speaking but the Holy Spirit.
6. Mark 16:5 And after coming to the tomb they saw a youth sitting on the right side.
7. Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.
8. Mark 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and
glory.
9. John 14:21 The one who has my commandments and keeps them, that one is the one who
loves me; but the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him.
10. John 3:18 The one believing in him is not judged; but the one not believing already has been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
11. Mark 9:17 And one of the crowd answered him, Teacher, I have brought my son to you, who has a dumb spirit.
12. Mark 2:3 And they come, bearing a paralytic to him, being carried by four men.
13. Mark 6:49 But those who saw him walking on the sea thought that it is 9 a ghost.
14. John 15:21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.
15. Mark 12:26-27 I am the God of Abraham and [the] God of Isaac and [the] God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
16. John 6:14 Therefore the men, after seeing the sign that he did were saying, This is truly the prophet who is coming into the world.
17. John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I will raise him up the last day.

9 Probably should be translated in context as, was, but see the footnote in the exercises.Notice, each of these passages that Mr. Mounce himself translates shows completed action prior to the main verb. Because of the actual event, and the context, some do refer to past time from the writers perspective. This happens because it was a completed action at the time the verse was written, thus holding to the grammatical rule.

Next you say,I see nothing in any text that claims John's baptism was salvific. The baptism was part of the Jewish ritualized cleansing, and John took it upon himself (as God laid on his heart) to make it a baptsim of repentance.Ah, but you fail to finish the idea.Mark 1
1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
1:2
As it is written in the Prophets: "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You."
1:3
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.' "
1:4
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.You see, John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Again, the water was in no way magical, but rather, God asked man to show faith by going out to John in the Jordan and be baptized. That's exactly what the people who believed did...Matthew 3
3:5
Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him
3:6
and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.Jesus waited until all who desired to show their faith by being baptized went out to John, and then He went to John.Mark 1
1:5
Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Luke 3
3:3
And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
3:21
When [i]all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened.
3:22
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."You see Jaltus, God asked man to show faith by going out to John's baptism. The lawyers and pharisees rejected this for themselves, and were therefore not saved. You said,You want proof that the baptism was not salvific?

Luke 7
29 And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Do you really think that all of these people were saved? John lets us know that, other than the 12, most of Jesus' followers left Him when His teachings became difficult.

In any event, this still does not change the fact that the Pharisees reject God's plan for their lives. After all, one could say that by rejecting salvation they rejected God's plan for their lives.We agree here... The lawyers and pharisees were not saved! That's what I've been trying to say all along. God required the people to go out to John by faith and receive a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The lawyers and pharisees did not do this. They rejected God's will not having been baptized by John. They were not saved! I hope this clears up my position, and I hope we are on the same page now...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

I would also ask that you consider the eis in Acts 2:38 in this discussion.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

That's pretty sick dude. My God doesn't need to murder people for His ultimate plan to come about. You say God did not force them, yet later in this post, you say we all do God's will without Him forcing us too. So basically God's will was to murder thousands of innocent people. Lovely.


God does not murder people. Those 19 Muslims murdered the people. But their actions were part of God's plan. God certainly knew that would happen. He was not out of control. It was not as if he wanted those buildings to keep standing, but they thwarted him. Besides the Bible speaks of God causing calamity.

Amos 3:6
If there is a calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

This does not mean that God is the author of evil, but rather that he "sovereignly brings disaster or adversity on individuals and nations as just punishment." (From New Geneva Study Bible)

So no matter what your feelings are on this subject, if Scripture teaches it, as I just demonstrated, then we must accept it.


Joel

[joelkaki]

“
If anything is not controlled by God, then he is not in control. If that thing happened outside of his plan, and outside of his control, then he was not truly in control. ”



If you are a parent and have two kids in a playpen, you are in control of them. Does that you mean you force their every move? Of course not. They still do whatever they want, yet you stand above them, ready to intervene whenever necessary.

Your analogy is somewhat lacking. If they do something that you do not want them to do, then they are not completely under your control. You may have the power to stop them, but that does not mean you are in control. You are not in complete control if they keep doing things you tell them not to do.


“
Ah, but you see, it is not only that he can, but that he does. I can't think of the reference off the top of my head, and I don't have the time to look it up, but either in the Psalms or Isaiah or both it says that God does whatever he pleases. Again, if something happened outside of his control and his will, he would not be in control. ”



I agree here! God does do whatever He pleases, and one of those things is giving us free will and not predestining everything! That's what God pleases most man, a REAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP, not a bunch of robots.

Give me one passage that tells us that God has given us complete free will outside of his sovereignty. God wants a relationship in which HE IS SUBJECT to the whims of HIS SUBJECTS? In otherwords, we can hurt God, we can thwart his plans, stop his purposes? That is sick to me, and not only that, I don't see it in Scripture.


“
No, we are much more than puppets. God does not force us to do anything. We do according to his predestined will at all times, with no forcing required. We do it willingly. How does God make sure that we always do without forcing us? I'm not sure, really. If I were to get someone to do something, I would have to force them against their will. But God is not like me; his ways are not my ways. He can do it without forcing anyone to do it; they always do it willingly. ”



Do you see your contradiction here? You say God's ways are not your ways, yet in the same breath you claim that you do His will, which means your ways are His ways! You claim to do whatever God wants you to do. So yes, your ways are God's ways... By the way, according to you, Adam and Eve followed God's will willingly, so why did God want them to sin then?

You are not making sense. So whenever you obey God's commands, your ways are his ways? That is just totally wrong, I'm sorry. That doesn't make your ways his ways. We can't do things in the same way that he does. His ways are not ways--he is not bound by our ways. He can do whatever he wants. We can't.

Joel

[joelkaki]

“
Did he predestine the individuals in the crowd? According to the Open View, he could not have, for he would not even have known that such individuals would have existed beforehand. The same with Pontius Pilate. If the future is unknowable for God, then it was impossible for him to know that there would be a Pontius Pilate, nor was it possible for him to know that Pilate would have become a ruler. ”

Yes, He predestined the crowd also.

If he predestined individuals, then those individuals had no free will according to your standards of free will.
OK, I'll show you logically here how you contradict yourself with the example of Pilate:
1. You claim that individuals (including Pilate therefore) have libertarian free will, being able to choose between 2 things without any outside coercion.
2. You also claim that in my view, since I say God predestined people to do things that are against what he commands, then he caused evil.
Here is the logical problem:
-- If God predestined Pilate (regardless of whether it was before the foundation of the world or 10 minutes before) to allow the Jews to crucify Jesus, then Pilate had to allow them to crucify Jesus. He did not have libertarian free will. He could not freely choose to decide not to let them crucify Christ.
--- Since you claim that God predestining something such as a murder to happen is God causing evil, then you are saying that God caused evil, was the author of the evil of Christ's murder.
---- Should you object, and say that Pilate could have chosen otherwise, then God's plans were at risk, and our entire salvation was dependent on the whimsy choice of man.


Let's read the verse again:

"the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

The Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together (the crowd) to do His will. Why in your mind does God have to know something before the beginning of creation for Him to know it at all? God worked the situation out as it panned out. Remeber, HE"S ALL POWERFUL.

My above argument shows why it is wrong, but here is something else. If God did not plan for Pilate and the individuals in the crowd to crucify Christ until a very short time beforehand, then his plan was again in jeopardy. Actually since God does not know the future, he could not have known that Pilate would be there to pass sentence on Christ up until the actual time he was there. I'm sorry, but God's plans are not conjured up at the last moment, depending on his creatures whimsy.


“
No, not at all. For his predestination is the basis for his foreknowledge (OF EVENTS). Nothing could happen at all without him first predestining it to happen, and thus because he did from before the foundation of the world, he knew all that would take place. ”

Where does it say that God predestined the crowd and Pilate before the foundation of the world?

I don't believe it does. The timing of it is really irrelevant. (Although if you did say he predestined Pilate and the individuals before the foundation of the world, my argument from an earlier post still stands, and the crucifixion could not have been known beforehand to happen.) My above argument shows that regardless the timing, you cannot hold to God predestining Pilate and the individuals in the crowd inside of your view.

Joel

[yxboom]

Joel please in the Subject refer to whom you are responding otherwise multiple posts back to back is not allowed unless addressing seperate individuals. Thanks.

[joelkaki]

Ah, but you can't say say "Yes" here. If God was telling the truth, then apparently He did not know this from the beginning of the world. Of course, He was speaking His sentence about the entire event, not just right when Abraham lifted the knife. So the fact that God knows hearts helps my view in this instance.


Yes, I can. However, I am not sure this is the exact explanation, but there is a difference between experential knowledge, and knowing it will happen. God then experientally knew that Abraham feared him. But he always knew his heart anyway. Besides, in narrative, anthropopathisms (spelling?) are used.

Don't accuse me of saying that God learns, because I don't believe that. God knew that Abraham would either obey or disobey. He learned nothing. Abraham did exactly one of the two things God knew he could do.

Whether you acknowledge you believe it or not, that is the logical conclusion of your view. "God knew that Abraham would either obey or disobey." That's like the joke I've heard little kids say (at least they thought it was funny)--"I know what you are going to do. You are going to either say yes or no." Which is like, "Duh." Anybody knows you are either going to do one or the other. You are limiting God to the human realm, and that is wrong.
According to this, God did learn, for he learned that Abraham would do what he did. He did not know that before, he afterwards did. How then did he acqure that additional knowledge? He learned from Abraham's decision. You can deny that all you want, but the fact remains that in your view, God learns.
To twist this for a second, think about this:
I know that if I ask someone if they like peanut butter, they will answer either yes or no. (Let's assume we don't have one of those people who halfway likes it and halfway doesn't or some such thing). So, when they say yes, do I not learn that they like peanut butter? Or is it not learning simply because I knew that they would say one or the other? Surely you see the ridiculousness of that. If they said yes, then I learned that they liked peanut butter. If God only knew Abraham feared him ex post facto then he learned. It is as simple as that. You are molding God into man's image.


Joel

[joelkaki]

“ Today @ 11:06 AM
joelkaki:

doogieduff, I guess I have responded to all of your posts on page 9 now. How about taking a stab at this post of mine on page 9 copied below?

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 ”



Let's read the entire verse. (Did you purposely leave the rest out?)

Revelation 13:8 "All who dwell on the earth will woship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

What was the name of the book? You think it's "The Book of Life", but I might disagree. The name of the book was "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain." So no, this verse doesn't say it was God's plan for Christ to be crucified from the foundation of the world.

Also, if the book is called Book of Life, then the "of the Lamb slain" part of the verse refers to possession.

"Revelation 17:8b "whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world,"

You see, you're separating Rev. 13:8 into two parts, one about the book, and one about the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This isn't the case at all. It's the book which exists from the foundation of the world, not the Lamb Slain.

Any more questions?

This seems sad to me that you would come up with another name for the book just to fit your theology. The name of the Book is the book of life.

Revelation 21:27
...but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."

The name is the Book of Life. And the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. And Open Theism is unbiblical.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45035#post45035)
joelkaki:


God does not murder people. Those 19 Muslims murdered the people. But their actions were part of God's plan. God certainly knew that would happen. He was not out of control. It was not as if he wanted those buildings to keep standing, but they thwarted him. Besides the Bible speaks of God causing calamity.

Amos 3:6
If there is a calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

This does not mean that God is the author of evil, but rather that he "sovereignly brings disaster or adversity on individuals and nations as just punishment." (From New Geneva Study Bible)

So no matter what your feelings are on this subject, if Scripture teaches it, as I just demonstrated, then we must accept it.


Joel

You're so hypocritical, and I truly wish you could see it. You say God didn't murder people, then in your next breath, you say God brings about disaster on people. Which is it? Did God do it or not? A small child would would even comprehend that if you told him God did something for His ultimate plan, that He in fact DID DO IT! Plus I love your last comment too.

"If scriptures teach it, we must do it."

That's brilliant! Let's read Matthew:

Matthew 16:20 "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ."

Let's all follow your great logic joelkaki. No one is tell anybody about Jesus Christ. We might as well shut this website down everybody because joelkaki said if scripture teaches it, we must accept it! :argh:

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45042#post45042)
joelkaki:


Your analogy is somewhat lacking. If they do something that you do not want them to do, then they are not completely under your control. You may have the power to stop them, but that does not mean you are in control. You are not in complete control if they keep doing things you tell them not to do.

So you're saying that we have never done something God didn't want us to do!? Because according to your logic, then God's not completely in control. That's just as good as your last comment. :bonk: God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet they still did it! So you're admitting that according to your view, God wasn't in complete control. Hypocritical!



Give me one passage that tells us that God has given us complete free will outside of his sovereignty. God wants a relationship in which HE IS SUBJECT to the whims of HIS SUBJECTS? In otherwords, we can hurt God, we can thwart his plans, stop his purposes? That is sick to me, and not only that, I don't see it in Scripture.

God wants everyone to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4. That's His purpose. Sorry to say, that won't happen. Does it grieve God that all men won't be saved? You bet. Not according to John Calvin though. From what I've heard from you, he's your god. Let's quote Johnny boy.

Calvin's Institutes--Ages Digital Library Version 5, Book 3 Page 1056 - "Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children."

That's beautiful folks. God is pleased to send people to hell. I'm so glad I'm not a calvinist. All those aborted babies that weren't elect went to hell too right?

You don't see a grieved God in the scriptures? Are you reading the same Bible as me? God regretted that He made man. (Genesis) God regretted setting up Saul as king. (2 Samuel) Did we hurt God? You bet. Oh wait, according to you, those are only anthropopathisms. It's a calvinist's favorite word. Anything that goes against their beliefs, well, it doesn't really mean what it says? Well what does it mean joelkaki!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what? I believe all passages talking about salvation are also anthropopathisms! Nobody is really saved joelkaki! Can you refute this!?



You are not making sense. So whenever you obey God's commands, your ways are his ways? That is just totally wrong, I'm sorry. That doesn't make your ways his ways. We can't do things in the same way that he does. His ways are not ways--he is not bound by our ways. He can do whatever he wants. We can't.

Joel

You fail to answer my qustion once again. But that's ok, what should I expect from joelkaki? You said God's ways are not our ways. Then you said, you do everything in which God wants you to do. Basically your a puppet. Your ways are exactly what God's wants your ways to be. Therefore, your ways are God's ways for you. :duh:

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45056#post45056)
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
If he predestined individuals, then those individuals had no free will according to your standards of free will.
OK, I'll show you logically here how you contradict yourself with the example of Pilate:
1. You claim that individuals (including Pilate therefore) have libertarian free will, being able to choose between 2 things without any outside coercion.
2. You also claim that in my view, since I say God predestined people to do things that are against what he commands, then he caused evil.
Here is the logical problem:
-- If God predestined Pilate (regardless of whether it was before the foundation of the world or 10 minutes before) to allow the Jews to crucify Jesus, then Pilate had to allow them to crucify Jesus. He did not have libertarian free will. He could not freely choose to decide not to let them crucify Christ.
--- Since you claim that God predestining something such as a murder to happen is God causing evil, then you are saying that God caused evil, was the author of the evil of Christ's murder.
---- Should you object, and say that Pilate could have chosen otherwise, then God's plans were at risk, and our entire salvation was dependent on the whimsy choice of man.

You don't know the open view dude. We admit that God intervenes on our free will for His plans to come about. That clearly shows God doen't know the future, or He wouldn't have to do that.



My above argument shows why it is wrong, but here is something else. If God did not plan for Pilate and the individuals in the crowd to crucify Christ until a very short time beforehand, then his plan was again in jeopardy. Actually since God does not know the future, he could not have known that Pilate would be there to pass sentence on Christ up until the actual time he was there. I'm sorry, but God's plans are not conjured up at the last moment, depending on his creatures whimsy.

Show this biblically, You're claiming to know what God could or could not have known. Are you doing what you claim OV does? Hypocritical...

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45064#post45064)
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
Whether you acknowledge you believe it or not, that is the logical conclusion of your view. "God knew that Abraham would either obey or disobey." That's like the joke I've heard little kids say (at least they thought it was funny)--"I know what you are going to do. You are going to either say yes or no." Which is like, "Duh." Anybody knows you are either going to do one or the other. You are limiting God to the human realm, and that is wrong.
According to this, God did learn, for he learned that Abraham would do what he did. He did not know that before, he afterwards did. How then did he acqure that additional knowledge? He learned from Abraham's decision. You can deny that all you want, but the fact remains that in your view, God learns.
To twist this for a second, think about this:
I know that if I ask someone if they like peanut butter, they will answer either yes or no. (Let's assume we don't have one of those people who halfway likes it and halfway doesn't or some such thing). So, when they say yes, do I not learn that they like peanut butter? Or is it not learning simply because I knew that they would say one or the other? Surely you see the ridiculousness of that. If they said yes, then I learned that they liked peanut butter. If God only knew Abraham feared him ex post facto then he learned. It is as simple as that. You are molding God into man's image.


Joel

Can God read hearts and minds? Yes. We can't. I'm not putting God into man's image, don't accuse me of doing so.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45069#post45069)
joelkaki:


This seems sad to me that you would come up with another name for the book just to fit your theology. The name of the Book is the book of life.

Revelation 21:27
...but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."

The name is the Book of Life. And the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. And Open Theism is unbiblical.

Joel

Read my post before responding to it. The "of" refers to possession. The "Book of LIfe" was of the lamb slain. It was HIS! And the book was from the foundation of the world. This is common sense. :zzz: You even showed it was His book by your verse.

[doogieduff]

joelkaki,

Act 9_12out totally exposed you! You make comments about God not repenting, then you won't debate it because you haven't studied it! How stupid is that. You want to debate mode of baptism, yet you don't even know if it's necessary for us to do anyways! I love it. How can you claim to be right if you have not studied the OV or any other view for that matter? You just know your calvinism yet you're scared to debate something outside of it.

Here's what Acts 9_12out would do to you :) --> :fight:

For those wondering what I'm talking about, check out the coach's quarters, where joelkaki was called out about comments he actually made in his posts on different threads. Now that his feet are held to the fire, he doesn't want to back up what he says.

[joelkaki]

joelkaki,

Act 9_12out totally exposed you! You make comments about God not repenting, then you won't debate it because you haven't studied it! How stupid is that. You want to debate mode of baptism, yet you don't even know if it's necessary for us to do anyways! I love it. How can you claim to be right if you have not studied the OV or any other view for that matter? You just know your calvinism yet you're scared to debate something outside of it.

I have not studied it ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate out of it. I know if it is necessary, but I want to debate the mode. I have studied the OV view and other views. You claim I'm scared to debate only Calvinism, yet Acts 9 won't debate me on the issues I asked about, and only is wanting to debate whether God repents, and I don't see you attacking him. So, if you don't mind, please don't attack me personally; I don't care about Scriptural attacks, but personal, yes, those have no place. Oh, and one other thing: I am only in high school, so in a formal debate setting with an adult who has hosted radio programs on a topic I have not had the time to study ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate material on it, of course I would rather not debate it. He exposed me, yep.


Here's what Acts 9_12out would do to you :) -->

Maybe so on that topic, since I haven't studied it enough to support my position eloquently and simply don't have enough material in my head on it to put out a minimum of 5 rounds worth of stuff on it.


For those wondering what I'm talking about, check out the coach's quarters, where joelkaki was called out about comments he actually made in his posts on different threads. Now that his feet are held to the fire, he doesn't want to back up what he says.

If the moderator has approved my post, see my explanation. Why don't you come and take up my challenge on limited atonement?

Joel

[joelkaki]

Read my post before responding to it. The "of" refers to possession. The "Book of LIfe" was of the lamb slain. It was HIS! And the book was from the foundation of the world. This is common sense. You even showed it was His book by your verse.

I guess on Revelation 13:8 we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just because it shows possession does not mean that it cannot be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It seems to me that the Greek could go either way, thus nothing can be absolutely proven from that text alone about this, so I guess we'll have to drop this particular point.

“ Yesterday @ 07:43 PM post located here
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
If he predestined individuals, then those individuals had no free will according to your standards of free will.
OK, I'll show you logically here how you contradict yourself with the example of Pilate:
1. You claim that individuals (including Pilate therefore) have libertarian free will, being able to choose between 2 things without any outside coercion.
2. You also claim that in my view, since I say God predestined people to do things that are against what he commands, then he caused evil.
Here is the logical problem:
-- If God predestined Pilate (regardless of whether it was before the foundation of the world or 10 minutes before) to allow the Jews to crucify Jesus, then Pilate had to allow them to crucify Jesus. He did not have libertarian free will. He could not freely choose to decide not to let them crucify Christ.
--- Since you claim that God predestining something such as a murder to happen is God causing evil, then you are saying that God caused evil, was the author of the evil of Christ's murder.
---- Should you object, and say that Pilate could have chosen otherwise, then God's plans were at risk, and our entire salvation was dependent on the whimsy choice of man. ”

You don't know the open view dude. We admit that God intervenes on our free will for His plans to come about. That clearly shows God doen't know the future, or He wouldn't have to do that.

“
My above argument shows why it is wrong, but here is something else. If God did not plan for Pilate and the individuals in the crowd to crucify Christ until a very short time beforehand, then his plan was again in jeopardy. Actually since God does not know the future, he could not have known that Pilate would be there to pass sentence on Christ up until the actual time he was there. I'm sorry, but God's plans are not conjured up at the last moment, depending on his creatures whimsy. ”

Show this biblically, You're claiming to know what God could or could not have known. Are you doing what you claim OV does? Hypocritical...

Doogieduff, you failed to answer even a tiny bit of my argument. All you have done is claim I have no knowledge and that I am a hypocrite. Such tactics in debate do not work. You haven't proven a thing.
When I say that God predestines all our actions, including the ones against his preceptive will, you cry foul, and say that God caused sin.
But then you turn right around and say that in this particular situation, God did violate free will, caused someone to do something against his preceptive will, and yet you say he doesn't cause evil.
You must either retract what you have said about my view, or cease to claim that God predestined Pilate and the individuals in the crowd to crucify Christ.
You cannot hold both that
1. God cannot predestine evil actions and yet not be the author of sin, and
2. God predestined an evil action in the case of Christ's crucifixion, and yet is not the author of sin.
Such is an illogical position, not to mention unbiblical.

“ Yesterday @ 07:23 PM post located here
joelkaki:


God does not murder people. Those 19 Muslims murdered the people. But their actions were part of God's plan. God certainly knew that would happen. He was not out of control. It was not as if he wanted those buildings to keep standing, but they thwarted him. Besides the Bible speaks of God causing calamity.

Amos 3:6
If there is a calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

This does not mean that God is the author of evil, but rather that he "sovereignly brings disaster or adversity on individuals and nations as just punishment." (From New Geneva Study Bible)

So no matter what your feelings are on this subject, if Scripture teaches it, as I just demonstrated, then we must accept it.


Joel ”

You're so hypocritical, and I truly wish you could see it. You say God didn't murder people, then in your next breath, you say God brings about disaster on people. Which is it? Did God do it or not? A small child would would even comprehend that if you told him God did something for His ultimate plan, that He in fact DID DO IT! Plus I love your last comment too.

God did predestine it. The 19 men actually did it. And they did it willingly. They chose to do it freely. God did not force them. And thus they are responsible.


"If scriptures teach it, we must do it."

That's brilliant! Let's read Matthew:

Matthew 16:20 "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ."

Let's all follow your great logic joelkaki. No one is tell anybody about Jesus Christ. We might as well shut this website down everybody because joelkaki said if scripture teaches it, we must accept it!

Surely you see the illogicalness(is this a word?) of that argument, not to mention unsound exegesis. He commanded HIS DISCIPLES. He did not command everyone that they could not tell about him for all time. He commanded his disciples. He did not command us about it.
But Scripture clearly showed in the verse I presented that God brought about a calamity for his purposes. God has the right to judge people through calamity. And that may have been his purpose on 9/11.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Joel please in the Subject refer to whom you are responding otherwise multiple posts back to back is not allowed unless addressing seperate individuals. Thanks.

Sorry, yx, I didn't notice your post until just now. So if I combined them into one post, it would be alright?

Joel

[yxboom]

Today @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46649#post46649)
joelkaki:

Joel please in the Subject refer to whom you are responding otherwise multiple posts back to back is not allowed unless addressing seperate individuals. Thanks.

Sorry, yx, I didn't notice your post until just now. So if I combined them into one post, it would be alright?

Joel That would be ideal thanks.

[doogieduff]

03-26-2003 @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45932#post45932)
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
I have not studied it ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate out of it. I know if it is necessary, but I want to debate the mode. I have studied the OV view and other views. You claim I'm scared to debate only Calvinism, yet Acts 9 won't debate me on the issues I asked about, and only is wanting to debate whether God repents, and I don't see you attacking him. So, if you don't mind, please don't attack me personally; I don't care about Scriptural attacks, but personal, yes, those have no place. Oh, and one other thing: I am only in high school, so in a formal debate setting with an adult who has hosted radio programs on a topic I have not had the time to study ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate material on it, of course I would rather not debate it. He exposed me, yep.

This post explains a lot of things.
1. You know that baptism is necesssary, yet you want to debate the mode. Let me ask you this. Acts9 doesn't think it is necessary, so why would he want to debate the mode? Do you see how foolish that is? If you KNOW that it is necessary, then debate that with him. In his mind, there is no mode, because it's not necessary, so it's stupid to debate it.

2. The fact that you're in high school shows a lot. (I'm a teen too!) But anyways, I can tell now which posts are yours and which are your teachers. We'll get more to this in a minute.



Maybe so on that topic, since I haven't studied it enough to support my position eloquently and simply don't have enough material in my head on it to put out a minimum of 5 rounds worth of stuff on it.

This post really concerns me dude and I hope you'll listen to me now. You say that you haven't studied it enough to support your position, which means you have a position without evidence! This is not good. You shouldn't believe something without knowing first whether it's true or not. It's blatantly apparent that you have some set of beliefs and haven't even studied it first. This is not cool.

1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear"



If the moderator has approved my post, see my explanation. Why don't you come and take up my challenge on limited atonement?

Joel

You're on. Let's go!

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 09:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46639#post46639)
joelkaki:

I guess on Revelation 13:8 we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just because it shows possession does not mean that it cannot be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It seems to me that the Greek could go either way, thus nothing can be absolutely proven from that text alone about this, so I guess we'll have to drop this particular point.

Sorry, I can't agree to disagree here. I can prove it does not say what you want it to say. You see, we need to exegete the passage. You're isogeting it, which is making it say what will support your set of beliefs. So, all opinions set aside, let's read the context and figure out what it says.

John recognized Jesus as the Lamb.

John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, 'Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

It's clear here that John knew Jesus as the lamb. This is very important and we'll touch back on it in a minute. Many passages talk about the Book of LIfe. Phillipians 4:3, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Revelation 20:12, Revelation 20:15, Revelation 21:27, and Revelation 22:19. Let's focus on the 3 verses here which are relevant to our discussion.

Revelation 17:8 "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

This verse clearly tells us that the Book of Life is from the foundation of the world. I don't think there's really any arguement here. Next verse...

Revelation 21:27 "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."

This verse clearly tells us that the Book of Life is the Lamb's. It belongs to Him.

Now let's reread the verse with this knowledge of what's going on:

Revelation 13:8 "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life (whose book of life?) of the Lamb slain (when is the book from?) from the foundation of the world."

You see, John knew Jesus as the Lamb, yet when he wrote Revelation around 90 AD, Jesus had already been crucified, so John now knew Him as the Lamb slain. So that's why John wrote the verse as he did.

I'm really concerned for you and I hope you are being taught by well informed and intelligent people. It's so easy to find single verses in the bible which appear to support one's belief yet, a true exegete of the passage will prove otherwise. God doesn't want the Bible to be a Dr. Seuss book. It is tough, but the answers are definitely there. If you are being taught Calvinism and single verses are shown to you without any other verses supporting it I would strongly recommend you challenge your teachers. Don't be misled...seek the truth, not one's opinion.

[joelkaki]

“ Yesterday @ 07:30 PM post located here
joelkaki:


Your analogy is somewhat lacking. If they do something that you do not want them to do, then they are not completely under your control. You may have the power to stop them, but that does not mean you are in control. You are not in complete control if they keep doing things you tell them not to do. ”



So you're saying that we have never done something God didn't want us to do!? Because according to your logic, then God's not completely in control. That's just as good as your last comment. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet they still did it! So you're admitting that according to your view, God wasn't in complete control. Hypocritical!

There is a difference between God' preceptive will and his decretive will. His preceptive, or revealed will, is given to us in the Scriptures. He tells us what he wants us to do. His decretive will, or his sovereign, unrevealed will, we don't know ahead of time. So yes, we do things God doesn't want us to. But it was yet willed by him for our greater good and his greater glory.


“
Give me one passage that tells us that God has given us complete free will outside of his sovereignty. God wants a relationship in which HE IS SUBJECT to the whims of HIS SUBJECTS? In otherwords, we can hurt God, we can thwart his plans, stop his purposes? That is sick to me, and not only that, I don't see it in Scripture. ”

God wants everyone to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4. That's His purpose. Sorry to say, that won't happen. Does it grieve God that all men won't be saved? You bet. Not according to John Calvin though. From what I've heard from you, he's your god. Let's quote Johnny boy.

Calvin's Institutes--Ages Digital Library Version 5, Book 3 Page 1056 - "Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children."

That's beautiful folks. God is pleased to send people to hell. I'm so glad I'm not a calvinist. All those aborted babies that weren't elect went to hell too right?

Unless I am mistaken, I haven't mentioned Calvin's name except as included in the word Calvinism (the 5 points of Calvinism were not initiated by him). He is most certainly not my god. Personal attacks and appeals to emotions do not get us anywhere.
If you look at the 1st couple verses of 1 Tim 2, you will see that it says we are to pray for all men. Does that mean all men without exception? Or in other words, are we to pray for every single man that has ever lived? I do not believe so. I believe all men means all men without distinction. Or, in other words, all types of men. And Paul goes on to list some groups--kings, those in authority. We should not expect this definition of all men to change from the first verses to verse 4.
Having said that, I do believe that there is a sense in which God wants every man to be saved. I won't elaborate on that here, but you can look at Gavin's thread "Are there two wills in God?" where he deals with that issue.
Should "all men" in 1 Tim 2:4 mean all without exception, that still does not prove the point. That does not mean they exercised free will OUTSIDE OF his sovereignty.


You don't see a grieved God in the scriptures? Are you reading the same Bible as me? God regretted that He made man. (Genesis) God regretted setting up Saul as king. (2 Samuel) Did we hurt God? You bet. Oh wait, according to you, those are only anthropopathisms. It's a calvinist's favorite word. Anything that goes against their beliefs, well, it doesn't really mean what it says? Well what does it mean joelkaki!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what? I believe all passages talking about salvation are also anthropopathisms! Nobody is really saved joelkaki! Can you refute this!?

I will refer you to my latest comments on the thread "The Logical Impossibility of Open View Dispensationalism" in the Dispensationalism section. I dealt with God's repenting there; there is also a quote from John Piper there that really gets to the essence of what I am saying.


“
You are not making sense. So whenever you obey God's commands, your ways are his ways? That is just totally wrong, I'm sorry. That doesn't make your ways his ways. We can't do things in the same way that he does. His ways are not ways--he is not bound by our ways. He can do whatever he wants. We can't.

Joel ”

You fail to answer my qustion once again. But that's ok, what should I expect from joelkaki? You said God's ways are not our ways. Then you said, you do everything in which God wants you to do. Basically your a puppet. Your ways are exactly what God's wants your ways to be. Therefore, your ways are God's ways for you.

It is not the same thing to say "My ways are exactly what God wants my ways to be," as it is to say, "My ways are God's ways." You're really not making sense here. God works in ways that I cannot work--they are beyond me.


“ Yesterday @ 07:57 PM post located here
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
Whether you acknowledge you believe it or not, that is the logical conclusion of your view. "God knew that Abraham would either obey or disobey." That's like the joke I've heard little kids say (at least they thought it was funny)--"I know what you are going to do. You are going to either say yes or no." Which is like, "Duh." Anybody knows you are either going to do one or the other. You are limiting God to the human realm, and that is wrong.
According to this, God did learn, for he learned that Abraham would do what he did. He did not know that before, he afterwards did. How then did he acqure that additional knowledge? He learned from Abraham's decision. You can deny that all you want, but the fact remains that in your view, God learns.
To twist this for a second, think about this:
I know that if I ask someone if they like peanut butter, they will answer either yes or no. (Let's assume we don't have one of those people who halfway likes it and halfway doesn't or some such thing). So, when they say yes, do I not learn that they like peanut butter? Or is it not learning simply because I knew that they would say one or the other? Surely you see the ridiculousness of that. If they said yes, then I learned that they liked peanut butter. If God only knew Abraham feared him ex post facto then he learned. It is as simple as that. You are molding God into man's image.


Joel ”

Can God read hearts and minds? Yes. We can't. I'm not putting God into man's image, don't accuse me of doing so.

You completely fail to answer the question even in the slightest. You did not refute my argument (or accusation if you want) at all, so merely telling me you are not doing what I am saying you are proves nothing. Disprove my argument. If God knew that Abraham would choose to fear for certain only after the fact, then he learned something. Merely knowing the options is what man does. God knows the certainties too. You can't put God in the shape of a man. If God only knew the options, and then afterwards knew the certainty, then he learned. There is no way around that fact.

“ 03-26-2003 @ 11:04 PM post located here
joelkaki:

[QUOTE]
I have not studied it ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate out of it. I know if it is necessary, but I want to debate the mode. I have studied the OV view and other views. You claim I'm scared to debate only Calvinism, yet Acts 9 won't debate me on the issues I asked about, and only is wanting to debate whether God repents, and I don't see you attacking him. So, if you don't mind, please don't attack me personally; I don't care about Scriptural attacks, but personal, yes, those have no place. Oh, and one other thing: I am only in high school, so in a formal debate setting with an adult who has hosted radio programs on a topic I have not had the time to study ENOUGH to put out 5 rounds worth of debate material on it, of course I would rather not debate it. He exposed me, yep. ”

This post explains a lot of things.
1. You know that baptism is necesssary, yet you want to debate the mode. Let me ask you this. Acts9 doesn't think it is necessary, so why would he want to debate the mode? Do you see how foolish that is? If you KNOW that it is necessary, then debate that with him. In his mind, there is no mode, because it's not necessary, so it's stupid to debate it.

If you will read my post carefully, you will see that I did not say baptism is necessary. I said, "if it is necessary." I believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Is there something wrong with just offering a simple debate topic these days?


2. The fact that you're in high school shows a lot. (I'm a teen too!) But anyways, I can tell now which posts are yours and which are your teachers. We'll get more to this in a minute.

My teachers? I'm afraid you are a little mistaken on that. I read a lot, but I don't really have people teaching me a lot of this stuff. Obviously, of course, my basic theological foundation has been taught to me by my parents since I was litle, but my arguments come from my own study.
Hey, at least I ain't the only one around here who isn't "old."(no offense meant to you other people)


“
Maybe so on that topic, since I haven't studied it enough to support my position eloquently and simply don't have enough material in my head on it to put out a minimum of 5 rounds worth of stuff on it. ”

This post really concerns me dude and I hope you'll listen to me now. You say that you haven't studied it enough to support your position, which means you have a position without evidence!

Please read all of my posts, and read all of them in context. I did not say I have not studied it enought to support my position. I said I have not studied it enought to support it eloquently and provide 5 debate rounds worth of material about it. I have evidence.


This is not good. You shouldn't believe something without knowing first whether it's true or not. It's blatantly apparent that you have some set of beliefs and haven't even studied it first. This is not cool.

I reject Open Theism as ubiblical (and yes I have studied that and can and have supported it), and thus reject that part of it as well. I have studied it, JUST NOT ENOUGH TO PROVIDE 5 ROUNDS OF DEBATE OUT OF IT, NOR TO DO SO ELOQUENTLY.


1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear"

“
If the moderator has approved my post, see my explanation. Why don't you come and take up my challenge on limited atonement?

Joel ”

You're on. Let's go!

OK, I posted there again, but I do not know if it has yet been approved.

Oh, and by the way, I read your post on Revelation 13:8, and I see no way to refute it, so I rescend my reasoning from that line of argumentation. That particular verse, at this present time, seems to fit what you are saying. This does not mean that I do not think that it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to send Christ. I merely see your point ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR VERSE. Good exegesis on that point.

I'm really concerned for you and I hope you are being taught by well informed and intelligent people. It's so easy to find single verses in the bible which appear to support one's belief yet, a true exegete of the passage will prove otherwise. God doesn't want the Bible to be a Dr. Seuss book. It is tough, but the answers are definitely there. If you are being taught Calvinism and single verses are shown to you without any other verses supporting it I would strongly recommend you challenge your teachers. Don't be misled...seek the truth, not one's opinion.

I am not being taught Calvinism by single verses. Actually, rarely is Calvinism "taught" to me, as you mean it. As the verses in expository preching or teaching deal with it, my pastor brings it in, but I don't really have otherwise.


Joel

[quetzalphoenix]

As an Open Theist, how do you explain the inspiration of scripture? I have not been able to get my head around this one :argh: How could God, whose desire is for human beings to have libertarian free will, ensure that they write a text that adequately and inerrantly (or even leave that out, for the sake of argument) discloses who he is? I haven't found this discussed in any of the essays I've read yet; can you point me to one? Thanks. (Or has this been discussed in the thread? I didn't see it....)

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47612#post47612)
quetzalphoenix:

As an Open Theist, how do you explain the inspiration of scripture? I have not been able to get my head around this one :argh: How could God, whose desire is for human beings to have libertarian free will, ensure that they write a text that adequately and inerrantly (or even leave that out, for the sake of argument) discloses who he is? I haven't found this discussed in any of the essays I've read yet; can you point me to one? Thanks. (Or has this been discussed in the thread? I didn't see it....)

Hey, thanks for the question. I think a lot of times, the Open View is not understood and very misrepresented. The Open View definitely holds to libertarian free will, but that does not mean without any exceptions. We believe the calvinist view to be unbiblical and even sick in my mind, where God predestines every single thing that has ever happened. If this is true, then there is no free will, only robots. There were certain biblical situations where God most definitely had to intervene on our free will, but this doesn't take away from us having libertarian free will altogether. In the case of the inspiration of scripture, your exact words mean just that, the INSPIRED word of God. God inspired the Bible, and this makes it infallible. If man wrote the bible alone, it would be error filled. For this reason, God intervened and made sure it was written perfectly. Now does this mean we don't have free will ever? Of course not. The fact that God would even have to intervene to make His plans come to pass should turn a light on in your head. If God does indeed exhaustively know the future, He could work His plans around everything He foreknows, but we see Him intervening on man's free will to make His will come to pass. Something for you to think about.

[Reba]

OV is equal to an open marriage it means nothing.

A spineless god that is lead around by the will of man. I would be frightened to write what i have read.

[yxboom]

That was a fantastic commentary Reba would you now care to share something with actual substance?

[Reba]

I share my feelings

X are you always this rude and personally attacking?

You are a moderator here correct?

[yxboom]

I don't know who you are referring to but since I was the last to post I can respond however this is a thread discussing Open Theism and addressing whether I think I am rude and personally attack people would be off-topic. If you really want me to answer that there is the Dean's Office for such discussion to take place :thumb:

[Reba]

Today @ 07:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47782#post47782)
yxboom:

I don't know who you are referring to but since I was the last to post I can respond however this is a thread discussing Open Theism and addressing whether I think I am rude and personally attack people would be off-topic. If you really want me to answer that there is the Dean's Office for such discussion to take place :thumb:


you made it personal

you attacked

you did it here

you have answered many question i have been wondering about thank you

[yxboom]

Great. You are welcome.

[Hitch]

Reba strikes a nerve.

[geebob]

Her comment had substance YX. She implies that God has a spine by suggesting that for God to not have a spine would make him less perfect. so I geuss she takes anthropomorphisms to the extreme. It looks like she doesn't think the ov goes far enough. It looks like we have another case of the radical open view going on. :cir:

[ollie]

02-25-2003 @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=24178#post24178)
TheFiveSolas:



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.
God forordained freewill. Free to be guided by his own wants and desires. Free to be good soil for the seed, or rocky soil, or sandy soil.

Thus we have Eve in the garden making the choice to believe Satan and do his bidding or Believe God and do His will. Eve chose Satan and convinced Adam to do the same. No coercing or force by God here. Just His commandment , "to not eat", which was disobeyed by choice.

[yxboom]

Maybe Hitch will allow me to reply non-sequitar as well in that geebob you make an excellent point that many don't even know they are ROV'ers even when they write it explicitly that they are.

Next on the plate God is a jellyfish cause He doesn't know which cow your children will tip in 5 years.

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47871#post47871)
yxboom:

Maybe Hitch will allow me to reply non-sequitar as well in that geebob you make an excellent point that many don't even know they are ROV'ers even when they write it explicitly that they are.

Next on the plate God is a jellyfish cause He doesn't know which cow your children will tip in 5 years. Well that says it all Boom. What I dont know but it sure is full of it.

Hitch

[doogieduff]

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47707#post47707)
Reba:

OV is equal to an open marriage it means nothing.

A spineless god that is lead around by the will of man. I would be frightened to write what i have read.

After reading this Reba, I'd almost guarantee you don't know the Open view. Comments like this are always coming from non-Overs trying to make the Open view look bad. I wouldn't go to an OV'er to learn true calvinism, as you probably shouldn't listen to a calvinist on the open view!

Great comment geebob! :smile: (anthropomorphisms!)

[Reba]

doogie,

From what i have seen posted here by those who are self proclaimed ov'ers they dont need any one to make them look bad.



Rom 9:19-22
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
KJV

[ollie]

"Open theism. open view, traditional view, the tulip. the five solas, Calvinist?"

What is all this unscriptural labeling? None of it is recognized in God's word. One can be ignorant of all this and still hear God's word, and believe.

[Hitch]

Thats why the OV must disreagrd our Lord's unqualified proclamation 'Ye must be born-again' . There is no place in the analogy for choice on the part of the one being born.

It is sad

H

[yxboom]

Hitch that has got to be the MOST incoherent thing you have stated on this entire thread and believe me it was a difficult task.

[geebob]

From what i have seen posted here by those who are self proclaimed ov'ers they dont need any one to make them look bad.

I really feel that it is necessary to mention why your comment hit a nerve as hitch observed.

Yx's comment about it's substantless nature is quite accurate. As you mentioned, it was how you felt. Well from your feelings alone, we can conclude nothing. Now unlike some folks, I believe that feelings are highly relevent in terms of what should convince rational minds, but not when alone without a context that most if not all people can sympathize with they really don't serve much purpose unless you want to hold your whims up as some authority on a par with scripture and reason.

So not only is your comment worthless for rational discussion, it has quite the opposite effect of having a chance to enlighten some and instead only enrages as it was insulting to our beliefs and it was divisive. It seems that you and hitch feel your role is to divide the body of christ along the lines of who believes in free will and who does not. In doing so, you are defying God who said that whosever should believe in the Son should have everlasting life and that the defining characteristic of the people of God is the love that they should display for one another. No where do we read that the people of God is defined by their belief in theological determinism. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but language that you used refering to what we believe as our "god" sure gives that impression. When I make comments about the attributes that calvinism would seem to imply about God, I say that it is the picture that they are painting. I do not imply that the calvinists are worshipping a pagan god. That does not divide because we see through a glass dimly and it should not surprise us that people with a legitimate relationship with God should get some wrong impressions that does not necessarily invalidate their faith.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it is hypocritical for you to make comments that flatly insult our beliefs and then complain about yx's attack of your arguement which barring a lack of humility is much less of an offence. Your skin is too thin for you to be refering to other christians' beliefs about these less essential issues (less essential in terms of what makes a christian) a belief in a different spineless god.

Now I'd like to mention that what I say here is something that I say as regular member of a discussion forum and not in the capacity of a moderator. For one thing, If I want some moderation action taken against you, because I have involved myself in this thread to a high degree in a discussion opposing the views that you espouse, I'd want you to know that the disciplinary action taken against you was rational, unbiased and without regard to the fact that you don't agree with me concerning the topic. In such a case, I would ask Gray Pilgrim who is a calvinist or Dee Dee Warren who does not hold to the open view to take the necessary action and in this way, you will know that your behavior was the reason for the discipline and not your views on the topic.

The reason I am not doing that now is because we value moderation in moderation. We want to allow passion and distinguishing that and worthless comments such as the one you gave can get a little fuzzy. But there's a better reason for that which I believe Gavin mentioned and that is that in such a forum, people's true colors come through more clearly.

On the basis of the colors you display, I may not take official moderation action, but I may indeed ban you in a method that is open to all forum participants and that is to simply disregard your posts and not react to them accept to post a message to the effect that if anyone else find's your comments convincing, then perhaps they would like to defend it, but I will not react to you directly because an exchange with you is not worth the trouble and would threaten and offer me temptation to drag me down to a level that would only hurt my cause and is beneficial to no one least of all myself. That form of banishment is no fun and I have found it effective to put it to use by my lonesome, but if need be, I might even ask my fellow ov'ers to participate in this type of ban. I'll tell you that it is no fun to participate in a forum where you are considered irrelevent to the discussion.

I enjoy interacting with many of the calvinists here or I at least respect them for the fact that instead of flatly trying to alienate me, they try to meet me where I am at through an attempt to rationally appeal to scripture, reason, tradition, and/or experience. They provide an example to follow. And because they are here, there are far better uses of my time than to interact in any depth with anyone who is of a character to flatly announce that my God is spineless with little recourse for reasoned discussion.

[Reba]

Today @ 08:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48519#post48519)
geebob:



I really feel that it is necessary to mention why your comment hit a nerve as hitch observed.

Yx's comment about it's substantless nature is quite accurate. As you mentioned, it was how you felt. Well from your feelings alone, we can conclude nothing. Now unlike some folks, I believe that feelings are highly relevent in terms of what should convince rational minds, but not when alone without a context that most if not all people can sympathize with they really don't serve much purpose unless you want to hold your whims up as some authority on a par with scripture and reason.

So not only is your comment worthless for rational discussion, it has quite the opposite effect of having a chance to enlighten some and instead only enrages as it was insulting to our beliefs and it was divisive. ! In doing so, you are defying God who said that whosever should believe in the Son should have everlasting life and that the defining characteristic of the people of God is the love that they should display for one another. No where do we read that the people of God is defined by their belief in theological determinism. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but language that you used refering to what we believe as our "god" sure gives that impression. When I make comments about the attributes that calvinism would seem to imply about God, I say that it is the picture that they are painting. I do not imply that the calvinists are worshipping a pagan god. That does not divide because we see through a glass dimly and it should not surprise us that people with a legitimate relationship with God should get some wrong impressions that does not necessarily invalidate their faith.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it is hypocritical for you to make comments that flatly insult our beliefs and then complain about yx's attack of your arguement which barring a lack of humility is much less of an offence. Your skin is too thin for you to be refering to other christians' beliefs about these less essential issues (less essential in terms of what makes a christian) a belief in a different spineless god.

Now I'd like to mention that none of what I say here is something that I say as regular member of a discussion forum and not in the capacity of a moderator. For one thing, If I want some moderation action taken against you, because I have involved myself in this thread to a high degree in a discussion opposing the views that you espouse, I'd want you to know that the disciplinary action taken against you was rational, unbiased and without regard to the fact that you don't agree with me concerning the topic. In such a case, I would ask Gray Pilgrim who is a calvinist or Dee Dee Warren who does not hold to the open view to take the necessary action and in this way, you will know that your behavior was the reason for the discipline and not your views on the topic.

The reason I am not doing that now is because we value moderation in moderation. We want to allow passion and distinguishing that and worthless comments such as the one you gave can get a little fuzzy. But there's a better reason for that which I believe Gavin mentioned and that is that in such a forum, people's true colors come through more clearly.

On the basis of the colors you display, I may not take official moderation action, but I may indeed ban you in a method that is open to all forum participants and that is to simply disregard your posts and not react to them accept to post a message to the effect that if anyone else find's your comments convincing, then perhaps they would like to defend it, but I will not react to you directly because an exchange with you is not worth the trouble and would threaten and offer me temptation to drag me down to a level that would only hurt my cause and is beneficial to no one least of all myself. That form of banishment is no fun and I have found it effective to put it to use by my lonesome, but if need be, I might even ask my fellow ov'ers to participate in this type of ban. I'll tell you that it is no fun to participate in a forum where you are considered irrelevent to the discussion.

I enjoy interacting with many of the calvinists here or I at least respect them for the fact that instead of flatly trying to alienate me, they try to meet me where I am at through an attempt to rationally appeal to scripture, reason, tradition, and/or experience. They provide an example to follow. And because they are here, there are far better uses of my time than to interact in any depth with anyone who is of a character to flatly announce that my God is spineless with little recourse for reasoned discussion.


Again you have made this personal i was talking of the teaching you are attacking me. This is from an Admin Assistant.

[Reba]

WOW i stand by my simple remarks. It is my view of open thesim. You who are in charge here feel ( funny huh are your feelings of more substance then mine) that my remarks need displine.



dont bother to disipline i will just leave this is TOL all over again

[Hitch]

Today @ 12:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48065#post48065)
yxboom:

Hitch that has got to be the MOST incoherent thing you have stated on this entire thread and believe me it was a difficult task. Well since you whined,,,, What makes you think I was addressing you?



So you know I am addressing you below>

Christians are 'born-again' boom ,,are you?

[yxboom]

Hitch I KNOW you were not referring to me as the audience but referred to me as an Open Theist. Now pray-tell WHAT does open theism have ANYTHING to do with being "born-again"? That is a dispensational debate completely irrelevant to Openness Theology. Before making asinine assumptions try getting an understanding of the perspective and it's relevance to your accusations. :no:

[Hitch]

Today @ 07:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48601#post48601)
yxboom:

Hitch I KNOW you were not referring to me as the audience but referred to me as an Open Theist.( Now pray-tell WHAT does open theism have ANYTHING to do with being "born-again"? That is a dispensational debate completely irrelevant to Openness Theology. Before making asinine assumptions try getting an understanding of the perspective and it's relevance to your accusations. :no: Listen you pathetic whiner that post was directed toward REBA whom your selfish and childish antics have caused to leave the forum.

GREAT JOB tough guy chasing off grey haired grandmothers.


Now grow some anatomy and design an ignore feature that you cant hide behind.





'Now pray-tell WHAT does open theism have ANYTHING to do with being'

Being 'born-again' is a christian doctrine , are you 'born-again BOOM? Since you hide rather than answer directly I WILL INFORM YOU THAT THIS IS BASIC TO THE SADNESS OF OPEN THIESIM And that is the theme and title of this thread.. got it dim one?


Hitch I KNOW you were not referring to me as the audience but referred to me as an Open Theist First you say you cant understand me ,, now you claim to KNOW. ..Its takes a lot to be completely wrong both times boom but you managed it. LMAO

[Hitch]

btw Just what 'accusations' are you talking about I couldnt find any,

Hitch

[yxboom]

Today @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48627#post48627)
Hitch:

btw Just what 'accusations' are you talking about I couldnt find any,

Hitch

Let me remind you:

Yesterday @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48020#post48020)
Hitch:

Thats why the OV must disreagrd our Lord's unqualified proclamation 'Ye must be born-again' . There is no place in the analogy for choice on the part of the one being born.

It is sad

H
Open Theism disregards the Lord's unqualified proclamation.........THAT is an ACCUSATION. Completely ignorant and unfounded but an accusation nonetheless. Had I written Calvinist denies Jesus' unqualified proclamation to give everything to the poor would have been just as ludicrous as what you had wrote.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 02:29 PM post located here
Hitch:

Thats why the OV must disreagrd our Lord's unqualified proclamation 'Ye must be born-again' . There is no place in the analogy for choice on the part of the one being born.

It is sad

H ”


Open Theism disregards the Lord's unqualified proclamation.........THAT is an ACCUSATION. Completely ignorant and unfounded but an accusation nonetheless. then why not just anwser the question boom? dont you want everyone to know your position? Or would you prefer they go on assuming you adhere to basic christian doctrines?[Had I written Calvinist denies Jesus' unqualified proclamation to give everything to the poor would have been just as ludicrous as what you had wrote. more pathetic drivel,hiding behind a dead Saint, typical.


Are you 'born-again ' boom?

Hitch

Now to something useful: How about that ignore feature?

[doogieduff]

For anybody wondering, Hitch has yet to prove biblically that you must be born-again. He started a thread about it, and was manhandled by Acts9, and all Hitch had to say were his usual oneline non biblical personal attacks. I wish Hitch could see that he is absolutely doing nothing positve in progessing people to the Lord. I wish he could realize that non-Christians are viewing this site as well, and realize the importance of acting as if a Christian should.

[Hitch]

Today @ 08:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48653#post48653)
doogieduff:

For anybody wondering, Hitch has yet to prove biblically that you must be born-again. He started a thread about it, and was manhandled by Acts9, and all Hitch had to say were his usual oneline non biblical personal attacks. I wish Hitch could see that he is absolutely doing nothing positve in progessing people to the Lord. I wish he could realize that non-Christians are viewing this site as well, and realize the importance of acting as if a Christian should. 'Ye must be born-again'

Jesus said that, it is recorded in Scripture. That is proof. Proof for me and millions of christian believers.

Your cultic view is meaningless.

Hitch

[yxboom]

I don't think he has a clue to how inane he appears but I have no qualms about stating that I am NOT born-again according to my DISPENSATIONAL beliefs NOTHING to do with my Open-View beliefs. Many if not MOST Open Theists are "born-again" according to their dispensational beliefs again............Open Theism has NO bearing on whether they consider themselves "born-again" or NOT and being "born-again" IS NOT a basic Christian doctrine no more than fatalism is or else I would not be able to serve on the administration which requires orthodoxy. Read a book.

[yxboom]

Hitch before you make a fool out of yourself and make emotional appeals to prove your point PROVE that "born-again" applies to Gentile believers and that the commandments to not eat blood doesn't. I am a believer in Christ saved by the gospel of grace which Paul was made minister, but you won't understand that.