God is consistent and ALL!
You do not grasp this, but you have God carried about by the whims and twists of the universe instead of the Creator of ALL.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon.
God is real and so it the universe the He created. God created the universe and there are consequences of that action that God reacts wisely to with various goals in mind.
I'm reminded of a passages in C.S. Lewis' "The Case for Christianity
God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. ... If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.
This is a HUGE problem with Mormonism and Open Theism.
. An intentional one - making it also a lie.
Both are short-sighted and lack a grasp of all that "Creator" entails.
Notice how Lon never bothers to explain whatever it that we poor short-sighted fools don't grasp about what all ""Creator" entails".
Lon couldn't make a real argument if his life depended on it nor would he ever even try because he knows as well as we do that his doctrine is blatantly and INTENTIONALLY irrational.
John 1:3 Read scriptures more, Open ideas less.
John 1:3 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
I love that verse! I love the passage its from even more!
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Then later in the same great book that I and every open theist I've ever met would BEG anyone and everyone to fully read and understand, we learn of another AWESOME change that the Creator God endured...
John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
And, praise God, the changes God would endure weren't finished yet!!!
John 20:11 But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”
She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”
14 Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?”
She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!”
She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher).
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”
Now, be careful, Lon! That's a lot more than a single 15 word sentence from the bible!
Also, notice that all this open theist has done is quote the passages and let them say what they say. If Lon responds to this at all, which isn't likely, it will to explain how they don't mean what they seem to mean.
He IS the reservoir of mercy.
Perhaps, in the same sort of way that God is love and God is righteousness, (i.e. in a figure of speech sort of way), this claim is true but it is meaningless in the manner in which Lon is saying it. Mercy is an idea that refers a person's actions in response to someone else's actions. It is not ontological as Lon seems to be suggesting here. God is Mercy in the sense that the very concept itself finds it's definition in God's character.
You miss something incredibly important with Open paradigms: God does not change to us: WE change to be like Him.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
That is, unless it's God doing the talking. I refer you back to the passages I quoted from John's gospel where God doesn't just change a little bit but the Creator God Himself becomes a human being and allows Himself to be killed and then rises from the dead, all for OUR sake.
The fact is that our changing to be like Him wouldn't not be possible had He not changed to be like us.
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but [made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Open Theology is an egocentric theology.
A stupid and totally unsupportable thing to say.
It shows in all Open Theist discussions: It becomes man-centered and ingrown.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
This is the main problem and flaw of Open Theism.
Notice how Lon only ever makes the claim. He NEVER explains how its true at all. He just states it as fact and hopes everyone will believe him because he knows he couldn't substantiate it if pressed. That's how I know he won't have any substantive response to any of my post. He's got nothing.
I don't want 'just another guy's' theology. I want God's and Open Theism is basically humanism.
Lon's theology is virtually nothing at all but just "another guy's theology"!
The guys name is AUGUSTINE!
A guy who himself explains that he rejected the bible for years BECAUSE it taught the God changes His mind!
(For some reason I can't find the reference for this. If someone can find it for me, I'll add it here.)
You HAVE to read scripture more, listen to other's ideas less.
Says the man who doesn't actually quote a single sentence of the bible throughout this post.
Open Theists are learning NOT to think critically.
Says the guy who makes bald claim after bald claim without a single actual argument neither to support those claims nor refute a syllable of open theism.
Critical thinking is 'willing' to analyze whether it is wrong or not.
Exactly! That is, in fact, not only the mindset upon which this website was founded but it is also the mindset that leads inexorably to open theism!
Can I establish that claim? You better believe I can! Not only that but I'm willing to do it too!
Lon, on the other hand, will run and hide.
Would that the Pharisees would have done that when Jesus came, but He said they were 'unwilling.'
What? You admit that the Pharisees had free will! Really?!
That's a very open theism thing to say!
At least entertain, for two seconds, you could be wrong.
I have spent my adult life practically begging people, both here and at church and anywhere else the subject comes up, to prove me wrong or at least try to do so. Very few have ever made the attempt. You are no exception nor will you ever be.
I truly believe scripture says this concept is incorrect.
How about taking you own advice and entertain, for two seconds, that YOU could be wrong!
I think you can be saved and be an Open Theist,
Oh, well thank you so much for the crumbs from your lofty table, Lon!
but I assess Open Theists are handicapped because of very limited paradigms that keep men in 'manward' thinking rather than apprehending the truths of God.
Meaningless nonsense that not even you could explain the meaning of in any coherent manner. Is your entire theology constructed of such mindless contrivances?
I appreciate the orthodoxy in wanting to preserve orthodoxy, but Open Theism always confuses this. His nature IS in dispute with Open paradigms:
TRUE! But not in the idiotic ways Lon suggests!
Open Theists do not believe God is good!
I've tried to get a few in this thread to elucidate "God is good." What Open means is that God is 'good' by their standards.
You couldn't substantiate this lie if the lives of your own children were at stake!
Go ahead Lon! Give us one single quote where any open theist even suggests any such stupid thing!
You won't even try.
I repeat, I do not think of God as qualified as 'good' by man's definition and that IS the premise AND meaning of this thread!
What is this "man's definition" of good to which you refer?
What is the real definition of good, Lon?
How are the two incompatible and where is the reference where any open theist uses the former to the exclusion of and in contradiction to the later?
Lon WILL NOT answer!
It is inconsistent logically and theologically.
If so then why do you never make the argument that proves this claim you make?
Where's the inconsistency? Where is the contradiction? Make the argument, Lon! I dare you!
God is good 'apart' from man's grasp of what is good! Don't believe me? Read: Mark 10:17–22
Okay! Let's read it....
Mark 10:17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”
20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”
21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”
22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Okay, Lon, now that we've all read it. Please explain what it is that so hard to understand. It seems pretty straight forward to me. If you love your Earthly possessions more than God, you're in big trouble. Pretty much 3rd grade level stuff.
Another way to explain this: "God is." Because He is originator of the universe, ALL definitions are found in Him. He isn't good because we see Him as good. He is 'good' because His nature is what our definitions come from; this thread has it backwards. Morality is 'right' because it is God's nature, not the other way around. IOW, God is not subject to morality, morality is Him. He doesn't 'act' moral, what He does IS moral and "WE" need to learn the definition, not try to restrict God to our limited understanding. Don't believe me? Read: 1 Corinthians 13:12 1 John 3:2
Okay! Let's read it...
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
1 John 3:2 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
Hmm, as expected, neither passage says a single syllable that bears any resemblance to that which you are asking us to believe. Surprise surprise!
What you said above is effectively identical to what you said before about God being Mercy. Note that I rightly capitalize the "M" when making such reference. This is because when making such statements you aren't really talking about mercy (lower case) any more. And this is the error that not only you are making but that practically all of Christianity makes when they say such things. Concepts such as mercy and love and righteousness and justice are not ontological things, they are abstractions. It is not proper to reduce God to an abstraction, which is precisely what you are doing. God is real and He is a real person who does real things and has real relationships with other real people. Those actions and interactions of God are righteous because they conform to the current description of His character. (Yes, I said that correctly!)
What you've done here, Lon, is two things...
1. You undermine the holiness of God by implying the He can be arbitrary because He God.
2. You plant yourself firmly onto one horn of Euthyphro's dilemma. Something I have no doubt that you've heard of but based on this post, I can tell, you do NOT understand the implications of nor do you have the slightest idea of how to resolve it. In fact, you very likely wouldn't try to resolve it. You'd simply play the antinomy trump card and live with the incongruity rather than going through the effort of thinking things through until your theology was internally consistent.
Here's your chance to take your own advice, Lon. Entertain for two seconds that you might have made an error here and maybe take the opportunity to lean something both about what open theists believe and about what it means to say that God is righteous.
Read the section entitled "4) God’s Accountability to an Unchanging Standard:" of the following post....
TOL BR VII DGE Post 7b
This 'idea' isn't scripture. Show me 1 (one) scripture that says "I God, change." Show me.
Did that already.
You assume it, because there is no scripture that says so.
There are several! The already referenced John chapter 1 passages stands as one of the most obvious but it by no means alone. I'm not going to give any sort of list here. Instead I'll just quote another of my favorites...
He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.
To deny that God changes is to implicitly deny the very gospel itself!
"God relented" is the 'reservoir' of His being.
Also the bible never actually says that God "relented". It repeatedly says that God "repented". The Hebrew word is "nāḥam"
when it is used in reference to God (as in Genesis 6:6 and many other places) it means the same thing it means in any other context. It means that God repented. That's what it means. The reason your bible says "relented" is because the Calvinists who did the translation couldn't bring themselves to contradict they're own doctrine by using a 'p' instead of an 'l' as if that somehow fixed the problem for them. If anything 'relent' is worse!
He doesn't need to 'change' like you and I think of change, that's an anthropomorphic grasp that doesn't do justice to the this truth: 1 Corinthians 15:28
OH! Another cited but unquoted passage. Let's see if this one says anything about what the sentence that preceded the citation was talking about....
I Corinthians 15:28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Just how is it that you use scripture anyway? I mean I Cor. 15:28 just flat out does not say one single thing about the immutability of God. If anything it is describing just the opposite!
(Question: Why would you or I try to make this verse say anything other than what it says OTHER than being committed to a previous paradigm?
"WHEN all thing are made subject to Him (i.e. the Son)" implies that not all things are subject to Him now! How is that not a change, Lon? Please explain how the passage you cite as a proof text isn't just the opposite!
Of course, you won't. After all, that would be the makings of an interesting conversation. Can't have that around here!
Doesn't that, by its very nature, force us to make alterations to scripture, trying to mold it, instead of it molding us???).
It is honestly stunning to read someone state a foundational premise of open theism in an attempt to undermine open theism. Allowing the scripture to say what it says is a foundational reason why open theism exists in the first place, Lon. It is one of the MOST important paradigms of the whole system!
It isn't open theism that reads its doctrine into the text, its Calvinism! (or any other form of Augustinian doctrine).
So, "God relented" is a derivative idea with a suggestion and because of it, it isn't a good verse. It forces an idea and Open paradigm, doesn't directly support it.
So who is it that's not letting the scripture say what it says, you or me?
Sounds to me like I'm the one perfectly content to permit the passage to mean what it says and that you are the one explaining away the use of the term "relent" (repent actually). And why are you doing that? Is there something in the grammar that suggests a need to do so? NO! Is there some reference in some other passage that indicates this to be any sort of idiomatic expression? NO! In fact, the only reason to think that Genesis 6:6 and other similar passages do not mean what they say is if you have a doctrine that you need to conform the passage to.
Rather, this argument is inconsistent.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
Why don't you ever make the argument? If it is inconsistent then explain it to us! Show us the inconsistency!
Open Theists do not see their own shortsightedness.
Show us, Lon! Make the argument!
I literally dare you.
It is like trying to explain algebra to a student of only basic math: there is an aspect that escapes their rationalization.
Then, by all means, teach us!
It is arguing 'inside' of a set of ideas with no concept or allowance that mathematics (Algebra) or God is larger than the preconception. Does it look 'logical?' Sure, but it is shortsighted in both cases.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
Open Theism does not conceive a huge truth: God is the source of ALL things. ALL.
But He is not all things.
He is the Creator. He is not His creation and His creation is not Him.
If you ever try and reason that out, you'll be able to eventually see where Open Theism falls short.
Reason it out for us, Lon!
It doesn't have to be a whole book length treatise. Just pick some aspect of open theism and reason it out for us so we can all see where it falls short.
It NEEDS to expand to grasp that God is 'infinite.'
Actually, "infinite" is open theism's term. Didn't you mean to say "eternal" as in "timeless"?
At its core, Open Theism argues from a 'finite' rationalization.
No. There isn't any such thing. Reason is reason. Truth is truth. A is A. There is no such thing as anything that is "super rational". The very concept is the epitome of irrationality and undermines the very notion of knowledge itself.
What is is, something is either true or it is false and that which contradicts the truth is false, by definition.
Any doctrine or process of thought that attempts to undermine these principles must use these very principles in the attempt and thus defeats itself.
That IS the source of problems with it.
So, you're saying that the use of sound reason is the source of the problem with open theism.
If all you argue is basic math, you are going to see yourself as always correct, but it ONLY applies to a finite set of truths and Open Theism is stuck in basic math, by analogy: It has God as 'subject to' creation, literally.
God is subject to no created thing, by definition
Open Theists ADMIT this in their arguments, they just don't perceive they've said exactly the same thing, in explanation that God 'changes.'
I suspect this was an intentional lie. Lon does not believe that we do this. If he did, nothing could stop him from demonstrating it. As it is, he won't even try to demonstrate it.
It literally means God is subject to creation thus by its own logic, means God exists here like the rest of us.
What could you possibly mean by this? Do you deny that God exists like the rest of us?
I'm guessing... did you mean to put the word "in time" after the word "here"?
It is very shortsighted by the concept and very much basic-math-sounding. Entrenching is no place to be.
Anyone want to take bets on whether Lon thinks I'm the arrogant one here?