Here we encourage readers to seek answers to the common questions we know you have, as well as send comments and observations. If you would like to submit a question you may do so by contacting us . We may not answer all your questions due to time constraints, but then, we may.
Weird question: Can someone agree to the reformed doctrines in the TULIP and be an open theist at the same time?
Could you explain the A and B Theories of time in context of Open Theism? Sorry I keep asking such basic questions, but that's what I do best, and hearing open theists explain the theories would be the most informative.
May 21, 2013 at 8:42 pm Is God REALLY on our side? By Sal Arico eepurl.com/zQwD9
us4.campaign-archive2.com
We all struggle from time to time, whether it is physically, mentally, or spiritually. It’s never so apparent when you’re up on the mountains, walking, struggling with the conditions. As the daylight slowly fades, and night draws near, but the end of the road seems so far away.
It is a great relief to find others that believe in free will. I'm new to this forum, am not theologically educated to the extent that shows in the posts here, yet have been perplexed since childhood with the oddity and cruelty of Calvinism. I'm relieved beyond words to see such words put to my misgivings and even an actual name for belief in a less-then-absolutely-programmed creation. Thank you for this forum.
I have been pondering this question lately: What does Open Theism mean for ethics? What's the best approach to ethics for an Open Theist Christian?: Is it rule based, following a law? Is it based on an idea of the good (teleology)? Is virtue ethics the way to go? I'll answer later; i'd like to see some responses first. ;-)
May 6, 2013 at 11:01 pm All vs all by Sal Arico- http://eepurl.com/y9zCP
us4.campaign-archive1.com
When you sit on a sofa or chair that you’ve never seen before, you have faith that it won’t collapse. But would you have the same faith if you knew that the sofa is 98% empty space?
Could anyone explain to me the biblical case for open theism?
It has long been a source of amazement to me that modern day philosophy is still trying to lance the windmill of 'ex nihilo' as if the Christian faith is properly enunciated by such Dark Age 'Latinisms'.
"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." (Psa 33:6) Some Open Theists restrict the semantic domain of Old and New Testament words used for create to mean 'form' only. It is an arbitrary restriction and misses the 'generative' aspect in the Word of the Lord. The tacit assumption is a materialist view of the Universe that even God is unable to extricate Himself from.
May 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm Weekly Newsletter- Be Diligent by Don Chamberlain - http://eepurl.com/zsghn
us4.campaign-archive2.com
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Calvinism grieves my heart and it disturbs me to see so many Calvinistic posts on Facebook and Calvinistic materials and preachers being so popular in our day.
Scriptural problems I have with Calvinism:
1. Calvinism says that God decreed all sin when the Bible says sin breaks the heart of God and wills holiness and obedience from His subjects.
2. Calvinism says that men are under the wrath of God for the sin of Adam when the Bible says that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father and we will all give an account for our own deeds.
3. Calvinism says that man's free will was lost by Adam's original sin when the Bible never says this but instead continues to appeal to man's free moral agency after Adam's fall.
4. Calvinism says that all men inherit a sinful nature from Adam when the Bible never even says that Adam's nature was sinful but instead asserts that God forms our nature in the womb.
5. Calvinism says that all events are the eternal will of God when the Bible represents God as grieved, disappointed, and surprised over many events that have occurred.
6. Calvinism says that God has irresistibly decreed all events from eternity past, when the Bible says that God has canceled and reversed some of His own prophecies and teaches that the future is not yet entirely fixed and settled.
7. Calvinism says that God has given man a moral law which He is incapable of keeping when the Bible says that God is just, never allows us to be tempted above our ability, and only obligates us to love Him with all of our ability.
8. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and took our punishment when the Bible says that our punishment is eternal hell.
9. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and paid our debt when the Bible says that God forgives us our debt.
10. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ took the punishment of our sins when the Bible says that God forgives us our sins.
11. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and took the wrath of God when the Bible says that God still has wrath after the atonement, that sinners are not saved from God's wrath until conversion, that the atonement was instead a justification of His mercy, and that believers who return to their sins return to the wrath of God.
12. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ became sinful and guilty on the cross when the Bible says He died the just for the unjust and offered Himself without spot or blemish to God.
13. Calvinism says that those for whom Christ died can never perish when the Bible warns that those for whom Christ died can perish.
14. Calvinism says that Christ only died for a few elect when the Bible says that Jesus died for the world and all men.
15. Calvinism says that God wants most sinners to remain in their sins and die and go to hell, to somehow glorify His justice, when the Bible says God wants all men to repent and be saved.
16. Calvinism says that men cannot repent and believe when the Bible commands men to repent and believe and blames them if they do not.
17. Calvinism says that men cannot repent and believe because they are born spiritually dead because of Adam when the Bible says that men are dead or alienated from God because of their own trespasses and sins and says the prodigal son was able to return to the father even though he was dead to the father.
18. Calvinism says that God predestined individuals for heaven or hell when the Bible says that God has chosen to offer salvation to the Jews and the Gentiles, grafting in some and cutting off others based upon their faith or unbelief.
19. Calvinism says that God predestined some for Heaven and most for hell according to the pleasure of His will, when the Bible says that God sent Jesus to die for all, commands all men to repent and believe, is drawing all men unto Himself, is not willing that any should perish, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
20. Calvinism says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers when the Bible says that our faith is imputed as righteousness.
21. Calvinism says that God doesn't see believers if they sin, but see's imputed righteousness instead, when the Bible says God is omniscient and nothing is hide from His eyes.
22. Calvinism says that true believers will persevere unto the end when the Bible exhorts believers to persevere, warns of damnation if they do not, and speaks of some who have departed from the faith.
My list can go on and on but these are just some of the major points.
Jesus spoke of lightning that lights up the sky SIDEWAYS that no one can fail to witness “from the east and flashes to the west” (Matthew 24:27); not some corner of the sky downwards [Preterists notice: when he comes, we will all know].
And when he spoke of Satan this is the literal:
“I was beholding the Adversary, as lightning from the heaven having fallen”
Luke 10:18YLT
Jesus, as suddenly and clearly as lightning can be seen, witnessed the sudden fall of Satan.
The truth of this passage involves the reality Satan was not made by God as he is.
Satan’s fall and the beginning of evil is not a direct consequence of a plan or action of God.
“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” 1 John 1:5
So God had no knowledge of evil’s constituency, nor how it would function, until it manifested.
May 8, 2013 at 8:53 pm Here is a series of videos on Open Theism I've been enjoying watching, not all the way through yet but thought I would share them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of52ji-NfBk&list=PL26wBwzo4McrshkuD4uJxGrE8u6mDELjN
Many Christians believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but is this really the case? Does God really know everything that's going to happen through...
After a famous pastor (I'm not going to give him any more publicity) claimed he drove an SUV because God's going to burn up creation anyway, here comes another perspective - would God let us destroy the planet?
Attachment UnavailableThis attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
Videos of the speakers from the Open2013 conference:
Attachment UnavailableThis attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
"It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy and truth. The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is the revelation of His character of love."
Ellen G. White
http://godscharacter.com/index.php/whoisgod
Hello friends, I have a question that I would love to discuss with you:
How is God morally inculpable for creating children that would inevitably choose to elicit unfathomable and irredeemable suffering, given that the "Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8), which largely implies that God predicted and provided for a fall?
So if God knew that humankind would inevitably fall why would he create in the first place? It would clearly have been wiser and more benevolent to not have created at all. It seems to me that the Open Theist distinction between future 'necessity' and future 'inevitability' is pretty much meaningless at this point.
I think I might have a few responses to this, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Has anybody seen this survey: "Are you an arminian and don't even know it?" Would anybody see any value in having a survey titled: "Are you an open theist and don't even know it?" Here are some potential questions: (1) Do you believe God genuienly responds to prayer? (2) Do you believe God is affected by what people do? (3) Do you believe God is ever surprised by what people do? (4) Do you believe God can change his mind? or more specific questions: do you believe God would be pleased if you chose to be loving towards a person today and upset if you chose to be unloving towards that same person today? http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/
May 1, 2013 at 11:23 am "Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature" is now available! http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/new-book-does-man-inherit-a-sinful-nature-by-jesse-morrell/
biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com
The question, “Does man inherit a sinful nature?” is a question that has been discussed throughout Christian history. In our day, this question is very important and relevant. We live in a society ...
Phil Papers released the results of a survey of philosophy PhDs on a number of philosophical issues. Here are a few of the frequencies that may be of interest to the group:
Free will: Compatibilism 59.1%; Libertarianism 13.7%; Other 30.8%
God: Atheism 72.9%; Theism 14.6%; Other 12.6%
Time: B-Theory 26.3%; A-Theory 15.5%; Other 58.2%
Attachment UnavailableThis attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
To let either the birth of Christ or the Death of Christ as single events eclipse the life and teaching of Christ divests both of their power.
April 28, 2013 at 11:22 pm Gravity, Oh, Gravity - wherefore art thou, Gravity? Looks like Uncle Albert is on top of the charts again, having his Theory of Gravity being newly 'confirmed'. Ever tried to visualize 'three-dimentinally' what the 'fabric of space' looks like around 'heavy' things in space? And, what's a gluon anyway? Any 'Open Theists' want to engage science on this one?
online.wsj.com
Scientists have subjected Albert Einstein's famous theory of gravity to its toughest real-world test so far—and it has prevailed.
April 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm The Rise and Fall of Uzziah http://eepurl.com/yOq_9
us4.campaign-archive1.com
When you sit on a sofa or chair that you’ve never seen before, you have faith that it won’t collapse. But would you have the same faith if you knew that the sofa is 98% empty space?
We worship God for what he has done in history, not for being timeless. As the liturgy says "Christ has come Christ has died Christ will come again" - John Sanders
Hi all,
The moderators (admins) have been talking for a while about how to reframe our reason for being and putting out some guidelines for our conversations. The following is what we’ve come up with. It might get tweaked a bit here and there, but it’s firm enough to put out. It’ll go on the appropriate page for information:
---------------------------
We love conversation that’s informing, encouraging, and respectful. There’s plenty of bad press about open theism throughout the internet these days, and we’d like our conversations to be an exception to that, a place where we model truly respectful and irenic dialogue. Most people are able to converse without resorting to abusive speech, but occasionally you meet people who don’t know how to engage in healthy dialogue. You can find these folks along a wide range from mildly and unintentionally abrasive to intentionally insulting. We have zero desire to police conversations, but we also have no desire to clutter the room up with abusive talk, so the following are a representative list of conversational styles and strategies we do not welcome.
Profanity or crass humor.
Profane images or videos or links to such material.
Rude, insulting, condescending or belittling comments and insinuations.
Public soliciting of members to join other groups.
Trolling and harassing.
Hijacking threads.
Posting copyrighted material without the prior approval of the author.
Advertising for-profit businesses or soliciting members to join other groups.
Threats or encouragements to criminal behavior.
Racist or sexist comments.
Posting in ALL CAPS. It’s a pain in the butt to read.
Posting SPAM.
Exceptionally long posts (say, longer than six short paragraphs).
As is the case with all such discussion sites, it is left to the moderators or admins to decide whether one or more of these guidelines is being dismissed and if so what sort of response on our part is appropriate. Typically a member will get a warning or two before a ban.
- "I'm geebob and I approve this website".This website created and maintained by: © 2005-2012 Brian Martin ℅ theologyweb.com | image credit: The Thinker by Vit Kovalcik
Powered by WordPress and Mystique theme by digitalnature |RSS Feeds