Is Open Theism Heresy?
Hi Haas,
Believe it or not, I actually do not enjoy proving other Christians wrong—and I certainly do not have anything against you, nor wish to endlessly pick on you. You have been gracious, and I hope to be gracious to you. If you are too busy to answer my points, I understand. I am often too busy to answer everything that turns up here.
Most of the frustration I express about "Calvinists" is actually not with you in mind, but I am thinking of those of another sort, who might not (or might—who can say?) be hanging around here in the near future.
Nonetheless, I do believe that you, too, need to look at the scriptural case for your position with a more critical gaze. There was a time when I saw every scripture you have sited in just the same way that you see them, so I can relate entirely with why you believe what you do. I do not mean to put you down at all. You are clearly a godly man.
Believe it or not, I actually do not enjoy proving other Christians wrong—and I certainly do not have anything against you, nor wish to endlessly pick on you. You have been gracious, and I hope to be gracious to you. If you are too busy to answer my points, I understand. I am often too busy to answer everything that turns up here.
Most of the frustration I express about "Calvinists" is actually not with you in mind, but I am thinking of those of another sort, who might not (or might—who can say?) be hanging around here in the near future.
Nonetheless, I do believe that you, too, need to look at the scriptural case for your position with a more critical gaze. There was a time when I saw every scripture you have sited in just the same way that you see them, so I can relate entirely with why you believe what you do. I do not mean to put you down at all. You are clearly a godly man.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hey Steve,
I am home now and have had too much coffee to sleep. So I have chosen to post a bit more. No one is forcing me to respond to you. That being said, I am clearly not a poster child for defending the Doctrines of Grace.
You wrote:
Maybe it would be good to discuss Adam and sin (Romans 5). This would seem to be the place to start before moving towards further discussion about total depravity (inability).
Resting in Christ,
Haas
I am home now and have had too much coffee to sleep. So I have chosen to post a bit more. No one is forcing me to respond to you. That being said, I am clearly not a poster child for defending the Doctrines of Grace.
You wrote:
I am daily in prayer seeking God to help me understand Truth (John 17:17). I see this as a life long practice (however long God sees fit that I walk this earth) until God brings me home.Nonetheless, I do believe that you, too, need to look at the scriptural case for your position with a more critical gaze. There was a time when I saw every scripture you have sited in just the same way that you see them, so I can relate entirely with why you believe what you do. I do not mean to put you down at all. You are clearly a godly man.
Maybe it would be good to discuss Adam and sin (Romans 5). This would seem to be the place to start before moving towards further discussion about total depravity (inability).
Resting in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
- _anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Steve wrote regarding Haas
Haas, I also appreciate your encouragement, from time to time, to stay faithful and focused on Christ. It's an important reminder anytime we're trying to wade through any theological issue!
Thanks and God Bless
I agreeYou have been gracious,

Haas, I also appreciate your encouragement, from time to time, to stay faithful and focused on Christ. It's an important reminder anytime we're trying to wade through any theological issue!
Thanks and God Bless
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.
I rarely post regarding calvinism, but perhaps someone can provide me with some clarification. Consider 2 hypothetical persons:
Person A: as Steve G suggested above, A is a person who comes to believe there is a God, maybe makes some life changes for the better, perhaps becomes a better parent, employee, citizen etc, but stops just short of full repentance and acknowledging Christ as Lord and Savior.
Person B: B is just like A, however he DOES proceed to full repentance and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Does a calvinist believe that Person A has the ability to do these things SHORT OF SALVATION on his own? if so, does a calvinist believe that Person A is UNABLE to make the next step of repenting, etc on his own? If so, is it the calvinist position that something "supernatural" happens that "allows" person A to take the final step?
In regard to Person B, does a calvinist believe that since B is ultimately "saved," that God was involved every step of the way, or only in the final step of repenting, etc?
hope my question is not too confusing. i may have confused myself.
TK
Person A: as Steve G suggested above, A is a person who comes to believe there is a God, maybe makes some life changes for the better, perhaps becomes a better parent, employee, citizen etc, but stops just short of full repentance and acknowledging Christ as Lord and Savior.
Person B: B is just like A, however he DOES proceed to full repentance and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Does a calvinist believe that Person A has the ability to do these things SHORT OF SALVATION on his own? if so, does a calvinist believe that Person A is UNABLE to make the next step of repenting, etc on his own? If so, is it the calvinist position that something "supernatural" happens that "allows" person A to take the final step?
In regard to Person B, does a calvinist believe that since B is ultimately "saved," that God was involved every step of the way, or only in the final step of repenting, etc?
hope my question is not too confusing. i may have confused myself.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Hi tk,
I am not defending a Calvinist position, but in my opinion, person A in your scenario may have a basic belief that "a god" exisits. But for pragmatic
reasons, he may choose to stop this or that behaviour because of the pain and suffering he has caused himself or others. Moral behaviour, whether 'good or bad', is not necessarily an accurate measure of ones relationship with God. There are "moral" people in the world who are such apart from Christ. There are people who struggle with their sin and yet trust Christ for their salvation.
Does a man come to Christ of his own volition apart from the "drawing" of the Father? No. Does a man truely seek God? No. There is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of to suggest that man ever makes the first move toward God. I am not an open theist either. God does not "wait" to "see" what we will do. He knows what we will or won't do.
Maybe another question we could ask is since we were all created in the Image of God, what does that mean in the light of the Fall? How much of that Image was lost or retained? How does it affect our ability to make choices relating to God, one way or the other? What is the real difference between a 'born again Christian' who has recieved the Spirit, from an OT believer who had to 'wait for the Spirit'? Just thinking....
In Jesus,
Bob
I am not defending a Calvinist position, but in my opinion, person A in your scenario may have a basic belief that "a god" exisits. But for pragmatic
reasons, he may choose to stop this or that behaviour because of the pain and suffering he has caused himself or others. Moral behaviour, whether 'good or bad', is not necessarily an accurate measure of ones relationship with God. There are "moral" people in the world who are such apart from Christ. There are people who struggle with their sin and yet trust Christ for their salvation.
Does a man come to Christ of his own volition apart from the "drawing" of the Father? No. Does a man truely seek God? No. There is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of to suggest that man ever makes the first move toward God. I am not an open theist either. God does not "wait" to "see" what we will do. He knows what we will or won't do.
Maybe another question we could ask is since we were all created in the Image of God, what does that mean in the light of the Fall? How much of that Image was lost or retained? How does it affect our ability to make choices relating to God, one way or the other? What is the real difference between a 'born again Christian' who has recieved the Spirit, from an OT believer who had to 'wait for the Spirit'? Just thinking....
In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Traveler,
You wrote:
"Does a man come to Christ of his own volition apart from the "drawing" of the Father? No. Does a man truely seek God? No. There is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of to suggest that man ever makes the first move toward God. I am not an open theist either. God does not "wait" to "see" what we will do. He knows what we will or won't do."
I'm sure you realize that assertions, without any accompanying support, do not carry the discussion forward. They are simply a signing of the register, adding one more vote on the Calvinist side. But truth, of course, is not determined by votes.
Your statement about man making the first move toward God is actually not descriptive of any position, except Pelagianism, which is not, to my knowledge, held by anyone who has posted here.
If I recall correctly, from earlier posts, your view is that any action of God's drawing the sinner is the same thing as regeneration. If either Calvinists or Arminians shared that opinion with you, there would be no debate over whether regeneration precedes faith. Both sides recognize God's drawing of the sinner prior to faith (John 6:44). However, Non-Calvinists believe that, with some people, that drawing is successfully resisted short of the individuals' coming to regeneration (e.g., Isa.66:4/ Matt.23:37).
You wrote:
"Does a man come to Christ of his own volition apart from the "drawing" of the Father? No. Does a man truely seek God? No. There is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of to suggest that man ever makes the first move toward God. I am not an open theist either. God does not "wait" to "see" what we will do. He knows what we will or won't do."
I'm sure you realize that assertions, without any accompanying support, do not carry the discussion forward. They are simply a signing of the register, adding one more vote on the Calvinist side. But truth, of course, is not determined by votes.
Your statement about man making the first move toward God is actually not descriptive of any position, except Pelagianism, which is not, to my knowledge, held by anyone who has posted here.
If I recall correctly, from earlier posts, your view is that any action of God's drawing the sinner is the same thing as regeneration. If either Calvinists or Arminians shared that opinion with you, there would be no debate over whether regeneration precedes faith. Both sides recognize God's drawing of the sinner prior to faith (John 6:44). However, Non-Calvinists believe that, with some people, that drawing is successfully resisted short of the individuals' coming to regeneration (e.g., Isa.66:4/ Matt.23:37).
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hello Steve,
It's not my intention to make "assertions" without support. I apologize for my laziness. I took for granted that most of the people I've dialoged with understand my thoughts about regeneration. I felt it didn't require my reposting the scriptural support I've used all over again.
I was 'thinking out loud' about Tk's scenario. That's all. I am no bible teacher and I do not pretend to be, nor desire to be one. I understand the responsibility that goes with the job.
The comment you made about Pelagianisim puzzles me though. What did you mean? I do think that the RCC, Wesley, and those who believe in the tenets of Arminius are semi-pelagian in their theological viewpoint though.
But thats for another discussion.
What is pertinent to this discussion however, what exactly is the Image of God and what was lost of that Image (if anything) in the Fall of Adam?
How does the Fall affect free will in man's relationship with God? What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Both were required to have faith in order to please God.
IMO, these questions are relevant toward how we answer tk's scenario.
The remainder of my last post was intended to "carry this discussion forward".
Peace in Jesus
bob
It's not my intention to make "assertions" without support. I apologize for my laziness. I took for granted that most of the people I've dialoged with understand my thoughts about regeneration. I felt it didn't require my reposting the scriptural support I've used all over again.
I was 'thinking out loud' about Tk's scenario. That's all. I am no bible teacher and I do not pretend to be, nor desire to be one. I understand the responsibility that goes with the job.
The comment you made about Pelagianisim puzzles me though. What did you mean? I do think that the RCC, Wesley, and those who believe in the tenets of Arminius are semi-pelagian in their theological viewpoint though.
But thats for another discussion.
What is pertinent to this discussion however, what exactly is the Image of God and what was lost of that Image (if anything) in the Fall of Adam?
How does the Fall affect free will in man's relationship with God? What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Both were required to have faith in order to please God.
IMO, these questions are relevant toward how we answer tk's scenario.
The remainder of my last post was intended to "carry this discussion forward".
Peace in Jesus
bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Traveler,
You wrote:
"The comment you made about Pelagianisim puzzles me though. What did you mean? I do think that the RCC, Wesley, and those who believe in the tenets of Arminius are semi-pelagian in their theological viewpoint though. But thats for another discussion."
Yes, anyone who is not Augustinian (Calvinist) can be regarded as at least "semi-" or "quasi-" Pelagian (that is, closer to Pelagius in their views than Calvin was). But you will not find many full-fledged Pelagians among modern evangelicals. Pelagius, apparently, taught that a man can (and must) be saved by good works alone, and that no special drawing of God was necessary—apart from that which exists in the general revelation of nature and the preaching of the Gospel. But even this would not really be man making the first move, would it (since God's revelation in nature and the Gospel pre-date the sinner's arrival on the planet, so God, even here, is acknowledged as the Initiator).
My statement, which you found puzzling, was straight-forward. I wrote: "Your statement about man making the first move toward God is actually not descriptive of any position, except Pelagianism, which is not, to my knowledge, held by anyone who has posted here."
Arminians do not suggest that man makes the first move toward God...this would be more a description of Pelagianism. Most non-Calvinists believe that it is necessary for God to convict and draw the sinner before the latter will move toward Him.
You wrote:
"What is pertinent to this discussion however, what exactly is the Image of God and what was lost of that Image (if anything) in the Fall of Adam?
How does the Fall affect free will in man's relationship with God? What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Both were required to have faith in order to please God."
1) What is the image of God in man? This is never described or delineated in scripture. However, since it is the one feature in the creation of man that differs from the creation of animals, it would probably have to be identified with the rational and spiritual dimensions of human nature.
2) What was lost of that image in the fall of Adam? This too is never answered in scripture. However, something of the image is said to remain in man following the fall (James 3:9), so it cannot have been fully obliterated. We can observe for ourselves that fallen man remains a rational and spiritual creature, in contrast to the animals.
Therefore, the burden of proof rests pretty heavily upon the person who wishes to make extreme claims about human inability to desire God or to believe the truth. In other words, the Calvinist, not the Arminian, is in the position to have to prove that this degree of damage to the human nature has been sustained in the fall—since such claims are counterintuitive, contrary to observation, and nowhere stated in scripture.
3) How did the fall affect free will in man? This seems like a corollary of the question addressed above, and I would offer the same answer.
4) What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Primarily, it would seem, the phenomenon of regeneration in the latter. Regeneration results in a new heart and a new spirit being placed in the believer (Ezek.36:25-27). In the New Testament, this is, apparently, identical to being "born again" and passing "from death to life" in Christ.
Jeremiah speaks of this phenomenon (the "changed heart," or "the law written on the heart") as being the primary difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant (31:31-34). The writer of Hebrews, citing Jeremiah, spoke of this as one of the "better promises" contained in the New Covenant, vis-a-vis the Old (Heb.8:6-10).
During his lifetime, Jesus spoke of "the regeneration" as a still-future experience for His disciples (Matt.19:28), though, at a later time, Paul told Titus that it has already occurred, in our case (Tit.3:5).
Peter says we were born again (regenerated) as a result of Jesus' resurrection from the dead (1 Pet.1:3), which seems to rule out the possibility of this happening prior to the lifetime of Christ.
Paul says we were regenerated (came from death to life) after having been forgiven—or "justified"— (Col.2:13), which we know, from the rest of scripture, is something that occurs when we believe—thus placing faith prior to regeneration. People in the Old Testament were justified by faith (Gen.15:6), but there is no indication that justification, in their case, was accompanied by regeneration, as is the case in the New Testament.
Those would be my answers to your questions. I will bow out now, and let others supply theirs.
You wrote:
"The comment you made about Pelagianisim puzzles me though. What did you mean? I do think that the RCC, Wesley, and those who believe in the tenets of Arminius are semi-pelagian in their theological viewpoint though. But thats for another discussion."
Yes, anyone who is not Augustinian (Calvinist) can be regarded as at least "semi-" or "quasi-" Pelagian (that is, closer to Pelagius in their views than Calvin was). But you will not find many full-fledged Pelagians among modern evangelicals. Pelagius, apparently, taught that a man can (and must) be saved by good works alone, and that no special drawing of God was necessary—apart from that which exists in the general revelation of nature and the preaching of the Gospel. But even this would not really be man making the first move, would it (since God's revelation in nature and the Gospel pre-date the sinner's arrival on the planet, so God, even here, is acknowledged as the Initiator).
My statement, which you found puzzling, was straight-forward. I wrote: "Your statement about man making the first move toward God is actually not descriptive of any position, except Pelagianism, which is not, to my knowledge, held by anyone who has posted here."
Arminians do not suggest that man makes the first move toward God...this would be more a description of Pelagianism. Most non-Calvinists believe that it is necessary for God to convict and draw the sinner before the latter will move toward Him.
You wrote:
"What is pertinent to this discussion however, what exactly is the Image of God and what was lost of that Image (if anything) in the Fall of Adam?
How does the Fall affect free will in man's relationship with God? What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Both were required to have faith in order to please God."
1) What is the image of God in man? This is never described or delineated in scripture. However, since it is the one feature in the creation of man that differs from the creation of animals, it would probably have to be identified with the rational and spiritual dimensions of human nature.
2) What was lost of that image in the fall of Adam? This too is never answered in scripture. However, something of the image is said to remain in man following the fall (James 3:9), so it cannot have been fully obliterated. We can observe for ourselves that fallen man remains a rational and spiritual creature, in contrast to the animals.
Therefore, the burden of proof rests pretty heavily upon the person who wishes to make extreme claims about human inability to desire God or to believe the truth. In other words, the Calvinist, not the Arminian, is in the position to have to prove that this degree of damage to the human nature has been sustained in the fall—since such claims are counterintuitive, contrary to observation, and nowhere stated in scripture.
3) How did the fall affect free will in man? This seems like a corollary of the question addressed above, and I would offer the same answer.
4) What is the difference between a 'born again Christian' and an OT saint? Primarily, it would seem, the phenomenon of regeneration in the latter. Regeneration results in a new heart and a new spirit being placed in the believer (Ezek.36:25-27). In the New Testament, this is, apparently, identical to being "born again" and passing "from death to life" in Christ.
Jeremiah speaks of this phenomenon (the "changed heart," or "the law written on the heart") as being the primary difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant (31:31-34). The writer of Hebrews, citing Jeremiah, spoke of this as one of the "better promises" contained in the New Covenant, vis-a-vis the Old (Heb.8:6-10).
During his lifetime, Jesus spoke of "the regeneration" as a still-future experience for His disciples (Matt.19:28), though, at a later time, Paul told Titus that it has already occurred, in our case (Tit.3:5).
Peter says we were born again (regenerated) as a result of Jesus' resurrection from the dead (1 Pet.1:3), which seems to rule out the possibility of this happening prior to the lifetime of Christ.
Paul says we were regenerated (came from death to life) after having been forgiven—or "justified"— (Col.2:13), which we know, from the rest of scripture, is something that occurs when we believe—thus placing faith prior to regeneration. People in the Old Testament were justified by faith (Gen.15:6), but there is no indication that justification, in their case, was accompanied by regeneration, as is the case in the New Testament.
Those would be my answers to your questions. I will bow out now, and let others supply theirs.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Bob wrote:
I am puzzled why those who are Calvinist, or have Calvinist tendencies, so often describe others as semi-palagian. It would be just as accurate, would it not, to refer to those of the Calvinist persuasion as "semi-Manichaean"? Of what value is any of this to the discussion? We could just as well describe various Christians as "semi-Morman", after all, there are some similarities.The comment you made about Pelagianisim puzzles me though. What did you mean? I do think that the RCC, Wesley, and those who believe in the tenets of Arminius are semi-Pelagian in their theological viewpoint though.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Steve,
Though this thread is "Open Theism", your comments on Calvinism (not just on this thread) have helped me come to a much greater understanding about it.
Thanks to you and the people on the forum!
I found this interesting (excerpted from the "So What?" thread):
Homer,
"Semi-pelagianism" is, quite often, but not always, a slur.
(Slurring back, if such is the case, wouldn't help anyone).....
Anyway,
I've been having computer problems & gtg! This thing might blow up!
Rick
Though this thread is "Open Theism", your comments on Calvinism (not just on this thread) have helped me come to a much greater understanding about it.
Thanks to you and the people on the forum!
I found this interesting (excerpted from the "So What?" thread):
What a summary!N.T. Wright wrote:"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."
Homer,
"Semi-pelagianism" is, quite often, but not always, a slur.
(Slurring back, if such is the case, wouldn't help anyone).....
Anyway,
I've been having computer problems & gtg! This thing might blow up!
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth