Bob Hill said:How many of you hold to the Open View of God?
More than fifty by my count, but there are 15-20 of that number who rarely post
Bob Hill said:How many of you hold to the Open View of God?
Justification as described in the Bible occurs on three levels:deardelmar said:The topic was believing. Open theists believe Paul when he says that we are justified by believing rather than being justified by works.
You may be accepting Paul's words, but not Paul's meaning. That is the crux of the issue here: The prejudiced Open Theist hermeneutic that does violence to language, logic and scripture.deardelmar said:Jim Hilston claims that by accepting Pauls words as the truth, Open Theists have to save themselves.
You're confusing hubris apples and humility oranges. Paul talks about the universal and innate knowledge of God that all men have. Their pride prevents them from yielding to and embracing the God that they know to exist. That is not the belief that brings humility, awe and reverence toward Christ that is commanded by Paul elsewhere. Your logic makes evangelism superfluous.deardelmar said:Jim you pointed out in your 'Bob has lost the debate' thread that the only way to deny God is to suppress belief. I am agreeing with you when I say that the only way not to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord is to suppress belief in unrighteousness. To believe is not something you work for, not something you achieve, it takes no effort. Unbelief takes effort.
This is the standard Arminian/Open-View rationalization. Regardless of whether you think it is "work" or not, it is something that the human being does that is required on the Open View in order for someone to be saved. That makes Christ's work insufficient in and of itself to save anyone. Man must save himself. He must grab the rope, according to the Open View.deardelmar said:Since believing that Jesus Christ is Lord takes no effort, only the worst kind of fool would claim that to be saved by believing in (rather than rejecting) Jesus is to "save yourself".
So what you're saying is ... Hey, look at that! Ooooo. Shiny!The muzicman said:You know, it helps if you read the entire verse (and I know it's asking alot, given your attention span, ...
The OpenView errs in eisegetically imposing a causal relationship between believing and having eternal life. The verse literally translates "the beholding one ... and the believing one ... has eternal life." All present-tense verbs. Just because the syntax puts belief before eternal life does not mean that belief is a pre-requisite. It is a statement of fact. "The one who is inside my house will have access to my silverware." The statement has nothing to do with how the person gets inside of my house -- whether he walked in by invitation, or broke in illegally. Paul says that "... we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." The syntax does not imply that the "things work[ing] together for good" are prerequisite for us to love God, or to be "the called-ones according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28).The muzicman said:... but the whole chapter would be good, too). Notice that Jesus immediately after saying that he won't cast out those who come to him, says that "the one who beholds the Son of Man and believes in him will have eternal life, and (Christ) will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)
Not according to John 6:37 "All that the Father gives (present tense) Me shall come (future tense) to Me;" The Father was at that time giving the elect to Christ, then present-tense, and those whom the Father was giving to Christ would, at a future point in time, come to Christ.The muzicman said:Clearly there is a faith response required before God gives someone to Christ. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.
Here again is the flaw in your analogy. The shipwrecked man is not merely "floating in the ocean." He's been dead for days. This flawed analogy is consistent with the Open View's failure to appreciate the severity of the depravity of man. Dead ears cannot hear. They cannot be made to hear by the dead person. Their ears must be made to hear by the only One with the power to do so. A dead person cannot grab a rope. He cannot make himself come to life and grab it. He must be made alive by the only One with the power to do so.The muzicman said:If the Coast Guard flys out to you to save you from floating in the ocean, ...
God, of course. And the requirement for salvation is one thing only: The Blood of Christ shed in one's behalf. Period. No works. No faith. Nothing added. Absolute satisfaction by the sacrifice of Christ.The muzicman said:Who sets the standard for salvation? God or you?
I'm not a Calvinist. And God is not the standard for your behavior. His Word is. When man measures God against man, He will look like a deranged pscyhco. That is why Adam was warned not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam listened to Lucifer, just like hapless people will give ear to Open Theism, and in so doing, they see that the Biblical descriptions of God seem monstrous and evil, even psychotic and deranged. When Adam chose to listen to Lucifer and to measure God by Adam, Adam fell. The sin of the Garden is the sin of Open Theism: Man measuring God by Man.The muzicman said:Right, God determined that in his loving nature, he would condemn most of mankind to eternal judgment. Why does God sound like a psychotic, deranged killer who demands that the victims he lets live love him, after the Calvinist gets done with him?
God cannot cease to be God. God cannot cease to be logical. God cannot cease to be truthful. These are not a human limitations at all. In fact, they are not limitations. God cannot do these things, not because He chooses not to, but because it is impossible to do so. God does not have a "choice" when it comes to being truthful. It is impossible for Him to lie (Heb 6:18).The muzicman said:So, God CANNOT create a universe where there are agents who act outside of his determinitive will? Sounds like a human limitation to me.
Hilston said:the muzicman
The OpenView errs in eisegetically imposing a causal relationship between believing and having eternal life. The verse literally translates "the beholding one ... and the believing one ... has eternal life." All present-tense verbs. Just because the syntax puts belief before eternal life does not mean that belief is a pre-requisite. It is a statement of fact. "The one who is inside my house will have access to my silverware." The statement has nothing to do with how the person gets inside of my house -- whether he walked in by invitation, or broke in illegally. Paul says that "... we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." The syntax does not imply that the "things work[ing] together for good" are prerequisite for us to love God, or to be "the called-ones according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28).
Not according to John 6:37 "All that the Father gives (present tense) Me shall come (future tense) to Me;" The Father was at that time giving the elect to Christ, then present-tense, and those whom the Father was giving to Christ would, at a future point in time, come to Christ.
Here again is the flaw in your analogy. The shipwrecked man is not merely "floating in the ocean." He's been dead for days. This flawed analogy is consistent with the Open View's failure to appreciate the severity of the depravity of man. Dead ears cannot hear. They cannot be made to hear by the dead person. Their ears must be made to hear by the only One with the power to do so. A dead person cannot grab a rope. He cannot make himself come to life and grab it. He must be made alive by the only One with the power to do so.
God, of course. And the requirement for salvation is one thing only: The Blood of Christ shed in one's behalf. Period. No works. No faith. Nothing added. Absolute satisfaction by the sacrifice of Christ.
I'm not a Calvinist. And God is not the standard for your behavior. His Word is. When man measures God against man, He will look like a deranged pscyhco. That is why Adam was warned not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam listened to Lucifer, just like hapless people will give ear to Open Theism, and in so doing, they see that the Biblical descriptions of God seem monstrous and evil, even psychotic and deranged. When Adam chose to listen to Lucifer and to measure God by Adam, Adam fell. The sin of the Garden is the sin of Open Theism: Man measuring God by Man.
God cannot cease to be God. God cannot cease to be logical. God cannot cease to be truthful. These are not a human limitations at all. In fact, they are not limitations. God cannot do these things, not because He chooses not to, but because it is impossible to do so. God does not have a "choice" when it comes to being truthful. It is impossible for Him to lie (Heb 6:18).
Hypocrite, moron, jackass, liar and tool(shed),
Jim
Michael said:So, God can do whatever He wants, and it's good by definition?
If so God is unjust by His own given standard and therefore a hypocrite.RobE said:As long as He is God.
Rob
RobE said:As long as He is God.
Rob
Bob Hill said:How many of you hold to the Open View of God?
Where did you come up with before others and before ourselves?Hilston said:Combined reply to:Dear deardelmar,
- deardelmar
- muzicman
From an earlier post of yours:
Justification as described in the Bible occurs on three levels:
- We are justified before others by our works (Romans 4:2 "For SINCE Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.");
- We are justified before ourselves by faith* (Romans 4:3 "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him [Abraham] for righteousness.");
- We are justified before God by the blood of Christ alone (Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood;" Romans 8:33 "It is God that justifieth").
Jim
Bob Hill said:At one time I actually held to the view that God knew all of the future until I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that. I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity.
Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does. He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.
The Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God over 20 times. The passage that really affected me greatly was found in Deuteronomy, but now, I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion: If God was outside of time and saw all the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them because they do not exist. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.
When we read the Bible, God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same it that attribute. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists until it actually happens.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Bob Hill said:At one time I actually held to the view that God knew all of the future until I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that. I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity.
Bob Hill said:Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does. He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.
Bob Hill said:The Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God over 20 times. The passage that really affected me greatly was found in Deuteronomy, but now, I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Bob Hill said:From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion: If God was outside of time and saw all the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them because they do not exist. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.
Bob Hill said:When we read the Bible, God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same it that attribute. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists until it actually happens.
Originally Posted by Michael
So, God can do whatever He wants, and it's good by definition?
Rob said:As long as He is God.
Clete said:If so God is unjust by His own given standard and therefore a hypocrite.
Clete said:God is not the "Do as I say and not as I do." sort of God but is rather the "Be Holy as I am Holy!" sort of God!
The God of the Bible is loving, just and kind and commands us to be like Him! We are not commanded to be capricious and arbitrary!
Clete said:Your comment is blasphemous. God cannot do anything inconsistent with the way He is right now and remain holy. If you believe otherwise you believe in a god other than that spoken of in the Bible.
Your comment is, however, the logically consistent position drawn from a Calvinistic worldview and it is therefore one of the most powerful arguments against the theology. No such hypocritical god exists. Believing otherwise is idolatry and suggesting that the God of Scripture is such a God is blasphemy of the highest order.
themuzicman said:So, there is no standard for good that comes from His nature, it's just whatever God does?
Muz
Of course. That is the language of covenants. God had a high view of His own Word and of the covenants He made with Israel. Anyone in the OT who disregards God's Word is a covenant-breaker. Promises are tied to covenants. Of course, the Open View will naively take such passages and assume Divine Ignorance in the face of the "apparent" contingency. However, by understanding scripture according to the same rules of syntax, grammar and linguistic figures used by the writer and understood by the original audience, such assumptions become patently untenable. So, for every passage a Bob Du Jour wants to cite in support of the Open View, he must invariably sacrifice hermeneutical coherence on the altar of Open-Theist humanism.Bob Hill said:When we look at a lot of the material in the O.T., God is limited in His promises to bless when man does not do as He commands.
See what I mean? David understood, and he rightly assumed the thoughtful reader of his words would as well, that the limits were in regard to the blessings of the Old Covenant, not in God's ability.Bob Hill said:Psa 78:41 Yes, again and again they tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
All Old Covenant promises were conditional.Bob Hill said:Even promises that appear to be unconditional may be broken. ...
Yup, and Moses understood that as a conditional covenantal pledge, not an unconditional assertion.Bob Hill said:God said "For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you."
Yes, and He implicitly emphasized the conditions thereof.Bob Hill said:God emphasized His promise again and again. ...
Of course; promises of the Old Covenant are conditional. It was how all men understood the cutting of covenants with God, and with other men as well.Bob Hill said:But, in the book of Joshua, we read these promises did not happen.
Of course; they became covenant-breakers. According to the Old Covenant, blessings and curses went hand in glove with covenants and their attending promises. When a covenant was kept, there was blessing. When a covenant was broken, there were curses. Promises were understood as contingent blessings.Bob Hill said:God had ample reason to punish Israel.
Of course; Israel had become covenant breakers. When God said He would drive them out, it was understood by the original audience to be a conditional matter. Since they disobeyed, God used the evil of the nations for His good purposes and the benefit of future New Covenant Israel.Bob Hill said:What nations did God not drive out? God did not drive out those He said He would drive out. Instead, He would use them to discipline Israel.
Note what the Open Theist disease does to the mind. Open Theism must resort to making God into a promise-breaker. It was Israel who broke their covenant with God; God did not break His promise. So instead of blessing (the promise to bless) came curses (the promise to bring calamity).Bob Hill said:God broke a promise sworn to the fathers of Israel because of disobedience (Num 14:23,30,34).
No, God's counsel is immutable. When the Bible describes God as "changing His mind," it is a rich and glorious figure of speech that refers to a change in His actions of special significance. Search and see. In every case it is so.Bob Hill said:All of the future is not locked in like most people seem to think. God can change His mind, and He does.
Does God then have total control of your will? Does God have total control of the actions of the wicked?Bob Hill said:I do agree with godrulz, that God is in total control.
"Allowing" is not the same as "controlling." Unsettled Theists irrationally want to have it both ways. They want a God who is in total control, but One does not control evil. Unsettled Theists also want a God who is infinite, yet also bound by time. Either God is in total control, and therefore controls evil, or He is not in total control. How long halt ye between two opinions? Either God is in total control and infinite or He is neither.Bob Hill said:He allows man to cause problems.
The Unsettled Theist God is a Trial-And-Error-Let's-See-If-This-Works sort of God. Unsettled Theism, in order to raise man up and to denigrate their Judge, strikes at the very heart of what defines God as God.Bob Hill said:God changes His program as He sees fit when mankind disobeys.
After one allows the existential humanism of the Unsettled View to infect and commandeer the mental faculties, giving oneself completely over to its Less-Than-God Theology, one begins to summarily dismiss all passages that indicate God's unchangeable and absolute power, authority, presence, His total and meticulous control, exhaustive knowledge of all things past, present and future, and His prerogative to decree evil for His purposes. Essentially, the Open View proponent turns God into a bad accountant Who doesn't know when to cut His losses, which reduces Him to a nail-biting, pathetic and insecure Loser Who, despite everything He does for them, just can't get people to like HimBob Hill said:At one time I actually held to the view that God knew all of the future until I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Gee, where have I heard that before?Bob Hill said:I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity.
How can He know what doesn't yet exist?Bob Hill said:Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future.
God has determined (past tense) every detail of the future, and He doesn't know the future merely because He "looked into the future," but because He decided in advance exactly, in every meticulous detail, what will inexorably happen.Bob Hill said:But the Bible shows us when He does. He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.
Notice the implications of the Unsettled View in light of this passage:Bob Hill said:The Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God over 20 times. The passage that really affected me greatly was found in Deuteronomy, but now, I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses' prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation." 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: "LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'" 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
This is a correct conclusion.Bob Hill said:From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion: If God was outside of time and saw all the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions.
Bob says that there is nothing for God to know about the future actions of men, yet the Bible says that God's determinate counsel and knowledge of the future delivered Christ into the hands of evil men to be tortured and executed (Act 2:23, Isa 53).Bob Hill said:I also believe: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them because they do not exist. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.
The key component to that sentence is "we." We are creatures bound by time. We cannot fathom timelessness. Therefore God communicates to finite, time-bound man in finite, time-bound terms.Bob Hill said:When we read the Bible, God always exists in time.
Notice the persistent humanism that pervades the mind of the Unsettled Theist. They actually measure God by themselves and evaluate Him against human standards. They acknowledge that man is created in His image, but by trying to understand God according to man's experience, they re-create God in the image of man. God is just a big, super human with special powers, right out of the comic books. He doesn't need to sleep! He doesn't age! This is the Open Theist's view of God:Look! Up in the Sky! It's sleepless man! It's an ageless man! It's God!"Bob Hill said:But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn't. We are growing old. He is always the same it that attribute. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden.
Time is the measure of what between two events?Bob Hill said:I see time as the measure between two events.
Can God control mental events? Was time a burden for the Open Theist God when Jesus told Judas to act quickly? Why would the Unsettled God bother to do that if time were not a burden to Him?Bob Hill said:Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all.
Except time. Time, although part of the universe, is more ultimate than God, according to the Open View.Bob Hill said:He created the universe.
Yet John the Revelator was able to see visions of the actual future. A future that, according to Unsettled Theists, does not exist. Not only did John see visions of the future, but he saw ten kings give their power to the Beast (Rev 17:13). Then, just four verses later, he sees God putting it "in their hearts, to do His will, and to agree, giving their kingdom unto the Beast until the Word of God be fulfilled" (Rev 17:17).Bob Hill said:We haven't even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists until it actually happens.
Please give me one example in which knew beyond any reasonable doubt God was truly involved in something in your life.Philetus said:OVT sees God as involved ...
How? What is God doing right now? How is He involved? Please be specific.Philetus said:God created and is still personally involved!
Bob Hill said:Seeking answers,
Are you really seeking answers? Your answers seem a trifle arrogant to me.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Philetus said:OVT sees God as involved, NOT in process: a God so capable He can risk being in the wold without in anyway compromising His power or His character. Open View Theism is not Process Theology. Get over it.
Philetus said:You sound more like a deist than a theist. You remove God so far from His creation and creatures that even though everything is “out of him, and through him, and unto him” any practical allocations are diminished and the "God we live and move and have our being," in couldn’t be involved if he wanted to. God as you describe him couldn’t have had that conversation with Moses that you build your case on in the above post. He is too far gone. Be careful that your reaction to Process Theology doesn’t send you to another place and time.
Philetus said:These two verses you have posted are so informative of the Open View of the future! They speak first of the past and then of the present: God created and is still personally involved! And regardless what may happen in our immediate future, ALL things will return to God. One can universalize or trivialize, but that doesn’t make the realities of living in and for Christ any less than they are. Experiencing and representing Jesus in the world is not a product of modern or post-modern or Greek thought. It is the effect of living in and having the Holy Spirit dwell in us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus
OVT sees God as involved ...
Hilston: Please give me one example in which knew beyond any reasonable doubt God was truly involved in something in your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus
God created and is still personally involved!
Inspiring both the will and the deed: to love you and pray for you and accept you as a fellow Jackass who needs Christ in his life as much and I do. (See above.)Hilston: How? What is God doing right now? How is He involved? Please be specific.
Thanks,
H,M, JA, L & T(S),
Jim