I find it interesting that most people appear to be Open Theists without even knowing it

[Doug Melven]

Then, if I understand you correctly, God has predestined from eternity the absolute outcome (holy and blameless) for every individual who becomes a Christian. That outcome was determined in eternity past and is destined to happen for each of these individuals.

I get the feeling you don't agree with that.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I get the feeling you don't agree with that.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

I not only do agree with it, I also agree wholeheartedly that God has "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

 

[Jon Osterman]

Most people, in my experience, don't seem to know quite how to explain their view in words, so I try to help them a bit with some options. I'll present a basic Calvinist / determinist view, then an Arminian / forewknowledge view, and then an Open Theist view (not necessarily in that order) without actually giving each view names. When I present the options (without naming them) most people tend to go for the Open Theist option, saying that sounds more in tune with their own thinking.

I am not sure where you are from, but in my neck of the woods, the Calvinist / determinist viewpoint is rather widely demonised and most mainstream Christians will certainly condemn it. This is mainly for historical reasons I suspect.

Personally, I think neither Calvinists nor Open Theists actually understand how the nature of time interacts with the notion of omniscience.

 

[συνείδησις]

Most people, in my experience, don't seem to know quite how to explain their view in words, so I try to help them a bit with some options. I'll present a basic Calvinist / determinist view, then an Arminian / forewknowledge view, and then an Open Theist view (not necessarily in that order) without actually giving each view names. When I present the options (without naming them) most people tend to go for the Open Theist option, saying that sounds more in tune with their own thinking.

I'd love to see you include gnostic views next time. For example, gnostics believed that their spiritual nature saved them apart from what they did. How many Christians would confess that the new birth saves them regardless of what they do? Or predestination or total inability after regeneration, both gnostic concepts.

 

[Doug Melven]

I'd love to see you include gnostic views next time. For example, gnostics believed that their spiritual nature saved them apart from what they did. How many Christians would confess that the new birth saves them regardless of what they do? Or predestination or total inability after regeneration, both gnostic concepts.

Many people see any doctrine regarding the spirit realm immediately cry "gnosticism" without even knowing what it is. Like you did here.
Here is a wiki article on gnosticism.
Gnosticism - Wikipedia

We who are born-again have a spirit that was made alive and is now one with the Holy Spirit and is sealed until the day of redemption. John 3, 1 Corinthians 6:17, Ephesians 1:13-14
There are consequences for what we don in the flesh, those consequences will not result in a loss of eternal life.
A born-again person who chooses to sin is a fool, a born-again fool, but a fool nonetheless.
Those who are born-again have so much to live for and have access to over those who are not born-again.

 

[συνείδησις]

Many people see any doctrine regarding the spirit realm immediately cry "gnosticism" without even knowing what it is. Like you did here.
Here is a wiki article on gnosticism.
Gnosticism - Wikipedia
...
There are consequences for what we don in the flesh, those consequences will not result in a loss of eternal life.

Actually I've studied the matter quite extensively. Not the divergent particulars of the many various sects (which is a waste of time IMO), but the core concepts common to them (solely for the purpose of uncovering those roots and expressions within the church). If Wikipedia is your idea of an authoritative source, I can't imagine that you know much about the subject.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here is an interesting blog about one of the originators of Christian Gnosticism - Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some)

 

[hedrick]

Here is an interesting blog about one of the originators of Christian Gnosticism - Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some)

A safer assessment seems to be that there are tendencies in Paul (and John) that allowed later Gnostics to produced a Gnostic reading of him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

A safer assessment seems to be that there are tendencies in Paul (and John) that allowed later Gnostics to produced a Gnostic reading of him.

Yes, I agree entirely.

 

[συνείδησις]

Here is an interesting blog about one of the originators of Christian Gnosticism - Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some)

The only people who could think Paul was gnostic are those who look at things on the surface without much spiritual understanding. There's a very thin line between the faith of Christ and gnosticism. One of the most glaring differences between Paul and the gnostics, though there is an appearance of similararity on the surface, is the way they handled the matter of sin. Both saw man having two egos (in Paul's case the two I of Romans 7).

The gnostic's solution was to identify with the good ego (their spiritual nature) and discard and ignore the bad ego (the flesh; thus it didn't matter what they did with the flesh).

Paul's solution is to acknowledge the bad ego (sinful nature) and overcome it through faith in the cross (Romans 7).

 

[Doug Melven]

The only people who could think Paul was gnostic are those who look at things on the surface without much spiritual understanding. There's a very thin line between the faith of Christ and gnosticism. One of the most glaring differences between Paul and the gnostics, though there is an appearance of similararity on the surface, is the way they handled the matter of sin. Both saw man having two egos (in Paul's case the two I of Romans 7).

The gnostic's solution was to identify with the good ego (their spiritual nature) and discard and ignore the bad ego (the flesh; thus it didn't matter what they did with the flesh).

Paul's solution is to acknowledge the bad ego (sinful nature) and overcome it through faith in the cross (Romans 7).

I am in complete agreement with the way you interpret Paul's view on sin.
Sin can only affect me in this life, my sin cannot touch my spirit, for it is sealed by the Holy Spirit.
For those who say that we can just go and live in sin because Jesus Christ paid it all, they do not understand what Jesus did on the cross, they don't understand mercy and grace either or God's love for them.
And not understanding those things I would seriously doubt there salvation, I wouldn't say they weren't saved because only God knows the heart. And my job isn't to save them, but to let them know how how much God loves them and what He did for them.

 

[mcarans]

Yet when you press people for answers without telling them the name of what it is you're actually explaining, they tend to go for the Open Theist answer.

More people may be attracted to open theism by a new variant which I have proposed called "kenotic openness" in which it doesn't matter whether or not the future is settled: God is constrained to see possibilities instead of actualities because of His own nature of love.

I've recently posted about it on this forum or if you want the direct link to the article, it is this: Kenotic openness - a new take on providence.