ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

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

That's just it, Poly; he would rather just copy-paste all that tired, stale, recycled drivel that he disseminates all over the internet than to engage a real live human being in a discussion. I thought Open Theism was all about being relational and personal. Based on his behavior on TOL, I would say his priorities are severely out of whack. Or maybe he is just emulating the behavior of the deist God you all actually believe in.

You asked this less than 12 hours ago, you dork. Maybe people have more important things to do than to stay right on top of Jim Hilston's questions.

Oh please. Are you that blindly attached to Bob's backside that you ignore the fact that he and I were practically "chatting" in this thread last night. I may be mean and unreasonable, but I'm not THAT mean and unreasonable. Truly, all this proves is that you people are mindless sycophants*. It's obvious that Bob and I were on simultaneously, posting simultaneously. He had every opportunity to see my posts and to answer my questions. But isn't this typical of Bob*? Does he ever really engage a discussion beyond what his copy-paste replies are able to speciously answer*? Why would anyone defend this rubbish and this behavior? Because they're sycophants, that's why.*

11:47 PM EST: Hilston posts #3706, First time questions about Bob's zesty prayer life are asked.

11:51 PM EST: Bob Hill's post #3707, Bob simultaneously, or at most within minutes, posts another one of his copy-paste specials.*

12:01 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3708, which happens to be another one of his copy-paste specials (big surprise).*

12:02 AM EST: Hilston posts #3709, asking the questions a second time.

12:07 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3710, yet another one of his copy-paste specials, in which he demonstrates how clueless he is about the theological doctrine of impassibility.*

12:09 AM EST: Hilston posts #3711, asking the questions a third time.

12:11 AM EST: Hilston posts #3712, just in case Bob missed the three previous requests.

12:12 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3713, you guessed it, another one of his copy-paste jobs.*

12:18 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3714; Note that I say "posts," because he's not actually writing this stuff. It's all copy-paste. Perhaps he wrote it originally. Perhaps not. In any case, I think the stuff is well past its shelf-life.*

12:23 AM EST: Hilston posts #3715, which demonstrates the typical Enyarto-Hillian misrepresentation and misunderstanding of a doctrinal tenet that they clearly and embarrassingly do not understand. At the end of that post, Hilston asks the questions one more time.

9:47 AM EST: Hilston posts #3719, punctuating the point that Bob has declared his zestless-prayer-life mantra on several occasions and has yet to explain it. Well now his chance. I hope he takes the opportunity to enlighten us about what means "zesty" prayer and what exactly he prays for.

It's so heartwarming that Bob has someone like you to defend him, Poly, since he apparently is incapable of defending himself.*

By the way, Poly, do you agree with Bob? Is your prayer life more zesty now that you no longer espouse the Calvinism that you never really understood* (as it was made blatantly evident from your recent appearance on Bob Enyart Live*)?

How is your prayer life more "zesty" now? When you pray, what do you ask God for? And how exactly would you expect Him to answer one of those prayers?

*All according to God's decrees, of course,
Jim

 

[Delmar]

That's just it, Poly; he would rather just copy-paste all that tired, stale, recycled drivel that he disseminates all over the internet than to engage a real live human being in a discussion. I thought Open Theism was all about being relational and personal. Based on his behavior on TOL, I would say his priorities are severely out of whack. Or maybe he is just emulating the behavior of the deist God you all actually believe in.

Oh please. Are you that blindly attached to Bob's backside that you ignore the fact that he and I were practically "chatting" in this thread last night. I may be mean and unreasonable, but I'm not THAT mean and unreasonable. Truly, all this proves is that you people are mindless sycophants*. It's obvious that Bob and I were on simultaneously, posting simultaneously. He had every opportunity to see my posts and to answer my questions. But isn't this typical of Bob*? Does he ever really engage a discussion beyond what his copy-paste replies are able to speciously answer*? Why would anyone defend this rubbish and this behavior? Because they're sycophants, that's why.*

11:47 PM EST: Hilston posts #3706, First time questions about Bob's zesty prayer life are asked.

11:51 PM EST: Bob Hill's post #3707, Bob simultaneously, or at most within minutes, posts another one of his copy-paste specials.*

12:01 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3708, which happens to be another one of his copy-paste specials (big surprise).*

12:02 AM EST: Hilston posts #3709, asking the questions a second time.

12:07 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3710, yet another one of his copy-paste specials, in which he demonstrates how clueless he is about the theological doctrine of impassibility.*

12:09 AM EST: Hilston posts #3711, asking the questions a third time.

12:11 AM EST: Hilston posts #3712, just in case Bob missed the three previous requests.

12:12 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3713, you guessed it, another one of his copy-paste jobs.*

12:18 AM EST: Bob Hill posts #3714; Note that I say "posts," because he's not actually writing this stuff. It's all copy-paste. Perhaps he wrote it originally. Perhaps not. In any case, I think the stuff is well past its shelf-life.*

12:23 AM EST: Hilston posts #3715, which demonstrates the typical Enyarto-Hillian misrepresentation and misunderstanding of a doctrinal tenet that they clearly and embarrassingly do not understand. At the end of that post, Hilston asks the questions one more time.

9:47 AM EST: Hilston posts #3719, punctuating the point that Bob has declared his zestless-prayer-life mantra on several occasions and has yet to explain it. Well now his chance. I hope he takes the opportunity to enlighten us about what means "zesty" prayer and what exactly he prays for.

It's so heartwarming that Bob has someone like you to defend him, Poly, since he apparently is incapable of defending himself.*

By the way, Poly, do you agree with Bob? Is your prayer life more zesty now that you no longer espouse the Calvinism that you never really understood* (as it was made blatantly evident from your recent appearance on Bob Enyart Live*)?

How is your prayer life more "zesty" now? When you pray, what do you ask God for? And how exactly would you expect Him to answer one of those prayers?

*All according to God's decrees, of course,
Jim

Like you never choose to ignore anyone. Grow up Jim!

 

[Hilston]

Like you never choose to ignore anyone. Grow up Jim!

Delmar, do you have a "zesty prayer life" now that you're an Open Theist? Please tell us how your prayer life has changed, what do you pray for and how you expect God to answer.

Thanks,
Jim The Ignorant

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In regard to the ongoing discussion on "prayer" I think that the following words of Sir Robert Anderson are worth consideration:

"But there is another prayer, of which the solemn record should suffice to set at rest every doubt that a perverted use of the doctrine of election has cast upon the truth of grace. The Lord Himself, though come down to earth that He might drink the cup which brimmed over upon Calvary, could pray, upon the very eve of Calvary, that that cup might pass from Him. He, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world "- He, who, ere a few days had passed, could chide His doubting disciples with the word "Ought not Christ to have suffeted these things?" recapitulating in their wondering ears the oft-told record of prophecy which Calvary fulfilled - He found, neither in that record, nor in the divine purpose it unfolded, anything to hinder the prayer of Gethsemane, "0 My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." With Him the dire necessity to drink it arose from no stern and irrevocable edict of the past, but from the sovereign will of a present living God, Who, even then, would hearken to His cry if redemption could be won at any price less terrible and costly and. yet there are some who would rebuke a Christian mother for pouring out her heart in prayer, without reserve or fear, that God would save the children He has given her !(Anderson,"The Gospel and Its Ministry",p.81-82).

Of course Jim says that the "cup" did pass from Him and that the "cup" was not in reference to His crucifixion.

Even John Calvin admits that the "cup" refers to His death:

"This is the reason why, after having prayed to be freed from death, he immediately restrains himself, and, submitting to the authority of the Father, corrects and recalls that wish which had suddenly escaped him" (Commentary at Matthew 26:39).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Poly]

It's obvious that Bob and I were on simultaneously, posting simultaneously. He had every opportunity to see my posts and to answer my questions.

Of all the nerve! How dare he think that it was ok to stop at some point without making sure that there wasn't something you might have just posted and he might have missed. I'll even bet the reason he stopped was to sleep. Talk about selfish!

By the way, Poly, do you agree with Bob? Is your prayer life more zesty now that you no longer espouse the Calvinism that you never really understood?

As a Calvinist, I was praying for something or for a certain thing to happen in a given situation. But it had already been predestined what was going to happen. And if I prayed for wisdom or for Him to teach me I knew in my gutt that it was already settled if I was going to "learn", and even if I did, it wasn't me learning but I was a mere database with the information already loaded only to deliver the outcome already programmed by the programmer. So I knew it was already determined but I did it anyway, all the while knowing that it really wasn't going to affect God in any way since the answer was already set but, hey, He told us to and so by golly I better do it even if it didn't make sense. But don't think I didn't proudly pretend that it did. :freak:

As an Open Theist, I see the answers aren't settled, never to be changed. I can pray to a God who hears and is affected by what He hears. I can ask Him to teach me so that I can learn. And I can know that this is a real possibility because He says He desires to do so and He delights in us learning from Him. I can praise Him and thank Him for all the goodness He blesses me with and it can be pleasing to Him just as a parent is pleased when his child humbly thanks him or honors him in some way, not because he preprogrammed him to do so but because he raised the child right and in the ways of the Lord. And so the parent can now have a real joy in watching that child, by his own decision, do what is right.

So let's see.

Praying as a Calvinist, where prayers make no difference whatsoever concerning what the outcome of a situation will be and where praises and thanksgiving are merely lines of a play being acted out.

Praying as an Open Theist, knowing that the outcome of all things is not settled and my prayer can have a real impact on how God will respond in a situation. And knowing that when I thank Him, it's real out of what I have learned of Him in His word concerning His righteousness and His goodness.

I'd say "zesty" doesn't do justice in describing how much more meaningful prayer is to me as an Open Theist.

Hilston, you claim that I never really understood Calvinism and that many here have misprepresented it. In all seriousness, if this is truly the case then we should be humble enough to admit that we have been wrong about what Calvinism actually teaches. Please show me here why it is that I never really understood Calvinism and how Open Theists misrepresent it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, since I have never been a settled viewer I cannot comment on if my prayer life is any better, different or worse as an open theist.

But I can tell you that I pray that not mine but the Father's will be done. I pray that I lean not on my own understanding but instead let let Him direct my steps.

I pray for wisdom, patience, *mercy and judgment etc.

I believe that the Holy Spirit can answer these prayers by helping me follow God's will. I believe that I have the ability (or shortcoming) to "shut out" God's will for me and do things that He doesn't will for me (by leaning on my own understanding). I also have the ability to allow the Holy Spirit to guide my steps and judgments so that I am following His will for me.

* I don't pray for God's mercy since I know I already have that. Instead I pray that I be merciful when I should be merciful.

 

[godrulz]

Delmar, do you have a "zesty prayer life" now that you're an Open Theist? Please tell us how your prayer life has changed, what do you pray for and how you expect God to answer.

Thanks,
Jim The Ignorant

My prayer life was lacking as an Arminian and is lacking as an Open Theist. Calvinists pray, I hope. One's theological view does not always affect our level of passion and obedience. We tend to divorce belief from practice. Discipline is needed in any major view.

I will say that theoretically Open Theism lends itself more to meaning and passion in prayer. If the future is partially open, and if God works with and in us through prayer (by His sovereign choice), then our prayers to make a difference. In a closed, settled view, prayer and evangelism lose their zest since things will happen with or without our prayers...que sera sera, whatever will be, will be.

Prayer changes things in the open view. In the closed view, it is illusory since God is omnicausal, not responsive and providential.

 

[Delmar]

Delmar, do you have a "zesty prayer life" now that you're an Open Theist? Please tell us how your prayer life has changed, what do you pray for and how you expect God to answer.

Thanks,
Jim The Ignorant

I can't recall using the term zesty to describe anything. I have always believed that there are many possibilities in the future so I really don't know how to answer the question. Not that I would bother after seeing how rude you were to my friend Bob.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not that I would bother after seeing how rude you were to my friend Bob.

We have all been guilty (especially me) of being pretty harsh with Jim.

I say we all agree to give Jim a fresh start.

It's possible that Jim regrets some of the things he has said just like I regret some of the things I have said to Jim.

Lets all hug!

 

[godrulz]

We have all been guilty (especially me) of being pretty harsh with Jim.

I say we all agree to give Jim a fresh start.

It's possible that Jim regrets some of the things he has said just like I regret some of the things I have said to Jim.

Lets all hug!

Gag me with a 10 foot pole...oh, all right.

Jim can take it and dish it out. He is a big boy now.

 

[RobE]

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.

I believe creation is still very good. Let's rethink the position that if 'the first few that were arount it didn't, then chances are none of them would'. We would have to believe that this was the only evil act that man could partake of. We would also have to believe that man could still be held accountable if he had absolutely no knowledge of what was good or evil as he existed before the fall. We would also have to believe that man might establish righteousness without rejecting evil. We would most especially have to believe that man might achieve righteousness on his own. Eternity is a long time.

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.

Not just possible, completely probable mathematically.

Here, again, we have God's decree that Adam and Eve have free will with the purpose of choosing Him.

Choosing Him over what without knowledge?

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.

How do we know what God expected? Is it in the scriptue?

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.

You don't see a need for teaching here only a command. Free will is a dangerous thing and would require more instruction than a one line command unless God had other expectations.

Adam and Eve weren't infants. They were fully grown adults with full instruction about right and wrong.

Really? Where did they get this knowledge from prior to eating of the tree?

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.

Satan's words appear to have been pretty effective.

I said: 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.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant did God decree that He would allow them to sin. Through God's decree did sin enter the world and continue after the fall?

In OVT God has the fullest expectation that A&E will say no to eating.

Are you saying that God was wrong, inept, or what?

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.

Did God decree that sin would continue in the world after Adam and Eve decided to disobey Him? In other words, did God allow sin to continue in the world as an acto of His own will?

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.

So you are saying that God decreed sin would exist within the world after the fall just as Hilston has declared. Doesn't this substantiate Hilston's position that God decreed that sin would exist?

Rob

 

[Vaquero45]

Lets all hug!

Ahh, man... Set up like a bowling pin!

If it was ANYONE else.....

 

[Delmar]

Gag me with a 10 foot pole...oh, all right.

Jim can take it and dish it out. He is a big boy now.

and he can pull em off and on...

 

[patman]

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

Yes. Really!

Creator God. Massive power and intelligence required to create Heaven and earth. What is a lack of future some knowledge to that? If he created all this, man... what is going to hold him back? Do you really think a lack of future knowledge would hold him back?

So, yes. Really!

 

[Bob Hill]

God often changed his mind when someone prayed or God was sorry. Here’s a good example. Exo 32:12-14 “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

 

[RobE]

Yes. Really!

Creator God. Massive power and intelligence required to create Heaven and earth. What is a lack of future some knowledge to that? If he created all this, man... what is going to hold him back? Do you really think a lack of future knowledge would hold him back?

So, yes. Really!

How did God create without foreknowing the outcome? Did God plan creation? Did God use a certain methodology in His plans or did He guess?

Patman: 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.​

My 'really' was in response to the highlighted part of your statement above.

Rob

 

[Servant101]

possibly with our limited intelligence we cannot understand such topics, and anything we say is only offensive.


mmmmm

 

[patman]

How did God create without foreknowing the outcome? Did God plan creation? Did God use a certain methodology in His plans or did He guess?

Patman: 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.​

My 'really' was in response to the highlighted part of your statement above.

Rob

Ah!

Well then, yes! Really to that too!

God's plan was that none should perish, that all love one another and God. He didn't know exactly who would fall if anyone, but he had a plan even for those who did fall to dave them. But he didn't know who would reject that plan.

In God's mind, we all had the real chance ot going either way, he didn't know if anyone would fall for sure. According to you, God had to know who would fall, the countless millions, and be OK with it.

Your idea isn't biblical, because at least once, God was sorry he created man because of all the ones who were falling. Only one was righteous. Did God intend for all those to fall just so he could save Noah? That's what you say, But God didn't want that to happen, to the point that he wished he didn't create man. Didn't he foresee his wishes? Did he change his mind?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim can take it and dish it out. He is a big boy now.

Oh I realize that, Jim can take it, there is no doubt about that! But that wasn't my point.

All I am saying is some times its good to get a fresh start, otherwise we end up muddled down in arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[themuzicman]

I believe creation is still very good. Let's rethink the position that if 'the first few that were arount it didn't, then chances are none of them would'. We would have to believe that this was the only evil act that man could partake of. We would also have to believe that man could still be held accountable if he had absolutely no knowledge of what was good or evil as he existed before the fall. We would also have to believe that man might establish righteousness without rejecting evil. We would most especially have to believe that man might achieve righteousness on his own. Eternity is a long time.

Perhaps you'll take note of the name: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before the fall, the only evil act Adam and Eve knew to avoid was eating of the tree. They didn't have a "sinful nature", so there's simply no reason to say that they would have contemplated any kind of evil. Granted taht this "knowledge" was probably experiential knowledge, but prior to the fall, Adam and Eve simply had no basis upon which to commit evil acts.

Not just possible, completely probable mathematically.

Only if you assume that Adam and Eve were prone to sinning, but that would require a denial of their being created "good."

Choosing Him over what without knowledge?

The knowledge that eating of the tree was forbidden.

How do we know what God expected? Is it in the scriptue?

God declared all creation, including Adam and Eve to be good. God told Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the tree. What expectation is clear from the context of the story?

You don't see a need for teaching here only a command. Free will is a dangerous thing and would require more instruction than a one line command unless God had other expectations.

Why? It's not as though Adam and Eve were given to rebelling against God.

Really? Where did they get this knowledge from prior to eating of the tree?

God.

Satan's words appear to have been pretty effective.

Yes, and?

I said: If He allowed it was this then His will?

And you have yet to show that God allowed anything, according to OVT.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant did God decree that He would allow them to sin. Through God's decree did sin enter the world and continue after the fall?

No.

Are you saying that God was wrong, inept, or what?

God's expectations weren't met. There is no evidence in the text that God did anything wrong or ineptly. However, in the presence of free will, individual choices don't always go the way God wants them to. You can refer to Jeremiah 3:6-7 for another example of this.

Did God decree that sin would continue in the world after Adam and Eve decided to disobey Him? In other words, did God allow sin to continue in the world as an acto of His own will?

No, God decreed that time would be allowed for men to place their faith in God and for God to offer a propitiation for sin. One consequence of this decision was that men would continue to sin until this process was complete.

So you are saying that God decreed sin would exist within the world after the fall just as Hilston has declared. Doesn't this substantiate Hilston's position that God decreed that sin would exist?

No. Sin already existed when God decreed that He would redeem the world, so there cound not be a decree regarding the existance of sin.

Michael