Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, May 11, 2011.
if there is such, why would those ascribing to it believe?
"Open Theism" would be an extreme error of the non-Calvinistic views. This view denies the omniscience of God. Interestingly enough, they make the same error as the hard determinist (hyper-Cal). They presume complete divine omniscience must equal complete divine determination. The Hard Determinist (Hyper-Cal) accepts this view by simply adopting the determinism despite the clear revelation of scripture in apposition of this view. While the Open Theist avoids determinism by denying divine omniscience despite the clear revelation of scripture in apposition of this view.
Both fall into error because they allow man-made logic to supersede the divinely inspired revelation in scripture.
I would assert that there is much more to starkly contrast open theism with any strain of Calvinism. Open theism is a form of deism. God has virtually no control at best. Someone turned the gravity off (maybe God Himself). Now, He's a mere spectator. As I've said many times, it has surprised me how many here at BB actually hold to Open Theism. I thought it was pretty well dead.
However, not everyone who is not Calvinistic is "Arminian" or an open theist. Conversely, not everyone who shuns Arminianism is somehow Hyper-Calvinist, no matter how much caffeine they drink :thumbs:
I don't know, I believe one could make a pretty strong argument for ranking a system that unapologetically makes God the author of evil and purposefully negates the spreading of the gospel as being more detrimental to Christianity than even Open Theism; considering the fact that at least Openists would still be evangelizing and not impugning the holiness of God.
But, look at us, now we are debating which extreme is more harmful, when in reality, if Calvinism is true it really isn't going to make any difference in the number of elect saved, right? And aren't the Open Theists decreed by God to be Open Theists after all? So, no big deal either way.
I have a toy poodle that has what is known as Hyper Caninism. I've clocked him running through the house at 98 mph.
Does that count?
is open Theism though even considered to be within "Christian orthodoxy?"
And what would be examples of systems neither Cal/Arm than held in Body of Christ today?
I am wondering what "systems" Jesus endorsed while He walked the earth.
Again, ONLY those calvinist who hold to a model that has God determining ALL THINGS caused directly by Him would fit what you state here...
You can accuse Hyper cals of bringing harm to Gospel... I am one of the moderate camp, so would not see the workings of God as you described to Calvinism here!
Thus the winky dude...
But since you brought it up, even non-hyper Calvinists affirm the statement that "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass." They would affirm that God must have 'decreed' Open Theists to be such in order for it to come to pass. The manner in which they define the term 'decree' may differ however.
Some can't submit that God makes choices because in their minds that undermines his omniscience in that making a choice entails there is something he didn't know prior to choosing it. Others reject the concept of God merely permitting something he foreknows because it implies God is somehow informed by his creation if even only through foreknowledge. These logical problems make up the path that leads to the deterministic conclusions.
Governmental might be one, since he paid taxes, no?
Seriously, did Jesus ever divide believers up into these groups? Did Paul? Peter? They all addressed doctrines whether they be true or not. But all this name calling is a whole other thing. In fact Paul was against it:
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
How is it that Jesus does not know the day nor hour of his return? It that possible since God the Father knows the day and time? Could it be the case that Jesus is omniscient in all things except for this one area? (Those are not arguements FOR anything... just curious how you answer that.)
Do you think it could ever be the case that 'names' or 'labels' could be used for the purpose to inform but still being able to avoid the division Paul was addressing?
I am confused by your reply to my statement. Maybe I misunderstood your statement about what 'systems' Jesus endorsed... I literally took that statement to mean any 'system' and not to [just] mean a theological 'system'. That was probably my mistake.
Who is it informing? And what is it informing? Is it because you are putting on display that you believe you have thoroughly studied all the details involved and everyone needs to know that?
And anyone who is not willing to walk within the confines of these labels has failed to do their work and does not understand?
Or has not been given the understanding by God therefore they are ignorant and need not discuss the issue? (which by the way has been asserted on this board)
These labels do nothing to advance any discussion, to inform or otherwise. In fact if some people cannot put everything in a nice neat little box then they use backhanded attacks like these labels.
What should be admitted to is that in the eyes of some folks if you are not under the correct label then the label assigned to you is nothing more than a pejorative.
And if your conscience allows you to do that to others then that says more about you than it does them.
My intent was theological systems as is the general theme of the current discussion. I could have been more clear.
I think your arguement says more about the misuse of labels than anything else though. I am in complete agreement with you, however, as to the misuse of labels. Some people can for sure be cruel and unreasonable. I would not want to label anyone something that they would not label themselves as. Can I label you "Anti-Label"? ;-)
But that is where it always goes. Especially among those that call themselves Calvinists. You can call me by my username or you can call me or my doctrine Christian.
have to understand that Jesus, per Phillipians, agreed to come to earth in the Incarnation, to be born as a Human male, without a sin nature as all rest of us have at birth...
As a man, in likeness of Flesh, took on Limitations... kenosis, self emptying...
Always stayed/kept His divine nature, as being God the Son, but decided to ONLY live out while on earth in His humanity. So he had to totally rely upon his father and the Holy Spirit to provide/guide/empower Him...
So during that time, could get tired. hungrey, sleep etc...
see John 17 he asked God His Father to give Him back His shared glory he had before coming to earth.
Now resurrected, glorified body, exaulted back to former status, now exercising ALL His divine attriubutes once again!