Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Rosenritter]

Romans 9:20 Job 9:32 :think: Isaiah 10:15

How fond are you of your 'free' will? Me? Not that much.

I am fond of living, and I do not think of a vegetable or an automaton as being alive.

 

[Rosenritter]

Again, perfect means unchangeable. Malachi 3:6 Isaiah 46:9,10

Neither of those references say that "perfect means unchangeable."

:nono: Prayer changes us. We are not immutable (thankfully, who wants to be stuck with the flesh and sin?) God is.

Luke 11:9-10 KJV
(9) And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
(10) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

It seems that Jesus implied that prayer does influence God's actions.

 

[Lon]

You argue like a Jehovah's Witness, moving to the next argument when one is foiled, until you eventually end up back at the first one in a big circle.

No, I addressed just one of your points. I 'responded' to your post. Whatever isn't addressed, come back to, I've been REALLY busy lately so I can own missing a pertinent point and would appreciate a call back to it, and thank you ahead of time.

I had suggested that the bible gave no examples of God twiddling with someone's mind to get them to do what He says. You responded with Paul's conversion. And I responded that Paul's conversion was exactly the opposite of what you claimed for it.

Perhaps, let's look at it another way: My child misbehaves, I physically remove my child and reorient them. Have I done something to their mind? For me, I at believe I've affected the mind. I may not be able to physically reach in and change chemicals, nerve synapses, and physical properties, but God can and does: 1 Corinthians 4:7 Did you make your own mind? Did you set it in motion? John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 What CAN you do without God? Did you really receive any kind of autonomy whatsoever? Did you? Genesis 3:5

Now you offer those three verses?

First, I'd like to recognize common ground. You have argued in other places (and maybe in this thread, too) that freewill is the evil thing that was introduced in the garden. So I'll take it to mean that you are not arguing against the existence of free will.

Correct BUT probably/possibly different from what you likely mean. I believe implicitly that John 15:5, 1 Corinthians 4:7 and Colossians 1:15-18 mean 'nothing.' I do not believe God is the author of sin and freewill. Something autonomous had to exist in the universe of God prior to man's Fall and freewill. That 'thing' which includes autonomy and some sense of 'free-from-God' will, is a deprivation, not an addition. It removed something, not gave us something. It made us st
[

Second, I'll take your switch to the criticism of free will as an accession that Paul was NOT just having his mind changed by God, but God was presenting him with reasons to join up--"pricking" him, so to speak.

:think: Scenario: You are struck blind. You are in complete darkness. Your ONLY choice to be able to see again is to follow directions precisely. Imho, I'd say you've been far more than pricked, you've been abducted (and all for love and good reason). Imho, you have no choice. Remaining blind the rest of your life is illustrative of man without God trying to live autonomously and willfully free. John 15:4-8

So let's talk about your verses.
[Rom 9:20 KJV] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Isn't this exactly what the "thing" does? It says to Him who formed it, "Why have you made me so?" This is an example of free will, arguing against God

I agree.

[Job 9:32 KJV] For [he is] not a man, as I [am, that] I should answer him, [and] we should come together in judgment. Job, too, is an example of a man arguing with God. Eventually he acknowledges his fault in presuming that God is righteous, even in bringing about such tragedies on his life, but at first he presents a case to God.

[Isa 10:15 KJV] Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? [or] shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake [itself] against them that lift it up, [or] as if the staff should lift up [itself, as if it were] no wood. The "axe" was the king of Assyria (vs 12), and the Lord was incensed that he would boast of his victory over Israel/Samaria--and their God. This is an example of freewill in action, and God punishing the wrong use of that freewill. It shows both that God can make kings turn wherever He wishes and at the same time that He doesn't control their thoughts.

I think their is more here to observe, but I observe these with you.

This IS the whole story of the bible--that mankind rebels against God, bringing punishment upon themselves, and God still looks for repentance.

More than repentance, reconnection. We lost God very God in the Fall thus lost everything. It is when we embrace John 15:5 that we realize in Christ we gain everything.

Repentance is an act of the will--submitting it to God.
Paul's conversion was an act of his will--submitting it to God.
Jesus whole life was a continuous submission to God's will.
We call Jesus "Lord" as a representation of our submission to His will.

However much you like to think free will is a bad thing, it is the ONLY thing that makes repentance possible. There is no repentance in a man who doesn't bend his own will to God's./QUOTE] Well, in the sense that a flat tire is needed for a repair. The flat and hole is a problem. The OTHER solution to a problem is not to have the problem in the first place.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" isn't just a nice sentiment, it is saying that in exercising his own will, man has trampled on God's. It CAN'T be that God's will is always being done. But repentance is going in the opposite direction--that man acknowledges where he has trampled on God's will and does the opposite. Man does. He wills it. He "submits" to God. There is no submission, no repentance, no obedience, no worship, no love without a will. All of these things imply volition. Having God take over your brain is an admission of defeat for God--that the only way He can get His will accomplished is to "kill" the person--to abolish the adversarial nature and replace it with one that is compliant.

Agree but 'will' and 'freewill' are two different things. You are describing 'will' here.

Paul talks about something like this, but he does it in terms of our doing it. "WE" mortify our own flesh (Rom 8:13). We do it "through" the spirit, but we have to do it. It is an act of the will to set aside our own desires.

:up:

If I can summarize...
There's only one way to submit to someone else's will--it requires a willingness, where we no longer kick against the pricks. [edited:] A submitted free will doesn't mean there are no pricks, just that they aren't needed anymore.

To date, I've never looked up the dictionary definition so appreciate the differentiation

Again, thanks for the discussion. His blessings -Lon

 

[Lon]

Neither of those references say that "perfect means unchangeable."

In a previous post I posted the word used in scripture. It still means 'unchangeable.'

Luke 11:9-10 KJV
(9) And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
(10) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

It seems that Jesus implied that prayer does influence God's actions.

Agree, but it doesn't mean that it caught Him without definite foreknowledge. We aren't against your observation of scripture here, but reserved against some of the conclusions and subsequent derivatives.

 

[Lon]

Romans 9:20 Job 9:32 :think: Isaiah 10:15

How fond are you of your 'free' will? Me? Not that much.

I am fond of living, and I do not think of a vegetable or an automaton as being alive.

For me: "Not my will but thine" John 12:25

Love, if we would want/be it, is other-seeking. I'd rather be an automaton doing God's will. Let me put it this way: EVERY time I exercise my will against God's will, I hate that part of me, my dead flesh. Rather, EVERY time I'm doing God's will, I am where I belong. Who CARES after that point, Rosen? Nothing of me is of any worth compared to being His, all His.

 

[Derf]

We ARE being educated but, as you well know: 1 Corinthians 13:12 1 John 3:2 As GREAT as any man thinks his/her mind is, it is well below par for where we should be. Can we then say "God, you lied." :nono: I'm having none of that and I've a fair mind and intelligence. Most of us believe enough of our own mistruths aren't as it is. It is truly sad to me when someone thinks he/she is the sole assessor of truth.

If you are only seeing it as you describe later (and copied here

1) God tells Hezekiah he is going to die
2) Hezekiah doesn't die
.: God lied

then I can see why you have a problem with what I'm saying.
But I have an extra premise--that something changed in God's mind. It would like something like this:

1) God tells Hezekiah he is going to die
2) something changed
3) Hezekiah doesn't die

This fits with a Jer 18 scenario:
1) Nation is destined by God for destruction
2) something changes
3) Nation is not destroyed

Jer 18:8 spells out what changes on the nation's side: they turn from their evil. And it spells out what changes on God's side: He repents ("sighs") of the evil He thought to do.

To me, if you first think to do one thing, and tell everybody that's what you are going to do (which is what a prophecy is) and then decide not to do it, it either means you weren't telling the truth at first, or you changed your mind. I know you don't like that phrase, but it is the appropriate idiom in the english language we both understand.

Now, if you WERE telling the truth at first, and you DID change your mind based on new information and decide on a better course of action, there's no shame in it. If God is presented with new information, and He changes how He acts toward a nation or Hezekiah, there's no shame in His actions.

If you WEREN'T telling the truth at first, there is shame in it. Why does the same standard not apply to God here? I've tried to find a single command God gives us for how we treat others (the second table of the ten) that God could violate, and I can't think of any, except lying.
God made us, so He can take our lives if He likes--no murder for God.
God owns all that we possess, so he can take it away from us if He likes--no stealing.
I don't know how God could commit adultery.
God doesn't have parents, so He can't dishonor them.
God owns everything or can make anything He wants, so He can't covet something that doesn't belong to Him.

The only command that God could possibly break is bearing false witness. And you say that there's no standard for telling if He does. But God doesn't agree with you. He repeatedly says He doesn't lie--that He is only ever associated with truth.
Exo 34:6; Deu 32:4; Psa 25:5; Psa 31:5; Psa 86:15 (and many others)

If we can't test Him in this one thing, how can we ever determine whether to worship Him as holy and righteous?

Wasn't it? Job 38:2 :think: Job 40:4 Job 42:3 :think:
Job 38:2;42:6

Perhaps you are right. But in the end, God chided Job's friends for their interpretations of Himself, and Job He seemed to chide for his lack of knowledge. It's subtle, but that's where I see a "knowledge filter" applied in the friends' case, and only a lack of knowledge in Job's case.

This statement, to me, denies and requalifies John 16:30 and John 21:17 :think: Does God know all things, or just 'some things?' :think: Who are you or I to make such a judgment about the God of the universe? Unless I get such explicitly from scripture, I just cannot be, but a classical traditional theist. For me, these and other scriptures fairly demand it. I'm not sure how an Open Theist manages it, but it just cannot work as I understand the scriptures. The good news? The two other guys who were wrong were Job's friends and the remedy was prayer and forgiveness. It gives me hope in such discussions as this. Job's friends were, I think, trying, albeit in theological arrogance and supposed high-road proposition. They were just called hard to accounts for poor theology but it was a correction. I think for the most part, our dueling theologies are on par within His

Which goes back to the question--"what is a 'thing' for God to know?" If all is settled, then God knows it all--I accept that conclusion, if the premise is true. If all is not settled, then there's no "thing" there for God to know or not know--except for what He plans to do. And Jer 18 is plain that God changes His plans at some level. Hezekiah's story is just as clear. To say these are saying something else makes the word of God a code that must submit to a hidden interpretation, one that is not accessible to any but the priests of one particular faction.

It comes from other scriptural presuppositions. Calvinism is very much premise upon premise of scriptures. In this case, God has the number of our hairs always numbered Matthew 10:30 Philippians 2:13 James 4:14 Ephesians 2:10 (btw, I think MUCH more important than our debate/discussion, are the scriptures we bring to the table) and is Sovereign (lords/controls/makes happen) over His creation. Daniel 4:35 Acts 5:39 Romans 8:28; 9:19-21

And when the number of our hairs changes? Does God know something new with each one we lose? To me, the description was meant to show that God knows our circumstance all the time, so that we can trust Him to take care of us at that time we need it. But to say He knows how many hairs we pull out tomorrow and two years from now turns the whole passage on its head (no pun intended). Similar to how you say the purpose of the Hez story was to change Hez. If I'm not allowed to go beyond the purpose, no fair for you to do so.

I think it is important that all Open Theists do 1) because most of us believers are not Open. There are few of you so it is important to know 'why' most Christians are not.

If so, then we really do need to go through the Greek origin theory [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] brought up. But IMO, we need to know what the truth is, not where a lie came from (if indeed it is not true).

2) Traditional/Classic theology carries other presuppositional scripture truths as paramount to proper theology and one of these is that God not knowing the future is tantamount to a future outside of His reality. He is ALREADY the first and last. He is ALREADY infinite.

I think you are using your understand of "infinite" to tell me I can't understand God, and that I must use your presuppositions to do so. I've rejected that methodology in favor of seeking out what my presuppositions should be from the one that should be giving them. Which, I think, is in line with this:

Such a theory is not supported well by any scripture and does damage to scriptural doctrines concerning the very essence and character of God and importantly, "as revealed in scriptures." We really have to serve one another by pointing repeatedly to scriptures on this debate. I can see no higher or better purpose to these discussions than causing a brother/sister to read and consider the scriptures together further. Thank you again, for such.

Exactly the opposite as addressed above, but thanks for your sincere thoughts and feedback. I have to believe God is somewhat handicapped in talking to us because we are handicapped in what we actually can conceive and understand. How much? I think a great deal. Again, I'm encouraged by how God treated Job's friends. They were certainly wrong and chastised, but... Hebrews 12:5-9

I wouldn't think you would limit God so. You think He can't make Himself understood? That's not to say that we can't take what He's given us and turn it into something else (adding or taking away from scripture, ala Adam and Eve).

Yet, some of this IS problematic in that laymen who haven't studied near enough, are gaining the pastorate and imho, without really the where-with-all to lead flocks when they have little knowledge of the overall progression and 'scriptural' founding of some of these important truths. When I see an Open Theist being able to interact with scriptures without explaining away "Lord you know all things," I'm encouraged.

Laymen like the fishermen Jesus chose, compared to the religious leaders of their day? I'm not trying to paint with too wide a brush, but I wonder if Jesus chose such for the very reason that they weren't already so set in their understanding of the coming kingdom that they couldn't be reformed to His understanding.

What is it laymen-turned-pastors are supposed to be studying? If open theists are correct in saying that the traditional view is wrong (I know that's a big "if"), such reformation probably isn't going to come from those who have been steeped in that traditional view all their theological careers. Maybe Luther was the open theist of his day (and we have just 13 more days to get our 95 theses together in celebration).

For me, God can use us in one another's life but scripture, His word, does not return void and Ephesians 2:10 may seem invasive, but to me, extremely comforting along with Philippians 2:13 because sink or swim, in the end, God wins AND He carries us to completion Philippians 1:6

Invasive, yes! Necessary, yes! If we aren't willing for Him to work in us that way, then He isn't really Lord of our lives. But there seems a necessary willingness...

Rather, and I think you catch some of it, my point is/was a 'rest' that I entered in Him. Hebrews 4:11 and again Ephesians 2:10

You are not sovereign my friend. This question kind of assumes it. While I'm not into shirking 'responsibility' and there is a dichotomy between doing, and God doing, I'm convinced and with Hebrews 4:11 try to make every effort to enter that rest which I believe is knowing He is keeping His promises.

I'm not sure where you're aiming with the rest points. Yes, we all must rest in the understanding that He knows what He's doing, but why do you bring it up here?

I sometimes assess the open theist is making a child-like first response accusation. There are some Open Theists I have on ignore simply because they actually ARE simple. They just think two-dimensionally and cannot get it through their heads they aren't 'brilliant' but actually shallow. There was a time on TOL I'd get 'baited' by simplistic yes/no questions that truly aren't but simpleton questions like "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" (the problem is a simple and simplistic mind for asking this particular question, the answer is "poor/incorrect comprehension of what you are 'trying' to ask - I used to have this limited understanding too, when I first heard the question).

Kick me if I start doing that.

Not my job and not 'my' wisdom, as smart as I think I am. :nono: Rather God IS the premier and for me, only Player worth mentioning. Let me state/ask this way: Is there ANY point to playing chess with God? 1) Can you EVER beat Him? :nono: 2) Is that ever going to change? :nono: So, 'what is the point?' I maintain, in the traditional sense, that the point is that "I" will change and get better for the effort. I don't pray to 'win.' Many many times, I pray rather "God, you know better than I" when praying on behalf of another.
For me? I've been in NO denomination that has consistency, including Open Theists. I absolutely see problems in all theological schools of thought (how could any of us not? This very thread points them out, clearly, imho).

I haven't even seen a denomination of open theists. The snippets of things I've heard from Greg Boyd's sermons and some books don't impress me. And I'm not trying to advertise for them or him. But I think I can recognize a valid explanation when I see one.

Why do YOU get to be spokesman for/to Calvinism? I, as a Calvinist, have never, ever, thought God lied. :think: I'm trying to tell you, you are imposing that upon Calvinism 'as if' it were true. It is an accusation/assessment, that most of us Calvinists do not share. Honestly, as a good thinking Calvinist, this thought just hasn't been on the table and never will be. To me, it seems you are saying that in order 'for you' to have been or could be Calvinist, you'd have to assume God is lying 'from your own' viewpoint. If so, fair enough.


Again, this places you as the arbiter of 'truth.' I know, per fact, both you and I have believe falsehoods were/are true. What does this do to your and my objectivity in being arbiters? It doesn't. God is judge alone and we are presumptuous otherwise. Job, again, was presumptuous with God until God asked him "who is ACTUALLY God, you or me?" :noway: (paraphrase, but that's what He asked Job from Job 39-41)

See, here, you know more than I do in such assumption. You are making up the 'if this, THEN this." Well, yes, if this/then of course, probably, likely, maybe this, but both the premise AND the conclusion are assumed. It is like being cocky with asking if God can create a rock He cannot pick up. I've seen a few agnostics/atheists get really full of themselves and at one time I did mistake cocky for intelligence, vibrato for knowledgeable. In this case, with you, I do see your point but I just don't buy the conclusion. It isn't a 'certain must' nor is it the only option.

I'm not trying to accuse Calvinists. All I'm saying is that in a fixed future, telling the future shouldn't be so hard that God would get something wrong, and that He would have to correct Himself. That's the story of Hezekiah's recovery. The prophet says one thing in the name of the Lord, then the prophet says the opposite thing in the name of the Lord. Both are telling the future. Both must be correct if God is who He says He is ("doesn't lie"). The only way for God to be telling the truth in both cases is if the future changed in between. And if God controls the future (I believe He does), then it must be something about God that changed. Not in a bad way...not in a way inconsistent with His character, but that really changed. His expectations, His plans for Hezekiah, His intentions for the house of Israel at that time in their history. And it seems to be driven by Hezekiah's plea.

Let me try to demonstrate:

1) God tells Hezekiah he is going to die
2) Hezekiah doesn't die
.: God lied

I realize you are seeing this ONLY from a Calvinistic viewpoint BUT your proposition applies directly to an Open Theist's understanding too. Do you know why? (why it needs work btw, it isn't true and you never escaped the same problem when you eschewed Calvinism - it is true of Open Theism "if" true (it isn't thankfully for either of us ).

I talked about this above, and I don't think I have much to add at this point.

Somewhat true and good thoughts here. It applies to your kobayashi maru scenario above. We need to know our limitations and when we are asking no-win or illogical scenarios.
:nono: Else that would be a lie. RATHER, entertain with me that your logic could use some help here, with me. Before I get too cocky, I don't always know the answer, I've just come to be able to recognize illogical scenarios better. Seeing the problem in them doesn't mean I can answer for God. In the end, we still, between us, have to trust Him.


"I change not" is rather His definition. It is VERY important we get this right.

So, if we know that God doesn't change, yet He has changed something about how He is going to deal with Hezekiah, what do we call that? Maybe God is saying that He can still bring about His plan for Israel/Judah with or without Hezekiah. Or with or without a majority of Jews, needing only a remnant. The "I change not" passage was an assurance to the Jews that God had not forgotten His promise to Jacob, but it was a contingent promise

Malachi 3:6-7 King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

There cannot be anything 'new' in a glass of water. Now I realize infinite is the contrast and such entails 'new' but we have to understand that God is ALREADY infinite. How? :idunno: This is one of those mind-boggling scenarios but I find it theologically, scripturally consistent to believe He is all-knowing. Scripture says He is. For me, I 'think' it dangerous to second-guess such scriptural givens. It certainly isn't a desire to 'be Greek' between either of us to wrestle over these scriptures. We are rather trying to ensure that whatever theology we embrace, it grasps all scriptures. To date, I know of no theology position that doesn't have tension with some scriptures.

That doesn't mean we settle with something that doesn't relieve the tension. It should mean we consider whether we understand where the tension comes from and see if God is causing it or we are.

Yes, but 'if/then lie' isn't cut and dry logic here. As I said, it applies, equally, genuinely, to Open Theism as well. It is a 'logical' problem, not a denominational specific problem. You truly haven't escaped it, just not thought of it. The good thing about Open Theism is that most haven't thought through the same problems that equally apply, and so it gives people hope that things can be reconciled, but they really aren't. Open theism doesn't avoid any of these same exact problems. Not a one of them.

I'm not so sure about that. It may not avoid all of them, but I think it avoids some of them.

There isn't even a need at all, if I follow such logical progression, to think that this story should exist at all, by that token. What have we learned? Why is it in the Bible? Again, my answer is 'to change Hezekiah.' It is an assumption, but it makes the most sense of the passage. I also observe with you, that the bloodline to Messiah needed to be established as well. You call it a lie, oddly. I see it as a necessity of information to ensure that things would take place otherwise. "The pot is going to boil over" was not a lie.

I would disagree. The reason it happened was to change Hezekiah. The reason it is in the bible is to change us, probably along the same lines as how Hezekiah was changed.

I agree. I have reservation about a good many scripturally enforced characteristics of God in mind to entertain such. I'd need something compelling to do so but am willing to discuss it further.


I don't think He finds comfort in being 'Calvinist' so much as being 'Biblically faithful.' I'd think that applies to most of us.

I'm satisfied with that, as long as we don't all lock down our "biblical" so quickly into our own system.

 

[Lon]

If you are only seeing it as you describe later (and copied here

then I can see why you have a problem with what I'm saying.
But I have an extra premise--that something changed in God's mind. It would like something like this:

1) God tells Hezekiah he is going to die
2) something changed
3) Hezekiah doesn't die

This fits with a Jer 18 scenario:
1) Nation is destined by God for destruction
2) something changes
3) Nation is not destroyed

Jer 18:8 spells out what changes on the nation's side: they turn from their evil. And it spells out what changes on God's side: He repents ("sighs") of the evil He thought to do.

Responsive is one thing. The problem is more about the idea of God not anticipating and 'changing His mind' as if it literally HAD to take man's intervention for God to be gracious. This just isn't so. Everything, everything, everything already comes from God. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 Somehow, in your scenario, your argument is trying "to make man worth something." For me, simply being identified with God makes us worth something. Further? Romans 8:31. So, question: Would you RATHER have God, who loves us (Romans 8:28) make a choice OR you or I, who make a lot of blunders, pray and intercept, ruin, or otherwise change God's plans? What makes the MOST sense? What is the MOST desirable? Not to pray? I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm VERY troubled by any man even 'wanting' to change God's mind. It assumes 1) as audacious 2) as putting us on some kind of par with God 3) as probably (more like definitely) the better, smarter, more loving action of God, why would we want to 'try' to put into plan something that doesn't work nearly as well as God? Isn't the answer yet and still, that 'we' are the change agent? God may very well do something else BUT it isn't because it is better than God's disclosed plan, but rather that it is better if we learn by our choices. IOW, the change isn't necessarily the better for all concerned, but it is for us who pray.

To me, if you first think to do one thing, and tell everybody that's what you are going to do (which is what a prophecy is) and then decide not to do it, it either means you weren't telling the truth at first, or you changed your mind. I know you don't like that phrase, but it is the appropriate idiom in the english language we both understand.

:think: I realize, with scenario you have in mind for this assessment points that direction, but I'm contesting the scenario. It doesn't have to be the only option on the table nor does it have to be the necessary conclusion to the story in the first place. My boiled pot story has optional conclusions based on what you or I bring to the story. "Lying" never has to even be on the table UNLESS you are entertaining what few would entertain. Not many theologians entertain the thought. It is still odd to me to think you entertained it while in amongst Calvinists. Did 'they' believe God lied, as you intimated/put-together???

Now, if you WERE telling the truth at first, and you DID change your mind based on new information and decide on a better course of action, there's no shame in it. If God is presented with new information, and He changes how He acts toward a nation or Hezekiah, there's no shame in His actions.

...unless I were perfect and you were not, in 'correcting' me :think:

If you WEREN'T telling the truth at first, there is shame in it. Why does the same standard not apply to God here? I've tried to find a single command God gives us for how we treat others (the second table of the ten) that God could violate, and I can't think of any, except lying.
God made us, so He can take our lives if He likes--no murder for God.
God owns all that we possess, so he can take it away from us if He likes--no stealing.
I don't know how God could commit adultery.
God doesn't have parents, so He can't dishonor them.
God owns everything or can make anything He wants, so He can't covet something that doesn't belong to Him.

The only command that God could possibly break is bearing false witness. And you say that there's no standard for telling if He does. But God doesn't agree with you. He repeatedly says He doesn't lie--that He is only ever associated with truth.
Exo 34:6; Deu 32:4; Psa 25:5; Psa 31:5; Psa 86:15 (and many others)

Exactly: God tells you so. He IS the standard. I've heard children accuse their parents of lying. I did so once to my mom because I, in my immature state, could not grasp or conceive the actuality. So RATHER than admit (or understand) that "I" had the logical problem, I transferred an accusation of lying to my parent. MY mistake (and a big but forgivable one). THIS is the problem with a lot of what I see in Open Theism.

If we can't test Him in this one thing, how can we ever determine whether to worship Him as holy and righteous?

Bingo! YOU can't. I 'may' be a little ahead of you in the education department: I understand I'm not the ruler nor contain the ruler for such. This is pretty big for me, when I was young, the world was always black and white and the standards I held, I thought were always right. I learned, through a few theology and practical experiences and truths, that I'm not. In a good way, that puts both you and I in the same boat. My boat has holes in it. Yours may not look like it, but as humans, there is no sink-proof concept. We are COMPLETELY dependent on God for everything. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5

Perhaps you are right. But in the end, God chided Job's friends for their interpretations of Himself, and Job He seemed to chide for his lack of knowledge. It's subtle, but that's where I see a "knowledge filter" applied in the friends' case, and only a lack of knowledge in Job's case.

:think:

Which goes back to the question--"what is a 'thing' for God to know?" If all is settled, then God knows it all--I accept that conclusion, if the premise is true. If all is not settled, then there's no "thing" there for God to know or not know--except for what He plans to do. And Jer 18 is plain that God changes His plans at some level. Hezekiah's story is just as clear. To say these are saying something else makes the word of God a code that must submit to a hidden interpretation, one that is not accessible to any but the priests of one particular faction.

I'm not sure how to address this from an Open Theist any more. To me, it looks like drinking the same Koolaid you are making, meaning it is simplistic thinking and for me, not very well thought out. To me it is akin to saying "I don't get letters in math, therefore there is no such thing as letters in math." It may make great sense to a basic math student, but it is wrong. The frustrating problem is that unless the Open Theist and basic math person doesn't even grasp the value for a missing letter or in this case, the definition of infinite, then it remains a frustration. My limitation is that I cannot explain any better to date than I have been

And when the number of our hairs changes? Does God know something new with each one we lose? To me, the description was meant to show that God knows our circumstance all the time, so that we can trust Him to take care of us at that time we need it. But to say He knows how many hairs we pull out tomorrow and two years from now turns the whole passage on its head (no pun intended). Similar to how you say the purpose of the Hez story was to change Hez. If I'm not allowed to go beyond the purpose, no fair for you to do so.

...you have four apples and you DIDN'T know 'if' you ate one, you'd only have three BEFORE you ate one? Logic is a bit more involved and so is foreknowledge. You, a 'limited' (me too) man are trying to quantify/qualify what God can or cannot know when He Himself is infinite? Question: IS God infinite OR is He 'attaining' the infinite? See above too, this all ties together. As I said, as a finite being I'm not quantifier either, but scripture does say He knows all. IF He is infinite, it means HE is infinite too, including what He knows.

If so, then we really do need to go through the Greek origin theory @Rosenritter brought up. But IMO, we need to know what the truth is, not where a lie came from (if indeed it is not true).

:think: Not sure what you mean. I'd said most of Christianity doesn't share this with Open Theism and that Open Theists are few. Was it to quantify theology by the numbers? No, it was to say most of us Christians don't understand this concept as 'Open.'


I think you are using your understand of "infinite" to tell me I can't understand God, and that I must use your presuppositions to do so. I've rejected that methodology in favor of seeking out what my presuppositions should be from the one that should be giving them. Which, I think, is in line with this:



I wouldn't think you would limit God so. You think He can't make Himself understood? That's not to say that we can't take what He's given us and turn it into something else (adding or taking away from scripture, ala Adam and Eve).
Laymen like the fishermen Jesus chose, compared to the religious leaders of their day? I'm not trying to paint with too wide a brush, but I wonder if Jesus chose such for the very reason that they weren't already so set in their understanding of the coming kingdom that they couldn't be reformed to His understanding.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I'm in complete disagreement with you on this point. It isn't that God isn't capable (wrong presumption), it is that you are incapable. I don't care how patient I am, if you cannot, for example, conceive of metaphysical reality, not amount of discussion is going to give it to you any time soon. Again, as per my example, this is the inadequacy of the student. Ever work with the handicapped? I have. Believe me, their inadequacy to learn is NO reflection on my ability. A fisherman 'can' learn algebra. One handicapped cannot. There is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. God did indeed/has indeed chosen the foolish things to confound the wise, but it is not academic material Paul is talking about. It is the grace and mercies of God

What is it laymen-turned-pastors are supposed to be studying? If open theists are correct in saying that the traditional view is wrong (I know that's a big "if"), such reformation probably isn't going to come from those who have been steeped in that traditional view all their theological careers. Maybe Luther was the open theist of his day (and we have just 13 more days to get our 95 theses together in celebration).

Luther wasn't a layman....

Invasive, yes! Necessary, yes! If we aren't willing for Him to work in us that way, then He isn't really Lord of our lives. But there seems a necessary willingness...

True and true, but again, I see the latter as a problem from the Fall. Without the Fall, no struggle or point, right?

I'm not sure where you're aiming with the rest points. Yes, we all must rest in the understanding that He knows what He's doing, but why do you bring it up here?

See my points above regarding prayer. We are commanded to pray, but again, the focus is always us, who need change, not a good God who is already the definition of Love and concern. We cannot, I believe, make a Loving/Caring God 'more' loving or caring. Prayer is not for that purpose. When Moses 'intervened' in the O.T., was it because God wasn't loving? :nono: Then also, I brought this up because it is still His-will, not my-will be done. It is still a rest even if I don't know what to pray for another or myself. It is about how much we see God as trustworthy and how we trust.

Kick me if I start doing that.

Will give that a shot if need be. Is there a 'kick' icon?

I haven't even seen a denomination of open theists. The snippets of things I've heard from Greg Boyd's sermons and some books don't impress me. And I'm not trying to advertise for them or him. But I think I can recognize a valid explanation when I see one.

I've been challenged with a few of their thoughts and appreciate their willingness to sacrifice all, including tradition, for a relational God, but I'm concerned when/if such clouds the mind from better thinking or more, from scriptures themselves. I'm convinced, for instance, that Omnipotence is a scriptural given Genesis 17:1

I'm not trying to accuse Calvinists. All I'm saying is that in a fixed future, telling the future shouldn't be so hard that God would get something wrong, and that He would have to correct Himself. That's the story of Hezekiah's recovery.

I think the accusatory comes with the propositional hypotheticals, but I'm remembering you saying you thought Calvinists made God a liar in Hezekiah's circumstance...

The prophet says one thing in the name of the Lord, then the prophet says the opposite thing in the name of the Lord. Both are telling the future. Both must be correct if God is who He says He is ("doesn't lie"). The only way for God to be telling the truth in both cases is if the future changed in between. And if God controls the future (I believe He does), then it must be something about God that changed. Not in a bad way...not in a way inconsistent with His character, but that really changed. His expectations, His plans for Hezekiah, His intentions for the house of Israel at that time in their history. And it seems to be driven by Hezekiah's plea.

But, as I said, in the Open View, God is still a liar, just an unwilling One: He makes a statement and still is wrong about that statement, 'if' we follow your logical proposition. For me: 1) always a problematic Open Theist scapegoat attempt, they just do not and cannot distance from the same accusation they level, logically (one reason Open Theism is simplistic theology for missing something obvious and pertinent) and 2) is an opportunity for Open Theists and others to hone their own theology propositions in the same light on every point. God often looks worse under the same microscope with Open View eyes.

I talked about this above, and I don't think I have much to add at this point.

Yes, but as I said, not just 'still a liar' but inept as well under the Open Theist view. It almost amounts to the Mormon concept "well you have to forgive God, He isn't perfect." 1 John 3:20 Isaiah 46:9,10

So, if we know that God doesn't change, yet He has changed something about how He is going to deal with Hezekiah, what do we call that? Maybe God is saying that He can still bring about His plan for Israel/Judah with or without Hezekiah. Or with or without a majority of Jews, needing only a remnant. The "I change not" passage was an assurance to the Jews that God had not forgotten His promise to Jacob, but it was a contingent promise

Hebrews 13:8 2 Corinthians 1:19 :think:

Malachi 3:6-7 King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

That doesn't mean we settle with something that doesn't relieve the tension. It should mean we consider whether we understand where the tension comes from and see if God is causing it or we are.
I'm not so sure about that. It may not avoid all of them, but I think it avoids some of them.

We really cannot divorce God's actions from His nature Psalm 102:27,28

As far as my mind grasps these scriptures logically, God is perfect and according to definition, it means cannot change. 1 Peter 1:16

I would disagree. The reason it happened was to change Hezekiah. The reason it is in the bible is to change us, probably along the same lines as how Hezekiah was changed.

Not a disagreement, you are simply adding to the scope of the passage, not disagreeing. We both are convinced, at this point, the need for change is in man, not God. Because even the Open Theist agrees, for me, it is enough for the needed agreement.

I'm satisfied with that, as long as we don't all lock down our "biblical" so quickly into our own system.

When 'cocky' (or opinionated, or stubborn etc.) replaces study, we are all in trouble at that point. :up:

Thank you again, -Lon

 

[Derf]

Lon, you have been quite patient with me as I've tried to keep up with previous posts while addressing new ones. And at this point you have managed the almost impossible by replying to two of my lengthy posts before I could reply to either of yours, so I'm going to attempt to join them and shrink them at the same time by eliminating the duplicate thought lines, I hope. I'll see how well I can do that.

No, I addressed just one of your points. I 'responded' to your post. Whatever isn't addressed, come back to, I've been REALLY busy lately so I can own missing a pertinent point and would appreciate a call back to it, and thank you ahead of time.

:thumb:

Perhaps, let's look at it another way: My child misbehaves, I physically remove my child and reorient them. Have I done something to their mind? For me, I at believe I've affected the mind. I may not be able to physically reach in and change chemicals, nerve synapses, and physical properties, but God can and does: 1 Corinthians 4:7 Did you make your own mind? Did you set it in motion? John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 What CAN you do without God? Did you really receive any kind of autonomy whatsoever? Did you? Genesis 3:5

How does God remove you? how does God reorient you? Aren't these the reactions of God to our actions (and you to your child's)? But if you were always in complete charge of your child's mind, would you even let/make your child misbehave? If so, why? Personally, if I were to have a choice in the matter before my child was born, I would make sure my child never misbehaved.

Correct BUT probably/possibly different from what you likely mean. I believe implicitly that John 15:5, 1 Corinthians 4:7 and Colossians 1:15-18 mean 'nothing.' I do not believe God is the author of sin and freewill. Something autonomous had to exist in the universe of God prior to man's Fall and freewill. That 'thing' which includes autonomy and some sense of 'free-from-God' will, is a deprivation, not an addition. It removed something, not gave us something. It made us st

Something got cut off there, so if there's more to consider, let me know.

I think the deprivation you're talking about is when we don't recognize what following God gives us. But if God made us able to NOT follow His will, then you are saying He made a bad thing. I disagree. It is only bad if it forces us to do bad things. That's the sin nature, though, not the freewill. That matches with your "'free-from-God' will", but isn't the same thing as free will. Free will says there's a choice. God says there's a choice (Josh 24:15). Love implies a choice. Worship implies a choice. Why do you fight against the scriptures so much?

:think: Scenario: You are struck blind. You are in complete darkness. Your ONLY choice to be able to see again is to follow directions precisely. Imho, I'd say you've been far more than pricked, you've been abducted (and all for love and good reason). Imho, you have no choice. Remaining blind the rest of your life is illustrative of man without God trying to live autonomously and willfully free. John 15:4-8

So you think God had to make Saul go blind in order to get him to see the light? Sounds like a willful child to me. Sounds like someone who kicks against, not obeys, the pricks. There's no doubt Saul was a special case. But the scriptures only record the outward things God used, not the inward brain manipulations. If there were brain manipulations, we don't know what they were.

Agree but 'will' and 'freewill' are two different things. You are describing 'will' here.
:up:

Here's where I have to give some credence to [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION]'s contention that freewill and will are referring to the same thing. I think you have taken the position that if the will is pointed away from God, then it is free, but to me that is not really freedom of the will, but one side of it. The other side is when the will is pointed toward God. If you don't have the ability to point both ways, that's when it's not free. And it seems to make a mockery of the scriptures where God tells His people to do a particular thing--and they either do or don't do it.

Responsive is one thing. The problem is more about the idea of God not anticipating and 'changing His mind' as if it literally HAD to take man's intervention for God to be gracious.

I didn't make the rules. It seems like you are saying that God is gracious even if there is no one to be gracious to--the old "If a tree falls in a forest" question. The fact is that the only scenario we have is the one we're in--with both God and man. And both are active in the scenario. Are you saying God can be gracious without man? You can only do so speculatively. (I don't know that He can be gracious to Himself, even, or between members of the Trinity, since they didn't do anything wrong.)

Do you have a problem with God anticipating two potential outcomes, where only one can be the final outcome? If not, then we are in violent agreement. I'm not looking for ways God has to change, but for ways the scripture can be true. Once God uses the "relent"/"repent"/"sigh" there's something that is changing.

This just isn't so. Everything, everything, everything already comes from God.

Except sin. Only the power to sin comes from God, not the sin itself. And the power to sin is given in the ability to choose between God's commands and the opposite. If you don't agree here, then we're further apart than I expected.

Somehow, in your scenario, your argument is trying "to make man worth something." For me, simply being identified with God makes us worth something. Further? Romans 8:31. So, question: Would you RATHER have God, who loves us (Romans 8:28) make a choice OR you or I, who make a lot of blunders, pray and intercept, ruin, or otherwise change God's plans? What makes the MOST sense? What is the MOST desirable? Not to pray? I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm VERY troubled by any man even 'wanting' to change God's mind. It assumes 1) as audacious 2) as putting us on some kind of par with God 3) as probably (more like definitely) the better, smarter, more loving action of God, why would we want to 'try' to put into plan something that doesn't work nearly as well as God? Isn't the answer yet and still, that 'we' are the change agent? God may very well do something else BUT it isn't because it is better than God's disclosed plan, but rather that it is better if we learn by our choices. IOW, the change isn't necessarily the better for all concerned, but it is for us who pray.

I'm not immune to feeling a need for worth, but I don't see how that is germane to the topic. I'm just looking at what God said. And then looking at what he said next. They are mutually exclusive statements about the same future. If the future didn't change between them, then one of them is incorrect. It could just as easily have been about a bowling ball as a man.

:think: I realize, with scenario you have in mind for this assessment points that direction, but I'm contesting the scenario. It doesn't have to be the only option on the table nor does it have to be the necessary conclusion to the story in the first place. My boiled pot story has optional conclusions based on what you or I bring to the story. "Lying" never has to even be on the table UNLESS you are entertaining what few would entertain. Not many theologians entertain the thought. It is still odd to me to think you entertained it while in amongst Calvinists. Did 'they' believe God lied, as you intimated/put-together???
...unless I were perfect and you were not, in 'correcting' me :think:

I told you what one of them thought--he thought the future changed, but he wasn't willing to admit he was clinging to an open theism idea. I'm ok with that, if "open theism" is a bad word and we need to find a new one. But if we disallow the concept on the basis of our doctrinal position, and then cling to it when needing to understand scripture, which one needs to be rejected?

Exactly: God tells you so. He IS the standard. I've heard children accuse their parents of lying. I did so once to my mom because I, in my immature state, could not grasp or conceive the actuality. So RATHER than admit (or understand) that "I" had the logical problem, I transferred an accusation of lying to my parent. MY mistake (and a big but forgivable one). THIS is the problem with a lot of what I see in Open Theism.

But I'm not now nor have I ever been accusing God of lying. I'm saying that your understanding, or Calvin's understanding drives that conclusion. It is a false understanding, in my opinion, because of this. Your point is perfectly stated, and, if you were to admit it, a concession, at least on the traditional doctrine. Maybe my position is wrong, too. I'll admit of the possibility, but it ought to drive traditionalists to question their belief in this area--just as you stated you had to as a child.

For me and for open theism in the Hezekiah scenario, there's no conflict. None. No lying, no misunderstanding, no having to read the passage with one eye closed.

Bingo! YOU can't. I 'may' be a little ahead of you in the education department: I understand I'm not the ruler nor contain the ruler for such. This is pretty big for me, when I was young, the world was always black and white and the standards I held, I thought were always right. I learned, through a few theology and practical experiences and truths, that I'm not. In a good way, that puts both you and I in the same boat. My boat has holes in it. Yours may not look like it, but as humans, there is no sink-proof concept. We are COMPLETELY dependent on God for everything. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5

But I'm not saying to test God with our standards. I'm saying we can test Him with HIS standards, and He won't fail them. You're saying we can't even use God's standards. This justifies every religion, and every religion's participants--if they can't judge their own religion, then there's never a reason to find a new one. You've just destined a world to hell.

I'm not sure how to address this from an Open Theist any more. To me, it looks like drinking the same Koolaid you are making, meaning it is simplistic thinking and for me, not very well thought out. To me it is akin to saying "I don't get letters in math, therefore there is no such thing as letters in math." It may make great sense to a basic math student, but it is wrong. The frustrating problem is that unless the Open Theist and basic math person doesn't even grasp the value for a missing letter or in this case, the definition of infinite, then it remains a frustration. My limitation is that I cannot explain any better to date than I have been

But aren't you explaining added letters? Aren't you saying that because of your definition of "infinite" (not necessarily the bible's)? But if this passage is used to determine the definition of infinite, there isn't any problem. Just like Jer 18:8 should be used when discussing what Mal 3:6 means. Both have to fit. Both are God telling us something about Himself

:think: Not sure what you mean. I'd said most of Christianity doesn't share this with Open Theism and that Open Theists are few. Was it to quantify theology by the numbers? No, it was to say most of us Christians don't understand this concept as 'Open.'

Sorry. I'm in complete disagreement with you on this point. It isn't that God isn't capable (wrong presumption), it is that you are incapable. I don't care how patient I am, if you cannot, for example, conceive of metaphysical reality, not amount of discussion is going to give it to you any time soon. Again, as per my example, this is the inadequacy of the student. Ever work with the handicapped? I have. Believe me, their inadequacy to learn is NO reflection on my ability. A fisherman 'can' learn algebra. One handicapped cannot. There is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. God did indeed/has indeed chosen the foolish things to confound the wise, but it is not academic material Paul is talking about. It is the grace and mercies of God

Luther wasn't a layman....

Neither are these pastors you were referring to. I'm not saying they are getting everything right. Neither would I say Luther got everything right. But rejecting everything they say because they aren't educated enough is a handwave.

But, as I said, in the Open View, God is still a liar, just an unwilling One: He makes a statement and still is wrong about that statement, 'if' we follow your logical proposition. For me: 1) always a problematic Open Theist scapegoat attempt, they just do not and cannot distance from the same accusation they level, logically (one reason Open Theism is simplistic theology for missing something obvious and pertinent) and 2) is an opportunity for Open Theists and others to hone their own theology propositions in the same light on every point. God often looks worse under the same microscope with Open View eyes.

Then you're ok with God being a "willing" liar, just not an unwilling one? I reject both. If the future is open, and Hezekiah was destined to die, and his destination then changed, there's no lie to tell him his new destination--and no lie when he was told his old destination.

Yes, but as I said, not just 'still a liar' but inept as well under the Open Theist view. It almost amounts to the Mormon concept "well you have to forgive God, He isn't perfect." 1 John 3:20 Isaiah 46:9,10

Hebrews 13:8 2 Corinthians 1:19 :think:

If God is giving true statements at all times, why is that imperfect? If God is giving untrue statements at ANY time, I would think that's imperfect.

We really cannot divorce God's actions from His nature Psalm 102:27,28

I went and looked for ideas on who wrote Ps 102. I didn't see Hezekiah's name as a possibility, but it would make a lot of sense. The text fits the story, even the enemies (Assyrians) who had him captive in Jerusalem.

As far as my mind grasps these scriptures logically, God is perfect and according to definition, it means cannot change. 1 Peter 1:16

I don't see how God isn't holy in the open theist's Hezekiah story understanding. But I CAN see how God isn't holy if He's telling an untruth about the future. The only way to save the settled theist view in Hezekiah's case is to pretend the future is open. And that seems to be a common theme.

Similar to your request, if I deleted without response something you wanted me to look closer at, bring it back up. I'll be traveling some this weekend and into next week, so responses may be slower.

 

[Rosenritter]

For me: "Not my will but thine" John 12:25

Love, if we would want/be it, is other-seeking. I'd rather be an automaton doing God's will. Let me put it this way: EVERY time I exercise my will against God's will, I hate that part of me, my dead flesh. Rather, EVERY time I'm doing God's will, I am where I belong. Who CARES after that point, Rosen? Nothing of me is of any worth compared to being His, all His.

Lon, the way you answered there you offered only two alternatives: no free will at all (as a robot) or an adverse free will (as a person). That's a bit of a false dilemma ... because the other option you didn't mention was a submissive free will (also as a person.)

If we use the analogy of a bride, you certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who hated you and fought against you with their will, but neither would you want to marry someone whom you had to control through a lobotomy. If you have to force someone to love you they don't actually love you. In this analogy (and I think this is also true of God) he wants those who will willingly love and submit to him.

 

[Stripe]

Here's where I have to give some credence to [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION]'s contention that freewill and will are ... the same thing.

With the amount of words I produce, the law of averages dictates that eventually I was bound to get something right.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

Lon, the way you answered there you offered only two alternatives: no free will at all (as a robot) or an adverse free will (as a person). That's a bit of a false dilemma ... because the other option you didn't mention was a submissive free will (also as a person.)

:nono: YOU suggested the automaton AND gave it as the only option against freewill. Try again?

If we use the analogy of a bride, you certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who hated you and fought against you with their will, but neither would you want to marry someone whom you had to control through a lobotomy. If you have to force someone to love you they don't actually love you. In this analogy (and I think this is also true of God) he wants those who will willingly love and submit to him.

Speculative. There is NOTHING here you actually know, Rosen. Worse? Every Open Theist is stuck in this made-up scenario as if it were true. Show me. Show me any place in scripture that spells this out, Rosen. It doesn't. There is no scripture of "God's gift of freewill." Remember AMR saying Open Theists are caught in Greek philosophy more than traditional theists? Listen to him for a few minutes. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

With the amount of words I produce, the law of averages dictates that eventually I was bound to get something right.

It is somewhat different imho but I like the good natured humor here. The will 'can' be in bondage. Brainwashing does work so, imho, will and freewill are at times different conversations. Respectfully, -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono: YOU suggested the automaton AND gave it as the only option against freewill. Try again?

There is either will or no will. I agree with Stripe and Derf; "will" and "free will" are the same.

Speculative. There is NOTHING here you actually know, Rosen. Worse? Every Open Theist is stuck in this made-up scenario as if it were true. Show me. Show me any place in scripture that spells this out, Rosen. It doesn't. There is no scripture of "God's gift of freewill." Remember AMR saying Open Theists are caught in Greek philosophy more than traditional theists? Listen to him for a few minutes. :e4e:

The innate free will of men (and angels) is evidenced from the Garden of Eden in the first moments after his creation, when he is told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... .and he does. The whole of scripture is written on the base foundation that man does choose whether to obey or disobey.

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV
(16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6 KJV
(6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Given space I could break this HTML page with two hundred examples... which I suspect you would disregard on the paradigm that the scripture must mean something else. But if you want more examples just give me a number.

 

[Lon]

How does God remove you? how does God reorient you? Aren't these the reactions of God to our actions (and you to your child's)? But if you were always in complete charge of your child's mind, would you even let/make your child misbehave? If so, why? Personally, if I were to have a choice in the matter before my child was born, I would make sure my child never misbehaved.

Romans 9:20,21? Isaiah 10:15; 29:16; 45:9; 64:8

I realize the 'automaton' idea is very threatening and troubling in concept.
I was also troubled by denying myself and taking up my cross, as well as 'saving my life' I'd lose it. Calvinism? :nono: Bible.
We just have to be wrestling with God and what it means to be His. 1 Corinthians 6:20

I think the deprivation you're talking about is when we don't recognize what following God gives us. But if God made us able to NOT follow His will, then you are saying He made a bad thing. I disagree. It is only bad if it forces us to do bad things. That's the sin nature, though, not the freewill. That matches with your "'free-from-God' will", but isn't the same thing as free will. Free will says there's a choice. God says there's a choice (Josh 24:15). Love implies a choice. Worship implies a choice. Why do you fight against the scriptures so much?

Read them above with me. Am I the one fighting scripture? Romans 7:18,19

So you think God had to make Saul go blind in order to get him to see the light?

Acts 9:9 You think He didn't? :think:

Sounds like a willful child to me. Sounds like someone who kicks against, not obeys, the pricks. There's no doubt Saul was a special case. But the scriptures only record the outward things God used, not the inward brain manipulations. If there were brain manipulations, we don't know what they were.

Look, right now, reading this sentence, I'm brain-manipulating you. I'm making synapses fire.
Problem: I'm only firing a couple of them, you still have control over most of them. I'm not God, but I certainly can manipulate. You do too. You've manipulated and taken captive some of my brain cells and nerves, and I've let you. Romans 12:5

Here's where I have to give some credence to @Stripe's contention that freewill and will are referring to the same thing. I think you have taken the position that if the will is pointed away from God, then it is free, but to me that is not really freedom of the will, but one side of it. The other side is when the will is pointed toward God. If you don't have the ability to point both ways, that's when it's not free. And it seems to make a mockery of the scriptures where God tells His people to do a particular thing--and they either do or don't do it.

He's a good guy, but I have to disagree, as I noted also to him.

I didn't make the rules. It seems like you are saying that God is gracious even if there is no one to be gracious to--the old "If a tree falls in a forest" question. The fact is that the only scenario we have is the one we're in--with both God and man. And both are active in the scenario. Are you saying God can be gracious without man? You can only do so speculatively. (I don't know that He can be gracious to Himself, even, or between members of the Trinity, since they didn't do anything wrong.)

No, not a chance. It is beyond speculative, because God has a nature 1) that is infinite (means He is already there) and 2) consistent such that that characteristic is part of Him.

Do you have a problem with God anticipating two potential outcomes, where only one can be the final outcome? If not, then we are in violent agreement. I'm not looking for ways God has to change, but for ways the scripture can be true. Once God uses the "relent"/"repent"/"sigh" there's something that is changing.

Yes, but not Him nor His mind. His actions? Sure, yes. As far as God 'anticipating' two potential outcomes? No, I see Him KNOWING them AND the one that is going to actually happen.

Except sin. Only the power to sin comes from God, not the sin itself. And the power to sin is given in the ability to choose between God's commands and the opposite. If you don't agree here, then we're further apart than I expected.

It is the same dichotomy between how evil 'can' exist in the universe in the first place, where a God without it has literally created everything. It is a logical and theological conundrum. As far as 'power' to sin. I'm not sure it takes 'power' to sin SO, not a disagreement, but rather an admission of ignorance on my part. Scripture in mind? :think:

I'm not immune to feeling a need for worth, but I don't see how that is germane to the topic. I'm just looking at what God said. And then looking at what he said next. They are mutually exclusive statements about the same future. If the future didn't change between them, then one of them is incorrect. It could just as easily have been about a bowling ball as a man.

Does our need to be 'significant' override our need to glorify our God and Savior? To me, this 'dying to self' is a difficult process but needs to happen. 1 Corinthians 6:20 John 12:24

I told you what one of them thought--he thought the future changed, but he wasn't willing to admit he was clinging to an open theism idea. I'm ok with that, if "open theism" is a bad word and we need to find a new one. But if we disallow the concept on the basis of our doctrinal position, and then cling to it when needing to understand scripture, which one needs to be rejected?

More important is if 'lied' comes up in conversation. You've said it, but again, becomes awkward when no other theologian you are talking to believes God lied. The inconsistency of another believing that the future changed, is also problematic for a Calvinist. Neither do I believe God lied, nor do I believe the future 'changed.' Read it with me: Hezekiah is going to die, HE changes, and doesn't die. That's all that the story entails. In it, you have God 'interacting,' which always causes a dilemma, even for the Open Theism paradigm (God is as clueless as a man and NOT a "Master Chess Player" by the offered commentary and scenario given by an equally clueless Open Theist (no malice intended by the word clueless here ).

But I'm not now nor have I ever been accusing God of lying. I'm saying that your understanding, or Calvin's understanding drives that conclusion.

I entertain it in-as-much as it is your observation without injury, but it is important to rejoin it with a :nono: I just don't see that as a necessary outcome anymore than me saying to my wife, 'that pot is going to boil over.' I knew fairly certainly (not like God) that the message was going to stop the pot. RATHER my interjection carried with it 'unless...' So did God's message to Hezekiah. I'm convinced that's the answer and that "going to die" carried with it 'unless...." Sorry, I have to disagree with Open Theists everywhere and you concerning the matter. Further? I don't believe Open Theists or you have a solid/good reason for believing a lie because of it. I just don't see it. I AT LEAST think you can grasp why, perhaps for the first time, 'why not' at any rate :e4e:

Your point is perfectly stated, and, if you were to admit it, a concession, at least on the traditional doctrine. Maybe my position is wrong, too. I'll admit of the possibility, but it ought to drive traditionalists to question their belief in this area--just as you stated you had to as a child.

:up: Perhaps some of my post above has helped understanding from our camp. I don't think this is a concession as much as an explanation...

For me and for open theism in the Hezekiah scenario, there's no conflict. None. No lying, no misunderstanding, no having to read the passage with one eye closed.

. I at least understand where another 'thinks' I have shortcomings in a Calvinist position. Problem with the turn? Seems a bit precocious and a bit shy of duly contemplative.

But I'm not saying to test God with our standards. I'm saying we can test Him with HIS standards, and He won't fail them. You're saying we can't even use God's standards. This justifies every religion, and every religion's participants--if they can't judge their own religion, then there's never a reason to find a new one. You've just destined a world to hell.

Matthew 4:7 somewhere along the line, 'test' is rather specific and about a tithe. The rest of the time? Mark 8:11,12

But aren't you explaining added letters? Aren't you saying that because of your definition of "infinite" (not necessarily the bible's)? But if this passage is used to determine the definition of infinite, there isn't any problem. Just like Jer 18:8 should be used when discussing what Mal 3:6 means. Both have to fit. Both are God telling us something about Himself

No. Definitions are really important and nobody gets to make up or qualify that definition but God Colossians 1:15-18

Neither are these pastors you were referring to. I'm not saying they are getting everything right. Neither would I say Luther got everything right. But rejecting everything they say because they aren't educated enough is a handwave.

ESPECIALLY if they do not show themselves to be academically apt. Ignorance is no good for anybody.

Then you're ok with God being a "willing" liar, just not an unwilling one? I reject both. If the future is open, and Hezekiah was destined to die, and his destination then changed, there's no lie to tell him his new destination--and no lie when he was told his old destination.

Good, that's my whole point. No, I'm not okay with God being a liar in either scenario. The scenario, then, proposed by Calvinist opposition, is where the fault lies imho. Again, I hope my address above shows that "The pot is going to boil over" is not and never a lie. Just because someone can make it up where it 'looks like a lie' is in the fault of the thinker and his limitation, wouldn't you agree?

If God is giving true statements at all times, why is that imperfect? If God is giving untrue statements at ANY time, I would think that's imperfect.
I went and looked for ideas on who wrote Ps 102. I didn't see Hezekiah's name as a possibility, but it would make a lot of sense. The text fits the story, even the enemies (Assyrians) who had him captive in Jerusalem.

Because it wasn't true, if we are playing by the same rules with Open Theists, as we are when confronting Calvinists. By ANY token that one says "God wasn't telling the truth," the same leads to God STILL not telling the truth. Why? Because that IS the premise pointed at Calvinism:

"God flat out lied." "No. No He did not." "But it didn't come true!" "Er, guess what? Not in the Open View version either, by the same token."

I don't see how God isn't holy in the open theist's Hezekiah story understanding.

Then, by the same token and given the above, neither is He under a Calvinist's view either. The token HAS to be the same or there is maligning inequity.

]But I CAN see how God isn't holy if He's telling an untruth about the future. The only way to save the settled theist view in Hezekiah's case is to pretend the future is open. And that seems to be a common theme.

Nope. That is your 'only' imposition. Do you STILL want to stick with that? :think: I'd think there is enough on the table for you to take a huge step back from such a statement. I hope I've adequately shared and shown that what is good for the goose (Calvinism) MUST be good for the gander(Open Theism). The playing field of speculation has to be level or it is an unfair and frankly, poorly thought out accusation. Almost no accusation leveled at Calvinists or traditional theists can escape equal application toward Open Theism. In the former scenario, applied to Open Theism, implication/theory not only makes God still a liar, but blind as well.

Similar to your request, if I deleted without response something you wanted me to look closer at, bring it back up. I'll be traveling some this weekend and into next week, so responses may be slower.

I empathize!

 

[Stripe]

The will 'can' be in bondage.

That would be a suppression or manipulation of the will, which is exactly equivalent to saying "a suppression of the freewill."

Will and freewill are at times different conversations.

It's just not necessary in any useful manner I can think of. I understand that Calvinists make great distinction between the terms, but that would be to assume the truth of that theological view.

 

[Lon]

That would be a suppression or manipulation of the will, which is exactly equivalent to saying "a suppression of the freewill."

Matthew 6:24 Between the two, where does a 'free' will happen/come in?

It's just not necessary in any useful manner I can think of. I understand that Calvinists make great distinction between the terms, but that would be to assume the truth of that theological view.

I'd think the answer to Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 would shed some light on this. :e4e:

There is either will or no will. I agree with Stripe and Derf; "will" and "free will" are the same.

Don't these verses seem to say you have one of two masters? Always? :think:

 

[Lon]

There is either will or no will. I agree with Stripe and Derf; "will" and "free will" are the same.



The innate free will of men (and angels) is evidenced from the Garden of Eden in the first moments after his creation, when he is told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... .and he does. The whole of scripture is written on the base foundation that man does choose whether to obey or disobey.

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV
(16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6 KJV
(6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Given space I could break this HTML page with two hundred examples... which I suspect you would disregard on the paradigm that the scripture must mean something else. But if you want more examples just give me a number.

Again, implied and derived. You presume/put-together the concept. It is not given clearly but by your assumption from the passage.
Sin is an attempt at freewill but the serpent was wrong, it did cut them off from life Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5

 

[Stripe]

Matthew 6:24 Between the two, where does a 'free' will happen/come in?

I'd think the answer to Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 would shed some light on this. :e4e:

Don't these verses seem to say you have one of two masters? Always? :think:

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Matthew 6:24 NKJV

You can use your will to choose which to serve. What's the problem? :idunno:


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

Matthew 6:24 Between the two, where does a 'free' will happen/come in?
I'd think the answer to Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 would shed some light on this. :e4e:

Don't these verses seem to say you have one of two masters? Always? :think:

The masters are God and mammon, not will and not-will. The will is in the words "hate" and "love", and "hold" and "despise" as none of those words have any application outside the context of will.

Luke 16:13 KJV
(13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[Rosenritter]

Again, implied and derived. You presume/put-together the concept. It is not given clearly but by your assumption from the passage. Sin is an attempt at freewill but the serpent was wrong, it did cut them off from life Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5

Lon, the concept of not having a will is created against the implied. I don't issue commandments for my hands and my feet because they have no will of their own and they already do my bidding. If I had a machine that had no will it would follow commands perfectly, but I wouldn't pretend that it had its own will and command it and further define penalties if it were to disobey. And when the subjects disobey, that is proof that they had will.

1. Penalties for disobedience are only prescribed for those that have their own will.
2. Displeasure in disobedience is only applicable when the subject had its own will.
3. Pleasure in faith and obedience only makes sense if the subject has free will.

The entire scripture from start to finish is within the context of God and his creation of men and angels that possess free will. So yes, there are hundreds of examples demonstrating that free will is the reality of God's creation in his own image.