Is Open Theism Heresy?

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 am

Hello Steve,

Quote: "Nothing other than this specific claim of yours has been disputed here".

The statement I made "man hates God" was qualified as a "hyperbole" in my subsequent post. I apologize for the mis-understanding. However, that is not to say that man's inclination toward sin or evil acts flows from a heart that loves God. In the same earlier post in question, my rhetorical
question; "what put Christ on the Cross, man's love for God?" was mean't entirely from man's viewpoint. Of course I believe it was God's love and Christ's obedience to the Fathers will. However, God's purposes were served, or allowed through a human hatred for Jesus-not out of a love for Him. Maybe we pride ourselves into thinking we would have never done such a thing to Jesus had we been with Him. I have no such pride. Frankly, I don't know what I would have done or which of the many "players" in the account I may have been in type. But what I am confident of is this; my sin put Him there, not my love for God. No matter the degree of my sin.

I would like to cite a commenary made by R.C. Sproul in his book; "The Holiness of God" on Luke 18:18-20;

" Something is often missed in this well known meeting between Jesus and the rich ruler. It is the significance of the man's greeting to Jesus.
He called Him "Good teacher." Jesus did not miss the significance of it. Jesus knew at once that He was talking to a man who had a superficial understanding of the word good.
The man wanted to talk to Jesus about salvation. Instead Jesus subtly turned the conversation around to a discussion about what goodness was. He took the opportunity to give the man an unforgettable lesson on the meaning of good.

Jesus focused on the man's greeting: "Why do you call me good?" He accented the question with a further qualification: "No one is good-except God alone."...

Sproul continues in the chapter by quoting Psalm 14:1-3, as a universal indictment upon man; " that no one does good, not even one".
In his very long commentary, he argues that although we do do "good deeds", we often measure them from the wrong standard, and that from an outward appearence. he continues in his train of thought; " The Law of God is the mirror of true righteousness. when we set our works before this mirror, the reflection in it tells us of our imperfections. Jesus held this mirror up before the eyes of the rich young ruler: " You know the commandments"...

"How did the the rich man answer? He was not bothered. He looked calmly in the mirror and saw no imperfections. In what can only be described as a smug manner, the man replied: "All these I have kept since I was a boy."



to be continued... I am running late for work. Bear with me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:10 pm

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

" my rhetorical question; 'what put Christ on the Cross, man's love for God?' was mean't entirely from man's viewpoint. Of course I believe it was God's love and Christ's obedience to the Fathers will. However, God's purposes were served, or allowed through a human hatred for Jesus-not out of a love for Him."

I still can't understand what makes you present only a false dichotomy for us to choose from. It is called the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to be saying, "If you don't agree with me that all men hate God, then you must be saying that all men love God!"

Did anyone here suggest that all men love God, or that it was man's love for God that put Christ on the cross, or even that any man is"basically good"? Why are you bringing up such points when you could use your time to forward the discussion of our topic? Are you prepared to say that every man either loves God or hates Him? Are there none who are merely ignorant of the Gospel, and others who are indifferent? To say that some men fall into the latter category is not to excuse their indifference in the least. It is merely to point out that creating artificial and false dichotomies is not a helpful practice in the attempt to discover truth.

You wrote:

"Maybe we pride ourselves into thinking we would have never done such a thing to Jesus had we been with Him. I have no such pride."



Methinks thou protestest too much. Why bring pride into this? It is always the Reformed folks who want to talk about how proud they are not...implying that non-Reformed people are clearly proud. I don't remember bringing up the subject of pride in this dialogue, nor do I see what it has to do with what we are discussing. I do not claim that I am or am not proud. I hope not to be, though I must leave the ultimate judgment on the matter with God. But what has that to do with my theology?

I know I do not "pride myself into thinking" whatever my theological positions may be. My theology arises out of consideration of biblical evidence and observed reality. Neither pride, fear, lust, greed, hatred nor any other emotion would seem to play a significant role in my thinking on these points, though they all may exist at any time in my heart, in varying degrees.

If I say that I cannot imagine that I would have killed Jesus, had I met Him, this is not a statement arising out of either pride or humility, but it is an honest self-assessment. As I said, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would kill an innocent man (much less such a kind man as Jesus) were I to meet Him on the street. I do not "pride myself in thinking" that I would not kill my parents, given half a chance. Pride has nothing to do with it. I know I would not, because (whatever other evil thing I may be capable of) I am not inclined toward murder.

In saying this, I am only pointing out that not everyone is such a person as would have murdered Jesus, just as everyone He met in Galiliee was not a murderer--and most of the people, so far as we know, showed no inclination to kill Him. "So far as we know," of course, means so far as scripture relates. Since scripture does not tell us that everyone would kill Jesus, we have no reason to suggest that they would do so, since it is certainly counterintuitive to suggest it.

You wrote:

"Sproul continues in the chapter by quoting Psalm 14:1-3, as a universal indictment upon man; 'that no one does good, not even one'. "


If you are looking for objectivity on subjects like the one we are discussing, Sproul's commentaries are not the best guarantee of such objectivity. You would find more value in reading the Bible itself.

For example, the verses that Sproul cites in Psalm 14 (which, as we all know, Paul also cited in Romans 3), do not present a "universal indictment upon man." The verses describe the general state of the sons of men that God beheld when He looked down from heaven in David's time (just as Genesis 6 describes the generality of mankind in Noah's day). Of course, these are not the only times in history when mankind has been this bad. But that is not the point. We are asking what these verses describe. They do not speak of all men since Adam--or, if they do, they have neglected to mention that this is what they are describing.

There is hyperbole in these verses, since they speak of "no, not one," when, in fact, the writer of the Psalm himself (and, no doubt, a few others on the planet who may have been like him) would represent a notable exception to the general statement. Calvinists admit this. They simply say that the exceptions (like the Psalmist) must be understood to be among the elect, whereas the general statement is describing the non-elect. Of course, a reader may import these categories to the passage, if he wishes. However, he should not pretend that he finds them in the text. It is 100% eisegesis.

You wrote:

"The Law of God is the mirror of true righteousness. when we set our works before this mirror, the reflection in it tells us of our imperfections. Jesus held this mirror up before the eyes of the rich young ruler: 'You know the commandments'...

"How did the the rich man answer? He was not bothered. He looked calmly in the mirror and saw no imperfections. In what can only be described as a smug manner, the man replied: 'All these I have kept since I was a boy.'"



I recognize this argument as originating with my friend, Ray Comfort. I have no desire to discredit my friend. However, it would still do you better to use the scriptures and your common sense than to simply repeat arguments from Sproul, Comfort, or me!

Look again at the exchange between Jesus and the young man. You say that Jesus recited the law in order to convict the man of his sins. If this was Jesus' goal, He apparently chose the wrong strategy, since the laws that Jesus listed were laws that the man had already been keeping.

For any of us to say that the man had not really kept these laws is to read much more into the story than the Bible tells us, and to call him a liar (something Jesus did not do). There is nothing that would preclude a man living a life free from murder, adultery, theft, and dishonoring his parents. This man had apparently avoided these things (as we know others had done --Luke 1:6) for as long as he could remember.

If we leap from the Old Testament law to the teaching of Christ, and point out that lust is adultery and hatred is murder, then, of course, we must allow that this man may have been guilty of some of these things. However, these things are not spelled-out clearly in the Old Testament law, but come to light in the New Testament. Jesus did not spell-out these nuances of morality to the young man—which, had He done so, might have been better calculated to bring about a feeling of conviction in the man. The fact that Jesus did not mention such things suggests that Jesus was not merely trying to manipulate the man into a place of conviction.

To see Jesus as "using" the law as a mirror to convict the man (as if Jesus was simply employing a technique of rhetoric to bring a man around to a target position) is not the most obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the story. I believe that Jesus (as Mark tells us) loved the man and was having an honest and friendly exchange, in which He was attempting to helpfully answer the man's questions and to invite him to join His team.

Jesus apparently did not cite the laws in order to create conviction in the man. He simply was giving the first part of an answer to the honest question the man had asked. The man had said, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered, apparently quite directly, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

It is true that Jesus went on to clarify that one who wants to be "perfect" (Matt.19:21) must go much beyond the commandments of the old law...but Jesus was honestly instructing the man—apparently beginning at a place that would encourage him forward, not convict him.

I suspect that Jesus was allowing the man to sense that, while he had indeed kept the law well, yet there was an unquenched thirst for righteousness in his heart that such obedience alone had left unsatisfied. Hence the man's next question—"What do I still lack?" (Here, contrary to Reformed assumptions, was an unregenerate man who gave much evidence of possessing a desire for God's righteousness).

The law is not the standard from which every man falls short. What we all fall short of is "the glory of God." (Rom.3:23). Jesus Himself is the glory of God (Heb.1:3/John 1:14/ 2 Cor.4:6). Jesus is the standard from which all fall short—even those who keep the law blamelessly, as did some in Israel.

What really put the man off was not the quotation of any law from the Old Testament, but the call to sell all that he had and give to the poor. This is not a command of the law. It is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is Jesus' own command. It was to be, for this man, the terms of embracing Christ's lordship.

If someone would say that "sell what you have and give to the poor" is merely an extension of the tenth command, "Thou shalt not covet" (as I used to say, parroting others—and continue to say in some of my older tapes), then one must explain how keeping what you have earned or inherited for your own use can be included in the sin of coveting what your neighbor owns. These are hardly the same thing.

It is more likely that the command of Christ struck closer to the first commandment, against idolatry, but this connection would have been very obscure to the man, in the form that Jesus stated it, since, as a Jew, the man was conditioned to think of idolatry as the worship of images. It would have made more sense for Jesus to say clearly that this man's money was his idol, had He hoped to let the man know that possessing wealth was somehow inconsistent with the demands of the law (which it was not).

If we say that this command of Christ was merely an application of "Love your neighbor as you love yourself," we must then explain why Jesus did not settle for something like what John the Baptist said, "If you have two coats, give one to him who has none." This would be truly loving your neighbor "as you love yourself."

The command to give away everything and follow Jesus, was an application of the "Jesus" standard to this man's case. The command to "forsake all that you have" (Luke 14:33) was a corollary of a "new commandment" (John 13:34), not found in the law. Jesus was the New Standard. The man was not convicted by the quoting of the law. The demands of Christ's lordship were simply too much for him to stomach.

To say that the man's answer to Jesus was "smug" hardly seems justified by anything in the narrative. The man had lived up well to the Old Standard, and felt no conviction when that particular "mirror" was held up to his view. It was the transition to the new standard that he resisted.

This story, of course, does not tell us anything about a general doctrine of man's universal hatred for God. The young man did not give any evidence of hating God, nor of wishing to murder Jesus.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:09 pm

Steve, this is a bit off topic but you mentioned Ray Comfort. After I listened to your verse-by-verse thru Revelation, this following thought literally sprang to mind: I wonder what Ray Comfort would say about this teaching. I had no idea you two were acquainted with one another but I've seen Ray on tv quite a bit. I assume he knows your views on the end times?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:29 pm

I don't know if Ray is aware of my end-times views or not. We have never discussed this subject with each other. I know that he holds a different view from mine. We are not extremely well-acquainted with each other, though I believe that we have mutual respect for each other.

I first met Ray when we were both teaching at YWAM Honolulu, back in the 80s, and we shared accommodations in the hospitality house for a week. We talked a lot, but mostly about evangelism and apologetics.

Years later, he and I were the featured speakers at an outreach in San Francisco, and spent more time in fellowship together.

When Ray came to speak for an outreach in Oregon, sometime in the 90s, my family took him out to dinner and spent more time fellowshipping with him.

In all these meetings, Ray did more talking than I did, so I think I have had more occasion to become acquainted with his views than he has with mine. My oldest son was a big fan of his, and Ray would send him signed copies of his books as they were published. We also had his ten-tape video series on evangelism, which my children and I enjoyed. This does not mean that I agreed with everything he said. I seldom agree with everything anyone says.

When my wife divorced me, Ray sent me an email of sympathy, which I thought was kind of him. However, we have not been in touch at all since 2002, and never did spend very much time together or get to know each other very intimately. He is a good man. He has a different approach than I have to a number of things related to ministry.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:49 am

Thanks for sharing that, Steve. It's amazing how two people who share different views can still fellowship in unity. I know Ray is really vested in his particular views on evangelism and the end times, but he sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to hang out with. Since your book has been out for a decade or so, I'd imagine he's aware of your stance on dispensationalism... even though the book is even handed. I remember Hank Hanegraaff saying that he'd met Kirk Cameron (Ray's partner) in an airport and Kirk was very familiar with his views. Hank said he was very gracious in their conversation, which surprised me since Hank has been so ciritical of their views.... and publically, no less.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Michelle
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _Michelle » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:04 am

JC wrote:Thanks for sharing that, Steve. It's amazing how two people who share different views can still fellowship in unity. I know Ray is really vested in his particular views on evangelism and the end times, but he sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to hang out with. Since your book has been out for a decade or so, I'd imagine he's aware of your stance on dispensationalism... even though the book is even handed. I remember Hank Hanegraaff saying that he'd met Kirk Cameron (Ray's partner) in an airport and Kirk was very familiar with his views. Hank said he was very gracious in their conversation, which surprised me since Hank has been so ciritical of their views.... and publically, no less.
How sad is it that we are amazed and surprised when men who say they love the Lord actually behave as if they do.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:23 am

Steve,

With all due respect, I am going to "table" this discussion. Not because I cannot answer some of the points you've raised. Since you interupted
a train of thought I was trying to establish by prematurely lableing it a "false dichotomy", I will leave this discussion with a few questions;
You know the commandments. Jesus summed them up with "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and your neighbor as yourself". Tell me, was Jesus presenting a logical falicy and a false dichotomy because He left out the "excluded middle"? Has God relaxed His standards to accomodate man?

Methinks that God doesn't grade on a curve. If obedience to God isn't prompted by a love for Him, then what shall we call it? Is not this command to love God an absolute? If so, what is the opposite of this love?
I am sorry if I didn't leave you with but two choices. That is all God really gave us, love/hate, life/death, darkness/light. It appears you look at the brush strokes of the painting, i.e., the "degrees" of love, hate, sins etc.
I am stepping back and looking at the whole.

In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:29 am

How sad is it that we are amazed and surprised when men who say they love the Lord actually behave as if they do.
It's sad, but also encouraging to a degree. American and European Christians seem to be the main culprits of not practicing their religion. I'm not surprised when I read about Arab or Chinese Christians walking as Jesus walked. It only surprises me when American/Euros do it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:21 pm

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

"With all due respect, I am going to 'table' this discussion. Not because I cannot answer some of the points you've raised."

I think this is a wise decision. We are clearly not progressing to a better understanding of the scriptures. The points you raise in this most recent post show that you still do not know what I am saying. Perhaps it is I who am less clear than I should be, but the reult is, in any case, failure to commuinicate.

You wrote:

"Since you interupted a train of thought I was trying to establish by prematurely lableing it a 'false dichotomy,' I will leave this discussion with a few questions"

I didn't know that it was an interruption to respond to your posts addressed to me. How many posts into a discussion am I supposed to wait before responding to something you say. That you kept presenting a false dichotomy in several posts before I mentioned it would reflect commendable restraint on my part, I should think.

You wrote:

"You know the commandments. Jesus summed them up with 'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and your neighbor as yourself'. Tell me, was Jesus presenting a logical falicy and a false dichotomy because He left out the 'excluded middle'? Has God relaxed His standards to accomodate man? Methinks that God doesn't grade on a curve."

You don't seem to understand. Jesus was not guilty of the "excluded middle fallacy" because that is a logical fallacy occurring in the context of debate. Jesus was not debating. He was answering a question. There was no opportunity, in such a discussion, to commit a logical fallacy.

To lay out God's requirements without compromise is exactly what we would expect Jesus to do. It would be rather disappointing if, when asked God's requirements, Jesus had been mealy-mouthed and compromising of the standard. God has not relaxed His standard. But what I am trying to figure out is, what have I said that you are responding to here? Have I suggested that God's standards should be reduced? I thought we were discussing the limits of man's ability to respond to God in repentance and faith (remember? That is our topic).

You wrote:

"If obedience to God isn't prompted by a love for Him, then what shall we call it? Is not this command to love God an absolute?"

Huh? What does the absoluteness of God's command have to do with anything we have been talking about? I am not following your line of thinking here, and you, apparently, are not following mine. That is why it is a good decision to discontinue the dialogue. It apears to be a waste of time for both of us.

You wrote:

"I am sorry if I didn't leave you with but two choices. That is all God really gave us, love/hate, life/death, darkness/light."

My question for you, in several recent posts, has been: Where is this choice—"it's either love, or else it's hate"—coming from? You say that God set these as the only two options? Where did He do this?

I think it more reasonable to say that the alternative to "love" would be "not love." If someone cannot say that they love you, you should not assume that they hate you. They might, but that is hardly the only alternative. They may even like or respect you, but not love you. They may give little thought to you, and be quite apathetic. In any case, that person does not love you, nor hate you. There are more options.

I am not aware that it is otherwise in people's attitudes toward God. You have claimed that it is indeed otherwise, and that everyone who does not love Him must hate Him. You could be right, but it is not obvious that you are. All I have asked is that you provide some scriptural support for the assertion. If you were to do so, I would agree with you.

You wrote:

"It appears you look at the brush strokes of the painting, i.e., the 'degrees' of love, hate, sins etc."

I do so only because reality is nuanced—not for the Calvinist, of course, but for the rest of us. We sincerely invite the Calvinist to present a scriptural reason that we should pretend that the painter left no brush strokes.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:56 pm

so, what is the opposite of this love?
I am sorry if I didn't leave you with but two choices. That is all God really gave us, love/hate, life/death, darkness/light. It appears you look at the brush strokes of the painting, i.e., the "degrees" of love, hate, sins etc.
I am stepping back and looking at the whole.
Bob, have you considered the word
like
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”