ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

Hey Lon,

Your answers always seem to skate right on the edge of what we want you to realize by giving a direct answer or by tackling the problem head on. It is interesting to hear what you think, but sometimes I have no other way of conveying what I want you to hear from me other than to have you "face" the issue I am getting at.

I agree with you, but rather than seeing it as an actual attempt, try to realize that the scriptures are not as black and white to me, as they appear to you. You (and others) often ask 'yes/no' questions that are almost always incomplete questions. In my mind, it is best to give all the data you know exists, rather than asking yes/no because they way it is asked I'm constrained to problematics either way I answer. For instance: Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up? To me, the question is wrong. It is hard to answer a wrong question. So I try to give perspective as to why I find the question disagreeable. The question, "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" is such a question.

let me try this again.

It is a lie to tell someone something will happen when you know it will not happen. I guess that is pretty black and white, and there aren't any exceptions to the rule.

Yes, but not to the question "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" or "Did God lie?" Yes the prophecy to Ninevah was fulfilled, and No, God did not lie, but because of the way you asked the question, you have no idea 1) why I believe this, nor 2) an anwer that could be appreciated until we discuss the matter.
QUOTE=patman;1438749]
If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that you believe it is a lie, but it is not. The child may go get his mother to reach it. The child may get the step ladder. The child may pull drawers out and create a stair. If the child reaches the cookie and I deny them, I've lied. Also, a cookie is a bit of an odd analogy, "What father, if his son asks for bread, would give him a serpent?"
QUOTE=patman;1438749]
That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.[/QUOTE]
If however, I asked the child to reach for something to show them their limitations, I've taught the child something about his inability, not deceived them.
QUOTE=patman;1438749]
You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that? [/QUOTE]
Because failure, as well as success teach us something. Success reveals ability. Failure reveals coming short. In business, the learning curve for failure is greater than that of success. There is no difference here.

 

[patman]

I agree with you, but rather than seeing it as an actual attempt, try to realize that the scriptures are not as black and white to me, as they appear to you. You (and others) often ask 'yes/no' questions that are almost always incomplete questions. In my mind, it is best to give all the data you know exists, rather than asking yes/no because they way it is asked I'm constrained to problematics either way I answer. For instance: Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up? To me, the question is wrong. It is hard to answer a wrong question. So I try to give perspective as to why I find the question disagreeable. The question, "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" is such a question.


Yes, but not to the question "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" or "Did God lie?" Yes the prophecy to Ninevah was fulfilled, and No, God did not lie, but because of the way you asked the question, you have no idea 1) why I believe this, nor 2) an anwer that could be appreciated until we discuss the matter.

If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.

I appreciate that you believe it is a lie, but it is not. The child may go get his mother to reach it. The child may get the step ladder. The child may pull drawers out and create a stair. If the child reaches the cookie and I deny them, I've lied. Also, a cookie is a bit of an odd analogy, "What father, if his son asks for bread, would give him a serpent?"

That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.

If however, I asked the child to reach for something to show them their limitations, I've taught the child something about his inability, not deceived them.

You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that?

Because failure, as well as success teach us something. Success reveals ability. Failure reveals coming short. In business, the learning curve for failure is greater than that of success. There is no difference here.

I believe this one issue is black and white. Either there is a lie or there isn't. You seem to be making excuses for what is a lie to God when he knows the future.

In my cookie analogy, you changed the rules so the child could get the cookie. Ok, let me add they are in a desert, no chairs, no other people, only a father a child a fridge and a starving monkey who always eats cookies. As soon as He puts the cookie on the fridge the monkey eats it. Now surely you can see the father lied to the child, can't you?

A lie is one of the most basic of all sins. God would never lie, for any reason, even if it resulted in good.

Let's just use a real situation instead.

While Israel entered the promise land, God several times told them they would drive out all the nations if they obeyed Him. They didn't, so he didn't drive them out.

Now, the S.V. applies an extra element to the story, one that isn't there. That element is that God knew that all along. Before he even made the promise. The future is settled, their "free will" actions would result in failure.

So why make the promise? All God had to do was command it, but instead of stopping there, he adds on "Oh, If you do that I'll do this," knowing as the words come out of his mouth that he'll never do it.

That is a lie. You must remove the "he knew the outcome" (which is added/assumed by the S.V. anyway) in order for that not to be a lie.

Perhaps this will absolutely drive my point home. The S.V. says to God, the past, present, and future exist all at once to God. Everything is settled. And to us, the only thing we can see as "settled" is the past:

If I said, "I will give you a million dollars (But only if John Wilkes Booth doesn't assassinate Lincoln, otherwise I take a million dollars out of you)" and you didn't know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, and I knew you didn't know, then I lied to you. That is the same thing that God would be doing to Israel when he promises them good if they do good, and punishment otherwise.

 

[Nang]

Watch this conversation closely! It will be all about the conflict between the Calvinist idea of sovereignty vs. God's righteousness and justice.

These attributes are not mutually exclusive.

God is sovereign, righteous, and just.

Either God meticulously controls everything or He is just - not both.

God justly and sovereignly controls all things. The fact that you cannot grasp such a God, does not do away with Him.

The Calvinist tries his best to have both but he has no choice but to redefine justice to make it work.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Oh, pooh. What silly talk.

The Calvinist does not have to redefine anything. All the Calvinist has to do is read his Bible and believe what it says.

The Bible says God is sovereign, righteous, and just.

You should learn to live with it.

Nang

 

[Lon]

I believe this one issue is black and white. Either there is a lie or there isn't. You seem to be making excuses for what is a lie to God when he knows the future.

God would never lie, for any reason, even if it resulted in good.

Agreed, God does not lie.

Let's just use a real situation instead.

While Israel entered the promise land, God several times told them they would drive out all the nations if they obeyed Him. They didn't, so he didn't drive them out.

Now, the S.V. applies an extra element to the story, one that isn't there. That element is that God knew that all along. Before he even made the promise. The future is settled, their "free will" actions would result in failure.

So why make the promise? All God had to do was command it, but instead of stopping there, he adds on "Oh, If you do that I'll do this," knowing as the words come out of his mouth that he'll never do it.

Is an offer spurned disingenuine regardless of whether it is accepted or not? Further, Is it ignoble to offer even in the case of failure, if something important is learned?

That is a lie. You must remove the "he knew the outcome" (which is added/assumed by the S.V. anyway) in order for that not to be a lie.

My knowing my children will choose mac 'n' cheese over tuna casserole but offering the selection is neither deceptive nor disingenuine. They get to participate in decision, I get to hear from their little voices, etc. etc.

Perhaps this will absolutely drive my point home. The S.V. says to God, the past, present, and future exist all at once to God. Everything is settled. And to us, the only thing we can see as "settled" is the past:

If I said, "I will give you a million dollars (But only if John Wilkes Booth doesn't assassinate Lincoln, otherwise I take a million dollars out of you)" and you didn't know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, and I knew you didn't know, then I lied to you. That is the same thing that God would be doing to Israel when he promises them good if they do good, and punishment otherwise.

Looking at your analogy, I agree, there is deception. Now show directly that this is the case with a nonOV interpretation of any given scripture. Before you do, let me identify from your analogy that there was malicious purpose and intent not only implied, but expounded. Your burden is to not only show infraction, but to show that the purpose had to be malicious.

In Him

Lon

 

[patman]

Looking at your analogy, I agree, there is deception. Now show directly that this is the case with a nonOV interpretation of any given scripture. Before you do, let me identify from your analogy that there was malicious purpose and intent not only implied, but expounded. Your burden is to not only show infraction, but to show that the purpose had to be malicious.

In Him

Lon

OK.

Exodus 23
22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.

Judges 2
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

The S.V. must add the 3rd element.

SettledView 3:16
God knowth the entire future perfectly.


I could give you a million more, but that should suffice. I will add no commendation, as your requested. Read it for yourself.


BTW. I didn't imply malicious intent. I simply provided the facts, the actions speak for themselves. I put it there to show you how evil it would be if God said this knew that and did that.

 

[Nang]

BTW. I didn't imply malicious intent.

No, you just meant to infer, right?

Since I am a Calvinist that believes in what you call the "settled view", I take the liberty to butt in and ask you if you approve of teachers using show and tell in order to educate. Like, using "displays" and "demonstrations" or "examples" in order to get across a point and make an impression.

The Law of God is holy and good, but it was demanded of a people whom God knew could never obey. Was that bad of God to keep reiterating His commands to do what is right, telling people what they should do, despite His knowledge of the extent their sinfulness? Or was it bad of the sinners who failed to live up to what the Law demands? Or did God have a good purpose and end goal for giving the Law to sinners who could not keep it?

There is a Scriptural answer to this . . .

Nang

 

[Clete]

Ok,

NO

YES

Is that more accurate? The foundation of understanding MUST be established before one can answer. Since you are reserving comment of understanding to actually 'ask' a 'straightforward' question, I'll do it for you.

Fair enough.

You seem to have the idea down anyway. God did not hate Esau before he was even born. The comment is a figure of speech and it simply means that God loved Jacob more than He loved Esau and it's more of a figure even than that because the statement isn't even about the two children but rather the nations that proceeded from them.

This understanding of the usage of the word hate removes Romans 9 from the Calvinists arsenal of proof texts. A mighty blow if there ever was one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Fair enough.

You seem to have the idea down anyway. God did not hate Esau before he was even born. The comment is a figure of speech and it simply means that God loved Jacob more than He loved Esau and it's more of a figure even than that because the statement isn't even about the two children but rather the nations that proceeded from them.

This understanding of the usage of the word hate removes Romans 9 from the Calvinists arsenal of proof texts. A mighty blow if there ever was one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yeah, sure. The systematic theology of Calvin is destroyed on TOL by Clete! What a joke!

Godly love = grace and salvation.

Did God save Esau in Jesus Christ? Scripture, please.

Nang

 

[Lon]

OK.

Exodus 23
22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.

Judges 2
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

The S.V. must add the 3rd element.

SettledView 3:16
God knowth the entire future perfectly.


I could give you a million more, but that should suffice. I will add no commendation, as your requested. Read it for yourself.


BTW. I didn't imply malicious intent. I simply provided the facts, the actions speak for themselves. I put it there to show you how evil it would be if God said this knew that and did that.

I know you did not, but it was an important consideration for the analogy.

"But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak..."

“Because this nation has transgressed..."

Here you are seeing a deception from our perspective, because you believe if God knows an outcome then it 'must necessarily' lead to a false offer. I counter this by saying no it does not. Knowing that you will do something without doubt does not make me responsible for your actions. God can be expected to bring about the highest good in all of His actions. This does not mean that we will always agree with those actions. We are the fallible ones.

God knowing whether the nations would follow or not, first is corporate and historical. Therefore, a nation that chooses to follow is and was indeed blessed. It is only later when we see the contract broken that there is an effect of ended covenant.

So firstly, this covenant was effective as long as it lasted, so had immediate benefit for those carrying their end of it (genuine, not a lie)
Secondly, God can make a covenant for as long as it lasts even knowing it will eventually be broken by us, because He is a God of intervention. (genuine, not a lie)
Thirdly, there is a truth taught both concerning the nature of who God is (He is caring, He intervenes, He holds His end of a covenant), and the nature of what He desires to accomplish. (genuine)
Fourthly, it is not always seen clearly what His intention was, but I am implicitly trusting that God is effectual. (genuine, God does not lie)
Fifthly, God does make covenants with His nation knowing that the nation as a whole, may or may not receive benefit, for the express benefit of those who will.
(genuine)

In Him

Lon

 

[Servo]

God, in His holy wrath, hated Esau and predestined to reprobation before he was even born.

What do you think that means exactly? "Hated"? Do you understand Hebrew figures of speech?

Genesis 29:30
Then Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah. And he served with Laban still another seven years.

 

[Clete]

Yeah, sure. The systematic theology of Calvin is destroyed on TOL by Clete! What a joke!

I didn't say that, did I?

Stop reacting like an emotionally out of control teenage girl and engage the debate, if you can.

If the actual point I've made is invalid prove it.

Godly love = grace and salvation.

Did God save Esau in Jesus Christ? Scripture, please.

Nang

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.​

Your equation left out the "whoever believes" part and is thus unbiblical.

You really do believe God hated that little unborn baby, don't you?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

You really do believe God hated that little unborn baby, don't you?


Resting in Him,
Clete

I didn't say that, did I?

Stop reacting like an irrational, emotional, spoiled brat, and engage the debate, if you can.

Nang

 

[Clete]

I didn't say that, did I?

Stop reacting like an irrational, emotional, spoiled brat, and engage the debate, if you can.

Nang

Yeah Nang, your accusing me of not engaging the debate holds all sorts of water. :chuckle:

Are you denying that this is what you believe?

You're the one who claims to be a Calvinist! Every Calvinist I know believes firmly that God hated Esau before he was even born! And the Calvinist's use of Romans 9 to support their theology is based on that exact belief! AMR, a very well educated Calvinist just got through stating that he believed that God hated Esau as did Lonster. So how about it, Nang? What do you say? Did God hate Esau before he ever born?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Yeah Nang, your accusing me of not engaging the debate holds all sorts of water. :chuckle:

It has been my observation that you debate less than you attempt to manipulate. But then, that is just my take comparing you to giants of the Christian faith whose debates I have witnessed over the years.

You're the one who claims to be a Calvinist!

Actually, I claim to be Reformed, but my friends call me a "Calvinist" for short. :chuckle:

Every Calvinist I know believes firmly that God hated Esau before he was even born!

Actually, the subject of Romans 9 is Godly promise according to election. Jacob received the promises of God (loved), but Esau was left in his sins (hated).

And the Calvinist's use of Romans 9 to support their theology is based on that exact belief!

You know, it is almost funny. The Calvinist says God "hates" Esau, in that Esau did not receive the promises of God and was not shown grace and mercy, and their opponents cry "foul!" claiming this cannot be so, but God only loves Esau less than He loved Jacob. But in the same breath they declare that God could not hate the individual Esau, they claim God instead hated the entire nation of Edomites.

The Calvinist is much more merciful than this, believing that even though Esau was not a child of promise, God surely saved a remnant of souls from Esau's line . . .for Scripture says heaven is inhabited with persons saved out of ALL nations, peoples, tribes, and tongues. (Rev. 5:9, 7:9) That includes the Edomites, if not Esau.

Now which is a worse hatred? God not electing one man to salvation, or a God who hates and sends an entire nation to Hell?

What say you?

Does God hate all Edomites because the Scripture says God hates Esau?

Did God love and save all Israel because the Scripture says God loved Jacob?

Is there any Scripture that says God has ever saved an entire nation? Do you deny the Scripture that says God saves souls out of all the nations of the world?

Nah . . .your understanding and interpretation of Romans 9 is way off base; thus your understanding of God choosing to love Jacob and hate Esau is skewed.

The bottom line, is that God will show mercy to who He wills (Romans 9:15); predetermined before any individual man did good or bad; strictly according Godly grace and election to save a remnant of humankind in Jesus Christ.

The love of God is centered in His Son, and those created in His Beloved. God's love or hatred is based upon who is in Christ and who is not.

AMR, a very well educated Calvinist just got through stating that he believed that God hated Esau as did Lonster. So how about it, Nang? What do you say? Did God hate Esau before he ever born?

That's what the Bible says.

And after all, you have told everyone you think it is good and right for you to hate me and my husband, so what is your problem accepting this portion of Scripture?

If you can hate your enemies, why can't God?

(Even though God commands you, as a mere mortal, to love your enemies . . .but I know this little detail does not dissuade you from your righteous passion.)

Nang

 

[patman]

No, you just meant to infer, right?

Since I am a Calvinist that believes in what you call the "settled view", I take the liberty to butt in and ask you if you approve of teachers using show and tell in order to educate. Like, using "displays" and "demonstrations" or "examples" in order to get across a point and make an impression.

The Law of God is holy and good, but it was demanded of a people whom God knew could never obey. Was that bad of God to keep reiterating His commands to do what is right, telling people what they should do, despite His knowledge of the extent their sinfulness? Or was it bad of the sinners who failed to live up to what the Law demands? Or did God have a good purpose and end goal for giving the Law to sinners who could not keep it?

There is a Scriptural answer to this . . .

Nang

This is an entirely different point. God can show us what is right and wrong even if we will at times do the wrong thing. The difference between that and what I was asking Lon to understand is this: God added to the commands promises for those who obey/disobey them.

You must understand what a lie is, right? If someone tells someone they will do something and know all along that they will not do it, that is a lie. If the future is settled, and God promises things he knows he will break (no matter what the excuse) it is a lie.

So, if the future is settled, you must face the fact that God can lie. You must reject the verse that says God cannot lie, and you have to realize that under the settled view, you really can't trust God because he can lie.

 

[patman]

I know you did not, but it was an important consideration for the analogy.

"But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak..."

“Because this nation has transgressed..."

Here you are seeing a deception from our perspective, because you believe if God knows an outcome then it 'must necessarily' lead to a false offer. I counter this by saying no it does not. Knowing that you will do something without doubt does not make me responsible for your actions. God can be expected to bring about the highest good in all of His actions. This does not mean that we will always agree with those actions. We are the fallible ones.

God knowing whether the nations would follow or not, first is corporate and historical. Therefore, a nation that chooses to follow is and was indeed blessed. It is only later when we see the contract broken that there is an effect of ended covenant.

So firstly, this covenant was effective as long as it lasted, so had immediate benefit for those carrying their end of it (genuine, not a lie)
Secondly, God can make a covenant for as long as it lasts even knowing it will eventually be broken by us, because He is a God of intervention. (genuine, not a lie)
Thirdly, there is a truth taught both concerning the nature of who God is (He is caring, He intervenes, He holds His end of a covenant), and the nature of what He desires to accomplish. (genuine)
Fourthly, it is not always seen clearly what His intention was, but I am implicitly trusting that God is effectual. (genuine, God does not lie)
Fifthly, God does make covenants with His nation knowing that the nation as a whole, may or may not receive benefit, for the express benefit of those who will.
(genuine)

In Him

Lon

Are we talking about the same thing Lon?

I am trying to show you that with Settled Theology, God is made out to be a liar.

Please re-read those verses.

You said, "I counter this by saying no it does not. Knowing that you will do something without doubt does not make me responsible for your actions."

I am not offering God is responsible. I am offering that he lied if he knew the outcome. The two are different. If God knew what he said wouldn't come about, even if what he said was conditional, he lied. Why? Because if God knows the outcome, there is no such thing as conditions to him, it is all settled. Conditions are predetermined.

 

[Lon]

Are we talking about the same thing Lon?

I am trying to show you that with Settled Theology, God is made out to be a liar.

Please re-read those verses.

You said, "I counter this by saying no it does not. Knowing that you will do something without doubt does not make me responsible for your actions."

I am not offering God is responsible. I am offering that he lied if he knew the outcome. The two are different. If God knew what he said wouldn't come about, even if what he said was conditional, he lied. Why? Because if God knows the outcome, there is no such thing as conditions to him, it is all settled. Conditions are predetermined.

I've tried to show that the question "Did God lie?" is 'no.' I'm trying to say that God First, did keep the covenant until it was broken. You, I believe, are saying that God lied about the covenant because He knew omnisciently it would be broken, but I'm saying He didn't lie because the covenant to Joshua, for instance, was kept. He cleared the land. However many years later when the rest of the tribes did not keep their end of the bargain, God saw the covenant as broken.

So you are trying to understand how omniscience doesn't lead to an automatic lie, from what I understand. It wasn't a lie, because God kept His end of the covenant, because it was effective for as long as it lasted, because God will bless any that did keep the covenant, even if the nation as a whole failed, and because a broken covenant teaches the people something about God, and something about themselves.

God would see the implications of the conditions, so you can ask why He'd make a covenant He knew would be broken, but you cannot accuse omniscience of lying about it.
If I said, "You can have my motorcycle if you can pick it up and carry it away. I'm not lying. I may know that you cannot pick it up, but my offer isn't a lie. It is the condition I'm making for you to have my motorcycle. There are times when such an offer teaches something. There are times when the offer is made for another purpose: to humble. You might have said, "I'm strong as an ox, I can lift anything" just before I told you that you could have my motorcycle and I was trying to make some kind of point. I believe God does try to show us our weakenesses. I believe we need to learn to rely on Him. I believe we need to realize that if we have a conditional promise, we are responsible for doing something. It also points to a greater appreciation when there is no condition. When God says, I'll do it.

I'm hopeful this clarifies something at least.

In Him

Lon

 

[patman]

I've tried to show that the question "Did God lie?" is 'no.' I'm trying to say that God First, did keep the covenant until it was broken. You, I believe, are saying that God lied about the covenant because He knew omnisciently it would be broken, but I'm saying He didn't lie because the covenant to Joshua, for instance, was kept. He cleared the land. However many years later when the rest of the tribes did not keep their end of the bargain, God saw the covenant as broken.

So you are trying to understand how omniscience doesn't lead to an automatic lie, from what I understand. It wasn't a lie, because God kept His end of the covenant, because it was effective for as long as it lasted, because God will bless any that did keep the covenant, even if the nation as a whole failed, and because a broken covenant teaches the people something about God, and something about themselves.

God would see the implications of the conditions, so you can ask why He'd make a covenant He knew would be broken, but you cannot accuse omniscience of lying about it.
If I said, "You can have my motorcycle if you can pick it up and carry it away. I'm not lying. I may know that you cannot pick it up, but my offer isn't a lie. It is the condition I'm making for you to have my motorcycle. There are times when such an offer teaches something. There are times when the offer is made for another purpose: to humble. You might have said, "I'm strong as an ox, I can lift anything" just before I told you that you could have my motorcycle and I was trying to make some kind of point. I believe God does try to show us our weakenesses. I believe we need to learn to rely on Him. I believe we need to realize that if we have a conditional promise, we are responsible for doing something. It also points to a greater appreciation when there is no condition. When God says, I'll do it.

I'm hopeful this clarifies something at least.

In Him

Lon

Well, thats just it, God never cleared out the land. Some of those people are still around today.

And it is a lie to say you'd give my your bike if I can pick it up knowing I can't. And it is furthermore wrong if you slapped me after I found out I can't pick it up. You are setting me up to strive and fail and then get punished for it. There is so much wrong with the implications given to God under the Settled Theology. I wish you could see them.

 

[Philetus]

From: C.H.Pinnock: Most Moved Mover pg 27​

Who God is and what it is to be divine is something we have to learn where God has revealed Godself. We may believe that God can and must only be absolute in contrast to all that is relative exalted in contrast to all that is lovely, active in contrast to all suffering, inviolable in contrast to all temptation, transcendent in contrast to all immanence, and therefore divine in contrast to every thing human, in short that God can and must be only the Wholly Other. But such beliefs are shown to be quite untenable, corrupt, and pagan, by the fact that God does in fact be and do this in Jesus Christ. 6​

The gospel commits us to a new war of understanding God. It requires a metaphysical revolution because in Jesus Christ we encounter a God who changes for our sake and suffers on our behalf. We are led to speak of God as one who humbles himself and proves to be perfect in his changing as well as in his not-changing. In the Greek world, perfection was associated with transcendence of time, change, and suffering, but in the gospel God acts in events and identifies with temporal history.
The God of the gospel is not the god of philosophy, at least not of Hellenic philosophy. The God and Father of Jesus Christ is compassionate, suffering, and victorious love. The god of philosophy is immutable, timeless and apathetic. We must speak boldly for the sake of the gospel: Augustine was wrong to have said that God does not grieve over the suffering of the world; Anselm was wrong to have said that God does not experience compassion; Calvin was wrong to have said that biblical figures that convey such things are mere accommodations to finite understanding. For too long pagan assumptions about God’s nature have influenced theological reflection. Our thinking needs to he reformed in the light of the self-revelation of God in the gospel and we must stop attributing to God qualities that undermine God’s own self-disclosure. Let us not treat the attributes of God independently of the Bible but view the biblical metaphors as reality-depicting descriptions of the living God, whose very being is self-giving love. When we do so, God’s unity will not be viewed as a mathematical oneness but as a unity that includes diversity; God’s steadfastness will not be seen as a deadening immutability but constancy of character that includes change; God’s power will not be seen as raw omnipotence but as the sovereignty of love whose strength is revealed in weakness; and God’s omniscience will not be seen as know-it-all but as a wisdom which shapes the future in dialogue with creatures.7

Footnotes:
6. Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1, 186.
7. See what may be the finest section in Barth’s Church Dogmatics, ‘The Reality of God’ Il/i, ch. 6.​

The more I read the Calvinists posting their defense of Calvinism on these threads the more I am forced to ask, “Is God really that un-Christ-like? Is Jesus that terribly different from God the Father? Are the convicting, convincing, and comforting activities of the Holy Spirit really that far removed from the creative activity of God and His redeeming actions through His Son and Spirit? “We (too) must speak boldly for the sake of the gospel.”

It is time to return to a Gospel that is Christocentric! Our theologies must more and more reflect the knowledge of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. When we do so, I am convinced we will find the whole of scripture agreeing with God’s final Word to the world. Furthermore, I also believe we will only then find a hearing among those in the world who are more honest about us than we are about ourselves.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

:the_wave:

​

The more I read the Calvinists posting their defense of Calvinism on these threads the more I am forced to ask, “Is God really that un-Christ-like? Is Jesus that terribly different from God the Father? Are the convicting, convincing, and comforting activities of the Holy Spirit really that far removed from the creative activity of God and His redeeming actions through His Son and Spirit? “We (too) must speak boldly for the sake of the gospel.”

It is time to return to a Gospel that is Christocentric! Our theologies must more and more reflect the knowledge of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. When we do so, I am convinced we will find the whole of scripture agreeing with God’s final Word to the world. Furthermore, I also believe we will only then find a hearing among those in the world who are more honest about us than we are about ourselves.​

When I see the muddled thinking, contradictions, and the attempts to rationalize what is clearly irrational, I can't help but get excited, with you, about the potential of the Gospel being preached and taught properly.

Here are pics of me, on my website, doing evangelism in Washington Square Park in the middle of New York University NYC. I used OV theology and presuppositional apologetics via Fransis Schaeffer, who, by the way in his book, Genesis in Time and Space, states there is "sequence" in the Trinity, before the creation of the world. I did this for three summers before turning to the internet to build my web site and work on publishing some books on my desk top. I can't even begin to tell you how powerful it was. http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Evangelism.html

Dynamic Free Theism​

The only view of ultimate reality that provides
rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
The only view that can prove the existence and explain
the nature of God.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/index.html​