ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Leading is not coercive nor causative. Jesus obeyed the Spirit, submitted to the Father, and resisted Satan. Volition is involved, not puppetry.

The ministry and temptation of Jesus shows a warfare model, not a blueprint/deterministic model. Love is volitional. Relationship and freedom trump determinism.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Philetus said:


I would like the thinking of my Open View friends (and anyone who would like to respond) on the following:

Luke 4:1-4 records that having been lead by the Spirit into the wilderness (the desert) Jesus was tempted by the devil for forty days. Having eaten nothing during that time Jesus was understandably hungry. At that point Jesus was tempted (by the devil, AKA Bad Banana ... here after refered to as B.B. :patrol: ) to prove his identity as the Son of God by turning stones into bread in order to satisfy his hunger. At that point Jesus quoted Deut. 8:3

In context the reply, (especially/specifically verse 2b) seems very supportive of the OV.
Deut. 8:1-9 ….
Deut. 8:1-9
1 Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land that the Lord promised on oath to your forefathers. 2 Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. 3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. 4 Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. 5 Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you. 6 Observe the commands of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and revering him. 7 For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land--a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; 8 a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; 9 a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills. Deut. 8:1-9 (NRSV)


Here in context is God, A) leading in the desert, ‘causing’ hunger and then satisfying that hunger with manna; B) humbling and testing in order to know what is in the heart of man; and 3) teaching trust and dependence on God resulting in obedience and blessing.

In either passage what is the nature between leading and causing … the connection between being lead by the Spirit and being tempted by the devil?

Any thoughts?

Philetus

I'm not certain what it is you are asking but if the thought that occurred to me when reading this is that if we find a place in the Bible where God directly caused something (in this case hunger) that very obviously does not present any sort of problem at all for the Open View. On the contrary, the context here couldn't be clearer, God comes right out and says that the whole dynamic here is one of relationship likened to that of a father and son.

Next spring I intend to remove the training wheels from my daughter's bicycle. Come summer time, one might say that I caused the bumps and bruises found on my child's knees and elbows. But that in no way implies that the future is not open because I acted in such a way that directly affected my daughter's life. Indeed if the future was not open then both my having taken off the training wheels and her subsequent injuries as well as her eventual mastery of bike riding would all be quite meaningless. Without an open future relationship is impossible. This single point is, in my view, the most powerful proof that the future is open.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

patman

Active member
Philetus said:


I would like the thinking of my Open View friends (and anyone who would like to respond) on the following:

Luke 4:1-4 records that having been lead by the Spirit into the wilderness (the desert) Jesus was tempted by the devil for forty days. Having eaten nothing during that time Jesus was understandably hungry. At that point Jesus was tempted (by the devil, AKA Bad Banana ... here after refered to as B.B. :patrol: ) to prove his identity as the Son of God by turning stones into bread in order to satisfy his hunger. At that point Jesus quoted Deut. 8:3

In context the reply, (especially/specifically verse 2b) seems very supportive of the OV.
Deut. 8:1-9 ….



Here in context is God, A) leading in the desert, ‘causing’ hunger and then satisfying that hunger with manna; B) humbling and testing in order to know what is in the heart of man; and 3) teaching trust and dependence on God resulting in obedience and blessing.

In either passage what is the nature between leading and causing … the connection between being lead by the Spirit and being tempted by the devil?

Any thoughts?

Philetus


This passage is full of O.T. support. Didn't God already know if his people were obedient without the hunger and testing? Apparently not. God had to do it in order to see.

Anyway

God does not tempt. Of course. So there is no connection in the temptation other than God allowed for it. I can see Satan telling God, as he did with Job, "The only reason Christ is without sin is because you do not allow him to be tempted." Hence, the testing was allowed (just a possibility).

Israel was lead in the desert for 40 years, Jesus 40 days. Both were hungry, and God fed them, Israel with manna, Jesus with truth. Both were shown to trust God for their help, but only Jesus actually succeeded. Both were tested, but Jesus passed the test.

To me this shows how God tests and allows testing to strengthen and to determine the intent of the heart. Sometimes they pass, sometimes not, and only the the answer is known. So it seems to be necessary. That is as far as I can take it, the 'leading' and 'causing' of testing are answered by saying this.

To talk more about the "causing", this speaks only to hunger here. Not sin or temptation, just the tool to initiate the test in both situations. The temptation in Jesus' case came for Satan.
 

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
And the way to do this would be to address my questions here, I would say.


So then God does not ever stop a rape or a murder?


Actually, Elihu clearly means (as in the verses quoted) that God struck Job.


So then tell me how to interpret "the Lord took away" and "has the Lord not caused it?"


However, you are the one saying "the Lord took away" is a figure of speech.


I think we still need for you to tell me what the meaning of "all the trouble the Lord brought upon him" is, it can't be a meaningless phrase, I have given you my reading, now what do you hold that this phrase means?

How about if you don't let the verse "Satan went out and afflicted Job" stand out? And then we have my conclusion?

But no, we have to understand the verses, and not say that an overall meaning erases all other meanings in a passage, or a book. And the verses I refer to are quite clear, there really is no alternative interpretation.

Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him…

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Jeremiah 30:14-15 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.

Blessings,
Lee

Hi Lee,

These verses show Elihu telling Job God did not bring the trouble upon Job:

Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.

Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.

To paraphrase :
God is just. He uses trouble to bring a man back from sin, when he sins. He holds them to their sins. God does not bring these upon righteous. Job said God did. I say he wouldn't, but because Job said that he does, he had now sinned and had taken on the judgement due those who had sinned.

It is clear, Lee, when you read it all together, and not just take it a verse at a time out of context.

Do I have to post the entire passage to get you to read it?

Job 32
1 So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. 3 Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

So to comentate, and point out how you are mistaken.... Elihu patiently waited to talk, listening to Job. He was angry because Job was justifying himself and condeming for causing the trouble.. So Elihu says:

Job 33
4 The Spirit of God has made me,
And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

5 If you can answer me,
Set your words in order before me;
Take your stand.

6 Truly I am as your spokesman[a] before God;
I also have been formed out of clay.

7 Surely no fear of me will terrify you,
Nor will my hand be heavy on you.

8 “Surely you have spoken in my hearing,
And I have heard the sound of your words, saying,

9 ‘I am pure, without transgression;
I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me.

10 Yet He finds occasions against me,
He counts me as His enemy;


11 He puts my feet in the stocks,
He watches all my paths.’

12 “Look, in this you are not righteous.
I will answer you,
For God is greater than man.


I HOPE by now you can clearly see the injustice you place on God, lee, by quoting verses out of context. Note the bolded words. Elihu is saying "Job, you are saying I am innocent, yet God brings disaster on me! Listen to your unrighteous tongue! God isn't like man to do that to someone."

Don't you see that lee?

He continues to rebuke Job:

22 Yes, his soul draws near the Pit,
And his life to the executioners.

23 “If there is a messenger for him,
A mediator, one among a thousand,
To show man His uprightness,

24 Then He is gracious to him, and says,

‘ Deliver him from going down to the Pit;
I have found a ransom’;
.....

27 Then he looks at men and says,

‘I have sinned, and perverted what was right,
And it did not profit me.’

28 He will redeem his[] soul from going down to the Pit,
And his[c] life shall see the light.

29 “ Behold, God works all these things,
Twice, in fact, three times with a man,

30 To bring back his soul from the Pit,
That he may be enlightened with the light of life.

Now Elihu is showing Gods goodness! How he saves a man from the pit once he repents, he does this all the time! And, Lee, sadly you take this beautiful passage of mercy and TWIST IT with out even taking the time to read what is around it.

Your webpage is full of this.

Look at what the verses say. It says in paraphrase:"When man is dying, If there are any justifications for him or repentings, then he will not go to hell, but heaven and be restored as a young child. He will proclaim God's goodness and that sin did not profit him. God does this ALL the time."

Lee, it makes me so sad for you, that you do not understand the verses you read, you do not even bother to read the context before you post them on here.

Elihu continues:

Job 34
4 Let us choose justice for ourselves;
Let us know among ourselves what is good.

5 “For Job has said, ‘I am righteous,
But God has taken away my justice;


6 Should I lie concerning my right?
My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’

7 What man is like Job,
Who drinks scorn like water,

8 Who goes in company with the workers of iniquity,
And walks with wicked men?

9 For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing
That he should delight in God.’


Job was out of his mind in sorrow, Lee! He was saying terrible things about God, and you agree with them, you agree that God did this to him? Listen to Elihu:

0 “ Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.

11 For He repays man according to his work,
And makes man to find a reward according to his way.

12 Surely God will never do wickedly,
Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.

.....

16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
Listen to the sound of my words:

17 Should one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn Him who is most just?

........

34 “Men of understanding say to me,
Wise men who listen to me:

35 ‘Job speaks without knowledge,
His words are without wisdom.’

36 Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost,
Because his answers are like those of wicked men!

37 For he adds rebellion to his sin;
He claps his hands among us,
And multiplies his words against God.”

Job was accusing God wrongly! Don't you agree with Elihu? You hold so highly that Job didn't sin in the words he said. Neither did Elihu! He was the only one in conversation who didn't have to repent at the end of the book.


Job 35

3 For you say,

‘What advantage will it be to You?
What profit shall I have, more than if I had sinned?’

4 “I will answer you,
And your companions with you.
....

8 Your wickedness affects a man such as you,
And your righteousness a son of man
....

13 Surely God will not listen to empty talk,
Nor will the Almighty regard it.

14 Although you say you do not see Him,
Yet justice is before Him, and you must wait for Him.

15 And now, because He has not punished in His anger,
Nor taken much notice of folly,

16 Therefore Job opens his mouth in vain;
He multiplies words without knowledge.

Elihu accuses Job of speaking things he does not understand. Job had accused God of bringing injustice upon him as though he sinned, but Job did not sin. Elihu responded your sin and your righetousness do not affect God, yet your accusations are nothing to him. You speak falsely.

Job 36
10 He also opens their ear to instruction,
And commands that they turn from iniquity.

11 If they obey and serve Him,
They shall spend their days in prosperity,
And their years in pleasures.

12 But if they do not obey,
They shall perish by the sword,
And they shall die without knowledge.[a]

13 “But the hypocrites in heart store up wrath;
They do not cry for help when He binds them.

14 They die in youth,
And their life ends among the perverted persons.[]

15 He delivers the poor in their affliction,
And opens their ears in oppression.

16 “ Indeed He would have brought you out of dire distress,
Into a broad place where there is no restraint;
And what is set on your table would be full of richness.

17 But you are filled with the judgment due the wicked;
Judgment and justice take hold of you.

18 Because there is wrath, beware lest He take you away with one blow;
For a large ransom would not help you avoid it.

19 Will your riches,
Or all the mighty forces,
Keep you from distress?

Elihu tells Job that God gives according to the works. And had Job just shut up he would have given him a table full of riches, but now that Job had spoken as he had, he is due the judgement of wicked people! God brings good to those who do Good, and bad to those who do bad.

Job WAS innocent! Remember?

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.

Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?”

Yet poor Job got the beating down of a lifetime. According to this verse, would God repay the innocent with wickedness?

Job 34
11 For He repays man according to his work,
And makes man to find a reward according to his way.

12 Surely God will never do wickedly,
Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.

Lee, read the Bible, stop quoting small parts.
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Patman,

patman said:
These verses are not Elihu telling Job God brought the trouble upon Job:

Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.

Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.

To paraphrase :
God is just. He uses trouble to bring a man back from sin, when he sins. He holds them to their sins. God does not bring these upon righteous. Job said God did. I say he wouldn't, but because Job said that he does, he had now sinned and had taken on the judgement due those who had sinned.
Then what was Job's judgment? That would be my questino here, and who was judging Job, according to Elihu?

Note the bolded words. Elihu is saying "Job, you are saying I am innocent, yet God brings disaster on me! Listen to your unrighteous tongue! God isn't like man to do that to someone."

Don't you see that lee?
No, I don't, because Elihu didn't say that! What did he actually say?

"God is greater than man," this is not what you had him saying here, it would seem...

9 For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing
That he should delight in God.’


Job was out of his mind in sorrow, Lee! He was saying terrible things about God, and you agree with them, you agree that God did this to him?
Yet this is not the text, you see. Job says "It was no profit for me to serve God." That is different than reading "God did this to me."

You are rewriting the passage here, sad to say, again and again, and this is serious, it is sinning.

37 For he adds rebellion to his sin;
He claps his hands among us,
And multiplies his words against God.”

Job was accusing God wrongly! Don't you agree with Elihu?
Certainly I agree, for Job was saying God had wronged him, and this was very sinful.

16 Therefore Job opens his mouth in vain;
He multiplies words without knowledge.

Elihu accuses Job of speaking things he does not understand.
I agree.

Job had accused God of bringing injustice upon him as though he sinned, but Job did not sin.
Exactly, that is what Job was saying, which got Elihu upset. The Lord was upset as well...

19 Will your riches,
Or all the mighty forces,
Keep you from distress?

Elihu tells Job that God gives according to the works. And had Job just shut up he would have given him a table full of riches, but now that Job had spoken as he had, he is due the judgement of wicked people!
And the judgment came from God, you see. So then God did this, according to Elihu.

Only Elihu was wrong, this was not judgment because ...

Job WAS innocent! Remember?
Quite so! It was unjust what happened to him, it was not punishment for sin.

Yet God was not unjust in bringing what looked like judgment on him, the point at issue was "Does Job serve God for naught"? And then the question Job asked, as to the justice of God's actions in bringing suffering to those who have been faithful.

That is the question in the book, and by God's decision, the hedge was removed, and did this not then bring tests on Job as a result? At the hands of sinful men, and the devil, who has been "sinning from the beginning"...

Blessings,
Lee
 

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
Note the bolded words. Elihu is saying "Job, you are saying I am innocent, yet God brings disaster on me! Listen to your unrighteous tongue! God isn't like man to do that to someone."

Don't you see that lee?
No, I don't, because Elihu didn't say that! What did he actually say?

"God is greater than man," this is not what you had him saying here, it would seem...

9 For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing
That he should delight in God.’

Job was out of his mind in sorrow, Lee! He was saying terrible things about God, and you agree with them, you agree that God did this to him?
Yet this is not the text, you see. Job says "It was no profit for me to serve God." That is different than reading "God did this to me."

You are rewriting the passage here, sad to say, again and again, and this is serious, it is sinning.

.....

Job had accused God of bringing injustice upon him as though he sinned, but Job did not sin.
Exactly, that is what Job was saying, which got Elihu upset. The Lord was upset as well...

Lee? Am I missing something? You are contradicting yourself, you agree in one part but disagree in another?

I posted the passage and paraphrased. I can't hide from what it says. Neither can you, Elihu WAS rebuking Job for saying God did this to him, yet he was innocent. It is in there. That is the point. And Elihu didn't sin because he wasn't required to repent, like Job was.

But Job was saying it. I didn't change anything. And you agreed:

lee said:
Job had accused God of bringing injustice upon him as though he sinned, but Job did not sin.
Exactly, that is what Job was saying, which got Elihu upset. The Lord was upset as well...

So we agree. Job was accusing God of bringing injustice on him as though he was a sinner. And this is sin! We should not accuse God of bringing disaster on an innocent man.

Now that agreement, along with the above acknowledgment that it is sin to twist scripture to say God does bring disaster on the innocent together means we both agree that God doesn't bring disaster on the innocent.

Thank you lee. I am really proud of you.:)
 

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
Leading is not coercive nor causative. Jesus obeyed the Spirit, submitted to the Father, and resisted Satan. Volition is involved, not puppetry.

The ministry and temptation of Jesus shows a warfare model, not a blueprint/deterministic model. Love is volitional. Relationship and freedom trump determinism.

:thumb:

Totally agree!

 

Philetus

New member
Clete said:
I'm not certain what it is you are asking but if the thought that occurred to me when reading this is that if we find a place in the Bible where God directly caused something (in this case hunger) that very obviously does not present any sort of problem at all for the Open View. On the contrary, the context here couldn't be clearer, God comes right out and says that the whole dynamic here is one of relationship likened to that of a father and son.

Next spring I intend to remove the training wheels from my daughter's bicycle. Come summer time, one might say that I caused the bumps and bruises found on my child's knees and elbows. But that in no way implies that the future is not open because I acted in such a way that directly affected my daughter's life. Indeed if the future was not open then both my having taken off the training wheels and her subsequent injuries as well as her eventual mastery of bike riding would all be quite meaningless. Without an open future relationship is impossible. This single point is, in my view, the most powerful proof that the future is open.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Agree, and I like the training wheels illustration.

It reminded me of when my son was about four, I bought him a 3oz. bag of M&Ms. And when he was well into eating them, I asked for one. He covered the bag in a guarded way and said, “No, daddy! These are mine.” “PaLEeeeASE?” I asked thinking the magic word would work. I guess he had forgotten where he got them. I didn’t persist long. I just went back to the counter and bought a 16oz. bag, returned to the table and began to eat them. He didn’t say anything but soon all his were gone. He didn’t look at me as he folded the empty bag, put it away, and reached for my bag of candy. He helped himself without a word. After about the third time he helped himself to my M&Ms I said, “They’re good, aren’t they.” He said sheepishly, “Yes …….. and I’m sorry I didn’t share.”

You see, I didn’t need his candy. I could have taken the candy I had given my son. I could even have bought a ton of M&Ms and buried him in them. (so tempting) But, I was seeking relationship. The same way I think God was seeking relationships all along and finally did the only thing that he could to make them possible … in Christ Jesus He himself paid the full price.

Thanks for the answer. I’m just looking for new and better ways to say it. So many people don’t get it.

Philetus

 

patman

Active member
Philetus said:


Agree, and I like the training wheels illustration.

It reminded me of when my son was about four, I bought him a 3oz. bag of M&Ms. And when he was well into eating them, I asked for one. He covered the bag in a guarded way and said, “No, daddy! These are mine.” “PaLEeeeASE?” I asked thinking the magic word would work. I guess he had forgotten where he got them. I didn’t persist long. I just went back to the counter and bought a 16oz. bag, returned to the table and began to eat them. He didn’t say anything but soon all his were gone. He didn’t look at me as he folded the empty bag, put it away, and reached for my bag of candy. He helped himself without a word. After about the third time he helped himself to my M&Ms I said, “They’re good, aren’t they.” He said sheepishly, “Yes …….. and I’m sorry I didn’t share.”

You see, I didn’t need his candy. I could have taken the candy I had given my son. I could even have bought a ton of M&Ms and buried him in them. (so tempting) But, I was seeking relationship. The same way I think God was seeking relationships all along and finally did the only thing that he could to make them possible … in Christ Jesus He himself paid the full price.

Thanks for the answer. I’m just looking for new and better ways to say it. So many people don’t get it.

Philetus



That is awesome, Philetus! :thumb: :first:
 

Philetus

New member
patman said:
This passage is full of O.T. support. Didn't God already know if his people were obedient without the hunger and testing? Apparently not. God had to do it in order to see.

Anyway

God does not tempt. Of course. So there is no connection in the temptation other than God allowed for it. I can see Satan telling God, as he did with Job, "The only reason Christ is without sin is because you do not allow him to be tempted." Hence, the testing was allowed (just a possibility).

Israel was lead in the desert for 40 years, Jesus 40 days. Both were hungry, and God fed them, Israel with manna, Jesus with truth. Both were shown to trust God for their help, but only Jesus actually succeeded. Both were tested, but Jesus passed the test.

To me this shows how God tests and allows testing to strengthen and to determine the intent of the heart. Sometimes they pass, sometimes not, and only the the answer is known. So it seems to be necessary. That is as far as I can take it, the 'leading' and 'causing' of testing are answered by saying this.

To talk more about the "causing", this speaks only to hunger here. Not sin or temptation, just the tool to initiate the test in both situations. The temptation in Jesus' case came for Satan.


Patman,

Good insights! Jesus said as long as we are in the world we would have hassles (my paraphrase). Trials come. 'Stuff happens". And it happens as the result of all the stupidity and sinfulness of man. And of course a sovereign God must allow it to happen. And no, I'm not suggesting that God causes sin. But, the question was put to me the other day and I'm fishing for better ways to answer it ... (that's why I'm posting this). I need broader thinking than just my own. The canned response isn’t getting through. I hope I can think outside my own box without raising the skepticism that I might be fudging on the Open View. I worked to hard to get here and I have a long way to go and I’m committed to doing the work to find ways to communicate the truth about God that has been suppressed for so long in so many circles. That why I appreciate your endurance and patience with Lee.

The question is not about temptation! It isn’t even about God making or causing people to sin against others.
The question as put to me is: “Does God still directly cause adversity in the lives of people in order to produce faith and obedience?” “Does God still make people hungry?”

I don’t think he does. I don’t think he has to. Its all part of living in a fallen world that for the most part still needs to be redeemed. I believe with all that is in me that God is at work in the midst of all this fallenness, to reconcile and save; that God uses all the brokenness and neediness to bring us to humble repentance and relationship. I’m just looking for better ways to address the question.

If I may suggest in light of your dialogue with Lee:

Job 9:32-33 “For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both.” (NRSV)

Was Job correct? Was there no mediator, no advocate between God and himself?
Yes, Job was correct then.

Look at the context of Job 9. Vs 28-29: “I become afraid of all my suffering, for I know you will not hold me innocent. I shall be condemned; why then do I labor in vain?”

Job had it right! At that time, no amount of effort … no degree of his own ‘righteousness’ could place him in right standing before God.

But that was then and this is now.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 “For there is one God: there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all – this was attested at the right time.” (NRSV)

Lee can’t distinguish between then and now. No wonder he has so much trouble understanding the future God has planned. Christianizing the Hebrew Scriptures doesn’t solve his dilemma, nor does imposing Old Testament statements on the New. Revelation is progressive and Job (and all his friends) was speaking from a very limited perspective. There is no evidence that Job knew that a messiah was coming; only that without one he had no one to mediate his case before God. That’s why Lee is endlessly returning to the Old Covenant for evidence to prove a settled future. He apparently doesn’t realize how much has changed in what is known about God since Job pleaded his case using the same points as he is still trying to use.

Further, I think the SV has a point that under the Old Covenant you really can’t describe the condition between man and God as much of a relationship. And that is their great weakness! They still bring that to the future! I think a watershed argument for refuting the SV is that under the Old Covenant it was all about good and evil, right and wrong, who was to blame and who was blameless. In Christ Jesus God has changed all that. God took it all upon himself and declared us ‘righteous’; blameless in his eyes through Christ.

Hang in there. God ain't through with us ... yet.

Philetus

 

patman

Active member
Philetus said:



Patman,

Good insights! Jesus said as long as we are in the world we would have hassles (my paraphrase). Trials come. 'Stuff happens". And it happens as the result of all the stupidity and sinfulness of man. And of course a sovereign God must allow it to happen. And no, I'm not suggesting that God causes sin. But, the question was put to me the other day and I'm fishing for better ways to answer it ... (that's why I'm posting this). I need broader thinking than just my own. The canned response isn’t getting through. I hope I can think outside my own box without raising the skepticism that I might be fudging on the Open View. I worked to hard to get here and I have a long way to go and I’m committed to doing the work to find ways to communicate the truth about God that has been suppressed for so long in so many circles. That why I appreciate your endurance and patience with Lee.

The question is not about temptation! It isn’t even about God making or causing people to sin against others.
The question as put to me is: “Does God still directly cause adversity in the lives of people in order to produce faith and obedience?” “Does God still make people hungry?”

I don’t think he does. I don’t think he has to. Its all part of living in a fallen world that for the most part still needs to be redeemed. I believe with all that is in me that God is at work in the midst of all this fallenness, to reconcile and save; that God uses all the brokenness and neediness to bring us to humble repentance and relationship. I’m just looking for better ways to address the question.

If I may suggest in light of your dialogue with Lee:

Job 9:32-33 “For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both.” (NRSV)

Was Job correct? Was there no mediator, no advocate between God and himself?
Yes, Job was correct then.

Look at the context of Job 9. Vs 28-29: “I become afraid of all my suffering, for I know you will not hold me innocent. I shall be condemned; why then do I labor in vain?”

Job had it right! At that time, no amount of effort … no degree of his own ‘righteousness’ could place him in right standing before God.

But that was then and this is now.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 “For there is one God: there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all – this was attested at the right time.” (NRSV)

Lee can’t distinguish between then and now. No wonder he has so much trouble understanding the future God has planned. Christianizing the Hebrew Scriptures doesn’t solve his dilemma, nor does imposing Old Testament statements on the New. Revelation is progressive and Job (and all his friends) was speaking from a very limited perspective. There is no evidence that Job knew that a messiah was coming; only that without one he had no one to mediate his case before God. That’s why Lee is endlessly returning to the Old Covenant for evidence to prove a settled future. He apparently doesn’t realize how much has changed in what is known about God since Job pleaded his case using the same points as he is still trying to use.

Further, I think the SV has a point that under the Old Covenant you really can’t describe the condition between man and God as much of a relationship. And that is their great weakness! They still bring that to the future! I think a watershed argument for refuting the SV is that under the Old Covenant it was all about good and evil, right and wrong, who was to blame and who was blameless. In Christ Jesus God has changed all that. God took it all upon himself and declared us ‘righteous’; blameless in his eyes through Christ.

Hang in there. God ain't through with us ... yet.

Philetus

Philetus, thanks for your posts, I enjoy reading your thoughts.

I agree with what you are saying about Lee. His problem with seeing and understanding the Open View is his tendency to christianize everything. The OT Jews were not Christians. We cannot apply our present dispensation of Grace on them. Job was not a christian. But they still found righteousness through changing from their old selves.

David had a very close relationship with God. So I disagree that it is hard to find that in the OT, but agree that the way he kept his relationship was different, him through obedience, us through grace.

It is hard to get someone to listen to you when they just sling misunderstood verses at you and expect you to be able to nail them down, I hate doing long posts because the person you are talking to just brings up more off topic stuff and it is easy to get lost in discussion.

So I try to get Lee just to read and get the point of the entire book before he starts focusing on the details. It is necessary to get an overview to anyone who has a tendency to see verses over context.

I was trying to understand the underlining meaning of your post. I guess I missed it:)

You said it was, "“Does God still directly cause adversity in the lives of people in order to produce faith and obedience?” “Does God still make people hungry?”"

I try to look at things in our dispensation, but at the same time try to see God as free to do as he chooses. In this dispensation of grace, for example, healing seems to not be a part of it, yet God, if for some reason, could heal if he truly wanted. But In my opinion, he hasn't so far.

So If in this dispensation, If God doesn't heal, if we do not speak in tongues, if we do not prophecy, if we do not cast out demons, what does Satan not do? I believe he too has been forbiden to interact with us beyond what God does. So God works through Grace, Satan works through sin and doubt. That's it.

So does God directly cause adversity in lives? A lesson from Job about God's character is that when he does, it is only on the wicked. We who are under grace probably do not apply, as we are not wicked in his sight.

I believe God can convict the heart, and lead us through conviction at times. Many of our convictions though are our own, but at times I think God can be at work through them. This is how God works today, I believe.

I do not think God is actively bringing trouble on the wicked, as he wishes for Grace to be the message for salvation, not fear. So Satan simply provokes sin, and the fruits of sin lead to guilt and that to conviction. I believe Paul touched on some of this.

I hope this helps!
 

Philetus

New member
Patman,

Philetus
I agree with what you are saying about Lee. His problem with seeing and understanding the Open View is his tendency to christianize everything. The OT Jews were not Christians. We cannot apply our present dispensation of Grace on them. Job was not a christian. But they still found righteousness through changing from their old selves.

David had a very close relationship with God. So I disagree that it is hard to find that in the OT, but agree that the way he kept his relationship was different, him through obedience, us through grace.

More or less righteous under the law is still not enough to claim innocence before God. Keeping the law never saved anyone. I agree that David, a man after God’s own heart, had a very, very close ‘relationship’ with God when compared to his contemporaries. And also that compared to the measure of grace we enjoy in Christ it was different. So different that I would say … ‘not much of a relationship at all’ compared to being in Christ. And that is the point. The SV (Hilston to the absolute) argues that we can’t have what the OV describes as relationship with a Holy God at all and they use evidence from ‘Before Christ’ to substantiate their position. I’m simply suggesting that to use anyone from an earlier or different ‘dispensation’ or ‘covenant’ to make such an argument is weak for either view. Is there a better answer? One thing is for sure … if we don’t seek one we aren’t likely to find one.

I was trying to understand the underlining meaning of your post. I guess I missed it
Not entirely. Your reply was thought provoking. Especially … "So God works through Grace, Satan works through sin and doubt. That's it."

It really is that simple. :up: I like the phrase "God is for us, not against us" while everything the evil one does (That bab banana :devil:B.B. ) is against us. He is a theif and a lier.

Thanks Patman.

I’ll try to keep em shorter.

Philetus


 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Philetus said:


Agree, and I like the training wheels illustration.

It reminded me of when my son was about four, I bought him a 3oz. bag of M&Ms. And when he was well into eating them, I asked for one. He covered the bag in a guarded way and said, “No, daddy! These are mine.” “PaLEeeeASE?” I asked thinking the magic word would work. I guess he had forgotten where he got them. I didn’t persist long. I just went back to the counter and bought a 16oz. bag, returned to the table and began to eat them. He didn’t say anything but soon all his were gone. He didn’t look at me as he folded the empty bag, put it away, and reached for my bag of candy. He helped himself without a word. After about the third time he helped himself to my M&Ms I said, “They’re good, aren’t they.” He said sheepishly, “Yes …….. and I’m sorry I didn’t share.”

You see, I didn’t need his candy. I could have taken the candy I had given my son. I could even have bought a ton of M&Ms and buried him in them. (so tempting) But, I was seeking relationship. The same way I think God was seeking relationships all along and finally did the only thing that he could to make them possible … in Christ Jesus He himself paid the full price.

Thanks for the answer. I’m just looking for new and better ways to say it. So many people don’t get it.

Philetus

I really enjoyed your illustration.

TOL rocks! :up:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Clete said:
Next spring I intend to remove the training wheels from my daughter's bicycle. Come summer time, one might say that I caused the bumps and bruises found on my child's knees and elbows. But that in no way implies that the future is not open because I acted in such a way that directly affected my daughter's life. Indeed if the future was not open then both my having taken off the training wheels and her subsequent injuries as well as her eventual mastery of bike riding would all be quite meaningless. Without an open future relationship is impossible. This single point is, in my view, the most powerful proof that the future is open.

Resting in Him,
Clete
:up: Excellent!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Man! It's like an awsome post fest around here! One great post after another after another!

It must be the power of the dancing banana!

:bannana: :banana: :banana:
 

patman

Active member
Philetus said:
Patman,



More or less righteous under the law is still not enough to claim innocence before God. Keeping the law never saved anyone. I agree that David, a man after God’s own heart, had a very, very close ‘relationship’ with God when compared to his contemporaries. And also that compared to the measure of grace we enjoy in Christ it was different. So different that I would say … ‘not much of a relationship at all’ compared to being in Christ. And that is the point. The SV (Hilston to the absolute) argues that we can’t have what the OV describes as relationship with a Holy God at all and they use evidence from ‘Before Christ’ to substantiate their position. I’m simply suggesting that to use anyone from an earlier or different ‘dispensation’ or ‘covenant’ to make such an argument is weak for either view. Is there a better answer? One thing is for sure … if we don’t seek one we aren’t likely to find one.


Not entirely. Your reply was thought provoking. Especially … "So God works through Grace, Satan works through sin and doubt. That's it."

It really is that simple. :up: I like the phrase "God is for us, not against us" while everything the evil one does (That bab banana :devil:B.B. ) is against us. He is a theif and a lier.

Thanks Patman.

I’ll try to keep em shorter.

Philetus



By all means, makes yours as long as you want :) that was meant for debate purposes such as with lee. :)
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I had a guy tell me once that God knew Adam and Eve were going to be disobedient, then I asked him why God told them not to eat from the tree if He already knew they were going to, he told me God did it to see if they would obey.
 

Philetus

New member


Hey Lighthouse,
The recovering Calvinist I'm talking with face to face is convinced that limited atonement is dead wrong, that God doesn’t know who will or won’t be saved in the end but is still adamant that God knows for certain what color his socks will be on his birthday in 2550. He’s 66 years old (loves Jesus and is a good thinker) so I just tell him they don’t put socks on bodies for burial. :dead: Nothing seems to work. Oh, well. After nearly a year on this thread … it is evident: “round and round they go and where they stop NOBODY knows.” :dizzy: I’m encouraged when I think how far I’ve come and how hard it still is to not catch all the presumptions of SV thinking.

Philetus

 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

Patman said:
Elihu WAS rebuking Job for saying God did this to him, yet he was innocent.
Yes, I agree.

And Elihu didn't sin because he wasn't required to repent, like Job was.
But just because God did not tell him to repent when he addressed Job and his other friends, that does not mean he had nothing to repent of. Note that God did not tell Job’s wife “Repent!’, though she had said “Curse God and die…”

We should not accuse God of bringing disaster on an innocent man.
Then did God not bring the cross on Jesus?

John 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

And there are many examples of this, Job among them, you have not yet explained to me what “the trouble the Lord had brought on him” means. Similarly, we see this in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 21:3-6 This is what the Lord says: “I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north. Then all people will know that I the Lord have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.” Therefore groan, son of man! Groan before them with broken heart and bitter grief.

And these verses here also show that God does use and cause sinful acts for good purposes:

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Philetus said:
Job 9:32-33 “For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both.” (NRSV)

Was Job correct? Was there no mediator, no advocate between God and himself?
Yes, Job was correct then.
Actually, there was a mediator, and even a messiah who would come:

Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

Look at the context of Job 9. Vs 28-29: “I become afraid of all my suffering, for I know you will not hold me innocent. I shall be condemned; why then do I labor in vain?”

Job had it right! At that time, no amount of effort … no degree of his own ‘righteousness’ could place him in right standing before God.
Well, no, Job made the mistake of claiming he was even more righteous than God, and for this he had to repent.

Clete said:
Without an open future relationship is impossible.
And I believe believers can really choose, within God’s will, but not unbelievers. And conversion is not a marriage, it is a birth, and babies do not choose their birth.

Lighthouse said:
… then I asked him why God told them not to eat from the tree if He already knew they were going to…
Isn’t the Lord’s statement like a prediction, though? “For in the day you eat of it, you will surely die,” it’s almost like the Lord knew they were going to do that.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
lee_merrill said:
And I believe believers can really choose, within God’s will, but not unbelievers. And conversion is not a marriage, it is a birth, and babies do not choose their birth.
Ephesians 5 not withstanding, right? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top