Welcome to the Open View, as there could be no shades of grey in the Settled View.
ECT Open Theism debate
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
He certainly could have but He didn't.
And that's where the settled view breaks. Because according to the settled view, It was "settled" that Jesus would say that, but it was also "settled" that he would not do it, and therefore could not, making Him a liar.
Derf
Well-known member
To help get the thread back on target...
I finally finished listening to the second debate. And speaking of staying on target, I think that's where Duffy was ineffective--he didn't do that great at keeping the focus on showing that Calvinism is not a loving representation of God. There were some high points, but in general the debate does the same thing as a lot of the threads here--it gets mired down in the smaller points or side points, and it's hard to bring the threads back to their original focus. I'm partially to blame, so I'm not trying to say it's an easy thing to stay on topic.
I also listened to Bob Enyart discussing the debate on the radio the other day. He was talking about Duffy's point about God's ability to sin--that God has the ability to do so, but doesn't, just like He has the ability not to love Jesus, but He chooses to continue to do so.
I think these things are difficult to express--how do you know someone has the ability to do something they will never do?
In my ponderings about God and sin, I've come to the conclusion that there aren't a lot of things that would be "sin" for God. After all, if "sin" is missing the mark, and God establishes the mark, and God is consistent with His own mark, God would never sin. But if He could, what would that sin be???
Murder? No, He can kill anyone He chooses, since He made them.
Theft? No, He owns everything that He made and everyone that makes stuff out of His materials.
Covetousness? No, how could He desire something that He could easily make, even if He didn't own it in the first place.
Adultery? Well, only in an analogical sense. Any other doesn't make sense, as far as I can tell. And the analogical sense is that He breaks covenant without reason. Which is really a Lie--if you say you will follow a covenant, and you don't, you have lied.
Worshiping other gods is ascribing to them powers that you yourself admire and adore because you don't have those powers, which is ridiculous to even think of God doing with 1) a stone or wood idol, 2) a demon, or 3) anything that He made.
So it seems that the only sin God even CAN commit, if He can commit any sin at all, is a lie. No other "sins" are available to Him. And Paul tells us He cannot lie (Tit 1:2). (That could be (and often is) translated that God doesn't lie.)
"Repenting" is another thing that is really an instance of "lying", in the sense that if you do something you said you wouldn't do, or don't do something you said you would do. And God says He doesn't repent in that sense (He often says He repents of something He already did--like make people on the earth (Gen 6:6) or make Saul king (1 Sam 15:11)). The Jeremiah 18 exception illustrates the purpose of most calamitous prophecy--to scare people into changing their ways.
It's informative to consider the reasons why we humans lie. It is to get something to happen or prevent something from happening that we don't have the power to do or prevent in ourselves, usually in an acting out of fear.
So in this way, God cannot ever really fear anyone or a consequence ("judgment")--He can do whatever He chooses to do (omnipotence), and is not beholden to anyone in consequence of His actions (sovereignty). Thus, whether He "cannot" or simply "does not" lie is mostly immaterial, except in theological discussions. (Note that Jesus' human nature takes this discussion out of the realm of "God's characteristics/nature", and requires other arguments to determine if Jesus could ever lie.)
The other way for God to "sin" is for Him not to be the things He says He is--another form of lying. So, if God isn't really "love" or "light" or "righteousness" or some such.
I think this is where the conversation should have gone (and did a little) in the debate. But it requires a definition of "love" (like 1 Cor 13). Is 1 Cor 13 sufficient as a definition of love? It's probably the best we have, except 1 John 4:8, which is the identity argument--it defines love in terms of God, and thus we have to say (with Slick) that whatever God does is loving. This is a hard saying when the judgment passages are in view. Can we say God is loving in the destruction of Sodom (not just the saving of Lot)? Can we say God is loving in the flood of Noah (not just the saving of Noah)? Can we say that God is loving in the destruction of those that don't believe in Him (not just the salvation of those that do)? Re-ask those questions while thinking of 1 Cor 13:5 [Love] seeketh not her own.
If God executes His justice because it reveals His glory, is that not love seeking her own? For it not to be (for God to be "loving") it must be possible that God's judgments are always more merciful/loving than the alternative! This is the Calvinist's argument, I believe, but it's easier to stomach when divorced from any predestination to damnation.
So now we have come full circle to Duffy's argument, if I understood it correctly--that God shows Himself to be unloving when He predestines someone to hell without them doing anything to deserve it.
Remember that most Calvinists would say that God does not use the actual future actions of Jacob or Esau (and by extension anyone else) to determine whether they are elect or not, so the determination must be only out of God's own mind, for His own good pleasure, and we can't know why He made the choices He made--but we CAN know that it wasn't due to their future sinful actions (Rom 9:11)! Duffy made this point once or twice--not terribly strongly, in my opinion.
Slick made the comment that such a decision is not arbitrary--we just don't know why God made the decision He made. But it may as well be arbitrary, as there's not much point to this life when we don't know why He made the decision, and we are supposed to give Him glory for it not knowing the why. how can we give Him glory for that? It is a blind glory. And just like a love that is forced is not love, a glory that is required rather than earned is not glory.
I finally finished listening to the second debate. And speaking of staying on target, I think that's where Duffy was ineffective--he didn't do that great at keeping the focus on showing that Calvinism is not a loving representation of God. There were some high points, but in general the debate does the same thing as a lot of the threads here--it gets mired down in the smaller points or side points, and it's hard to bring the threads back to their original focus. I'm partially to blame, so I'm not trying to say it's an easy thing to stay on topic.
I also listened to Bob Enyart discussing the debate on the radio the other day. He was talking about Duffy's point about God's ability to sin--that God has the ability to do so, but doesn't, just like He has the ability not to love Jesus, but He chooses to continue to do so.
I think these things are difficult to express--how do you know someone has the ability to do something they will never do?
In my ponderings about God and sin, I've come to the conclusion that there aren't a lot of things that would be "sin" for God. After all, if "sin" is missing the mark, and God establishes the mark, and God is consistent with His own mark, God would never sin. But if He could, what would that sin be???
Murder? No, He can kill anyone He chooses, since He made them.
Theft? No, He owns everything that He made and everyone that makes stuff out of His materials.
Covetousness? No, how could He desire something that He could easily make, even if He didn't own it in the first place.
Adultery? Well, only in an analogical sense. Any other doesn't make sense, as far as I can tell. And the analogical sense is that He breaks covenant without reason. Which is really a Lie--if you say you will follow a covenant, and you don't, you have lied.
Worshiping other gods is ascribing to them powers that you yourself admire and adore because you don't have those powers, which is ridiculous to even think of God doing with 1) a stone or wood idol, 2) a demon, or 3) anything that He made.
So it seems that the only sin God even CAN commit, if He can commit any sin at all, is a lie. No other "sins" are available to Him. And Paul tells us He cannot lie (Tit 1:2). (That could be (and often is) translated that God doesn't lie.)
"Repenting" is another thing that is really an instance of "lying", in the sense that if you do something you said you wouldn't do, or don't do something you said you would do. And God says He doesn't repent in that sense (He often says He repents of something He already did--like make people on the earth (Gen 6:6) or make Saul king (1 Sam 15:11)). The Jeremiah 18 exception illustrates the purpose of most calamitous prophecy--to scare people into changing their ways.
It's informative to consider the reasons why we humans lie. It is to get something to happen or prevent something from happening that we don't have the power to do or prevent in ourselves, usually in an acting out of fear.
So in this way, God cannot ever really fear anyone or a consequence ("judgment")--He can do whatever He chooses to do (omnipotence), and is not beholden to anyone in consequence of His actions (sovereignty). Thus, whether He "cannot" or simply "does not" lie is mostly immaterial, except in theological discussions. (Note that Jesus' human nature takes this discussion out of the realm of "God's characteristics/nature", and requires other arguments to determine if Jesus could ever lie.)
The other way for God to "sin" is for Him not to be the things He says He is--another form of lying. So, if God isn't really "love" or "light" or "righteousness" or some such.
I think this is where the conversation should have gone (and did a little) in the debate. But it requires a definition of "love" (like 1 Cor 13). Is 1 Cor 13 sufficient as a definition of love? It's probably the best we have, except 1 John 4:8, which is the identity argument--it defines love in terms of God, and thus we have to say (with Slick) that whatever God does is loving. This is a hard saying when the judgment passages are in view. Can we say God is loving in the destruction of Sodom (not just the saving of Lot)? Can we say God is loving in the flood of Noah (not just the saving of Noah)? Can we say that God is loving in the destruction of those that don't believe in Him (not just the salvation of those that do)? Re-ask those questions while thinking of 1 Cor 13:5 [Love] seeketh not her own.
If God executes His justice because it reveals His glory, is that not love seeking her own? For it not to be (for God to be "loving") it must be possible that God's judgments are always more merciful/loving than the alternative! This is the Calvinist's argument, I believe, but it's easier to stomach when divorced from any predestination to damnation.
So now we have come full circle to Duffy's argument, if I understood it correctly--that God shows Himself to be unloving when He predestines someone to hell without them doing anything to deserve it.
Remember that most Calvinists would say that God does not use the actual future actions of Jacob or Esau (and by extension anyone else) to determine whether they are elect or not, so the determination must be only out of God's own mind, for His own good pleasure, and we can't know why He made the choices He made--but we CAN know that it wasn't due to their future sinful actions (Rom 9:11)! Duffy made this point once or twice--not terribly strongly, in my opinion.
Slick made the comment that such a decision is not arbitrary--we just don't know why God made the decision He made. But it may as well be arbitrary, as there's not much point to this life when we don't know why He made the decision, and we are supposed to give Him glory for it not knowing the why. how can we give Him glory for that? It is a blind glory. And just like a love that is forced is not love, a glory that is required rather than earned is not glory.
Philippians 1:6 KJV - Does God do a work in us before we can believe?