Exhaustive foreknowledge is not a prerequisite for control or sovereignty. If one is omnicompetent, they do not need to be omnicausal nor does future foreknowledge help when one has wisdom, intelligence, and power. Exhaustive foreknowledge would be true if God chose a closed universe. The evidence is that He chose to create a partially open future by giving genuine freedom to significant others. This lead to a voluntarily limitation on the scope of His knowledge from certain to possible (with no loss of ability to wisely respond to any contingency...this is only humanizing God is we say that is power or wisdom is limited or if God does not know something that is possible to know; knowing the past/present exhaustively and future possibilities is a far cry from finite man who is severely limited).
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
As I've said a dozen times before, planning evil for good is not the same as causing and doing evil. The Bible affirms this. Logic demands this. Those who have not succumbed to the Adamic theology of Open Theism can see it.Bob Hill said:
No one is saying God does evil. You people will never make any progress as long as you're stuck debating straw men. When will you ever learn that your tired old tactics of obfuscation and misrepresentation don't get you anywhere?Bob Hill said:
Lots of people on their way to hell thought the same thing. "Lord, Lord, have we not declared the Open View in thy name? and in thy name have debated many Calvinists? and in thy name chose to save ourselves by believing in Christ?Bob Hill said:
Bob Hill said:
Gen 50:20 "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."
Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."
Job 2:10 "But [Job] said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."
Job 2:10 "But [Job] said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
If you people had been Job's friends, you would have advised him to curse God and die. If you people had been Joseph's brothers, you would have chided him for thinking that God would plan evil for good purposes.
The Settled Theist can truly trust God because he knows that any evil that he experiences has been planned by God for the good of His elect. The Open Theist cannot, as the Settled Theist can, "glory in tribulations also" (Ro 5:3), and "take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong (2Co 12:10)." The Open Theist cannot agree with Paul, because evil is random and meaningless. The Open Theist cannot appreciate the words of David who acknowledges "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. (Ps 119:71)"
Why does the Open Theist trust such a hapless and pathetic God? The Settled Theist can view even the worst of circumstances and evil as paling in comparison to the glory that will be revealed in us.
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (Ro 8:18)."
"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. (2Co 4:17)"
"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. (2Co 4:17)"
To all that, the Open Theist says: ...
All according to God's decrees, of course,Bob Hill said:
Jim
Uh, Jim......Hilston said:
Pair that statement with....Hilston said:
...God as the Mastermind behind evil...Hilston said:
...meticulous decrees...of every detail of His wondrous plan...
:think:
Jim, it is you that is saying God does evil.
Last edited:
Jim wants us to think that planning evil is somehow less distasteful than actually doing evil. 
Yet at the same time Jim asserts that every event for all of history has been orchestrated by God therefore Jim actually believes that God not only plans the evil, but DOES the evil.
Setting that argument aside for a moment..... is planning and orchestrating evil actually "less evil" in some way?
I say nay! I say planning and orchestrating evil is WORSE than actually performing the evil! (in reality both planning and performing are "doing")
And when you get right down to it who is more evil? Mohamed Atta or Osama bin Laden?
Yet at the same time Jim asserts that every event for all of history has been orchestrated by God therefore Jim actually believes that God not only plans the evil, but DOES the evil.
Setting that argument aside for a moment..... is planning and orchestrating evil actually "less evil" in some way?
I say nay! I say planning and orchestrating evil is WORSE than actually performing the evil! (in reality both planning and performing are "doing")
And when you get right down to it who is more evil? Mohamed Atta or Osama bin Laden?
Hi Knight,
Trusting in the Rock,
Jim
If God planned evil for evil that would be evil. But He planned evil for good, and that is exactly what we'd expect from a God who tells us that He is good. Humans cannot plan evil for good purposes because they, unlike God, cannot meticulously control or account for all the factors that would affect such a plan. They cannot guarantee the good outcome they intend. This, among other reasons, is why humans are forbidden from doing evil that good may come of it. This is solely and exclusively God's prerogative.Knight said:Jim wants us to think that planning evil is somehow less distasteful than actually doing evil.
No, He plans evil for good purposes, but He does not commit the evil acts that bring about His good purposes.Knight said:
For God, planning and orchestrating evil for good purposes is a wondrous and awesome thing to behold.Knight said:
Your religious humanism is showing, Eric.Knight said:
Since neither of them is God, and since neither of them planned or committed evil for good purposes, the question is not germane.Knight said:
Trusting in the Rock,
Jim
Delmar said:
Your response to my quote looks a bit silly when i reinsert the entire quote! The analogy of God as a rock, of coarse, means that God is steady and reliable. This is exactly how the OV portrays, him no matter what you say!Hilston said:
lee_merrill
New member
No, but I deny that God is a man: all reds are colors, but not all colors are red, you seem to be making a category error here.God_Is_Truth said:
But that is not the text, and saying this is the meaning does not explain why, it seems even that we are rewriting the verse to then remark that the meaning is as you say.
But again we have our categories mixed up, not all sins are mistakes. But I agree that God never sins, but how is what you said essentially different than how we are mistaken? That was the question here.
Then" God does not take back his words" means "God does not have a thought he doesn't mean"? I must ask you to find what you are saying here, in a commentary or in some published Open Theist author, for I fear this is again rewriting the text, in order to have the required conclusion. I don't think this reading is supported in the grammar, and we even seem to have two different readings here, which one is actually correct, I must ask?
God does not take back his words unless circumstances require him to, or God does not speak words he doesn't mean? What I am wondering is what specifically these words mean here.
Blessings,
Lee
Hi Jim! :wave2:Hilston said:
Nope, that isn't at all what we would expect from a God that is good. A God that is good would never plan, orchestrate, and make evil so that good may come of it (Romans 3:8).
God is good, not evil. (can you believe I have to remind Jim of that???)
Psalms 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You.
Amos 5:15 Hate evil, love good
You continue...
Correct, instead He manipulates others to do His dirty work. :nono:
You continue...
Habakkuk 2:9 “Woe to him who covets evil gain for his house, That he may set his nest on high, That he may be delivered from the power of disaster!
Ouch! That couldn't have felt good.
You continue...
How does that one song go again? :think:
Oh yeah, I remember now....
:tunes:
If lovin' a God that doesn't do evil is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
:chuckle:If lovin' a God that doesn't do evil is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
I left out the rest of the quote so as not to embarrass you. Can anyone help Delmar out?Delmar said:
A God who uses trial and error, who makes errors, who changes His mind, and is subject to the warp and woof of so-called random evil is no rock. He's a Sand God, shifting, soft and nothing upon which one should build one's trust.
For good purposes. You forgot that part.Delmar said:
Delmar, did God have a good purpose behind letting Hitler live long enough to kill millions of people? Or was God too distracted to do anything about that? Did God have a good purpose behind letting the 9/11 hijackers' flights depart without technical difficulties? Or is your conception of God too impotent to flatten a tire or to make a rudder stick?
AATGD, OC
Jim
Wow! That's classic! :rotfl:Hilston said:
I hope all the Hilston-ites are reading this because this is just flat-out wacky!
Hilston is actually taking a shot at God for not taking action against Hitler and the 9-11 hijackers yet at the same time Hilston is trying to convince us that God decreed, planned, and orchestrated all the events of the holocaust and 9-11 in every detail. :kookoo:
Jim, my friend your Elvis has left the building.
No, that is the way an Adamic mindset reacts to my statement. It's not the mind of Christ. Note: I did not take a shot at God. I took a shot at Delmar's idea that God cannot purpose evil for good. Will he answer my question? Will you? Did God have a good purpose for not stopping Hitler?Knight said:
On the Settled View, we can rest assured, will full trust and unwavering confidence that God has myriad and many, as yet unknown, good and wonderful reasons for why He decreed Hitler's actions and the events of 9/11. Open Theists have no such confidence and no grounds upon which to trust their conception of God. Instead, they are left with trying to come up with humanistic and existentialist reasonings that allow them to sleep at night, all the while solidifying the exact mindset of Lucifer and Adam, appealing to the least common denominator of humanism: "Hath God said?"
All according to God's decrees, of course (altho' not necessarily according to God's prescriptions),
Jim
Yes.Hilston said:
God hates evil, but He loves us more than He hates evil. God want's us to have freedom. He gave us our own will - an incredible gift - a display of love in a fashion we can barely put to words. God loves us so much He gave us something that lets us be us (our will). Yet, some people use that freedom (their will) to do evil things, which of course God hates, but for God to not allow evil God would have to take away our freedom (our will) which would be unloving.
Now you can answer... what was God's "good" purpose in torturing Jews through Hitler's hands?
Last edited:
God_Is_Truth
New member
lee_merrill said:
I explained this earlier. God is a man, but God is not only a man. The whole point of the Incarnation, what makes it special and unique and amazing is that God himself descended into us and became one of us. The Word became flesh. God actually became a man. Is he now only a man? Not at all. But he is indeed a man.
Lee, I agree with you that the text says God is not a man. It was true when it was written. At that time God was not a man. But, the rest of the verse is not what you say. It connects God to man to say that he doesn't repent or change his mind like we do. We have dozens of verses stating that God changes his mind and repents elsewhere and it would be foolish to deny them based on your interpretation of this verse. Your interpretation isn't necessary, is at odds with the rest of scripture and should therefore be resisted. Scripture should harmonize and denying twenty verses for the sake of two is hardly harmonizing.
We make mistakes and part of them are sins. God never has to repent of sin and so he doesn't repent like we do. Further, we change our mind due to something we overlooked or forgot. God knows all things present and doesn't forget so he doesn't change his mind like we do. But the rest of scripture testifies abundantly that God does change his mind when circumstances warrant it and does repent when people go back on their word. We have no good reason to deny these things. It is only when we believe that God can't change in any way that we start declaring a couple verses to be absolutes and declaring dozens of others to be figurative (while never explaning what they are figurative of).
Sort of. God never promises something he doesn't intend to give. However, the settled view could not hold to this for he knows exactly what will happen and whether or not his promise will actually come about. He can't truly intend to give something when he knows it will never be given. Once again, though, you are trying to defend the view that God never changes in any way by taking this verse to be an absolute so that you can deny that God repents and changes his mind, despite the dozens of verses that support it. Lee, it's okay to let go of the pagan idea that God never changes in any way. It's okay!
I didn't consult anybody else but myself. I read the verse in light of the rest of scripture and not outside philosophy. My view harmonizes with scripture whereas yours does not.
Both, correct.
The lonely little question. Poor little question, ignored, over-looked, and all alone. (I think he might be catching a cold)
Jim where is your compassion? Give this poor little question a home. (only pennies per day!)
Jim, tell us which of the following two options is true according to the Bible...
1. The potter takes the vessel that is marred in his hand and makes it again into something good.
or...
2. The potter intentionally mares the vessel and then makes it again claiming he did some "good" by fixing his own marring.
Poor little question, ignored, over-looked, and all alone. (I think he might be catching a cold)Jim where is your compassion? Give this poor little question a home. (only pennies per day!)
Jim, tell us which of the following two options is true according to the Bible...
1. The potter takes the vessel that is marred in his hand and makes it again into something good.
or...
2. The potter intentionally mares the vessel and then makes it again claiming he did some "good" by fixing his own marring.
Last edited:
This is an excellent example how Jim (as well as all Calvinists) place God's power (i.e. His quantitative attributes) over and above His righteousness (i.e. His qualitative attributes). They would rather worship a God who is, in Jim's words, "the author of sin" than to admit that He has created a world where people are free to do things that He doesn't want them to do. It's nothing short of outright balsphemy. Jim DOES NOT worship the God of Scripture.Hilston said:
Hilston said:
Jeremiah 19:5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Now you need to answer, as Hilston was implying, what was God’s purpose in not stopping Hitler? You say it was free will, to have free will, such evil must be allowed. Why so?
I see no special and drastic limit on free will that would have been made by ending Hitler’s rule. And I also have another question, but that can wait.
Was it not the potter? So then the analogy does answer your question.
I despair of ever being able to get this point across, to any Open Theist.
Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, yes he does, here.
Blessings,
Lee
Can anyone know all God’s purposes? This would require knowing all the future. Yet the Jewish people returned to their homeland, arguably because of this persecution. They also have tremendous weight when they stand up to speak, those who went through this, Mr. Wiesel, he would be one.Knight said:
Now you need to answer, as Hilston was implying, what was God’s purpose in not stopping Hitler? You say it was free will, to have free will, such evil must be allowed. Why so?
I see no special and drastic limit on free will that would have been made by ending Hitler’s rule. And I also have another question, but that can wait.
Not to speak for Jim, but who marred the vessel in the example?Knight said:
Was it not the potter? So then the analogy does answer your question.
God is not a man, though, and simply because Jesus is a member of the Trinity, does not make God a man. The Triune God did not become a man in the incarnation, remember Jesus praying to the Father.God_Is_Truth said:
So then again I ask if God suddenly could change his mind, after the incarnation.
Why so? This would seem to separate God from man. And again, “like we do” is not in the text.
Yet there is another meaning for this word which fits quite well, why may I not read that meaning in these various places?
I despair of ever being able to get this point across, to any Open Theist.
Well, again, I’m not claiming them to be figurative, I’m claiming the word has a different meaning than “repent or change of mind.” And I don’t hold that God cannot change in any way whatsoever.
I would think that would provide just the ability to know what could be given, and God does give all his intends to, and also does all he says he will do.
Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, yes he does, here.
But I meant what is the meaning of the phrase, if it doesn’t mean God doesn’t take back his words. I didn’t mean “What is your theological view in this area?” I’m asking for a translator version, taking these words, and translating the meaning into English. What was the phrase Isaiah meant, please, grammatically defensible? I also insist on seeing said interpretation here on "he does not take back his words" in a commentary! Even an Open Theist one...
Blessings,
Lee
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Sometimes, God is open and changes His mind in response to prayer.
Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14 So the LORD repented [Heb. na gham] from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Lk 7:30 “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Millions have rejected God’s counsel for them since that time.
Both man and God are free.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14 So the LORD repented [Heb. na gham] from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Lk 7:30 “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Millions have rejected God’s counsel for them since that time.
Both man and God are free.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
- Status