ECT Open Theism debate

[Ask Mr. Religion]

?????

This is not an unconditional promise. The text makes it obvious--if Abraham leaves Haran (Gen 12:1 KJV), God will do these things (Gen 12:2 KJV). That's conditional.

When Abraham reaches Canaan (Gen 12:7 KJV), God gives him the beginning of the fulfillment of the conditional promise. Why? Because Abraham had already obeyed God in the leaving of Haran and going where God would show him--without knowing where the destination was.

If Abraham was willing to trust God in that rather scary way (leaving home and family without knowing where you are going), God was ready to affirm His end of the bargain.

You have to read the passage with your eyes closed not to see a conditional promise.

For fun, let's assume you have it all correct. Then, per Gen. 12:7, my previous argument stands.

To go onward and then say that this promise is not going to be fulfilled if and until until God "knows" (Gen. 22:12) something about Abraham that He did not already know (Abraham will be obedient) is looking at matters incorrectly. For that matter, Abraham had no doubt what was going to happen, per Gen. 22:7-8. The plain reading of the Isaac account in question is often assumed to mean that God meant for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. No. The passage "and offer him there for a burnt offering" at Gen. 22:2 only states to place Isaac upon the altar, to offer Isaac up. The faith of Abraham was never in question by Abraham, certainly not God.

Read Genesis 22:12 thusly:
Now I, God the Father, have what I designed and desired; now I have made you, Abraham, and others to know—now I know—just as the Spirit of God and of Christ is said to cry Abba, Father in Galatians 4:6, when the Spirit of God makes us to cry so, Romans 8:15.

While on the topic, here is a nice resource folks should add to their electronic libraries; http://ge.tt/9ibtzhn2 (Summary of Christian Doctrine, Berkhof). Click the Download link to the right of the page.

AMR

 

[Derf]

For fun, let's assume you have it all correct. Then, per Gen. 12:7, my previous argument stands.

All I'm claiming to have correct at this point is that Gen 12:1-3 is a conditional promise--conditioned on Abram's response to God's calling him out of Haran to some unnamed place.

Let me ask before I stick my foot in my mouth (as I've done plenty of times before), what argument are you saying is assured based on that conditional promise?

To go onward and then say that this promise is not going to be fulfilled if and until until God "knows" (Gen. 22:12) something about Abraham that He did not already know (Abraham will be obedient) is looking at matters incorrectly.

What promise? Are you talking about Gen 12:7? Why? Why does God giving the land of Canaan to Abraham's seed have to depend somehow on whether or not Abraham obeys God at this point? Is God not able to give the land to Abraham's seed JUST BECAUSE HE DEPARTED FROM HARAN AND JOURNEYED TO CANAAN? The condition had already been met, and the promise had BECOME unconditional (no more conditions needed to be met). Thus, the covenant of Gen 15.

What about the covenant of Gen 17? That one is conditional again, so it can't be the same as the one in 12:1-3. This one is where the covenant is passed from Abram to Abraham's descendants, conditional on circumcision. And God's part is that He will be the God of Abraham's descendents--specifically through Isaac:

But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. [Gen 17:21 KJV] (God named Isaac, claiming him for His own, here.)​

For that matter, Abraham had no doubt what was going to happen, per Gen. 22:7-8. The plain reading of the Isaac account in question is often assumed to mean that God meant for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. No. The passage "and offer him there for a burnt offering" at Gen. 22:2 only states to place Isaac upon the altar, to offer Isaac up. The faith of Abraham was never in question by Abraham, certainly not God.

If Abraham's faith was not in question even by Abraham, and "certainly not God", what was the purpose of this "temptation"? For those that think God already knew the results ahead of time, they say it was for Abe's benefit. Tambora says it was for God's. I suppose the remaining party was Isaac, which is a decent possibility. But then the text would have to say, "Now Isaac knows what kind of God I am--Jehovah-the-provider. I will provide for him." But it doesn't say that.

The best we know for why God "tempted" Abraham was what was revealed to us in the passage--for God to know. The text doesn't provide any other reason, and it is a preconception that would make anyone think it did. (Mind you, that doesn't mean God doesn't orchestrate plenty of other things with this scenario. Abraham's faith was no doubt strengthened. Isaac's, too. And I've heard some say God used this to get people to stop doing human sacrifices. All that may be true, but not given as reasons in the passage. And see note about Keturah in next paragraph.)

And why did God reward Abraham (did He?) for passing the test, if there was nothing really at stake in it? God rewarded Abraham by increasing the promise. "Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed. (want to know how He did this? [Personal speculation warning!!] He caused Sara to become disenchanted with Abraham, probably because he took Isaac to sacrifice him, and she died soon afterward, apart from him--then Abraham was free to marry Keturah and have more children, from which nations were birthed.)

And Gen 22:18 is the first time God says He will bless the world through Abraham's SEED instead of through Abraham, as in Gen 12:3. Who knows what might have happened if Abraham had withheld Isaac at this point. God wasn't restricted to using Isaac as the line of Christ until this point, was He?

And, no, I don't think the expected result is that Isaac ends up dead. Nothing in the passage indicates that, and the other option--that Abraham does not display such trust in God's providence--leaves Abraham and Isaac back at home, with God having more work to do to get Abraham where He wants him to be.

Read Genesis 22:12 thusly:
Now I, God the Father, have what I designed and desired; now I have made you, Abraham, and others to know—now I know—just as the Spirit of God and of Christ is said to cry Abba, Father in Galatians 4:6, when the Spirit of God makes us to cry so, Romans 8:15.

Why do I want to read it that way? Is it more correct, or just fits your point better?

I think there's a significant danger in assuming all the covenants are one.

While on the topic, here is a nice resource folks should add to their electronic libraries; http://ge.tt/9ibtzhn2 (Summary of Christian Doctrine, Berkhof). Click the Download link to the right of the page.

AMR

Always good to have good resources. Thanks!

 

[Tambora]

I've never, ever heard that definition for "will". Could you give me a cross reference, please?


Could you explain the '"Moses" kind of thing' reference? I don't know what you mean.

So, He did have a choice in the matter, and the only consequence is that man would not be saved? But then, Jesus was man, so if man is not redeemed, is Jesus not redeemed also?

Not for Adam's sin, since it did not have a hold on Him (due to virgin birth, I presume), but now due to His own sin. What sin was that--not doing what the Father wanted Him to do.

So I think you have just said Jesus could have sinned--is that what you're saying?

Derf,

Just to let you know ..... Cross Reference was booted from this thread by Sherman (a mod) and cannot answer you.

 

[Tambora]

For fun, let's assume you have it all correct. Then, per Gen. 12:7, my previous argument stands.

To go onward and then say that this promise is not going to be fulfilled if and until until God "knows" (Gen. 22:12) something about Abraham that He did not already know (Abraham will be obedient) is looking at matters incorrectly. For that matter, Abraham had no doubt what was going to happen, per Gen. 22:7-8. The plain reading of the Isaac account in question is often assumed to mean that God meant for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. No. The passage "and offer him there for a burnt offering" at Gen. 22:2 only states to place Isaac upon the altar, to offer Isaac up. The faith of Abraham was never in question by Abraham, certainly not God.

Genesis 22 KJV
(9) And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
(10) And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
(11) And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
(12) 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.
(13) And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.


Abraham had every intention of slaying his son.

 

[Tambora]

Here's an interesting question .....

If time was created and began at creation, and that was when GOD could then go inside and outside of time (inside and outside of creation) ...................
I mean, let's say it's now day 6 of creation when GOD is creating man, was He doing that creating on the 6th day in time or outside of time?

 

[marhig]

You want to know why i think you are a dumbbell? You seem to not understand that, at times, members post a little humor, and not always attempting to reach the next level of theological insight.

Web forums are basically social interaction, you miss this practical insight.

From what I've been reading, people don't look like they are joking regarding others being chucked into an eternal fire. And even worse, they seem to be eagerly awaiting it to happen!

How is that funny?

 

[marhig]

Heb 4:15

What has the verse got to do with God being able to be tempted?

 

[marhig]

Can't or Shall not?

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Deut. 6:15-16 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. 16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.​

People trying to tempt God and God being able to be tempted are completely different.

God cannot be tempted, thus God does not have the capacity to sin.

James 1:13

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

[marhig]

Showing you? Guiding you? Teaching you? Prompting you? How? You are telling me you are a Pentecostal Christian. Are you?

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 (KJV)

All of those, and no I'm not a Pentecostal Christian. I'm of no denomination.

Great verse by the way

 

[JudgeRightly]

From what I've been reading, people don't look like they are joking regarding others being chucked into an eternal fire. And even worse, they seem to be eagerly awaiting it to happen!

How is that funny?

The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked, - Psalm 58:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm58:10&version=NKJV

I will rejoice when I see murderers and rapists and unrepentant criminals being cast into the lake of fire.

 

[marhig]

The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked, - Psalm 58:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm58:10&version=NKJV

I will rejoice when I see murderers and rapists and unrepentant criminals being cast into the lake of fire.

I wouldn't rejoice at seeing anyone suffer. I just leave all that in God's hands as he's the righteous judge.

 

[Derf]

Derf,

Just to let you know ..... Cross Reference was booted from this thread by Sherman (a mod) and cannot answer you.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted it. I wasn't expecting much in a reply anyway.

But thanks for letting me know.
Derf

 

[Clete]

Here's an interesting question .....

If time was created and began at creation, and that was when GOD could then go inside and outside of time (inside and outside of creation) ...................
I mean, let's say it's now day 6 of creation when GOD is creating man, was He doing that creating on the 6th day in time or outside of time?

They'd have to answer, "Both!", right? Otherwise, God is not Omnipresent. ("They" being the Calvinists, by the way.)

Another good question is, "Has God always existed inside and outside of creation?" (Ignoring that "always" is a time reference.)

They'd be forced to admit a change in God or that creation has always existed.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I wouldn't rejoice at seeing anyone suffer. I just leave all that in God's hands as he's the righteous judge.

Psalms 58:10
The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,
11 So that men will say,
“Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
Surely He is God who judges in the earth.”​

 

[marhig]

Psalms 58:10
The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,
11 So that men will say,
“Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
Surely He is God who judges in the earth.”​

I don't see that as you do.

I just haven't got it in me to rejoice at seeing anyone suffer, especially thinking of them being chucked into lakes of fire.

The Bible is full of deeper meanings, I don't see the fires of hell to mean the same as many do here. Can you see from that Psalm that is not all a natural interpretation?

As I said God is a righteous judge, he'll do as he sees right.

 

[meshak]

I don't see that as you do.

I just haven't got it in me to rejoice at seeing anyone suffer, especially thinking of them being chucked into lakes of fire.

The Bible is full of deeper meanings, I don't see the fires of hell to mean the same as many do here. Can you see from that Psalm that is not all a natural interpretation?

As I said God is a righteous judge, he'll do as he sees right.

You see? That's why I discard the scripture that does not harmonize with God and Jesus' love.

 

[marhig]

You see? That's why I discard the scripture that does not harmonize with God and Jesus' love.

The only thing is, I don't see those verses to mean as some do here and I don't see the fires of hell as many do either. And Gods love is sometimes a tough love, but It doesn't say anything about throwing people lakes of fire in that Psalm. It's sickening to read some posts here.

I'm like you meshak, I don't like to see others suffer.

God will know what to do with the wicked.

 

[Derf]

Did you see post #20 by AMR?

Hi PJ. I hadn't had time to answer your post. Sorry.

I did see his post, and I appreciate the thought he put into it. I'm not so sure about the decretal position. If everything is based purely on decree, then we are all only doing God's will in everything we do--there is NO sin. And that seems to be AMR's position--that if something happens, God must have decreed it. If God decreed it, it must not be sin, because God doesn't sin.

Which is the point Duffy was arguing against in the second debate (still haven't finished listening, but started yesterday).

Now, if God decrees everything everybody does, not by any foreknowledge of people's actions, which is stated in the Westminster Confession, then God must be doing it by something other than foreknowledge. I'm curious to know what that might be. To me there are two ways for God to know something that is going to happen in the future--He can view it happening because He is outside of time, or He can cause it to happen by His power. The first is rejected by the Westminster Confession (and by the counterfactual argument), leaving only the second, unless someone can show me some other option.

So, if God can only decree something to happen in the future by His power, then His power is responsible for those things. I'm ok with that for some things, but when you apply it to everything, God becomes the author of sin.

Can we apply it just to Jesus sinlessness? Absolutely. If God wanted to make sure Jesus never sinned, and forced that result, I'm fine with that.

 

[Derf]

You see? That's why I discard the scripture that does not harmonize with God and Jesus' love.

And that makes you judge of God, I guess. And anyone that can judge God makes himself to be God.

 

[Derf]

I wouldn't rejoice at seeing anyone suffer. I just leave all that in God's hands as he's the righteous judge.

Do you rejoice in everything God does? Do you not think God's judgments are just? So if He decides justice needs to include bloody vengeance, or even hell fire, do you reject it?