Is Open Theism Heresy?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Part 2
The difference between definitions has a profound affect on Open Theism because Open Theism must hold to Libertarian view of free will, not compatibilism. Why? Because Open Theists hold to the absolute sovereign free will of the individual, regardless of that person's sinful nature.
But, compatibilism teaches that the will is only as free as its nature permits it to be free. If the latter position is true, then how could the God of Open Theism save anyone without intervening in their wills? But since Open Theism maintains that God not only is ignorant of the free will choices of people, He will not interfere with the free will of anyone.
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that God indeed does intervene in people's free choices.
Please consider Prov. 21:1 which says, "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."
If libertarian free will is true and if God does not interfere with a persons' free will at all, then how can Prov. 21:1 be true?
Furthermore, consider how God even hardens people's hearts in order to accomplish His will: "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30).
Also, "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20).
As difficult as some of these verses might be, the fact is that God definitely influences the hearts of individuals. If that is so, then what happens to the Open Theist's position that God will not interfere, in anyway, the free will choices of people?
Free Will
The Bible says the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), that he is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
Do these facts influence the human will?
Both Libertarianism and compatibilism say yes, but libertarianism says that the fallen nature of man does not constrain the free will sufficiently to limit choice.
Compatibilism, on the other hand, states that we cannot violate our own natures and that our will is part of our nature, and that our will is directly related to and affected by our nature which, the Bible says, is in pretty bad shape.
Therefore, in compatibilism, if someone is a slave of sin, is dead, does not seek for God, is full of evil, and does not understand spiritual things, it makes sense to say that his choices are limited to the scope allowed by the description set forth in the Bible.
But the libertarian would say that the will is somehow independent of the nature since it is able to choose contrary to its nature. This, of course, is illogical.
Free will is the ability for a person to make choices that determine some or all of his actions.
I propose that free will involves three aspects: awareness, desire, and choice. Awareness leads to desire, which leads to choice. Please consider the following:
End of Part 2...
Mark
The difference between definitions has a profound affect on Open Theism because Open Theism must hold to Libertarian view of free will, not compatibilism. Why? Because Open Theists hold to the absolute sovereign free will of the individual, regardless of that person's sinful nature.
But, compatibilism teaches that the will is only as free as its nature permits it to be free. If the latter position is true, then how could the God of Open Theism save anyone without intervening in their wills? But since Open Theism maintains that God not only is ignorant of the free will choices of people, He will not interfere with the free will of anyone.
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that God indeed does intervene in people's free choices.
Please consider Prov. 21:1 which says, "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."
If libertarian free will is true and if God does not interfere with a persons' free will at all, then how can Prov. 21:1 be true?
Furthermore, consider how God even hardens people's hearts in order to accomplish His will: "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30).
Also, "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20).
As difficult as some of these verses might be, the fact is that God definitely influences the hearts of individuals. If that is so, then what happens to the Open Theist's position that God will not interfere, in anyway, the free will choices of people?
Free Will
The Bible says the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), that he is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
Do these facts influence the human will?
Both Libertarianism and compatibilism say yes, but libertarianism says that the fallen nature of man does not constrain the free will sufficiently to limit choice.
Compatibilism, on the other hand, states that we cannot violate our own natures and that our will is part of our nature, and that our will is directly related to and affected by our nature which, the Bible says, is in pretty bad shape.
Therefore, in compatibilism, if someone is a slave of sin, is dead, does not seek for God, is full of evil, and does not understand spiritual things, it makes sense to say that his choices are limited to the scope allowed by the description set forth in the Bible.
But the libertarian would say that the will is somehow independent of the nature since it is able to choose contrary to its nature. This, of course, is illogical.
Free will is the ability for a person to make choices that determine some or all of his actions.
I propose that free will involves three aspects: awareness, desire, and choice. Awareness leads to desire, which leads to choice. Please consider the following:
End of Part 2...
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Part 3 Conclusion
Awareness, Desire, and Choice
Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to aware.
Fore example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature. Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
Likewise if our nature affects our ability to choose, then what the Bible says about our nature will effect our ability to choose. As I said above, the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
We must ask the question how a sinful will is able to choose contrary to what the Bible clearly states concerning its nature.
Libertarian free will
The Libertarians would, I hope, agree that we are limited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. From what I have read of Open theists, they easily concede this reality.
But, given the scriptures about the unbelievers nature above, they still maintain that the human free will is not constrained by our sinfulness and is still able to make equal choices between equal options -- say, for example, the ability to choose or reject God in spite of the Bible's declaration of the constraints of our sinful nature.
But what seems to be happening is that the Open Theists want it both ways.
They want to say that we are affected by our nature, and even though we are sinners by nature, our ability to choose is not constrained by that sinful nature.
But, how can this be given the clear direction of scripture about our sinful condition which sates the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)?
At this point, the open theists simply states that human free will is still somehow able to make such choices.
To this I ask, "How can this be so, given the scriptures that speak to the contrary?"
Conclusion
In my opinion, the open theist position of libertarian free will violates the revelation of scripture which clearly restricts our unregenerate human natures as not being free from sin.
It further contradicts scripture that tells us that God intervenes in the hearts of people, i.e. Prov. 21:1 and Deut. 2:30.
The open theist erringly exalts the free will of people to such a high level, that in order for God to be God, He must be lessened (doesn't know the future, can make mistakes, etc.) so that our precious free will cannot be violated.
Any theology that reduces the majesty and glory of God by exalting man's freedom is a theology of error.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feel free to interact and or provide a critique of these 3 parts, quoting from them and providing a response and I will counter and defend these 3 parts from my own study of Open Theism, using this 3 part post as a basis for my defense.
This particular area of "freewill" is only a small part of the overall defense against Open Theism, but an important one.
Mark
Awareness, Desire, and Choice
Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to aware.
Fore example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature. Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
Likewise if our nature affects our ability to choose, then what the Bible says about our nature will effect our ability to choose. As I said above, the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
We must ask the question how a sinful will is able to choose contrary to what the Bible clearly states concerning its nature.
Libertarian free will
The Libertarians would, I hope, agree that we are limited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. From what I have read of Open theists, they easily concede this reality.
But, given the scriptures about the unbelievers nature above, they still maintain that the human free will is not constrained by our sinfulness and is still able to make equal choices between equal options -- say, for example, the ability to choose or reject God in spite of the Bible's declaration of the constraints of our sinful nature.
But what seems to be happening is that the Open Theists want it both ways.
They want to say that we are affected by our nature, and even though we are sinners by nature, our ability to choose is not constrained by that sinful nature.
But, how can this be given the clear direction of scripture about our sinful condition which sates the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)?
At this point, the open theists simply states that human free will is still somehow able to make such choices.
To this I ask, "How can this be so, given the scriptures that speak to the contrary?"
Conclusion
In my opinion, the open theist position of libertarian free will violates the revelation of scripture which clearly restricts our unregenerate human natures as not being free from sin.
It further contradicts scripture that tells us that God intervenes in the hearts of people, i.e. Prov. 21:1 and Deut. 2:30.
The open theist erringly exalts the free will of people to such a high level, that in order for God to be God, He must be lessened (doesn't know the future, can make mistakes, etc.) so that our precious free will cannot be violated.
Any theology that reduces the majesty and glory of God by exalting man's freedom is a theology of error.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feel free to interact and or provide a critique of these 3 parts, quoting from them and providing a response and I will counter and defend these 3 parts from my own study of Open Theism, using this 3 part post as a basis for my defense.
This particular area of "freewill" is only a small part of the overall defense against Open Theism, but an important one.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
And for Paidion,
Jeremiah 18:7-11
I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9“Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11“So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds," (Jer. 18:7-11).
Interestingly enough, the open theists often refer to this section of scripture to prove that God changes His mind. But, if anything, these verses work against the open theist.
God works covenantally. In other words, He establishes covenants with people and ratifies them with signs. Covenants are packs and agreements between two or more parties. These covenants have stipulations and conditions with rewards for faithfulness and punishments for breaking the covenant. So, God relates to us in covenant terms.
God is telling us here in Jer. 18:7-11 that if a person repents from his sin and even though God was moving towards him in punishment, the Lord will stop and change His course of action should the person repent.
God is being covenantally faithful to His people.
He is stating how He works.
He is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin.
In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them.
From all eternity God knew they would repent, but used His declarative threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.
Therefore, God is relating to people in their time frame, properly pronouncing judgment upon them for their sin, and then not carrying out that punishment if and when they repent.
It is the means by which God knowingly brings them to repentance and is not a demonstration that God is "wishy washy."
Mark
Jeremiah 18:7-11
I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9“Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11“So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds," (Jer. 18:7-11).
Interestingly enough, the open theists often refer to this section of scripture to prove that God changes His mind. But, if anything, these verses work against the open theist.
God works covenantally. In other words, He establishes covenants with people and ratifies them with signs. Covenants are packs and agreements between two or more parties. These covenants have stipulations and conditions with rewards for faithfulness and punishments for breaking the covenant. So, God relates to us in covenant terms.
God is telling us here in Jer. 18:7-11 that if a person repents from his sin and even though God was moving towards him in punishment, the Lord will stop and change His course of action should the person repent.
God is being covenantally faithful to His people.
He is stating how He works.
He is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin.
In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them.
From all eternity God knew they would repent, but used His declarative threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.
Therefore, God is relating to people in their time frame, properly pronouncing judgment upon them for their sin, and then not carrying out that punishment if and when they repent.
It is the means by which God knowingly brings them to repentance and is not a demonstration that God is "wishy washy."
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
This is a prime example of the contradictions of Calvinism.From all eternity God knew they would repent, but used His declarative threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.
1. God knew from all eternity that they would repent.
2. If God had not warned them, they would not have repented.
3. But if they had not repented, then God did not know from all eternity that they would repent.
4. So since God knew from all eternity that they would repent, the could not have chosen not to repent.
5. Therefore it was unnecessary for God to warn them what would happen to them if they chose not to repent.
I'm sure the Calvinist will answer that warning them was the "means" by which God got them to repent. But why bother with a means, when they were predestined to repent anyway?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Mark,
You wrote:
And you said:
You wrote:
So you are saying that the gospel is impotent to make an unregenerate sinner aware of his condition and that if he would but call on the name of the Lord he might be saved? What do you make of the statement that "The gospel is the power unto salvation?Awareness, Desire, and Choice
Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to aware.
Fore example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature. Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
And you said:
So if a person is, for example, a drunkard, unless he is regenerated he can not possibly decide to quit drinking and cease to be a drunkard no matter how hard he tries. This example would necessarily apply to all sinful practices, would it not? Yet we know unbelievers are able to decide to cease a sinful practice. It is not unusual. How do you explain this? Remember, you say he is a slave to his nature and can make no choice contrary to it.
Compatibilist free will
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires
Last edited by karenstricycle on Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Haas,
Oops! Yes! It has been corrected.
Thanks, Homer
Oops! Yes! It has been corrected.
Thanks, Homer
Last edited by karenstricycle on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Cool, I wanted to make sure before I asked these questions.Haas,
Oops! Yes! It has been corrected.
Thanks, Homer
What is the difference between a drunk sinner and a sober sinner?
Has the real problem been solved by the drunk sinner becoming sober?
Or as the Bible says "The wages of sin is death."
Joy in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
So God doesn't really care whether a sinner is drunk or sober? He's going to hell forever anyway, since he's not one of the elect. Right?What is the difference between a drunk sinner and a sober sinner?
Has the real problem been solved by the drunk sinner becoming sober?
Or as the Bible says "The wages of sin is death."
I find that Paul, in Romans 2, stated pretty clearly that everyone is judged according to his works --- that God shows no partiality. Everyone's destiny after death is dependent upon his works, not upon some conjectural idea concerning whether or not he has been elected.
For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidon,
You wrote:
If someone stops beating his wife, but never trusts Christ for the forgiveness of his sins (calling upon Christ to be his Lord and Savior), he hasn't earned salvation because he stopped beating his wife. Surely you are not advocating salvation by works? Right?
Remember, Homer's point was that an unbeliever had become sober. Not a Christian that had a problem with drinking and then stopped.
In Christ,
Haas
You wrote:
My point had nothing to do with election. My point is that sinful people might be able to make positive changes in their lives that have nothing to do with salvation.So God doesn't really care whether a sinner is drunk or sober? He's going to hell forever anyway, since he's not one of the elect. Right?
If someone stops beating his wife, but never trusts Christ for the forgiveness of his sins (calling upon Christ to be his Lord and Savior), he hasn't earned salvation because he stopped beating his wife. Surely you are not advocating salvation by works? Right?
Remember, Homer's point was that an unbeliever had become sober. Not a Christian that had a problem with drinking and then stopped.
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: