If I were to become Open Theist...

[Nick M]

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

It is understanding God based on what he has told us of himself in scripture.

 

[Nick M]

Omnipresent.

Will he be in the lake of fire? He certainly can be if he chooses. That isn't what I am asking. Will he is the question. If he chooses not to be, doesn't that answer your question? I actually think this is silly.

 

[Idolater]

It is understanding God based on what he has told us of himself in scripture.

Do you think He also tells us of Himself in nature? Many Evangelicals believe in 'Special' (viz. the Bible) and 'General' Revelation (nature).

 

[Nick M]

Do you think He also tells us of Himself in nature?

Your lack of studying scripture makes you look silly at times.

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

So, of course he does. And your true Pope tells you.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

 

[Lon]

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.

Because it was all preplanned and controlled. "Happy Birthday!" It didn't matter that it was all organized. For us, the same. We are here 'to learn.' Free will theists miss that point and imperialize something else and miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Lon]

It is understanding God based on what he has told us of himself in scripture.

Or at least what one thinks scripture says. On point, the huge difference is between what we alternatively see as anthropomorphized language from God.

Will he be in the lake of fire?

I don't know and I'd intimate neither do you.

He certainly can be if he chooses.

Everything, everything, everything comes 'from' God. Without Him is nothing made that is made. I'm not even certain what the Lake of Fire is. It may be an immolation that is over in seconds. I've no idea, and because of that don't know that I can make a theological doctrine of import that will hold any kind of weight for consideration: Too many questions and variables.

That isn't what I am asking. Will he is the question. If he chooses not to be, doesn't that answer your question? I actually think this is silly.

Whatever we are willing to consider is of weight, whatever we are unwilling to consider might be relegated to 'silly' but there are all kinds of problems, in good will dialogue, with dismissing another's ideas. For instance, you are coming up with ideas here, trying to consider and trying to give response. I don't want to insult you by calling anything silly. I value your input (and thank you). Whether it is reciprocal or not, I want to be the guy that serves you as well as thread.

On this, Derf was asking about 'omnioptical.'

 

[Nick M]

Everything, everything, everything comes 'from' God. Without Him is nothing made that is made. I'm not even certain what the Lake of Fire is. It may be an immolation that is over in seconds. I've no idea, and because of that don't know that I can make a theological doctrine of import that will hold any kind of weight for consideration: Too many questions and variables.

This does not answer my simple question. And if you don't know what the lake of fire is, you haven't read the Bible.

7 And the Lord said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” 9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”


11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” 14 So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God is free to do as he pleases. Read Job if needed. Or just read starting on the first page.

 

[Lon]

This does not answer my simple question. And if you don't know what the lake of fire is, you haven't read the Bible.

I 'know' what it is from scripture! LOL. Is it an immolation or forever and ever?

7 And the Lord said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” 9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

Right, is it an immolation or ongoing like a forge or foundry?

11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” 14 So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God is free to do as he pleases. Read Job if needed. Or just read starting on the first page.

LOL, we weren't speaking to one another. I didn't mean I literally didn't know what the Lake of Fire was. LOL. I tried to clarify with immolation vs. ongoing and going, and going. Now to your question:

Will he be in the lake of fire?

He was with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. If He is everywhere, then He was with them in the fire. Does that mean He gets burned? No. Ask a bit more if you want something specific for me, please. I don't have the same ideas that Open Theists do, am not bothered that God is everywhere present. In a word, "no." He won't be in the Lake of Fire.

He certainly can be if he chooses.

Here is our difference: You believe He 'chooses' to be God. Because I believe He 'is' omnipresent, it is an extension of His being, like breathing. Can you choose to hold your breath? Yes, but God's omnipresence is part of His being (and scriptural). Yes He can choose to not be somewhere (He isn't physical), but it is part of His nature, and part of creation, that He is present.

That isn't what I am asking. Will he is the question. If he chooses not to be, doesn't that answer your question?

He is apart from His creation: a separation. What we believe is 'separate' is very different.

I actually think this is silly.

Your question? Or the idea that God 'can't' choose to not be somewhere? It isn't silly, has some good ideas, but why does the answer seem so simplistic to you? "Of course He can choose not to participate!" I'm not sure if God can or cannot choose to not be omnipresent. Scripture seems to indicate that without His presence, things cannot hold together Colossians 1:17. I've not really entertained the Lake of Fire to this extent. If they are destroyed (annihilation), then 'no' God won't be there. If they keep conscious forever and ever? I don't think He would be there.

 

[Idolater]

Your lack of studying scripture makes you look silly at times.

My studying of Scripture runneth over.

The deeper you dig into the Scripture, the closer you find the regular old Roman Catholic Church simpliciter.

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

So, of course he does.

I like that. If you can show that the Bible says something, then you can call yourself Sola Scriptura, even while strictly speaking, not being Sola Scriptura. You just have to thread a needle, which isn't impossible, although many people try and fail. Whatever you glean from "the heavens" and "the firmament", as long as it doesn't conflict with the Scripture, then it's at least plausible, unless it is defeated.

And your true Pope tells you.

Popes are like Presidents. We don't believe dead Presidents are our President. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are dead. We have to make do with who's alive. A President has to be physically alive. So does a Pope.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That means mortal sin. Right there—your true Pope—tells you about, teaches you, instructs you, in what mortal sin is. He's making a hierarchy of sins, there are mortal sins (sins that do lead to death, sins that are worthy of death), and all other sins (sins that do not lead to death). He's only talking about the mortal sins in Romans 1

 

[Nick M]

If He is everywhere, then He was with them in the fire.

The lake of fire is in the future. Clown.

 

[Bladerunner]

Will he be in the lake of fire? He certainly can be if he chooses. That isn't what I am asking. Will he is the question. If he chooses not to be, doesn't that answer your question? I actually think this is silly.

The Bible tells us that those that are in the Lake of Fire, the outer Darkness will not be in God's presence...It is either to live an eternity with Him or without Him.

 

[Lon]

The lake of fire is in the future. Clown.

Ouch! You aren't reading well, Nick. I said God was with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego, meaning flames aren't an issue for God. Try to keep up.

 

[Bladerunner]

Ouch! You aren't reading well, Nick. I said God was with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego, meaning flames aren't an issue for God. Try to keep up.

OK, and I agree with you on that fire and all others but Nick asked the question: "Will he be in the lake of fire?" No, is the answer. #31.

 

[Lon]

OK, and I agree with you on that fire and all others but Nick asked the question: "Will he be in the lake of fire?" No, is the answer. #31.

It is rather that we don't know. You are both guessing. I don't know. It doesn't seem He'd be there, but I'm not ready to make my own theology off of 'seems.' I'd rather, frankly, just say "my theology says I don't know." It'd be presumptuous to try and speak for God where angels fear to tread. It is okay to think about it, but I'm not going to argue with either of you over it. For Nick, it is about Open Theism and denying God is omnipresent because "if He can not be somewhere, He isn't aware of the number of hairs on your head, that was just anthropomorphic,' which I believe does great damage to the words of my Lord Jesus Christ. That is what is at stake, that God literally didn't know where Adam was in the Garden when He had to ask. God isn't omnipresent in Open Theism. I believe God knows the # of hairs on your head at this very second, even the one that just fell out. It is scripture.

So, back to the Lake of Fire: It is from God. I do not know whether it is a furnace turned on for a brief period (annihilation) or if it is forever and ever. If forever and ever? It has implications, but omnipresence isn't affected. I believe God is incredibly more omnipresent than any incidental can qualify. God is the One to tell us how much He knows, where He is, and how mighty He is. Ezekiel saw the Omnis

 

[Nick M]

He was with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. If He is everywhere, then He was with them in the fire.

The lake of fire is in the future. Clown.

 

[Bladerunner]

It is rather that we don't know. You are both guessing. I don't know. It doesn't seem He'd be there, but I'm not ready to make my own theology off of 'seems.' I'd rather, frankly, just say "my theology says I don't know." It'd be presumptuous to try and speak for God where angels fear to tread. It is okay to think about it, but I'm not going to argue with either of you over it. For Nick, it is about Open Theism and denying God is omnipresent because "if He can not be somewhere, He isn't aware of the number of hairs on your head, that was just anthropomorphic,' which I believe does great damage to the words of my Lord Jesus Christ. That is what is at stake, that God literally didn't know where Adam was in the Garden when He had to ask. God isn't omnipresent in Open Theism. I believe God knows the # of hairs on your head at this very second, even the one that just fell out. It is scripture.

So, back to the Lake of Fire: It is from God. I do not know whether it is a furnace turned on for a brief period (annihilation) or if it is forever and ever. If forever and ever? It has implications, but omnipresence isn't affected. I believe God is incredibly more omnipresent than any incidental can qualify. God is the One to tell us how much He knows, where He is, and how mighty He is. Ezekiel saw the Omnis

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" Matt 25:41

Lon, God/Jesus not be with those in the "Lake of Fire". The person in Hell will be alone, cannot talk to anyone, no parties, etc., will not know who is there in Hell and will be tormented forever. If you want a birds eye view of Hell, look to Luke 16:16...No, it is not a parable but rather a story with proper names and conversations between the abysses of Hell at least until Jesus was resurrected from Abram's Bosom in Hell on the third day. The "Depart from Me " phrase can be found in 72 times in the KJV.

Added: Note that Matthew 25 is one of the most scathing take-downs of the leaders of Israel by Jesus himself.

 

[Nick M]

The "Depart from Me " phrase can be found in 72 times in the KJV.

It isn't hard to find . And of course this is at the judgment. At the end of this age. Our sin is destroying this world. He will pull all the bodies buried in the earth. There will not be dead flesh buried in the new earth. It will be good again, and not cursed.

 

[Lon]

He was with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. If He is everywhere, then He was with them in the fire.

The lake of fire is in the future. Clown.

So if I become Open Theist, I win the doubling-down award? Look: Flames are flames. You were asking something about God being among flames. "Oh, Nick! I seem to remember a previous scenario like you are asking...."

If Open Theism is only as good as the latest greatest 'gotcha moment' I'm out. If Open Theism does not produce righteousness, a strong love for God, or maturity, I can't possibly be in. If you don't have love and righteousness for righteousness' sake at the first and foremost of your theology, I'll have to look elsewhere.

Your timing is either incredibly appropro, or horribly tragic in this particular thread.

 

[Bladerunner]

It isn't hard to find . And of course this is at the judgment. At the end of this age. Our sin is destroying this world. He will pull all the bodies buried in the earth. There will not be dead flesh buried in the new earth. It will be good again, and not cursed.

The earth began its roller coaster ride of entropy at the same time of Adam's fall. Jesus will restore the earth to her original condition in the Millennium. At the end, the dead still left in the ground will be judged and the New Earth and Jerusalem will become a reality. However, the curse we were speaking of ends with the Sheep and Goat Judgement prior to the millennium. Order out of Chaos will be restored.

 

[Derf]

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.

Does God love the inanimate molecules enough to preserve them through destruction (the death of a molecule, I suppose)?

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?

Yes. But wasn't it important enough that God provided it? I'm not saying why it was important, only that it was.

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.

Genesis is not a HUGE postulation to build a theology off of.

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

Right--He has EARNED your love, not PROGRAMMED your love. That should be the end of that part of the discussion, since you've made my point for me.

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.

I don't see free will as a gift. I see it as necessary for relationship.

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?

Yes, because Jesus said "if you love me, keep my commandments."

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.

I didn't ask it, you did with your assertion that God can MAKE someone love Him.

Because I don't?

You limited immutability here:

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.​

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?

I hadn't watched it when I "liked" it. But I appreciate good resources offered. I've read Bruce Ware before. He isn't dealing with his theology's own inconsistencies that led me to Open Theism.

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?'

No, I don't think I do.

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.

Then your theology binds Him as a product of creation. He can't be both involved and not involved at the same time.

Nope, the same. You have a god that must perform for you to appreciate Him?

Yes. So do you, when you say you love Him:

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

How in the world do we get to know God without Him performing??????????? He had to create us.

When He interacts, we may grow in our appreciation, but same God as He always was. Same unending love.

Yes, but that same unending love is applied to new people all the time. Every time a baby is conceived, God applies His unending love to that baby. God is the same, except now He's interacting with a brand new person that didn't exist before. I'm not saying God's capacity to love grows, but His interactions are increasing all the time. Before creation, He had never interacted with the 7 billion people (is it 8 billion now?) that are on the earth now...unless you are saying we have always existed in some way.

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

So you are saying God can't reach us without displaying His handiwork? Sounds like you require God to perform.

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.

Maybe even on the other side of glory, except you believe He will never write a new song, so I guess there's nothing new for us to praise Him for on that side. Such a limited god you worship.

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.

Do we create knowledge? If not, then we never make our own decisions, since you think our decisions are coeternal with Him.

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.

No, God was always the greatest in the universe or outside of it. But the bible describes Him as gaining knowledge about us:
[Psa 139:1 KJV] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known [me].

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

And if they are one, and at one time they were all that existed, then they couldn't be "holy" because there was nothing for them to be "set apart" from except each other--and you agree that's impossible.

Outline of Biblical Usage (of the word translated "holy") [?]

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

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 below about "attaw".

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

I watched the Bruce Ware video. At 7 seconds, he explained that scripture, in a number of locations, seems to indicate that God changes His mind, and at about 19 seconds he actually gave a defense for Open Theism. He said, "If God changes His mind, then God doesn't know in advance that something is going to take place." These are two main tenets of Open theism: 1. that Scripture seems to indicate that God changes His mind, and 2. That means He doesn't know in advance everything that is going to take place.

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.

I "like" a lot of posts that I don't agree with if the person puts forward good points or arguments or even just deals with poor attitudes in a graceful way.

Here's what Bruce Ware intimated: Since God can't lie (from 1 Samuel 15), then God must know everything that will ever happen before it happens (and before He created the heavens and the earth). So, when God says something is going to happen and it doesn't, then the scriptures mean something different than what they appear to be saying. Ware decides that what appears to be God lying are really something like anthropomorphisms.

You see what's happening there, right? That Bruce Ware has to explain away the obvious meaning of scripture. And keep in mind, anthropomorphisms, like God having a right arm, are not statements that say "God has a right arm." Whereas God making a statement like "Hezekiah, you will not survive this sickness," is a statement of fact. I'm interested to know what what you think "Hezekiah, you will not survive this sickness," means if it is an anthropomorphism.

The other thing about the 1 Sam 15 passage that is interesting is that there are 5 statements about God repenting, two by the author of the writing (Samuel?) and one a direct quote by Samuel (from Numbers 23). I think what Ware is saying is that 1 Sam 15:11 and 15:35 are telling us that God never really wanted Saul to be king in the first place, and He anthropomorphically chose him without wanting him. What do you think?

"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.

No, because that is saying, "Don't read what the verse says, just listen to my explanation of it." You see why that is a bad thing, right? Because now we all need you (or someone that believes exactly like you) to interpret scripture for us. The Catholics all thought that way at one time, but we generally don't agree with them.

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."

Eh??? I don't see that in the "now I know" verse. No wonder you're having trouble. The word you're looking for is
עַתָּה ʻattâh, at-taw'; from H6256
The KJV translates Strong's H6258 in the following manner: now, whereas, henceforth, this time forth, straightway.

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.

Then you must be the one you're talking about here, right? a "mistaken English intimation"?

You are Open Theist all because of English and only English for the reason!

What you are saying is that all of the English translators have never been able to get it right, and that we can't trust any of the English translations, because they are mistaken. I don't think that is the case. But you have shown that you were mistaken, and therefore I doubt I can trust you in this matter (am I getting the gist of your assertion?).


As usual, I'm sure I missed some important things, so if you see something I didn't answer sufficiently, please re-post.