ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

The Trinity is strongly shown in the Great Commission given to the eleven. All could come to repentance if they were willing.

Matthew 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

lee_merrill said:

God is not a man, though,

Click to expand...

Lee! How can you deny this?! :bang:


God became flesh!

It's undeniable!

and simply because Jesus is a member of the Trinity, does not make God a man.

Click to expand...

It does if Jesus is God! If Jesus is God and Jesus became flesh then that necessarily means that God became flesh.

The Triune God did not become a man in the incarnation, remember Jesus praying to the Father.

Click to expand...

That's not a problem at all nor does it require the belief that God did not become a man. Jesus and the Father are two different persons in one God. They can therefore pray to one another. This is completely compatible with God becoming flesh.

So then again I ask if God suddenly could change his mind, after the incarnation.

Click to expand...

He could change it then and can change it now. Why do you insist on limiting God? Not being able to change is not a good thing Lee. Being able to change is freedom.

Why so? This would seem to separate God from man. And again, “like we do” is not in the text.

Click to expand...

The point of the verses is to contrast God and man with respect to the immediate situation. You have to look at the greater context of this verse Lee. God himself was changing his mind by cutting Saul off in the first place! It would be absurd to think that just a few verses later we read that God never changes his mind. It's a contradiction if your view is right, and that's not allowed.

Yet there is another meaning for this word which fits quite well, why may I not read that meaning in these various places?

I despair of ever being able to get this point across, to any Open Theist.

Click to expand...

That other meaning doesn't help you out! It doesn't matter if you put it in! And again, this is all based on your trying to defend the idea that change is bad and that therefore God never changes in any way. This simply isn't true Lee! Let it go! It's okay! Why must you cling so hard to it?

Well, again, I’m not claiming them to be figurative, I’m claiming the word has a different meaning than “repent or change of mind.” And I don’t hold that God cannot change in any way whatsoever.

Click to expand...

If you don't hold that then you have no reason to believe that God never changes his mind or repents. There is no contradiction in the bible is that is not your view. Just let the verses (all of them) say what they say in their proper contexts and all is well!

I would think that would provide just the ability to know what could be given, and God does give all his intends to, and also does all he says he will do.

Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

The Open View would say yes, yes he does, here.

Click to expand...

Lee, the bible makes it very clear that your view is wrong. God intended to make Saul a great king and would have established his line forever. Yet he did not do this. (1 Sam 13:13). Every time God get's frustrated with people in the scriptures is a time when he promised something good for the people and they went and disobeyed his commands. The point of numbers 23:19 is about God's trustworthiness with respect to his word. If he says he will do something, he will unless a change in circumstances comes about which warrants it not being fulfilled. This isn't that hard. It speaks to God's character, not all of himself.

But I meant what is the meaning of the phrase, if it doesn’t mean God doesn’t take back his words. I didn’t mean “What is your theological view in this area?” I’m asking for a translator version, taking these words, and translating the meaning into English. What was the phrase Isaiah meant, please, grammatically defensible? I also insist on seeing said interpretation here on "he does not take back his words" in a commentary! Even an Open Theist one...

Blessings,
Lee

Click to expand...

I don't have one Lee and it shouldn't be necessary.

Bob Hill said:

Knight,

Most likely Jim will take 2. The potter intentionally mars the vessel and then makes it again claiming he did some "good" by fixing his own marring. :kookoo:

Bob Hill

Click to expand...

Yeah, what is worst is he does it thinking we are strange :sigh:

Strange seems to be in the eye of the critic. In some ways, it seems that we all are a little strange.

Bob Hill

lee_merrill said:

Not to speak for Jim, but who marred the vessel in the example?

Was it not the potter? So then the analogy does answer your question.

Click to expand...

A potter who was not perfect in every way could accidently mar a vessel that he was trying to make, but I'm not sure you want to go there, if God is the potter. Of coarse if you do want to head in the direction of the potter marring the vessel on purpose, you then get to the issue of the potter changing his mind about what kind of pot he wanted in the first place!

Bob Hill said:

Strange seems to be in the eye of the critic. In some ways, it seems that we all are a little strange.

Bob Hill

Click to expand...

Perhaps strange is the wrong word.

Heathen maybe...?

Hi everyone,

Delmar said:

A potter who was not perfect in every way could accidently mar a vessel that he was trying to make, but I'm not sure you want to go there, if God is the potter.

Click to expand...

What other conclusion is there, though? The analogy suggests God made a marred vessel, and since he would not simply be distracted or careless…

Romans 9:21-22 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?

God_Is_Truth said:

Lee! How can you deny this?!

Click to expand...

Because God says he is not a man? Jesus is God, but God is not simply Jesus, you see.

That's not a problem at all nor does it require the belief that God did not become a man. Jesus and the Father are two different persons in one God. They can therefore pray to one another.

Click to expand...

If God is a (singular) man, though, how does Jesus pray to the Father?

Being able to change is freedom.

Click to expand...

Well, unless someone is the pinnacle of perfection; as God is!

God himself was changing his mind by cutting Saul off in the first place! It would be absurd to think that just a few verses later we read that God never changes his mind. It's a contradiction if your view is right, and that's not allowed.

Click to expand...

Well, no, God can change his response (one area where I believe God changes), and yet not change his nature or his plan. How was it that God did not think Saul would turn out badly? When people said to each other, “Is Saul also among the prophets?!” He had a reputation, I can tell you. God was apparently undiscerning, and picked as the first king a bad candidate, when everyone but him seemed to know Saul was not such a good candidate to be leading. He had a temper, for one, a violent temper, that at least eventually he did not control, and sometimes even gave himself to, and also a streak of what would seem to be cowardice, and so on.

Lee: Yet there is another meaning for this word which fits quite well, why may I not read that meaning in these various places?

I despair of ever being able to get this point across…

God_Is_Truth: That other meaning doesn't help you out! It doesn't matter if you put it in!

Click to expand...

But why not? As I explained to Knight, grief can be present even as part of a plan, showing grief can bring a good result.

2 Corinthians 2:4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.

I don't have one Lee and it shouldn't be necessary.

Click to expand...

But this is remarkable indeed! It is possible that you have found the real interpretation here, and everyone for thousands of years has again and again missed this, but I would consider this well, more than a bit unlikely.

What I’m actually after here is that you seem to adopt more exotic positions the more you are pressed with questions, and I want to try and rein this tendency in here!

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill said:

Well, unless someone is the pinnacle of perfection; as God is!

Click to expand...

I am always intrigued by this line of reasoning, it seems totally fallacious and a dishonest attempt to squelch real discussion. It is like the episode on South Park (bear with me here) in which small business owners were using children to campaign against big business. The ad ran something like: vote yes for banning Starbucks or else you hate children. Of course no one wants to say they hate children, just as no one wants to say they think God is imperfect. What you have in essence done, is predefined perfection not based on the Bible but by your own philosophy, and shoved out anyone who disagrees with you.
Christians often get into a “my God can beat up your God,” line of reasoning. They then go on to define made up attributes for God, not from the Bible, but from their own minds, what they think would make God the best God imaginable.
How does the Bible define perfection? How does the Bible define God? Most importantly, how does God define himself?

God calls Abraham perfect, as well as others in the Bible (Gen 6:9, Job 1:1, ect). God commands us to be perfect. Is God saying Job and Abraham were immutable, omniscient, and omnipotent floating in an eternal now? Or does the Bible define perfection a tad different than you?

In Christ,
Chris

lee_merrill said:

Not to speak for Jim, but who marred the vessel in the example?

Was it not the potter? So then the analogy does answer your question.

Click to expand...

I think the verse speaks for itself and I am embarrassed for you that you reject the plain stated meaning of the verse.

Even still I am not going to comment until we get Jim's "spin".

lee_merrill said:

Because God says he is not a man?

Click to expand...

He said that before he was a man and never after he became one.

Jesus is God, but God is not simply Jesus, you see.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Aren't you paying attention? I said God is not only man but he is indeed a man.

If God is a (singular) man, though, how does Jesus pray to the Father?

Click to expand...

Pay attention Lee! God is two persons. Therefore they can pray to each other.

Well, unless someone is the pinnacle of perfection; as God is!

Click to expand...

Being unable to change is an imperfection! To be perfect requires you be able to change!

Well, no, God can change his response (one area where I believe God changes), and yet not change his nature or his plan.

Click to expand...

Did I say nature? Did I say plan? Did I say response? No. I said mind. That's the issue and that's what you need to respond to.

How was it that God did not think Saul would turn out badly? When people said to each other, “Is Saul also among the prophets?!” He had a reputation, I can tell you. God was apparently undiscerning, and picked as the first king a bad candidate, when everyone but him seemed to know Saul was not such a good candidate to be leading. He had a temper, for one, a violent temper, that at least eventually he did not control, and sometimes even gave himself to, and also a streak of what would seem to be cowardice, and so on.

Click to expand...

God was grieved that Saul turned out as he did. That means he didn't expect Saul to turn out that way. That's what the text says and the only reason you deny it is because of your philosophy.

But why not? As I explained to Knight, grief can be present even as part of a plan, showing grief can bring a good result.

Click to expand...

Because the text doesn't suggest that it's for that reason! What good result would the grief bring about anyways?

2 Corinthians 2:4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.

Click to expand...

The point there is to NOT grieve Lee! That means grief is never the plan! (Lam 3:33).

But this is remarkable indeed! It is possible that you have found the real interpretation here, and everyone for thousands of years has again and again missed this, but I would consider this well, more than a bit unlikely.

Click to expand...

No, you just aren't willing to accept the Word of God as it is but depend on the words of man.

What I’m actually after here is that you seem to adopt more exotic positions the more you are pressed with questions, and I want to try and rein this tendency in here!

Blessings,
Lee

Click to expand...

I adopt positions that make sense and reject those that don't. My view makes sense, yours does not.

Hi everyone,

Lee: Well, unless someone is the pinnacle of perfection; as God is!

Chris: What you have in essence done, is predefined perfection not based on the Bible but by your own philosophy...

Click to expand...

Well, you see, this is a standard argument for the perfection of God, for if he could ever change in essence, in such a way that would be an improvement, then we could think of a greater being than God is. So if God is not able to change by way of improving, is that a lack of freedom? I hope that is not what was meant, but it did seem like people were saying that refusing to change means obstinacy, means being stuck and refusing to progress.

Chris: God calls Abraham perfect, as well as others in the Bible (Gen 6:9, Job 1:1, ect). God commands us to be perfect. Is God saying Job and Abraham were immutable, omniscient, and omnipotent floating in an eternal now?

Click to expand...

No, and there are certainly different meanings of this Hebrew word:

Exodus 12:5 The animal you select must be a one-year-old male, either a sheep or a goat, with no defects.

Same word! But Scripture clearly states 1) that there is no greater being than God and 2) that he is always the same in character, so that was the basis for my comment here.

God_Is_Truth said:

Pay attention Lee! God is two persons. Therefore they can pray to each other.

Click to expand...

So, two men? Or three?

Did I say nature? Did I say plan? Did I say response? No. I said mind.

Click to expand...

Changing your plan I think is a change of mind, though.

God was grieved that Saul turned out as he did. That means he didn't expect Saul to turn out that way. That's what the text says…

Click to expand...

So everyone else knew better than God? And I thought the Open View said the Lord is especially able to predict future behavior based on present character (Peter’s denial, and so forth), only this time he fell down? And the text does not say God didn’t expect the way Saul actually turned out.

Because the text doesn't suggest that it's for that reason! What good result would the grief bring about anyways?

Click to expand...

I might well remark that the text doesn’t suggest that God changed his mind. And as far as good result…

2 Corinthians 2:4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.

God_Is_Truth: The point there is to NOT grieve Lee!

Click to expand...

Then they wouldn’t have known the depth of Paul’s love for them.

God_Is_Truth said:

That means grief is never the plan! (Lam 3:33).

Click to expand...

Not grief per se. But yet the result is desired, and in the plan, and requires this process.

Lee: It is possible that you have found the real interpretation here, and everyone for thousands of years has again and again missed this, but I would consider this, well … unlikely.

God_Is_Truth: No, you just aren't willing to accept the Word of God as it is but depend on the words of man.

Click to expand...

I accept the word of God, only you are not the pope speaking ex cathedra! I must weigh what you say, as you must weigh my statements. Let’s not be saying we are infallible.

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill said:

Well, you see, this is a standard argument for the perfection of God, for if he could ever change in essence, in such a way that would be an improvement, then we could think of a greater being than God is.

Click to expand...

Well, does the Bible ever speak like this? To my knowledge, the Bible never tells us God is the greatest being "we" can imagine and to figure out what we think is the best characteristics and assign them to God based on our own thinking. I reject the standard arguement because it seems like the un-Biblical philosophy Paul warns us about.

lee_merrill said:

Same word! But Scripture clearly states 1) that there is no greater being than God and 2) that he is always the same in character, so that was the basis for my comment here.

Click to expand...

Pretend all life ends on the planet except for one man and one tadpole. It would then be correct to say that there is no greater being on earth than that one man. I don’t think the no greater being than God necessitates the extra-Biblical philosophy. Shouldn’t we let the Bible be our primary source for who God is and how to define God?
Anyone could make up anything they want, but this does not make it true. I could say God is dynamic with the power to decimate any timeless immutable God, thus creating a superior God, but saying something doesn’t make it true. I don’t buy arguments along the lines of “this God is superior to that God.” It seems more like man saying our fallible philosophy trumps the Bible.

Yours in Christ,
Chris

Yet, there is no reason that we cannot exult in the glory of our wonderful God.

Deuteronomy 7:21 You shall not be terrified of them; for the LORD your God, the great and awesome God, is among you.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.

That's good enough for me, and I think cfisher would agree.

In Christ, the God of gods and Lord of lords,
Bob Hill

But cfisher, wouldn't you agree that God is the greatest any of us could imagine?

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Bob Hill said:

But cfisher, wouldn't you agree that God is the greatest any of us could imagine?

Click to expand...

Bob, you talk to me like you don't know me. I'm Craig's son.

If the "greatest" we could imagine is immutable timelessness, then no. If the greatest we can imagine is perfectly holy beyond definition, ever dynamic (living) in thoughts and words, then yes. But note, if the "greatest" we can imagine is contrary to the Bible, either we are wrong or the Bible is wrong. We shouldn't force our image of perfection onto the God of the Bible.

In Christ,
Chris

Hi Chris,

It's good to hear that God would be the greatest being, I agree with your reply to Bob.

cfisher said:

To my knowledge, the Bible never tells us God is the greatest being "we" can imagine ...

Click to expand...

The Bible does I think say God is greater than we can imagine!

Psalm 145:3 Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom.

So I think the other would be covered.

Shouldn’t we let the Bible be our primary source for who God is and how to define God?

Click to expand...

Quite so.

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill said:

It's good to hear that God would be the greatest being, I agree with your reply to Bob.

Click to expand...

I didn't exactly say that. I believe God is the greatest being because I let the Bible define greatest being, not that if God existed he must be the greatest being ever imagined. The term God is not defined by greatest being, or what are false gods? The Greeks had many gods, they were not all the greatest being imaginable. I think Christians who ever use the phrase "of course he can, he's God" are fools. I much prefer "of course he can, go to Isaiah whatever: whatever." And let exegesis of the scriptures determine truths about the God of the Bible, not arbitrary definitions for what God has to be like.
Sorry if any of that was presupposed in your comment, just clarifying.

Thanks for your sincere replies,
Chris

Knight said:

Yes.

God hates evil, but He loves us more than He hates evil. God want's us to have freedom. He gave us our own will - an incredible gift - a display of love in a fashion we can barely put to words. God loves us so much He gave us something that lets us be us (our will). Yet, some people use that freedom (their will) to do evil things, which of course God hates, but for God to not allow evil God would have to take away our freedom (our will) which would be unloving.

Now you can answer... what was God's "good" purpose in torturing Jews through Hitler's hands?

Click to expand...

Isn't this the same reason God might ordain evil if foreknowledge is true?

patman said:

Do you see? You said the rock was responsible, not the man throwing it. This is wrong. The man who threw the rock killed the man, not the rock.

Lets say it wasn't a rock lets say it was a piranha. The fish bit the guy and he bleed to death. Do you STILL say the guy who threw it is innocent?

Click to expand...

Aren't we forgetting free will? We're in God's hand and we choose to leave it ourselves.

Rob

lee_merrill said:

So, two men? Or three?

Click to expand...

Three persons, one of which is also a man. A person is not always a man.

So everyone else knew better than God? And I thought the Open View said the Lord is especially able to predict future behavior based on present character (Peter’s denial, and so forth), only this time he fell down? And the text does not say God didn’t expect the way Saul actually turned out.

Click to expand...

God chose Saul and hoped he would turn out well (1 Sam 13:13). This is why God was grieved when he did not turn out this way (1 Sam 15:11). You cannot genuinely regret taking an action if you know exactly how it will turn out. That would make you a liar.

I might well remark that the text doesn’t suggest that God changed his mind.

Click to expand...

God regretted the action He took which means He genuinely expected Saul to be a good king and to extend his line forever (1 Sam 13:13). Cutting Saul off meant He was changing His plan and as you pointed out, this involves a change in mind.

Then they wouldn’t have known the depth of Paul’s love for them.

Click to expand...

No, you have misread the verse. Paul wrote for the purpose of expressing love and grief was a side effect of this. He makes it clear, he did not write to grieve them.

I accept the word of God, only you are not the pope speaking ex cathedra! I must weigh what you say, as you must weigh my statements. Let’s not be saying we are infallible.

Click to expand...

I have given evidence several times as to why my view fits biblically. You, on the other hand, keep trying to make verses fit your philosophy. That is, you exalt the few over the many for the sake of an idea. My position takes them all together as sound doctrine ought to.