Is Open Theism Heresy?

[Guest]

I found this interesting (excerpted from the "So What?" thread):

"On the other hand there was 'the Bible as proof texts'. Some classical instances come to mind; The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, with its doctrinal statements and its big biblical footnotes. That encouraged a mentality which thought of the Bible as an unsorted collection of data, belonging in principle to a unified dogmatic theology; as though God had given us the Bible like a jig-saw puzzle in a box all shaken up into bits, needing to be assembled into a single picture which, whatever it was going to look like, sure as anything wouldn’t look like what we actually have from Genesis to Revelation."

No wonder so many of the Reformed persuasion don't like N.T. Wright.

[Guest]

Steve/All

Quoting Steve:

"What is at issue is not whether all men sin, nor whether all men deserve hell because their sins are horrendous, but it is the entirely separate question of whether men have any ability to repent and believe. We all know that some sinners, without becoming Christians, do hate some of their sins, and make great efforts to become free from them. We also know that some unregenerate men make a transition from atheism to general theism. No one is arguing that these measures are adequate to save a sinner. But some of us believe that this shows a capacity in unregenerate men to detest some sin and to modify their beliefs somewhat in the right direction, making us wonder how any theology can claim that these men could not, by extension of the same type of sentiment, come to hate all sin and to believe all the right things about God and Jesus. This is the only point at issue in the present discussion, and no Calvinist has bothered to make an exegetical, scriptural case for his position".

An unregenerate man may indeed detest his behavour. In my experience
with "most unregenerate people" though, their motivations to change are not anything more than pragmatic decisions. I am not sure this extends into any inherent "moral capacity" of an unregenerate person to believe "all the right things" about God and Christ. Part of what was lost in being created in the Image of God was relational. Man has no ability to restore a right relationship with his Creator.

I do not believe the goal of our Christian life is merely to stop sinning either. The goal is to know God and Jesus. Jn 17:1-3. But one cannot know
God in Christ apart from His desire to be known. vs 6-21. This of course
requires the "drawing" power of God, not out of any "natural capacity"
or moral ability on the part of the unregenerate man. Jn 6:44.

[_Steve]

Hi Taveler,

I don't mean to go on and on, since we have long since begun to repeat ourselves.

However, you present a quote from me which ends with the words, "no Calvinist has bothered to make an exegetical, scriptural case for his position." Then you give a response that is in no sense an exegetical argument, such as my comment invites.

Such a biblical case is what some of us keep looking for from those who assert such things as, "In my experience with 'most unregenerate people' though, their motivations to change are not anything more than pragmatic decisions" and "Part of what was lost in being created in the Image of God was relational. Man has no ability to restore a right relationship with his Creator."

Obviously, Calvinists have every right to assert such things, but without biblical exegesis in their support, no authoritative truth is offered for the benefit of the Church. The church needs to be fed by the Words of the Living God, not the opinions of people.

Rick,

I also really appreciate Wright's observations. I do not read much of him, but when I do, he usually seems to be putting into words my own thoughts, but saying them better than I could.

[Guest]

Steve,

Since I am not a "calvinist", are you suggesting I bow out of any further discussion where the identifying term is used? I have stated all along that I am not a 'Calvinist". I do believe that some of their views are biblically sound. I also believe some of the Arminian views are as well. But, I am not arguing the merits of anyones particular "dogmatic" theology. Nor do I think I have to justify every "nuance" I percieve. I am not a bible teacher. I have no desire to be one or have diciples running after me. I have opinions based upon what I am able to understand from the bible and experience. I am not of the camp that believes that man is "basically good". I believe man is savable, and that by the grace of God alone. I do not need to spew or believe Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic views, doctrine, or dogma to know this from scripture, reason and experience. Man hates God with their thoughts, desires, motivations and actions. Don't agree? Fine. But what put Christ on the cross, man's love for God? From a human side, this is what man would do to God if we had the opportunity to get at His essence. So what does the cross demonstrate about man's goodness, motives and inclinations? Most often, they are self-seeking and pragmatic, if not down right evil.
Do you hear the nails pounding into Jesus' flesh? Through your sin and mine, didn't we all "drive those nails, mock an spit upon Him? Have you or anyone else come to the place in your heart where you have questioned God as to why He is so merciful toward us? If not, we do not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Grace doesn't amaze. It's our due!
And brother, with all the humility I can muster, you do not have the market cornered on biblical exegisis either. You at best are giving your educated opinions (dogma) sometimes without "support". I do respect them. I have learned some things from your broadcast and this forum. Sometimes I don't understand. Sometimes I do and sometimes I just plain don't agree with some of your conclusions, whatever the topic. So please lighten up a little. I am not your Calvinistic whipping boy. He left.
My opinions are my own and subject to change without further notice!

[_Steve]

Traveler,

You wrote:

"Nor do I think I have to justify every "nuance" I percieve. I am not a bible teacher. I have no desire to be one or have diciples running after me."

Whether one is a Bible teacher or not, whenever a Christian declares doctrine (which is what your posts contain) and even goes so far as to declare that those who disagree with him do not know what the gospel is, that person is certainly teaching others. If one wishes to teach the things of God, it is not too much for others to ask that he make right use of the Word of God in the process. If you are a teacher, you should be a Bible teacher. If you are not a teacher, you should not profess to teach. There is no pass given to some class of "laity" to teach what is controversial, with impunity, and then to object when people press them for scriptural support.

You wrote:

"I have opinions based upon what I am able to understand from the bible and experience. I am not of the camp that believes that man is "basically good."

To my knowledge, there does not exist such a camp in Christianity--not even the Pelagians.

You wrote:

"I do not need to spew or believe Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic views, doctrine, or dogma to know this from scripture, reason and experience. Man hates God with their thoughts, desires, motivations and actions. Don't agree? Fine."

I might be willing to agree, if someone could show me either 1) the heart of every man, so that I could observe this alleged hatred, or 2) the scriptures that oblige me to believe it. I am not sure how your experience or mine can reasonably be seen as an authority as to what is in every man's heart. I have not met every man, and among those I have met, I have not uniformly observed evidence of hatred toward God. Is this really what your experience has told you, or is it your loyalty to a doctrine that you do not wish to label as "Calvinistic", even though that is the historically proper name for it?

You wrote:

"But what put Christ on the cross, man's love for God? From a human side, this is what man would do to God if we had the opportunity to get at His essence. So what does the cross demonstrate about man's goodness, motives and inclinations?"

I believe that what put Christ on the cross was His love for His Father, who wished to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind. In that sense, we can also say that it is the fact that we sinned that put Christ on the cross. But what has this to do with the points that we have been disagreeing on?

I know that we are supposed to agree with the assertion that every man (including ourselves) would have killed Christ, given the chance. But, speaking only for myself, despite my many sins, I cannot imagine ever being of a state of mind wherein I would have killed Jesus (or anyone else) if I had met Him on earth. Among those who encountered Christ on earth, there was much middle ground between those who worshiped Him and those who murdered Him, was there not? Why must Calvinists always assume that every man is either just like the disciples or else just like the Sanhedrin?

Can you honestly say about yourself, that, prior to your conversion, had you met Jesus, or heard Him teach, you would have wanted to murder Him? I have a hard time believing you were so prone to murder. I think it is really not very responsible to say that every sinner is of a mind to crucify Christ. Is every man really a murderer, restrained from taking human life only by the laws of society?

I think (though I can't claim to know) that you have learned many of the same clichés that I was taught from my youth, and feel it is your duty to stand by them, no matter how little they may reflect the reality of scripture or experience. Perhaps you do this this so that you may not be regarded (by whoever those people are who do the official "regarding") as one who "does not know the gospel."

I sense a tinge of hostility in your last post. I did not mean to irritate you. As I have said before, I always assume that the Christians who post here "tremble at the word of God"--and thus are eager to be corrected from the same, when necessary. The purpose of this forum is to present and critique ideas about Christianity--not to simply repeat the old lines that we were taught, and assume that others will intuitively sense their correctness. Since I do not wish to frustrate you, I freely release you to disengage from this particular dialogue, if you wish.

[_Rick_C]

Steve & Sean,

Just posting back to acknowledge I saw your replies.

(And yes, Sean, N.T. Wright isn't all that popular with many Reformed/Calvinists)....

(And, Steve, Wright's paragraph (above) says more than I could in 50 posts...and I still might not get to it)....

Hello Bob.

[Guest]

Hello Steve,

Perhaps this discussion would be better served on the "depravity" thread rather than in the "open theism" thread? I will respond to your comments as I have time. Since I am back to work, I have less of it to spend on the forum. BTW, I did engage the use of a bit of "hyperbole" in describing man's hatred toward God. And my statement that man is not "basically good" but savable, I still stand by. I will try to qualify it later. As for my comments or opinions in general, I do not "profess to teach" as I've said. But, does that disqualify me from discussing or even presenting my opinions, strong or "controversial" as you put it, any more than you or anyone else here? I think Paidions views on open theism are quite controversial. But he gets a "free pass"?
When you are giving your dogmatic opinions on a wide range of theological topics that are not necessarily in league with other "mainline Christian groups, you get a "free pass", don't you? Who besides God holds you accountable for what you teach? One of the attractions I have with your radio broadcast is that you invite contrary opinion. Is there a different spirit here? Is this an open forum or closed ? Let me know. I don't think what I have expressed here so far is either "heretical" or outrageous.



Hello Rick!


In Jesus,
Bob

[_Steve]

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

"I think Paidions views on open theism are quite controversial. But he gets a 'free pass'? When you are giving your dogmatic opinions on a wide range of theological topics that are not necessarily in league with other 'mainline Christian groups, you get a 'free pass', don't you? Who besides God holds you accountable for what you teach? One of the attractions I have with your radio broadcast is that you invite contrary opinion. Is there a different spirit here? Is this an open forum or closed ?"

I don't quite understand where this question is coming from. What I refer to as a "free pass" is some imagined right to speak controversial truths without providing biblical (exegetical) support, and without having to defend your position against exegetical challenges. I do not see that Paidion or I, or anyone else here has such a free pass. Nor do we desire one. As far as I can tell, no one here expects such a pass, except for a few of our Calvinist visitors.

If some of Paidion's posts may contain assertions without citation of scripture, it may only be because he has presented his scriptures at an earlier stage in the discussion, and (unlike a few of his antagonists) he sees no reason to simply quote the same scriptures over and over again. However, it seems that he usually uses scripture in his posts. He does not get a free pass.

If it appears that some of us here are less alarmed by our disagreements with him than we are by our disagreements with Calvinism, it may be because his position, at the very worst, can only be said to affect the non-moral attributes of God, whereas Calvinist errors affect the very moral character of God--something closer to the heart of God's concerns, in my opinion.

Nonetheless, Paidion has often been taken to task here, as have I. Are there any controversial points that you have heard me raise without providing the scriptural arguments in their favor? Let me know, and I will gladly supply them.

I do invite challenges--both here and on the air--from people who disagree. However, it is not enough for a man simply to say "I disagree." In both forums, I expect a man to tell us why he disagrees, just as I tell why I hold the positions I hold. If his reasons are weak, I expect him to welcome cross-examination, just as I expect to be cross-examined, if my arguments seem weak to others. There is no double standard here. The person who wishes to make extreme statements, without his being required to exegete scripture in their support, is asking us to follow a double standard, and to make an exception in his case.

As far as who, besides God, keeps me accountable--the answer should be obvious: you do.

[Guest]

Hello Steve,

To be clear in my own mind, please tell me what I need to substanciate
from scripture. Man's hatred toward God? The fact that man is not "basically good"? Where would you like me to start?

In Jesus,
Bob

[_Steve]

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

"To be clear in my own mind, please tell me what I need to substanciate
from scripture. Man's hatred toward God? The fact that man is not "basically good"? Where would you like me to start?"

Man's hatred toward God would be a good one to start with. But, mind you, what I am looking for is not anecdotal descriptions of certain men who hated God. Such passages only tell us that there are/were certain people (e.g., the ones described in the passages) who hated God. We don't need to prove that to anyone from scripture, since we have all met people who hate God, and could affirm this point from our own experience, even without scriptural confirmation. What is needed (and is apparently lacking in scripture) is any statement that would confirm your doctrine that all men who are not regenerated operate from a heart so averse to God as to render repentance, faith, or the desire for a relationship with God a matter totally contrary to their nature.

Nothing other than this specific claim of yours has been disputed here. Therefore, scriptures that tell us that all men have sinned, or that all need a Savior, or that certain men are utterly corrupt will not help, since no one disputes these points. Also, quotations from poetic books that obviously contain literary figures of speech and hyperbole must be seen to teach only what the author intends to affirm, not what proof-texters of a particular theological party would like for them to have affirmed.

These are reasonable standards for responsible exegesis, and are absolutely necessary to the purpose of handling the scriptures reverently (rather than exploiting them as a tool to accomplish a human agenda), or of discovering what God intended to communicate to mankind.