ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

Is there a purpose in

We do not create children with the hope and expectation that they will become serial killers and homosexuals.

Where did I say differently?

There is no good purpose in heinous evil.

Then how does "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ... And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Lu 24:44,46)" fit into open theism?

Sin and suffering and death are enemies and contrary to God's will. He created despite the fact that these things would happen. He has a plan to eventually wipe them out and restore paradise. If they were inherently good and a greater purpose, we would see these things in eternity or from minute one in the garden of Eden.

Just as we create our children despite the fact that they will suffer in this life. I certainly would never wish my children hadn't lived just because they would suffer. Our Father did likewise and will, in the end, abolish suffering.

I will now ask you to consider that God decreed creation to exist through action and decreed man's action within it to exist through inaction(allowance).

God decrees His own will.........

1) God is powerful enough to do anything which is possible and it was possible to stop Adam from partaking of the tree. God wouldn't allow something that He didn't desire or will to exist.

2) God decreed man would have free will and would allow man to use it as man wished.

3) God decreed the source of knowledge of good and evil which Adam took of through allowance would be placed in the garden.

4) God decreed through allowance that Lucifer would tempt Eve and deceive her.

5) God decreed through allowance that man would fall.

6) God decreed through allowance that He would die personally to defeat death and lead man into eternity.

And I ask, "Did God decree that He would allow man to sin?"

In other words, was the man's ability to molest and murder an infant decreed by God?

If so, why would God will this?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

God did not decree sin. This is contrary to His will, character, and kingdom.

The suffering of Christ was for a higher good, the plan of redemption. God did predestine this and implemented the plan after the Fall, not before. The cross is not in the same category as child rape and murder, the Holocaust, etc. Just because God decrees one thing that involved suffering (cross) does not sanitize all evil as His will. Some suffering is allowed and even brings growth to the church. It is not so much that God decrees that missionaries will be killed, but that He is able to bring good out of this despite the evil He never desired or intended. Do not extrapolate the suffering of the cross as identical to other evil suffering that is not identical in intent, purpose, or redemptive resolution.

 

[Bob Hill]

In response to this:

sentientsynth

Bob Hill,

I really was looking forward to your reply to this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill

Where does it say or show in the Bible that

"God planned but is not the immediate cause of evil."

Originally posted by Hilston

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:1-10)

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: ... for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. (Mt 26:24,31)

t is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought ... and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. Mr 9:12,13

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (Luke 18:31)

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (Lu 22:37)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ... And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Lu 24:44,46)

And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. (Ac 13:29)

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Ac 2:23)

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Ac 4:27,28)

Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ NOT authored by God. Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ optional. Only in the mind of the Open Theist does "as it is written" actually mean "as it just so happened by chance." This is the irrationality and mental Chinese acrobatics that is Open Theism.

I hope you can find the time to address this sometime soon.

Sentientsynth

Hilston gave these passages about the Lord Jesus Christ, our redeemer.

Christ came into the world to die for our sins. That was His goal as well as the Father’s. These passages are no problem to understand. God doesn’t deal with us the same way that He did with His Son.

In Christ my Redeemer and of course, my Savior,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

sentientsynth,

Do you see what I mean?

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

Open View Theology, Open Theism, The Freedom of God, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I believe. This view is about my God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc.

What I believe about this theology, is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God. It is biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on our site, biblicalanswers.com.

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed the Open View. Thankfully, that has dramatically changed in the last 20 years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

In a number of passages, Christ clearly tells us that he didn’t know why the humans would behave the way they did.

Further, the Lord has tested His people to see whether or not they would remain faithful to him. Here are a few examples of what He found.
Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Exo 16:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.

Deut 8:2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

What a wonderful God we have.

Bob Hill

 

[sentientsynth]

sentientsynth, Do you see what I mean?

Yes. I see all too clearly what you mean.

Bob Hill, you have completely ignored the thrust of these passages and attempted to sweep their ramifications under the rug. Is it no wonder that your disciples do the same at every turn?

]Christ came into the world to die for our sins.

Wrong, sir.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear readers, what is more deceptive than an outright lie?

A half truth. It sounds so pious, so correct, but it is the beginning of error and of death.

Ge 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat (freely??) of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it (where did this come from??), lest ye die.


Beware of your teacher, Open Theists. He has opened the door to Satan, and I'm afraid that he has already ravaged you.

Christ came into the world to die for our sins.

Yes, but not only to die: He came also to suffer, to be bruised, to be marred beyond all recognition, to die the most ignoble of deaths, and that all at the hands of wicked men, all according to the will of His Father, Who was pleased to crush Him, foreordained before the foundation of the world.

These passages are no problem to understand.

Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand, and beholding ye shall behold and not see.

 

[RobE]

God did not decree sin. This is contrary to His will, character, and kingdom.

The suffering of Christ was for a higher good, the plan of redemption. God did predestine this and implemented the plan after the Fall, not before. The cross is not in the same category as child rape and murder, the Holocaust, etc. Just because God decrees one thing that involved suffering (cross) does not sanitize all evil as His will. Some suffering is allowed and even brings growth to the church. It is not so much that God decrees that missionaries will be killed, but that He is able to bring good out of this despite the evil He never desired or intended. Do not extrapolate the suffering of the cross as identical to other evil suffering that is not identical in intent, purpose, or redemptive resolution.

I'm certain that we know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. They are both valid.

Did God decree free will?
Would free will ultimately lead to sin?
Did God allow it to lead to sin?
Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?

You said: Just because God decrees one thing that involved suffering (cross) does not sanitize all evil as His will.

Your positions is that God decreed the evil done to Christ. Inductively might we conclude that if God decreed evil to Himself through allowance that He might decree evil to occur to others through allowance?

Aren't you able to see where this destroys the position that God doesn't decree evil/sin?
Hilston's position is substantiated through this, is it not?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Bob,

Do these verses answer your question? Did God plan, but not carry out the torture and murder of Jesus Christ?

Rob

Hilston: God planned but is not the immediate cause of evil.

Bob Hill: Where does it say or show in the Bible that?​

Matt. 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matt: 26:

1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."

3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. 5"But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people."

18He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near.

31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'[c] 32But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Mark 8:31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Mark 9:31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."

Mark 10:32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.

John 19:11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

Hebrews 5:8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

 

[godrulz]

I think there is fault in your logic somewhere. Temporarily allowing divorce, polygamy, incest (Adam/Eve's kids), slavery, etc. does not mean that this is God's will or ideal. Certainly heinous evil is contrary to God's will. Things happen that are not intended or desired by God. He allows them for a time, but will pour out His wrath in the end. If they were His will, He would not judge evil acts. The alternative is to remove free will or wipe mankind off the planet.

Justice delayed is not justice denied (hey, I like that :greedy: )

Hiltson's theodicy (problem of evil) is flawed if it makes God responsible for something clearly contrary to His revealed Word and character (a specious decretal, compatibilism, or two wills of God rationalization does not change the simple truth).

 

[RobE]

Godrulz,

I'll point out the problem right here in this quote.....

Hiltson's theodicy (problem of evil) is flawed if it makes God responsible for something clearly contrary to His revealed Word and character (a specious decretal, compatibilism, or two wills of God rationalization does not change the simple truth).

....open theist's don't understand the word I highlighted in the above paragraph.

How does Hilston's theodicy make God responsible for anything?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz,

I'll point out the problem right here in this quote.....



....open theist's don't understand the word I highlighted in the above paragraph.

How does Hilston's theodicy make God responsible for anything?

Rob

He believes in compatibilism...God decrees sin, yet is not the cause of it nor responsible for it. I believe incompatibilism is more defensible.

Why is it so hard to understand that not everything is God's will? Hyper-sovereignty is flawed. The will of man is sufficient explanation for things contrary to His will.

 

[RobE]

He believes in compatibilism...God decrees sin, yet is not the cause of it nor responsible for it. I believe incompatibilism is more defensible.

Why is it so hard to understand that not everything is God's will? Hyper-sovereignty is flawed. The will of man is sufficient explanation for things contrary to His will.

Ok. This doesn't answer the question when you consider that it is God's will to allow sin. Don't you see the two-edged sword which your criticism creates?

Edge 1: God decrees sin so He is responsible for sin.
Edge 2: God decrees allowance of sin so He is responsible for sin.

There is no difference. Both are wrong since He isn't the responsible free will actor either way.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

God gave free will with the possibility vs necessity/certainty of sin. He expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they brought forth bad 'grapes'. He expected Adam to walk in Paradise with Him, and was grieved to the core when Adam did not do so, contrary to God's desire and expectations.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok. This doesn't answer the question when you consider that it is God's will to allow sin. Don't you see the two-edged sword which your criticism creates?

Edge 1: God decrees sin so He is responsible for sin.
Edge 2: God decrees allowance of sin so He is responsible for sin.

There is no difference. Both are wrong since He isn't the responsible free will actor either way.

Rob

Wow, your "logic" blows me away. You don't really think this way do you?

When God allows freedom that doesn't make Him responsible (at least not in the direct sense) for the actions that those that are free.

When an employer allows their employees the freedom to leave the plant for lunch they are not responsible if an employee commits a crime while on lunch break.

 

[RobE]

God gave free will with the possibility vs necessity/certainty of sin. He expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they brought forth bad 'grapes'. He expected Adam to walk in Paradise with Him, and was grieved to the core when Adam did not do so, contrary to God's desire and expectations.

Again this doesn't answer the question. Let's not try to change the subject. Your criticism of Hilston's position is that it makes God responsible for sin. How does your position differ?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Wow, your "logic" blows me away. You don't really think this way do you?

No. I don't believe God is responsible for sin. It is an accusation that Godrulz levied at Hilston because Hilston said, "God decreed sin". I'm trying to see how the accusation is valid.

When God allows freedom that doesn't make Him responsible (at least not in the direct sense) for the actions that those that are free.

I, and Hilston, agree. However God decreed that same freedom and therefore the actions which result from it. This is different than responsibility for evil.

When an employer allows their employees the freedom to leave the plant for lunch they are not responsible if an employee commits a crime while on lunch break.

That's completely true. The employer decreeing the freedom doesn't make them responsible for the free actions resulting after that decree whether those actions are foreknown or not.

Rob

 

[themuzicman]

I'm certain that we know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. They are both valid.

Did God decree free will?
Would free will ultimately lead to sin?
Did God allow it to lead to sin?
Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?

Let's start here from an OVT perspective.

Did God decree free will?
A: YES

Would free will ultimately lead to sin?
A: It certanly wasn't necessary for free will to lead to sin.


Did God allow it to lead to sin?
A: I would say 'no', and here's why: God know that sin was possible, but until the moment that Eve made the decision to eat, it wasn't certain. Once Eve made the decision, then it was certain, but too late to prevent it.

The only objection might be that God allowed the possibility of sin to arise, but that was necessary for a true relationship to exist. If man could not reject God, then the relationship would be meaningless.

Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?
A: NO. God continues to allow sin because God's just nature demands that mankind suffer the effects of it's own sin, albiet usually acutely (and unfairly) visited upon individuals rather than the whole. If God were to prevent man from sinning post-fall, He would be violating His own just nature.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Let's start here from an OVT perspective.

Did God decree free will?
A: YES​

So far so good.

Would free will ultimately lead to sin?
A: It certanly wasn't necessary for free will to lead to sin.​

What's the probability that through an eternity it wouldn't?

Did God allow it to lead to sin?
A: I would say 'no', and here's why: God know that sin was possible, but until the moment that Eve made the decision to eat, it wasn't certain. Once Eve made the decision, then it was certain, but too late to prevent it.

The only objection might be that God allowed the possibility of sin to arise, but that was necessary for a true relationship to exist. If man could not reject God, then the relationship would be meaningless.​

Did God place the tree in the garden, and He was unable to stop the devil, and He was unable to take the fruit from Eve; or, did He allow these things to transpire? If He allowed it was this then His will?

Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?
A: NO. God continues to allow sin because God's just nature demands that mankind suffer the effects of it's own sin, albiet usually acutely (and unfairly) visited upon individuals rather than the whole. If God were to prevent man from sinning post-fall, He would be violating His own just nature.​

I have several problems with this statement. Primarily your supposition, "....God's just nature demands that mankind suffer the effects of it's own sin", would mean that God could never stop creation and bring about judgement because His own 'just nature' wouldn't allow it. Certainly there is an error here.

Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Let's start here from an OVT perspective.

Did God decree free will?
A: YES​

So far so good.

Would free will ultimately lead to sin?
A: It certanly wasn't necessary for free will to lead to sin.​

What's the probability that through an eternity it wouldn't?

If Satan doesn't rebel, probably pretty good. Even afterwards, Adam and Even were specifically instructed about what NOT to do. I'd say the odds were pretty good.

Did God allow it to lead to sin?
A: I would say 'no', and here's why: God know that sin was possible, but until the moment that Eve made the decision to eat, it wasn't certain. Once Eve made the decision, then it was certain, but too late to prevent it.

The only objection might be that God allowed the possibility of sin to arise, but that was necessary for a true relationship to exist. If man could not reject God, then the relationship would be meaningless.​

Did God place the tree in the garden, and He was unable to stop the devil, and He was unable to take the fruit from Eve; or, did He allow these things to transpire? If He allowed it was this then His will?

The tree in the garden was necessary to create the option for A&E to reject God.

Since we don't know when or how Satan fell, it's hard to answer that question. It's possible that the fall occurred as Satan was tempting Eve.

Furthermore, if God wanted A&E to choose Him, God couldn't really go about directing them away from the tree every time they went in that direction.

Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?
A: NO. God continues to allow sin because God's just nature demands that mankind suffer the effects of it's own sin, albiet usually acutely (and unfairly) visited upon individuals rather than the whole. If God were to prevent man from sinning post-fall, He would be violating His own just nature.​

I have several problems with this statement. Primarily your supposition, "....God's just nature demands that mankind suffer the effects of it's own sin", would mean that God could never stop creation and bring about judgement because His own 'just nature' wouldn't allow it. Certainly there is an error here.

Rob

No, that would be a valid course. God could (before Gen 3;15 anyway) have destroyed the universe and started over. However, God did promise "the seed of the woman", and subsequently made further promises and decrees regarding having a people for Himself and such, so God would have to fulfill His own word before doing so.

I think you're trying to take what I've said in one direction and demanding that the opposite be true. I'm saying that if sinful mankind continues to exist, then mankind will suffer the effects of its own sin as per God's just nature, of course this implies that it is absent God's actions either in bringing about final salvation or ultimately judging the world and destroying it.

Muz