Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[BrianJOrr]

You first. Then I will.

Just to make sure we're clear on the question:

Can a just, non-lying God not give "lungs" to those He reprobates, then damn them specifically for refusing to "breathe?"

As I was reviewing this question, it became apparent that the analogy used (by me) was forced into a question about God in which the analogy doesn’t belong. There is a category mix-up, and I believe <u>I am at fault for this</u>. Furthermore, I see why the answers I did give, though in line with my thought, needed more depth to them. So, to answer this, I need to put my original analogy into the proper context I was meaning to convey. It is important for me to do so because after looking at this question <i>as is</i>, the answer quite simply is: No.



The point I was trying to demonstrate is that one cannot profess faith in Christ unless he has the faith in his heart—<i>first</i>, which comes from the Spirit. That is why natural man, who lives in the flesh, cannot submit to God’s law because he does not have the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Therefore, regeneration occurs, then faith is professed. It is an inward change that manifests in an outward proclamation. However, I made the error, mixing up natural ability with moral/spiritual ability.

Musterion is absolutely correct in his view: A just God (using the lung analogy) cannot demand someone to breathe if that person does not have the actual ability to do so and then hold him accountable for not doing it. The Bible is clear that God doesn’t demand something of us that we cannot actually do. It would be the same thing as me getting angry with my daughter for not walking to her room when I commanded her to if she doesn’t have legs to do the action. She doesn’t have the natural ability to do so.

So, in the case of sinful man, (I will rework my lung analogy to more adequately answer this question)he does have lungs to breathe; however, he doesn’t desire to use them to breathe; he would rather hold his breath and die (that is the folly of the world). God has to change his mind, giving him the right desire to use his lungs as God intended for him to do so—to live. Man is unable to see that his lungs are for breathing; therefore, God has to do a supernatural operation on his heart and mind to change his desire, his will, to breathe.

Man has the natural ability, through the moral conscience and cognitive reasoning ability he has been endowed with, to obey God’s law; however, he has no desire, no inclination, to live according to the moral standards God has commanded him to live by. We see a few examples of this moral inability in: Genesis 37:4 (Joseph’s brothers could not speak kindly to him because they hated him, not because they lacked the natural ability); Matthew 12:34 (their hearts desired to do evil, which is why they could not do rightly, they have no want to do it); 13:15 (the people Jesus is referring to have the natural ability to hear and see, they just don’t want to); 2 Peter 2:14 (they could not stop sinning because their eyes were full of adultery). The issue here had nothing to do with natural ability; it was a moral inability to do the actions—a wanting, a desire to do them. Therefore, man is accountable to God for his immoral deeds (Romans 14:2). Just because one doesn’t want to follow a law doesn’t mean he is not held accountable when breaking that law.

That is how God is just in election, pro-actively choosing a people ahead of time, leaving the others (the reprobate) to perish. All have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23); no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; no one does good (Romans 3:11-12). He has the natural ability to do so; therefore, he is accountable for not doing so, and the gospel just makes man more accountable to God in his rejection of it.

Romans 9:19-24 is the key portion of Paul’s address on this matter, with Romans 9-11 being his full treatise. And though he doesn’t explain the why (he does but not as detailed most would want), other than God’s sovereign choice in election being just that—his choice, he ends his discourse with a doxological submission to our Almighty God:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”

We have a few texts, however, that shed some light on why God has done what he has done, but for many I believe they do not suffice.

We see this in his choosing of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:6-8, “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers.”

We don’t get a definite <i>why</i>, other than because he just did, beginning with calling Abraham out of idolatry, and keeping his promise to him. All of this was to get to the revelation of his Son and the glory God gets in the cross.

Ephesians 1:3-6, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as <u>he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him</u>. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.”

In verse 3, we see that God chose the elect <i>to be</i> holy and blameless, showing intention and purpose in his choosing. His choosing was to make them holy and set apart as a royal priesthood. And all of this was according to the purpose of his will and to the praise of his glorious grace. And this was done not by our righteous acts, but he chose us by grace to be saved so that we could be holy and blameless by his working in us (Eph. 2:8-10; Philippians 1:6).

1 Peter 1:1-2: “Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, <u>To those who are elect</u> exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, <u>according to the foreknowledge of God the Father</u>, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.”

Now, as to the why Adam fell and the rest of us to go with him, I am not sure; however, it is good that sin is here, though it is sin to call sin good. But because nothing exists apart from the sovereign decree of God, sin, likewise has a purpose, and all things are from him and through him and to him (Romans 11:36; Col. 1:15-16), and God has a specific purpose in the existence of all things that exist, “even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Proverbs 16:4), and all things exist to glorify God in Christ Jesus. Adam’s sin brought God the greatest glory.

Furthermore, God’s choice in his elect and the sending of his Son to die for those elect is a personal action toward those he chose. Paul says that he was crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20), and Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). When Paul says he was crucified with Christ, he didn’t say, “I have joined a group that was crucified with Christ;” it was personal. God chose according to his foreknowledge, more personally he foreloved those he chose. God can have a special love for any he so chooses; just as I have a special love for my wife, my daughter, and my friends above others; however, I know we are to love our enemies, which we were first, then God reconciled our relationship and adopted us into the family of God.

Though the non-Reformed may not agree or even like this answer, I believe this is a consistent response, falling inline with the Reformed perspective, and that of Scripture. If there has been any error on explaining the Reformed view, then it is my fault. (I ask AMR or Lon or Nang to chime in and correct me if I have erred)

And lastly, I think it is important to understand that there will be no one standing at the closed gates of heaven begging to get in; they never desired to come. God left them to their sin and they go where they deserve to go. I believe many have a sub-biblical anthropology, which is more inline with a secular, pagan perspective.


For further detail on this and some of the Scriptures I provided, see:

A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (chapter 8, specifically);

Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, ch. 2, sect. IV, "Of the distinction of natural and moral Necessity, and Inability";

John Piper http://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-sovereignty-of-god-and-human-responsibility;

Paul Helm, http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2013/03/pink-and-murray-and-jonathan-edwards.html

 

[Stripe]

How then is there not one who 'chooses' to not reject God?

There is one. All the others are born into a broken world and have chosen to go their own way.

Because there are none, it seems that such is a great stretch of the imagination, doesn't it?

What is a stretch of the imagination?

Not only that, your #3, looks exactly like AMR's #1 to me. How is this not just #1?

What is my No. 3 and what is AMR's No. 1?

 

[Lon]

There is one. All the others are born into a broken world and have chosen to go their own way.

Well, that 'would' be libertarian free will 'if' one 'could' actually do it. Why, if they 'could' has not one done so? We know of only One that 'could' imo. Do you agree? If so, what does that mean to LFW?

What is a stretch of the imagination?

Well, if out of billions, only Christ has, doesn't it seem odd to try and say "it is possible that one might never sin" ?

What is my No. 3 and what is AMR's No. 1?

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace (prevenient grace as the Romanists and Arminians assert) such that the person can actually participate in their re-birth (synergism)

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

Or, the third option: All men are born with the capacity to choose, but all choose to reject God and thus all require salvation — save one.

You were saying that a man potentially, might not ever need grace at all. It isn't an option from Roman 3:23, etc. as far as my scriptural understanding. Your #3 response has a surreal tenor to it Romans 5:12;19

 

[Stripe]

Well, that 'would' be libertarian free will 'if' one 'could' actually do it. Why, if they 'could' has not one done so? We know of only One that 'could' imo. Do you agree? If so, what does that mean to LFW?

You are talking in concepts I have no attachment to and posing questions that are utterly irrelevant to what I believe. That all bar one have rejected God's standards and are in need of the One does not contradict anything I have said.

And libertarian free will is doubly redundant; if it is not free and liertarian, it is not a will.

If out of billions, only Christ has, doesn't it seem odd to try and say "it is possible that one might never sin" ?

1. I never said it is possible.
2. It is possible; as Christ has demonstrated.
3. These facts impact not at all on what I have said.

You were saying that a man potentially, might not ever need grace at all.

Nope. That might be something I would say, but I haven't said it and wouldn't, as it has absolutely no bearing on what I have said.

Your #3 response has a surreal tenor to it.

Watertight argument you've got there, Lon. lain:

 

[Lon]

You are talking in concepts I have no attachment to and posing questions that are utterly irrelevant to what I believe. That all bar one have rejected God's standards and are in need of the One does not contradict anything I have said.

But how then could you assert that we are not sinners if no one can refrain? It doesn't matter, Romans 3:23 encompasses all who lived or who will ever live and thus we are all born sinners, without exception. We don't understand that nature until a certain age, but my children certainly sinned whether they knew it was wrong or not at the time. It was wrong to hurt their sibling. It was wrong to keep crawling when mommy said "no." They knew what that word meant.

And libertarian free will is doubly redundant; if it is not free and liertarian, it is not a will.

A slave has a will. They are not free. A prisoner has a will, he/she is not free. Simply having a will doesn't mean you can exercise it. Having muscles doesn't mean I can move, if I'm strapped down. In both cases, I have a will and muscles, both are simply useless. We were held in sin and
death.

Watertight argument you've got there, Lon. lain:

It isn't an argument, but a perplexity and my expression of that.

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace (prevenient grace as the Romanists and Arminians assert) such that the person can actually participate in their re-birth (synergism)

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

Or, the third option: All men are born with the capacity to choose, but all choose to reject God and thus all require salvation — save one.

Your #3 looks like AMR's #1

 

[Stripe]

But how then could you assert that we are not sinners if no one can refrain?

:AMR:

What? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The issue is not what people can do; the issue is what they have done.

It doesn't matter, Romans 3:23 encompasses all who lived or who will ever live and thus we are all born sinners, without exception. We don't understand that nature until a certain age, but my children certainly sinned whether they knew it was wrong or not at the time. It was wrong to hurt their sibling. It was wrong to keep crawling when mommy said "no." They knew what that word meant.

What doesn't matter?

A slave has a will. They are not free.

You used the term "libertarian free will," not "a non-slave who has a will."

A will must be libertarian and free or it is not a will. A man does not need to be free to have a will.

Simply having a will doesn't mean you can exercise it. Having muscles doesn't mean I can move, if I'm strapped down. In both cases, I have a will and muscles, both are simply useless. We were held in sin and death.

Nope. People can choose to respond to Christ's invitation regardless of their situation. Salvation is available even to a man who is chained, gagged and blinded.

Your #3 looks like AMR's #1

AMR's No. 1 made no sense. Grace comes from God. A man cannot have a "seed" of it.

 

[Desert Reign]

As I was reviewing this question, it became apparent that the analogy used (by me) was forced into a question about God in which the analogy doesn’t belong. There is a category mix-up, and I believe I am at fault for this. Furthermore, I see why the answers I did give, though in line with my thought, needed more depth to them. So, to answer this, I need to put my original analogy into the proper context I was meaning to convey. It is important for me to do so because after looking at this question as is, the answer quite simply is: No.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

The point I was trying to demonstrate is that one cannot profess faith in Christ unless he has the faith in his heart—first, which comes from the Spirit.

So, in the case of sinful man, (I will rework my lung analogy to more adequately answer this question)he does have lungs to breathe; however, he doesn’t desire to use them to breathe;

So is the problem because he does not desire to breathe (to pursue your analogy) or because he does not have something called 'faith' which is only given by the Spirit?

Man is unable to see that his lungs are for breathing; therefore, God has to do a supernatural operation on his heart and mind to change his desire, his will, to breathe.

Man has the natural ability, through the moral conscience and cognitive reasoning ability he has been endowed with, to obey God’s law; however, he has no desire, no inclination, to live according to the moral standards God has commanded him to live by.

So let me see if I have got this right. Previously you were saying that man could not be saved without x but God did not give him x and now blames the man for not having x. Now, you are admitting that this was wrong but instead you are saying that man cannot be saved without both x and y and God has given him x but not y and therefore judges him for not having y?

I just want to be clear about this before saying anything more.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Does God ever learn anything?

No. God does not accrete knowledge for He is the source of all knowledge--the Truth Maker--such that we only discover what God knows.

If God learns, then the God of Moses was less knowledgeable than He is at this moment. For example, such a diminshed view of God would give us no reason to hope for our future glory. After all, God may learn something new and change His mind.

God is not "becoming" as the process theists and their offspring, the open theists, would wrongly claim.

AMR

 

[musterion]

As I was reviewing this question, it became apparent that the analogy used (by me) was forced into a question about God in which the analogy doesn’t belong. There is a category mix-up, and I believe I am at fault for this.

Too bad. There is no misplaced analogy. There is not category mix-up. The goalpost stays right where it is and you're not going to move it.

You chose the analogy (and I know as well as you do that it was accurate enough to convey your beliefs), so I ran with it. It communicated exactly what you intended to communicate.

The problem is, you now want to backtrack because you realize your position is indefensible, lung analogy or no.

Here's where I'm puzzled, though.

Why is it, mysteriously, that only NOW do you decide you misphrased your analogy? You'll recall that I have asked you more than once, over the past few days, to address my question. And a very simple question it is. You've insisted more than once that you already had done so. Now you say the entire deal is based on a misunderstanding you hadn't previously detected that you're big enough to take the blame for.

"Oops, my bad" won't work here. Your repeated insistence that you DID answer my question - which you now want to alter as fatally flawed - means you lied. You were saying you addressed it when you knew you'd never really addressed it at all. Or, best case, you don't even pay attention to what you write and were simply blowing me off. Which is still lying. Either way, you really don't look too good right now.

But because the question as is is perfectly legitimate, let us proceed...

Can a just, non-lying God not give "lungs" to those He reprobates, then damn them specifically for refusing to "breathe?"

It is important for me to do so because after looking at this question as is, the answer quite simply is: No.

Agreed 100%!

Thank you for your honest concession that the Calvinist doctrine regarding reprobation blasphemes the God of the Bible and reduces Him to a lying, untrustworthy hypocrite, because the lung analogy depicts exactly what the God of Calvinism does.

And you know it.

 

[Stripe]

God does not accrete knowledge.

Jesus grew in knowledge.

If God learns, then the God of Moses was less knowledgeable than He is at this moment.

Why would that matter? Is it a failing to not know what has not happened?

Such a diminshed view of God would give us no reason to hope for our future glory. After all, God may learn something new and change His mind.

Rubbish. There is nothing that could turn God away from His commitment to righteousness.

 

[musterion]

Such a diminished view of God would give us no reason to hope for our future glory.

That is not a logical conclusion and I need not be OT to see it.

Let's talk about diminished views of God for a second.

Atheist Captain Kirk asked a false god, "Why does God need a starship?" We ask, "Why does God need to be in constant, direct control of every atom in creation and foreknow every possible contingency of all our futures, else He's not God?" [translated: "Else we can't trust Him as God?"]

God has promised the redemption and glory of those who are Christ's, and He cannot lie. Why isn't that fact enough to stand upon in faith? Must we be convinced that He is in absolute control, throughout their existence, of the path of every stray molecule of gas floating in deep space, and every choice we may or may not make, before we are able to fully trust Him to keep His Word to us?

Talk about diminished views of God... :dizzy:

 

[Desert Reign]

Why is it, mysteriously, that only NOW do you decide you misphrased your analogy? You'll recall that I have asked you more than once, over the past few days, to address my question. And a very simple question it is. You've insisted more than once that you already had done so. Now you say the entire deal is based on a misunderstanding you hadn't previously detected that you're big enough to take the blame for.

"Oops, my bad" won't work here. Your repeated insistence that you DID answer my question - which you now want to alter as fatally flawed - means you lied. You were saying you addressed it when you knew you'd never really addressed it at all. Or, best case, you don't even pay attention to what you write and were simply blowing me off. Which is still lying. Either way, you really don't look too good right now.

This is exactly what Mr. Orr did to me. He called me a liar at least twice and only after I shoved him into a corner was he forced to admit that he hadn't read what I said properly. This is why I criticised him for doing a PhD. I just don't see how he can get much satisfaction from doing original research (which is what PhDs are for) when he can't understand plain modern day English. He sees what he wants to see and he thinks it is satisfactory to reel off his pat answers and analogies as if that was a job done. If he gets his PhD like this, I am sure it will only be because it is at a seminary where the professors overseeing him already agree with his conclusions and not for any merit of his own.
I realise this is a severe and potentially very hurtful criticism for him. But he has to man up now or else live the rest of his life in denial. I say, by all means disagree with us, but please give us the respect we deserve.
But so far, at least he has acknowledged he was mistaken, perhaps now he just needs to unlearn the habit.

In the meantime, yes, TULIP is in shreds.

 

[Desert Reign]

In an earlier post, I claimed that I was able to refute any and all proof texts posed by Calvinists. The reason I gave was that if the theology is itself incoherent, then no amount of proof texting would make it coherent again.

I'd just like to give an example of this to demonstrate how many of these so-called proof texts are no more than disguised versions of the logical fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question.

One scripture that comes to mind is John 3:3. Calvinists interpret this and many similar scriptures to mean that spiritual rebirth is solely an act of God. However, this does indeed beg the question because if you already believe that God alone brings about new birth, then this scripture would indeed support that view.
However, other views are possible. Indeed the passage could equally and very plausibly also mean that one's motivations have been thoroughly redirected to focus on God and his ways rather than your own selfish ways. That is as much an act of will as it is of God revealing to you the glory of his own ways.

The following passage provides support for this view:

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, <SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,<SUP class=footnote data-fn="#fen-NKJV-30398e" data-link='[e]'></SUP>

(1 Pet. 1:22-23)

Here, the phrase 'born again' is used in the context of actively purifying your own souls. Again Paul in Rom. 12:1, exhorts us to

be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

So 'born again' as a metaphor implies a complete renewal of your motivations.

This is just one example. As I said, there is no point in proof texting your theology if it is already incoherent.

 

[Lighthouse]

Oh, now, God was just pretending to go down and find out. He didn't really mean it. It's a figure of speech. Ancient allegorical idiom. Poetical license. Non-literal literalism. Or something, anything, other than the flat meaning of the Words.

:chuckle:

Context?

:doh:

Genesis 18:1-33

Ah, you're taking it out of context, Lighthouse.

See? I knew of of our reformed divines would 'splain it to us.

:crackup:

Absolutely. If God didn't know, He isn't God. There is no way you can be a little god of your own universe, or else you are a Mormon, and God isn't God. It might 'look' good on paper, but the logical end of a God who is subject to His Creation, means He is a 'created' god and someone or something is greater than he.

The OV doesn't realize it, but literally, by this kind of statement, you logically make God the same as all the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods: one made by human imagination. It is a huge philosophical proof, but God MUST know all or else He is a creation made by the universe. It takes awhile to explain why this is true, but it is absolutely true (if I have to go to the long proof, I'll probably do so in another thread or try and find where I proved this in the Open Theism 1,2,3 threads).

Reiterating: If God literally had to 'come down to see' then He isn't and cannot be God. He is exactly as the Mormons claim: A glorified man, if such is the case. Just so you know it isn't just me, there are plenty of Open Theists who agree with me on this point. They too believe God is a made-up God if He literally had to come down 'to see.'

Or maybe God has the power to do what He wants, and if He doesn't want to know something He doesn't have to.

Why do you limit God so?

And the jailer cried 'What must I do to be saved?' And Paul answered 'Nothing. You just need to be lucky.'

:rotfl:

I could here take the opportunity for a side-swipe against Arminianism. Because they actually do believe this, namely that God has predestined judgement against you on the basis of what you will do, not what you have done. Whilst I feel that the Arminian answer to this question is generally even more incoherent than the Calvinist one, what is most wrong with the Arminian picture is that paints a grotesque picture of the fatherhood of God, who by this view punishes his children on the basis of what they have not yet done. A bit like the father in the literary caricature who gives his son the cane for no reason other than to remind him not to do anything wrong and so to convince him that he is bad by nature.

The open view is a holy view. It is realistic and truthful and provides the proper ground for believers to come to maturity as responsible individuals held by the incomparable love of the Father.

:thumb:

Especially on Arminianism being more incoherent than Calvinism.

 

[Lon]

Thank you for your honest concession that the Calvinist doctrine regarding reprobation blasphemes the God of the Bible and reduces Him to a lying, untrustworthy hypocrite, because the lung analogy depicts exactly what the God of Calvinism does.

And you know it.

No, this particular 'understanding' of it does. Is that 'understanding' a caricature of the actual? :nono:

In this scenario you are making a 'condition' a 'demand.' It isn't true.

Look, I can scream at a dead man to 'breathe!' all I like. It is not going to happen. This isn't what God is doing. He is saying, 'unless you breath, you die.' It is a condition and that leads us to actuals: Without Christ, man is going to die. There is not 'believe' demand. If he/she doesn't believe, he/she will die in sin. It is a condition. We both agree to that.

You are (and I believe simply) misunderstanding a condition (state of being) for an imperative (a demand otherwise that cannot be attained).

 

[Word based mystic]

Christ while in this universe has limited his omniscience. Thus allowing Him to maintain His fatherly love to all created souls.

It also allows for the interaction with man on an (if, then) basis.
some being rewarded for being faithful in few things and others being rewarded for being faithful for a lot of the things given to men to steward.

The Father who is Spirit has omniscience
The Son does not.

the parameters are set for the day of judgment.
No agents in the universe can go beyond the parameters of judgement.
nor is there any agents in the universe that God does not ultimate authority and power over.

This also allows Christ the Son to be relationally interactive with men. both individually and corporately
So much is relational in man and the Sons interaction

Not puppet and robot programmed

but true give and take in love and passion and obedience.
obedience is irrelevant if the robot is programmed to be so.
even more so with love and passion.

reward or rewards as a good and faithful servant implies choice.

I as a father in the past have put the circumstances in play to see if my children at that age were responsible for increased freedom i.e. driving.
thus it is with much of what The Son does with his children.

How could God ever receive and be pleased with worship from robots that He has programmed?

mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

 

[Lon]

Christ while in this universe has limited his omniscience. Thus allowing Him to maintain His fatherly love to all created souls.

The Father who is Spirit has omniscience
The Son does not.

A passing observation, having nothing to do with the post other than observation: There is a unique dynamic going on, on TOL that I think is important to take a moment to notice, especially for us who aren't part of the dynamic:

Open Theism crosses barriers between MAD and Dispensationalism, Conservative and Charismatic. And there are all 4 of these on TOL who aren't Open Theists either. I think anyone reporting on Open Theism, has to recognize it crosses theology barriers.

 

[Lon]

Jesus grew in knowledge.

Why would that matter? Is it a failing to not know what has not happened?

Rubbish. There is nothing that could turn God away from His commitment to righteousness.

Hebrews 13:8 vs. Luke 2:52

Here is an indepth treatment by Jonathan Edwards, if you are so inclined to investigate the dichotomy.

 

[Lon]

Or maybe God has the power to do what He wants, and if He doesn't want to know something He doesn't have to.

Why do you limit God so?

Not just me, but most Open Theists too. It is Process Theology, which most Open Theists are not. I think it would be good for you to look into the difference to determine if you are OV or Process (or perhaps both?). I think a lot of Open Theist laymen are advocates for Process Theology without probably realizing it. I just think it a good idea for a few on TOL to know they've crossed that line and become Process Theologians. Either that, or they'll have to realize they need to pull away from that edge to remain Open Theist.

 

[intojoy]

:chuckle:


:doh:

Genesis 18:1-33


:crackup:


Or maybe God has the power to do what He wants, and if He doesn't want to know something He doesn't have to.

Why do you limit God so?


:rotfl:


:thumb:

Especially on Arminianism being more incoherent than Calvinism.

The context is duh?

That's a sign of weakness.

You provide one verse to assume God learns things that God is unaware of.

If God did not know what was happening to the people in Sodom, why was it microwave time?

If God did not know only Lot and company was saved (righteous) then why did the Angels go directly to Lot's house?

Why does Abraham question God?

What was Abraham's question?


Here's what I think is happening in that story.

ABE knew that the city was wicked.
ABE knows Lot lives in the town.
Abe knows God will destroy the city.
Abe is seeking to deliver Lot.

God asks if Abe should be left out of the plans.

God tells Abe that judgment has arrived.

God puts up with Abe's questioning of the righteous (saved) population within the town.

God knows who are his saved people there already (or he doesn't know us either).

In response to Abe's questioning God replies:

"I have heard the cries of the people (not the victims of the city - the cries of the wicked - the stench of their abominations) I will go down and see if it is so"

This was God's chosen words to comfort Abe concerning what Abe must have known was coming. That's why God asked the question should I hide what I will do from Abe?

Abe knew it was a matter of time.

By God saying to Abe "I will go down and see"

Is a nice way of saying:

You know what is there, I hear the noise, I will go down and see if the noise is what it is - homo livin

That is it.

One statement seen in light of the context of the relationship God has to Abe and their conversation.

Why did God later send Abe to kill Isaac?

Did God not know?

Or was it Abe who had been learning to trust God?

Why does Abe not think God would not have saved God's children out of Sodom?

Abe should have trusted God but his relationship of trust had not matured.

Just look at SARAH his "sister" and how Abe failed her. God does not force maturity on any of us. That episode of Abe's life was to show the stage in Abe's spiritual maturity and God is merely gently telling Abe you will see.

Selah