ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

Now you can answer... what was God's "good" purpose in torturing Jews through Hitler's hands?

You answered it yourself......

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.​

Please consider,

Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

Three persons, one of which is also a man. A person is not always a man.

Then God in three persons is not a man?

God chose Saul and hoped he would turn out well (1 Sam 13:13). This is why God was grieved when he did not turn out this way (1 Sam 15:11).

Well, I still wonder: I thought the Open View said the Lord is especially able to predict future behavior based on present character (Peter’s denial, and so forth), only this time he fell down?

You cannot genuinely regret taking an action if you know exactly how it will turn out. That would make you a liar.

Which may be why I don't believe God regretted his decision?

NoPaul wrote for the purpose of expressing love and grief was a side effect of this. He makes it clear, he did not write to grieve them.

Not to grieve them per se, I agree, but for the result of that grief, godly repentance. But I was referring to Paul’s grief, which he said had the very purpose of showing them how much he loved them.

I have given evidence several times as to why my view fits biblically. You, on the other hand, keep trying to make verses fit your philosophy. That is, you exalt the few over the many for the sake of an idea. My position takes them all together as sound doctrine ought to.

Saying God is a man is not Biblical, though, nor is it sound doctrine, my friend...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

You answered it yourself......

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.​

This doesn't work, though, Rob, for I don't see how stopping Hitler would have impinged on people's free will in some inherent and unpreventable way. For what about the free will of all the Jewish people who died? I don't see how Hitler's free will must be preserved, and the Jewish people's free will need not be...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Aren't we forgetting free will? We're in God's hand and we choose to leave it ourselves.

Rob

What does that have to do with anything?

Guy throws something with sharp teeth at someone else and the other guy gets bit and dies. The guy who threw it is responsible for the bite, just as the thing that did the biting is responsible too. Especially when HE KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

His actions were directly connected to the end result.

The idea that God created man to fall makes God responsible for the fall. The idea that God created man and let him fall is different.. but only when you realize that God didn't know that every single man would fall. Otherwise man's fall is intentional, just as it were if he actually planned evil.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Then God in three persons is not a man?

Each person is fully God. Therefore, if one of them becomes man, it is accurate to say that God became a man. The other two persons remain fully God, yet they are not man.

Well, I still wonder: I thought the Open View said the Lord is especially able to predict future behavior based on present character (Peter’s denial, and so forth), only this time he fell down?

Who knows a person's heart better: men or God? God knew what was in Saul's heart and it was enough for him to expect good things.

Which may be why I don't believe God regretted his decision?

So God lied?

1 Sam 15
10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,

11"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands " And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.​

If God didn't really regret his decision, as you say, then this statement here in verse 15 cannot be true. If it's not true, then God is lying. And since other scriptures say God doesn't lie (cannot) your interpretation is in error.

Not to grieve them per se, I agree, but for the result of that grief, godly repentance. But I was referring to Paul’s grief, which he said had the very purpose of showing them how much he loved them.

It became a means to that end, yes. But we have no reason to think God works in this same manner. Paul didn't want those people to act as they did in their sin and God never wants people to sin. He would rather all people repent (Ezekiel 18:32). Further, Paul's grief came in his action, writing to the people. God's grief is not in his action here in 1 Samuel 15. God isn't grieved because he had to discipline anyone like Paul did. God is grieved because things didn't turn out as he had hoped (1 Sam 13:13). That means things were not going according to plan, which requires a change in plan, and thus a change of mind.

Saying God is a man is not Biblical, though, nor is it sound doctrine, my friend...

It is one of the core Christian teachings. It's called the Incarnation. (John 1:1, 14).

 

[godrulz]

The Father and Holy Spirit did not incarnate/take on flesh. Only the Word, Jesus, became flesh. He is God. The triune God did not become a man, but the One who became a man was fully God (do not confuse the triune essence of God with the personal distinctions in the Godhead...).

 

[cfisher]

Which may be why I don't believe God regretted his decision?

But also, if God says he regretted his decision but didn't, that also makes him a liar. You are in a lose-lose situation.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You answered it yourself......

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.​

Please consider,

Rob

Rob that would be a reasonable answer for God allowing the Holocaust. (the Open View perspective)

Yet not a reasonable answer for God meticulously planning, decreeing, and orchestrating the Holocaust. (the Settled View perspective)

Please reconsider.

 

[Lighthouse]

The future is open.

 

[godrulz]

The future is open.

So is Wal-Mart.

The future is partially open/unsettled. There are things that God settles in advance (e.g. First and Second Coming of Christ; future judgments, etc....this does not mean these future things are actual before they unfold, but they are certain because God intends to unconditionally bring them about...see Is. 46; 48).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Strike three your out???

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.

 

[Bob Hill]

Chris,

When I read this, I got filled with joy!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill

But cfisher, wouldn't you agree that God is the greatest any of us could imagine?




Bob, you talk to me like you don't know me. I'm Craig's son.

If the "greatest" we could imagine is immutable timelessness, then no. If the greatest we can imagine is perfectly holy beyond definition, ever dynamic (living) in thoughts and words, then yes. But note, if the "greatest" we can imagine is contrary to the Bible, either we are wrong or the Bible is wrong. We shouldn't force our image of perfection onto the God of the Bible.

In Christ,
Chris

I sure hope you continue to be here.

Love,
Bob

 

[Yorzhik]

Same thing, strangely enough. I have the liver of an alcoholic, apparently. No prognosis yet on how long I have to live.

Yes, I've read the saga of your liver on your website. And oddly enough because I read that when my doctor told me at my physical that we needed to discuss "how much I was drinking", I wasn't shocked. I didn't even get agitated when they insisted that my mother must have been an alcoholic (it is part of the official medical record that she died of liver failure although that is only technically true). So I just continued to have them test until it was clear that it was my genetics and not my drinking. Also, because of what happened to you, I didn't have them take a sample of my liver even though they assured me "it would involve only a little discomfort". So I guess thanks are in order. Thanks!

All that being said, the doctor says if I lose weight my liver won't contribute to my early death.

Beyond all that, however; you can imagine my SHOCK when he said what would contribute to my early death was holding to the Open View! He said the stress of believing that God was not in control would certainly kill me before my time! Of course, my reply was that if "my time" was decreed by God then my stress level wouldn't matter. He just shook his head and sighed.

How do characters in a story hold the writer responsible? Isn't that like the clay criticizing the potter?

The writer of the book writes that the characters of the book hold the writer responsible.

No, they are identical. All character actions are decreed in writing, whether prose or source code. The only difference is the sphere of the influence of their actions.

They are very different scenarios, Yorzhik. Robots are not people. They cannot be held morally culpable. Nor can an animal that is trained to kill be held morally culpable. The characters in the story can be held accountable if that is what the author wants.

First, of course they are different scenarios. However, they are identical analogies. The robot can be held accountable if that is what the programmer decides.

My position is that God is the author of all history, past, present and future. That includes every sinful action of every evil person to have ever existed. Thus, God is the author of sin, and has decreed sin for His good purposes. Some think this makes God evil. My analogy is directed at demonstrating that conceiving of evil actions and evil men does not make the author himself evil. So, if my son should not be punished for writing a story that includes evil men and their evil actions, why should God be criticized for authoring sin?

And, in the end, your son can write the story that the evil people that the author earlier in the book wrote they did everything to warrant hell go to heaven, and the hero that he wrote earlier in the book did everything right to go to heaven is tortured forever in hell? The analogy should go just as far in that direction too. All according to the author's decrees, and ultimately for good.

 

[Bob Hill]

Chris,

Are you still a strong Open Theist?

Bob

 

[RobE]

Response to Lee and Knight

Response to Lee and Knight

This doesn't work, though, Rob, for I don't see how stopping Hitler would have impinged on people's free will in some inherent and unpreventable way. For what about the free will of all the Jewish people who died? I don't see how Hitler's free will must be preserved, and the Jewish people's free will need not be...

Blessings,
Lee

It absolutely works! God allows(not stopping) or God doesn't allow(stopping) for His own purposes. Knight's question presents that God coerced through planning(foreordination) the torture and murder of the Jewish people under Hitler while Knight tries to preserve his own position by saying that God simply allowed it to happen and was just to do so.......

Knight: Rob that would be a reasonable answer for God allowing the Holocaust. (the Open View perspective)

Yet not a reasonable answer for God meticulously planning, decreeing, and orchestrating the Holocaust. (the Settled View perspective)

Please reconsider.​

.....What Knight is forgetting is that simple foreknowledge, foreordination, and allowing produce the same effect for the same reason. If I were to ask Hilston did God foreordain Hitler's treatment of the Jews then he would answer 'yes' withough hesitation. If I were to ask you did God foresee Hitler's treatment of the Jews then you would answer likewise. And, by Knight's own admission God allowed it!

If I were to ask all three of you why did God allow it then the precise answer would be so that love would exist through free will.

In other words, from our(Jim, you, and me) perspective God foreknew what results His creation would produce including the evil outcomes; and, we believe that He went forward with His plans anyway deciding to 'allow' the evils to occur to achieve His own good purpose.

Knight on the other hand, believes that God 'allows' evil to achieve His own good purpose of creating free will agents just as we do. For some reason, Knight and the o.v., have come to the conclusion that it matters WHEN God decided to allow evil.

From their perspective if God is simply doing His best against the wills of those pesky humans then God is just. However, if God created those pesky humans knowing what evils they would do then God is unjust.

"Why would it matter WHEN God allowed the evil to occur for His own good purposes?" is my question. Logically, why does it matter in the least? It seems to for them.

I'll re-post the exchange and await your reply.

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?

Isn't this the same reason God might ordain evil if foreknowledge is true?​

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

What does that have to do with anything?

Guy throws something with sharp teeth at someone else and the other guy gets bit and dies. The guy who threw it is responsible for the bite, just as the thing that did the biting is responsible too. Especially when HE KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

His actions were directly connected to the end result.

The idea that God created man to fall makes God responsible for the fall. The idea that God created man and let him fall is different.. but only when you realize that God didn't know that every single man would fall. Otherwise man's fall is intentional, just as it were if he actually planned evil.

Why is knowledge the same as action in the open view? God knowing of the bite doesn't mean God did the biting. God is responsible for His own actions just as you are. God's intention was to achieve a purpose beyond the biting.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

Why is knowledge the same as action in the open view? God knowing of the bite doesn't mean God did the biting. God is responsible for His own actions just as you are. God's intention was to achieve a purpose beyond the biting.

Rob

Knowledge is not the same as action in the open view. This is not the problem or issue with supposed exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies. The issue is that contingencies involve an element of uncertainty until the possible choices are actualized in the present.

 

[cfisher]

Chris,

Are you still a strong Open Theist?

Bob

I am doing my honors thesis on that topic, and you should see the quotes I have from Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Calvin, and even Norman Giesler. I've been doing a lot of work expossing the Paganism of Calvinism.
In answer to your question, I'd say yes. No Calvinist has even attempted to refute my sophmore thesis yet. I think they are afraid.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am doing my honors thesis on that topic, and you should see the quotes I have from Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Calvin, and even Norman Giesler. I've been doing a lot of work expossing the Paganism of Calvinism.
In answer to your question, I'd say yes. No Calvinist has even attempted to refute my sophmore thesis yet. I think they are afraid.

Chris have you read Battle Royale X?

When authorities eventually pronounce Calvinism murdered, TheologyOnline will be the scene of the crime.

 

[cfisher]

Chris have you read Battle Royale X?

Well I did read it and helped, in a way, to write a few posts. But I wasn't all too impressed with the flow of the debate or the overall feeling. I think it could have been handled a little better. It was good though and brought up a few new good points.