Caller Answers: God Cannot Increase Tomorrow's Rain!

[Jefferson]

Caller Answers: God Cannot Increase Tomorrow's Rain!

Thursday March 23rd, 2006. This is show # 59.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

I think the audience is seeing that I understand your view, that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow in Wyoming and neither can He change anything that will ever happen in eternity future.

So that what we do with our theology is we end up constraining God and we make it so God is not free. God has no freedom. Let me ask you this. If you think...

Caller David: Are you an open theist?

Bob: Praise God. Praise God.

David: Yes?

Bob: Yes. David, let me ask you this: Was it always...

David: I'm amazed.

Bob: David. let me ask you this: Was it always that God could not change the future? Was there a time when God planned out what you would do today? Or has God always existed with your actions as part of His reality?

Summary:
* A Chinese cosmetics company is making collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from the skin of executed convicts and from fetuses.
* Dee from Springfield MA gave The Plot to her brother, and... oh boy!
* Leslie Hanks of CRTL warns that some of the harvested body parts come from courageous Chinese dissidents and Christians executed by Beijing .
* Nathaniel from Aurora CO resists Bob's point that Jesus teaches that we should forgive someone who sins against us "if he repents" (Luke 17:3).
* Caller of the Week! David from Boone IA has a great talk with Bob about whether God is free to alter anything that will happen tomorrow, or whether or not God Himself is locked into an eternally settled future.
Today's Resource: We'd don't recommend that David read Bob's debate on Open Theism (only because he's already reading in The Plot)! But for the rest of you, if you were fascinated by the dynamics at work in Bob's discussion with David, then you will absolutely love reading Battle Royale X, Is the Future Settled, or Open, between Bob and D. James Kennedy's professor Samuel Lamerson!

 

[Saintopher]

The Question At Hand

The Question At Hand

I heard this particular portion of the show and found myself increasingly frustrated with Bob's approach.

#1. There didn't seem to be a correct answer until it was the one that he wanted.
#2. He didn't really present any scriptural basis for his view.
#3. Open Theism is considered by many to be a borderline heresy
#4. It was an abstract question in which Bob himself cannot really know for sure whether God would even care about changing the amount of rain or not since he doesn't know God's thoughts on the matter.
#5. It was just handled in a very manipulative manner by Bob.

I could be a lot more detailed in the matter, but for the sake of brevity I thought I would just leave it at those points. The issue in my opinion is one of an abstract philosophical matter and not of doctrine, so I don't know why Bob would have made such a big deal about it. I actually felt bad for David.

 

[Jefferson]

#2. He didn't really present any scriptural basis for his view.

Saintopher, please see http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711

 

[Lighthouse]

The open view is the only view of the future that is completely supported by Scripture.

 

[Saintopher]

Saintopher, please see http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711

OK, I have now read the debate. My conclusion from the debate is that if one has a particular view that they want to try and prove form the Bible, then if they look hard enough they can support anything.

Although I am not a Biblical literalist, I still do not believe that the Open View can be fully substantiated without making God look somewhat arbitrarily inconsistent.

But that point aside, I have a hard time supporting any one particular view because of the nature of the Bible being a collection of various writings from differeing literary styles and purposes. I do not believe that even the words of Jesus himself were eternally difinitive to prove what he actually believed, And I don't believe that any of the Apostles who wrote things that were later canonized really had any foreknowledge or expectation that their writings would later be used in the fashion in which we now use them.

An overall problem that I have in general is that so many people who are supposedly led by the same "spirit of truth" into the same holy book, have come to so many differing opinions and conclusions and they all claim to be right. Who is the final authority; and how can that be proven?

:bang:

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, I have now read the debate. My conclusion from the debate is that if one has a particular view that they want to try and prove form the Bible, then if they look hard enough they can support anything.

Although I am not a Biblical literalist, I still do not believe that the Open View can be fully substantiated without making God look somewhat arbitrarily inconsistent.

But that point aside, I have a hard time supporting any one particular view because of the nature of the Bible being a collection of various writings from differeing literary styles and purposes. I do not believe that even the words of Jesus himself were eternally difinitive to prove what he actually believed, And I don't believe that any of the Apostles who wrote things that were later canonized really had any foreknowledge or expectation that their writings would later be used in the fashion in which we now use them.

An overall problem that I have in general is that so many people who are supposedly led by the same "spirit of truth" into the same holy book, have come to so many differing opinions and conclusions and they all claim to be right. Who is the final authority; and how can that be proven?

:bang:

You don't believe the open view is valid, and therefore you believe that God at least had exhaustive foreknowledge, but that the Bible cannot be trusted, even though God knew what was going to become the Bible. If He knew, then wouldn't He have done something to make sure it was what He wanted it to be?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

QUOTE From The Show ......I think the audience is seeing that I understand your view, that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow in Wyoming and neither can He change anything that will ever happen in eternity future. End Quote. Say what???!!! This is the most absurd statement that I have ever read.
Isaiah 5:6 ~ And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. God had to command the clouds not to rain, or they would have.

 

[Lighthouse]

QUOTE From The Show ......I think the audience is seeing that I understand your view, that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow in Wyoming and neither can He change anything that will ever happen in eternity future. End Quote. Say what???!!! This is the most absurd statement that I have ever read.
Isaiah 5:6 ~ And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. God had to command the clouds not to rain, or they would have.

And did that change how much it was going to rain on those days that it did not rain?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

And did that change how much it was going to rain on those days that it did not rain?

You Enyart people don't even make good sense. You act like God is sitting on His throne twiddling his thumbs, and has no control over anything. Like everything is on a timer. I suppose you all believe that he has answered every prayer beforehand before we even pray them.

 

[Lighthouse]

You Enyart people don't even make good sense. You act like God is sitting on His throne twiddling his thumbs, and has no control over anything. Like everything is on a timer. I suppose you all believe that he has answered every prayer beforehand before we even pray them.

That's retarded. THe open view believes that God is relational, and the reason we pray is that God has not already answered our prayers. Calvinists, however, believe He has already answered them. And the Clavinists hate the open view. We pray so that God will abnswer our prayers, and because He does not know what we are going to ask, until we know what we are going to ask. And if a day has not happened, and therefore does not exist, then no rain has fallen yet, and the amount of rain that will fall on that day cannot be changed. Because the amount of rain that will fall on that day will be the amount of rain that will fall on that day. And it cannot be changed.:duh:

 

[Saintopher]

You don't believe the open view is valid, and therefore you believe that God at least had exhaustive foreknowledge, but that the Bible cannot be trusted, even though God knew what was going to become the Bible. If He knew, then wouldn't He have done something to make sure it was what He wanted it to be?

I never said that I believed that God had exhaustive foreknowledge. At this point I would have to say that I just don't know. And I did not say that the Bible could not be trusted. Unfortunately you have accused me of saying things that I have not.

But you ask if God had foreknowledge, wouldn't he have done something to make sure it was what he wanted it to be- again, this is only mere abstract philosophical inquiry. From the Open View, isn't it possible that God could have "allowed" the Bible to be just what it is without having complete foreknowledge of what people would do with it? And how does the Open Theist explain the lack of evidence that God hasn't changed his mode or method over the last 2000 years.

Here again though, the fact that this discussion continues in the way that it does is just further testimony to me that one can take the Bible to try and justify any position and we end up like dogs chasing parked cars. :dog:

 

[JoyfulRook]

I heard this particular portion of the show and found myself increasingly frustrated with Bob's approach.

Let's hear it.

#1. There didn't seem to be a correct answer until it was the one that he wanted.

That's because the right answer was the one he wanted.

#2. He didn't really present any scriptural basis for his view.

Regarding which point. He was referencing verses about the forgiveness thing....

#3. Open Theism is considered by many to be a borderline heresy

Well it's not.

#4. It was an abstract question in which Bob himself cannot really know for sure whether God would even care about changing the amount of rain or not since he doesn't know God's thoughts on the matter.

Umm, he's speaking theoretically.

#5. It was just handled in a very manipulative manner by Bob.

That's your opinion.

I could be a lot more detailed in the matter, but for the sake of brevity I thought I would just leave it at those points. The issue in my opinion is one of an abstract philosophical matter and not of doctrine, so I don't know why Bob would have made such a big deal about it. I actually felt bad for David.

I felt bad for David too. He lost pretty bad.

 

[JoyfulRook]

You Enyart people don't even make good sense. You act like God is sitting on His throne twiddling his thumbs, and has no control over anything. Like everything is on a timer. I suppose you all believe that he has answered every prayer beforehand before we even pray them.

What the heck are you talking about?!?!?!?! That's the very thing we oppose! Next time you criticize people, take the time to understand their position first.

 

[Saintopher]

Let's hear it.

That's because the right answer was the one he wanted.
Regarding which point. He was referencing verses about the forgiveness thing....
Well it's not.
Umm, he's speaking theoretically.
That's your opinion.

I felt bad for David too. He lost pretty bad.

I will probably be shunned as a liberal for saying this but there is such revelation in your pointing out how David "lost pretty bad."

The sad thing is that it sounds like it only boils down to a matter or winning or losing with you. I thought that Paul said something about how it was all in the way we played the game.

But I'm sure that doesn't matter any more.

 

[Lighthouse]

I never said that I believed that God had exhaustive foreknowledge. At this point I would have to say that I just don't know. And I did not say that the Bible could not be trusted. Unfortunately you have accused me of saying things that I have not.

If th eopen view is not valid, then what is? The only other option is that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, either because He predestined it, or because He simply knows. Of course, if He simply knows, how does He know? It doesn't exist.

But you ask if God had foreknowledge, wouldn't he have done something to make sure it was what he wanted it to be- again, this is only mere abstract philosophical inquiry. From the Open View, isn't it possible that God could have "allowed" the Bible to be just what it is without having complete foreknowledge of what people would do with it? And how does the Open Theist explain the lack of evidence that God hasn't changed his mode or method over the last 2000 years.

THe open view says that God didn't necessarily know, but He still wouldn't have let just anythign go in there. He still had to lead those who wrote the books, and those who decided to compile it.

 

[Saintopher]

If th eopen view is not valid, then what is? The only other option is that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, either because He predestined it, or because He simply knows. Of course, if He simply knows, how does He know? It doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, I am not exactly sure I understand what you are saying here. Just to clarify, are you saying that exhaustive foreknowledge does not exist?

THe open view says that God didn't necessarily know, but He still wouldn't have let just anythign go in there. He still had to lead those who wrote the books, and those who decided to compile it.

In light of the Open View, I would be very curious to hear the argument of limited foreknowledge and chosen limited ability on God's behalf verses ensuring that the Bible would become his word.

From what I am seeing of the Open View, there really wouldn't be any way to absolutely show the validity of the outcome since the "revelation" then became closed after the closing of the canon. [or at least since the official Roman closing of the canon; since there were and still are other various forms of the canon.]

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm sorry, I am not exactly sure I understand what you are saying here. Just to clarify, are you saying that exhaustive foreknowledge does not exist?

Yes, I am saying exhaustive foreknowledge does not exist.

In light of the Open View, I would be very curious to hear the argument of limited foreknowledge and chosen limited ability on God's behalf verses ensuring that the Bible would become his word.

God can inspire people if He needs to. How is that contrary to Him choosing limits?

From what I am seeing of the Open View, there really wouldn't be any way to absolutely show the validity of the outcome since the "revelation" then became closed after the closing of the canon. [or at least since the official Roman closing of the canon; since there were and still are other various forms of the canon.]

And who says the revelation of God is closed?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Answering Saintopher

Answering Saintopher

Responding to your comments as though they were questions:

SOQ1:

#1. There didn't seem to be a correct answer until it was the one that he wanted.

BEA-SOQ1: A valid approach, if the anticipated answer is correct. Thus, Saintopher, this criticism of yours begs the question.

SOQ2:

#2. He didn't really present any scriptural basis for his view.

BEA-SOQ2: The question was based on many Scriptures, including for example, that believers can "hasten" the coming of the Lord; and by mercy God may *shorten* the days of Tribulation.

SOQ3:

#3. Open Theism is considered by many to be a borderline heresy.

BEA-SOQ3: Borderline? Heresy? That sounds like a woman who's a little bit pregnant.

SOQ4:

#4. It was an abstract question in which Bob himself cannot really know for sure whether God would even care about changing the amount of rain or not since he doesn't know God's thoughts on the matter.

BEA-SOQ4: I'll assume you mean that it was a *hypothetical* question. Since I doubt that you would critize a question merely for being abstract, which by principle definition and your usage here would amount to critizing a question simply because it dealt with a general concept rather than a specific instance. And since you meant hypothetical, I'll respond: Hypothetical questions can be answered directly by someone not confident of unashamed of his position, unless the question is intrinsically invalid, in which case an argument could assert such.

SOQ5:

#5. It was just handled in a very manipulative manner by Bob.

BEA-SOQ5: See BEA-SOQ1.

Thanks for your thoughts!
-Bob Enyart

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks for your thoughts!
-Bob Enyart

Saintopher has thoughts?

 

[Turbo]

QUOTE From The Show ......I think the audience is seeing that I understand your view, that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow in Wyoming and neither can He change anything that will ever happen in eternity future. End Quote. Say what???!!! This is the most absurd statement that I have ever read.
Isaiah 5:6 ~ And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. God had to command the clouds not to rain, or they would have.

Both the title of the show/thread and this quote indicate that it is the caller's view that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow. That is not Bob's view; Bob is stating the caller's view. "We Enyart people" agree with you that such a view is absurd and unbiblical.