Open Theism
- Thread starter Churinga
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hevosmies,
I'm am completely on your side, 100%, in being against Open Theism.
A large but:
But it's a stretch, and I think an inaccurate one, to make the absolute statement that Freewill IS Open Theism.
There are other logical ways to view this same set of data.
I don't want to get into a debate about Calvinism here.
So let's please not turn this thread into a Calvinist/Arminian debate... that's not the actual topic.
Perhaps Calvinism is completely correct, but if it is, I would not ground it on this particular argument.
This particular argument will come completely apart... this particular argument won't hold up.
You can find plenty of evidence in scripture to support the Calvinist position, and I think that's the best place to ground your position.
But I would NOT try to ground Calvinism on this particular philosophical argument you brought up.
How do I really feel?
A. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Calvinists...
I'd disagree, but I wouldn't be insulted. I like Calvinists.
B. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Open Theists...
I'd disagree, and I'd be EXTREMELY insulted, lol.
Don't do that to me bro.
C. For future reference, I would recommend grounding Calvinism in scripture, or in other philosophical arguments, not the particular argument you brought up here.
1. There are plenty of compelling places to ground the case for Calvinism.
2. This particular argument isn't really one of those.
3. If you press this argument, and try to lump me in with Open Theists, then you virtually FORCE me to tear this argument down just to defend myself, because accusing me of Open Theism is accusing me of outright heresy... and then we run the risk of EVERYONE launching into the same old Calvinist/Arminian debate, because someone will be offended and think I'm attacking Calvinism.
Let's not go there.
I agree Open Theism is entirely wrong.
Lets agree on that, and have other debates in other threads.
...
I'm am completely on your side, 100%, in being against Open Theism.
A large but:
But it's a stretch, and I think an inaccurate one, to make the absolute statement that Freewill IS Open Theism.
There are other logical ways to view this same set of data.
I don't want to get into a debate about Calvinism here.
So let's please not turn this thread into a Calvinist/Arminian debate... that's not the actual topic.
Perhaps Calvinism is completely correct, but if it is, I would not ground it on this particular argument.
This particular argument will come completely apart... this particular argument won't hold up.
You can find plenty of evidence in scripture to support the Calvinist position, and I think that's the best place to ground your position.
But I would NOT try to ground Calvinism on this particular philosophical argument you brought up.
How do I really feel?
A. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Calvinists...
I'd disagree, but I wouldn't be insulted. I like Calvinists.
B. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Open Theists...
I'd disagree, and I'd be EXTREMELY insulted, lol.
Don't do that to me bro.
C. For future reference, I would recommend grounding Calvinism in scripture, or in other philosophical arguments, not the particular argument you brought up here.
1. There are plenty of compelling places to ground the case for Calvinism.
2. This particular argument isn't really one of those.
3. If you press this argument, and try to lump me in with Open Theists, then you virtually FORCE me to tear this argument down just to defend myself, because accusing me of Open Theism is accusing me of outright heresy... and then we run the risk of EVERYONE launching into the same old Calvinist/Arminian debate, because someone will be offended and think I'm attacking Calvinism.
Let's not go there.
I agree Open Theism is entirely wrong.
Lets agree on that, and have other debates in other threads.
...
Hevosmies,
I'm am completely on your side, 100%, in being against Open Theism.
A large but:
But it's a stretch, and I think an inaccurate one, to make the absolute statement that Freewill IS Open Theism.
There are other logical ways to view this same set of data.
I don't want to get into a debate about Calvinism here.
So let's please not turn this thread into a Calvinist/Arminian debate... that's not the actual topic.
Perhaps Calvinism is completely correct, but if it is, I would not ground it on this particular argument.
This particular argument will come completely apart... this particular argument won't hold up.
You can find plenty of evidence in scripture to support the Calvinist position, and I think that's the best place to ground your position.
But I would NOT try to ground Calvinism on this particular philosophical argument you brought up.
How do I really feel?
A. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Calvinists...
I'd disagree, but I wouldn't be insulted. I like Calvinists.
B. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Open Theists...
I'd disagree, and I'd be EXTREMELY insulted, lol.
Don't do that to me bro.
C. For future reference, I would recommend grounding Calvinism in scripture, or in other philosophical arguments, not the particular argument you brought up here.
1. There are plenty of compelling places to ground the case for Calvinism.
2. This particular argument isn't really one of those.
3. If you press this argument, and try to lump me in with Open Theists, then you virtually FORCE me to tear this argument down just to defend myself, because accusing me of Open Theism is accusing me of outright heresy... and then we run the risk of EVERYONE launching into the same old Calvinist/Arminian debate, because someone will be offended and think I'm attacking Calvinism.
Let's not go there.
I agree Open Theism is entirely wrong.
Lets agree on that, and have other debates in other threads.
...
I'm am completely on your side, 100%, in being against Open Theism.
A large but:
But it's a stretch, and I think an inaccurate one, to make the absolute statement that Freewill IS Open Theism.
There are other logical ways to view this same set of data.
I don't want to get into a debate about Calvinism here.
So let's please not turn this thread into a Calvinist/Arminian debate... that's not the actual topic.
Perhaps Calvinism is completely correct, but if it is, I would not ground it on this particular argument.
This particular argument will come completely apart... this particular argument won't hold up.
You can find plenty of evidence in scripture to support the Calvinist position, and I think that's the best place to ground your position.
But I would NOT try to ground Calvinism on this particular philosophical argument you brought up.
How do I really feel?
A. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Calvinists...
I'd disagree, but I wouldn't be insulted. I like Calvinists.
B. If you want to claim that "deep down" most Arminians are really Open Theists...
I'd disagree, and I'd be EXTREMELY insulted, lol.
Don't do that to me bro.
C. For future reference, I would recommend grounding Calvinism in scripture, or in other philosophical arguments, not the particular argument you brought up here.
1. There are plenty of compelling places to ground the case for Calvinism.
2. This particular argument isn't really one of those.
3. If you press this argument, and try to lump me in with Open Theists, then you virtually FORCE me to tear this argument down just to defend myself, because accusing me of Open Theism is accusing me of outright heresy... and then we run the risk of EVERYONE launching into the same old Calvinist/Arminian debate, because someone will be offended and think I'm attacking Calvinism.
Let's not go there.
I agree Open Theism is entirely wrong.
Lets agree on that, and have other debates in other threads.
...
If God chooses to create and knows how everything plans out, the only free will we have is a predetermined one, since its foreknown, there is no POSSIBILITY for an alternative outcome.
And thats the end of that. I wont retract that point, it shall stand. But I realize its pointless to debate this topic, im just an odd guy who enjoys wasting time.
You can stand on any bad argument you like.
God has given you the free will to do so.
The logic problem - "knowing" has no causative power:
Logically, foreknowledge has no causative power.
Knowledge of a thing has no effect on that thing.
Foreknowledge has no actual power to cause anything.
Foreknowledge is causally impotent, it has no power to effect anything.
"Knowing of" and "acting upon" are not the same... they are in different logical categories.
If God foreknows you will do a thing, that does not mean he CAUSES you to do a thing.
If God foreknows a thing, then yes, it only has ONE outcome... but the foreknowing does not CAUSE that outcome.
The foreknowing is only KNOWLEDGE of the outcome; foreknowing does not CAUSE the outcome.
Foreknowing does not CAUSE anything because it CANNOT cause anything; it has no causative power.
"Knowing of" and "acting upon" are not the same...
one has causative power, and the other does not.
To reiterate:
Foreknowing does not CAUSE anything because it CANNOT cause anything; it has no causative power.
So if God wanted to create a world to be a certain way, how might he do that?
A. He could create a world where creatures do NOT have free will, and they have no actual choices.
B. He could use his foreknowledge to consider how "free will" creatures would act in different types of worlds, and then he could create a particular world in which they would FREELY ACT in the ways he wants... where they would freely choose to do the things that accomplish God's purposes.
- Calvinists think God used method A.
- Arminians think God used method B.
- Open Theists think God has no idea what's going on, and God is pretty much just ignorant.
Hevosmies,
First of all, I like you and I think you're a good guy.
Second, if you're a Calvinist, I think that's just great;
I appreciate all my Calvinist brothers.
But please don't lump traditional Arminians in with Open Theists... as I outlined above, their beliefs are very different.
..
God has given you the free will to do so.
The logic problem - "knowing" has no causative power:
Logically, foreknowledge has no causative power.
Knowledge of a thing has no effect on that thing.
Foreknowledge has no actual power to cause anything.
Foreknowledge is causally impotent, it has no power to effect anything.
"Knowing of" and "acting upon" are not the same... they are in different logical categories.
If God foreknows you will do a thing, that does not mean he CAUSES you to do a thing.
If God foreknows a thing, then yes, it only has ONE outcome... but the foreknowing does not CAUSE that outcome.
The foreknowing is only KNOWLEDGE of the outcome; foreknowing does not CAUSE the outcome.
Foreknowing does not CAUSE anything because it CANNOT cause anything; it has no causative power.
"Knowing of" and "acting upon" are not the same...
one has causative power, and the other does not.
To reiterate:
Foreknowing does not CAUSE anything because it CANNOT cause anything; it has no causative power.
So if God wanted to create a world to be a certain way, how might he do that?
A. He could create a world where creatures do NOT have free will, and they have no actual choices.
B. He could use his foreknowledge to consider how "free will" creatures would act in different types of worlds, and then he could create a particular world in which they would FREELY ACT in the ways he wants... where they would freely choose to do the things that accomplish God's purposes.
- Calvinists think God used method A.
- Arminians think God used method B.
- Open Theists think God has no idea what's going on, and God is pretty much just ignorant.
Hevosmies,
First of all, I like you and I think you're a good guy.
Second, if you're a Calvinist, I think that's just great;
I appreciate all my Calvinist brothers.
But please don't lump traditional Arminians in with Open Theists... as I outlined above, their beliefs are very different.
..
-
1
- Show all
Well, have to whole-heartedly disagree with the above since it isn't biblical. It's tradition, but it isn't true to Scripture nor does it represent the Gospel.
Man is not saved via choice, and mans choice does not clinch salvation but is evidence of regeneration and conversion. Otherwise you are saying man in his "choosing" is the cause of his salvation which is contrary to James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:3.
God does not choose to save because he saw that others would choose him. This is what you are saying in the above. This would not have been salvation by grace, nor a free gift, but a reward based upon the actions of the doer.
Many Scriptures deny salvation being by the will of man, or by his choice, such as John 1:13 for starters. This is coupled with the fact that no man outside of Christ is free in any sense of the word free, in his will, or otherwise; John 8:36.
The above scenario makes man the determiner of salvation, not God, and is completely unbiblical. It gives man the credit while trying to give it all to God and falls short of Soli Deo Gloria.
God does not give salvation to any person because He saw the person would do anything. That is not the free gift of salvation, it is a reward based upon performance. It also denies the fact that Christ states none can come to him, that none is able, when we have two cases of one doing it in his will to say yes, and the other coming to say no in the hypothesis of yours asq to what determines their salvation: choice. Note the language and thrust of 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. This passage excludes man from being the cause, gives all the glory to Christ, and ends with no reason for man to boast in a thing other than in the LORD. That is salvation being 100% of God.
All who come to Christ will be raised; John 6:35-40. It doesn't say some who come to him through drawing, will not be saved and will not believe. The text shows the drawing and raising to be both commensurate and assured.
Man left in his spiritually dead state cannot believe. One must also consider that faith is not innate ability that men exercise, but is from the same power that raised Christ and thus is not inherent. This faith is granted to his elect; Ephesians 1:19; Romans 12:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; and comes not from within man, but from God and the Word; Romans 10:17.
God bless you brother Sipsey!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Man is not saved via choice, and mans choice does not clinch salvation but is evidence of regeneration and conversion. Otherwise you are saying man in his "choosing" is the cause of his salvation which is contrary to James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:3.
God does not choose to save because he saw that others would choose him. This is what you are saying in the above. This would not have been salvation by grace, nor a free gift, but a reward based upon the actions of the doer.
Many Scriptures deny salvation being by the will of man, or by his choice, such as John 1:13 for starters. This is coupled with the fact that no man outside of Christ is free in any sense of the word free, in his will, or otherwise; John 8:36.
The above scenario makes man the determiner of salvation, not God, and is completely unbiblical. It gives man the credit while trying to give it all to God and falls short of Soli Deo Gloria.
God does not give salvation to any person because He saw the person would do anything. That is not the free gift of salvation, it is a reward based upon performance. It also denies the fact that Christ states none can come to him, that none is able, when we have two cases of one doing it in his will to say yes, and the other coming to say no in the hypothesis of yours asq to what determines their salvation: choice. Note the language and thrust of 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. This passage excludes man from being the cause, gives all the glory to Christ, and ends with no reason for man to boast in a thing other than in the LORD. That is salvation being 100% of God.
All who come to Christ will be raised; John 6:35-40. It doesn't say some who come to him through drawing, will not be saved and will not believe. The text shows the drawing and raising to be both commensurate and assured.
Man left in his spiritually dead state cannot believe. One must also consider that faith is not innate ability that men exercise, but is from the same power that raised Christ and thus is not inherent. This faith is granted to his elect; Ephesians 1:19; Romans 12:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; and comes not from within man, but from God and the Word; Romans 10:17.
God bless you brother Sipsey!
Soli Deo Gloria!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
ROFL
Open theism is not Biblical, Calvinist or Armenian!!
The Bible states God knew the end from the beginning. There is proof in the codes in the Torah. Codes are starting with a letter in the original language text and going forward or backward at an interval with a message being seen. Here is a file I keep about the codes.
The books I have are:
The Bible Code
263 pages
Bible Code II the Countdown
291 pages
Both by Michael Drosnin
Bible Prophecy Proved Through The Mysterious Bible Codes
192 pages
By Grant R. Jeffrey
In these books the awesome foreknowledge of God is proven. A Bible Code is found in the Old Testament by starting with an original language text starting with a letter and using an interval counting forwards or backwards finding a message. In the Torah 20th century mens names with birth and death dates were found. In 2 messianic scriptures the name of Jesus with "it is he" and the 11 names of his disciples with the name of the one replacing Judas listed. Only 11 because 2 had the same name. Many other codes were found.
God caused the authors of those books write them with those codes embedded. Thus proving they were authored by God.
The first codes were found by rabbis looking at the beginning of the 5 books of the Torah. 4 had one word while the fifth had a different word. This caused the Israeli Institute similar to MIT in the US to have some some programing students create a software program to search the books of the Old Testament for more codes book by book. They released the program for anyone who wanted it. Thus the above books about the codes were created.
Open theism is not Biblical, Calvinist or Armenian!!
The Bible states God knew the end from the beginning. There is proof in the codes in the Torah. Codes are starting with a letter in the original language text and going forward or backward at an interval with a message being seen. Here is a file I keep about the codes.
The books I have are:
The Bible Code
263 pages
Bible Code II the Countdown
291 pages
Both by Michael Drosnin
Bible Prophecy Proved Through The Mysterious Bible Codes
192 pages
By Grant R. Jeffrey
In these books the awesome foreknowledge of God is proven. A Bible Code is found in the Old Testament by starting with an original language text starting with a letter and using an interval counting forwards or backwards finding a message. In the Torah 20th century mens names with birth and death dates were found. In 2 messianic scriptures the name of Jesus with "it is he" and the 11 names of his disciples with the name of the one replacing Judas listed. Only 11 because 2 had the same name. Many other codes were found.
God caused the authors of those books write them with those codes embedded. Thus proving they were authored by God.
The first codes were found by rabbis looking at the beginning of the 5 books of the Torah. 4 had one word while the fifth had a different word. This caused the Israeli Institute similar to MIT in the US to have some some programing students create a software program to search the books of the Old Testament for more codes book by book. They released the program for anyone who wanted it. Thus the above books about the codes were created.
Heb. 11:1- The Bible says that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Rom. 1:18- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
I don’t pretend to understand every aspect of our salvation, but While we were yet His enemies, God sent His Son.
Sometimes I boil things down too much, and with this varied audience, it seems real easy to be misunderstood.
God provides our physical life at birth and has done everything necessary for us to be made righteous in His sight. If we have no part whatsoever in our salvation, then it is purely God choosing whosoever He will, for damnation, or eternal life with Him. If that is true I see no reason to preach, yet we are commanded to.
I believe Scriptural facts can be arranged and rearranged to point to more than one conclusion. However, I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that at the point one or more atoms within our consciousness align positively toward Gods calling, we are adopted, purely by His grace. I believe He provides the evidence, the opportunity and the even the faith necessary to become a child of God.
If the angels had freedom to rebel and Adam and Eve likewise were free to listen or not, what makes you think we were created with no freedom? We may not agree but I hope my position is clear. I had so little to do with my salvation that it would take an electron microscope to see my small part, yet throughout Scripture, we are told to choose.
May God’s blessings reside on you also, preacher
Rom. 1:18- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
I don’t pretend to understand every aspect of our salvation, but While we were yet His enemies, God sent His Son.
Sometimes I boil things down too much, and with this varied audience, it seems real easy to be misunderstood.
God provides our physical life at birth and has done everything necessary for us to be made righteous in His sight. If we have no part whatsoever in our salvation, then it is purely God choosing whosoever He will, for damnation, or eternal life with Him. If that is true I see no reason to preach, yet we are commanded to.
I believe Scriptural facts can be arranged and rearranged to point to more than one conclusion. However, I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that at the point one or more atoms within our consciousness align positively toward Gods calling, we are adopted, purely by His grace. I believe He provides the evidence, the opportunity and the even the faith necessary to become a child of God.
If the angels had freedom to rebel and Adam and Eve likewise were free to listen or not, what makes you think we were created with no freedom? We may not agree but I hope my position is clear. I had so little to do with my salvation that it would take an electron microscope to see my small part, yet throughout Scripture, we are told to choose.
May God’s blessings reside on you also, preacher
If God has chosen to save both you and I, It is because of His love, nothing more nothing less.
My position, right or wrong, has been gained and verified through much suffering, and my salvation lies in Christ who strengthens me. I shall strive to reflect that love, nothing more nothing less.
As for as study the last decade or two has been intense and humbling. As Paul once said, “ though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity/love (Agape) it profiteth me nothing.”
So goes our correct theology if it’s not lived out.
My position, right or wrong, has been gained and verified through much suffering, and my salvation lies in Christ who strengthens me. I shall strive to reflect that love, nothing more nothing less.
As for as study the last decade or two has been intense and humbling. As Paul once said, “ though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity/love (Agape) it profiteth me nothing.”
So goes our correct theology if it’s not lived out.
If a Dr. were to prescribe a dying man a pill that would save him, and placed it on the table next to his death bed, and said, “here, take this,” that man has a choice, but he can no more take any credit than you or I. That’s kinda my imperfect take on it.
If it required perfection in understanding, no one would be saved.
God chooses to save even imperfect ones, like myself.
If it required perfection in understanding, no one would be saved.
God chooses to save even imperfect ones, like myself.
The codes are in the Torah which is scripture foolish one. The demonstrate God's awesome foreknowledge. Also proof positive that they are written by the hand of God. No other way can the names of 20th century men with birth and death dates!!! Facts not myth!!!!
Are you trying to say God didn't cause those things to be done? Just stop and think about the awesome power of God to accomplish that. Why do you reject this proof of the awesome power of God foreknowing these facts and causing them to be embedded in the Torah!!
Hang your head in shame!!!
Are you trying to say God didn't cause those things to be done? Just stop and think about the awesome power of God to accomplish that. Why do you reject this proof of the awesome power of God foreknowing these facts and causing them to be embedded in the Torah!!
Hang your head in shame!!!
Yes, we are to love and do love, but this isn't in lieu of sound doctrine or the faith or the truth. Correction is love; 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The truth is not free, it will come at some cost in our lives; Proverbs 23:23.
It's the life and the doctrine we are to watch; 1 Timothy 4:16. Being loving does not negate the one nor vice versa. Consider the texts given that show salvation is not via decision of man; John 17:17. God bless!
It's the life and the doctrine we are to watch; 1 Timothy 4:16. Being loving does not negate the one nor vice versa. Consider the texts given that show salvation is not via decision of man; John 17:17. God bless!
-
1
- Show all