BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

Thanks Godrulz

Thanks Godrulz

Sins are wrong moral choices. They are not substances or things. The passage is metaphorical and should not be taken as a wooden literalism. Murder cannot hang on the cross. It is an action, not an object.

I think your getting why I don't think God can author sin. It's not a thing, it's a supernatural/natural occurance. Thus, it can't be authored. So a foreknowing God didn't author sin whether he knew about it or not, right? Satan sinned and Adam sinned even if God knew they would. He isn't responsible for them, right? Yet he took responsibility on the cross for their mistakes. He didn't make the mistake; He only gave them a chance to live. The only chance they had. This is why Open Viewers should quit saying that the Calvinist God authored sin. Is sin rebellion against God? HMMMMM......

RobE

p.s. Even if He made the gun, He didn't fire it! Did He?

 

[godrulz]

I think your getting why I don't think God can author sin. It's not a thing, it's a supernatural/natural occurance. Thus, it can't be authored. So a foreknowing God didn't author sin whether he knew about it or not, right? Satan sinned and Adam sinned even if God knew they would. He isn't responsible for them, right? Yet he took responsibility on the cross for their mistakes. He didn't make the mistake; He only gave them a chance to live. The only chance they had. This is why Open Viewers should quit saying that the Calvinist God authored sin. Is sin rebellion against God? HMMMMM......

RobE

p.s. Even if He made the gun, He didn't fire it! Did He?

God made man as a free moral agent with the possibility of chosing good or evil. It was not necessary or a foregone conclusion that he would sin. He had a potential plan of redemption IF man man sinned. When man sinned, the plan was implemented. It did not become actual until the cross. Originally, creation was very good. Then He was grieved He made man after the Fall (not before). If man had genuine free moral agency, then God would only know that sin was possible. It was not a certain object of knowledge before creation. One has to read this preconceived back into the text to come to that conclusion. If one simply reads the chronological, historical narrative, the future is seen as open and uncertain. Correctly distinguishing possible from actual/certain is not a limitation on God but the reality that He experiences.

Determinism would allow for certain knowledge before the fact, but at the expense of freedom. Simple foreknowledge requires a closed future and would also negate contingency.

 

[Mustard Seed]

God made man as a free moral agent with the possibility of chosing good or evil. It was not necessary or a foregone conclusion that he would sin. He had a potential plan of redemption IF man man sinned. When man sinned, the plan was implemented. It did not become actual until the cross. Originally, creation was very good. Then He was grieved He made man after the Fall (not before). If man had genuine free moral agency, then God would only know that sin was possible. It was not a certain object of knowledge before creation. One has to read this preconceived back into the text to come to that conclusion. If one simply reads the chronological, historical narrative, the future is seen as open and uncertain. Correctly distinguishing possible from actual/certain is not a limitation on God but the reality that He experiences.

Determinism would allow for certain knowledge before the fact, but at the expense of freedom. Simple foreknowledge requires a closed future and would also negate contingency.

So here's a question then.

Christ means anointed, correct?

Anointed means he was chosen before the foundation of the world, correct?

If there'd never come the fall then God's chosing Christ BEFORE the creation of the world would have been in vain SINCE he never would have been needed had there never been the Fall.

So then why would God chose something to annoint, the Christ, BEFORE the foundation of the world, if such a choice could have the possibility of being completely vain?

Then we could go on to the ramifications of having a God that had done things that were vain.

 

[Clete]

Anointed means he was chosen before the foundation of the world, correct?

Where do you get that "anointed" means "chosen before the foundation of the world"?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

Patman: That is why I wrote that God planned the redemption before creation.

But where is the verse that says God planned redemption before creation? There are verses speaking of "from the creation," but that need not imply time beforehand.

You said that a certain verse shows that Christ is crucified for all time?

No, again you are assuming God is in time, and then using this to disprove my view that God is not in time! If we assume my view is wrong, then we will certainly find that my view is wrong...

Lee: Jesus says "truly, truly" about Peter's denial, so how can this be possibly wrong? This is Jesus' way of saying this is quite firm, and quite solemn. Then, while Peter is being reminded of his denial, Jesus confirms Peter's statement "you know all things" with another prediction about Peter's future! Again saying, "truly, truly."

Patman: You assume that there is no other way for Jesus to know that Peter would deny him.

No, I'm saying this could not possibly be wrong, because Jesus said "truly, truly," and thus this cannot be an estimate. And this is not simply character solidification, since the prediction involved Peter not remembering the first time the rooster crowed, and yet remembering the second time. How could he know Peter well enough to predict that aspect? And again, not possibly be wrong.

Jesus knew that Peter wouldn't pass the test, it was obvious to Jesus.

If you don't agree with me, you have to see that there is more than one possibility for an answer.

But the alternatives are not probable, we can't simply pick a possibility, however slim, and make our escape along that route. There were several tests here, too! Peter had to have courage enough to follow Jesus right into the high priest's courtyard, courage not to run away after the first or second challenge, and yet deny him. This is not a simply prediction of denial, this required a balance of courage and fear. Those aren't easy to balance!

Other people were involved in this prediction, too, why didn't the soldier who recognized Peter try and arrest him, as he did in the garden? Why did the doorkeeper let him in, or not send him out, after she realized he was "one of them"?

Knowledge of the future is the only probable answer here, I would say, all other answers are quite improbable.

ISA 27:6 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

Lee: So then God's expectation of good fruit from this vineyard will not be disappointed.

Patman: Apparently, for you, God expecting one thing to happen then getting another thing is dismissible.

But the word is not "expect," the word is "said," as in the version that you quoted, that is most literal, which need not imply an expectation for good grapes at that time.

Lee: Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Patman: God's PLAN was to threaten the Ninevites with destruction in hopes that they would repent. If they repented, God would be extremely happy that his children had returned to him. If they did not repent, he would be exercising justice and judgment, as he as the right.

I agree! Thus God did not change his overall plan, and thus he did not, even in the Open View, completely change his mind.

Lee: How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

Patman: Good question. Again, shouldn't you answer this? If God knew that Jonah was going to spoil his plan..... why do it?

Because God's plan was to bring repentance! "Was not this what I said..." (Jon. 4:2). Jonah knew it, and thus again, God did not change his plan. But this question needs to be answered by the Open View, for if God can act, and spoil his own plan, then how can we trust him?

Lee: How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Patman: God, in Jeremiah 18:7-9 says:

The instant I speak concerning a nation... to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent...

Well yes, that is not unconditional destruction, but the Open View holds that this threat against Nineveh was unconditional.

Patman: I have only one quick thing to say. EGYPT WAS NOT TAKEN BY BABYLON! It's true. really really really true.

On what basis do you make this conclusion, though? If this is because there is no archaeological record of it, I would say that is not conclusive, since they found the Hittites, after people were fond of pointing out that there was no record of such a nation...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Mustard Seed]

Where do you get that "anointed" means "chosen before the foundation of the world"?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

--Luke 23:35

Anointing was a symbolic way of chosing. If Christ had his title 'Christ' before the foundation of the world then he was chosen before such.


20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

--1 Pet 1:20

Do you not believe Christ had his title before this world was formed?

 

[godrulz]

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

--Luke 23:35

Anointing was a symbolic way of chosing. If Christ had his title 'Christ' before the foundation of the world then he was chosen before such.


20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

--1 Pet 1:20

Do you not believe Christ had his title before this world was formed?

John 1:1 shows that the WORD was eternal. Christ is a temporal title. Luke shows that He was the chosen Messiah. It is not explicit that "Christ" was an eternal title (it is not cf. the name of Jesus). It is a wrong LDS assumption that Christ is a name from before creation. The Word/Son was foreordained. Christ was an OT (Messiah= Hebrew)/NT (Christ= Greek) title, not one from His eternal preexistence. Christ relates to His humanity, not His uncreated Deity. LDS theology also differs on the nature of who He is.

 

[Mustard Seed]

John 1:1 shows that the WORD was eternal. Christ is a temporal title. Luke shows that He was the chosen Messiah. It is not explicit that "Christ" was an eternal title (it is not cf. the name of Jesus). It is a wrong LDS assumption that Christ is a name from before creation. The Word/Son was foreordained. Christ was an OT (Messiah= Hebrew)/NT (Christ= Greek) title, not one from His eternal preexistence. Christ relates to His humanity, not His uncreated Deity. LDS theology also differs on the nature of who He is.

So an Eternal unchanging God can change his names and titles?

 

[Clete]

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

--Luke 23:35

Anointing was a symbolic way of chosing. If Christ had his title 'Christ' before the foundation of the world then he was chosen before such.


20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

--1 Pet 1:20

Do you not believe Christ had his title before this world was formed?

Yes I do, but so what? What's your point?

Actually never mind. I don't care. I'll let godrulz and Lee waste their time with you.

:wave2:

 

[chatmaggot]

Mustard Seed,

By your statement "So an Eternal unchanging God can change his names and titles?" shows that you have not been following the thread very well. The OV doesn't claim that God is "unchanging". God can change! He can change in response to us. He can change in response to circumstances. The thing that doesn't change about God is His righteousness, goodness, love, etc...

 

[godrulz]

So an Eternal unchanging God can change his names and titles?

The Word became flesh. The Word was not always the God-Man. Jesus is a name for the person who incarnated in space-time history. He was not called Jesus before creation. Other titles were unique to His earthly existence (servant, prophet, teacher, priest, Christ, Son of Man, Lion of tribe of Judah, etc.). The eternal God progressively revealed more and more of His names, titles, and attributes. YHWH was a covenant name and used with various compounds (Jehovah jireh, etc.). The person of God is eternal, but some of His names relate to His experiences with creation. The Hebrew and Greek languages are not eternal, so the key is that His existence is eternal, not every single name and title.

When He reveals a name or title, they do not change, but this does not mean they were co-eternal titles before man existed to know Him (Christians reject the preexistence of human souls).

 

[RobE]

Hi RobE,

See my responses to Clete's post below.

Hilston wrote: Built into the word "patience" is the concept of time. It's the same with "longsuffering." The fallacy of understanding these attributes in literal terms is that we are talking about God's attributes, whether He ever expressed them or manifested them or not.

How does the fact that we are talking about God's attributes indicate a logical fallacy?

I didn't say LOGICAL FALLACY. I said a FALLACY OF UNDERSTANDING. A FALSE UNDERSTANDING. On Settled View terms, God has a patient and longsuffering character. Whether outside of time or within time, God is patient and longsuffering as an quality of His character. The Open Theist's God is an existentialist, and therefore, in order for Him to be patient and longsuffering, He must be stuck in time, and he had to have had occasion to be patient and longsuffering.

Quote:

Note, however, the logical fallacy that you commit in the next sentence by forming comments about what happened "before" creation in the context of God being "timeless". Your entire thesis is self-contradictory.

Clete doesn't read very carefully. My comment is NOT in the context of God being timeless, but rather in the Open View's context of a God stuck in time. On Settled View terms, a figure of speech is used to indicate logical order (not chronological order) with respect to creation. On Open View terms, "before creation" means before the existence of sin. So the question stands. Was God forgiving, on Open View terms, BEFORE the existence of sin?

Hilston wrote: Was God patient and longsuffering BEFORE creation? Did the Father have to express or manifest patience with the Spirit or the Son? Of course not. But does that mean God didn't know He Himself was patient and longsuffering BEFORE He created man? Of course not. God probably has myriad other attributes that we could not possibly understand this side of glory, but we'll get to enjoy in eternity with Christ.

If God does not experience time, it is meaningless to say that He is patient. If you are patient, you have to be willing to wait on something without it bothering you. The longer you can tolerate waiting, the more patient you are.

See what I mean? This answers my question. Open Theists are existentialists. No question about it. And again I say, The fallacy of understanding these attributes in literal terms is that we are talking about God's attributes, whether He expressed them, manifested them or not.

Quote:

If there was no time and every event happened all at once in some rationally incoherent "eternal now" moment, ...

He can chuck the idea of the eternal now. I neither hold nor defend that concept. So it doesn't apply.

Quote:

... there would be no need for God to wait and thus it would be quite meaningless to say He was patient. You can attempt to redefine the term patient if you like but that won't help solve the problem.

There is no problem on the Settled View. Patience and longsuffering are essentials in God's character, whether He has occasion to express them or not. This is not true of the Open View, in which God first had to experience the need for patience before He could actually be patient.

Hilston wrote: The same argument can be made for God's attributes of being forgiving and merciful. Was the Father forgiving and merciful BEFORE creation? Of course He was. But to whom would He be forgiving and merciful? The Son? The Spirit? Open Deists are existentialists, but they don't even know it. There is a pervasive dualism that pollutes their thinking, and this is yet another example. "God cannot be patient without time," they say. Will they say, "God cannot be forgiving without sin?" I've never asked them directly. I'm curious to know their response to that question.

Quote:

God was both merciful and forgiving in the sense that He was willing to forgive and show mercy but neither His forgiveness nor His mercy was manifest until such time as an opportunity arose that called for it.

How does Clete know this? Is there a verse that says God was WILLING to be merciful and forgiving before the existence of sin?

Quote:

We can know that God has always been the same sort of person He is now because the Bible tells us explicitly that who God is does not change ever; that He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Whatever happened to the "infinitely mutable" God that Enyart espouses?

Quote:

So if God is forgiving now, He must always have been.

To whom was He forgiving?

Really the willingness to forgive and mercy and patience and all such attributes of God are summed up in saying simply that God is righteous.

Was He really forgiving? Or just willing to be forgiving? How could God be willing to forgive before the existence of sin? Or did God conceive of sin and express His willingness to forgive it before it even existed?

Quote:

Righteousness manifests itself in different ways depending on the circumstances but it is still righteousness and God has always been righteous even if there hasn't always been reason for that righteousness to manifest itself in every imaginable way.

Again, note how the concept of "infinite mutability" goes right out the window.

 

[RobE]

reply to Godrulz

reply to Godrulz

God made man as a free moral agent with the possibility of chosing good or evil. It was not necessary or a foregone conclusion that he would sin. He had a potential plan of redemption IF man man sinned. When man sinned, the plan was implemented. It did not become actual until the cross. Originally, creation was very good. Then He was grieved He made man after the Fall (not before). If man had genuine free moral agency, then God would only know that sin was possible. It was not a certain object of knowledge before creation. One has to read this preconceived back into the text to come to that conclusion. If one simply reads the chronological, historical narrative, the future is seen as open and uncertain. Correctly distinguishing possible from actual/certain is not a limitation on God but the reality that He experiences.

Determinism would allow for certain knowledge before the fact, but at the expense of freedom. Simple foreknowledge requires a closed future and would also negate contingency.

Why would he plan for an uncertainty? How about the men who sinned and died before the cross? He made man before he fell?

Correctly distinguishing possible from actual/certain is not a limitation on God but the reality that He experiences.

It would be if he couldn't foresee the future, wouldn't it? If not, why not? Does he live 'outside of time' or not?

It was not a certain object of knowledge before the creation.

Correctly distinguishing possible from actual/certain is not a limitation on God but the reality that He experiences.

Why do these two things conflict?

Genesis 3:21

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

It was not a certain object of knowledge before creation.

I'm missing something,

RobE

 

[patman]

Reply to Lee

Reply to Lee

Lee, it is good to read your reply.

You said "and about Egypt, can we really argue from silence in archaeology? That is rather risky, like saying (as people once did) there were no Hittites. " I know I can't give you evidence from archeology, because you will deny it. The only evidence you will except will be that from the Bible.

I honor that. I laugh in the face of science when it contradicts the Bible as well. But in this particular case, the Bible shows us the answer what history affirms... Nebuchadnezzar didn't take over Egypt.

2 Kings 24:7
"...for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates."

Do you know where the Brook of Egypt is? I didn't, I had to look it up, but I found out that it borders Israel. And I am sure you know where the River Euphrates is. It cuts through the middle east right down to the Persian Gulf.

The Bible nailed the territory of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingdom. Yet Egypt was not in that kingdom. History tells us that Egypt was never concord until Alexander the Great took it over. He renamed the Capitol City Alexandra and moved it closer.

I want to concentrate on this. The Bible shows that Nebuchadnezzar never had territory in Egypt. This is all at the end of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. I invite you to read it.

So where does this leave us? God said that Nebuchadnezzar would indeed overthrow Egypt, even into Memphis, which is way deep into Egypt. Yet according to the Bible and to History, he never did take over Egypt.

Lee, I really want you to think about this.

Here is a concept that we are all guilty of: If we want to believe in something, we will find every excuse to justify it, no matter how silly the means. If someone want's to be atheist, they just make up a story that we evolved from monkeys. We have to really do some soul searching sometimes to see if we are looking at the world through bias eyes.

Sometimes despite what we want, we find out we were. I am guilty of this. I used to believe God knows the future. I even told people they were crazy for not thinking that. But once I was presented the evidence, and once I realized I could find the evidence for myself, I changed my mind.

I do not know what you are thinking, but if you will look up those verses I presented and really think about them, you will see why I reject your answers. To me, your answers more or less just throw confusion on the real meaning, with out explaining why the real meaning is wrong.

So instead of getting an answer, we just get a "maybe it was this instead."

Lee, if I can just get you to concentrate on only one set of verses, namely Ezekiel 26:7 and 29:17-20. And contrast that to 2 Kings 24:7. If I could just get you to admit what you know in your own mind is true, that this is clearly a case where God said one thing would happen, and it didn't, and this happened 2 times in these verses, then I think you will be able to either agree with me, or at least come up with a really good argument against it.

But I hope you agree.

Here are some maps for you

http://www.bartleby.com/86/2001.html

http://www.path-light.com/Revjpgs/Babylon_map.gif

Here is a good article that puts things in good perspective too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadrezzar_II


And here are those verses one more time

Ezekiel 26:7,14
"For thus says the LORD God: 'Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you."

"I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,' Says the LORD"

Ezekiel 29: 17-20
"And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came to me, saying, (18) Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor because they worked for Me,' says the LORD God. "

 

[patman]

Reply to Bling

Reply to Bling

Sin is not a verb in 1 Peter 2:24 it is a plural thing. Also from Heb. 13:11-12 Jesus is a sin offering which if we go back to the Old Testament we find sin offerings were for committed sins not sinful nature or being a sinner and sinning. The Hebrew writer was writing to people that understood sacrifices and Jesus is shown to be the replacement for those sin offerings of the past.

Sin is not a verb in that context. I will agree, and I hope you know I didn't say it was. Thats 2nd grade stuff. I am starting to think from my experience on TOL that people don't read long posts. In my last post I tried to show you you can take a word, like sin, be it a verb or not, and with language make it out to be a thing.

I guess I wrote too much and it wasn't read. I will strive for very short posts from now on.

To take 1 Peter 2:24 literally would mean our sins travel through time back to the cross to be bore by Christ on the cross. We have no problem with sins of the pre Christ people being rolled forward to the cross, but going back conflicts with the O.V. doctrine.
At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?

1 Peter doesn't mention any Delorean or time travel from the words I see. Time travel is not an issue of this verse.

But I see what you are saying here. Jesus did die for all sin, be it sin from 1995, or from -1995 (that is 1995 B.C.) And his death covers all sin. But I didn't live back then. My sin's didn't exist yet. However, his gift covers all sin without regard to it's existing at the time.

That does not hurt our doctrine. We just agree with the Bible, that those before Christ lived by the law and had faith, they were covered until Christ came. The Bible points out that faith is what justifies a man in God's eyes. Regardless of what the law of the day, faith was always the way to righteousness.

Those after Christ's death can find a huge bath of his blood that we can jump into to be clean. Those before can join us in that they were covered of their sins in the ages before by their sacrifices of animals and burnt offerings.

 

[patman]

Reply to RobE

Reply to RobE

RobE,

I must say that I am not getting you and why you are arguing with me over what Calvinist believe.

Calvinist do believe that God foreordained everything. I don't like it, apparently you don't like it, but they do. If you disagree, good! I am glad you can disagree with that. But stop taking cheap shots at someone who is simply stating a fact. Calvinist do believe that God foreordained all things. If you don't believe that, you are not a true calvinist. And good for you. But I was not accusing you of this.

I think Settled Viewers should think that God foreordained everything. It makes since that they would think that.

But lets just talk about what you think. I am not going to tuck you under a category, I just want to know what you think. If you believe that God knows the future, I have a problem with understanding how you cannot come to the same logical conclusion that Calvin did: God foreordained everything.

To me, it is logical that if God knows the future, it means he created it, thus ordained it. If you know of another way of explaining this other than saying, "just because", I am very interested to hear it.

Perhaps this can be our starting point, other than just smarting off to each other.

 

[RobE]

Response to Patman

Response to Patman

RobE,

I must say that I am not getting you and why you are arguing with me over what Calvinist believe.

Because you believe that Calvinists(armenians) think God sins. He doesn't. I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just trying to hear an open viewer admit that it's possible that the Lord could foresee events without sinning. They, and I'm afraid you, will not.

Calvinist do believe that God foreordained everything.

Which is different than sinning or causing sin, right? What do Armenians believe?

I don't like it, apparently you don't like it, but they do. If you disagree, good! I am glad you can disagree with that. But stop taking cheap shots at someone who is simply stating a fact. Calvinist do believe that God foreordained all things. If you don't believe that, you are not a true calvinist. And good for you. But I was not accusing you of this.

I'm not a Calvinist as a matter of fact, but that's a different story. I'm really trying to figure this out. What fact are you stating. You, yourself, said that if God knows the future then he is responsible for sin. How can this be. I've simply tried to point out that it can't be.

I think Settled Viewers should think that God foreordained everything. It makes since that they would think that.

Every THING is the problem here. This implies a creation. Sin wasn't created(just as you pointed out that time wasn't created in your earlier posts to Lee). To say God created sin because he knew sin would occur is not realistic. Calvin believed God did not create sin. I believe God did not create sin. You believe God did not create sin as long as he didn't foresee anyone sinning.

But lets just talk about what you think. I am not going to tuck you under a category, I just want to know what you think. If you believe that God knows the future, I have a problem with understanding how you cannot come to the same logical conclusion that Calvin did: God foreordained everything.

Calvin denied fate. You say he embraced it. I believe that God knows the future, but doesn't pull all of the strings. He leaves enough room for you to make the choice that counts - believe what He says or not. Outcomes are his, actions for you are yours. If He knows the outcomes before the actions; how does this alter my free will when acting. If He can die on the cross for those who already perished, doesn't this imply that He lives 'outside of time' as Lee has argued?

To me, it is logical that if God knows the future, it means he created it, thus ordained it. If you know of another way of explaining this other than saying, "just because", I am very interested to hear it.

God knows the future because he can foresee where his creation is going not because he created the future. As you say 'time is not a thing, it's a series of events.'. 'Ordained' is a big word. Too full of insinuations in this context. Perhaps I'd like to say he knows it, but didn't ordain(create it). I know Oprah Winfrey, but didn't create her(I'm not sure how to express this).

Perhaps this can be our starting point, other than just smarting off to each other.

I've answered your post the best that I can. I know some of it will need clarification. I'm really not trying to smart off to you. If it's coming across like that----I'm truly sorry. I will keep re-stating a couple of points until I understand where the 'open view' is coming from.

Point 1: Why do people of the 'open view' believe people of the 'closed view' worship a
God who is responsible for sin? Who is responsible for sin even if God can
foresee sinning?

Point 2: Is God Love or loving? Are there limitations to his Love? (i.e. if He is all love
then why does he allow sin to continue? Isn't this just as bad as
foreseeing sin and allowing it to happen?)

There will be other points I need answered in the future, but I really don't think these have been answered fully. I'm willing to discuss other things, but these are the questions pressing on me.

Thanks,

RobE

 

[RobE]

But I see what you are saying here. Jesus did die for all sin, be it sin from 1995, or from -1995 (that is 1995 B.C.) And his death covers all sin. But I didn't live back then. My sin's didn't exist yet. However, his gift covers all sin without regard to it's existing at the time.

That does not hurt our doctrine. We just agree with the Bible, that those before Christ lived by the law and had faith, they were covered until Christ came. The Bible points out that faith is what justifies a man in God's eyes. Regardless of what the law of the day, faith was always the way to righteousness.

Those after Christ's death can find a huge bath of his blood that we can jump into to be clean. Those before can join us in that they were covered of their sins in the ages before by their sacrifices of animals and burnt offerings.

Do you really believe that those before Christ 'can join us in that they were covered of their sins in the ages before by their sacrifices of animals and burnt offerings'? Why did Jesus sacrifice himself again? Do you want to stand by this? I wish I'd read this before responding to your last post that was directed my way. I see a problem here.

RobE

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

The Bible nailed the territory of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingdom. Yet Egypt was not in that kingdom.

But Egypt need not have become part of the kingdom to have been conquered by Neb. Nor does a boundary at one time imply that that boundary was never expanded after that. Nor does saying Neb had all this territory imply that he had no more than that...

Here are some maps for you...

And here is a map for you! Egypt is included as part of the empire of Babylon, but again, conquering an area need not make it part of an empire, any more than the U.S. defeating Germany and Japan made them part of an American empire...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Mustard Seed]

(Christians reject the preexistence of human souls).

So Christ wan't human?

And what was his preordination to, if not to save us? (in the hypothetical provided by the open view that sin never entered the world.)