I'm a New Covenant Open View Theist... any questions?

[themuzicman]

OK, if there's something you want to know about what I think regarding these (or any) theological topic, fire away. I probably won't engage in a lot of debate (I might engage some friendly discussion to explore a topic more deeply), but if you're wanting to know what I think about something ask.

*The opinions expressed in this thread are those of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the views of TheologyWeb, Open View Theists, or New Covenant theologians, although they probably should.*

:hi:

[Sparko]

What's the "New Covenant" part? Why is that different from a regular "open view theist?"

[themuzicman]

What's the "New Covenant" part? Why is that different from a regular "open view theist?"
Open View Theism is basically a theology of God's relationship to creation, both temporally and specifically His relationship to mankind.

New Covenant theology attempts to take the the best of Coveantal theology and sprinkles in just enough dispensationalism to discover a Covenant (completed by Christ at the last supper) that is distinct from the Siniatic Covenant, but still embodies salvation for all men in any time. This deals primarily with soteriology and ecclesiology.

Better?

[Sparko]

Open View Theism is basically a theology of God's relationship to creation, both temporally and specifically His relationship to mankind.

New Covenant theology attempts to take the the best of Coveantal theology and sprinkles in just enough dispensationalism to discover a Covenant (completed by Christ at the last supper) that is distinct from the Siniatic Covenant, but still embodies salvation for all men in any time. This deals primarily with soteriology and ecclesiology.

Better?

Thanks!

...Now can you explain that in English?

[studyhound]

:popcorn:

[themuzicman]

Thanks!

...Now can you explain that in English?
:lol:

I don't know if this is the "New Covenant" view or just mine, but here goes.

Basically, the promise and beginning of the "New" Covenant begins in Gen 3:15, where the seed of the serpent is told that his head will be bruised. Granted that it's pretty esoteric there, but I think that theme is expanded upon throughout the OT. Obviously there aren't any conditions there regarding belief, etc, but that's the seed.

Immediately, we find those living in faith (Abel), and those living without faith (Cain).

Eventually, those living without faith get to the point of no return, and we have Noah. That doesn't last long, but God has already promised that He wouldn't wipe everyone out again, and He finds Abraham.

The Covenant with Abraham gives us a somewhat clearer picture of what this Old Promise to Eve might look like, and Abraham is established as the Father of Many nations, and the one through whom the redeemer would be born, again, this is fleshed out as the OT and NT are unveiled.

Finally, the nation of Israel, the descendents of Abraha, Isaac and Jacob, is born. However, it is born out of a Covenant with God. This covenant (the Siniatic or "Old" Covenant) is intended to distinguish the people of Israel from all the nations around them, keeping them ceremonially clean before God. I don't think this Covenant was intended to be directly salvific, but for those who were bound to the Old Covenant (descendents of Israel) it was part of their expression of faith.

Clearly, no one could keep the moral law of the Old Covenant, which is why there were ceremonies to make them ceremonially clean as God's people.

Enter Jeremiah, who promises a "New Covenant", where there aren't laws, but a people who live uprightly because they love God (my paraphrase) and their neighbors.

Enter Jesus. He says that He has come to FULFILL the law and the prophets. What fulfillment? Paul, too, says that Jesus FULFILLS the requirements of the law in us.

Thus, Paul can say that we are no longer under the law (Old Covenant), but under grace, but not for the purpose of living a lifestyle of sin, but so that we can live a lifestyle of righteousness.

Enter the New Covenant. Jesus clearly stated that He established the New Covenant in His blood. I believe that moment is the fulfillment of the promise of Gen 3:16, and that all the Covenants inbetween existed so that the first promise of a redeemer, and the last Covenant estalished would come about, so that all who had put their faith in God for a redeemer up until Christ would receive salvation in the same way that those of us who put their faith in Him as having become our redeemer.

What of the Old Covenant? Is it sufficient for faith?

Clearly not any more. Jesus repeatedly told the Jews that IF you believed the Law and the Prophets, that they would embrace Him as the Messiah. The PURPOSE for the existance of their Covenant was AMONG THEM, and they rejected Him.

Thus, we find Paul's lament in Romans 9, whereby those who received the law, the prophets, and the PROMISES of a Messiah have NOT received the, but those who were not God's people and did NOT receive the promises have been brought into the Kingdom before them.

There is a clear distinction between Old Covenant and New, and the New simply establishes the completion of the promise of a redeemer made at the fall.

Thus, we have separation between the traditional Covenantalists, who say that the New is nothing more than an extenstion of the Old, and that we come into Israel, even though Israel has not believed, such that we are the New Israel, and clear separation from the dispensationalists, who say that there is now a new church, that those in the Old Testament times were held to Old Covenant standards, and those who live now are held to New Testatment standards, and hold a variety of views on where Israel fits today, some even saying that the New Covenant is only for Israel, and that we are part of the CHurch age, a parenthesis in God's plan, until God brings Israel back to Him in the eschaton.

make sense?

(Do you want me to do OVT, too?)

[Sparko]

Are you going to hype this thread in pal talk tonight?

[themuzicman]

Are you going to hype this thread in pal talk tonight?
Probably not.

Should I? :nsm:

[Sparko]

Probably not.

Should I? :nsm:

I am asking the questions here. That's my job. Yours is to answer them. :glare:

Was Jesus NCOVT or not?

[themuzicman]

I am asking the questions here. That's my job. Yours is to answer them. :glare:

Was Jesus NCOVT or not?
As far as I can tell, yes.

He established the New Covenant, didn't he? He loved people, didn't he?

[Sparko]

As far as I can tell, yes.

He established the New Covenant, didn't he? He loved people, didn't he?

So only OVT adherents love people?

I hate that.

[themuzicman]

So only OVT adherents love people?

I hate that.

No....

OVT presents a relational view of God that is centered around His nature to love (1 John 4:8). That becomes His purpose in creating, and, as such, desires creatures with the freedom to choose to love Him back. Thus, we have "The God that Risks".

Thus, when Jesus expresses commandments of loving God and Neighbors, and demonstrates love to those who are lost, He is presenting the OVT view of God.

Michael

[Sparko]

So only the OVT God loves then?

[Ryokan]

Okay, back up. i was raised Catholic. What is the nitty gritty of OVT?

[themuzicman]

So only the OVT God loves then?

No. Only the OVT God embraces this part of His nature to the extent that Scripture does.

[themuzicman]

Okay, back up. i was raised Catholic. What is the nitty gritty of OVT?

The core of OVT revolves around embracing God as a God who loves and engages in community, both within the trinity, and with His creation, which forms the foundation of His purpose in creation.

One of the corrillaries of this idea is that concept of risk being required for a relationship to be loving. IN order for the relationship to have risk, the future must be open and undetermined by God in any way.

Every other view of God in one way or another puts God in control of that relationship, such that it really isn't a communal relationship, because we really don't choose to engage in it. (You'll get arguments from various camps on this, but in the end God winds up determining the course of our relationship with Him.)

Another clear aspect of an open future and the entirely non-determinist relationship between God and His creation, evil becomes soley the responsibility of man, because we determine our own course, and, as such Adam (and Eve) are now the sole perpetrators of sin.

Some will object that God could have prevented them from doing so, but I usually respond that God, in order for us to have free will, declared that He would delegate some sovereignty to men, and that declaration. and His own Word, is something God cannot violate.

Obviously there's a lot more to it than this, but it's a pretty good start.

Michael

[Ryokan]

The core of OVT revolves around embracing God as a God who loves and engages in community, both within the trinity, and with His creation, which forms the foundation of His purpose in creation.

One of the corrillaries of this idea is that concept of risk being required for a relationship to be loving. IN order for the relationship to have risk, the future must be open and undetermined by God in any way.

Every other view of God in one way or another puts God in control of that relationship, such that it really isn't a communal relationship, because we really don't choose to engage in it. (You'll get arguments from various camps on this, but in the end God winds up determining the course of our relationship with Him.)

Another clear aspect of an open future and the entirely non-determinist relationship between God and His creation, evil becomes soley the responsibility of man, because we determine our own course, and, as such Adam (and Eve) are now the sole perpetrators of sin.

Some will object that God could have prevented them from doing so, but I usually respond that God, in order for us to have free will, declared that He would delegate some sovereignty to men, and that declaration. and His own Word, is something God cannot violate.

Obviously there's a lot more to it than this, but it's a pretty good start.

Michael
Thanks. That was very informative.So its the total opposite of Calvinism? How does it deal with the idea the Compatibilism?

[john-philip]

When are you going to convert to molinism?

(You didn't say we couldn't ask loaded questions. :teeth: )

[themuzicman]

Thanks. That was very informative.So its the total opposite of Calvinism? How does it deal with the idea the Compatibilism?

Not TOTALLY the opposte of Calvinism... well, close, maybe..


OVT is INcompatiblistic. Like the hard determinists, we see that EDF and LFW are incompatible. However, we select different options, given this incompatibility.

The embracing of LFW in an incompatiblistic setting implies an open future, thus, open view.

Michael

[themuzicman]

When are you going to convert to molinism?

(You didn't say we couldn't ask loaded questions. :teeth: )

When Molinism ditches MK and denies EDF.

Michael

[Apologia4JC18]

Hello.

If the future is open and God's knowledge is continuing to grow, this seems to imply that God is essentially temporal. If this is the case, do open theists (in view of God's eternality) posit the existence of infinite time? If so, then is this not to say that God literally waited an infinite amount of time before creating the world?

[themuzicman]

We just don't know enough about God to answer that question.

However, I'll give you my theory:

One thing scientists have told us is that the Universe is expanding. If we allow that God exists outside the universe, then He can observe the universe expanding along those axes. In the same way, time expands along a vector, starting at the moment of creation. Thus, creation continues to expand along the timeline, and God observes as each moment of time comes into being, exhaustively knowing the present, and able to interact with our universe in the present moment.

As for the nature of God's time, we really have no clues. I would assert that God is in control of His chronology, and when He moves, His time moves, such that there isn't a need for a controlling force outside of God that states that He must have waited an infinite amount of time before creating.

Michael

[Richbee]

We just don't know enough about God to answer that question.

However, I'll give you my theory:

One thing scientists have told us is that the Universe is expanding. If we allow that God exists outside the universe, then He can observe the universe expanding along those axes. In the same way, time expands along a vector, starting at the moment of creation. Thus, creation continues to expand along the timeline, and God observes as each moment of time comes into being, exhaustively knowing the present, and able to interact with our universe in the present moment.

As for the nature of God's time, we really have no clues. I would assert that God is in control of His chronology, and when He moves, His time moves, such that there isn't a need for a controlling force outside of God that states that He must have waited an infinite amount of time before creating.

Michael

Michael is this decision of your own free will, or do you believe that you have been destined to follow this path?

Is there a Church that loves you because of your path, or inspite of your trail or path?

[themuzicman]

Michael is this decision of your own free will, or do you believe that you have been destined to follow this path?

Decisions are made of free will, limited by the options defined by limitations and circumstance.

Is there a Church that loves you because of your path, or inspite of your trail or path?

There are many, I'm sure.

Michael

[Richbee]

Decisions are made of free will, limited by the options defined by limitations and circumstance.



There are many, I'm sure.

Michael

Is there a well known Pastor following this Theology, or a website you can direct me to?

[themuzicman]

Is there a well known Pastor following this Theology, or a website you can direct me to?
Free will: www.opentheism.info

Church....

[Apologia4JC18]

As for the nature of God's time, we really have no clues. I would assert that God is in control of His chronology, and when He moves, His time moves, such that there isn't a need for a controlling force outside of God that states that He must have waited an infinite amount of time before creating.

By saying that God is in control of his chronology, do you mean to say that there is a way for him to somehow "speed things up" so that he doesn't have to wait around for things? If that is the case, then the alleged conflict between libertarian freedom and foreknowledge seems to disappear (God could simply "look ahead" to see our future actions). If this is possible for God and God knows all truths capable of being known (as 1 John 3:20 seems to imply), then it appears to me that on this scenario God would have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future (which is just what Open Theism claims to deny). Have I misunderstood you in some way?

[shunyadragon]

Hello.

If the future is open and God's knowledge is continuing to grow, this seems to imply that God is essentially temporal. If this is the case, do open theists (in view of God's eternality) posit the existence of infinite time? If so, then is this not to say that God literally waited an infinite amount of time before creating the world?

I believe that the concept of Open view theology does not assume God changes, but the human worldview of God evolves and changes. I believe the other side of the coin in Christianity is something like Calvinism where most things do not change and everything is to certain degree predetermined.

My faith, Baha'i, is probably the most openview theological view of the course of humanity is constantly evolving and changing over a span of a million or more years, and existence and other world altogether over billions of years. God remains eternally constant.

The idea that God needs to control or manipulate chronology is a very anthropomorphic temperal concept. Existence is as God created it, and does not likely need the hands-on approach or a warrenty to function properly.

[themuzicman]

By saying that God is in control of his chronology, do you mean to say that there is a way for him to somehow "speed things up" so that he doesn't have to wait around for things? If that is the case, then the alleged conflict between libertarian freedom and foreknowledge seems to disappear (God could simply "look ahead" to see our future actions). If this is possible for God and God knows all truths capable of being known (as 1 John 3:20 seems to imply), then it appears to me that on this scenario God would have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future (which is just what Open Theism claims to deny). Have I misunderstood you in some way?

In order to "look ahead" and then go back, would imply that God can unwind time. For us, that would be a violation of God's declaration in creation, and for Him would mean voiding His own actions. I don't think either happens.

[Apologia4JC18]

In order to "look ahead" and then go back, would imply that God can unwind time. For us, that would be a violation of God's declaration in creation, and for Him would mean voiding His own actions. I don't think either happens.

I agree with you. What then, does it mean to say that God is in control of his own chronology and that when he moves, his time moves?

[themuzicman]

I agree with you. What then, does it mean to say that God is in control of his own chronology and that when he moves, his time moves?
Good question. I'm not sure I can quanitfy it much more than saying it.

Let's just say that we are ruled by our time, because it proceeds whether we want it to or not. God, however, is not ruled by time, so does not see His existance as an eternity past or future, but simply the acts He has chosen to do.

Michael

[Blake Reas]

And that makes you less of a heretic? just checking.

[themuzicman]

And that makes you less of a heretic? just checking.
I don't think the issue has do with heresy at all.

[Blake Reas]

I know, I was just trying to be an @$$ :teeth:. I am actually interested in what you have to say, I find it interesting that Open View Theologians are finally trying to reconcile their defective views with the rest of the bible, instead of acting like they are saying something novel, and earth shaking, which they are not (Socinius redux). :teeth:

[themuzicman]

I know, I was just trying to be an @$$ :teeth:. I am actually interested in what you have to say, I find it interesting that Open View Theologians are finally trying to reconcile their defective views with the rest of the bible, instead of acting like they are saying something novel, and earth shaking, which they are not (Socinius redux). :teeth:
Well, Socinius' major problem was his denial of the deity of Christ. I don' know of any OVTs that have embraced that.

[Champagne]

I think this Open View God is incredibly irresponsible. How can he go about creating the world without knowing what's going to happen? It'd be like us building a nuclear bomb without knowing the ramifications. He certainly created a monster.

And then why didn't he stop the experiment a long time ago? He risked creating the universe, then he saw what happened. Instantly, mankind fell and brought sin and suffering into the world. And yet God keeps going, doesn't he, continuing sustaining the current universe and bringing souls into the world, the vast majority of whom will go to hell.

Doesn't he have enough people in heaven now for him to have his risky love relationships?

When does it ever end? is God just going with the flow, or does he have some type of plan? And a Plan B, I suppose, since he can't know that Plan A will work.

[themuzicman]

I think this Open View God is incredibly irresponsible. How can he go about creating the world without knowing what's going to happen? It'd be like us building a nuclear bomb without knowing the ramifications. He certainly created a monster.

And then why didn't he stop the experiment a long time ago? He risked creating the universe, then he saw what happened. Instantly, mankind fell and brought sin and suffering into the world. And yet God keeps going, doesn't he, continuing sustaining the current universe and bringing souls into the world, the vast majority of whom will go to hell.

Doesn't he have enough people in heaven now for him to have his risky love relationships?

When does it ever end? is God just going with the flow, or does he have some type of plan? And a Plan B, I suppose, since he can't know that Plan A will work.
Wow... local strawman 284 will be over to your house to have a chat with you about your abuses later tonite.

[Blake Reas]

Actually they also rejected God's foreknowledge of fixed future events. ( I know God knows all possibilities, in your view)

[themuzicman]

Actually they also rejected God's foreknowledge of fixed future events. ( I know God knows all possibilities, in your view)
But that's not whey they were declared to be heretical

[Blake Reas]

But that's not whey they were declared to be heretical

Yeah, I know that. I was pointing out that you hold the same thing in common namely a denial of EDF, which I happen to fine border line, if not completely, Heretical. I do think that Luther and Calvin both would have had a problem with their denial of EDF, it was the doctrine of Christ, and the Trinity that was most important, that is why no one cared about their views of EDF.

Blake :sigh:

[themuzicman]

Yeah, I know that. I was pointing out that you hold the same thing in common namely a denial of EDF, which I happen to fine border line, if not completely, Heretical. I do think that Luther and Calvin both would have had a problem with their denial of EDF, it was the doctrine of Christ, and the Trinity that was most important, that is why no one cared about their views of EDF.

Blake :sigh:
Luther and Calvin would have a problerm with a denial of EDF, but that's because they look back to Augustine and his Platonist view of God. I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on the inerrancy of Luther and Calvin.

Michael

[Blake Reas]

Luther and Calvin would have a problerm with a denial of EDF, but that's because they look back to Augustine and his Platonist view of God. I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on the inerrancy of Luther and Calvin.

Michael
Oh yeah I forgot that the Rabbi's held to EDF also, I am sure that all of Rabbinic history was influenced by Plato, even the Rabbis who lived before him. I am amazed.

Blake

[themuzicman]

Oh yeah I forgot that the Rabbi's held to EDF also, I am sure that all of Rabbinic history was influenced by Plato, even the Rabbis who lived before him. I am amazed.

Blake
Oh, like the Rabbis have a uniform belief about anything.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Blake Reas]

Oh, like the Rabbis have a uniform belief about anything.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Do you have examples of a denial of EDF. The point was also that there where Rabbis before Plato, that held to EDF, therefore you cannot trot out the tired old trash argument, that the church is Platonic. I do not deny greek influence, but it does not follow that that was the only reason the early church accepted EDF. You have given up the argument as soon as you admit that at least "some" of the rabbis hold to EDF. Thanks

[themuzicman]

I never said that the church was Platonist. I said that Augustine's view of God is platonist.

More to the point, the ECFs before Augustine were generally free will in their view, although it wasn't a major issue at the time.

Free will implies an open future.

Michael

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, if there's something you want to know about what I think regarding these (or any) theological topic, fire away. I probably won't engage in a lot of debate (I might engage some friendly discussion to explore a topic more deeply), but if you're wanting to know what I think about something ask.

*The opinions expressed in this thread are those of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the views of TheologyWeb, Open View Theists, or New Covenant theologians, although they probably should.*

:hi:It's nice that you're a New Covenant Theologian, and therefore logically committed to Theonomy. It's a start. As for the other thing.... :egad:

[themuzicman]

It's nice that you're a New Covenant Theologian, and therefore logically committed to Theonomy. It's a start. As for the other thing.... :egad:
New Covenant means no Theonomy, Theonomy. Sorry.

[Blake Reas]

I never said that the church was Platonist. I said that Augustine's view of God is platonist.

More to the point, the ECFs before Augustine were generally free will in their view, although it wasn't a major issue at the time.

Free will implies an open future.

Michael


Just because the ECF's believed in Free will does not mean that they denied EDF. You are making a significant jump. I have seen no writer on THe ECFs deny that they held to the doctrine. You need to prove that. I do not think that FRee will is incompatible with Foreknowledge. I think Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy shows that convincingly.

Blake

[themuzicman]

Just because the ECF's believed in Free will does not mean that they denied EDF. You are making a significant jump. I have seen no writer on THe ECFs deny that they held to the doctrine. You need to prove that. I do not think that FRee will is incompatible with Foreknowledge. I think Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy shows that convincingly.

Blake
That's an argument from silence. Just because I don't specifically deny oneness theology doesn't mean that I believe it.

Michael

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

New Covenant means no Theonomy, Theonomy. Sorry.Oh no, that's clearly false, the New Covenant entails Theonomy. Without theonomy you have to toss out aspects of the New Covenant. For example you have to come up with an argument that Jeremiah 31 is not about the New Covenant at all. That's a task I wouldn't want to undertake any time soon if I were you.

Some people don't define their view of covenant veyr well, so it's not easy to see where they should be with repect to Theonomy. But with New Covenant theology the answer is very clear as far as Scripture is concerned. New Covenant = Theonomy.

[themuzicman]

Well, here's the problem: Theonomy and theocracy are fairly closely related, and imply that we are in some way ruled by law. The Jeremiah passage's intent is clear that the people won't need a government or enforcement of the law, because they will desire to follow His law.

Furthermore, because we have a New Covenant, we have a New Law, as well (Hebrews makes it clear, New Priesthood, New Covenant, New Law), and that new law is found in 1 John 3:20-21 (among other places.)

Michael

[Blake Reas]

That's an argument from silence. Just because I don't specifically deny oneness theology doesn't mean that I believe it.

Michael

Ah, but in some cases the silence is deafening.

[themuzicman]

Ah, but in some cases the silence is deafening.
But not this time.

[andiwashere]

Hey MM, I have a question.

In the promise of GEN 3:15, do you think God had an actual plan to fulfill the promise? Was that plan followed, and was the flood part of the original plan (or, does God change his plan in GEN 6?).

Do you think God ever considered reneging on his promise (GEN 6)?

Basically, I've always wondered if God truly did repent of his creation and consider destroying everything. It sure sounds that way. If so, it seems that what saved His creation was Gods grace towards Noah (not Gods remembrance of a promise).

Thanks!
Andi

[themuzicman]

Hey MM, I have a question.

In the promise of GEN 3:15, do you think God had an actual plan to fulfill the promise? Was that plan followed, and was the flood part of the original plan (or, does God change his plan in GEN 6?).

Depends on how specific you want specific to be. I think the possibility that man would sin was part of God's mindset from creation, and He knew that if Adam sinned, God the Son would have to come and die to redeem creation. I don't think that aspect of God's plan ever changed.

Do you think God ever considered reneging on his promise (GEN 6)?

No. I think God's specific actions regarding Noah and his family demonstrate that He did not wish to reneg on His promise.

Consider Moses in Exodus 32. God was going to destroy Israel and start over through Moses. Clearly God is about keeping His word, but also executing justice.

Basically, I've always wondered if God truly did repent of his creation and consider destroying everything. It sure sounds that way. If so, it seems that what saved His creation was Gods grace towards Noah (not Gods remembrance of a promise).

I think God did regret creating at that moment because of the state of the world at that time, but I think God remembererd His promise to Adam and Eve, and that caused Him to save Noah and his family.

Michael

[andiwashere]

Depends on how specific you want specific to be. ...Cool. The implications are running around in my head, trying to find a home.

As to GEN 3:16, (pls understand, I'm kinda new at this stuff), can you expound upon the promise? What is the seed of the serpent?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, here's the problem: Theonomy and theocracy are fairly closely related, and imply that we are in some way ruled by law. The Jeremiah passage's intent is clear that the people won't need a government or enforcement of the law, because they will desire to follow His law.Here's how I think you've replied. Step 1: Try to narrow all the meaning of theonomy down to the political implications of Theonomy. Step 2: Note that Jeremiah 31 is not about the political implications of Theonomy, Step 3: Infer that therefore Theonomy is not entailed by New Covenant Theology.

The problem is, the political application of Theonomy is not the core of Theonomy. But if believers are meant to derive their internal ethical values from divine law, theonomy is sound. How they act in other spheres is just an extension of that.
Furthermore, because we have a New Covenant, we have a New Law, as well (Hebrews makes it clear, New Priesthood, New Covenant, New Law), and that new law is found in 1 John 3:20-21 (among other places.)Jeremiah 31 is a safeguard against anyone who would claim a New Law, since the prophet, writing in a context with a clear understanding of what the Torah is, says that God's Torah will be written on the hearts of covenant members.

In any case, every time the NT summarises what God's Law is (i.e. not "was"), it uses the summary of the OT Law itself.

Once again, I'm delighted that you endorse New Covenant Theology, and therefore Theonomy.