ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

lee_merrill

New member
Knight: Because it highlights the absurdity of your position.

Muzicman: Do you who condemn stealing, do you steal? Do you who abhor idols rob temples?

Do you who decry misuse of metaphors say that pots don't mar themselves?
You guys are simply sniping, you need to address Hilston's points here, otherwise the Open View will not be distinguishing itself.

I would also ask again, how could Paul know, how could Isaiah know that by God's sentence, only a remnant would be saved, from Israel?

Blessings,
Lee
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
God gives conditions for salvation. It is NOT saving ourself if we respond to His grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10).
Yes, it is. The verse you cite does not refer to conditions for salvation, but rather the process by which the believer has been saved, is being saved and will be forever redemptively saved and secured. If your salvation is contingent on your decision, then you save yourself, no matter how you slice it. I can truly and accurately say that Jesus' sacrifice alone saved me. You cannot without contradicting your own thesis.

godrulz said:
We did not provide nor initiate salvation.
No, but according to your demi-theology, you're the one who makes it effectual, and you thereby save yourself.

godrulz said:
... Faith is not a meritorious work.
Sure, it is. Christ commends people, He rewards them, for their great faith (Mt 8:10; 15:28)

godrulz said:
... God alone saves us, but not without a response from us.
That is correct. We respond to His salvation when we are regenerated. Not before. But the statement is inconsistent with the Open View.

godrulz said:
... Love relationships are not caused nor coerced.
Did you just receive shipment on a fresh bale of straw, GR?

godrulz said:
... They are freely entered into and maintained (reciprocal), but not without God's provision and enablement/influence.
Again, this is correct, but inconsistent with the Open View.

godrulz said:
... In the end, I am convinced your view does not do justice to the great character and revelation of our God
You're not qualified to say anything rational about God's character as long as you persist in not being "prepared to study" God's word on this matter.

godrulz said:
God uses sin for good? Examples?
Joseph, Job, David and Paul. There are others, but these come readily to mind. Have a look at this: Examples of God Using Sin for Good.

godrulz said:
... A holy, loving God hates and judges sin. He may use sinners and Satan for judicial purposes, but they will still be held accountable in the end. Sin/selfishness is the opposite of God/love/righteousness.
Straw man, GR. No one is claiming otherwise.

godrulz said:
... I do not think there is anything good about sin, sickness, death.
What you think matters very, very little, GR, especially when you openly admit to needing to study God's word on this matter, yet declare that you're not prepared to do so. Perhaps you should do more studying and less posting.

godrulz said:
... Jesus opposed these things and brought wholeness when possible (hard to undo a rape or murder). He did not affirm them as God's will nor inherently 'good' in any way, shape, form.
No one is claiming that disease or murder are inherently good in any way, shape or form. But God decreed and used them for good.

How's this for disease being used by God for good:
Jn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I know, I know. Open Theists think this is evil, because why would God purpose the disease of blindness, only to make Himself "look good" later? But there it is in black & white (and sometimes red, if you have the right bible). At every turn, GR, your bald assertions are shown to contradict scripture, or your own logic, and often both.

All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.
Jim
Why God is not responsible for salvation.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Try again on your exegesis of Jn. 9 (check a credible, non-Calvinistic commentary that does not proof text it, but exegetes it in context and in light of the rest of Scripture).
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Try again on your exegesis of Jn. 9 (check a credible, non-Calvinistic commentary that does not proof text it, but exegetes it in context and in light of the rest of Scripture).
Is that all you have to say? You dare lecture me about exegeting scripture? You feckless sanctimonious schlep. Your special pleading is as disgusting as it is unbiblical. Do you remember what you wrote earlier?

godrulz said:
We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so..
And you dare accuse others of deductive theology and preconception? It's so obvious that you have no leg to stand on and your arguments are without solid scriptural backing. You're an embarrassment.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Well, let's not flame out!

But most definitely John 9 says the blindness was so the work of God could be displayed in this man, now this would not be the devil's purpose.

A John Piper quote comes to mind (someone who would I think be said to do careful exegesis)...

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

Another Piper quote comes to mind.

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)

This really is very clear, and this view must be adopted, for it is plain Scripture.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Who is still wondering how Paul and Isaiah knew ... only a remnant would be saved.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Hilston said:
Is that all you have to say? You dare lecture me about exegeting scripture? You feckless sanctimonious schlep. Your special pleading is as disgusting as it is unbiblical. Do you remember what you wrote earlier?

And you dare accuse others of deductive theology and preconception? It's so obvious that you have no leg to stand on and your arguments are without solid scriptural backing. You're an embarrassment.


I must admit I do not have a cool website like you do. I am selective since you are like talking to a wall. Anyone who believes the extreme things you do (God/evil) is hard to get through to. I appreciate your vacuous point by point responses at times, but I juggle too many things to really want to get in a war of words with someone so dogmatic (and wrong) as you. Knowledge is not the same as wisdom.
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
We Americans are storing up a lot of bad memories. I remember when the World Trade Center terrorism changed our lives significantly. Also when the Twin Towers went down. Islam may last for some time. I read many expressions of faith in God.

But I have heard one time too many that God is in control. In fact, one pastor made the following statement about my God. “What do we mean when we talk about the Sovereignty of God? In simplest terms, it means that God is in control, in the most absolute sense of the word control. In other words, the Sovereignty of God means that God is in control, causing everything - not just the good things that happen to us, but even the bad things - not just the weighty, significant things of life; but even the small, seemingly unimportant, insignificant things. God is in control causing everything that happens to accomplish His purpose and His plan. He is the Architect of the world and the universe and of our lives. Before this universe ever came to be, and before the details of our lives ever came into existence, those things already existed in minute detail in the Mind of God. That is God’s Sovereign Plan for all that is.”

I disagree with that pastor. I strongly disagree with his statement because this kind of theology is sending people to hell by stifling evangelism and turning people against God.

Well, then, Is God in control? Absolutely. But not as we may like. I believe the Bible shows us that in the end, God will bring about His purpose for this world.

2 Ti 1:9,10 God, has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before age times.
How was this grace given to us before age times?

God determined before the ages that Christ would have a body of believers who would be holy and blameless before Him.

We find in the 10th verse that this gracious gift was made possible by our Savior, Jesus Christ when He died for us.

10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

God then raised up Paul to make everyone see what this glorious message of unity was.

God had not revealed this universal blessing before He raised up the Apostle Paul.

Eph 3:8,9 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

But what is His eternal purpose? Provision for our salvation.

That we would be justified out of Christ’s faithfulness when we believe.

Rom 3:21-28,30 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, unto all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through [His] faithfulness to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one out of the faith of Jesus. 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised out of faith and the uncircumcised through the faith.

Gal 2:16 is talking about the same thing, justification. Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Another aspect of His eternal purpose was that our walk would be by faith.

Rom 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

If he eats when he doubts, he stands there condemned. This has nothing to do with his eternal life.

Col 2:6-7 As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.

What does He want us to do?

Rom 12:1,2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Rom 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 Peter 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart.

1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

sentientsynth

New member
Bob Hill said:
God determined before the ages that Christ would have a body of believers...
Had you said "believers" you would be correct. But as you placed the plural "believers" as the object of a preposition, it cannot be the direct object of your verb "determined". Rather, "body" is the object of the verb, while "believers" is the object of the preposition.

So what you're saying is that God determined ... a body, which is singular. This isn't correct. What God determined (or foreordained), rather, was a plural term us.

Eph 1:3-6 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

"Body of believers" is singular and irreconcilable with the plural pronouns of Eph.1. Had you said "believers" you would be correct
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
I must admit I do not have a cool website like you do.
That wasn't my question. Notice the glaring deflection by godrulz. He can't engage the argument. He has no answer to scripture. His unsupported claims are being exposed as unbiblical. So what does he do? He lobs a red herring. Somebody get a hose, preferably with one of those high pressure nozzles.

godrulz said:
... I am selective since you are like talking to a wall. Anyone who believes the extreme things you do (God/evil) is hard to get through to.
You've never tried to get through to me, godrulz. You don't make arguments. You merely assert, and dogmatically at that. For example, rather than show me where my exegesis of Jn 9 is in error, you say "Try again on your exegesis of Jn. 9." How about throwing me a bone, GR? How about engaging in the actual discussion and, for once, proving your preconceived deductive theological claims?

godrulz said:
... (check a credible, non-Calvinistic commentary that does not proof text it, but exegetes it in context and in light of the rest of Scripture).
Notice how you dogmatically use the word "credible," and then you don't offer any suggestions. Is this how you've acquired your spiritual "wisdom", GR? By reading "credible" non-Calvinistic commentaries? Does such a thing even exist? It is so obvious that you have nothing to offer but your dogmatic assertions and your deductive theological preconceptions, which are of little use to the rational man.

godrulz said:
I appreciate your vacuous point by point responses at times, ...
More bald assertions. You dogmatically allege that my responses are vacuous but have never lifted a finger to prove your assertions. A cursory perusal of your posts demonstrate this abundantly. I've even had others point this out to me. You make one dogmatic assertion after another, without argument, without proof. Now we all know why. By your own admission, you're unable to defend your own view biblically. You need to study it more, you said. But you're not prepared to do so, you said. It's no wonder you're so dogmatic. It's no wonder you appeal to preconceived notions. It's no wonder you've adopted a deductive theology. It's the most convenient approach for those who are not prepared to study God's word.

godrulz said:
I juggle too many things to really want to get in a war of words with someone so dogmatic (and wrong) as you.
Did you say "dogmatic"? And then did you just dogmatically assert that I'm "wrong"? People, you can't make this stuff up. Godrulz is a walking contradiction and the reigning champion of special pleading. He forgets that we all see his activity here on TOL. Everyone knows that godrulz is the king of the drive-by post. He never attempts to prove anything. He just points his cap gun and asserts, dogmatically, his unsupported claims, his unstudied preconceived notions, and his dogmatic deductive theology.

godrulz said:
Knowledge is not the same as wisdom.
You've disqualified yourself from saying anything regarding either one, GR. Wisdom apart from God's Word (which you're not prepared to study) is foolishness.

All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course,
Jim
 
Last edited:

patman

Active member
godrulz said:
Patman:

God uses sin for good? Examples? A holy, loving God hates and judges sin. He may use sinners and Satan for judicial purposes, but they will still be held accountable in the end. Sin/selfishness is the opposite of God/love/righteousness.

I think he mitigates some of the negative affects of sin with His mercy and grace, especially for believers. He can make one pure, even though one is no longer a technical virgin. He can restore the years that the locusts ate. He can creatively redeem sinful, horrible situations to some degree.

I do not think there is anything good about sin, sickness, death. Jesus opposed these things and brought wholeness when possible (hard to undo a rape or murder). He did not affirm them as God's will nor inherently 'good' in any way, shape, form.

By all means, sin is terrible. But that doesn't mean it can't be used to bring about some good by anyone.

A good example is Joseph. Hs brother's sin was turned around by the hand of God to be something good for Joseph. Pharaoh's disobedience to God turned into an opportunity for God to show him his power.

So God can use sins already committed to bring about some good. But he would rather the sin never happened. Because it is far better to have good from good.

But God is as far away from the sin itself as the east is from the west. He had nothing to do with it, other than on occasion stepping in to fix things...
 

lee_merrill

New member
patman said:
By all means, sin is terrible. But that doesn't mean it can't be used to bring about some good by anyone.
Yes. As in the cross...

But God is as far away from the sin itself as the east is from the west. He had nothing to do with it, other than on occasion stepping in to fix things...
Yes, God is far from sin, infinitely far. Yet this Piper quote again comes to mind:

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)

"God is not cleaning up after the devil" (Joni Eareckson Tada)

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Who is still wondering how Paul and Isaiah knew ... only a remnant would be saved.
 

patman

Active member
patman said:
By all means, sin is terrible. But that doesn't mean it can't be used to bring about some good by anyone.

A good example is Joseph. Hs brother's sin was turned around by the hand of God to be something good for Joseph. Pharaoh's disobedience to God turned into an opportunity for God to show him his power.

So God can use sins already committed to bring about some good. But he would rather the sin never happened. Because it is far better to have good from good.

But God is as far away from the sin itself as the east is from the west. He had nothing to do with it, other than on occasion stepping in to fix things...

Let me also add that-

Just because sin can be used to bring good, this is NOT why sin is here. I have always said that doing evil that good should come of it is evil. It is not the same as what I said above. If evil were already there, God could freely step in and use the circumstances to bring about good from it despite evil.

Sin is not God's idea, it is not his plan, it is not his great way to save sinners, as so many on here like to say. Sin is evil, and always leads to death. Even if we say Good can come out of evil, the evil is still there causing death. This is why God hates sin.
 

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
Yes. As in the cross...


Yes, God is far from sin, infinitely far. Yet this Piper quote again comes to mind:

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)

"God is not cleaning up after the devil" (Joni Eareckson Tada)

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Who is still wondering how Paul and Isaiah knew ... only a remnant would be saved.

Hi Lee

We can all read what the text is saying, God meant the evil for good. But that doesn't go to say he caused it. Very different things... I'd advise against making that leap.
 

patman

Active member
Lee...

Lee...

patman said:
Hi Lee

We can all read what the text is saying, God meant the evil for good. But that doesn't go to say he caused it. Very different things... I'd advise against making that leap.

What the verse REALLY points out is who did the evil....

Genesis 50:20
But as for you[Joseph's brothers], you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

Who did/caused/planned the evil?

AND besides, does this make it gospel? After all, is God speaking, or is Joseph?

Can we really take any verse and say it is God's word?

Look at what the High Priest said against Jesus:

Matthew 26:65
Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

So just because it is in the bible, doesn't make it God's idea. Just like Joseph. Just because Joseph said God meant good this for evil doesn't mean God agrees... I personally believe God did use the evil to bring about good. But it is only a belief, I have no proof in this case. AND HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T CAUSE THE EVIL that good may come of it.

So it is clear that Joseph believes God meant evil caused by someone else for good. I still stand by and say you shouldn't take the leap to say God causes evil.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
You guys are simply sniping, you need to address Hilston's points here, otherwise the Open View will not be distinguishing itself.

I would also ask again, how could Paul know, how could Isaiah know that by God's sentence, only a remnant would be saved, from Israel?

Blessings,
Lee

Present evidence. Israel's blindness to the Messiah was an ongoing obstruction to many of them being saved. That's what Paul is lamenting in the first few verses of Romans 9.

Muz
 

STONE

New member
patman said:
We can all read what the text is saying, God meant the evil for good. But that doesn't go to say he caused it. Very different things... I'd advise against making that leap.
What the verse REALLY points out is who did the evil....

Who did/caused/planned the evil?

So just because it is in the bible, doesn't make it God's idea. Just like Joseph. Just because Joseph said God meant good this for evil doesn't mean God agrees... I personally believe God did use the evil to bring about good.

Gen 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt
 

sentientsynth

New member
Regarding Genesis 50:20, Patman said ...

patman said:
AND besides, does this make it gospel? After all, is God speaking, or is Joseph?
Now this is something to behold. In order to maintain his view, the Open Theist must say that Joseph was in error when he said "...but God meant it for good." He says, "After all, is God speaking, or is Joseph?", subtlely suggesting that Joseph was perhaps beside himself when he said this, that Joseph didn't truly understand God as much as Patman or any arm-chair Open Theist does.

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
 

patman

Active member
sentientsynth said:
Regarding Genesis 50:20, Patman said ...


Now this is something to behold. In order to maintain his view, the Open Theist must say that Joseph was in error when he said "...but God meant it for good." He says, "After all, is God speaking, or is Joseph?", subtlely suggesting that Joseph was perhaps beside himself when he said this, that Joseph didn't truly understand God as much as Patman or any arm-chair Open Theist does.

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry.

{In an australian accent}

"Oh my, here we have the settled theist in his natural environment. Notice the big mouth and pointy ears. Most normal theist honor the alpha God by saying he doesn't cause sin, but not these beasts."

I feel no need to re-explain the last post. If that is all you got from it, you could at least have a good rebuttal.

Oh, sorry for the sarcasm. Just look it through your view, God made me do it for your own good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top