Not Closed Theology

[Silverhair]

Paul answers #1 in Romans 9. Humans always, 100% of the time, willfully seek themselves as ruler of their lives and they attempt to cast God down.
Paul answers #2 in Romans 10. How could we know we are chosen if we do not hear the voice of Jesus through the preaching of God's word?

The principle of "already, but not yet" is here applied.


Christ could save the world, universally, at his decision. But, the Bible tells us that God does not choose to save everyone (John 6, John 10, John 17). This is God's Sovereign right as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
We who were chosen before the foundation of the world were still dead in our sins. God needed to make us alive with Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-9). Silverhair, why do you repeatedly ignore what God has revealed to you in scripture?


The view I present is what God teaches in scripture, therefore, your thinking it is wrong thus condemns you.
You once again make man the center of attention, lifting man up as the cause of his own salvation. Such a teaching is never presented by God, but you force it into the Bible and then cherry pick verses, out of context, to imagine you have a biblical argument.

You teach salvation apart from grace. We will never be in agreement. We will always stand opposed until you bend your knee to the King and acknowledge that He is the sole cause of your salvation.

@taisto I have pointed you to the truth of scripture but you hold onto your philosophy of determinism. So you are correct in that we will not agree. As I said before, perhaps God will open your eyes to the truth or perhaps not, it all depends upon what he has determined for you.

 

[taisto]

@taisto I have pointed you to the truth of scripture but you hold onto your philosophy of determinism. So you are correct in that we will not agree. As I said before, perhaps God will open your eyes to the truth or perhaps not, it all depends upon what he has determined for you.

You have not pointed out the truth of scripture. You have quoted individual verse as your proof text for your humanist teachings on how humans are saved.

I rest in the authority of God Almighty over my life. His Word brings me great contentment and joy in knowing that the world is not in the chaotic hands of man. God is bringing all things to fruition "at the appointed time." (Daniel 11)

 

[Van]

A significant fraction of believers think God has exhaustively predestined whatsoever comes to pass. We are all like actors on a stage, simply mouthing our words and doing our foreordained actions. But the fly in the buttermilk is that such a viewpoint means we are not responsible for our sinful thoughts and actions as they were foreordained by God and we cannot resist His power to compel.

Thus any system of theology that hold humanity responsible for sin is not a closed theology, but an open, at least partially, theology.

The good news, the gospel of Christ, declares we can be forgiven all the consequences of "our" sin, whether volitional or inadvertent.

Thus to embrace "closed theology" is to deny the very foundation of the gospel.

 

[Van]

Which translation reads: Matthew 10:29-30. "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

It might be the NKJV, or it might be the WEB, as both have "will" as part of the text. However, "will" is not found in the KJV (TR) or the NASB (CT). Several variations are found among our English translation, apparently reading into the text "how" the sparrows fall is not "apart or without" the Father. Several have unknown or unperceived.

So once again a vague verse translated with an interpretive addition, is used to support false doctrine.

God is sovereign in that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Thus no one is claiming "rogue atoms" are in play.

None of the verses cited say God causes all things, thus He allows humans to sin or not, rather than compels their sins by predestining them.

If a sinner has "free will" then his or her choice to sin or not has not been predestined. Some posters want to have it both ways, God causes everything but we are still responsible for the sin He compels. Utter nonsense.

To embrace "closed theology" is to deny the very foundation of the gospel.

 

[Van]

God is sovereign because He either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. This view concedes no ground to those who redefine words to pour false doctrine into God's word.

If God only allows man to choose one option, that is not a choice! If God allows people to choose, they must have a choice of more than one option. If they can only choose to reject God and Christ, that is compulsion, and not allowing choice.

If God is said to "allow" only one choice, that is to say God compels that choice, which is the opposite of allowing someone to make a choice between alternatives.

Some sought to redefine the meaning of words to claim God's sovereignty is not defined by "God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass."

Sovereign = Supreme Power = God Almighty

Nothing happens unless God either causes it, or allows it to occur. His power is supreme.

Closed theology is a fiction from the dark ages.
God allows humans to make choices and holds them accountable for those choices.
No two ways about it!

 

[Piper]

To embrace Open Theology is to say that God is not omniscient and that is beyond the bounds of Orthodox Theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

Closed theology is a fiction from the dark ages.
God allows humans to make choices and holds them accountable for those choices.
No two ways about it!

Is there a difference between open and closed theism and open and closed system theology? Because if you google open and closed theology you get some guy talking about Edwards and Plato and Aristotle and it's totally different from open theism. In addition he says that Edwards held to "open system theology" to which I would point out Edwards definitely did not embrace "open theism".

That's one thing that is confusing to me. Another thing is this:

If God only allows man to choose one option, that is not a choice!

I agree with you on this, as a statement, but I hope you are not trying to say that that is necessarily a Calvinist position, because it is not. The statement you keep putting up:

God is sovereign in that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

This is almost word for word what the late R.C. Sproul said in his book "Chosen by God". Now if you need the exact quote I can get it for you but you need to explain why you can agree on a point like this and then turn around and reject Calvinistic theologians - who are making your point.

 

[37818]

To embrace Open Theology is to say that God is not omniscient and that is beyond the bounds of Orthodox Theology.

Open theology versus open theism.
They are not necessary the same.
My theology is open. But I do not believe in open theism.

 

[Van]

Is there a difference between open and closed theism and open and closed system theology? Because if you google open and closed theology you get some guy talking about Edwards and Plato and Aristotle and it's totally different from open theism. In addition he says that Edwards held to "open system theology" to which I would point out Edwards definitely did not embrace "open theism".

That's one thing that is confusing to me. Another thing is this:

I agree with you on this, as a statement, but I hope you are not trying to say that that is necessarily a Calvinist position, because it is not. The statement you keep putting up:

This is almost word for word what the late R.C. Sproul said in his book "Chosen by God". Now if you need the exact quote I can get it for you but you need to explain why you can agree on a point like this and then turn around and reject Calvinistic theologians - who are making your point.

Thanks for the on topic response!

Open Theology says God has not predestined everything, that humans can choose to believe in God and His Christ and alter the outcome of their lives. Closed Theology says humans were either saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity, and there is nothing we can do to alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones.

R.C. Sproul did indeed use the same phrasing I did in his defense of Calvinism, claiming the Westminster Confession did not mean God predestines whatsoever comes to pass, but only that God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Thus he redefines "ordains" to mean causes or allows when it actually means "predestines."

Note that the Calvinist leaning postes on this board at first claimed "caused or allowed" was invalid, then fell silent when another poster correctly, as you have also correctly, pointed out R.C. Sproul's view matched my view which is a non-Calvinist view.

 

[DaveXR650]

Note that the Calvinist leaning postes on this board at first claimed "caused or allowed" was invalid, then fell silent when another poster correctly, as you have also correctly, pointed out R.C. Sproul's view matched my view which is a non-Calvinist view.

I would argue that R.C.'s view as stated in the most influential modern book that is probably most responsible for the Calvinist popularity in recent years simply cannot be a non-Calvinist view.

But I do agree that if you follow the idea of "either caused or allowed" that does not make you a Calvinist. And I do concede that some Calvinists do openly teach that God directly causes all things that happen to happen.

 

[kyredneck]

But I do agree that if you follow the idea of "either caused or allowed" that does not make you a Calvinist.

'Overruling Providence' is the way most PBs see it. Romans 8:28

 

[Silverhair]

To embrace Open Theology is to say that God is not omniscient and that is beyond the bounds of Orthodox Theology.

How does God giving man an actual free will equate to God not being omniscient? Do you think God can not foreknow what man's free will choices will be unless He determines them? If that is your argument then you have to mean that God also determines all the sin and evil or do you think that is all a surprise to Him?

 

[Van]

I would argue that R.C.'s view as stated in the most influential modern book that is probably most responsible for the Calvinist popularity in recent years simply cannot be a non-Calvinist view.

But I do agree that if you follow the idea of "either caused or allowed" that does not make you a Calvinist. And I do concede that some Calvinists do openly teach that God directly causes all things that happen to happen.

You can argue that the R. C. Sproul "caused or allowed view" is held by some Calvinists, but the majority posting here rejected that view.

 

[Van]

In post 86, one Calvinist leaning poster argued the lost are unable to choose life, thus God sets before them the choice of death only. This is incompatible with God allowing us to sin or not sin. This redefines choice to mean choosing from only one option, i.e. a non-choice.

In post #113, another Calvinist leaning poster admits to the widely held Calvinist belief that God determined in eternity past, the outcome of our lives, and does not allow the lost any opportunity to alter that outcome.

 

[Van]

To embrace Open Theology is to say that God is not omniscient and that is beyond the bounds of Orthodox Theology.

Calvinists that believe God allows us to sin, rather than compels us to sin are Open Theology advocates.

Claiming Jesus knew the time of His return redefines Omniscience to an unbiblical construct. Admitting Jesus did not know the time of His return, yet was "all knowing" returns the concept of Omniscience to a biblical construct.

 

[taisto]

Calvinists that believe God allows us to sin, rather than compels us to sin are Open Theology advocates.

Claiming Jesus knew the time of His return redefines to an unbiblical construct. Admitting Jesus did not know the time of His return, yet was "all knowing" returns the concept of Omniscience to a biblical construct.

We need a definition of open theology.

It seems you are confused in your understanding.

 

[Silverhair]

'Overruling Providence' is the way most PBs see it. Romans 8:28

Why don't you just call it divine determinism and be done with it. I find it strange that a PB will hold to the same doctrines as Calvinists but insist that they are not Calvinists.

 

[DaveXR650]

You can argue that the R. C. Sproul "caused or allowed view" is held by some Calvinists, but the majority posting here rejected that view.

You are quite right and I think Sproul even said that was true at the minimum. He was very deterministic, down to double predestination and so on.

 

[kyredneck]

Why don't you just call it divine determinism and be done with it.

Because it isn't.

I find it strange that a PB will hold to the same doctrines as Calvinists but insist that they are not Calvinists.

<guffawing>....I probably won't sleep over eight hours tonight worrying about what you 'find strange' about those that hold to Sovereign Grace.

 

[MrW]

I don't have any problem with that. The problem is, as you said,"and all can but all won't, so the responsibility is on everyone, not Him." So without some action on God's part no one will be saved - and it's because they won't.
"When men are truly willing to come to Christ they are freely willing. It is not that they are forced and driven by threatenings; but they are willing to come, and choose to come without being driven". Would you agree with that?
"But natural men have no such free willingness; but on the contrary have an aversion. And the ground of it is that which we have heard,viz. That they are enemies to God. Their having such a reining enmity against God, makes them obstinately refuse to come to Christ".

Those quotes are from Jonathan Edwards and as he points out, the problem is indeed that they won't. If the Holy Spirit doesn't act on a person will they ever choose to come to Christ? The only thing wrong with your setup above is that it assumes men have a neutral will that is unaffected by our sinfulness and that the only determining factor in what we do is our own decision. I just think there is more to it than than. If you pray for someone to get saved who has heard the gospel then what are you praying for if not that their will be affected by the Holy Spirit?

Of course I believe God works on people to get them saved—all people who hear the Gospel—some believe and receive and some reject—thus the blame is theirs.