Partially Open Theology

[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.

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

No verse says God causes all things, thus He allows humans to sin or not, rather than compels their sins by predestining them. When a sparrow falls upon the ground, it does not occur "apart" from the Father. Some add to scripture this means apart from the Father's knowledge, care, will, or allowance. Clearly Matthew 10:29 is vague, so to read into it exhaustive predestination, allows others to read into it allowance.

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.

 

[percho]

Was William Shakespeare the greatest theologian of them all?

 

[percho]

For we know that the law is spiritual: but *I* am fleshly, sold under sin. Rom 7:14 Darby

Paul wrote that, however could have Adam honestly have said it? Does it take a, "law," to give power to sin?

Consider 1 Cor 15:58 YLT and the sting of the death, is, the sin, and the power of the sin the law; From Gen 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil, because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

In reality isn't the all about these three?

The devil
The first man Adam ----- brought the death
The second Man, the last Adam???????????? ----- brought the promise of God, who cannot lie. Promised before times of ages.


Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess!

How? When?

Gospel?

 

[canadyjd]

Why qualify the definition as “partial open theism”?

It seems to me that “open” and “closed” are opposites that cannot share the same space. Either God knows the end from the beginning, or He does not. Either God is all powerful, or He is not. Either no man can come to saving grace unless God intervenes in their life or they can use their own will power to come to God.

Your argument is sort of like saying water is partially wet, or fire is partially hot.

Don’t attempt half steps. Just embrace open theism, be proud of it and make your arguments.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Why qualify the definition as “partial open theism”?

It seems to me that “open” and “closed” are opposites that cannot share the same space. Either God knows the end from the beginning, or He does not. Either God is all powerful, or He is not. Either no man can come to saving grace unless God intervenes in their life or they can use their own will power to come to God.

Your argument is sort of like saying water is partially wet, or fire is partially hot.

Don’t attempt half steps. Just embrace open theism, be proud of it and make your arguments.

peace to you

If everything is predestined, that is closed theology. If everything is not predestined, that is open theology. However, if some things are predestined, and other things are not predestined, then reality is partially open and partially closed.

You say "God knows the end from the beginning" which is misrepresenting scripture, probably based on a lack of study.

You say no one can "come" to "saving grace" unless God "intervenes" or we can come to God all on our own. Both statements are unbiblical nonsense.

Can a lost person hear the gospel and put their trust and devotion upon Christ all on their own? Nope. We must be "drawn" (attracted) by the Father through the gospel. If a person has not heard and "learned" from the Father, they cannot believe fully in Christ. (John 6:44-45)

So by the numbers:

1) God must reveal His gospel to us or we cannot believe.

2) God must allow us to believe, i.e. not harden our hearts so we cannot believe.

Thus we must have "heard" God's revelation, and must first had the capacity to believe, and then made the choice to repent from going our own way, and believe in Christ and fully commit and submit to Christ as Lord, to have "learned" from the Father.

Sir, just embrace what scripture says, and avoid misrepresenting what scripture actually says, which is God "declares the end from the beginning." (Isaiah 46:10)

 

[Van]

Let us take a look at Romans 7:14:

NASB
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin.​

1) The Law is spiritual means God's word has a divine origin, and acts to lead the lost to Christ.

2) But Paul is "unspiritual" (using the idea Paul is expressing things in opposition).

3) Sold translates a Greek word used in some cases to refer to a sale into bondage or slavery, thus the NASB choice.

4) "To sin" or "under sin?" Here we have two very different views. Does "Sin" own us, or were we sold under the power of sin into bondage. Are we under bondage to our "unspiritual" nature because of the power of sin? I think that is the idea.

And who will set us free from this bondage to our unspiritual nature? The Lord Jesus Christ!!

 

[Van]

If reality is that fallen humans can grasp the milk of the gospel, then they can choose to embrace Christ fully and turn from a life governed by darkness.

 

[Van]

Does the Bible indicate humans make choices, thus choosing between actual alternatives, rather than just believing in the illusion of choice as God has foreordained (predestined) whatsoever comes to pass? Yes

To claim those choosing were "choosing" between only one possible outcome is to redefine the meaning of choice to mean "non-choice."

 

[Van]

Consider 1Corinthians 15:17 (NASB)

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.​

If your faith does not refer to the faith we put in the gospel message, but rather a faith compelled by irresistible grace, how could it be worthless? It could not. To accept "your faith" in the dozens of verses where it appears, just refers to an illusion, because the meaning is "your instilled by irresistible grace faith" presents a rather complete rewrite of God's word.

To believe in a partially open theology means to believe in scripture as written.

 

[Van]

In the story about Mary and Martha, Luke 10:38-42, we see that Mary, according to Jesus, had "chosen" the good part. Are we to say, Jesus was stoking the fire of illusion for He actually mean Mary had been ordained to choose the good part? Would it be wrong to say we should accept Jesus at His word? Partially open theology is found throughout scripture.

 

[canadyjd]

….

Sir, just embrace what scripture says, and avoid misrepresenting what scripture actually says, which is God "declares the end from the beginning." (Isaiah 46:10)

I didn’t use “quotes”.

I am not surprised you would accuse me not knowing scripture by my saying God knows the end from the beginning instead of God declares the end from the beginning. To declare it is to know it. Do you think otherwise?

Jesus said let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. You are being lukewarm, neither hot or cold, non-committed.

As with all your theology, you posit no real objective truth. Your Luke warm theology allows you to interpret any passage to fit your preconceived bias. This is obvious in every thread and every post where you say “this passage COULD BE interpreted….”

I had hoped to engage you in a substantive discussion. I’m not sure that is possible between us so I’ll leave you to yourself.

peace to you

 

[percho]

Let us take a look at Romans 7:14:

NASB
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin.​

1) The Law is spiritual means God's word has a divine origin, and acts to lead the lost to Christ.

2) But Paul is "unspiritual" (using the idea Paul is expressing things in opposition).

3) Sold translates a Greek word used in some cases to refer to a sale into bondage or slavery, thus the NASB choice.

4) "To sin" or "under sin?" Here we have two very different views. Does "Sin" own us, or were we sold under the power of sin into bondage. Are we under bondage to our "unspiritual" nature because of the power of sin? I think that is the idea.

And who will set us free from this bondage to our unspiritual nature? The Lord Jesus Christ!!

I clicked, "like," for as V's 24,25 YLT A wretched man I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord; so then, I myself indeed with the mind do serve the law of God, and with the flesh, the law of sin.

Brings to mind; Rom 8:23 YLT And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

Methinks God created Adam in the body he did, placed him in a garden he had planted, gave him a spiritual law, in order to be redeemed.

 

[Van]

I didn’t use “quotes”.

I am not surprised you would accuse me not knowing scripture by my saying God knows the end from the beginning instead of God declares the end from the beginning. To declare it is to know it. Do you think otherwise?

Jesus said let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. You are being lukewarm, neither hot or cold, non-committed.

As with all your theology, you posit no real objective truth. Your Luke warm theology allows you to interpret any passage to fit your preconceived bias. This is obvious in every thread and every post where you say “this passage COULD BE interpreted….”

I had hoped to engage you in a substantive discussion. I’m not sure that is possible between us so I’ll leave you to yourself.

peace to you

Folks, this entire post is a denial of scripture, and an assault upon truth.

God knows what He declares does not equate with God knows the future, some of which He has declared.

Next it is suggested I do not clearly present my views, presenting a sharp contrast with what I see as false doctrine. Twaddle

Lastly, this poster claims, "I post no "real objective truth" but that is just vituperative malarkey.

Turning now to the objective truth that scripture presents partialy open theology, with the future partially fixed by the predestination of God, and partially unfixed by God's allowance of our autonomous choices, such as Mary choosing the good part.

Now take a look at Luke 14:7:

Now He began telling a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them,...​

Here Jesus notices that they had been "picking out" [choosing] not the best choice. Again, for the "closed theology" advocates to claim Jesus was just reinforcing the illusion of choice, as everything is predestined, represents a denial of God's truth on a grand scale.

 

[Van]

I clicked, "like," for as V's 24,25 YLT A wretched man I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord; so then, I myself indeed with the mind do serve the law of God, and with the flesh, the law of sin.

Brings to mind; Rom 8:23 YLT And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

Methinks God created Adam in the body he did, placed him in a garden he had planted, gave him a spiritual law, in order to be redeemed.

I almost agree with you about God's purpose in creating Adam and through him, all humankind. His purpose was to redeem for Himself a people, those comprising the spiritual body of Christ. And yes, God had formulated His Redemption Plan and chosen His Redeemer, before creation or at least before the fall of man, for the Lamb was foreknown before the foundation of the world.

 

[percho]

I almost agree with you about God's purpose in creating Adam and through him, all humankind. His purpose was to redeem for Himself a people, those comprising the spiritual body of Christ. And yes, God had formulated His Redemption Plan and chosen His Redeemer, before creation or at least before the fall of man, for the Lamb was foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Liked again.

Consider. Would Eve have been deceived, would Adam have eaten also, had not, the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, been in the garden God planted and where God put the man?

This was not an accident by God. IMHO God was doing something because of the presence of the great dragon, on the earth.

 

[Van]

Liked again.

Consider. Would Eve have been deceived, would Adam have eaten also, had not, the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, been in the garden God planted and where God put the man?

This was not an accident by God. IMHO God was doing something because of the presence of the great dragon, on the earth.

Yes, a careful theologian, (A. W. Pink) used the turn of phrase, God arranged for the fall, rather than God caused Adam to sin or caused Eve to be deceived. But He certainly allowed Eve to be deceived, and to encourage Adam to sin. But, even with the encouragement, scripture is clear, Adam "chose" to eat the fruit knowing God had said if you eat you will surely die. Thus a volitional sin.

The arrangement of course including putting the tree in the garden, then commanding Adam not to eat of it or adverse consequences would occur. The arrangement continues with allowing Satan to deceive Eve. I could go on but you get the idea, God had anticipated the fall (choosing His Redeemer beforehand) and had established or formulated His Redemption plan for those of His choosing. Thus we were corporately chosen before the foundation of the world, thus the Redemption plan had at that time been formulated.

 

[percho]

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,

Why?

for even as in Adam all die, from 1 Cor 15:22 He was created to bring the death to man.

That is why!

Adam was created in order to be redeemed. Adam was created according to purpose.

 

[kyredneck]

As with all your theology, you posit no real objective truth. Your Luke warm theology allows you to interpret any passage to fit your preconceived bias. This is obvious in every thread and every post where you say “this passage COULD BE interpreted….”

Spot on.

Vanology is luke warm.

 

[Van]

Scripture says God declares the end from the beginning, which refers to His prophecies.

Those that deny this fundamental truth seem not to be zealous for accurately presenting God's truth.

God allows individuals make choices which alter the outcome of their lives. Those who deny this truth as not zealous to accurately present God's truth.

Calvinists on one hand say they are closed theists, believing everything is predestined (i.e. whatsoever comes to pass) but then in their next breath say God is not the author (or cause) of sin, which means not everything is predestined. Presenting God's truth as a quagmire is not being zealous for presenting God's truth with clarity, boldness and accuracy.

 

[Van]

Luke22:32
but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

If we "interpret" this verse as actually meaning "your instilled by God faith" why did Jesus pray that it would not fail Peter? Because Jesus was referring to the faith Peter, by his choice, had put in Christ. Thus Peter was to be a pillar for the early church, strengthening fellow believers. It is a very human characteristic for our faith and commitment to Christ to "ebb or strengthen" as we walk imperfectly with Christ.

Phrases referring to "your faith" appear more than 40 times in the New Testament, often the very words of Christ. So the lost making the choice to trust in God and His Christ represents overwhelming evidence for a partially open theology.