If I were to become Open Theist...

[Lon]

If I were to become Open Theist...

...what do I win? (to omni or not omni)

There is no intention of being vitriolic here, I've weighed this over time. I'm prompted to voice concern.

What is Open Theism ideology for? What is the point, sincerely?

...I'd have to eschew omnis that are scripture and I love:



In Omnis, this is what I win:

1) Omnipotent: God is not only able, but abundantly able to answer my prayer. If He doesn't answer as I expect, it is still good, because He 'knows' what is best. Me in sin? :nono: I have no idea what is 'best' for Lon. I don't even 'think' I know, except what scripture has told me what is good for me.

2) Dependable - Steadfast trust (immutability): I don't have to wonder if God is going to make a mistake. I don't need to worry God isn't able, because He is more than able, and not simply competent after the fact. Everything the Lord does is good. Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Psalm 34:8 God is the Omnipotent El Shaddai Genesis 17:1 I'm not sure why omnipotent is even off of any theologian's table. There are so many texts that say All-Mighty (omni-all Potent-Mighty). I win a God who is able to be and give "exceedingly abundantly more than I can think or imagine, according to His (exceeding abundant) power." Ephesians 3:20



3) God is true, never wrong, never mistaken: Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Immutably true-God is perfect, and I thus have an example in the Lord Jesus Christ to walk perfectly. If He mistakes, I can make them too? Worse, I don't know when to 'emulate' and 'when not to emulate' if He weren't immutably perfect.

Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

4) Omniscient: Can a God who makes mistakes and risks, be perfect? If I were an Open Theist, I don't see how, I'm not seeing it: He can make mistakes, like get bad grapes when He 'thought' He was getting good. There is no way a 'perfect' God could expect good grapes and not get them, could He? He'd be 'mistaken.' It seems my 'trust and faith' would be severely compromised if:

"Yes He is! Perfectly mistaken! Perfectly wrong! He isn't omniscient. I reckon I'd have no free will if that were true!" I don't get it and it gives me issues with all 3 of the ▲above▲ What has 'my' will ever produced that is good? I don't take comfort in that, don't see it as how this relationship, the imperfect with The Perfect, could work out to any meaningful end if I'm not to become perfect. There is no point to the relationship to have free will.

"Well, we must choose or love isn't love." The only way I can meet God in relationship, is to rise to HIS standards. That is the relationship. One-sided? It must need be, I'm the imperfect one. Everything in my relationship with God screams 'Be like Him!' IOW, it is when I adopt "His Will" that I'm actually in relationship and free, because I'm the one who needs to change to be able to be in any kind of 'relationship.' Relationship where we are wrong and He always right isn't 'free will' imperative.

5) Sovereign: God is able to judge us righteously, knows how many hairs are on my head and how my mind works and guides me actively in my day to day. Proverbs 16:9 is a comfort, because I can make mistakes. Romans 8:28 is a comfort that a perfect God fix what I mess up, as an imperfect being.

6) Omnipresent: "Where was God when I was being abused? " He knew exactly how many hairs the victim lost that day. He didn't cringe away. I don't believe anybody would say "God cannot be everywhere at once" but merely that 'He isn't' by intimation. Omnipresence is logically possible, at least in Open Theism. I take comfort that God, if I go anywhere, He is already there. - Psalm 139 "You have searched me" may sound Open Theist, but the next line says "I" cannot flee from 'Your' presence (always in Him/with Him). There is incredible comfort knowing that I cannot be out of His sight, ever. He has me, and I have Him. Song of Solomon 6:3 When Jesus died on the Cross and rose again, He became sovereign over every wrong, cleansing it away, and took charge of all my need to be in the right, then indwelled me for hope of being like Him. James warns "you should not say today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a place, but rather 'if the Lord wills.'" His will, not ours, expressly given to every believer many times, that we should deny ours, take on His. How can we imperialize freewill in any kind of Christian category for importance? I take comfort that it is not my will, but His that I'm supposed to be following: His is perfect, mine not so much. None of us brings a lot to the relationship table. We love specifically, because He first loved us and taught us what love means. We had no clue in the first place, in self (free) will. He literally saved me from my old nature free will. Anything I have as a believer, is a freewill that God has given me in place of the old one. I didn't like that particular free will. I love this one: It is a 'bound by God' will. It makes incredibly better choices.

7) God is alone: One might wonder why such comforts me, and what it gives me: If God were not alone, there would be other contenders. If God was 'in' the universe not the Creator of it, then He has a creator. It is a comfort specifically because I know exactly where the buck stops. He alone is God and He has chosen us.

Not between fruit loops and raisin bran. The choice between two mundane cereal brands is exactly the kind of choice that is made less certain if things are settled.

Wouldn't it rather be 'more' certain?

And certainly God can know more about such things than we...and can control such things in order to force one option over another. But unless you propose that God knows all future choices because He has decided what we will choose in every instance (aka Calvinism), there's no reason to look beyond open theism for these kinds of answers, is there?

I've wrestled for many years now with the question: "What do Open Theists lose, if they don't hold to the Omni's?

For me:
Certainty in their trust of God, perhaps (omniscience).
Less certain that God is there when they are going through anything (omnipresence)
Lack of God's ability to answer prayer (omnipotence)
Not sure whether God is trustworthy (immutable)

I'm unsure if God is seen lacking in Open Theists, when they pray or go to Him. I don't know how this theology affects Open Theism in practice.

 

[Derf]

If I were to become Open Theist...

...what do I win? (to omni or not omni)

There is no intention of being vitriolic here, I've weighed this over time. I'm prompted to voice concern.

What is Open Theism ideology for? What is the point, sincerely?

...I'd have to eschew omnis that are scripture and I love:



In Omnis, this is what I win:

1) Omnipotent: God is not only able, but abundantly able to answer my prayer. If He doesn't answer as I expect, it is still good, because He 'knows' what is best. Me in sin? :nono: I have no idea what is 'best' for Lon. I don't even 'think' I know, except what scripture has told me what is good for me.

2) Dependable - Steadfast trust (immutability): I don't have to wonder if God is going to make a mistake. I don't need to worry God isn't able, because He is more than able, and not simply competent after the fact. Everything the Lord does is good. Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Psalm 34:8 God is the Omnipotent El Shaddai Genesis 17:1 I'm not sure why omnipotent is even off of any theologian's table. There are so many texts that say All-Mighty (omni-all Potent-Mighty). I win a God who is able to be and give "exceedingly abundantly more than I can think or imagine, according to His (exceeding abundant) power." Ephesians 3:20



3) God is true, never wrong, never mistaken: Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Immutably true-God is perfect, and I thus have an example in the Lord Jesus Christ to walk perfectly. If He mistakes, I can make them too? Worse, I don't know when to 'emulate' and 'when not to emulate' if He weren't immutably perfect.

Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

4) Omniscient: Can a God who makes mistakes and risks, be perfect? If I were an Open Theist, I don't see how, I'm not seeing it: He can make mistakes, like get bad grapes when He 'thought' He was getting good. There is no way a 'perfect' God could expect good grapes and not get them, could He? He'd be 'mistaken.' It seems my 'trust and faith' would be severely compromised if:

"Yes He is! Perfectly mistaken! Perfectly wrong! He isn't omniscient. I reckon I'd have no free will if that were true!" I don't get it and it gives me issues with all 3 of the ▲above▲ What has 'my' will ever produced that is good? I don't take comfort in that, don't see it as how this relationship, the imperfect with The Perfect, could work out to any meaningful end if I'm not to become perfect. There is no point to the relationship to have free will.

"Well, we must choose or love isn't love." The only way I can meet God in relationship, is to rise to HIS standards. That is the relationship. One-sided? It must need be, I'm the imperfect one. Everything in my relationship with God screams 'Be like Him!' IOW, it is when I adopt "His Will" that I'm actually in relationship and free, because I'm the one who needs to change to be able to be in any kind of 'relationship.' Relationship where we are wrong and He always right isn't 'free will' imperative.

5) Sovereign: God is able to judge us righteously, knows how many hairs are on my head and how my mind works and guides me actively in my day to day. Proverbs 16:9 is a comfort, because I can make mistakes. Romans 8:28 is a comfort that a perfect God fix what I mess up, as an imperfect being.

6) Omnipresent: "Where was God when I was being abused? " He knew exactly how many hairs the victim lost that day. He didn't cringe away. I don't believe anybody would say "God cannot be everywhere at once" but merely that 'He isn't' by intimation. Omnipresence is logically possible, at least in Open Theism. I take comfort that God, if I go anywhere, He is already there. - Psalm 139 "You have searched me" may sound Open Theist, but the next line says "I" cannot flee from 'Your' presence (always in Him/with Him). There is incredible comfort knowing that I cannot be out of His sight, ever. He has me, and I have Him. Song of Solomon 6:3 When Jesus died on the Cross and rose again, He became sovereign over every wrong, cleansing it away, and took charge of all my need to be in the right, then indwelled me for hope of being like Him. James warns "you should not say today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a place, but rather 'if the Lord wills.'" His will, not ours, expressly given to every believer many times, that we should deny ours, take on His. How can we imperialize freewill in any kind of Christian category for importance? I take comfort that it is not my will, but His that I'm supposed to be following: His is perfect, mine not so much. None of us brings a lot to the relationship table. We love specifically, because He first loved us and taught us what love means. We had no clue in the first place, in self (free) will. He literally saved me from my old nature free will. Anything I have as a believer, is a freewill that God has given me in place of the old one. I didn't like that particular free will. I love this one: It is a 'bound by God' will. It makes incredibly better choices.

7) God is alone: One might wonder why such comforts me, and what it gives me: If God were not alone, there would be other contenders. If God was 'in' the universe not the Creator of it, then He has a creator. It is a comfort specifically because I know exactly where the buck stops. He alone is God and He has chosen us.

Wouldn't it rather be 'more' certain?

I've wrestled for many years now with the question: "What do Open Theists lose, if they don't hold to the Omni's?

Meaning.

For me:
Certainty in their trust of God, perhaps (omniscience).

But you lose meaning. What value is your version of omniscience if it means that your life was all predetermined. Your choices are meaningless, because even your choice to find meaning is predetermined. Or your choice to despair of meaning in life is meaningless.

Less certain that God is there when they are going through anything (omnipresence)
Lack of God's ability to answer prayer (omnipotence)

I don't think most OpenTheists debate omnipotence. It is certainly biblical on its face ("Almighty" God).

Not sure whether God is trustworthy (immutable)

Changeless in every way lacks relationship. No meaning in an exhaustive immutability.

I'm unsure if God is seen lacking in Open Theists, when they pray or go to Him. I don't know how this theology affects Open Theism in practice.

Go look back at immutability to answer this for settled theists.

 

[Lon]

Meaning.

But you lose meaning. What value is your version of omniscience if it means that your life was all predetermined. Your choices are meaningless, because even your choice to find meaning is predetermined. Or your choice to despair of meaning in life is meaningless.

It isn't paramount, rather His will is. If I were less, I'd be less 'christ'ian. 1 John 3:2 When we see Him, we'll be like Him.

I don't think most OpenTheists debate omnipotence. It is certainly biblical on its face ("Almighty" God).

Agree, but if one omni, all omnis by logical conclusion.

Changeless in every way lacks relationship. No meaning in an exhaustive immutability.

Not when I'm the one who needs to change. It is the goal of my belief and faith. Even in immutable doctrine, the idea never was that He is like a stone, but rather the expression of all that is or ever will be as the Source of all things. Immutable in this sense means He doesn't emote upon a whim, but reaching from His unchanging perfection in love, grace, truth, justice that never changes.

Go look back at immutability to answer this for settled theists.

It is wonderful: I have a perfection to emulate, no? I can bank on unchanging promises.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't think most OpenTheists debate omnipotence. It is certainly biblical on its face ("Almighty" God).

Almighty does not mean "omni-potent," "having all power."

It means "the highest power." It's the position at the top in terms of power. Calvinists conflate this position with the idea that one having the most power means he has ALL power. It's a non-sequitur.

Plus, God delegates power to His creation. Thus, He cannot, by definition, have all power.

 

[Derf]

Almighty does not mean "omni-potent," "having all power."

It means "the highest power." It's the position at the top in terms of power. Calvinists conflate this position with the idea that one having the most power means he has ALL power. It's a non-sequitur.

Plus, God delegates power to His creation. Thus, He cannot, by definition, have all power.

"All power" doesn't have to mean nobody else can do anything, but it can mean "able to do anything". We recognize limits on what that can include, like logical impossibilities (married bachelors). That's why omniscience is OK with me, too, leaving out the logically impossible, such as knowing your decisions before you exist.

 

[Derf]

It isn't paramount, rather His will is. If I were less, I'd be less 'christ'ian. 1 John 3:2 When we see Him, we'll be like Him.

Meh. If God's will is the only thing, and He can perform it with robots, it's meaningless to us.

Agree, but if one omni, all omnis by logical conclusion.

Then it would only be necessary to list one. Yet we regularly speak of 3. And I've heard some add omni-benevolent and all-seeing (not sure what the omni is for that, omnioptical?)

Not when I'm the one who needs to change.

Who's talking about need? If God decides all your choices for you, your change is a farce, because you are always exactly how He wants you at that time.

It is the goal of my belief and faith. Even in immutable doctrine, the idea never was that He is like a stone, but rather the expression of all that is or ever will be as the Source of all things. Immutable in this sense means He doesn't emote upon a whim, but reaching from His unchanging perfection in love, grace, truth, justice that never changes.

But that's not what immutable means, is it? If you can put limits on immutability, then our limits on omniscience are faith game.

It is wonderful: I have a perfection to emulate, no? I can bank on unchanging promises.

Yes, for sure.

 

[Lon]

"All power" doesn't have to mean nobody else can do anything, but it can mean "able to do anything". We recognize limits on what that can include, like logical impossibilities (married bachelors). That's why omniscience is OK with me, too, leaving out the logically impossible, such as knowing your decisions before you exist.

"All" mighty. Unqualified, it means "All" Omni (all) potent (powerful), regardless of theology perspective or objection. All means all. Might means might. Questioning that, we might as well question any scripture word is accurate. Fore (before) knowledge (not prediction, known) is also a biblical word. Recent redefinition of 'prognosis (knowing before) is clouded in the medical field (best guess at future health), but it is not the intimation of the Biblical word. Etc.

Job 37:16 Hebrews 4:12-13Psalm 139:16 Matthew 10:30​

Galatians 2:20 Psalm 139:7-12 Revelation 1:8 Jeremiah 9:23-24​

Revelation 19:6 Isaiah 55:8-9 1 Corinthians 2:10 Colossians 1:17​

Luke 1:37 Ephesians 3:20 Isaiah 44:7 Psalm 94:11Acts 1:24​

Etc.

 

[Lon]

Meh. If God's will is the only thing, and He can perform it with robots, it's meaningless to us.

You are that self-important? Self-interested?

Then it would only be necessary to list one. Yet we regularly speak of 3. And I've heard some add omni-benevolent and all-seeing (not sure what the omni is for that, omnioptical?)

Omnipresent.

Who's talking about need? If God decides all your choices for you, your change is a farce, because you are always exactly how He wants you at that time.

Let me be blunt: If it is to His glory, I'd love it. His will is always going to be better than mine. You obviously aren't there? don't trust?
You've done so incredibly better than God with your own will? Not me. 1 John 3:2 I incredibly long for! Luke 22:42 James 4:15
Jesus prayed we'd be one as He is. What did my will ever accomplish apart from His? When did it ever mean anything without Him involved, prompting? Philippians 2:13

But that's not what immutable means, is it? If you can put limits on immutability, then our limits on omniscience are faith game.

Because 'you' want Him to be able to write a new song? New to you or new to Him? What is the 'need?' This is where the thread is asking: "what do you actually 'get' being Open Theist?" What is the pay-off? That I get to be myself? That I get to assert 'my will?' What is the draw of Open Theism for any believer? "What do I win?"

Yes, for sure.

But that means 'unchanging' (immutable). I somewhat realize (varying degrees of qualifications depending on Open Theist in discussion), that Omnis aren't totally rejected and I appreciate questions like "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" but what is the pay-off of denying any of the omnis mean what they mean? Fore-knowledge means 'knows beforehand' literally, Almighty means "All Powerful" (omnipotent), etc.

 

[Lon]

Almighty does not mean "omni-potent," "having all power."

It means "the highest power." It's the position at the top in terms of power. Calvinists conflate this position with the idea that one having the most power means he has ALL power. It's a non-sequitur.

Plus, God delegates power to His creation. Thus, He cannot, by definition, have all power.

Isn't delegated power, still His power?

 

[Idolater]

Isn't delegated power, still His power?

Lon, have you ever seen the movie The Game with Messrs. Michael Douglas and Sean Penn? You too @Derf

 

[Derf]

Lon, have you ever seen the movie The Game with Messrs. Michael Douglas and Sean Penn? You too @Derf

No.

 

[Derf]

You are that self-important? Self-interested?

You're avoiding the question by bringing it into the conversation.

Omnipresent.

Ok.

Let me be blunt: If it is to His glory, I'd love it.

Not if He decided you would hate it, as He must have with some in that theology .

His will is always going to be better than mine. You obviously aren't there? don't trust?
You've done so incredibly better than God with your own will? Not me. 1 John 3:2 I incredibly long for! Luke 22:42 James 4:15
Jesus prayed we'd be one as He is. What did my will ever accomplish apart from His? When did it ever mean anything without Him involved, prompting? Philippians 2:13

Because 'you' want Him to be able to write a new song? New to you or new to Him? What is the 'need?' This is where the thread is asking: "what do you actually 'get' being Open Theist?" What is the pay-off? That I get to be myself? That I get to assert 'my will?' What is the draw of Open Theism for any believer? "What do I win?"

Truth.

But that means 'unchanging' (immutable). I somewhat realize (varying degrees of qualifications depending on Open Theist in discussion), that Omnis aren't totally rejected and I appreciate questions like "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" but what is the pay-off of denying any of the omnis mean what they mean? Fore-knowledge means 'knows beforehand' literally, Almighty means "All Powerful" (omnipotent), etc.

You're the one that put limits on immutability.

 

[Lon]

You're avoiding the question by bringing it into the conversation.

Be more specific. I'm not following at all. It wasn't a question I responded to, it was a 'meh.'

Ok.

Not if He decided you would hate it, as He must have with some in that theology .

Then I'd hate it, but He didn't and I don't. If so, it'd be the nature I was 'created' with. I want that, Derf, the intention of His creating me. I want holiness. It definitely cost me my free will. I exchanged it the day I was saved. Now I am 'free' to follow His.

Truth.

But it looks 'less' than truth to me. I just want what He wants, Derf. I'm here on earth to learn to be 'more' like Him, to have 'more' of His will, less of mine. I have no other pie-in-the-sky dream but to be with and like my Savior, with a will that is like His, less than mine.

You're the one that put limits on immutability.

I was saying Open Theists do. Did you miss that point? I don't have any limits I place upon God. If He does, well and fine, but I'm not going to build a theology that does it. Does He qualify His unchanging nature? He's a perfect as He's ever been. He is as good as He's ever been. Do you have a God that is getting better? A God who is less? What are your qualifications on His immutability? Why do you need it? What do you win? Truth you said ▲ above ▲ Show me a scripture where His goodness 'changes' (for the better?). Show me the verse that says He can write a new song. Never seen it. If it is 'truth' you should be very able to present the scripture. I know of none. Show me a scripture that says He is more or less Holy today than He was yesterday. Show me a verse that says God learned something new today. If it is 'truth' that verse should exist. If not, then I'll continue to say "It doesn't look like truth to me," just an idea someone conveniently made up for a theology paradigm. If it isn't true, and I don't/cannot know it is true, what do I win?

 

[Lon]

Lon, have you ever seen the movie The Game with Messrs. Michael Douglas and Sean Penn? You too @Derf

Only when it is edited on TV. Way too much language for me. There is a book out called "Caraval" that is as plot twisting you might enjoy (more than "The Game." I think the movie will be called "Black Heart" (in the works). No cussing, swearing and though it has rascals, it carries a girl who is saving her self until marriage.

 

[Lon]

bump @Derf if you have time and inclination and ty for your time spent here.

 

[Derf]

bump @Derf if you have time and inclination and ty for your time spent here.

Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Derf]

Be more specific. I'm not following at all. It wasn't a question I responded to, it was a 'meh.'

Your question is "What does one gain from Open Theism". I said, "Meaning". You said:

It isn't paramount, rather His will is. If I were less, I'd be less 'christ'ian. 1 John 3:2 When we see Him, we'll be like Him.

This is, imho, a way to avoid the conversation, despite it being your thread. If you say, "meaning is of no importance", then your thread is of no importance. But by saying, "meaning isn't important, only God's meaning is important", you try to reject any personal human insight or understanding. And by "human", I don't mean human understanding without God, but human understanding as man was created by God.

Now, His will, no doubt, is important. But if God created man to have importance, then man's will is also important. Did God create man to have importance? Most assuredly. He made man in His image. He gave him dominion over the whole world. He allowed man to even disobey a command (stupid, yes, but it is the epitome of import).

Then I'd hate it, but He didn't and I don't. If so, it'd be the nature I was 'created' with. I want that, Derf, the intention of His creating me. I want holiness. It definitely cost me my free will. I exchanged it the day I was saved. Now I am 'free' to follow His.

What if the intention of His creating you was that He wanted you to choose Him, recognizing that you might not?

But it looks 'less' than truth to me. I just want what He wants, Derf. I'm here on earth to learn to be 'more' like Him, to have 'more' of His will, less of mine. I have no other pie-in-the-sky dream but to be with and like my Savior, with a will that is like His, less than mine.

Why? Why do you care to be with and like our Savior, with a will like His? Because you love Him. And if you didn't, but He still loved you, and wanted you to love Him, He could just make you love Him, right? Wrong. Nobody can make someone love someone without it ceasing to be "love". It's a rock too big for God to lift.

I was saying Open Theists do. Did you miss that point?

And I was saying you do. So why is it a problem if Open Theists do?

I don't have any limits I place upon God. If He does, well and fine, but I'm not going to build a theology that does it.

Would you be willing to ascribe to a theology that does it, if God is the builder? Please take some time to think about this before you answer.

Does He qualify His unchanging nature?

Isn't "nature" a qualifier? Isn't it a limitation on God's changelessness? If God can change in some way that is not part of His nature, then isn't He only partially immutable? And doesn't He?

He's a perfect as He's ever been.

Maybe better.

He is as good as He's ever been. Do you have a God that is getting better?

Yes. Everytime God shows love, He is getting better. More praiseworthy. Did God deserve as much praise before He made the heavens and the earth? If so, then why does He need the heavens to declare His glory, or the firmament to show His handiwork? If He had never done any handiwork, would the praise be nearly so complete? I don't see how. Just as faith without works is dead, power without action is dead, though such power may be subdued for a time.

A God who is less? What are your qualifications on His immutability? Why do you need it? What do you win? Truth you said ▲ above ▲ Show me a scripture where His goodness 'changes' (for the better?).

I think I just did. Why did the morning stars sing together at that particular time (Job 38:7)? Why did God even mention His own works to Job? It's because they are praiseworthy. And God knows it. He enjoys His own works, if I can be so bold.

Show me the verse that says He can write a new song.

Show me the verse that says He can create a new creature. How does He do it? Isn't it with His voice?

Never seen it. If it is 'truth' you should be very able to present the scripture. I know of none. Show me a scripture that says He is more or less Holy today than He was yesterday.

"Holy" means "set apart".

1. apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness
   1. apartness, sacredness, holiness
      1. of God
      2. of places
      3. of things
   2. set-apartness, separateness

How can the only entity that exists be "set apart". It's a relational term. And it's no good saying there are three persons in the trinity, because I'm sure you would agree that one of the persons is not more holy than another, nor is any of the three set apart from the others. Else they wouldn't be One. God became holy as men (and beasts) were made that illustrated His differences to them.

Show me a verse that says God learned something new today. If it is 'truth' that verse should exist. If not, then I'll continue to say "It doesn't look like truth to me," just an idea someone conveniently made up for a theology paradigm. If it isn't true, and I don't/cannot know it is true, what do I win?

You've been shown, but you don't agree. There's not much I can do about that. But I'll show it again:
[Gen 2:19 KJV] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

[Gen 22:12 KJV] And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
to know

Now:
The KJV translates Strong's H6258 in the following manner: now, whereas, henceforth, this time forth, straightway.

I know:

1. (Qal)
   1. to know
      1. to know, learn to know
      2. to perceive
      3. to perceive and see, find out and discern
      4. to discriminate, distinguish
      5. to know by experience
      6. to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
      7. to consider
   2. to know, be acquainted with
   3. to know (a person carnally)
   4. to know how, be skilful in
   5. to have knowledge, be wise

Putting those three words (NOW and I KNOW) together makes the phrase self-explanatory. Any other explanation has to come from presuppositions, and not from the text directly.

Here is another use of the phrase in the bible (I didn't see too many of the exact same phrase):
[Exo 18:11 KJV] Now I know that the LORD [is] greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly [he was] above them.
In this instance, Jethro is remarking on the power of God displayed against the Egyptians. He has been shown that God is more powerful than the Egyptian gods.

 

[Lon]

Your question is "What does one gain from Open Theism". I said, "Meaning". You said:

This is, imho, a way to avoid the conversation, despite it being your thread. If you say, "meaning is of no importance", then your thread is of no importance. But by saying, "meaning isn't important, only God's meaning is important", you try to reject any personal human insight or understanding. And by "human", I don't mean human understanding without God, but human understanding as man was created by God.

Now, His will, no doubt, is important. But if God created man to have importance, then man's will is also important.

Exactly, you picked up on it fine. "His will." Importance for me? Before the Fall, yes. Now? How can my will, at struggle with sin and following God, be of import? He loves us, as individuals, but we are talking about 'will' here.

Did God create man to have importance?

Prior the Fall, yes. He loved us, so important to Him to save us. To ourselves? We don't love like He does, even as Christians. We are here to learn.

Most assuredly. He made man in His image. He gave him dominion over the whole world. He allowed man to even disobey a command (stupid, yes, but it is the epitome of import).

It was rather the one thing, in all the Garden, that was of no import as long as they didn't touch it. Anything, everything was available to them but that. Was it 'important' that they not eat it? Is that what you are asking?

What if the intention of His creating you was that He wanted you to choose Him, recognizing that you might not?

It is a HUGE postulation to build a theology off of. Genesis is one of the most important theological books, that we need to get right.

Why? Why do you care to be with and like our Savior, with a will like His?

Because His is good, loving, right, just, etc.

Because you love Him. And if you didn't, but He still loved you, and wanted you to love Him, He could just make you love Him, right?

Yes.

Wrong.

No. You are assuming the Fall at such venture and it'd make you a Calvinist but without omnis. IOW, the very premise of "Free" will is tied up in the result of the Fall as if a gift. Double pred Calvinists would agree with you.

Nobody can make someone love someone without it ceasing to be "love".

You cannot, true. We are Fallen, so true. It is very simple to answer this: Did Adam and Eve, created to love, love God until they ate of the Tree?

It's a rock too big for God to lift.

The problem is in the question. The questioner is the one who is making the mistake. I can explain this, but it is asking a logical fallacy.

And I was saying you do. So why is it a problem if Open Theists do?

Because I don't?

Would you be willing to ascribe to a theology that does it, if God is the builder? Please take some time to think about this before you answer.

Yes, if God told me He didn't know everything, if He said He wasn't everywhere, if He said He didn't hold all the cards nor was it in His power, I'd believe Him. No I do not believe He ever said such a thing. Did you happen to watch the Bruce Ware video you 'liked' on the Omiscience of God thread?

Isn't "nature" a qualifier? Isn't it a limitation on God's changelessness? If God can change in some way that is not part of His nature, then isn't He only partially immutable? And doesn't He?

A simple question to ponder: Where does 'anything' come from? Where does 'everything' come from? It will produce a logic in you that will create a problem with Open View paradigms.

Maybe better.

Process Theology

Yes. Everytime God shows love, He is getting better.

:nono: Do you realize you have a god 'inside and bound inside creation?' Your thinking binds Him here, as a product of creation just as we are. My paradigm: God is both involved with AND outside of His creation at the same time.

More praiseworthy. Did God deserve as much praise before He made the heavens and the earth?

Nope, the same. You have a god that must perform for you to appreciate Him? When He interacts, we may grow in our appreciation, but same God as He always was. Same unending love.

If so, then why does He need the heavens to declare His glory, or the firmament to show His handiwork?

Because we are in a fallen state and we are finite moving toward infinite, not the other way around.

If He had never done any handiwork, would the praise be nearly so complete?

You are missing something: All God does or doesn't do is praiseworthy. It is an extension of His being. He is so vast, you'll never this side of glory have 'enough' to praise Him for already.

I don't see how. Just as faith without works is dead, power without action is dead, though such power may be subdued for a time.

My batteries are there in a drawer, whenever I need them. Do you pray? What happens 'before' you pray? Imho, you are overthinking what He must do with "His" power.

I think I just did. Why did the morning stars sing together at that particular time (Job 38:7)? Why did God even mention His own works to Job? It's because they are praiseworthy. And God knows it. He enjoys His own works, if I can be so bold.

Sure He does, "It was good!" Again, "where did everything, everything, everything, come from in the first place? -->His being (eternal existence), His power (all, there is absolutely no other power than God else He is coeternal with it). IOW, if you follow every Open View postulate to logical conclusion, it always, always, always points to God co-existent with knowledge, not the source of it, co-existent with power, not all of it, coexistent with space, not all of it. It is forced to become Process Theology when pressed to its conclusions, if it is to be consistent.

Show me the verse that says He can create a new creature. How does He do it? Isn't it with His voice?

"Holy" means "set apart".

1. apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness
   1. apartness, sacredness, holiness
      1. of God
      2. of places
      3. of things
   2. set-apartness, separateness

How can the only entity that exists be "set apart". It's a relational term.

Which is Process Theology: God is a product of the universe, coexistent with it. He is 'becoming' God, is the greatest thing in it, but contending with other powers, other presences, other knowledge, to 'become' dominant over it all.

And it's no good saying there are three persons in the trinity, because I'm sure you would agree that one of the persons is not more holy than another, nor is any of the three set apart from the others. Else they wouldn't be One. God became holy as men (and beasts) were made that illustrated His differences to them.

They are one. If not, you are describing tritheism (I know you don't believe in that, its heresy).

You've been shown, but you don't agree. There's not much I can do about that. But I'll show it again:
[Gen 2:19 KJV] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

And I've said, repeatedly, this is because of English translation problems. If you only know English, you'll be led astray, simply because you aren't using your concordance to understand Hebrew and Greek when you need to do so.

[Gen 22:12 KJV] And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
to know

See the Bruce Ware video where he addresses this the same as just above: English translation problem/error.

Now:
The KJV translates Strong's H6258 in the following manner: now, whereas, henceforth, this time forth, straightway.

I know:

1. (Qal)
   1. to know
      1. to know, learn to know
      2. to perceive
      3. to perceive and see, find out and discern
      4. to discriminate, distinguish
      5. to know by experience
      6. to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
      7. to consider
   2. to know, be acquainted with
   3. to know (a person carnally)
   4. to know how, be skilful in
   5. to have knowledge, be wise

Rather look at the word "Now." Such can be 'it is known' or "In this instance (like all other instance before this), I know you fear Me."
Bruce Ware also tackled this one head-on. He is a language scholar and agrees with me that English doesn't always convey well and so we need to have concordances in our libraries. It is this important: I'd reckon the majority of problems with texts Open Theists use, is specifically because of ideas they got from English translations!

Putting those three words (NOW and I KNOW) together makes the phrase self-explanatory. Any other explanation has to come from presuppositions, and not from the text directly.

Incorrect. See Bruce Ware's video you 'liked' in the Omniscience of God thread.

Here is another use of the phrase in the bible (I didn't see too many of the exact same phrase):
[Exo 18:11 KJV] Now I know that the LORD [is] greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly [he was] above them.

"Now" is an English translation. While it is 'okay' it doesn't matter 'when' he knew it. It matters 'if' he knows it. When is superfluous to the need and importance stressed in this passage.

In this instance, Jethro is remarking on the power of God displayed against the Egyptians. He has been shown that God is more powerful than the Egyptian gods.

Yes, and 'when' is incidental. "Now" today? "Now" long long time ago so no longer "now?" "Now" the second he is saying it or 'now' the 5 minutes before? Or the day? "Now" is of no consequence. The Hebrew word is Naw
"H4994 Na
A primitive particle of incitement (simply hereby) and entreaty(petition), which may usually be rendered I pray, now or then; added mostly to verbs (in the imperative or future), or to interjections, occasionally to an adverb or conjugation: - I beseech (pray) thee (you), go to, now, oh."

So, Open Theism based on an idea that is intimated, best guessed by English scholars, to convey 'incitement' or 'entreaty.' Long way from 'now?' If your theology is built on a mistaken English intimation, yes. You are Open Theist all because of English and only English for the reason!

 

[Idolater]

Exactly, you picked up on it fine. "His will." Importance for me? Before the Fall, yes. Now? How can my will, at struggle with sin and following God, be of import? He loves us, as individuals, but we are talking about 'will' here.

Prior the Fall, yes. He loved us, so important to Him to save us. To ourselves? We don't love like He does, even as Christians. We are here to learn.

It was rather the one thing, in all the Garden, that was of no import as long as they didn't touch it. Anything, everything was available to them but that. Was it 'important' that they not eat it? Is that what you are asking?

It is a HUGE postulation to build a theology off of. Genesis is one of the most important theological books, that we need to get right.

Because His is good, loving, right, just, etc.

Yes.

No. You are assuming the Fall at such venture and it'd make you a Calvinist but without omnis. IOW, the very premise of "Free" will is tied up in the result of the Fall as if a gift. Double pred Calvinists would agree with you.

You cannot, true. We are Fallen, so true. It is very simple to answer this: Did Adam and Eve, created to love, love God until they ate of the Tree?

The problem is in the question. The questioner is the one who is making the mistake. I can explain this, but it is asking a logical fallacy.

Because I don't?

Yes, if God told me He didn't know everything, if He said He wasn't everywhere, if He said He didn't hold all the cards nor was it in His power, I'd believe Him. No I do not believe He ever said such a thing. Did you happen to watch the Bruce Ware video you 'liked' on the Omiscience of God thread?

A simple question to ponder: Where does 'anything' come from? Where does 'everything' come from? It will produce a logic in you that will create a problem with Open View paradigms.

Process Theology

:nono: Do you realize you have a god 'inside and bound inside creation?' Your thinking binds Him here, as a product of creation just as we are. My paradigm: God is both involved with AND outside of His creation at the same time.

Nope, the same. You have a god that must perform for you to appreciate Him? When He interacts, we may grow in our appreciation, but same God as He always was. Same unending love.

Because we are in a fallen state and we are finite moving toward infinite, not the other way around.

You are missing something: All God does or doesn't do is praiseworthy. It is an extension of His being. He is so vast, you'll never this side of glory have 'enough' to praise Him for already.

My batteries are there in a drawer, whenever I need them. Do you pray? What happens 'before' you pray? Imho, you are overthinking what He must do with "His" power.

Sure He does, "It was good!" Again, "where did everything, everything, everything, come from in the first place? -->His being (eternal existence), His power (all, there is absolutely no other power than God else He is coeternal with it). IOW, if you follow every Open View postulate to logical conclusion, it always, always, always points to God co-existent with knowledge, not the source of it, co-existent with power, not all of it, coexistent with space, not all of it. It is forced to become Process Theology when pressed to its conclusions, if it is to be consistent.

Which is Process Theology: God is a product of the universe, coexistent with it. He is 'becoming' God, is the greatest thing in it, but contending with other powers, other presences, other knowledge, to 'become' dominant over it all.

They are one. If not, you are describing tritheism (I know you don't believe in that, its heresy).

And I've said, repeatedly, this is because of English translation problems. If you only know English, you'll be led astray, simply because you aren't using your concordance to understand Hebrew and Greek when you need to do so.

See the Bruce Ware video where he addresses this the same as just above: English translation problem/error.

Rather look at the word "Now." Such can be 'it is known' or "In this instance (like all other instance before this), I know you fear Me."
Bruce Ware also tackled this one head-on. He is a language scholar and agrees with me that English doesn't always convey well and so we need to have concordances in our libraries. It is this important: I'd reckon the majority of problems with texts Open Theists use, is specifically because of ideas they got from English translations!

Incorrect. See Bruce Ware's video you 'liked' in the Omniscience of God thread.

"Now" is an English translation. While it is 'okay' it doesn't matter 'when' he knew it. It matters 'if' he knows it. When is superfluous to the need and importance stressed in this passage.

Yes, and 'when' is incidental. "Now" today? "Now" long long time ago so no longer "now?" "Now" the second he is saying it or 'now' the 5 minutes before? Or the day? "Now" is of no consequence. The Hebrew word is Naw
"H4994 Na
A primitive particle of incitement (simply hereby) and entreaty(petition), which may usually be rendered I pray, now or then; added mostly to verbs (in the imperative or future), or to interjections, occasionally to an adverb or conjugation: - I beseech (pray) thee (you), go to, now, oh."

So, Open Theism based on an idea that is intimated, best guessed by English scholars, to convey 'incitement' or 'entreaty.' Long way from 'now?' If your theology is built on a mistaken English intimation, yes. You are Open Theist all because of English and only English for the reason!

Basically agreed. You would really need to show God expressing surprise in order to have good evidence supporting Him not knowing the future—and the only time we see that is with the wild grapes rhetoric in Isaiah—and that's clearly rhetoric because if you take Him literally there, you wind up also having to interpret Him as saying that—not only was He surprised by the wild grapes—but also, He STILL doesn't know why He got them, if you take this rhetoric literally instead of rhetorically, which is what it's clearly intended to be on its face.

 

[Idolater]

Only when it is edited on TV. Way too much language for me. There is a book out called "Caraval" that is as plot twisting you might enjoy (more than "The Game." I think the movie will be called "Black Heart" (in the works). No cussing, swearing and though it has rascals, it carries a girl who is saving her self until marriage.

OK. I find rough language funny in the right context, but that context is so far contained in Hollywood to the first seven seasons and three movies of the Trailer Park Boys franchise, and everywhere else I share your disdain for foul mouths. What I don't like is the anger or hatred expressed by the words coming out of the actors' mouths, it's a little too intimate for me to be pure entertainment and theater. It's too real. When you really hear real people using words like that, it's sometimes in anger and hatred, and then it's truly ugliness exemplified. But in the right context, apparently only in the context of trailer parks, which is a whole other subculture that is as unique as say Indian reservations or Little Italy and Chinatown, I do get a kick out of the profanities.

It goes a long way with me if you avoid using the sixth-letter word as a verb—instead only as an attributive or a metaphor but not literally.

I forgot about the language in The Game. I still don't remember it but if you say so on your word I'll take your word for it. It's certainly the plot and premise that I recall from the movie, and I mention it because it makes you think about foreknowledge and determinism and free will and us being 'creatures of habit.' For example what do you think about the main character's attempted suicide? Was that his free choice? Was it someone else's? Was it just chance? It gets you thinking.