ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

OR maybe Hilston is too simple to grasp the concept of symbolism.

Muz

He presses the analogy too far, beyond what Jesus intended. He is inconsistent since a tomb is not a stomach or oral cavity. He underestimates God's ability to preserve supernaturally (even science records cases of people being spit back alive after being swallowed by great fish).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jesus was alive during the three days, right? He died physically (separation of spirit from body). He did not SDA soul-sleep. Jesus body was in the ground. Jonah's body was in a fish, but that is not proof that He was physically dead. This metaphor conveys a central truth and should not be pressed as a wooden literalism. In your logic, Jesus' body must have been covered in sea weed and fish juices, since all points of his analogy must be identical or He is a liar and I trust a feeble god?! Analagous is not identical. Perhaps you should take a course in hermeneutics lest you be dogmatically wrong so often.

My observation is within the historical OT narrative (you are speculating he was dead), and is not related to my Open Theism views. Must you always be an eggshell person? I would be defensive if I had so many red boxes, I suppose.

As you can see I avoided that topic with Jim.

It's a rabbit trail not worth going down, it will only distract from the interesting topic at hand. Although I think you hit the nail on the head with your post. :up:

In your logic, Jesus' body must have been covered in sea weed and fish juices, since all points of his analogy must be identical or He is a liar and I trust a feeble god?!

:rotfl:

 

[cfisher]

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," ...He was not only eaten; he was killed. Jonah was dead for three days and three nights. I would say that this is not a representative example of how God "pushes, pulls, influences, etc.".

I hear ya. This logic definitely explains why Jesus smelt of fish innards when he rose from the dead. I always was wondering about that. :think:

 

[Bob Hill]

God_Is_Truth and themuzicman,

Thanks for your responses.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Maybe it is time to explain what Open View Theology is, since we have not spelled it out for some time.

Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I believe. This view is about the God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc. This theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God. It is the biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on this site.

If you are new here, you may want to go back to the beginning of this thread and read through it.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[bachartsayid2]

Bob Hill said:

"20 plus years ago when your wife’s 1st pregnancy resulted in miscarried twins and the other problems with each pregnancy happened, God had nothing to do with them either way."

My reply:
Was he too weak to do something, anything? Was he concerned or completely unconcerned? Did these events catch him by surprise? Couldn’t he, shouldn’t he have made a world where these things couldn’t happen to those he loves?

Bob Hill said:
"In this present time, the Dispensation of Grace, we have no biblical evidence that God is working miracles."

My reply:
I agree with this statement though at the time of these events the Evangelical tradition in which I was immersed insisted that God could, indeed desired to perform a miracle. If everyone just prayed hard enough it was practically guaranteed. I now understand that expecting a miracle was not appropriate for this dispensation.

Bob Hill said:
"When my wife had a two headed baby die many years ago, we did not hold that against God."

My reply:
Why? Would it have been unfair of you to hold him accountable for bringing about a world where these things could happen? Or did you not hold it against him because you believed he did not have the power to prevent it or change it?

Bob Hill said:
"However, Satan enjoys seeing us suffer and may be able to cause those things, but mankind has brought much degradation and evil into this world."

My reply:
So your sure it did not come from your god but it may have come from Satan?

Bob Hill said:
"What God the Father did, was send His Son to become a man, live a sinless life on this earth for about 30 years, on this Earth, and then willingly die for our sins."

My reply:
I know and believe this, and have believed it beginning a short time after he saved me. That is if you mean He lived a sinless life and then died as the blood sacrifice for the sins of the Elect.

Bob Hill said:
"After His resurrection, He ascended to the Father. He wants you and your wife to believe in Him for your own salvation since He died for you."

My reply:
You misunderstand. My wife and I have been saved. I do believe in Him because He saved me and quickened my spirit so that it was capable of believing the truth concerning His death, burial, and victorious resurrection. He truly is a God worthy of all praise. He did not save me because of anything I said or did or believed. He did save me though based solely on His grace and love.


Jeff Mathis

 

[Hilston]

Attempt number 4.

Jim, tell us which of the following two options is true according to the Bible...

1. The potter takes the vessel that is marred in his hand and makes it again into something good.

or...

2. The potter intentionally mares the vessel and then makes it again claiming he did some "good" by fixing his own marring.

Option 1 (Jer 18:4).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Option 1 (Jer 18:4).

Very good. That wasn't so hard was it?

Why then time and time again do you blame the potter for intentionally marring the vessel for the sole purpose of later making Himself "look good"?

 

[godrulz]

Back to the fish story: Jesus died and rose with a glorified body, never to die again.

Jonah did not rise with a glorified body (I see no evidence in the OT that he died). He will experience his bodily resurrection in the future.

Again, analagous is not identical (do not go beyond the intent of Jesus' words).

 

[Hilston]

Very good. That wasn't so hard was it?

No one said it was. It was insulting. It was non sequitur. It didn't deserve an answer. But it wasn't hard.

Why then time and time again do you blame the potter for intentionally marring the vessel for the sole purpose of later making Himself "look good"?

I have never, ever, blamed the potter. That's what Open Theists do. Search and see. It is the Open Theist mantra: If God ordained evil, then blame God for committing sin. If God desires evil things to happen (like the slavery of Joseph and the murder of His Son), then "God is responsible." The Bible, over and over again, decries it as foolhardy and unwise to question the work of His hands. The Open Theists say, "If God is the potter and we are the clay, why does He find fault with US, when He is the one who formed us?" Thus, the Open View turns things upside down, supposing that the clay has any say whatsoever in the matter:

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

So ridiculous is the notion that the prophet Isaiah presents a ridiculous picture of the clay complaining against the potter:

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

When the Open Theist says, ""If God is the potter and we are the clay, why does He find fault with US, when He is the one who formed us?" how does Paul answer? Paul does NOT say: "Because God did not mar us. We marred ourselves." Paul does NOT say: "Because we have free will and we chose to become marred vessels." Rather, Paul replies with a powerful rhetorical figure: "No, O man, who do you think you are to speak against God? Shall the clay say to the potter: Why have you made me this way? (Ro 9:20). " The answer is obvious from the metaphor. Paul continues, "Doesn't the potter have power over the clay, and is able to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, all with the same lump of clay?"

Repeating Knight's question:

Why then time and time again do you blame the potter for intentionally marring the vessel for the sole purpose of later making Himself "look good"?

The Potter did indeed intentionally, i.e. with intention and purpose, form the vessel for the purpose of showing His goodness. It's exactly what Paul declares. What would God's purpose be for fitting some vessels for destruction and some for mercy? Paul answers: "To shew His wrath, to make His power known, and to make known the riches of His glory for the elect, whom He prepared in advance for glory." (Ro 9:22,23).

All according to God's decrees, obviously.
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

WARNING - WARNING - WARNING

Don't read the following two quotes unless you want your neck to break.

I have never, ever, blamed the potter.

If God desires evil things to happen (like the slavery of Joseph and the murder of His Son), then "God is responsible."

Jim, you are a good guy but are massively confused.

You can't even string a few sentences together without contradicting yourself. It's painful to read. In fact, I think I will go eat some Tylenol. :chew:

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: It's messing with your free will if there are no miracles today.

No, there is no reason whatsoever to make that claim. Especially in light of how I explained how God works with us.

You have yet to explain how exactly God prods, and pulls, and influences you without messing with your will. What exactly does He do? Since Open Theists are so fond of humanizing God, let's consider a comparison. When I want to influence a friend or co-worker, I use words and arguments to try to change their opinion. Or sometimes I can use facial expressions or body language to communicate that I don't like something, and that influences their thoughts and reactions. Or I might schedule a meeting on a day that is not as stressful for my colleagues as another day might be (i.e. not on Monday) if I want to tip the results of that meeting in my favor. These are all examples of how I might influence the will and actions of others. Does God present arguments to you? Does God use facial expressions or body language to influence you? Please give an example of how God does this without messing with your will.

... God (if we allow Him) will direct our attention, ...

How? Does He point His finger? Does He turn your head? Does He cause a Bible verse to float into your line of sight?

... [God will] calm our nerves, sooth our feelings, ...

How? Does He speak to you? Is it audible or just in your head? And how can you tell it's His voice and not your own voice you're hearing?

... [God will] clear our minds, ...

How? Does He muck around in your memory? Does He make you forget whatever was bugging you? Does He distract you (perhaps by pointing again? Waving His arms?).

... [God will] show us wisdom, ...

How does He do that? Does a bright light from heaven shine down on a wise action? Does He speak to you and say, "Hey, that's wisdom there"?

... avail us to all sorts of things we would not have had if we had not called upon Him.

Like what? And how? Does He give you money? Does He give you food? Does He give you a map when you're lost?

... God will direct our steps if we let Him.

Again, how?

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.

Jim, you must reject the above verse and think it is some type of figure of speech.

By what logic do you see my view as rejecting the above verse? I believe God actually directs us by changing our hearts and desires, by changing our wills and intentions. Remember?

... Is there any way a person could actually be "wise in their own eyes" according to you?

Of course.

Let me guess... God decreed that man would THINK he is being wise in his own eyes right?? :dizzy:

No, God decreed that man would actually be wise in his own eyes.

Give me an example of a will that exists OUTSIDE of God's decretive will according to what you believe.

Nothing is outside of God's decretive will. I thought we went over this.

Hilston wrote: On my view, there is no "altering of upcoming events" because it is all decreed. On your view, there is no "altering of upcoming events," because the future doesn't exist. So the question doesn't really make any sense.

Huh?

The future doesn't exist which is the VERY reason God can and does alter the course of events that are about to transpire.

"Events about to transpire" makes no sense if the future doesn't exist.

Imagine a Christian woman who is depressed and on the verge of suicide, (that is the course of events that are about to take place).

No they're not, not if she doesn't commit suicide.

... God is tugging at her through the work on the Holy Spirit and is urging her to pick up her Bible and meditate on Him.

How? Is He speaking to her saying: "Pick up your Bible ... Piiiiiick .... uuuuuup .... yooooouuur ... Biiiiiii ... blllllle ...."? Is He (gently perhaps) shoving it in her face?

... She does, and prays to God for help. He directs her to passages that sooth her, ...

How? Maybe she opened to 1Chronicles chapter 9. Does He move her hands and fingers without her knowing it?

... calm her and make her realize that all she needs is Him.

How? What does He do to "make her realize" something without messing with her mind?

... She leans not on her own understandings but lets God direct her steps. She does not commit suicide. God worked with her through prayer because she was willing to let Him help her and changed the course of events that were about to happen.

Doesn't God love her enough to calm her and soothe her regardless? Why wouldn't He love her enought to urge her to meditate on Him and even if she is leaning on her own understanding? Why not make her realize that she needs Him even if she doesn't pray? I try to influence people even when they don't ask me to. God is much more loving than I am, so why wouldn't God do the same thing, even more, to make her realize that He loves her?

Your version of the story would go something like this...
God ordained that a woman be depressed and ordained that she wish to commit suicide. God ordained that she pray to Him and ordained every detail of her prayer. God ordained that she think that God answered her prayer when in reality it was God that ordained her depression in the first place.

On my view, she doesn't merely "think" that God answered her prayer. God does actually answer her prayer. Did you forget that part?

She does not have the ability to lean on her own understanding because God is directing her every move.

No, she does have the ability to lean on her own understanding. What kind of logic leads you to such conclusions, Eric? God does not "direct her every move." She directs herself, but all according to God's decrees.

... God put her through hell for His own Glory. :kookoo:

Sorry man... but your version is just plain unbiblical and wacky.

God afflicts people so He can later bless them. The examples are abundant. Joseph. Job. David. Paul.

Job 1:21 And said, "Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Job 2:10 ... "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

Ps 119:67,71 ... Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word ... It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.

Ge 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

2Co 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.​

According to Open Theists, Job, David, Joseph and Paul all spoke foolishly for viewing their afflictions as having come from God. The only Biblical and rational way to trust God is to know that He is truly working all things according to His decrees, all for the good of His elect, even the injustices, afflictions, depressions, genocides and miscarriages.

All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Knight,

You should spend more time reading what I actually write, rather than react with such knee-jerk eagerness that you completely miss the obvious.

Jim, you are a good guy but are massively confused.

You can't even string a few sentences together without contradicting yourself. It's painful to read. In fact, I think I will go eat some Tylenol. :chew:

Eric, please re-read my post and realize that the second quote, in its entirety says: "It is the Open Theist mantra: If God ordained evil, then blame God for committing sin. If God desires evil things to happen (like the slavery of Joseph and the murder of His Son), then 'God is responsible.'"

I didn't contradict myself. Are you so desperate to force a flaw in my reasoning that you have to quote me out of context? If not, then it is obviously you who are massively confused.

Please try again.
Jim

 

[Bob Hill]

Jeff Mathis wrote

You misunderstand. My wife and I have been saved. I do believe in Him because He saved me and quickened my spirit so that it was capable of believing the truth concerning His death, burial, and victorious resurrection. He truly is a God worthy of all praise. He did not save me because of anything I said or did or believed. He did save me though based solely on His grace and love.

Jeff,

I'm very glad to hear that you and your wife are saved. Although I was raised in a Christian family, I was becoming a thief and I'm sure I would have followed my father's life as a Chicago gangster. I trusted Christ as my savior shortly after I graduated from highschool and was on my way to college as a new creation in Jesus Christ.

I know that I have never had anything like what happened to you and your wife. We had one daughter when we had the 2 headed baby die. After that, we were able to have 5 more children.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[RobE]

Knowledge is not the same as action in the open view. This is not the problem or issue with supposed exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies. The issue is that contingencies involve an element of uncertainty until the possible choices are actualized in the present.

Then why do we constantly hold the position that if God foreknows the actions then He is responsible for them?

 

[RobE]

Because it is. There are 2 reasons. First; knowledge of something without doing something makes one responsible. Case in point, when Settled View God wants all people to be saved, but He only saves a few, He is actively damning the rest. Or as my dad would put it, "if you don't eat the leftovers you'll cause them to rot."

So if God stands by and allows evil which He knows about then He is responsible?

BTW, that is a case where we live our lives as if God does not know the future exhaustively, even though my dad is Settled View. Second; if a being that knew the future exhaustively would tell you what was going to happen. Let's give this telling a random label like... I don't know... how about "prophecy"? And you decided to make these things not happen they way they were told, could you do it? Let us even say that the being that knew the future exhaustively would tell you anything about any even at any time.

How would one change the future without knowing what the current future outcome was?

Rob

 

[RobE]

The propose meaning "the killing?" Lets face it billions are going to hell, few go to heaven. This is God's great purpose according to you?

God's great purpose is the elect despite the reprobate. I've already said that God loves you more than all of them.

The action is God 'creating earth' in order to achieve a purpose. The way he created it and the knowledge of the way it would work make him responsible for some things. So what is he responsible for?

Is he responsible for sin? No. But only because he didn't include sin as a part of his plan nor did he foresee it happening as it did. This is the only way to prove God is truly separated from sin....

How is this conclusion logical?

Yet the Settled View Again and again claims he created us to be sinners in order to make us saints. Wow that is smart. Why not just leave us as saints as we were? If God could foresee the future, why not just create it in such a way hat we didn't sin? Somehow you think he can do this and freewill still be possible..

The law presents the choice to enact our free will. A test. A proof. Are any except for Jesus Christ worthy? Is man able to save himself as Pelagius asserted?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob,

What in your view would be the consequences if God did not allow people to do evil?

I mean, just forget about forknowledge and predestination for the time being and lets look at this issue of God allowing evil for a bit. What if God did not allow evil? Would it be possible to be morally good?

No. For man's choice to be real it must have more than one possible outcome.

Rob

 

[RobE]

:up:

You are telling me that you want me to trust a god that you say loved us enough to die for us, is powerful enough to pay the price for every sin ever commited but was somehow unwilling or unable to protect us and the 8 living beings that died (in less than 2 yrs.) from these devastating events? The god you offer Knight either loved us and choose to stand idly by while we suffered or was not powerful enough to stop these events. Knight, the god you and other Open Theists offer let us down miserably because my wife and I were hurt terribly at that time. You say your god did not ordain evil for his ultimate good purposes? If that is true then why didn’t your “loving parent” god just stop it from happening to those he loved? Or didn’t he love us then?

Knight, I will not choose or acknowledge your god. I will however, acknowledge that I have been chosen by the all powerful, all knowing, all controlling Rock God of Scripture who works all things according to His unshakable will and meticulous plan for the good of His Elect/Chosen Ones. THIS truth is comforting. I will acknowledge and profess my trust in Him (by His Grace and will) even if I cannot see now in my limited human form just what His full purpose was when He ordained and set into motion the real life events I described above.

Jeff Mathis

Great question and point!

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

God_Is_Truth,

You said: Why doesn't God act? God declared us to be both morally free and responsible for our sins, so for God to prevent all evil acts and consequences of sin for the purpose of preventing those consequences would result in a violation of His decree.

Does this mean that the open view believes that sin exists because of God's decree?

Rob