The concept of the Elect.

[OldRegular]

What you are saying is that God makes His plans and decisions as time goes along.

I believe that Van may be pushing "open theology", that is, "God makes it up as he goes along" or "God is not really God"!

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Open Theology Affirms That

1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations,
2) the future is open and God does not fully know or settle it, and
3) love is uniquely exemplified by God and is the human ethical imperative.

One might note that Item 1 above is similar to Arminian Doctrine of Salvation.

************************************

Or it is just possible he is hung up on "process theology", that is, God is really not God!

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Process_theology

"Process theology (also known as Neoclassical theology) is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947).

The concepts of process theology include:

God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being.

Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature.

The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will.

Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings.

God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities.

God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism)

Because God contains a changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time.

People do not experience a subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have an objective immortality in that their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was."

All the above on process theology appears to be a slight modification of pantheism [Hindu and Buddhist]

 

[freeatlast]

I believe that Van may be pushing "open theology", that is, "God makes it up as he goes along" or "God is not really God"!

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Open Theology Affirms That

1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations,
2) the future is open and God does not fully know or settle it, and
3) love is uniquely exemplified by God and is the human ethical imperative.

One might note that Item 1 above is similar to Arminian Doctrine of Salvation.

************************************

Or it is just possible he is hung up on "process theology", that is, God is really not God!

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Process_theology

"Process theology (also known as Neoclassical theology) is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947).

The concepts of process theology include:

God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being.

Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature.

The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will.

Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings.

God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities.

God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism)

Because God contains a changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time.

People do not experience a subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have an objective immortality in that their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was."

All the above on process theology appears to be a slight modification of pantheism [Hindu and Buddhist]

That is really a bad representation as even open theism does not teach God is not God. I have never heard and open theist say such a thing.

 

[Mark_13]

[re: #41]

As far as "Open Theology", there are in fact just scores and scores of passages in the Bible that seem to portray God as if operating under the same limitations as to knowledge, power, etc. as characterize normal human beings. For example in one instance you have God telling Abraham he's heard that Sodom and Gomorrah are really wicked, so He (God) says will go down there to see if its really true. A hundred such verses could be listed here if necessary. In orthodox Christianity such incidents are interpreted to be God assuming such attributes only for the purpose of interacting with his creation in the unfolding human drama, and not indicative of his true eternal nature.

And now that I think of it, in the New Testament, you have the resurrected Christ assuming some alternate human form and joining up with a party travelling on foot some distance from Jerusalem, and this group are discussing all the events surrounding Christ's death and resurrection and the real Christ who is walking along with them acts like its the first he's ever heard of it.

But evidently in open theology, all such incidents regarding God (excluding I suppose the one regarding Christ I just mentioned) are interpreted as if literally conveying the true Nature of God.

There are of course scores of passages as well that seem to indicate that God is in fact omniscient and omnipotent, but Open Theologists put some nonliteral spin on them. So iow, the verses orthodoxy takes as literal, Open Theology takes as figurative, and the verses orthodoxy takes as figurative, Open Theology takes as literal.

But also, there is admittedly at least one prophecy made through God in the Bible that came out quite differently than prophesied. This would also seem to give fuel to Open Theologist arguments that the future is not set, or that I suppose God is not omnisicient regarding it. In Ezekiel 26-28, God describes how Tyre will be completely destroyed by Babylon, but then in chapter 29, it is said that Babylon tries for years to overthrow Tyre but fails to, so God will give them Egypt to conquer instead. I personally have faith that there is an explanation even here consistent with an Orthodox understanding of God's omniscience and omnipotence. For example, for some part of that Tyre discourse, Tyre may represent something broader than the ancient near-eastern nation itself. But for Open Theologists, I suppose its clear evidence that God doesn't know the future completely.

If someone is actually a Baptist (e.g. a member of a Baptist church) then they ought to be able promulgate whatever they want in here I think, if they truly believe it.

However, putting a new alternate spin on the traditional understanding of God does seem to have heretical overtones. After all, wasn't it a key tenant of gnosticism that the God of the Old Testament, the creator God, was not the ultimate God.

Furthermore, the idea that the future is not set (as claimed in Open Theology) I do not believe is even scientifically tenable, except in some increasingly questionable interpretations of Quantum Theory. Such interpretations seize upon some apparent paradoxes in quantum mechanics that seem to suggest that nothing is set until it is actually observed but something conscious. But such interpretations I believe are increasingly falling by the wayside. I recently read a good portion of a book that says all the paradoxes in quantum mechanics vanish when you quit assuming that light has any particle attributes at all. (Something of a tangent, but someone in this forum has "Quantum" as part of their handle, so maybe relevant.)

 

[Mark_13]

Otoh, someone shouldn't win an argument just by invoking "orthodoxy" which I'm doing to some extent in my previous post.

 

[freeatlast]

[re: #41]


Furthermore, the idea that the future is not set (as claimed in Open Theology) I do not believe is even scientifically tenable, except in some increasingly questionable interpretations of Quantum Theory. Such interpretations seize upon some apparent paradoxes in quantum mechanics that seem to suggest that nothing is set until it is actually observed but something conscious. But such interpretations I believe are increasingly falling by the wayside. I recently read a good portion of a book that says all the paradoxes in quantum mechanics vanish when you quit assuming that light has any particle attributes at all. (Something of a tangent, but someone in this forum has "Quantum" as part of their handle, so maybe relevant.)

What makes you think that every event in all history is set in stone? Scripture please.

 

[Mark_13]

What makes you think that every event in all history is set in stone? Scripture please.

(Eccl 1:3-10) What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun? A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever. Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us.

 

[freeatlast]

(Eccl 1:3-10) What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun? A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever. Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us.

That passage does not state that everything is set. It says there is nothing new under the sun. In other words there is not some strange thing that is going to take place as the world is going to continue on as spoken about in scripture. The sun will rise, the wind will blow, the rain will fall and so on. That has absolutely nothing to do with everything being pre-determined or set in stone.

 

[Mark_13]

That passage does not state that everything is set. It says there is nothing new under the sun. In other words there is not some strange thing that is going to take place as the world is going to continue on as spoken about in scripture. The sun will rise, the wind will blow, the rain will fall and so on. That has absolutely nothing to do with everything being pre-determined or set in stone.

To me that passage is saying that the entire universe, including mankind is one gigantic clockwork mechanism.

But I'll come up with some other passages later.

 

[OldRegular]

That is really a bad representation as even open theism does not teach God is not God. I have never heard and open theist say such a thing.

You may not have and I would not expect them to admit it. But the fact is that the god of open theism is not the God declared in Scripture. Therefore the god of open theism [or process theology] is not god!

 

[OldRegular]

[re: #41]


If someone is actually a Baptist (e.g. a member of a Baptist church) then they ought to be able promulgate whatever they want in here I think, if they truly believe it.

I believe that the above is incorrect and contrary to Board Rules Mark!

 

[freeatlast]

You may not have and I would not expect them to admit it. But the fact is that the god of open theism is not the God declared in Scripture. Therefore the god of open theism [or process theology] is not god!

I am afraid I don't agree with you. Some who are Calvinist say the same thing about non Calvinists and it is also false about them. Until they claim that God is not God I would not be too quick to claim they hold that.

 

[Van]

Lots of off topic posts having nothing to do with the concept of the elect.
One of the ways Calvinists run away from their doctrine is to change the subject and slander their opponents.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Sometimes I think this is how Paul felt when he wandered up to Aeropagus. Acts 17:21

 

[Van]

Reply to Amy G,

So when did God elect Christ as redeemer? At His birth? In His "lifetime"?
NO! He was elect before the foundation of the earth.

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

What you are saying is that God makes His plans and decisions as time goes along.
He is not stuck in this box we call time. He is outside of time and all of His elections were done before He ever created a thing.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I have posted in this thread numerous times that God chose Christ before the foundation of the world. Now the Word is eternal so that would put God's election of Christ to be His Lamb, during His lifetime. Strike One

Am I saying God makes plans? Yes! Recall Acts 2:23 where Christ was crucified according to God's predetermined plan. Are you saying God does not make plans? Recall that no plan of God can be thwarted.

Am I saying God says to men, if you do this I will do that, but if you do something else, I will not do that? Yes, recall Jonah and God not carrying out the calamity because the people repented?

Were all of God's elections done before creation? What scripture supports that complete fiction. Did God not choose Paul from the womb? How about His prophets. Scripture is full of God's choices being made in time. Yes, He also made elections before time, but the assertion they all were is nonsense and utterly unbiblical.

 

[Mark_13]

Lots of off topic posts having nothing to do with the concept of the elect.
One of the ways Calvinists run away from their doctrine is to change the subject and slander their opponents.

Van, I don't believe OldRegular necessarily meant it as an insult to say you subscribe to Open Theology. Evidently there's a big segment of Christendom who apparently subscribe to that now. If its not true of you, you could just disavow it.

Something that now occurs to me is that there are numerous passages in the Old Testament that are prophetic of Christ specifically. So God evidently chose him thousands of years before he was born (at the very least). Are you saying that even the physical birth of other Christians was not known to God that far in advance, and that maybe he had to wait for them to be born to choose them.

It says in scripture Christ is the firstborn among many bretheren - are you saying that Christ is the only one God knew about in advance. I'm just asking for clarification.

 

[Van]

Basically Calvinism cannot be defended as it is in conflict with scripture after scripture, so they change the subject, misrepresent opponents views, redefine words to fit their doctrine, and make bogus claims about Greek grammar.

If you look back at my posts on page 4, you will see no rebuttal, just a change to topic. And the beat goes on.

 

[jbh28]

Van, I don't believe OldRegular necessarily meant it as an insult to say you subscribe to Open Theology. Evidently there's a big segment of Christendom who apparently subscribe to that now. If its not true of you, you could just disavow it.

Something that now occurs to me is that there are numerous passages in the Old Testament that are prophetic of Christ specifically. So God evidently chose him thousands of years before he was born (at the very least). Are you saying that even the physical birth of other Christians was not known to God that far in advance, and that maybe he had to wait for them to be born to choose them.

It says in scripture Christ is the firstborn among many bretheren - are you saying that Christ is the only one God knew about in advance. I'm just asking for clarification.

The ignore tool works really well. There usually isn't an insult.

 

[OldRegular]

I am afraid I don't agree with you. Some who are Calvinist say the same thing about non Calvinists and it is also false about them. Until they claim that God is not God I would not be too quick to claim they hold that.

Anyone who believes the following:

1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations,
2) the future is open and God does not fully know or settle it

Does not know the God of the Bible.

 

[Van]

Hi Mark, God does as He pleases. If He had wanted to exhaustively control everything, He could do that. He is God Almightly. For you to suggest I do not agree with that is simply a slanderous attack on me personally.

But lets return to what scripture says. When did God choose Paul. (1) before creation. (2) from the womb. How does it read to you. If you deny God chose Paul from the womb, we cannot continue because without a committment to truth, the discussion goes the way of most discussions with Calvinists because they will say anything such as all elections occurred before creation.

Lots of folks, both Arminians and Calvinists simply say scripture does not mean what it says. I stand alone on this board as one who says scripture means what it says. Now some of it must be understood as hyperbole, or figuratively such as comparing devotion to one as love and a much lesser devotion to another as hate, but these are exceptions to the rule. Paul was chosen from the womb. In Romans 9 when did God choose the younger over the older? When there were two babies in her womb.

This constant rewrite of scripture, saying God foresaw this or that to put the decision back before time has no warrent, it is a straight up rewrite of scripture according to the clever stories of men.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, He also made elections before time, but the assertion they all were is nonsense and utterly unbiblical.

So the Apostle Paul is mistaken when he wrote:

For God is not the author of confusion, [1 Corinthians 14:33]

and:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love [Ephesians 1:4]

Him is Jesus Christ!