The ROSE Acronym

[humblethinker]

I've not seen this before but it's an interesting acronym. I am not convinced that any of this is necessarily inaccurate.

The ROSE Acronym:

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

O - Openness

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Openness,' God speaks of and knows the possible, future choices of free agents as possibilities. God allows the future to remain open to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly open.

S - Sovereignty

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Determinism,' God speaks of and knows the certainties that God will carry out in God's own power as certainties. God determines the future to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly composed of certainties.

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever. Christ is the perfect revelation of who God is, even in his emotions

 

[HeirofSalvation]

...............................deleted....I doubt it served the purpose of OP

 

[OldRegular]

Another in a series of threads that is trying desperately to get people on the slippery slope of error leading to heresy.

 

[humblethinker]

Another in a series of threads that is trying desperately to get people on the slippery slope of error leading to heresy.

Unless you are disagreeing with all of the points in the OP what is your problem? Your claim is unconvincing.

 

[asterisktom]

I've not seen this before but it's an interesting acronym. I am not convinced that any of this is necessarily inaccurate.

The ROSE Acronym:

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

O - Openness

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Openness,' God speaks of and knows the possible, future choices of free agents as possibilities. God allows the future to remain open to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly open.

S - Sovereignty

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Determinism,' God speaks of and knows the certainties that God will carry out in God's own power as certainties. God determines the future to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly composed of certainties.

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever. Christ is the perfect revelation of who God is, even in his emotions

I think Shakespeare's Rose smells sweeter.

Hard to know where to begin. Each one of the petals weigh heavily against core definitions of deity.

Biggest problem is that there is no scriptural basis for any of this. To say that the future is "partly composed of certainties" is to say that the other part is uncertain - uncertain to God. It is needless to quote verses that clearly prove that God is omniscient. There are no uncertainties with Him.

I was going to go into further details, but I believe it is not worth it. This acronym - whoever made it - is the product borne from man's hopeful reasoning, not from revelation - the Bible.

What OR said.

 

[OldRegular]

Unless you are disagreeing with all of the points in the OP what is your problem? Your claim is unconvincing.

Open theism is heretical and the above is just a slick way of sucking people in. You have made a number of similar posts, just what is your motive?

 

[humblethinker]

Open theism is heretical and the above is just a slick way of sucking people in. You have made a number of similar posts, just what is your motive?

Thank you for asking, I appreciate your interest.

My motive of my current participation is much the same reason why I came to baptistboard.com in the first place. Being faced with the possibility that I may not have a choice but to believe that Calvinism was the best representation of the metanarrative of scripture and the most accurate description of the world God had created, I came to baptistboard.com in an attempt to understand truth. I was wanting to educate myself on the arguments for and against Calvinism and Free Will. I never had to wrestle with Calvinism since it was never specifically addressed in any open, direct way until I almost joined a church whose new pastor was a Calvinist (We developed a personal relationship and I deeply respect this man. Very kind, reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful... one of my heroes actually). Maybe it was the case that I never felt the need to look into the matter of christian determinism. Once I felt the need then I understood, with greater importance, the need to understand my own belief, which was "I believe what the scripture teaches." I needed to be able to defend my own belief. To defend it, not so much against other people but defend it against myself. If I cannot be convinced of the reason of my faith then how can I have intellectual integrety or even a faith that has integrity? How could I expect others to come to faith in a God of who's character and basic qualities I was not convinced of or even understood. I have two children and this kind of integrity is very important to me. (Please don't take this as an accusation against all those that believe in Calvinism.)

I don't believe Open Theism is heretical. I don't think reason ever necessarily sucks people into heresy. While I have always been on the Free Will/Risk side of the devide, I don't think I could even define Open Theism prior to 8 months ago. Now I am looking for arguments against Open Theism, none of which so far are convincing. I don't think I will find better arguments against Open Theism than what I've read outside of baptistboard.com. Most arguments here are against a strawman. Those here warning against it seem much like a shaman who, in ignorance and fear, issues a curse and arrogant threats.

 

[Cypress]

Thank you for asking, I appreciate your interest.

My motive of my current participation is much the same reason why I came to baptistboard.com in the first place. Being faced with the possibility that I may not have a choice but to believe that Calvinism was the best representation of the metanarrative of scripture and the most accurate description of the world God had created, I came to baptistboard.com in an attempt to understand truth. I was wanting to educate myself on the arguments for and against Calvinism and Free Will. I never had to wrestle with Calvinism since it was never specifically addressed in any open, direct way until I almost joined a church whose new pastor was a Calvinist (We developed a personal relationship and I deeply respect this man. Very kind, reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful... one of my heroes actually). Maybe it was the case that I never felt the need to look into the matter of christian determinism. Once I felt the need then I understood, with greater importance, the need to understand my own belief, which was "I believe what the scripture teaches." I needed to be able to defend my own belief. To defend it, not so much against other people but defend it against myself. If I cannot be convinced of the reason of my faith then how can I have intellectual integrety or even a faith that has integrity? How could I expect others to come to faith in a God of who's character and basic qualities I was not convinced of or even understood. I have two children and this kind of integrity is very important to me. (Please don't take this as an accusation against all those that believe in Calvinism.)

I don't believe Open Theism is heretical. I don't think reason ever necessarily sucks people into heresy. While I have always been on the Free Will/Risk side of the devide, I don't think I could even define Open Theism prior to 8 months ago. Now I am looking for arguments against Open Theism, none of which so far are convincing. I don't think I will find better arguments against Open Theism than what I've read outside of baptistboard.com. Most arguments here are against a strawman. Those here warning against it seem much like a shaman who, in ignorance and fear, issues a curse and arrogant threats.

Well said sir, you are not alone.:love2:

 

[Yeshua1]

I've not seen this before but it's an interesting acronym. I am not convinced that any of this is necessarily inaccurate.

The ROSE Acronym:

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

Sinners cannot will themselves to be saved, its takes the grace of God first intervening on their behalf! Also, How can God be immutable in all of his eternal divne attributes IF something we do/decide changes him?

O - Openness

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Openness,' God speaks of and knows the possible, future choices of free agents as possibilities. God allows the future to remain open to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly open.

partly open as that God Himself does not know what is going to actually happen yet, or that he has not yet "fixed" the future?

S - Sovereignty

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Determinism,' God speaks of and knows the certainties that God will carry out in God's own power as certainties. God determines the future to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly composed of certainties.

can God chose to not know in an absolute sense the Future, Think NOT!

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever. Christ is the perfect revelation of who God is, even in his emotions

God is NOT a man, so that he can change his mind! he is indeed Love as One of his attributes, but even more so the Bible calls him the HOLY and Undefiled one!

IF we just take the inspired bible as the ONLY source to who God is...

the "god" that this is referencing here is NOT the One of the bible!

 

[humblethinker]

IF we just take the inspired bible as the ONLY source to who God is...

the "god" that this is referencing here is NOT the One of the bible!

Yes it is.
Really, doesn't such a reply get old? I'm no more for 'rose' than I am against 'tulip'. I do agree that we just take only the Bible to inform us as to who He is. I think the better question though is, "What kind of a world did He create?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes it is.
Really, doesn't such a reply get old? I'm no more for 'rose' than I am against 'tulip'. I do agree that we just take only the Bible to inform us as to who He is. I think the better question though is, "What kind of a world did He create?"

a world that is the very best that a Sovereign Giod could make!

 

[humblethinker]

a world that is the very best that a Sovereign Giod could make!

Ok, so you say that He was incapable to make any other world than the one that is? These ideas of logical extremes: omni's, best etc! It is the philosophy of man that you are attempting to invoke and bind God with. What in scripture teaches us that God must create the 'best'? Each step in creating this world He never describes it as 'best' but instead as 'good'.

 

[freeatlast]

I've not seen this before but it's an interesting acronym. I am not convinced that any of this is necessarily inaccurate.

The ROSE Acronym:

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

O - Openness

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Openness,' God speaks of and knows the possible, future choices of free agents as possibilities. God allows the future to remain open to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly open.

S - Sovereignty

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Determinism,' God speaks of and knows the certainties that God will carry out in God's own power as certainties. God determines the future to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly composed of certainties.

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever. Christ is the perfect revelation of who God is, even in his emotions

It is accurate to those who hold it and inaccurate to those who do not.

 

[freeatlast]

Open theism is heretical and the above is just a slick way of sucking people in. You have made a number of similar posts, just what is your motive?

How is open theism any more heretical then many who reject the millennium age, or hold to absolute election, or free will, or may other doctrines that cannot be proven in absolute?

 

[freeatlast]

Ok, so you say that He was incapable to make any other world than the one that is? These ideas of logical extremes: omni's, best etc! It is the philosophy of man that you are attempting to invoke and bind God with. What in scripture teaches us that God must create the 'best'? Each step in creating this world He never describes it as 'best' but instead as 'good'.

Can God do anything that is less then perfect and remain perfect.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ok, so you say that He was incapable to make any other world than the one that is? These ideas of logical extremes: omni's, best etc! It is the philosophy of man that you are attempting to invoke and bind God with. What in scripture teaches us that God must create the 'best'? Each step in creating this world He never describes it as 'best' but instead as 'good'.

perhaps best to say that with God, whatever he chose to create was made exactly as He intended it to be, so there was ONLY the choice that he made in creating it!

 

[Yeshua1]

How is open theism any more heretical then many who reject the millennium age, or hold to absolute election, or free will, or may other doctrines that cannot be proven in absolute?

Far as I know, those other beliefs hold to God being still ahving absolute knowledge, unlike Open theism!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is accurate to those who hold it and inaccurate to those who do not.

or that it creates a view of God that might fit man philosophies and speculations, but does NOT fit the biblical God!

 

[freeatlast]

or that it creates a view of God that might fit man philosophies and speculations, but does NOT fit the biblical God!

Those beliefs are arrived from the bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those beliefs are arrived from the bible.

after they have been pressed thru the lense of amn rationalism/science/philosophy etc...

Bible sees God is immortal, Creator all things m as he ALONE always has been, and that NOTHING is hidden from Him, not known by him!