Another philosophical problem with Calvinism

[Guest]

So you're an open-theist then?

You could say I lean towards being such, yep, and I await your response to my post on 2 Peter 3:9

I responded to it. I got into the history, grammar, original context, authorial intent, etc. in keeping in harmony with the passage and thrust of Peter. You just quoted someone else who gave me their opinion on open theism. There was no interaction or exegesis of 2 Peter. And in your response to mine, (I guess you were responding to me?), there was absolutely no interaction or exegesis of the text in question.

[_SoaringEagle]

Bighassdog,

I asked my friend "Godrulz" about some of those texts and this is what he had to say:

In general, just because God does specific things in specific cases is not warrant to extrapolate this to mean He is omnicausal or meticulously controlling in His sovereignty. Other passages would undermine this generalization.

The OT view of two motifs best resolves the issue. Some texts show that God intervenes or predestines directly, while other verses show that in many things, He lets history unfold including our contribution with our contingent choices.

It is a wrong assumption to assume that God's will is the only factor in the universe. He does whatever He wills or wants, but in many things, He leaves things open. He does not will what I will wear today or what I will do today in detail. His will is that we live morally, but the neutral details include significant freedom to do what we want when we want.

In the case of Neb., he was active in judgment and restoration. This does not mean that He is as active in every person's life moment by moment.

Some of the Old Test. verses need to be checked in other versions, or the Hebraisms need to be understood. The tenure of Scripture is that moral evil is contrary to God's will. He is not responsible for heinous evil (a problem with the meticulous control model). The word in some proof texts refers to natural disasters that are sent in righteous judgment. This is a totally different category than moral evil like Hitler killing Jews.

None of the texts present a problem for OT. The answers are in the literature. They are used as proof texts, but sound exegesis will take the wind out of Calvinistic sails that rely on deductive reasoning more than inductive exegesis.

[Guest]

SE,

Feel free to interact with the overall context of any of the specific Scriptures that I shared. In fact, I would suggest prayerful meditation over God's Word is more of a blessing in our lives than debating interepretation (because His Truth doesn't change).


Forgive me if I get off topic for a momment. This encouraged me greatly:

None of Christ's gospel deeds and none of our gospel blessings are good news except as means of seeing and savoring the glory of Christ. Foregiveness is good news because it opens the way to the enjoyment of God himself. Justification is good news because it wins access to the presence and pleasures of God himself. Eternal life is good news because it becomes the everlasting enjoyment of Christ. All of God's gifts are loving only to the degree that they lead us to God himself. that is what God's love is: his commitment to do everything necessary (most painfully the death of his only son) to enthrall us with what is most deeply and durably satisfying--namely, himself.
John Piper God is the Gospel

2 Corinthians 4:1-6

4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


Haas

[Guest]

All thanks to God, you will not be the judge.

If I were, Open Theists would probably fair well, but God, being perfect and not stupid like me, shall deal with error in a righteous/Holy and unemotional way.
I do not expect Open Theists to fair well on Judgement day, for they have went way beyond Arminianism and have in fact embraced the logical conclusions of Arminianism. That is a scary place to be when one considers deeply the ramafications of such beliefs.

Open Theism is Heresy and unrepented of is damnable.
Words do mean something and truth does not change.
My arguments depend upon Biblical exegesis not human sentimentality just to be sure about this.

The fundamental flaw in the theology is also its basic claim, that God cannot know the future.
When the foundation is defective, then the doctrine derived from that foundation is defective also.

Open Theism defines God within the confines of the existing material universe in which man lives, but which God created. The assumption is made that God does not exist outside of this material universe, but He exists within, and is subject to, His own creation rather than the creation being subject to Him.

The proponents of Open Theism would presume that the element of time, although created by God, somehow exerts a superior power over His ability to know, by restricting his knowledge through the means of confining Him to a literal present state of being, within a finite creation.

By this view, the proponents of Open Theism deny the unlimited power of God to know the beginning from the end and fail to understand the statement of God in Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I Am."

It is God who is, standing always in the present, transcending the boundaries of time itself. Rather than God being subject to the present state of time, it is time itself that is subject to the eternal present state of God, who is past, present and future all at the same time and who sees the beginning through the end always in the present.

The Open Theist does not consider the fact that time is a transient entity, having a beginning and ending subject to the good pleasure of God.

The open theist engages in a myopic, self-centered delusion by believing that their thoughts and subsequent decisions have the power to change the course of God's determined will. The universe in which the open theist exists, and its consequent inclusion of time, is but an infinitesimal speck, itself confined, hidden and lost within the majesty and infinity of the God who is "I Am."

Mark

[Guest]

MacARTHUR, JOHN F.

"Open Theism's Attack On The Atonement"
"Unfortunately, the major segment of this generation of evangelicalism seems to lack the will or the knowledge to decide whether open theists are wolves in sheep's clothing or true reformers. But let it be clearly stated: by any definition of evangelicalism with historical integrity, open theism opposes the very core truths that evangelicals stand for. And by any truly biblical definition, they are heretics, purveyors of a different gospel. Both of these charges are substantiated by open theism's abandonment of substitutionary atonement alone."

[Guest]

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Answering Greg Boyd's Openness Of God Texts"
8 texts claimed by Greg Boyd to indicate the openness of God are refuted.

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Does God Make Mistakes"
A Response to Greg Boyd's Treatment of Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20
"I deal with Dr. Boyd's interpretation of Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19:20 as an example of the kind of difficulties he gets into, even though he claims to be following a simple, face-value hermeneutic. He gives the impression that, on the face of it, this text, and many others, are clear and simple illustrations of God's openness to an uncertain future. But on careful examination, his own interpretation involves problems even greater than the traditional one he rejects."

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"The Enormous Ignorance Of God"
When God Doesn't Know The Future Choices Of Man
"For God not to know future volitions of humans is not a small ignorance but a huge one, unimaginably huge. It is, for example, not a periodic ignorance, but a continual one; not a narrow ignorance, but a universally human one; not an insignificant ignorance, but a tremendously significant one; not a confined ignorance, but a diverse one (relating to all things a person can choose)."

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"How Open Theism Helps Us Conceal Our Hidden Idolatries"
"All of life is meant to be lived to reflect the infinite value of Christ (Philippians 1:20). We show his infinite worth by treasuring him above all things and all persons. Believing in his all-ruling, all- wise sovereignty helps reveal our idolatries in times of pain and loss. Not believing that God has a wise purpose for every event helps conceal our idolatries. Thus Open Theism, against all its conscious designs, tends to undermine a means of grace that our deceptive hearts need."

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Is The Glory Of God At Stake In God's Foreknowledge Of Human Choices?"
"Two things are crucial to note here: one is that Jesus foreknows the evil deed of Judas with certainty. The other is that Jesus himself says that this foreknowledge is part of his glory as divine: "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am" (John 13:19). If Evangelicals have a passion for the glory of Christ, we must join him in affirming, not denying, his ability to foreknow with certainty human choices without removing moral accountability. It's his glory to know them."

# PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Thomas Oden's Charge Of Heresy"
"Concerning The Denial Of God's Foreknowledge"
"In other words, a leading non-Calvinist evangelical theologian who is not marginal or alarmist or fundamentalistic or narrow calls this view "heresy." He does so not in a huff behind closed doors, but calmly and with charity in a mainstream evangelical publication. This is very significant."

[Guest]

# GILLEY, GARY E.
"Open Theism" parts 1, 2, 3, 4

"These are some of the issues being served on the table of open theism. It might be asked, however, what has motivated these theologians to trade the classical view of God for this insipid version.

Ware's opinion is worth pondering, "The culture in which we live, including much of the Christian subculture, has drunk deeply at the well of self-esteem. Where the Bible enjoins unfettered but deeply humble 'God-esteem,' we have been conditioned to think that we should have some of that esteem for ourselves. So, when a theology comes along that says, 'God often doesn't make up his mind what to do until he hears first from you,' or God and you together chart out your course for the future as both of you learn together what unfolds,' or, 'Sometimes God makes mistakes but we need to realize that he was doing his best,' such a view plays well with many in our culture. We feel like we are almost peers with God."

Perhaps the Psalmist put his finger on the real problem of open theology when, in another context, he penned God's accusation upon a wayward people by saying, You thought I was just like you (Psalm 50:21). This is openism's problem; their God is too human."

[Guest]

BARRICK, WILLIAM D.
"The Opennes of God: Does Prayer Change God?"
"God did not change His mind regarding His plan for the twelve tribes; He rather altered His timing in order to keep His promises to them. What He did in response to Moses' prayer cannot be taken as normative action. His "change of mind" was a tool to elicit a change of response in Moses. Moses' prayer changed Moses, not God."

[Guest]

tartanarmy, thank you for standing bold in the faith. I commend you, and encourage you to continue speaking the truth in love. You said more than I was going to say, sooner Thank you so much. Remember the admonition of Galatians 1:10. You are here to please God, and not men. If you were merely pleasing men, you would not be pleasing God.
Amen brother.

[Guest]

Open Theism is Heresy and unrepented of is damnable.

I'm curious. When you say that it is damnable, do you intend that as technical language, i.e. acceptance of open theism is incompatible with saving faith?

The proponents of Open Theism would presume that the element of time, although created by God,

I've always wondered about that--in what sense God created time. If Einstein was right, then time is to some extent linked to space in a way that suggests that the creation of space was also the creation of time. Special Relativity also has some weird implications for the relativity of time and the meaning(lessness) of "simultaneous events"--it implies to me that God simply must exist outside or above physical, material time.

But if we view time as "sequence of events", I wonder if that can be abstracted away from material time. Outside the physical realm of space and time that He created, does God experience in His own mind any kind of sequence? (There's logical sequence, or logical dependence, but what about experiential sequence?)

More importantly, it's not clear to me what the Bible says about it.