ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

......I do indeed make the argument here that by Jim's own reasoning God must be considered to be imperfect when it comes to His actions, His manifestations, His humanity, and His relationships. Why? Because if God were perfect in any of these areas and then He changed in one of those areas, that change would be for the worse.

A strictly Greek belief(or O.V. argument) that perfection is found singly since.....

We already discussed that there can be more than one 'perfect' act by definition. God can create perfectly, but remains perfect even when not creating. He is able to change His....

God is mutable in His actions, His manifestations, His humanity, and His relationships.

.....and remain perfect in character. Hilston was correct to suggest that Augustine believed this as well. If God were to change one perfect thought to another perfect thought, one perfect judgement to another perfect mercy, etc.......; what would make God less perfect? A change from perfection to perfection is not a change for the worse. Why would perfection have a need to change in the first place?

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Hilston]

Hilston,

While I was majoring in Greek at UCLA, I had to study Plato. I realize, in spite of the boring tomes that Augustine wrote and the statements about how near the Platonists were to his beliefs, he is held in such high regard by many Christians. Why, I don’t know.

I am neither bored by his tomes, nor am I dissuaded by his appeals to Plato; no more than I would be bored by John Sanders' or John Piper's writings or dissuaded by Bob Enyart's appeals to science. I find it particularly instructive that you think of Augustine as boring. I find it remarkable that you don't see "nearness" to Plato as a constructive and positive association. Nearness to Platonic ideas is as much a feature as nearness to Baconian science. The truths these men documented were merely what they discovered of God's truths in God's universe. That is not something to eschew or to be ashamed of, but to embrace. It testifies to the wonder of the imago Dei as God has created and designed him. The discoveries by men, even pagans, of God's truths in creation affirm the scriptures.

Do you believe that the Platonists really “recognized the true God as the author of all things”.

Yes, and this is corroborated by Paul in Acts 17:21ff

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

Paul acknowledged that the Athenians knew God, as he also declares in Romans 1. But he also indicts them for having pushed Him away from themselves and for suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness. But they, as did the Platonists, knew God and could rightly infer His invisible attributes, His eternal power and Godhead. The pagan writers understood things about God, just as Plato did.

I also do not see any evidence God “has foreknowledge of (ALL) future things”. There is too much scripture that rebuts that idea.

The Open Theist is resists seeing God's decrees as compatible with man's free will. They see everything through Open Theist lenses that they've cemented to their faces. If the Unsettled Theist would pry those lenses off of their faces, all the scripture concerning the ostensible "ignorance" of God and the proper compatibilist view of God's exhaustive foreknowledge (i.e. His immutable decrees) would come clear to them.

Augustine seams to think that everyone believes that God knows all future events. p. 156 “Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess, that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.”

While I do not agree with everything Augustine claims, I agree fully with him here.

Bob, do you believe God is immutable in any sense or in any way?

35% post-consumer material,
Jim

 

[Clete]

A strictly Greek belief(or O.V. argument) that perfection is found singly since.....

We already discussed that there can be more than one 'perfect' act by definition. God can create perfectly, but remains perfect even when not creating. He is able to change His....



.....and remain perfect in character. Hilston was correct to suggest that Augustine believed this as well. If God were to change one perfect thought to another perfect thought, one perfect judgment to another perfect mercy, etc.......; what would make God less perfect? A change from perfection to perfection is not a change for the worse. Why would perfection have a need to change in the first place?

Thanks,
Rob

Jim denies that God can change His mind Rob. And whether or not Jim (or Augustine) affirm a belief that God could change in any way or not is beside the point. The point is that they cannot escape their own logical reasoning which they use to posit that God is immutable at all! Basically, Jim is barking up a non existent tree. He is upset with open theists because he thinks we accuse Calvinists of believing something that they do not believe. This is not the case from about every angle possible. Not only do Calvinists commonly hold to the absolute, unqualified immutability of God, but more often than not, open theists do not accuse them of believe it in the first place. Do you see that I have not accused Jim of believing in the absolute immutability of God? Isn't it clear that all I've done is taken his own logic; the same logic used by Augustine and Calvin and Calvinists all over the world, to its own inevitable conclusion? I've forced them to see the implications of their own stated beliefs, nothing more. I don't even care if they affirm unqualified immutability (although they usually do even if later they contradict that position). What I'm concerned with is the line of thinking that leads them not only to immutability but also to predestination and the whole of the TULIP doctrines. They are all based on the single line of reasoning that says that if the perfect changes; it does so for the worse.

Keep in mind also that this line of argument is not held to be sound by open theists. I am not arguing this against Hilston because I hold to the line of thinking. I am arguing from his own stated position and that of other Calvinists. We open theists (generally speaking) believe that who God is (His personality, His character, etc) remains holy, just and good but not because He cannot change or because if He did change, He would stop being a holy God or any such argument. We believe God chooses to remain righteous by an act of His will. He has decided to forever remain righteous and thus He will so remain.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston,

I want what I believe to be based on God’s Word. I think the concept of immutability lacks the biblical support. I also realize that immutability played a crucial role in the development of atemporality. For God to be immutable, the future could add no knowledge to what God already knew. For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness was present in the eternal. The present tense was used because all things are in the present from their viewpoint, yet again, with no biblical basis.

Modern theologians have denied the basis of their rationalistic theology and even criticized the philosophers by whom they have been influenced. For example, Robert Morey, who “has earned degrees in philosophy, theology and cult evangelism,” wrote this in his chapter on “The God’s of the Philosophers.” “Since it was God who created the world with its space-time limitation, He Himself is not limited by space or time, but greater than both. Since He made the space-time universe, it does not make or control God. To say that the creation is greater than the Creator is absurd. This is why Christians have always said that God is eternal in the sense of ‘timelessness’ not ‘endless time.’ To say that God exists in ‘endless time’ is to make time ultimate over God. It would make God depend on time for His own existence. This would make Time a higher god than God!

Notice the lack of biblical support. Instead, we have man’s philosophy. It is man’s reasoning, indeed, rationalistic thought, that maintains that space and time were created when God created the world. Morey probably got this from the math of the new physics. However, when we read the Bible, it always portrays God in space and time, yet it never alludes to space or time exerting any control over Him.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston,

The basis of my belief is the Bible. At one time, I was a strong Calvinist and agreed with a lot of Augustine’s works. But, I found that pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the ones who maintained that God was in a state of timelessness, not the Bible. Some seem to think that just because God does things one thing at a time, that makes time “ultimate over God.” The Bible described God doing things in sequence, one day at a time in the creation account, but that put no limitation on Him. We are slaves to time because we need to sleep, eat, and eventually we die. God faces none of these. Time is no burden to God. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston,

The only thing that counts in true biblical theology is God’s word. Therefore, I think you would agree that we must look at the biblical evidence. The foundation of the view of immutability does not have a biblical basis. The Bible doesn’t show God as immutable, unchangeable, or impassible, that is, not influenced by anything outside of Him, for instance, by our problems?

Does God ever change? I agree with you that the question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient. God is love. He has many other attributes that do not change. But that is not the question. The question can be stated a number of ways: Does God ever repent? Does God ever change His mind? Does God ever think something will happen, and then it doesn’t? Does God ever show emotion? Does He ever change in any way in the state of His being? I believe the answer to all these questions is yes He does. His ability to change, instead of degrading God, causes us to appreciate and glorify Him all the more. He does do the things asked in my questions, but the most significant fact for me, on a personal level, concerns His supposed impassibility. I believe there is a strong biblical basis that He suffers. He has passion. This is the opposite of impassibility, of having no passion.

I believe these things because the Bible shows us God’s changeability over and over.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston,

I want to validate what I wrote in my last post. Frst, we read that God suffers! That gives me great comfort. My God is touched by our sufferings. My God suffers because of us, with us, and for us. For instance, in Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.”

Further, in Hosea, we observe Him as the loving husband, in Hosea 1:2; 2:5,13; 3:1; and 6:4-7. “The LORD said to Hosea: ‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the LORD.’ 2:5 ‘For their mother has played the harlot; She who conceived them has behaved shamefully. For she said, “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’” 2:13 ‘She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers; but Me she forgot,’ says the LORD. 3:1 ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the LORD for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans.’ 6:4-7 ‘O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away.’” Is this our passionate God or just misleading statements made by God?

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Good insights, Bob. God is a living, personal God, not a static, impersonal, philosophical entity. Personal beings act, think, and feel in sequence. Time is simply duration/sequence/succession (not a created thing). It is not a limitation for the eternal God, as you pointed out. We cannot underestimate the philosophical influences on some thinkers in church history. We must lay aside preconceptions to freshly see God's self-revelation in Scripture. :sigh:

 

[Bob Hill]

Don't get me wrong. God is omnipotent, omniscient of everything in the present and can determine and bring to pass future things. It's just that He does not choose to do that very often.

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Don't get me wrong. God is omnipotent, omniscient of everything in the present and can determine and bring to pass future things. It's just that He does not choose to do that very often.

Bob Hill

God macro vs micromanages. He does not determine, decree, nor predestine every moral and mundane choice in the universe. His desire for give-and-take reciprocal love relationships necessitated giving us genuine freedom (introducing calculated risk) vs determinism. One consequence is that He does not always get His way (though He will creatively bring His project and purposes to a positive conclusion) and that exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies becomes an absurdity. His omnicompetence and ability ensure that He can respond to any contingency. He is not a cosmic control freak. He is a loving Father influencing His creation.

 

[Delmar]

Excuse me, but where is the refutation in the excerpt you quoted? What I wrote in the excerpt you cited has nothing to do with the Open View, but rather those who deny God's existence. How is that at all relevant to this discussion?

How is it relevant? You were explaining that anyone who denies God is only able to do so by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That you believe that this applies only to the existence of God and not to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, is a contradiction in logic!

Wait a second ... you're an Open Theist, aren't you? I should have known. Please disregard the above comments. It's not fair of me to use rational discourse with Open Theists and to expect them to engage discursive thought. My apologies.

Not according to my inbox. My mock-jobs are getting puh-lenty of attention. Thank you very much.

Naturally decaffeinated,
Jim

I have no doubt that you have your own little fan club of determinists.

 

[RobE]

Mis-understandings!

Mis-understandings!

Jim denies that God can change His mind Rob. And whether or not Jim (or Augustine) affirm a belief that God could change in any way or not is beside the point. The point is that they cannot escape their own logical reasoning which they use to posit that God is immutable at all! Basically, Jim is barking up a non existent tree. He is upset with open theists because he thinks we accuse Calvinists of believing something that they do not believe. This is not the case from about every angle possible. Not only do Calvinists commonly hold to the absolute, unqualified immutability of God, but more often than not, open theists do not accuse them of believe it in the first place. Do you see that I have not accused Jim of believing in the absolute immutability of God? Isn't it clear that all I've done is taken his own logic; the same logic used by Augustine and Calvin and Calvinists all over the world, to its own inevitable conclusion? I've forced them to see the implications of their own stated beliefs, nothing more. I don't even care if they affirm unqualified immutability (although they usually do even if later they contradict that position). What I'm concerned with is the line of thinking that leads them not only to immutability but also to predestination and the whole of the TULIP doctrines. They are all based on the single line of reasoning that says that if the perfect changes; it does so for the worse.

Keep in mind also that this line of argument is not held to be sound by open theists. I am not arguing this against Hilston because I hold to the line of thinking. I am arguing from his own stated position and that of other Calvinists. We open theists (generally speaking) believe that who God is (His personality, His character, etc) remains holy, just and good but not because He cannot change or because if He did change, He would stop being a holy God or any such argument. We believe God chooses to remain righteous by an act of His will. He has decided to forever remain righteous and thus He will so remain.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I believe Hilston/Augustine argues that God doesn't have a need to change His mind! The Greeks said a change in perfection would create imperfection. In our discussion on the thread Hilston/Clete we covered this. It's my opinion that Hilston simply thinks there is no need for a change in His plans. That's significantly different from what's being argued here.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Hilston]

How is it relevant? You were explaining that anyone who denies God is only able to do so by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That you believe that this applies only to the existence of God and not to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, is a contradiction in logic!

Dear deardelmar,

I may have missed it, so please bear with me. But where did I, or anyone on this thread, deny that Jesus Christ is Lord? Put another way, what in the chaotic flux of the Open Theist phantasm are you blathering about?

Close box before striking,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Bob,

I want what I believe to be based on God’s Word. I think the concept of immutability lacks the biblical support.

Of course you do. It is raison d'etre of Open Theism. To make God as fickle and emotion-driven as we are. Human beings who realize their frailties and failings take comfort when they find out that there are others like them. It salves their conscience; it soothes their guilt. Some go as far as projecting their hang-ups on others. The Open View commits the Ultimate Projection by denigrating God's transcendence in favor of His immanence. They've distorted the rich figures and linguistic devices that were intended to emphasize God's immanence in light of His transcendence, and turned them into verses that make God into not much more than a super-smart, super-strong human being with very, very bad accounting skills. They've created God in their own image.

I also realize that immutability played a crucial role in the development of atemporality.

There was no "development" of atemporality, Bob. Moses taught it. Abel understood it. Abraham understood it. Job understood it.

For God to be immutable, the future could add no knowledge to what God already knew.

This is misguided reasoning, and only makes sense WITHIN the Open View. You guys are the only ones who struggle with this stuff.

God knows what He knows, not because He investigated, not because He observes what has happened, is happening or will happen, but rather because He determined it. You don't even need to bring up God's immutability in order to discuss this. God's plans are settled. That doesn't mean God cannot experience change.

For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness was present in the eternal. The present tense was used because all things are in the present from their viewpoint, yet again, with no biblical basis.

With regard to God's immanence, all things are not in the present. There is no such thing as the "eternal now." Those are finite and inadequate words philosophers use to try to get their minds around transcendent ideas which finite minds cannot grasp. Naive and presumptuous men then take those finite and inadequate words and try to build cases against them, and it's a huge waste of time.

Modern theologians have denied the basis of their rationalistic theology and even criticized the philosophers by whom they have been influenced. For example, Robert Morey, who “has earned degrees in philosophy, theology and cult evangelism,” wrote this in his chapter on “The God’s of the Philosophers.” “Since it was God who created the world with its space-time limitation, He Himself is not limited by space or time, but greater than both. Since He made the space-time universe, it does not make or control God. To say that the creation is greater than the Creator is absurd. This is why Christians have always said that God is eternal in the sense of ‘timelessness’ not ‘endless time.’ To say that God exists in ‘endless time’ is to make time ultimate over God. It would make God depend on time for His own existence. This would make Time a higher god than God!"

I've not read Robert Morey, but he is correct. Morey acknowledges the infinitude of God. You do not, Bob. To you, God is finite, whether you're honest enough to admit it or not. Logic demands it. If God is dependent on time and subordinate to it, then God is not infinite. Please admit that. If you do not deny the infinitude of God, then your integrity as a thinker is shot.

Notice the lack of biblical support.

There is biblical support. Plenty of it. It also has logical support. Plenty of that as well. But when Open Theists come to the Bible and work so feverishly to re-interpret it exisentially and humanistically, they miss the support that is there; willfully so, I might add.

Instead, we have man’s philosophy.

No, it's God's philosophy, Bob.

It is man’s reasoning, indeed, rationalistic thought, that maintains that space and time were created when God created the world.

Incorrect. It is God's reasoning and creative and sustaining power that holds creation together and keeps your brain from obliterating.

Morey probably got this from the math of the new physics. However, when we read the Bible, it always portrays God in space and time, yet it never alludes to space or time exerting any control over Him.

You're a walking contradiction, Bob, and you don't even see it. That is the poison of Open Theism at work in you.

Let me ask you a question: Let's suppose an author of the Bible wanted to decry a false view of God that said God was outside of time. How would the Bible describe such a false conception? What language would the Bible use to say, "God is not outside of time ..." beyond that statement? What further description might be given? My point is, the writers of scripture were finite beings, using finite vocabulary to describe wonderful and transcendent things that language is inadequate to fully depict. Thus, they used figures and rich analogies, metaphors, and other linguistic devices. Believers in God's ineffable infinitude read these things in awe and wonder. Open Theists read these things and use them to bring God down in order to exalt themselves. It is the ultimate assault on God, using His own Word against Him to denigrate His nature and character.

This side up,
Jim

 

[godrulz]

Finite godism is Process Theology, not to be confused with biblical Open Theism. Properly understood (unlike Hilston's straw man), it affirms God's infinitude, transcendence, and immanence. God is personal, not a philosophical construct. A relational vs philosophical view of God and His ways resonates with Scripture. A wrong view of sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control) also caricatures God.

 

[Hilston]

Godrulz,

Try to connect the dots:

God is bound by time.
God is not infinite.

God is infinite.
God is not bound by time.

Do you know what infinite means? It means "not bounded."

The (il)logic of your claims goes like this: God is bounded by time but God is not bounded.

:kookoo:

 

[Vaquero45]

I don't get "bound by time". The only alternative I can think of to "bound by time" would be the ability to time-travel? (like on Star Trek, or back the the future)

 

[Hilston]

The basis of my belief is the Bible. At one time, I was a strong Calvinist and agreed with a lot of Augustine’s works.

Where did you learn the idea of unqualified immutability, Bob? You didn't get it from Augustine. Or Calvin. Please, tell us where you learned it.

But, I found that pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the ones who maintained that God was in a state of timelessness, not the Bible. Some seem to think that just because God does things one thing at a time, that makes time “ultimate over God.”

See what I mean? God is not only a bad accountant in the Open View, but God is not much of a multi-tasker either. He'd make a crummy waitress.

The Bible described God doing things in sequence, one day at a time in the creation account, but that put no limitation on Him.

On the Open View, God doesn't "micromanage" the universe. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ holds every atom together. I think the pagan philosophers had a better grasp of God and creation than Open Theists do.

... We are slaves to time because we need to sleep, eat, and eventually we die. God faces none of these. Time is no burden to God. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).

That makes Thomas Alva Edison a very god-like man. I understand he was able to work for long periods with little sleep or food.

The only thing that counts in true biblical theology is God’s word. Therefore, I think you would agree that we must look at the biblical evidence.

Looking at biblical evidence is profitable between two men who agree hermeneutically. When I look at the Biblical evidence with a Jehovah's Witness, it quickly becomes pointless because they see everything through their JW lenses. It doesn't do any good to merely throw Bible verses at each other. So instead, I attack the underlying presuppositions of their view. For example, the JW doesn't believe in an everlasting hell. The underlying presupposition is that everlasting hell is too cruel, which on the one hand implies that God does not have a very high view of His own righteousness, yet on the other hand implies that fallen man can rightly decide that a good God wouldn't be so mean. Likewise, when I look at the Biblical evidence with an Open Theist, it isn't enough to merely toss Bible passages back and forth. The underlying presuppositions of Open Theists must be exposed.

The foundation of the view of immutability does not have a biblical basis.

Actually, it has tons of it.

The Bible doesn’t show God as immutable, unchangeable, or impassible, that is, not influenced by anything outside of Him, for instance, by our problems?

Sure it does. God does not have mood swings. His emotional state is not governed, let alone ruined, by the wills and actions of finite creatures. When the Bible describes God's emotions, it is a rich figure called anthropopathism, which is used to convey both God's prescriptive will and to describe His actions toward finite man.

Does God ever change? I agree with you that the question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient. God is love. He has many other attributes that do not change.

I see that you, like Bob Enyart, qualify God's immutability. Don't let Clete Pfeiffer, who likes to speak for you both, hear you say that. He says qualified immutability is an oxymoron. You both can't be right about this. Perhaps Mr. Pfeiffer will be kind enough to set you straight on this.

But that is not the question. The question can be stated a number of ways: Does God ever repent?

No, that's a figure of speech that refers to God's change of actions.

Does God ever change His mind?

No, that's a figure of speech that also refers to God's actions.

Does God ever think something will happen, and then it doesn’t?

No. The only time He uses this figure is to impress the hearer with an especially emphatic sense of God's righteousness, justice and indignation against particularly egregious sins. Appylying logic and consulting other parts of scripture suffice to convey to the non-poisoned reader of what these passages so richly describe. Only the Open Theist takes them literally, thereby reducing God to nothing more than a skilled Google-user.

Does God ever show emotion?

Sure He does. But He is completely in control of His emotions and decides to emote in accordance with His own counsel.

Does He ever change in any way in the state of His being?

In existentialist terms, yes. In essentialist terms, no.

I believe the answer to all these questions is yes He does.

Of course you do. Anything to bring God down and to lift man up.

His ability to change, instead of degrading God, causes us to appreciate and glorify Him all the more.

No, it allows you to project humanistic limitations on God and to explain away the things that used to embarrass you about God.

He does do the things asked in my questions, but the most significant fact for me, on a personal level, concerns His supposed impassibility. I believe there is a strong biblical basis that He suffers. He has passion. This is the opposite of impassibility, of having no passion.

It is obvious, from these statements, that your former Calvinism was flawed, or perhaps you've forgotten what you used to believe, because your characterization of the doctrine of impassibility conveniently simplistic and inane. Consider the following short treatment of Divine Impassibility in my critique of Enyart's debate with Lamerson.

I believe these things because the Bible shows us God’s changeability over and over.

Immanence vs. transcendence.

I want to validate what I wrote in my last post. Frst, we read that God suffers! That gives me great comfort.

Yes, that is a humanistic proclivity. We assign human frailties, suffering and emotions to nearly everything: our cars, our pets, and now, thanks to Open Theists, our God. It comforts us to project in this way.

My God is touched by our sufferings. My God suffers because of us, with us, and for us. For instance, in Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, ...

When did God take Ephraim by the arms? Did God take him by the wrists, the hands, or the elbows? What's that you say? I'm being too literal? Where do you draw the line? I know precisely where to draw it. You seem to do it arbitrarily, according to whatever makes God less than God but a little bit more than man.

... but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them ...

He stooped? He fed them? Did He use a utensil? Or did He just scoop the food with His hands?

Is this our passionate God or just misleading statements made by God?

It is our compassionate God being compassionate far beyond what Open Theist distortions could ever portray. This is because the Open Theist God is already not much higher than man. The Biblical view shows us a God who is transcendent, infinite. So when THAT God deigns to be compassionate to His creatures, it is a wondrous and beautiful thing. The Open Theist can never fully or truly appreciate the humility of God in the incarnation, because it wasn't that much of a leap from being a weak, poorly-multi-tasking, bad-accountant, emotion-swept and fickle God to becoming a human being. The Biblical view of the incarnation, and all of God's plans surrounding it, staggers the mind in its awesome and ineffable greatness:

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.​

Here's an Open View revision of that passage:

O the depth of the riches both of the good intentions and good-faith efforts of God! how comforting are his sufferings, and his ways being higher but not lower! For who hath NOT known the mind of the Lord (all you have to do is look at your own)? or who hath NOT been his counsellor (since he learns by trial and error)? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again (except the stuff that God learns by trial and error)? For of him, and through him, and to him, are some things, since he does not micromanage the universe: to whom be glory for ever, or until God figures out what to do next. Amen?​

 

[Hilston]

I don't get "bound by time". The only alternative I can think of to "bound by time" would be the ability to time-travel? (like on Star Trek, or back the the future)

Do you believe time is a limiting force in your experience? Do you ever run out of time? Does time ever impede your will or actions?

Easy to light,
Jim

 

[Vaquero45]

Do you believe time is a limiting force in your experience? Do you ever run out of time? Does time ever impede your will or actions?

Easy to light,
Jim

Time is one of my worst enemies.

I guess the way I look at it, God is just so competent that time isn't a problem for His goals. Look what He created in six days. It's hard to imagine God could get much busier than that in dealing with us. If we can believe He is omnipresent (in one way or another) I think He could handle as many tasks at one time as he desired to. (and still be "in" time)