ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
Yet you are not addressing my questions, and conclusions cannot do the work of arguments.

How then did God plan the cross, where he knew people would sin, and bring it about, without being an agent in that sinning happening?

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…

Romans 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 11:32 For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

Clearly God is the cause here, and these resulting sinful actions are in his plan.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Jeremiah 30:14-15 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.


Yet Scripture tells us directly who was the cause of what happened to Job:

Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Satan was an instrument in God's hand, as (quite sinful) Assyria was an instrument in God's hand above (Isa. 10:16).

Lee,

You must realize when you are in a discussion with someone, it is not a benefit to the discussion to just start throwing things up that are not relivant to the current content.

We are talking about Job mostly. And now you are wanting me to explain to you how the rest of your verses are not a problem to the Open View? Lee, for the life of me I can't even get you to admit Satan struck Job!

The scripture is clear. Satan did it! God even said he did it. And you can't understand that, you want me to tackle everything else too? Lee, you have so many ideas that are misleading you, I don't know where to start. I cant discuss everything with you because you can't even agree with me about this one simple thing.

Just let it go! Job was struck by Satan, it was Satan's idea to do it, it was his test, he did it. The story is clear. Your "proof" verse contradicts the words of GOD himself, as you use it. You again show him disrespect, saying his very words "Satan will afflict Job" are wrong?

Just drop it. You don't have to believe God was after Job.

I feel you cannot be reasoned with. No matter what scripture says, quoting the very mouth of God, you still undermine it intentionally. God's words from his mouth should be better respected.
 

lee_merrill

New member
patman said:
We are talking about Job mostly. And now you are wanting me to explain to you how the rest of your verses are not a problem to the Open View?
They are pertinent to the question of whether God causes sinful deeds, now only one example will suffice, but there are many, I only quoted some few examples.

Yes, all these verses need explanation, and the passage on Job as well.

Lee, for the life of me I can't even get you to admit Satan struck Job!
I do acknowledge that: "Satan was an instrument in God's hand, as (quite sinful) Assyria was an instrument in God's hand above (Isa. 10:16)."

So Satan indeed struck Job.

The scripture is clear. Satan did it! God even said he did it.
Yet again, Scripture tells us directly who was the controlling cause of what happened to Job:

Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Now what I don't want to hear is that God says Satan struck Job, without any comment on this verse! please and thank you.

Job was struck by Satan, it was Satan's idea to do it, it was his test, he did it. The story is clear.
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Now the one testing would be God, here.

And there are verses which are even clearer, which is why I quote them:

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Jeremiah 30:14-15 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.

There are many such examples, in Jeremiah, in all the prophets, even all throughout Scripture. If you ask if God causes sinful deeds, you cannot then complain if I quote what I think are the clearest verses that demonstrate the point...

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

Ps82

Active member
Bob Hill said:
First I want to be sure you all realize I wrote this!

I see no basis for Jesus Christ being forsaken by the Father while on the cross.

That doesn't mean the Son did not feel that way, though.

The cross had to happen after the Son talked to His Father when He was praying to the father about having the cup pass in Mat 26:39-42.

He said in Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

He willingly gave Himself for us.

Bob Hill

Hi Bob,
I agree ... Jesus felt the brunt of being a 'son of man' ... even the pains of, rejection, fear, and death.
Praise to my good and fair Lord God, who willingly agreed to suffer and die for me - even before he created humanity... and then willingly decided to create us anyway.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Clete said:
My presuppositions? I'm simply reading the text and taking it for what it seems to be trying to communicate. To get to my position all that is necessary is that you read Paul's writings. There is no need to perform a bunch of theological gymnastics with it, just read it. Paul meant what he said and I haven't been given any reason yet to believe otherwise. Not that your position is entirely unreasonable but basically your argument boils down to, "What Paul teaches about spiritual life must be symbolic because otherwise my belief that spiritual death equates precisely to eternal damnation is false and I don't want for it to be false and so I choose to render symbolic everything in the Bible that seems to suggest otherwise." That's hardly a logically sound argument themuzicman!

Actually, we both take these things to be symbolic. A human with a literally dead spirit would be a physically dead human, as well. You already said that "spiritually dead" means "separation from God", and that is just as symbolic as what I've said. I can make all the same claims you have in this paragraph, right down to my position being a simple reading of Paul.

If you want to convince me that your right on this you are going to have to give me something more concrete than "well that problem text is just symbolic". There are things in the Bible that are definitely symbolic and figurative but we have to have some objective means by which we determine when that is so. You are going to have to give me some Biblically sound principle upon which your belief that these passages are symbolic is based. You speak of exegesis but so far all you've demonstrated is isogesis. A sound hermeneutic requires well defined principles and rules that govern our interpretation of God's Word. We can't just go around making things say something other than what the plain meaning of the text seems to suggest because of a particular theological stance.

Again, we both agree that "spiritually dead" is symbolic, so now we must try to make sense of it. Frequently the context of a passage is helpful. In Galatians, Paul is dealing with the Judaizers, who claim that Jews and Gentiles must live by the Old Covenant to be saved, and Paul is demonstrating that one cannot live both by the law and in Christ:

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how [is it that] you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 "We [are] Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 "For if I rebuild what I have [once] destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.​

Notice that Paul has neatly shown that Jews can not live as Old Covenant Jews and be saved, even if they believe in Christ, because they are trying to rebuild their own righteousness through the law, and demanding that Gentiles do the same!

Then Paul says:

19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [comes] through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.​

The point, here, isn't some kind of literal spiritual death, or even separation from God, but through our identification with Christ's death (as demonstrated in baptism, see Romans 6), we died to the law, and now live by faith in Christ. Neither were we literally crucified with Christ on the cross (indeed, we were not yet even born), neither does Christ literally live in every Christian in the world. These are clearly symbolic and the surrounding context give us the meaning of the symbolic language.

Would you agree that the plain reading of the passages I've quoted contradicts your position? If so, can you give me some Biblically sound reason; some underlying principle of Biblical hermeneutics that would require me to take these passages to mean something other than what they seem to mean? If not wouldn't it just be simpler to say that your idea about what it means to be spiritually dead is wrong?

It's the basic principle of context that you're missing. You're taking 19 and 20 out of the context of Galatians 2 (and the book as a whole), and trying to squeeze a meaning out of it, without considering Paul's intent for the passage.

No, these verse don't contradict my position. I've both show that we both take these verses as symbolic, and demonstrated from the context what the symbolic language regarding being crucified with Christ and Christ living in us means.

So, if we take the larger context of the passages you've cited, including the chapter and the theme of the book, these meanings become clearer.

Michael
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
Ps82,

The hardest thing for Christ was when He was made sin for us. This perfect, Holy Son of God became a man and then became sin for us. He knew no sin, but even though He asked if this cup could pass from Him, when He heard that it couldn’t, He was willing to be made sin for us! What a wonderful Savior He is!!

2 Cor 5:18-21 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Thank God,
Bob Hill
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
I’m an Open View theologian who is also called an Open Theist at times. We Open Theists can be dispensational or covenantal, although most Open Theists are dispensational. The Open View holds that God is omniscient, but because He gave us free will, the future doesn't exist to be known, unless God determined something would be done in the future.

Therefore God only knows the future that He determined would happen, not all of it. God knows that part of the future that He has definitely predetermined, as He did with the crucifixion and the future Tribulation.

But the vast majority of the future, while somewhat predictable for God, is unknown for certain. A common false accusation against the Open View is that it limits God's omniscience. This is not true. God cannot know things that aren't true or don't exist. For example, God cannot know that there is a man named Bob Hill in the town of New Jersey, Colorado, because there is no such man in such a town.

Does this limit His omniscience? Of course not; that would be ridiculous. Similarly, God cannot know with 100% certainty the future, which doesn't exist to be known.

God is so powerful that He can handle anything that could possibly throw a monkey wrench into His plans. He knows all things that are knowable, and He knows everything that is knowable.

Wow, what a wonderful God we have!!

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

sentientsynth

New member
Bob Hill,

I'd like to engage you regarding this statement.

Bob Hill said:
The Open View holds that God is omniscient, but because He gave us free will, the future doesn't exist to be known, unless God determined something would be done in the future.
When you say "the future doesn't exist to be known, unless God determined something would be done in the future", do you mean that if "God has determined something would be done in the future", then this portion of the future "exists to be known"? This is the logical consequence of your statement.

Could you, perhaps, provide a definition of "exists"?

Also, in the above quotation, you say, "... but because He gave us free will, the future doesn't exist to be known ...".

Here you assert that the inexistence of the future is caused by the existence of free will. How then can any "portion" of the future "exist to be known" when free will shall always exist?

You wrote above that these two conditions (the existence of free will and the existence of the future) are mutually exclusive, only to immediately contradict yourself by saying that somewhat of the future is in fact known, which, according to your above statement, means that it also exists, meaning that in such a state free will does not exist.

You've conditioned your statement with an "unless" clause, but you haven't explained exactly how this "unless" condition doesn't refute your entire premise, which, in fact, appears impossible, given the absolute nature of the previous clause, which states, " ... the future doesn't exist, unless..." meaning that you are giving the condition in which the future does, in fact, exist. Thus, according to your above statement, when the "unless" condition is fulfilled, the previous clause is negated, meaning that free will does not exist in such condition, i.e. when it is the case that "God determined something would be done in the future."

I'm hoping that you'll more clearly elucidate your most recent post, even only this one sentence that I've quoted, in a point by point fashion. Of course, it is completely your own perogative to pass over this post of mine, in like manner as you apparently passed over my previous query to you. (If you've responded to it, then I missed it and apologize for doing so. Perhaps you'll inform me of where your answer to it can be found.) At present, the glaring inconsistencies in your statement demand that you completely reformulate and recast it into non-contradictory language.

Some feel quite at home, Mr. Hill, in murkiness. I do not.

And let us never forget, as certain are so quick to remind, that this is a debate forum. Pleasantries are for little girls in their tea parties.


Regards,

the Sentient Synthesizer
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The things that God settles and knows about the future (some vs all) still do not make the future actual. It becomes actual/certain when the potential/possible future becomes the fixed past through the present (potential choices are actualized...some vs all). The difference in philosophy is presentism (open theism) vs eternalism (eternal now timelessness). The former is more defensible and is the common sense view of reality. It is also consistent with a literal reading of Scripture (reveals God as experiencing endless time vs timelessness).
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"exists" is probably the wrong word. I say that God knows all the possible courses of the future, and there are some things God determines beforehand beforehand that He will do to bring about His purposes.

Muz
 

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
They are pertinent to the question of whether God causes sinful deeds, now only one example will suffice, but there are many, I only quoted some few examples.

Yes, all these verses need explanation, and the passage on Job as well.


I do acknowledge that: "Satan was an instrument in God's hand, as (quite sinful) Assyria was an instrument in God's hand above (Isa. 10:16)."

So Satan indeed struck Job.


Yet again, Scripture tells us directly who was the controlling cause of what happened to Job:

Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Now what I don't want to hear is that God says Satan struck Job, without any comment on this verse! please and thank you.


Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Now the one testing would be God, here.

And there are verses which are even clearer, which is why I quote them:

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Jeremiah 30:14-15 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.

There are many such examples, in Jeremiah, in all the prophets, even all throughout Scripture. If you ask if God causes sinful deeds, you cannot then complain if I quote what I think are the clearest verses that demonstrate the point...

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, you still put God as the cause of the deeds.

God did not control Satan as a puppet. The story is clear, Satan had the idea. He worked it out, God simply limited what Satan could do. That is all God did in this.

Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

I have commented on this verse. I did by explaining that every other verse in the book points to SATAN as the doer of the trouble. You keep getting stuck in the little stuff. If 10 to 1 the verses favor one idea, and the one doesn't seem to, it doesn't nullify the other 10. It just requires looking at.

If you read the entire chapter, particularly verses 10-17, they are talking about Job getting his life back. It explains how everyone gave him silver and gold and how he got more livestock and children. The point of it is he was restored.

It is important you see the point of the verse above individual clauses. A clause, especially one as small as the one you italicized, is a quick explanation that doesn't go into great detail, and is not intended to bring earth shattering news.

It means what it says, but not the way you take it. It means it in context to the entire book of Job and is said in quickness to explain why everyone is rebuilding Job's fortune. So you shouldn't take it to mean "God was controlling Satan" or the trouble.

As said a hundred times before, Satan was doing this freely and God was not doing anything, but simply limiting Satan's actions. God himself says this is what happened, as pointed out before. The narrator is telling us quickly why everyone is doing this, and that makes it figurative. God simply allowed Satan to bring trouble to Job.

When determining if a verse is figurative, I always go about it in the same fashion as above.

1. Does it contract other verses (YES)
2. Does the surrounding context intend for this to be the main point? (NO) If not, what is it really saying?(JOB GOT RICH AGAIN)
3. Could this mean something else as a figure of speech and still fit the context? (YES)

It meets all of these checks.

SO what the verse is meaning is 'God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing'. We should not take it to mean God brought it upon Job because, overwhelmingly all verses about the story itself shows SATAN doing it. The words speak for themselves.

Why do you not consider this to be a figure of speech? I didn't feel a need to answer what everyone else had already answered for me. Of all the verses that literately show who did what, you pick a verse that is easily seen to be figurative and use it to twist the other verses.

Why do you do this?

To make it fit your theology. Your theology causes you to pick a hand full of verses and twist the rest of the entire bible!

Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2
6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.

God's word is supreme. The words he utters are the ones that we should give the most weight to. They are sometimes poetic, but here they are not. The dialog is clear, Satan is the one bringing trouble on Job. God said so! And the story is clear, Satan did it all. God even came in later to rebuke Job for accusing God of doing this.

Elihu makes it clear that God didn't do this, then God comes in to support his words by questioning Job. And job repents. This entire book is about not blaming God for things he didn't do. But you take one tiny verse and twist it all around to nullify the entire meaning of the book AND to blaspheme God by calling him the author of sin.
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

SentientSynth said:
When you say "the future doesn't exist to be known, unless God determined something would be done in the future", do you mean that if "God has determined something would be done in the future", then this portion of the future "exists to be known"? This is the logical consequence of your statement.
A good question, here…

Patman said:
Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

I have commented on this verse. I did by explaining that every other verse in the book points to SATAN as the doer of the trouble.
Actually, every other verse says God was the real cause! This aspect of the situation is assumed throughout.

And giving the devil permission to strike Job, is this not God being an agent? Even on your own view, God is the one responsible for Job’s troubles, by removing the hedge.

If you read the entire chapter, particularly verses 10-17, they are talking about Job getting his life back. It explains how everyone gave him silver and gold and how he got more livestock and children. The point of it is he was restored.
Yet this point is not the only point, Job prayed for his friends, does this not give us instruction by example, on forgiveness? So when we read “the trouble the Lord brought on him,” we can’t say the overall theme somehow erases this statement.

And it is quite clear.

It means it in context to the entire book of Job and is said in quickness to explain why everyone is rebuilding Job's fortune. So you shouldn't take it to mean "God was controlling Satan" or the trouble.
But could God not stop Satan at any time? If so, how then was God not controlling what happened to Job?

God simply allowed Satan to bring trouble to Job.
Removing an obstacle so a rock can roll down a hill, knowing what it will hit, is to be a cause.

SO what the verse is meaning is 'God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing'. We should not take it to mean God brought it upon Job because, overwhelmingly all verses about the story itself shows SATAN doing it. The words speak for themselves.
They do indeed!

Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him…

This is a different statement than “God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing,” though certainly this latter statement is true, we can’t say a phrase is a figure of speech and rewrite it like this, for it does not contract other verses (to strike a cue ball so it pockets the nine, the cue ball is a secondary cause, and you are the primary cause), and a main point does not erase other points in the passage, and “the trouble the Lord brought on him”, what grammar says this is a figure of speech people would recognize as meaning “rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing”?

A figure of speech is like saying “It’s raining buckets,” this would not seem to be in that category…

Why do you not consider this to be a figure of speech?
It’s plain Hebrew, what grammar says this is a Hebrew figure of speech? We can’t just say this has this other meaning like this without some grammatical support.

Why do you do this?

To make it fit your theology.
The shoe here may be on the other foot, though.

God even came in later to rebuke Job for accusing God of doing this.
Actually, the rebuke was for justifying himself, and saying he had been struck, while he was innocent. He was not rebuked for saying God struck him, in fact, Scripture says he did not sin when he said this, there is no rebuke in chapter one, yet by your view, there should have been.

The dialog is clear, Satan is the one bringing trouble on Job.
So then “The Lord gave” really means the devil gave? Just trying to be consistent here.

Elihu makes it clear that God didn't do this, then God comes in to support his words by questioning Job.

Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.

Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.

Clearly Elihu is saying God struck Job.

But you take one tiny verse and twist it all around to nullify the entire meaning of the book AND to blaspheme God by calling him the author of sin.
Yet Scripture does say again and again that the Lord brings trouble on others at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

And the other verses I mentioned are also quite clear, you see, this is a theme in Scripture.

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

Blessings,
Lee
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
sentientsynth,

God would be the only one who would know, if He determined it. He has determined a rapture for the Body of Christ. He has determined a number of things in the book of Revelation. He may have determined some things that He has let us know about, but God knows or can know anything that He wants to know. When He knows it, it cannot be changed by anyone except Him.

Bob Hill
 

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
Hi everyone,


A good question, here…


Actually, every other verse says God was the real cause! This aspect of the situation is assumed throughout.

And giving the devil permission to strike Job, is this not God being an agent? Even on your own view, God is the one responsible for Job’s troubles, by removing the hedge.


Yet this point is not the only point, Job prayed for his friends, does this not give us instruction by example, on forgiveness? So when we read “the trouble the Lord brought on him,” we can’t say the overall theme somehow erases this statement.

And it is quite clear.


But could God not stop Satan at any time? If so, how then was God not controlling what happened to Job?


Removing an obstacle so a rock can roll down a hill, knowing what it will hit, is to be a cause.


They do indeed!

Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him…

This is a different statement than “God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing,” though certainly this latter statement is true, we can’t say a phrase is a figure of speech and rewrite it like this, for it does not contract other verses (to strike a cue ball so it pockets the nine, the cue ball is a secondary cause, and you are the primary cause), and a main point does not erase other points in the passage, and “the trouble the Lord brought on him”, what grammar says this is a figure of speech people would recognize as meaning “rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing”?

A figure of speech is like saying “It’s raining buckets,” this would not seem to be in that category…


It’s plain Hebrew, what grammar says this is a Hebrew figure of speech? We can’t just say this has this other meaning like this without some grammatical support.


The shoe here may be on the other foot, though.


Actually, the rebuke was for justifying himself, and saying he had been struck, while he was innocent. He was not rebuked for saying God struck him, in fact, Scripture says he did not sin when he said this, there is no rebuke in chapter one, yet by your view, there should have been.


So then “The Lord gave” really means the devil gave? Just trying to be consistent here.



Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.

Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.

Clearly Elihu is saying God struck Job.


Yet Scripture does say again and again that the Lord brings trouble on others at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

And the other verses I mentioned are also quite clear, you see, this is a theme in Scripture.

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, your theology causes you to make God the author of sin, so you see it everywhere you look. How you say my own view lend hinge to this by the fact God allowed to happen is incredibly wrong. God allows everything, so what? He isn't making it happen. You are way out there.
 

patman

Active member
The S.V. proudly proclaims God as the author of sin. It makes everything in the Bible a figure of speech except the ones that fit their theology, a theology that glories in Satan's second hand man as our creator....
 

sentientsynth

New member
Bob Hill,

Your response does not shed any light on the discrepancies in your previous statement. So, I ask you again, do the determined portions of the future exist?

Bob Hill said:
He may have determined some things that He has let us know about, but God knows or can know anything that He wants to know.
This contradicts your previous statement.

"...but because He gave us free will, the future doesn't exist to be known,..."

How could God know a future that, according to you, doesn't exist? If perchance God did in fact want to know this future (I speak as a fool), or at least some aspect of the future, then, according to you, He would not be able to know it because, as you stated previously, "...because He gave us free will, the future doesn't exist to be known...". If this were ever the case (and why couldn't it be?), then God would experience limitation upon his ability, making your categorical statement false.

Perhaps you'll make the claim that God doesn't want to know the future. But, as you've already stated, "...God only knows the future that He determined would happen...". This begets the question, why does God only want to know some, but not all of the future?

According to you, God's knowledge of the future is mutually exclusive to the existence of free will. Why has it pleased God to deny free will in certain circumstances and to allow it in others?

Why is it that the audience of Peter's first epistle did not possess free-will in the matter of their election, seeing that they are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"?

When He knows it, it cannot be changed by anyone except Him.
Could you provide a definition of "know"?

Vernacularly, "know" denotes a fixed surety without the chance of error of any origin. How then can someone be said to "know" something and simultaneously be wrong about it? To the common person, such a one who claims to "know" that about which he is wrong is characterized by a whole host of words which we both hesitate to apply to God.

For instance, I make a promise to visit a friend. Something important comes up and I'm not able to visity my friend. Did I "know" that I was going to visit my friend when I made that promise? Clearly not. But you would say that I did "know" that I was going to visit my friend when, in fact, the only thing that I "knew" was my intention to visit him.

Hereby you have reduced God's knowledge of the future into merely God's knowledge of His future intentions. This is hardly what a person would call "knowledge of the future." Most would call this simply "provisional plans."

He has determined a rapture for the Body of Christ. He has determined a number of things in the book of Revelation.
Has He determined these things, Mr. Hill? Or has he made provisional plans for them?

Could you provide a definition for "determine"?
 

sentientsynth

New member
patman said:
The S.V. proudly proclaims God as the author of sin. It makes everything in the Bible a figure of speech except the ones that fit their theology, a theology that glories in Satan's second hand man as our creator....
What is a figure of speech, patman?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:
What is a figure of speech, patman?

SV makes the verses about God changing His mind anthropomorphic, for e.g. There are two motifs in Scripture: God settles and knows some of the future, but leaves much of it unsettled/unknowable (possible vs certain). The SV must take the latter motif as figurative (numerous texts), whereas the Open View takes both sets at face value (a stronger hermeneutic).
 

sentientsynth

New member
patman said:
Apparently, the bible, SS.
Thanks for your response.

I was sure that you'd expose yourself as a consummate poseur, exactly as you have done. Just so long as settled viewers realize that there's no need to take you seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top