ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

I saw the context.

Not if you call this other than an covenant. So God knew Abraham would be faithful back then is the point, and "now I know" must not refer to factual knowledge, similarly to other passages.

It would seem that as one conceived the idea of creation and dealt with all the possible ramifications, that the others were learning as well.

The sad result of Open View theology, God doesn't know all there is to know about God.

 

[godrulz]

The sad result of Open View theology, God doesn't know all there is to know about God.

God is omniscient. If this nonsensical statement is the best attack you have, you need to go back to kindergarten. God knows everything knowable, especially all truths about Himself. The issue is the nature of creation (partially unsettled), not whether God is God.

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus View Post
God knows His own intentions as possibilities, you idiot, not as actual until HE CARIES THEM OUT and sometimes God changes His mind and does otherwise.

This assumes God doesn't carry out some of His plans because He is unable. Or, it might suggest that God doesn't know His own intentions if He were to change His mind.

Where do you get unable or doesn't know out of my statement? Are you really that stupid? Honestly RobE.

NO, it assumes God doesn't carry out some of His plans because HE CHOOSES NOT TO. He chooses to do OTHERWISE. God is alive and aware (full knowledge) not only of His own intentions but is also aware of changing circumstances that hinge on the response of others who are made aware of His intentions through revelation. Sometimes God discloses not only His firm plans but also His intentions.

God told Moses of His intention to destroy His people and Moses persuaded God to do otherwise for His own name's sake. It is really that simple.

Sometimes God doesn't change His mind and carries out His intentions:

Gen 18:16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?​

I quit reading your post after the above comment. If you are so unclear about that there isn’t anything else I want to hear you say.

Philetus

John 15:15
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
Luke 12:47
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.​

 

[Philetus]

Not if you call this other than an covenant. So God knew Abraham would be faithful back then is the point, and "now I know" must not refer to factual knowledge, similarly to other passages.


The sad result of Open View theology, God doesn't know all there is to know about God.

What's sad is that Lee doesn't know much about what there is to know about Open View theology.

 

[Yorzhik]

SaulToPaul, This thread moves fast and you probably missed this one, but I'd be curious to have you clarify.

To make it clear to us, and to prove your point; just add the concept of "might not happen" to any of these:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Then take whichever/all that you added "might not happen" to and add it to the end of the syllogism. It should make sense and we'll all see what you see.

 

[RobE]

Where do you get unable or doesn't know out of my statement? Are you really that stupid? Honestly RobE.

Is open theism really that shallow? Honestly PHiletus.

If God intents to do A and ends up doing B because of "changing circumstances that hinge on the response of others"; then God is unable to carry out His original intentions for one reason or another.

If God intends to do A based on His knowledge and changes His mind based on an unknown occurance(something He doesn't know); then He believes His intention is A, but finds it to be B in the end result.

NO, it assumes God doesn't carry out some of His plans because HE CHOOSES NOT TO. He chooses to do OTHERWISE. God is alive and aware (full knowledge) not only of His own intentions but is also aware of changing circumstances that hinge on the response of others who are made aware of His intentions through revelation. Sometimes God discloses not only His firm plans but also His intentions.

However, God is able to carry out His original intention without delay. For instance, God was able to destroy the Israelites without any further discussion with Moses if it was truly His intention to do so. The same with the Ninevites, Tyre, Hezekiah, etc. Why does this continue to escape the thinking of open theists?

Did God need Neb. to destroy Tyre? Is this the same God who flooded the entire earth and killed every inhabitant except for those on the Ark? Is this the same God who sent the Angel of Death to kill the firstborn of the Egyptians? Why don't you do a study on 'standing in the gap' or 'averting judgement' in the Bible to resolve open theism's ridiculous ideas that God changes His mind.

God seeks repentance or no repentance based on His own desires to bring about His own intentions. Did Moses spare the Jews or did God? Did the Ninevites spare themselves? Is a man able to spare himself based on the shifting emotions and mind of God, dear Heraclitus? Or is man's own self-righteousness able to elevate himself to perfection, dear Pelagius?

God told Moses of His intention to destroy His people and Moses persuaded God to do otherwise for His own name's sake. It is really that simple.

No. If you read scripture then you will see that God needs a person to stand in the 'gap' between Him and them. You will even find scriptures where God states He was unable to find anyone to perform the function. It's a matter of Divine Government. Look at the prophets where this is specifically stated.

While your at it, look up the meaning of covenant. Did God forge a covenant with Abraham resulting in "all nations being blessed". Was that Covenant fulfilled despite the rejection and rebellion which Israel partook of? Was God faithful to His own intentions in regards to the Covenant despite the unfaithfulness of those He made it with? In other words, was the Covenant conditional as Muz has suggested or was it unconditional as Christianity holds?

 

[RobE]

Not if you call this other than an covenant. So God knew Abraham would be faithful back then is the point, and "now I know" must not refer to factual knowledge, similarly to other passages.

The sad result of Open View theology, God doesn't know all there is to know about God.

Yes. According to open theism God doesn't know His own intentions and desires. He simply waits to respond to His own creation. Always serving, watching, and hoping for the best. How is God's Holiness, Authority, and Supreme Kingship established without knowing His own intentions will manifest themselves? When every act might be thwarted by an open theist who desires to be free just as Eve did. In the quest for freedom, freedom is surrendered.

 

[themuzicman]

God is in control of much more than most think...

Abraham had faith because God gave it to him...

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

You know,it's funny. I've never seen a Calvinist consider the context of these three verses before. John 6:37 is about Christ's authority. Has nothing to do with election at all. (FYI, "all that" is neuter, not masculine, whereas "him that cometh" is masculine. Thus, they aren't related.) Also, the conclusion to this argument is that the one who beholds the son of man and believes has eternal life. Thus, there is a response required, as Jesus says.

John 6:44 speaks about the ability of someone to come to Christ. Verse 45 speaks of the choice the person must make to both hear and learn before coming to Christ.

John 6:65 speaks, again, of their ability (or inability) to believe.

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

Sounds like God enabled, and she choose to believe. Free will city, man!

1Cr 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

You gotta be kidding me.

Now watch this...

Ex 21 12 “Whoever strikes a person so that he dies must be put to death.
13 But if he didn’t intend any harm, and yet God caused it to happen by his hand, I will appoint a place for you where he may flee."

Even our decisions are governed by God. If someone dies accidentally, it is because "God caused it to happen."

Um... this is an accidental harming, not a decision by the individual.

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
Mat 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

:cloud9:

OK, since when does God being able to count affect our decisions?

You see, this is precisely the kind of proof texting that drives people away from Calvinism. None of these verses are exegeted as you wish us to read them.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Is open theism really that shallow? Honestly PHiletus.

If God intents to do A and ends up doing B because of "changing circumstances that hinge on the response of others"; then God is unable to carry out His original intentions for one reason or another.

If God intends to do A based on His knowledge and changes His mind based on an unknown occurance(something He doesn't know); then He believes His intention is A, but finds it to be B in the end result.



However, God is able to carry out His original intention without delay. For instance, God was able to destroy the Israelites without any further discussion with Moses if it was truly His intention to do so. The same with the Ninevites, Tyre, Hezekiah, etc. Why does this continue to escape the thinking of open theists?

Did God need Neb. to destroy Tyre? Is this the same God who flooded the entire earth and killed every inhabitant except for those on the Ark? Is this the same God who sent the Angel of Death to kill the firstborn of the Egyptians? Why don't you do a study on 'standing in the gap' or 'averting judgement' in the Bible to resolve open theism's ridiculous ideas that God changes His mind.

God seeks repentance or no repentance based on His own desires to bring about His own intentions. Did Moses spare the Jews or did God? Did the Ninevites spare themselves? Is a man able to spare himself based on the shifting emotions and mind of God, dear Heraclitus? Or is man's own self-righteousness able to elevate himself to perfection, dear Pelagius?



No. If you read scripture then you will see that God needs a person to stand in the 'gap' between Him and them. You will even find scriptures where God states He was unable to find anyone to perform the function. It's a matter of Divine Government. Look at the prophets where this is specifically stated.

While your at it, look up the meaning of covenant. Did God forge a covenant with Abraham resulting in "all nations being blessed". Was that Covenant fulfilled despite the rejection and rebellion which Israel partook of? Was God faithful to His own intentions in regards to the Covenant despite the unfaithfulness of those He made it with? In other words, was the Covenant conditional as Muz has suggested or was it unconditional as Christianity holds?

You are an idiot talking out both sides of his face.

God doesn't always do what He is able to do ... BY CHOICE He limits His power to do. Sometimes God does what He does irregardless. Sometimes He doesn't carry out His intentions/desires and would apparently just as soon not do it because He can't find anything to work with except idiots like you. It is the world’s loss.

God's Covenant to bless the whole world through Christ was/is unconditional. His using Abraham to get it done was conditional and whether the whole world responds is conditional.

done

 

[lee_merrill]

God is omniscient. If this nonsensical statement is the best attack you have, you need to go back to kindergarten.

You're usually fairly gracious.

God knows everything knowable, especially all truths about Himself.

Right, so God the Father is not learning about God the Son as they have some discussion about creation and redemption--please inform Muz, although he is trained in theology, he seems to have abandoned omniscience on this point.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Yes. According to open theism God doesn't know His own intentions and desires. He simply waits to respond to His own creation. Always serving, watching, and hoping for the best. How is God's Holiness, Authority, and Supreme Kingship established without knowing His own intentions will manifest themselves? When every act might be thwarted by an open theist who desires to be free just as Eve did. In the quest for freedom, freedom is surrendered.

This is simply a wrong understanding of the Open View (which should not be confused with Process Thought or finite godism; I would also reject this straw man caricature of God).

As a personal being, God does know and has revealed much of His heart and mind (including intentions and desires). A settled future is not necessary for this to be true. His sovereignty is providential, not meticulous. He does not tightly control creation. It takes a greater God (omnicompetent) to rule despite delegating finite freedom to others. Just because there are criminals in your country does not mean Bush is not President with full authority. Rebels are dealt with, but they do not dethrone a sovereign.

Any self-limitation of God's control is voluntary and not an absolute limitation on His sovereignty.

God's will can be undermined in individual lives (Lk. 7:30). This does not affect His global project which His omnicompetence (you are making him finite, not OT) will ensure. We don't limit God, so don't falsely accuse us of doing so. This is classic attack on OT, but flawed (misunderstand/misrepresent).

Genuine freedom is limited. It does not make God impotent nor man omnipotent!

 

[godrulz]

You are an idiot talking out both sides of his face.

irregardless.

ne

Idiot? Touch of sozoitis?

There is no such word as 'irregardless' (one of the few things I remember from English class).

 

[godrulz]

You're usually fairly gracious.


Right, so God the Father is not learning about God the Son as they have some discussion about creation and redemption--please inform Muz, although he is trained in theology, he seems to have abandoned omniscience on this point.

Blessings,
Lee

Rev. 1:4

God has a past, present, future. He is able to think in sequence, even in His eternal triune relations. God is personal and dynamic, not impersonal and static.

 

[lee_merrill]

Rev. 1:4

God has a past, present, future.

This couldn't be from our perspective? And time is relative, so what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?

He is able to think in sequence...

Certainly.

... even in His eternal triune relations.

That is the question, does God experience new and unknown events in relationships within the Trinity?

I must ask you to defend this statement, but not with conclusions! I shall need a few arguments.

God is personal and dynamic, not impersonal and static.

I wish you wouldn't attribute to all Calvinists what you find in some.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Idiot? Touch of sozoitis?

There is no such word as 'irregardless' (one of the few things I remember from English class).

I think the only thing I left out was ‘blithering’. (See Clete’s earlier post.)

English class has changed a bit in the past fifty years. Perhaps there are things you should disremember. Notwithstanding nonstandard usage as per Encarta Dictionary irregardless it’s listed. Now as for omnicompetent … not sure they recognize that one yet. But if you use it enough (and I hope you do) and it catches on I’m sure the future of the English language is open. :chuckle:

Irregardless; God is omnicompetent.

I’ll leave Butthead and Beavis to your tutelage.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

This couldn't be from our perspective? And time is relative, so what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?


Lee

There is no reason to not take the verse at face value. If the Spirit wanted us to think God is timeless, He could have inspired that concept through John (Plato was able to articulate it years before in the same Greek language). The verse teaches tense and duration. God's eternality is endless time, not timelessness. The only reason you will not accept the revelation is because it contradicts your preconceived concepts. It is not figurative or from our perspective only. You only use that loophole because it does not match your ideas. Change your ideas, not Scripture. God has a past, present, future and is from everlasting to everlasting. Timelessness or eternal now is pagan philosophy, not biblical.

There is a relative element to time from our subjective perspective, but this does not negate God's temporality (sequence/duration/succession) objectively.

Either view leads to different conclusions, so if you accept my conclusion, you will have to change other views on foreknowledge, etc. Oh well.:singer:

 

[godrulz]

'Irregardless' is like nails on a chalk board. Just because the language is going to pot is no reason to justify it.

 

[lee_merrill]

There is no reason to not take the verse at face value. If the Spirit wanted us to think God is timeless, He could have inspired that concept through John...

"Before Abraham was, I AM"?

The verse teaches tense and duration.

Certainly, the question is whose perspective this is from.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God...

And we do not take this at face value. So simply saying we should take verses at face value will not do, we have to discern where the literal sense is appropriate.

Where, by the way is the first moment? This may argue for God being outside of time, even!

It is not figurative or from our perspective only. You only use that loophole because it does not match your ideas. Change your ideas, not Scripture. God has a past, present, future and is from everlasting to everlasting. Timelessness or eternal now is pagan philosophy, not biblical.

But none of this is arguing for your interpretation, which I think is due to philosophy, so there! But we have to ground our reasoning in Scripture.

... so if you accept my conclusion, you will have to change other views on foreknowledge, etc. Oh well.:singer:

He waves the red flag! :cow: Now what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

"Before Abraham was, I AM"?


Certainly, the question is whose perspective this is from.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God...

And we do not take this at face value. So simply saying we should take verses at face value will not do, we have to discern where the literal sense is appropriate.

Where, by the way is the first moment? This may argue for God being outside of time, even!


But none of this is arguing for your interpretation, which I think is due to philosophy, so there! But we have to ground our reasoning in Scripture.


He waves the red flag! :cow: Now what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?

Blessings,
Lee

God is the Alpha/Omega, the Beginning/End, First/Last (as was Jesus who experienced divine-human temporality as the God-Man). This means He has no beginning and no end. He is the uncreated Creator (Ps. 90:2 from everlasting to everlasting; Ps. 102 full of years, not no years). There is no hint of timelessness (your imported assumption). Either way, the title is compatible with endless time or timelessness (whatever that means for a personal being).

Before Abe, I am...before is a tensed expression again showing endless duration, not timelessness. I AM means that God exists or is self-existent, the uncreated Creator with no beginning or end. It does not preclude endless time or duration. It does not imply timelessness (your eisegesis/preconceived assumption). It also does not contradict Rev. 1:4 God existed in the past, exists now, and will exist into the future (even as we also do, though we had a beginning but no end). "I AM" does not inherently mean Platonic 'eternal now'. It is consistent with endless time or timelessness (as incoherent as the latter is).

Gen.- Rev. shows that God has a history (His Story). It becomes nonsense to think of this sequential history as one simultaneous moment. God's reality cannot be diametrically opposed to His revealed reality at the same time. There is no hint of timelessness, but a plethora of verses about His ongoing duration paralleling human history. A timeless God could not incarnate. Jesus is God (and Man) and experienced duration. He did not die and rise before he was incarnated or at the same time. It is not a matter of divine vs human perception, but fundamental reality.

 

[lee_merrill]

God is the Alpha/Omega, the Beginning/End, First/Last (as was Jesus who experienced divine-human temporality as the God-Man). This means He has no beginning and no end.

At the beginning and the end he is there, and is the author, I would say.

Ps. 102 full of years, not no years. There is no hint of timelessness (your imported assumption).

Actually, for timelessness, I refer to other verses. I need not find timelessness in every reference to time, with God.

I AM means that God exists or is self-existent, the uncreated Creator with no beginning or end.

Yet God is present there! the mixing of tenses may indicate that.

"I AM" can also be read "I will be who I will be" (Ex. 3:13-14) different tenses can be read here. And God's experience of time is certainly different than ours:

Ps. 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Pt. 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

How can both be true? Yet they are, and this is possible if God is outside of time, for then God need not experience all time every moment at a constant rate.

It also does not contradict Rev. 1:4 God existed in the past, exists now, and will exist into the future (even as we also do, though we had a beginning but no end).

Revelation 11:17 "We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign."

God no longer is to come, in that at this time he has no future? No, instead these verses are from our perspective, and when God is no longer "to come," then he has come.

Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done."

It becomes nonsense to think of this sequential history as one simultaneous moment.

Well, that makes God be in one point in time. Simultaneous is a notion of time. Why not say all moments are present to him, accessible as we experience any present moment? For if God knows every detail about the past, doesn't that make this "virtual reality" essentially the same as actual reality? and similarly if God knows every detail about the future.

There is no hint of timelessness...

Well, I've posted verses with more than a hint, I think. Here is one more, God speaks of events that were yet in the future as if they were done in the past, really done then:

2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

And once you have foreknowledge, and omniscience, you have "eternal now." So I don't think the philosophers are even required here to make the case in this area.

A timeless God could not incarnate. Jesus is God (and Man) and experienced duration.

Yes, but God is not Jesus--so Jesus could enter time, yet God could be timeless.

Good discussion here! Yer makin' me think. Or so I think. :chew:

Blessings,
Lee