ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

RobE, wrote

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

Because Hilston, and apparently RobE, believe God knows everything that will happen, it cannot be any different than what God allegedly knows.

If that were true, then everything that is done can only be what God knew it would be. If a person cannot see that is predestination, I don’t know what else he could call it.

Instead we see that this idea is corporate election and predestination. It has one major flaw which the Scriptures do not seem to support. God’s foreknowledge would be the basis of His election and predestination. Since God would foreknow everything as though it were in the present, and His election and predestination were based on His foreknowledge, and since He knew everything that would happen, then God’s predestination had to be individual just as His knowledge was.

I had problems with this predestination. At this time of my life, my theology influenced my attitudes on prayer. If God knew everything, and He did. And if God predestinated everything, and He did that too. Then everything that I prayed was foreknown and predestinated. If I didn’t pray, that was predestinated too. I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I argued, was because God commanded it in His word. However, there was no zest in my prayer life. I sensed this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it. I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer, and Paul was zealous in prayer. Therefore, I suspected, something was wrong with my prayer life.

During this troublesome period, my wife and I visited her parents in Illinois. Her father had a large library of theological books. I was browsing through his books and found one titled, [How Can God Answer Prayer?] I began reading it immediately. It changed my life. He had four answers based on four different suppositions. The one which disrupted my preconceived ideas undermined the immutability of God with Scripture I had never read. I found that there was a vast amount of Scripture which showed that God changed His mind – even repented. Since that time, I have studied this issue for thousands of hours. That’s why I disagree with your predestination.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[patman]

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

Rob,

I have never understood why you equate allowance for sin to decreeing it. If I allow you to answer this question am I responsible for your answer?

What if Love prevents God from controlling if we sin or not, then how can he be responsible? Love prevents it.

Edge 1 allows for no shadow of love at all.

 

[Bob Hill]

Immutability means unchanging. This is the basis for many of the tenets of Calvinistic doctrine. But, where did the idea of immutability come from?

The answer, in the sense of influence, is Plato. Plato (427-347 BC), the great philosopher of Athens, has been the major influence on philosophical thought for about 2,400 years.

Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-430), had been thoroughly educated in philosophy. By Augustine’s time, Plato’s thought had permeated almost every school of philosophy. Philosophers, then and unfortunately, now, take the approach that truth can only be attained by reason. This is called rationalism. Since Augustine was steeped in this rationalistic thought, it influenced his ideas about God. He incorporated Plato’s idea of immutability into his theology after his conversion. Through Augustine, Plato has influenced Christian theological thought for about 1,600 years.

Plato honored his mentor, Socrates, in his writings by making him the main character of his dialogues. It is through Plato that we have an idea of the philosophy and thought of Socrates. Plato developed the thought of Heraclitus, Xenophanes, and Parmenides into his thesis of the immutability of God. We can understand Plato’s theoretical idea of the immutability of God by using this rationalistic syllogism: The perfect does not change. God is perfect. God does not change.

Plato himself explained immutability this way in, “A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus.” Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. . . . It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art or both admits least alteration by something else.... But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state.... does he change himself for the better ... or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? ...for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods themselves are incapable of change. . . . Then God is altogether simple and true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others.

This rationalistic view of God was later adopted by Augustine, and his theology influenced the Reformation through an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. Augustine and Luther had a great influence on John Calvin. Elements of Calvin’s theology have been foundational for most evangelical theologies since the reformation.

God addressed this rationalism in 1 Corinthians. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1:19-21).

Because of this Greek philosophical influence, Augustine thought the idea of a mutable God was an absurdity. Augustine was able to accept the Catholic faith only after Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, allegorized the Old Testament Scriptures which revealed a mutable God.

Ambrose spiritualized the offending Scripture passages of the Old Testament in his sermons. When Augustine heard these sermons, he was able to accept the Christian God.

He wrote, “For those absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit.”

Certain absurdities had hindered Augustine from believing in the Word of God. Augustine believed that God was immutable.

To him it was absurd to believe in a God who could change his mind. How did Augustine know that this was absurd?

The force of his own reasoning concluded that it was absurd. But his reasoning was permeated by Platonic rationalistic philosophy. After hearing Ambrose, Augustine was able to make the rationalistic judgment that the Bible was a rational authority. Augustine only turned to the Scriptures after the absurdities were “expounded properly.”

Although Augustine later developed a high regard for Scripture, first he used non-Scriptural rationalistic thinking to form his ideas about God’s attributes. Then, he attempted to find support for his ideas in the Scriptures. His primary presupposition was the immutability of God. The doctrine of immutability influenced his doctrines of predestination, foreknowledge, and atemporality of God.

Augustine, subsequently, had great influence on Calvin. This influence of Augustine over Calvin is attested by many writers. For example, Warfield wrote, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers – for the Reformation was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of Augustinianism.”

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Neoplatonism and Manichaeism had a great influence on Augustine. These philosophers believed God could not be mutable and retain his perfection. I think this is similar to what RobE and Hilston believe.

Just as Augustine accepted this philosophical thought as true and attempted to prove this doctrine using Scripture, I think they have done the same.

How could God change his will or character from one time to the next in order to adjust to a changeable mankind? In On the Morals of the Catholic Church, Augustine explained the “ridiculous” Old Testament doctrines. “We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt or crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it. These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and in those by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.”

Augustine agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change?

Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine, the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods.

The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable, this idea of a repenting God was a source of ridicule for the Catholic Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.

Did Augustine learn that God was immutable from a study of the Scriptures? No!

Under Platonic influence, Augustine used his reason to see an immutable God in his mind. Although he received this concept of an unchangeable or immutable God from the Platonists, he incorporated it right into his Christian theology without change.

Augustine only utilized Scripture in his defense of the immutability of God as a secondary proof.

His main defense was rationalism. “Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and so may deserve to know. . . . Accordingly that God is unchangeable.” Notice! Augustine maintained that reason traced out the doctrine of immutability.

Augustine said all things which happen are caused by the immovable God.

After perusing the Bible we can confidently declare, it does not speak of an immovable God.

In fact, the opposite is true. The God of the Bible, our God, is moved by our prayers, our suffering, and our actions.

That is the God of the Bible. He sent His Son to die for us. What a wonderful God we have.

In Christ my Savior,
Bob Hill

 

[patman]

In a sense I do come to the same conclusion. From the perspective that God knew who would be reprobate when He began creation. This would mean than God foreordained all by the act of creation to end up in heaven or hell according to their own free acts. It would not mean that He made them intentionally to be in hell, but made them to achieve a greater purpose through free will and love. His desire would be that all would be saved, but alas, that wasn't to happen because of the two-edged sword which free will creates. I would say that He did this because.....

A friend of mine, Father Norman Weslin, put this more eloquently than anyone I've ever heard. Essentially Fr. Weslin said that those who will avail themselves of God's gift are ultimately the point of creation. That those who don't are essentially enemies of Our Lord and are nothing to Him. Fr. Weslin made the analogy that if God would have to create all of creation and would only achieve having you for eternity; it would be worth it to Him. That the one who is saved is of greater value than all that is not saved. He said that God created the stars, the earth, and all of the universe; but would destroy it to bring you into an eternal relationship with Him. This being true would not put us higher than God; it would simply point out that God loves us.​

....the ones He foresaw as choosing to be reprobate were neccessary to acquire the ones who would choose life. We don't know who's who. St. Augustine proclaimed that if you don't know if you are in the elect then act as if you are and become the elect! The process to the future must still be enacted even if God foreknows the outcome. Run the good race, etc..... Run to live and hope for life. He who seeks will find. Are the elect elected until the day of judgement and all things have come to pass? Was Jesus Christ(as fully man) found without flaw before He was tested? Known to be flawless is different than proven to be so.

Rob

Thank you for the clear answer.

You say it was necessary for the LORD to create things in this way in order to save the ones who would be saved, but as a necessary consequence, countless billions are doomed.

To this, I submit what I used to think when this I believe the same thing... why ia all this necessary? If God had the foresight to see his actions, couldn't he setup a better creation that saved everyone? Maybe instead of throwing us all in one pot, give us each our own "Matrix"?

Well, obviously he didn't, and there are sinners going to hell. If God really loved us all, and had future knowledge, and was OK with using his future knowledge to save a few, why not use it to save us all? And in saving us all, why not prevent wars and hate all together? God could foresee the how the dominos would be falling in before he pushed them over, why not make the dominos that fall in a good way instead a way that damned half of us?

We both know he could do it with future knowledge... why didn't he? It just doesn't make God sound loving at all. It completely contradicts the Bible.

No future knowledge, you must see, there is no such problem such as this.

In fact there is no problem with a lack of Future knowledge for God, he is powerful without it just as he is with it. Only now he can be considered loving in context to creation.

 

[Hilston]

I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I argued, was because God commanded it in His word.

That's because your theology was garbage*. Not that it's any better now*. Your understanding of Calvinism is ridiculous*, proven by your false assumptions about prayer and their affects upon your so-called prayer life (where is "prayer life" found in the Bible?). Bob, if you showed up at a reformed seminary classroom and started spewing the stuff you do here on TOL, you'd be laughed off the campus for your ludicrous conception of Calvinism*.

As one who believes in exhaustive foreknowledge and individual election/predestination, my "prayer life" (whatever that means) is better than it has ever been after 22 years as a believer. I don't pray because of obligation. I pray because I love my Lord and want to share my heart's concerns with the One I love most in the universe, all according to God's decree. I pray because His Word says that prayer results in change, provided those prayers are biblical. I pray because I know God will answer "yes" to the prayers that are consistent with His Word. If I pray, I know that things will inexorably change, all according to God's decree. And when I pray, I see them change, all according to God's decree.

For the Settled Theist, there is no mere "wishing" or vague "hoping" that God "might, maybe this time, just maybe, please oh please God, I'm begging you God this time please, answer my prayer." That's the standard tone of prayer throughout Christendumb.

The Settled Theist can confidently pray and know assuredly the Lord will answer "yes," and change will come, all according to God's decrees. Unwavering confidence. Unshakable assurance. Solid-rock faith founded upon the Rock Himself, all according to God's decrees.

What does the Open Theist pray for? What does God actually DO in response to your prayers? What confidence do you have that God will do ANYTHING?

... However, there was no zest in my prayer life.

Please cite the references that address the issue of "zest" in one's prayer life. How did your prayer life differ, specifically, after you chucked determinism? What defines "zest"?

... I sensed this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.

You "sensed" it was wrong? How is that biblical? "Thou shalt not pray without sensing zest"? Where are you getting this stuff? What exactly do you so zestfully pray for? Can any Open Theist answer this question?

... I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer, and Paul was zealous in prayer. Therefore, I suspected, something was wrong with my prayer life.

That's not Calvinism's fault. That's your own fault and a failure of your rational mind to engage the teaching of scripture on prayer. Please tell me, Bob, anyone, any Open Theist, what do you pray for precisely, and what exactly do you expect God to do in response to your prayer?

*According to God's decrees, of course,
Jim

 

[Bob Hill]

Unfortunately, Augustine was also influenced by Plotinus, a Neo-Platonic philosopher.

The concept of atemporality – God being in the state of Eternal Now – was reinforced by Plotinus. We see this influence in Augustine’s exposition of the Eternal Now.

Here’s a few of Plotinus and Augustine’s parallel thoughts.

They believed there was no past or future for God, only present.

Plotinus wrote: “one sees eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now some things, and then again others. . . . there will be no ‘was’ about it, for what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any ‘will be,’ for what will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed, this is eternity.”

Augustine duplicated this thought in this statement: “For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence.”

Plotinus said the eternal did not have a “was” (past) or a “will be” (future) but only an “is” (present).

Since God exists in an eternal state, according to Plotinus, the past, present and future should be viewed as existing in that present state at the same time as the present.

Augustine concurred. He said that God exists in an eternal present in which the future and the past are comprehended as existing now.

They both believed there was no change in the Eternal Now.

Plotinus wrote: “which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed” Augustine similarly stated: “but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness”

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

The concept of immutability, again, played a crucial role in the development of the doctrine of atemporality. For God to be immutable, the future could add no knowledge to what God already knows. For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness is present in the eternal.

Modern theologians have denied the basis of their rationalistic theology and even criticized the philosophers by whom they have been influenced.

For example, Robert Morey, who “has earned degrees in philosophy, theology and cult evangelism,” wrote this in his chapter on “The God’s of the Philosophers.” “Since it was God who created the world with its space-time limitation, He Himself is not limited by space or time, but greater than both. Since He made the space-time universe, it does not make or control God. To say that the creation is greater than the Creator is absurd. This is why Christians have always said that God is eternal in the sense of ‘timelessness’ not ‘endless time.’ To say that God exists in ‘endless time’ is to make time ultimate over God. It would make God depend on time for His own existence. This would make Time a higher god than God!

But, lets evaluate this short statement.

First, it is rationalistic thought which maintains that space and time were created when God created the world. Morey probably got this from the math of the new physics.

First, the Bible always portrays God in space and time, yet it never alludes to space-time exerting any control over Him.

Second, pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the ones who maintained that God was in a state of timelessness.

Third, just because God does things one thing at a time, doesn’t make time “ultimate over God.” The Bible described God doing things in sequence, one day at a time in the creation account. That put no limitation on Him.

We are slaves to time because we need to sleep, eat, and eventually we die. God faces none of these. Time is no burden to God. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).

Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Unfortunately, Augustine was also influenced by Plotinus, a Neo-Platonic philosopher.

Unfortunately? Why unfortunately? Plotinus' influence was not a bad thing. It was a good thing. Because it is rational. The Open View is irrational.

Bob, please give an example of your zesty prayer life. What do you pray for, and what exactly are you asking God to do?

Thanks.
:j

 

[Bob Hill]

The only thing that counts in true biblical theology is God’s word. Therefore, we must look at the biblical evidence.

The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our problems? Does God ever change?

The question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient. God is love.

God has many other attributes that do not change. But, again, that is not the question. The question can be stated a number of ways.

I think the most important one is, does God ever repent?

Does God change His mind?

Does God think something will happen, and then it doesn’t?

Does God show emotion?

Does He change in any way in the state of His being?

I believe the answer to all these questions is yes.


These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate and glorify Him.

He does do the things asked in these questions, but the most significant fact for me concerns His supposed impassibility – He suffers.

In other words, God has passion.

This is the opposite of having no passion – impassibility.

What a wonderful God we have!!

Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Bob,

We've read all this stuff before. Maybe you could save us all some bandwidth and just post a link to the half-dozen other times you've written this stuff verbatim before? Or maybe you can put a different spin on it to keep it interesting?

And since you brought it up, Bob, would you please give an example of your zesty prayer life. What do you pray for, and what exactly are you asking God to do?

Thanks,
:j

 

[Hilston]

Hi again, Bob. You may have missed this request, what with all of your copying/pasting of past posts and stuff; so I will post it again, just in case:

Would you please give an example of your zesty prayer life. What do you pray for, and what exactly are you asking God to do?

Thanks,
:j

 

[Bob Hill]

God suffers! What comfort that gives me.

Our God is touched by our sufferings.

God suffers because of us, with us, and for us.

For instance, in Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.”

That’s the Wonderful God we have.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

We observe God as the loving husband, in Hosea 1:2; 2:5,13; 3:1; and 6:4-7. “The LORD said to Hosea: ‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the LORD.’ 2:5 ‘For their mother has played the harlot; She who conceived them has behaved shamefully. For she said, “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’” 2:13 ‘She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers; but Me she forgot,’ says the LORD. 3:1 ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the LORD for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans.’ 6:4-7 ‘O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away.’”

But we have been influenced by the Greek philosophy that has permeated Christianity.

Hilston may think, a perfect God can’t suffer. But, it is true. When tragedy strikes, when pain pierces deep – we are not the only ones who suffer. God suffers longer and deeper than all of us put together.

Where did this idea, the idea that God can’t suffer, come from? It came from philosophy, not the Bible.

Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Open Theists Misunderstand the Doctrine of Impassibility​

According to Bob Enyart, "Impassibility means that God has no emotion."With this simplistic statement, Enyart, and each Open Theist who follows his lead, eviscerates yet another straw man, only to find nothing but straw "oozing" out.

C.S. Lewis, a man I love but disagree with on this point, wrote that, "We correctly deny that God has passions He cannot be affected by love" (Miracles, 1960, pp. 92 93). Where in the world did Lewis get this notion from?

He gets it from scripture.

Not from Scripture.

Well, actually, he does. C.S. Lewis was speaking of the doctrine of impassibility that does not mean God is without emotion or love, but rather that He is in full control of His emotions and that He cannot be moved emotionally against His will. He loves because He chooses to love, not because someone evoked it from Him. Further, it can be said that God's emotions are unlike human emotions; not of like passions (Ac 14:15 Jas 5:17) He is not subject to mood swings. God's emotions are all perfectly volitional and purposefully determined by Him.

This error shows the extent of humanist influence on popular Christian belief.

Statements like these stagger the mind. What is more humanistic than to raise man up by bringing God down? This is precisely what process-theology and all of its Open-Theistic variants seek to do. I know, I know. Open Theism is not process theology. But Calvinism is Christianized Greek philosophy? Enough already with the special pleading.

There is also a philosophical naivete that often bubbles (even bursts) to the surface in my discussions with Open Theists concerning the meaning of the word absolute. Just watch.

However, like absolute immutability which denies that God can change at all, the doctrine of impassibility is also false.

See? It does not mean that God cannot change at all. It means He is completely free to change or emote as He so chooses, without any constraint or compulsion or limitation whatsoever, from anyone or by anything. The word absolute comes from the Latin absolutus, which is the coupling of ab (from) and solvere (to loosen). Thus, the word means to be free from all restraint or boundaries: true libertarian freedom, which only the absolute Being can have.

We will see below that God can change, as when God the Son became flesh.

Nobody denies this. Enyart's continued naive insistence that this somehow undermines classic theism is embarrassing. Perhaps Enyart is spurred on by his experiences of having posed these specious conundrums to less learned, lip-service Calvinists who have not adequately considered these fundamental theological questions. Perhaps, like his heel-nipping cronies on Theology Online, he is bound and determined to reformulate Calvinism into the persistent straw man that keeps rearing its ugly head in his arguments. In any case, he would do well, and would save himself from future embarrassment, if he studied what the Reformers really said and tried to understand what they really meant when they used words like "absolute" and "impassible" and "immutable."

Witness the following straw-man effort from Enyart:

The ways in which the Settled View diminishes God¹s glory and the Open View exalts Him are as many as the differences between a relational Person and a non-relational entity.

Compare this to Louis Berkhof, renowned Reformed theologian, who wrote in 1939:

The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relation of men to Him, but there is no change in His being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. (Readings in Christian Theology, Vol. 1, Erickson, Millard J., Ed., The Attributes of God, p. 341.)​

End notes:

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) - Dutch Reformed scholar and former president of Calvin Theological Seminary. A well-read master of many disciplines, he is best remembered for his eloquent and insightful defenses of orthodox theology in the face of liberalism. His work is quoted by systematic theologians even outside Reformed circles. Titles: The Assurance of Faith; Foundations of Christian Education (with Cornelius Van Til); History of Christian Doctrines; I Believe Because...; Introduction to Christian Doctrine; Introduction to the New Testament; Manual of Christian Doctrine; Manual of Reformed Doctrine; Principles of Biblical Interpretation; Summary of Christian Doctrine; Systematic Theology (Source: http://faith.propadeutic.com/)

©James Hilston, August 2005

 

[RobE]

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.

Then your math skills are pretty poor. What's the chance 20 billion people would flip a coin an infinite number of times and all the coin tosses would end up to be heads? Apply that answer to my question and you will be closer to understanding the problem.

Further, wouldn't God know this before creation and plan a means to provide all with a way to salvation in accordance to His will? This is why I say Jesus Christ was the plan.

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.

And earn eternal damnation in the process. Does this fit the model of a loving Father? I don't thing we would allow our infants to go unattended near the pool; even if we gave them a direct command not to jump in it. We wouldn't stand by and not act if they jumped in.

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.

Then why didn't our omnipresent God intervene 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.

We wouldn't leave our child alone with a grizzly bear and tell him not to touch it when he was an infant.

I would like an answer to my question:

If He allowed it was this then His will?​

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.

I'm just pointing out that if God allows it then it is His will to allow it.

Rob: Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?
Reply to Rob: NO.

Your response seems to be that God allowed it because, "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.", He decreed it! Doesn't this substantiate Hilston's position that God decreed that sin would exist?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob,

I have never understood why you equate allowance for sin to decreeing it. If I allow you to answer this question am I responsible for your answer?

What if Love prevents God from controlling if we sin or not, then how can he be responsible? Love prevents it.

Edge 1 allows for no shadow of love at all.

If I have the power to stop an evil and I allow it then it is essentially my will to allow it. I allow that which I will just as I decree that which I will. Is love expressed by allowing someone to destroy themselves?

If this doesn't answer the question you have, then re-state.

You say it was necessary for the LORD to create things in this way in order to save the ones who would be saved, but as a necessary consequence, countless billions are doomed.

According to their own will. Jesus Christ is a means for 'all' to be saved that so choose.

To this, I submit what I used to think when this I believe the same thing... why ia all this necessary? If God had the foresight to see his actions, couldn't he setup a better creation that saved everyone?

Not if love truly existed as you have pointed out many times.

Maybe instead of throwing us all in one pot, give us each our own "Matrix"?

Create us one at a time and see what happens. Divine justice and the balance of our choice would be coerced outside of reality which this system would produce through unreality.

Well, obviously he didn't, and there are sinners going to hell. If God really loved us all, and had future knowledge, and was OK with using his future knowledge to save a few, why not use it to save us all?

He did save all of us who choose salvation and we are the elect.

And in saving us all, why not prevent wars and hate all together?

Because He wills it to be as it is. He is able to prevent wars and hate all together, but that is not His will whether He foreknew of them or simply observe them.

God could foresee the how the dominos would be falling in before he pushed them over, why not make the dominos that fall in a good way instead a way that damned half of us?

My position says that all have a just chance. Your analogy would mean that isn't true. Remember, God interacts with the dominoes for the best possible outcome and purpose.

We both know he could do it with future knowledge... why didn't he? It just doesn't make God sound loving at all. It completely contradicts the Bible.

I believe that God would be making a square circle if He created a universe where all were saved without the perfect One Jesus Christ.

No future knowledge, you must see, there is no such problem such as this.

It certainly cuts the knot of this particular problem, but creates far more problems in exchange. I'll hang on to one difficulty and pass up the problems which I would run into if I were to worship Zeus or Odin.

In fact there is no problem with a lack of Future knowledge for God, he is powerful without it just as he is with it. Only now he can be considered loving in context to creation.

Really?

Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Then your math skills are pretty poor. What's the chance 20 billion people would flip a coin an infinite number of times and all the coin tosses would end up to be heads? Apply that answer to my question and you will be closer to understanding the problem.

That depends on whether you think creation (and man) was "very good" or "tended towards evil" when God created them. I happen to believe the bible when it says that God looked over all of creation and declared it "very good". It doesn't matter if there are 2 people or 200 billion people. If they all are "good", and have been instructed by God not to eat from the TGKE, and the first few that were around it didn't, then chances are none of them would.

Further, wouldn't God know this before creation and plan a means to provide all with a way to salvation in accordance to His will? This is why I say Jesus Christ was the plan.

KNow what? The odds, or that it would happen? He certainly knew it was possible, and if that happened, God already had a response ready.

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?​

And earn eternal damnation in the process. Does this fit the model of a loving Father? I don't thing we would allow our infants to go unattended near the pool; even if we gave them a direct command not to jump in it. We wouldn't stand by and not act if they jumped in.

Here, again, we have God's decree that Adam and Eve have free will with the purpose of choosing Him. God instructed Adam and Eve as to the right thing to do, so, in accordance with His decree of free will, God lets them choose, with the full expectation that they will choose rightly, but also with the knowledge that He has a plan to bring salvation to them, if they fail.

Then why didn't our omnipresent God intervene as Satan was tempting Eve?

Again, we have the creative decree of free will with the purpose of Adam and Eve choosing to believe God and live by His commands. If God goes an intervenes at the point of the choice He wanted them to freely make, He's violating His own decree.

We wouldn't leave our child alone with a grizzly bear and tell him not to touch it when he was an infant.

Adam and Eve weren't infants. They were fully grown adults with full instruction about right and wrong. Satan isn't a Grizzly bear that's going to tear them to pieces. Adam and Eve are the only ones that can cause their own condemnation. Satan can do nothing other than try to talk them into it.

I would like an answer to my question:

If He allowed it was this then His will?​

In the sense that you mean "allow", no. That implies that God knew A&E were going to eeat from the tree beforehand, and didn't do anything about it. In OVT God has the fullest expectation that A&E will say no to eating.

I'm just pointing out that if God allows it then it is His will to allow it.

Except that I don't agree that God "allowed" anything other than what His creative decree declared: That A&E would have the freedom to obey or disobey God's command. To allow this choice after having informed A&E about right and wrong is certainly reasonable, and the expectation that they will obey Him is reasonable, as well.

Rob: Does God allow it to continue because He wills a greater purpose?
Reply to Rob: NO.

Your response seems to be that God allowed it because, "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.", He decreed it! Doesn't this substantiate Hilston's position that God decreed that sin would exist?

No, this decree was post-fall. If God did not declare a way for sin to be propitiated and creation redeemed, wrath and utter destruction would be God's only other option.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

Hi Bob,

Since you seem to be avoiding my question, I thought I'd do a little search to see if anywhere else you've explained your "zesty prayer life" and what you thought was wrong with your prayer life pre-Open-View. I found the following excerpts from several different sources:

Bob's Zesty Prayer Life, excerpt #1 from Bible Forums discussion board
I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I argued, was because God commanded it in His word. However, there was no zest in my prayer life. I sensed this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.

Bob's Zesty Prayer Life, excerpt #2 from TOL's 'Once Saved Always Saved?' discussion thread
I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I argued, was because God commanded it in His word. However, there was no zest in my prayer life. I sensed this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it. I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer, and Paul was zealous in prayer. Therefore, I suspected, something was wrong with my prayer life.

Bob's Zesty Prayer Life, excerpt #3 from Bob's website (biblicalanswers.com)
I thought, then, why should I pray? Unfortunately, I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I determined in my mind, was because God commanded it in His word. I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer, and Paul was zealous in prayer, however, there was no zest in my prayers. Therefore, I recognized that something was seriously wrong with my prayer life. I knew this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.

Bob's Zesty Prayer Life, excerpt #4 from Bob's website (biblicalanswers.com)
Unfortunately, I ended up having an abysmal prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I determined in my mind, was because God commanded it in His word. I realized that Christ and Paul were zealous in prayer, however, there was no zest in my prayers. Therefore, I recognized that something was seriously wrong with my Christian life. I knew this was wrong but didn't know what to do about it.

Unfortunately, Bob, you've never explained what you mean by "zesty prayer life," and you've never explained what was wrong and "abysmal" with you prayer that you somehow "knew" and "sensed."

So, come on, Bob. You're the one who made the claim; you should have to explain it, especially since it's apparently an important plank in your anti-Settled View argument. Any Open Theist is welcome to answer the following questions:

• Please explain how your prayer life has changed. What makes it more "zesty"?
• What exactly do you pray for, and what do you want God to do in response to those prayers?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Poly]

Hi Bob,

Since you seem to be avoiding my question...

What?? 11 whole hours and Bob hasn't answered this?

Well, it's obvious the man has his priority list all out of whack if responding to you isn't at the top.