Featured Open theism and the atonement

I have interacted with those advocating Open theism, on their own discussion board, and basically they get hung up on god being sovereign and man not really having total free will, and that IF God fixes the future, everything predetermined and nothing really matters decision making wise!

 

There you go again saying the exact same thing in a different post... Open Theists believe that God is sovereign.

 

Hi Humblethinker, your post 62 is spot on. Christians seeking to rightly divide the Word of Truth seem to constantly address mis-characterizations. God is sovereign, i.e. He rules over creation. He either causes or allows all things to come to pass. What some do is redefine sovereign to me God predestines everything, and then when we disagree with that premise, they say we are hung up on God's sovereignty, like a rebellious child. Not helpful or accurate, a logical fallacy of disparaging the person to undercut his or her views.

And another thing, our will or ability to choose is limited to what God allows, so the issue is: Does God allow us to make plans autonomously or are our plans predestined by God? Scripture says God allows us to make decisions about life or death and He begs us to choose life. Therefore, the "everything is predestined doctrine" is unbiblical, no matter how it is disguised by clothing it as "sovereignty doctrine."

 

Standing Firm

The issue is not my fallibility, but my rejection of nonsense. There is no need to accept the mysterious premise that the future is known exhaustively, which is a pagan premise, not a biblical premise.

The issue is not what men can invent and claim to be true, it is what the Bible says is true, and the Bible teaches God makes His prophecies happen, He intervenes and alters what might have occurred such that what He declared would happen, happens. Thus He shapes or changes the future to conform to His prophecy.

The issue is rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and the Arminian view is not biblical, based on my study, however flawed it may be, of God's revelation of reality.

 

It's a "non-sense" legitimately thought to be worth serious consideration by many very intelligent-well-educated Christian philosophers and theologians.

I am not sure repeated insistence on calling it that does much to bolster the power of your argument. It may be a notion also believed by many pagans. Many ancient pagans also insisted on the sphericity of the Earth too.

O.k. this generalized statement is one which (whether they would phrase it that way) easily enough conforms to the point of view of Calvinist/determinist, Arminian, and OT alike.

Agreed, I am not an Arminian.....but the similarity is between the determinist and the Open Theist....The OT and the Determinist have more in common with each other than the Arm....because they both feel that the only way God can exhaustively know a future event is to determine/decree it. As you stated above.

 

How about either of them answering why the "fear' of just acknowledging that God is sovereign and that we don't have full free will?

 

Hi Aresman, you asked and I answered that question. We can choose what we desire at any point in time, but what we desire can change over time. Thus the claim that the Fall makes us always desire the ungodly is without logic. The Bible is full of fallen folks seeking God, i.e. Matthew 13.

God is omnipotent, He can create creatures who make autonomous choices, which is exactly what the bible says He did.

I addressed 1 John 3:20. As far as God desiring something but not causing it to occur using compulsion, the answer is simple. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth in accordance with His purpose and plan. The plan includes our choosing life rather than death autonomously, thus we bring glory to God by our repentance.

 

Hi HOS, just because a great number of folks, or many folks way smarter than me, have embraced the Pagan ideas of Plato and have claimed they are biblical, that does not make those ideas biblical. Such an argument is a logical fallacy.

I am not name calling, I have posted giving the specific development of the ideas claimed to be biblical.

My statement is not generalized, you seem to embrace Crystal Ball Theology where God looks at the future and declares what He knows will happen in the fixed settled future. My statement says God declares what He will bring about, and then causes that future circumstance or event to happen. Two totally different views. Crystal Ball Theology is pagan to the core.

What I stated above was that if God knows what will happen, and His knowledge of the future is certain, then only that future will occur. Therefore our thoughts and actions are predestined. But if His knowledge of the future includes possibilities, we might do this or we might do that, then His knowledge would not predestine our choices.

What limited open theism does not have in common with the other views is it is based on what the Bible says rather than the inventions of men.

 

hi Aresman, I have addressed all these carnards before. Why repeat the fallacies? Limited open theism simply accepts what the Bible teaches, and is not based on pagan philosophy.

The Calvinist view is every bit as wishful, saying God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. The mysterious decrees cloud cover simply hides the adsurdity of the theology.

Compatibilism is a silly argument. We do what we desire at the time, but our desires can change, like a person acting against self interest to protect others. As I have said many times before, your argument breaks down when it claims we cannot desire to seek God and trust in Christ, because the Bible is full of examples of such behavior. At its core, it is just more cloud cover to hide the fallacy of total spiritual inability.

No, your views are built on silence, mine on the explicit teachings of scripture contextually considered.

 

Hi Aresman, we do not have fixed desires, always ungodly. We can change our desire on a whim, on an impulse such as rage or love, or based on some valid or flawed calculation.

I have looked everywhere to find any support for Calvinism and could find none for the TULI, but all was not lost because I did find support for the P.

If a pull string doll says "I love you" (just follows its predestined actions" the person receiving the admiration is not glorified. The Calvinist view of exhaustive determinism is simply pagan.

There is not need to prove anything, words have meanings and scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death. You redefine choice to be non-choice. My proof is scripture, your assertion rests on redefining the meaning of the words of scripture such as choice really means non-choice.

I have explained 1 John 3:20 now twice. Contextually considered it supports my view and provides absolutely no support for pagan beliefs.

 

I love it when a Calvinist claims my view is through the finite mind of man but their view expresses the divine view. Pure absurdity.

Lets number the false assertions:

1. Aresman claims to have shown the biblical rather than pagan source for exhaustive determinism. Pure twaddle. I have shown, in another thread, the pagan roots of Crystal Ball Theology.

2. Aresman claims my view is that correlation proves causation. Total fiction. Why is it that all Calvinist simply misrepresent the views of others rather than defend their own?

3. Aresman claims my view rests on putting God under a transcendent morality. Total fiction once again. The Bible says God keeps His word, therefore we can accept what He says, and not nullify it by claiming He did not mean what He said.

4. Aresman claims my view makes God subject to space and time. Pure fiction, but God can choose to relate to us in time, just as the Bible says. He says if you do this, then I will do that. This does not make God subject to time, only that God interacts with us in time because He has chosen to do so. So yet another misrepresentation.

5. God allows us to make autonomous choices where our choice is not dictated by God's predestination directly or indirectly. This what the Bible actually says. Calvinism claims choice does not mean choice rewriting scripture to fit the inventions of men.

6. The issue is not what causes men to change and do other than what they have done in the past. They can be moved by the Holy Spirit, by self interest, by emotion, and by folly. All these are biblically based reasons for change of desires, i.e. the coming to our senses as taught by Jesus.

7. Aresman then makes yet another non-germane argument, we always act according to our greatest desire AT the Time, and then claims our greatest desire cannot change over time. Pure twaddle.

8. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth according to His purpose and plan. Therefore He creates a purview where we can choose life or death, and He begs us to choose life. Aresman redefines choice to mean non-choice.

9. Next, Aresman says we should invent the attributes of God and then interprete scripture according to the invented attributes. Totally wrong. We should accept what scripture actually says and conform our understanding of God to His revelation, not the other way around.

10. And lastly we have Aresman claiming we should nullify the places where God's behavior does not fit our man-made doctrine, but then stand firm on the passages where His behavior supports our view of God. To clever by half.

 

Van:

I was not making an argument from authority.... I only would be if I were bolstering my argument with it, which would be fallacious....I was commenting on your dismissing their ideas out of hand as "nonsense"

see:
Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
Mumbo Jumbo??? I don't understand. Are you dismissing the notion out of hand? Maybe if I merely made it as a bald assertion.....but WLC? It may be correct, it might very well be wrong, but to dismiss it out of hand? I do realize that it is counterintuitive, but there is a body of material on the topic if you would like to discuss it. Maybe that was not your intention, but I decidedly think you should at least vet the idea first no?

I even...quite graciously....gave you a second chance to lie in order to save face and pretend that it was not your intention after all...

This...however....is a logical fallacy (genetic)

I do not view God's relationship to time this way: So you are more than welcome to beat that idea to death, if I did view time this way... I would be more likely to be an Open Theist..

An OT assumption.....I do not see the future as "fixed" in this way...I simply see the capacity of a timeless being to know it.

which is pretty much what the Calvinist and the Open Theist have in common...a sentiment I do not share.

That is the part I actually AM disagreeing with you about....I don't believe that God's foreknowledge of an event renders them necessary....you seem to think so....I don't think you have any idea what I believe, or what I have been trying to convey to you so far....I am a Molinist....Thus I do not share the same sentiments either an Arminian, Calvinist or OT (generally) have about the nature of foreknowledge....(Aresman) actually knows what one is, and could explain it quite well to you. As he also explains in rather succinct detail Greek philosophy and how it actually does or does not relate to the conversation at hand. One might consider themselves in one of those camps and be a Molinist.... i.e. Alvin Plantinga...(I think)

This is the Straw man part:

This is the genetic fallacy part:

You successfully committed two logical fallacies back to back in exactly eight words.:applause:

It may help you, to actually take a look at some of the links I have posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uu...feature=relmfu
<----There are two parts

.

Seriously???..... This sounds like the way a lot of Calvinists talk, although I decidedly appreciate someone turning those tables around on them every now and again....it sounds equally as stupid if an ARM, CAL, OT...or anybody else says it. Everyone here believes their view is Biblical....sheesh

 

Hi HOS, you too are long on charges and short on truth. The idea is not that you believe your view is biblical, the idea is I can cite the passages which (1) make my case, and (2) refute the various views of others.

You charged me with dismissing your view out of hand, but I rebutted the specific view which I dismissed, and provided the reason. Thus a false charge.

God does look into the hearts of existent folks and therefore knows what that person would do given a circumstance. And God does bring about circumstances to fulfill His prophecies. But this is not the whole story, for God hardens hearts and therefore alters what a person would do given a circumstance to fit His purpose and plan.

For example your view, at least what is published as presenting your view, claims God causes exhaustively the circumstances He desires, whereas scripture says things happen by chance. And then we have Abraham and Isaac, where God did not have "middle knowledge" of what Abraham would choose to do. Your view is nonsense and conflicts with scripture just as Calvinism, and Arminianism do.

Lets say I hear the gospel and am considering going all in for Jesus. Now God's plan for the future has me going to hell. Therefore He arranges circumstances whereby I freely choose to reject Jesus. Therefore He actually decided my choice, making it a non-choice, similar to putting me in a room with one door and then punishing me for going through that door. Utter nonsense.

 

Van, you really do make some good points sometimes, but then you write stuff like the following that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to take you seriously:

-If this statement is true, it is only true in-so-much as it applies to ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, because we all have difficulty putting other peoples views in our own words.
But it isn't any more true of Calvinists than anybody else. You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation.
-You would be crying 'FOUL' if anyone made the statement that "All who accept any part of open theism are people who misrepresent others."

Well, obviously if Aresman says this, then you are totally right. The problem is, He didn't.
-Even if you convinced that Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture, That is totally different than Aresman saying we should simply invent some attributes apart from scripture and believe those. He has not said this. He has said the opposite, that He believes his view IS consistent with scripture, and the ONLY way he can be faithful to scripture is to believe the way he does.