Our Moral God

[Idolater]

I don't care how Jerome translated it. It DOES NOT mean word - period.

You didn't establish that. In all your longwindedness you failed to prove your point. You have a bunch of modern scholars weighing in (not nearly representative of all scholars, which is briefly and roundly proven by surveying literally every English translation of John chapter one) on what ancient Greek non-Christians thought about logos. It meant word, it meant speech. It also meant logic and study. How do we figger out which way to translate it? One way is ask the field of Bible translators, all of them to a man say "word". Another would be to see if there isn't an ancient translator, maybe his language wasn't as ambiguous as Greek, and what do you know there is, Jerome. He translated into Latin. Latin isn't ambiguous with "word", if Jerome thought "logos" meant "logic" he could have used the Latin word for "logic" but he didn't. He agreed with literally every English Bible translator and rendered it "verbum" (word).

That isn't my opinion, its a fact of history. Deal with it.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

What are you even doing here? If you have nothing of substance to offer then just go away and waste someone else's time.

I proved your thesis in one sentence, something you failed to do in idk how many pages of faulty scholarship and analysis.

What are you doing here? What in God's name have you done?

 

[Clete]

You didn't establish that. In all your longwindedness you failed to prove your point.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You have a bunch of modern scholars weighing in (not nearly representative of all scholars, which is briefly and roundly proven by surveying literally every English translation of John chapter one) on what ancient Greek non-Christians thought about logos.

So says you.

The opening post is an opening post in a web forum. It it is not a book length treatise on the ancient Greek etymology of a single Greek word. You want to complain about my "longwindedness" in one breath and then pretend like I have to present information that is somehow "representative of all scholars" in the next.

It meant word, it meant speech.

Now who's making unsubstantiated claims?

The simple fact is that it did not.

word (wûrd)​

noun​

1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
2. Something said; an utterance, remark, or comment.

There is no such possible meaning of the word "logos".

Speech is closer but still misses the mark by a mile.

speech (spēch)​

noun​

​

The faculty or act of speaking.​

The idea conveyed in English with the use of these words has to do with the building blocks of language (i.e. words) or the act of using them (i.e. speaking). The words in Greek for this sort of thing would be maybe "phēmi " or "legō" (Note that "legō" and "logos" are related words but they are NOT the same word and they are NOT synonymous.)

The Greek word "rhēma" moves us closer still. Its sort of half way between the act of speaking and what logos actually means. The best way I know of to explain what I mean there is to show a passage of scripture that uses both words in the same sentence....

John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words (rhema), has that which judges him— the word (logos) that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.​

In the above statement, rhema refers to the actual spoken words Jesus spoke from His mouth while logos refers to something far deeper and more important that the actual words. It refers to the meaning and I don't mean the dictionary definitions but the fact that the people Jesus spoke to UNDERSTOOD the point of His words and it is that understanding that will convict them on judgment day.

That's far a way from a great explanation but it gets the point (the logos) across. The fact is that the English word "word" very simply DOES NOT convey the meaning of the word Greek word "logos". It's a terrible translation. It always has been a terrible translation and the only reason it has stuck is because people like the way it sounds when read in English.

It also meant logic and study.

The specific meaning of logos is determined by the context in which it was used but in no circumstance did it ever mean what we mean by "word" in English. Just read it that way with a bit of detachment and you can readily see that I'm correct....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

That is an utterly meaningless sentence in the English language! The only reason you get it is because you're initiated. That is, because someone explained it to you. You read that sentence to someone who isn't familiar with it and the response will be, "Huh?"

How do we figure out which way to translate it?

By studying the original language as well as the context of the passage in which it was used.

One way is ask the field of Bible translators, all of them to a man say "word".

Because that's the way the King James translated it and it's a very famous passage that people like and since bible translators are paid by people who want to sell bibles, such familiar translations have a tendency to stick.

Another would be to see if there isn't an ancient translator, maybe his language wasn't as ambiguous as Greek, and what do you know there is, Jerome. He translated into Latin. Latin isn't ambiguous with "word", if Jerome thought "logos" meant "logic" he could have used the Latin word for "logic" but he didn't. He agreed with literally every English Bible translator and rendered it "verbum" (word).

At best, this establishes Jerome as the original source of the error.

The King James is the primary source of the error in English bibles but there was a list of rules that the translators of the King James used when doing their translating and the number one rule was that "the Bishops Bible was to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.", the Bishop's Bible in turn was based on the so called "Great Bible" which was directly translated from....

wait for it...

the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Jerome).

There isn't any two ways about it. The text of scripture itself doesn't allow for "word" to be a proper translation and neither does the use of the word in ancient Greek. "Logos" very simple does not have the same meaning in Greek as "word" does in English and it never has.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I established it rather well in the opening post or at least gave sufficient ground by which it would easy enough for anyone to establish it if they wanted to do so further.

I proved your thesis in one sentence, something you failed to do in idk how many pages of faulty scholarship and analysis.

I assume you meant to say "proved my thesis", which of course you didn't do. All you did was make claims.

What are you doing here? What in God's name have you done?

All I've ever wanted out of this website is for people to engage in substantive discussion about complex and interesting issues. Mostly all I've ever gotten is baseless claims from vapid minds. What you said here about Jerome's translation being a counter example is the closest thing ANYONE here on TOL has ever presented that approaches being an actual argument in refutation of my thesis and I've now given it the substantive response it deserves. If you continue to offer substance then that's what you'll get in return. If you want to be mindless and make bald claims then you'll get the sort of response that deserves too. It's really entirely up to you.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Saying it doesn't make it so.



So says you.

The open post is an opening post in a web forum. It it is not a book length treatise on the ancient Greek etymology of a single Greek word. You want to complain about my "longwindedness" in one breath and then pretend like I have to present information that is somehow "representative of all scholars" in the next.


Now who's making unsubstantiated claims?

The simple fact is that it did not.

word (wûrd)​

noun​

1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
2. Something said; an utterance, remark, or comment.

There is no such possible meaning of the word "logos".

Speech is closer but still misses the mark by a mile.

speech (spēch)​

noun​

​

The faculty or act of speaking.​

The idea conveyed in English with the use of these words has to do with the building blocks of language (i.e. words) or the act of using them (i.e. speaking). The words in Greek for this sort of thing would be maybe "phēmi " or "legō" (Note that "legō" and "logos" are related words but they are NOT the same word and they are NOT synonymous.)

The Greek word "rhēma" moves us closer still. Its sort of half way between the act of speaking and what logos actually means. The best way I know of to explain what I mean there is to show a passage of scripture that uses both words in the same sentence....

John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words (rhema), has that which judges him— the word (logos) that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.​

In the above statement, rhema refers to the actual spoken words Jesus spoke from His mouth while logos refers to something far deeper and more important that the actual words. It refers to the meaning and I don't mean the dictionary definitions but the fact that the people Jesus spoke to UNDERSTOOD the point of His words and it is that understanding that will convict them on judgment day.

That's far a way from a great explanation but it gets the point (the logos) across. The fact is that the English word "word" very simply DOES NOT convey the meaning of the word Greek word "logos". It's a terrible translation. It always has been a terrible translation and the only reason it has stuck is because people like the way it sounds when read in English.


The specific meaning of logos is determined by the context in which it was used but in no circumstance did it ever mean what we mean by "word" in English. Just read it that way with a bit of detachment and you can readily see that I'm correct....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

That is an utterly meaningless sentence in the English language! The only reason you get it is because you're initiated. That is, because someone explained it to you. You read that sentence to someone who isn't familiar with it and the response will be, "Huh?"

By studying the original language as well as the context of the passage in which it was used.


Because that's the way the King James translated it and it's a very famous passage that people like and since bible translators are paid by people who want to sell bibles, just familiar translations have a tendency to stick.


At best, this establishes Jerome as the original source of the error.

The King James is the primary source of the error in English bibles but there was a list of rules that the translators of the King James used when doing their translating and the number one rule was that "the Bishops Bible was to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.", the Bishop's Bible in turn was based on the so called "Great Bible" which was directly translated from....

wait for it...

the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Jerome).

There isn't any two ways about it. The text of scripture itself doesn't allow for "word" to be a proper translation and neither does the use of the word in ancient Greek. "Logos" very simple does not have the same meaning in Greek as "word" does in English and it never has.


I established with rather well in the opening post or at least gave sufficient ground by which it would easy enough for anyone to establish it if they wanted to do so further.


I assume you meant to say "proved my thesis", which of course you didn't do. All you did was make claims.


All I've ever wanted out of this website is for people to engage in substantive discussion about complex and interesting issues. Mostly all I've ever gotten is baseless claims from vapid minds. What you said here about Jerome's translation being a counter example is the closest thing ANYONE here on TOL has ever presented that approaches being an actual argument in refutation of my thesis and I've now given it the substantive response it deserves.

Jerome's translation is valuable in this way. Jerome was much closer in time to the Apostles than we are today. The bishops then were maybe 12-16 generations removed from the Apostles, as opposed to us being like 100 generations removed. So like the 'telephone game', the one earlier in the process (like the 12th or 16th person) has less error that has possibly crept in by the time the 100th person has heard the message.

This is combined with Jerome's language, a language that does not have the inherent ambiguity and homonymy with the word "word". Verbum is not ambiguous, even though Jerome would have been cognizant of the fact that Logos is. When he chose Verbum he removed ambiguity.

But the Biblical answer to the problem is found in Psalm 33: 6 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."

Compare John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
"

If you continue to offer substance then that's what you'll get in return. If you want to be mindless and make bald claims then you'll get the sort of response that deserves too. It's really entirely up to you.

Clete

We'll see.

 

[Clete]

Jerome's translation is valuable in this way. Jerome was much closer in time to the Apostles than we are today. The bishops then were maybe 12-16 generations removed from the Apostles, as opposed to us being like 100 generations removed. So like the 'telephone game', the one earlier in the process (like the 12th or 16th person) has less error that has possibly crept in by the time the 100th person has heard the message.

This isn't correct. The fact remains that we have the bible in the original language in which it was written. No translation is more authoritative than the original language and we do not have to guess as to the meaning of such common Greek words as "logos". It's the word the Greeks used to refer to the "higher power" that created the universe. There just isn't any possible way that "word" conveys any similar meaning.

The proof is, as I said in the last post, the only reason you can read John 1:1 (and the other passages that use the term) and understand what it's saying is because you've been taught how to understand it. Put another way, someone redefined "word" to mean something much closer to what the word "logos" meant when John wrote his gospel.

This is combined with Jerome's language, a language that does not have the inherent ambiguity and homonymy with the word "word". Verbum is not ambiguous, even though Jerome would have been cognizant of the fact that Logos is. When he chose Verbum he removed ambiguity.

And did so in error.

But the Biblical answer to the problem is found in Psalm 33: 6 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."

The problem here is that Psalms was not written in Greek. The Hebrew word here is "dabar" which refers to speech. The passage is saying that God spoke the universe into existence. This is NOT at all the same concept that John was using when he said, "In the beginning was the Logos." It is literally a totally different concept altogether. John is not talking about God's words or His speech. He isn't saying that "in the beginning was God's words", he is saying that "in the beginning was God Himself". John was intentionally engaging the Greek use of the word Logos which refered not to God's words but to the universal, divine reason or the mind of God and even that description is a bit too specific. If you were to start talking about the structure of the universe and the meticulous fine tuning of creation and how that reflects the nature of God, the Greek person you were talking to would instantly start using the term "logos" because that's the sort of thing it means, which, once again, has nothing at all to do with what we mean in English when we use the term "word".

Compare John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Why stop at verse three?

Keep going and the context of the passage itself will argue my side of this debate...

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.​

Do you "see" it?

The "light" here is not the "let their be light" sort of light. It's the light of your mind. It is understanding, it is comprehension, it is REASON!
There can be NO DOUBT that John made such a parallel on purpose and ANY Greek would have instantly understood the connection as would you if the verse was translated into "logic" or "reason" as it should be.

We'll see.

Interesting use of the term "see" given the context of this conversation.

I've been on this website for more than two decades. Your assessment of me is neither requested or required. So long as you're substantive so will be my responses. That's the way I've always done it and there's no reason why I would do it any differently now. The only thing there is to see is whether you will continue to be substantive and for how long.

Clete

 

[marke]

This isn't correct. The fact remains that we have the bible in the original language in which it was written. No translation is more authoritative than the original language and we do not have to guess as to the meaning of such common Greek words as "logos"

We have the KJV and we have good Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and bad Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Keep going and the context of the passage itself will argue my side of this debate...

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.​

Do you "see" it?

The "light" here is not the "let their be light" sort of light. It's the light of your mind. It is understanding, it is comprehension, it is REASON!
There can be NO DOUBT that John made such a parallel on purpose and ANY Greek would have instantly understood the connection as would you if the verse was translated into "logic" or "reason" as it should be.

What an EXCELLENT argument, and a brilliant point...

 

[JudgeRightly]

We have the KJV and we have good Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and bad Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

The KJV was translated from those same manuscripts.

 

[marke]

The KJV was translated from those same manuscripts.

KJV translators translated from manuscripts they considered accurate.

 

[JudgeRightly]

KJV translators translated from manuscripts they considered accurate.

And even the translators made mistakes.

 

[marke]

And even the translators made mistakes.

We'll just have to trust God to keep us from being deceived by mistakes others may have made.

 

[Clete]

We have the KJV and we have good Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and bad Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

The bible is not the only place in history where the Greek word "logos" is used so we have just a tad bit more than that, like the whole of extant Greek literature and history.

 

[Idolater]

The bible is not the only place in history where the Greek word "logos" is used so we have just a tad bit more than that, like the whole of extant Greek literature and history.

Which evidence is ambiguous, so how do you find an answer in there? You don't. Why do you rule out Aristotle's version of Logos, which is speech? Is there some Biblical reason you have for rejecting Aristotle's version of Logos? Aristotle meant Speech.

But when your crowd of ancients all weigh in on what Logos meant, like Aristotle, like Philo, like even ancienter than them; you get confused and ambiguous signals from them all as a group. One guy says one thing, another one says another, and never the twain shall meet. There's no uniformity, none. So you can't get water from a rock. A matter is established by two or three witnesses, but what about the witnesses who directly contradict the two or three witnesses? You don't have witness testimony available for your argument. You have to figure it out some other way.

The Hebrew word for word isn't ambiguous like Logos. Neither is the Latin word for word. It's just Greek. But we've got Hebrew, and we've got Latin, making like a sandwich with Logos. It's a word sandwich.

 

[Clete]

Which evidence is ambiguous, so how do you find an answer in there? You don't.

That's false, Idolater!

It isn't that ambiguous at all. It isn't difficult to understand what the Greek's were talking about when they used "logos" any more than it is to figure out what the word, "agape" meant or any other Greek word.

Why do you rule out Aristotle's version of Logos, which is speech? Is there some Biblical reason you have for rejecting Aristotle's version of Logos? Aristotle meant Speech.

No it didn't and yes, I've already given you the biblical reason and I stated the biblical reason in the opening post as well.

Here it is again....

Compare John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Why stop at verse three?

Keep going and the context of the passage itself will argue my side of this debate...

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.​

Do you "see" it?


The "light" here is not the "let their be light" sort of light. It's the light of your mind. It is understanding, it is comprehension, it is REASON!
There can be NO DOUBT that John made such a parallel on purpose and ANY Greek would have instantly understood the connection as would you if the verse was translated into "logic" or "reason" as it should be.

I made an additional biblical argument when I pointed out John 12:48....

The Greek word "rhēma" moves us closer still. Its sort of half way between the act of speaking and what logos actually means. The best way I know of to explain what I mean there is to show a passage of scripture that uses both words in the same sentence....​

​

​

​

John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words (rhema), has that which judges him— the word (logos) that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.​

​

In the above statement, rhema refers to the actual spoken words Jesus spoke from His mouth (i.e. His SPEECH) while logos refers to something far deeper and more important that the actual words. It refers to the meaning and I don't mean the dictionary definitions but the fact that the people Jesus spoke to UNDERSTOOD the point of His words and it is that understanding that will convict them on judgment day.​

But when your crowd of ancients all weigh in on what Logos meant, like Aristotle, like Philo, like even ancienter than them; you get confused and ambiguous signals from them all as a group.

No, you don't and even if you did, the passage itself is all the clarification you need.

Besides that, in what way would the use of the term "word" clear anything up? In other words, this argument you're trying to make is as least as big a problem for you as it is me, if not more so because there isn't any use of the ancient term "logos" that coincides with the modern use of the term "word". The passages that translate it that way literally make no sense until someone who is familiar with the Greek comes along to explain it to you.

One guy says one thing, another one says another, and never the twain shall meet. There's no uniformity, none.

This is simply not so. I don't know where you're getting this from but it just is the opposite of the truth. What word in any language has this ever been true of? None!

Logos is the origin of the suffix "-ology" as in "biology" or "meteorology" or "geology". "geo" is earth "ology" is science or study or the logic of, thus geology is the logic of the earth. "Bio" is "life" thus biology is the logic of life. That's what the word means and that's what the word has always meant. It was used in all sort of contexts and so it had a sphere of meaning but it's definition hasn't ever been so vague that we have to guess at its meaning.

Think of the English word "right" as an example. You can talk about your right hand or the right answer or the political right or declare that something feels right or let someone know that you'll be right back. All of those are different ways to use the same word and each time there is a subtle difference in the specific definition but the difference isn't so great that you can't know that the word "right" basically means "correct". Most languages have entirely different words for each of these uses of "right" (including Greek, by the way) but that's beside the point. The point being that even though there's more than one way to use the word "right" doesn't mean that there is this nebulous ambiguity about what the word means and it's the same with Logos, probably even more so given the weird nature of the English language.

So you can't get water from a rock. A matter is established by two or three witnesses, but what about the witnesses who directly contradict the two or three witnesses? You don't have witness testimony available for your argument. You have to figure it out some other way.

Again, it simply false. So false that it's tantamount to wishful thinking and even if it were true, WHICH IT ISN'T, it doesn't do any harm to my position that it doesn't also do to yours.

The Hebrew word for word isn't ambiguous like Logos.

Logos isn't ambiguous and the Hebrew word that would rightly be translated into the English term "word" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion because John didn't write his gospel in Hebrew, he wrote it in Greek with a Hellenistic audience in mind which would have known intuitively what Logos referred to.

Neither is the Latin word for word. It's just Greek. But we've got Hebrew, and we've got Latin, making like a sandwich with Logos. It's a word sandwich.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, no translation is more authoritative than the original language. You can pretend like there is some major question about what Logos means but it doesn't change the fact that John was saying that Jesus was God and any Greek who heard the world Logos used in such a context would have instantly understood what was being said as is PROVEN by the fact that John goes on to use terms and phrases that are directly related to the Greek idea of "the Logos" like "the light of men" and "comprehend".

Why, by the way, does it matter so much to you that logos cannot mean "reason"? What's wrong with the notion that John was equating Jesus with reason? Why is that so unacceptable while his equating Jesus with a near totally meaningless abstraction as "word" is perfectly fine?

Clete

 

[Lon]

Yes.

God's word

Showing mercy is, itself, a change, from initially not showing mercy upon someone who deserves punishment, to not punishing them.

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. This is a HUGE problem with Mormonism and Open Theism. Both are short-sighted and lack a grasp of all that "Creator" entails. John 1:3 Read scriptures more, Open ideas less.

The fact that God is merciful doesn't change, but God DOES change by showing mercy.

He IS the reservoir of mercy. You miss something incredibly important with Open paradigms: God does not change to us: WE change to be like Him. Open Theology is an egocentric theology. It shows in all Open Theist discussions: It becomes man-centered and ingrown. This is the main problem and flaw of Open Theism. I don't want 'just another guy's' theology. I want God's and Open Theism is basically humanism. You HAVE to read scripture more, listen to other's ideas less. Open Theists are learning NOT to think critically. Critical thinking is 'willing' to analyze whether it is wrong or not. Would that the Pharisees would have done that when Jesus came, but He said they were 'unwilling.' At least entertain, for two seconds, you could be wrong. I truly believe scripture says this concept is incorrect. I think you can be saved and be an Open Theist, 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.

To restate the premise here: That God does not change... in his nature... is not in dispute.

I appreciate the orthodoxy in wanting to preserve orthodoxy, but Open Theism always confuses this. His nature IS in dispute with Open paradigms: 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. 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! It is inconsistent logically and theologically. God is good 'apart' from man's grasp of what is good! Don't believe me? Read: Mark 10:17–22 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

But God DOES change in other ways, simply by acting and doing.

This 'idea' isn't scripture. Show me 1 (one) scripture that says "I God, change." Show me. You assume it, because there is no scripture that says so. "God relented" is the 'reservoir' of His being. 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 Corinithians 15:28 (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? Doesn't that, by its very nature, force us to make alterations to scripture, trying to mold it, instead of it molding us???). 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.

You're moving the goalposts.

Again, the argument is that God changes in certain ways, and does not change in others, a position that is consistent with the Bible.

Rather, this argument is inconsistent. Open Theists do not see their own shortsightedness. It is like trying to explain algebra to a student of only basic math: there is an aspect that escapes their rationalization. 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. Open Theism does not conceive a huge truth: God is the source of ALL things. ALL. If you ever try and reason that out, you'll be able to eventually see where Open Theism falls short. It NEEDS to expand to grasp that God is 'infinite.' At its core, Open Theism argues from a 'finite' rationalization. That IS the source of problems with it. 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. Open Theists ADMIT this in their arguments, they just don't perceive they've said exactly the same thing, in explanation that God 'changes.' It literally means God is subject and to creation thus by its own logic, means God exists here like the rest of us. It is very shortsighted by the concept and very much basic-math-sounding. Entrenching is no place to be.

 

[Lon]

Obviously we’re talking about different aspects of the person that change. Any movement or breath is a change—an interaction with the environment or other entities. But none of that is talking about a change into a different person. At least you’re seeing why I limit it to “character”, which you call “person”.

What if you have a change in nature? Are you still the same person?

This exacerbates theology: Change:


chānj

intransitive verb​

1. To cause to be different.
2. To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform.
3. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange.

The fourth is okay in a sense BUT being "ALL and In ALL" is the definition of 'there already.' 1 Corinthians 15:28 Colossians 1:16-18 John 1:3

Two reasons Open Theism exists:
1) Man has a need, in his/her fallen condition, to have his/her needs met, for salvation, for love, for significance and meaning. When theists came to God as 'omni' anything, they ASSUMED it meant God couldn't meet them or their need "without change." It is a logical flaw that made them think God incapable. "He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust." It means 'consistency'. The Open Theist failed to understand that God is the end-all of all. "Without Him, NOTHING exists that exists."

2) Man has a need/desire to 'know all.' It really is an elevation and pride of man that has him in a position where there are no mysteries left. Open Theism balks at 'mystery' all the time. It is shortsighted, like thinking any man on the planet has a full concept of all mathematics, as if any man is capable of keeping up with a computer in computation. It just isn't possible. We 'can' conceive we are not math-majors but Open Theists have a VERY hard time grasping how truly 'basic-math' their theology concepts are. They just do not grasp the concept "without God, NOTHING (nadda, nothing, it is scripture) exists that exists. The Open arguments are very shortsighted in recognizing that God is NOT subject to creation, but it, to Him. The WHOLE paradigm of Open Theology, is, itself, a truth that "God is relational and reaching to man" rather than Man is in need, as 'part' of creation, to reach God. You see it every day when Open Theists do not display the graces, love, and mercy of God: They are more concerned that God reaches them (He does, BUT it is WE who need to be in HIS image, not vice versa), than their own Christ-likeness. It is very sad to see it, I know many are my brothers and sister in Christ, but frankly, they are handicapping themselves and not walking with Him on a daily basis. How do I know? We are like who we hang around and we post like who (Who) we hang around. Grace and mercy begets grace and mercy. If you see anyone without it, it is true that they don't fully understand it. Those who have been loved much, love much. Luke 7:47 I am not being 'mean to Open Theists.' You know I care about you and them. They are just and simply wrong. Wrong is okay, stubbornness for a paradigm, a bit less so. .01% of the Christian community is a hard place to be, but I'd encourage all you my brothers and sisters, to consider your circumstance: There is a REASON you are so few and 'intelligence' isn't the answer, "Basic-math" is.

 

[Derf]

Hi Lon. Good to hear from you.

This exacerbates theology:

Can you explain what you mean by exacerbating theology?

Change:


chānj

intransitive verb​

1. To cause to be different.
2. To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform.
3. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange.

The fourth [?] is okay in a sense BUT being "ALL and In ALL" is the definition of 'there already.' 1 Corinthians 15:28 Colossians 1:16-18 John 1:3

Do you mean "third"? If it's "okay in a sense", does that mean "ok to apply to God"? That's all I'm saying. But it has to apply in as infinite a way as God is infinite, don't you think? I don't think God is "different" in terms of His power, wisdom, understanding, promises, etc. But is He different in terms of His emotions (His perfect emotions)? If He's ever angry, will He ever NOT be angry? Wouldn't a perfect God only have the perfect (righteous) manifestation of anger? Only the right amount and no more? If He's patient with us now, will He still have to be patient with us once we're made like Christ? Or with those fitted for destruction, once He's destroyed them?

[Rom 2:4 KJV] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
[Rom 9:22 KJV] [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[1Ti 1:16 KJV] Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Do you really want God to stay angry all the time? When I got angry with my kids, I would stay angry longer than they deserved. God wouldn't. But that means His anger would subside.

Is God the Father still in the process of forsaking His Son?

What about #2? Was the Son of God always a man? If so, then you must not agree that Adam was the first man, nor was Jesus the last Adam.

Two reasons Open Theism exists:
1) Man has a need, in his/her fallen condition, to have his/her needs met, for salvation, for love, for significance and meaning. When theists came to God as 'omni' anything, they ASSUMED it meant God couldn't meet them or their need "without change." It is a logical flaw that made them think God incapable. "He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust." It means 'consistency'. The Open Theist failed to understand that God is the end-all of all. "Without Him, NOTHING exists that exists."

Aren't you assuming what open theists ASSUMED? I used to assume that the description of God I was taught was correct, but it conflicted with what I read in the bible. If God is "impassible", but displays emotions (passion), of what use is the description? Something had to go, and it was much easier to lose the description than to jettison the bible.

2) Man has a need/desire to 'know all.' It really is an elevation and pride of man that has him in a position where there are no mysteries left. Open Theism balks at 'mystery' all the time. It is shortsighted, like thinking any man on the planet has a full concept of all mathematics, as if any man is capable of keeping up with a computer in computation. It just isn't possible.

[Pro 25:2 KJV] [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

The difference I see is that if something is supposed to be mystery, that's fine, but if something is supposed to be a contradiction...well, I guess I don't that in God's character.

We 'can' conceive we are not math-majors but Open Theists have a VERY hard time grasping how truly 'basic-math' their theology concepts are. They just do not grasp the concept "without God, NOTHING (nadda, nothing, it is scripture) exists that exists. The Open arguments are very shortsighted in recognizing that God is NOT subject to creation, but it, to Him.

subject
adjective​

1. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others.

I don't know that many open theists (just on forums, really, and when I ask someone if God already knew what they would have for breakfast tomorrow, from the foundation of the world), but none of them would say that God is subject to creation, except when Jesus became a man. He aged, He wept, He tired, He slept, He bled and died at the hands of men. Is that what you mean?

Maybe you mean that God is subject to time? But didn't we just talk about Him being "patient"? Isn't that, in a sense, subject to time? Tell me, Has God ever destroyed a city before it was built? Has God ever gone back and changed the past (not sure how we would know, but can you point where the bible tells us He did)? Maybe you've reached the wrong conclusion--you think God created time. Maybe time is a thing that is not created, but exists as part of the character of a God of order (He does things in the proper sequence, right?), or exists as a consequence of God's creative genius, but not as a creation itself. I'm just trying to offer some ways out of your dilemma, where God "waits".
[1Pe 3:20 KJV] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The WHOLE paradigm of Open Theology, is, itself, a truth that "God is relational and reaching to man" rather than Man is in need, as 'part' of creation, to reach God.

Are these exclusive? Which one are you saying is not the case? Would you rather say "God is NOT relation and is NOT reaching to man"? Or "Man is NOT in need, as 'part' of creation, to reach God"? I'm a bit confused.

You see it every day when Open Theists do not display the graces, love, and mercy of God: They are more concerned that God reaches them (He does, BUT it is WE who need to be in HIS image, not vice versa), than their own Christ-likeness.

Yet God made Himself to be in our image, didn't He? [Phl 2:7 KJV] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So who is the more concerned that God be made in our image?

It is very sad to see it, I know many are my brothers and sister in Christ, but frankly, they are handicapping themselves and not walking with Him on a daily basis. How do I know? We are like who we hang around and we post like who (Who) we hang around. Grace and mercy begets grace and mercy. If you see anyone without it, it is true that they don't fully understand it. Those who have been loved much, love much. Luke 7:47 I am not being 'mean to Open Theists.' You know I care about you and them. They are just and simply wrong. Wrong is okay, stubbornness for a paradigm, a bit less so. .01% of the Christian community is a hard place to be, but I'd encourage all you my brothers and sisters, to consider your circumstance: There is a REASON you are so few and 'intelligence' isn't the answer, "Basic-math" is.

It is good to know the tree by its fruits. But I haven't seen such in only open theists. Perhaps you see more of us (and our bad side) on this site, because it was started by open theists and tends to cater to them. On other sites I've been to, it's hard to have too many conversations about it, because the view is spurned when recognized, i.e., not allowed in normal theological conversations. I guess it avoids the need to exercise grace and mercy when you don't hang around with those .01%.

And why is it spurned? Why is it called "heresy" by some, as soon as they hear a bit of it? Why are YOU so against it, Lon, if it is trying to make the most sense of bible passages without ignoring undesirable passages or ascribing God's actions to anthropomorphism (which is kind of like saying God is making Himself to be in the image of man, right)? Even if we're wrong, isn't that the best way to be wrong--believing the bible to be the truth about God, even if we don't understand what He is trying say?

 

[Derf]

This 'idea' isn't scripture. Show me 1 (one) scripture that says "I God, change." Show me.

[Jer 18:4-10 KJV] 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it]. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it]; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yet God made Himself to be in our image, didn't He? [Phl 2:7 KJV] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So who is the more concerned that God be made in our image?

Just want to point out that God made an image for his Son to indwell, then made man in that image, and then became a man...

In other words, He made himself in the image of a creature which itself was made in an image He created (making it His image)...

 

[Derf]

Just want to point out that God made an image for his Son to indwell, then made man in that image, and then became a man...

In other words, He made himself in the image of a creature which itself was made in an image He created (making it His image)...

Are you saying we are made in the image of the image of God? And Jesus took on the image of the image of the image of God?

 

[Clete]

God's word

God is consistent and ALL!

Nonsensical universalism.

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.

Association fallacy. 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.

So what?

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!

Stupidity!

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.

Liar!

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...

Revelation 1:18 I am 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.

Meaningless nonsense.

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?

Great question!

"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.

Broken record....

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.

Yeah, sure.

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.

Amazing!

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.

Stupidity.

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?

Sheesh!