question for non-calvinist

[billie]

Ontology is the discussion on that which is real, or about reality, what can be done in reality, etc. Thus, when I refer to the ontology of God, I am talking about the reality of God, what consists of His reality, is He limited, is He sovereign, stuff of that nature.

When someone says they are an open theist, they place God inside of our own ontology...meaning that He exists within our own limits. His reality is similar if not the same to our own. If someone says that God exists in a sovereign ontology, it means He exists in a higher reality, one different and more supreme to our own...though it may contain self-limitation it is only done so by Him Willing it. We cannot possibly begin to fathom His reality because it is infinitely above our own.

Does that help? If not, I can try to make it clearer...and feel free to ask questions as well if you don't understand something.....it only means I'm failing as a communicator.

No, I think I have it now. Thanks for that. Do Armeneists(spelling, I know )not believe in the open ontology?

[billie]

Arminianists (from James Arminius) believe in the total sovereignty of God, as do Calvinists (from John Calvin). They differ - in one way - from Calvinists in that they believe election is not the soveriegn act of God alone (Calvinism), but is based upon God's foreknowledge of the results of man's free will choices. As Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined."

I do not believe that either Calvinism or Arminianism (including Weslyanism - the refining of Arminianism by John Wesley) should be considered an "open ontology" and they are not "open theists."

Thanks, Chuck.

[apothanein kerdos]

Ontology is the discussion on that which is real, or about reality, what can be done in reality, etc. Thus, when I refer to the ontology of God, I am talking about the reality of God, what consists of His reality, is He limited, is He sovereign, stuff of that nature.

When someone says they are an open theist, they place God inside of our own ontology...meaning that He exists within our own limits. His reality is similar if not the same to our own. If someone says that God exists in a sovereign ontology, it means He exists in a higher reality, one different and more supreme to our own...though it may contain self-limitation it is only done so by Him Willing it. We cannot possibly begin to fathom His reality because it is infinitely above our own.

Does that help? If not, I can try to make it clearer...and feel free to ask questions as well if you don't understand something.....it only means I'm failing as a communicator.

No, I think I have it now. Thanks for that. Do Armeneists(spelling, I know )not believe in the open ontology?

Depends on who you talk to. In my opinion, Shlomo presented a close representation to the orthodox side of the belief. It is the side that simply holds a different view of predestination and certainly steers clear from any form of heresy (which is what Open Theism is). Some would label me a soteriological (salvational) Arminian because I believe that though we cannot find God and He must bring us to Him, this invitation occurs with all and we must act on this invitation. Though He knows who will accept Him, all are without excuse because the invitation has been given to all and they had the opportunity to accept Christ. Though I fall into the Calvinist view on many other things and I'm considered a reformed/orthodox believer, when it comes to salvation I fall under a different category. The truth is that neither really matter as both agree that we must bring glory to God in all we do, that He is sovereign (though there is a debate as to what exactly that means), and that we must spread the Gospel.

I will say, however, that Arminianism does allow more so for Open Theism (belief that God is limited by time). I must stress that this is an abuse, but it does fall into the Arminian camp. At the same time, hard determinism falls into the Calvinist camp. So both allow for abuse...

[EricH]

I will say, however, that Arminianism does allow more so for Open Theism (belief that God is limited by time). I must stress that this is an abuse, but it does fall into the Arminian camp. At the same time, hard determinism falls into the Calvinist camp. So both allow for abuse...

Thats right. All theological position are open to abuse. No one is more dangerous than the "sons of the prophets". Since all systems are open to abuse, no system should be judges by the positions of those who abuse it

[apothanein kerdos]

Botticelli -

im a calvinist

1Cr 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.

1Cr 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

1Cr 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

This is taking the verse highly out of context.

Paul was arguing that we should never debate over who brought us to Christ, for Christ brought us to Himself, thus it does not matter who initiated the process or was the tool God used. It does not mean, however, to eradicate labels of theology that we might fall into.

[apothanein kerdos]

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

There is an inherant failing in the lifting any one man other than Christ to a position of authority in that it it becomes a theologically exlusive position. What I mean by that is that it produces a mentality in the student that causes to separate himself from others in the body of Christ. Be it Calvin, Augustine, Luther is of no matter they are only the objects of the contention. However using Calvin as an example he was very "exclusive" in his portrayal of the gospel to the point where even to speak against him was punishable by torture or even death.

Whether I agree with any or all of clavins doctrine, or that of any prominant theologian is not the main issue, but rather what efeect it has on my relationship with Christ and with other members in the body of Christ. Even though it no longer has such a stern punshment for those who disagree, calvinism is still very much an "exclusive" theology.

Despite kerdos' rebuttal that the passage(s) are out of context, the premise remains in tact, to so strongly affiliate myself under the teaching of one man as the entire authority over my understanding of scripture is dangerous practise.

That is why Jesus chose twelve apostles and ont one, so that they could be held up against each other and to be seen to be unique in character yet one in spirit.

You avoided proper interpretation and did not provide any reason for why you are interpreting the scripture in this way or why mine is not valid. Go back and try again.

[billie]

"The Church" is the Body of Christ, all believers, past, present, and future.

I'm a Christian.

I don't live in Rome.

Using my expert decoding skills( ), that means "The Church" isn't in Rome.