ApologeticJedi
New member
Hilston said:
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but didn't you just complain that Knight wouldn't let yo use the dictionary, and now you are saying that the definitions don't count? :dizzy:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but didn't you just complain that Knight wouldn't let yo use the dictionary, and now you are saying that the definitions don't count? :dizzy:
Jim just because you say we can't use YOUR stated definitions in relation to God doesn't mean that is true.Hilston said:
The words have very acceptable definitions and you did a nice job of posting them here on TOL.
Unfortunately for you... your own stated definitions defeated your own arguement.
Jim.... brother.... buddy ol' pal... it's OK to give God credit. He wont be mad at you.
This is why Lucifer was so successful, and Knight has shown himself to be an expert at Luciferian reasoning.ApologeticJedi said:
No, I didn't complain that Knight wouldn't let me use a dictionary. If you think that's the case, then my friend has succeeded in deceiving you.
No, I didn't say that the definitions don't count. I said that the don't apply to God. I gave full explanation for this, but it has all been so sufficiently perverted by my friend.
Just like the Pharisees, my friend twists my words in an effort to trap me. And just like Lucifer, my friend selectively quotes me in an effort to deceive you. And it worked.
All according to God's decrees, of course.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hilston said:
Ok, what part of this.....
Knight said:Jim, your definition of responsible that you reference is...
Lets look at number 2 shall we?
2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.
Take note of... "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited"
Or credited.
Or credited.
Therefore if "Or credited" is as acceptable as "to be blamed" (per your own reference) we could say... responsible means: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.
Jim is that an acceptable definition of the word responsible? And wouldn't you agree that most people use the word in just that way?
Just a note:Websters Online Dictionary goes on to say... "being the cause or explanation " :think:Based on that definition (in your own example) most normal thinking people acknowledge that God is responsible for their salvation.
Which makes me also wonder, according to Jim....
Can we credit God for our salvation?
....is perverting the definitions? How is it nothing more than a painstaking breakdown of getting to the bottom of the exact meaning? Please show me. Anybody. Maybe I'm missing it.
Hilston said:
But that's what you said here.
Hilston said:
This just gets painful to read sometimes. It seems as if all those things you're accusing Knight of, you're actually doing yourself, and when Knight hits a little too close to home in reasonably pin pointing how absurd your claims are, you unfairly fight back saying all kinds of vicious and cruel things in hopes of really hitting him where it hurts in order to get back at him for doing so.
I think this is all too obvious to anybody reading it but who really wants to say anything because what's the point? There won't be any sound and reasonable dialogue but just a bunch of jabs, one liners and insults which I'm all prepared to have poured out on me for this post.
That was not a breakdown, that was a dismantling for the sake of entrapment. You cannot excise from the definition the word "blame," which is what Knight insists on doing. And by trying to isolate that usage of credit, it must be understood that the grounds on which blame is assigned must be by some standard outside of God, which no one can do without presumption and committing the sin of Adam. No one sits in judgement of God to 'credit' him and to deem him 'deserving' of credit. The saints herald God's greatness, goodness, power and wisdom. The saints proclaim God's worth, love, trustworthiness, righteousness, and grace. The saints declare God's salvation. They don't 'credit' Him. It is insolence. It is presumption. It is the sin of Adam.Poly said:
Hilston recently wrote: No, I didn't complain that Knight wouldn't let me use a dictionary. If you think that's the case, then my friend has succeeded in deceiving you.
Once again, you people care nothing of context. Once again, it's all a Pharisaical attempt to twist and trap. In this case, you take a quote of mine, which was from before Knight began dealing with the actual definitions, and apply it to now, after he's decided to take one of the definitions and pervert it.poly said:
If the reader will recall, Knight ignored the dictionary definitions and wanted me accept the modern perversion of the word "responsible." Hence my reference to the "vague and sloppy definitions, determined by the lowest common denominators of society."
I'm not the one perverting words; I'm not the one who is libelously misrepresenting a view in an effort to deceive others, all under the guise of friendship. Knight knows that I agree that salvation is God's doing. Knight knows that I agree that God is praiseworthy. But he wants so badly to treat his friend like excrement, that he tries to make it appear like I don't agree with these things, because he knows I won't accept his perverted application of the definition of "responsible" to God. You people are so afraid of the arguments, that you'll spend page after page on this. Knight will use it to drive a wedge between friends. It's despicable.poly said:
Don't you know what the point is? The point is to avoid addressing my arguments.Poly said:
If you want a sound and reasonable dialogue, perhaps you would like to address the points of my argument that is so hellbent on ignoring. Knight cannot answer how God's decretive will is contrary to His prescriptive will, Knight contradicts scriptures that show God plans evil for good, Knight cannot answer how God moved David to number Israel, against His own prescribed will, Knight contradicts his own espoused theology of miracles by his theory of prayer, Knight denies individual redemptive election contrary to the scriptural proofs that have been shown, and Knight abuses language and the metaphors of scripture by insisting that clay pots can talk and mar themselves. Can you answer these arguments? If so, have at it. I'll post the links if you can't find them.Poly said:
Or perhaps, like Knight and the Pharisees, you'd rather stick your head in the sand and hum, so you can pursue your efforts to trap me instead of dealing with the substantive issues of this thread.
lee_merrill
New member
Lee is also wondering how Isaiah and Paul could know that only a remnant from Israel would be saved...Hilston said:
Blessings,
Lee <- Who believes that God has only one will, but that can wait for another day...
Since the Open Theists won't touch your question with a 10-foot haysickle, I'll take a stab at how they would answer (if they took their tenets to the logical conclusion): Isaiah and Paul didn't really know, because God didn't really know. God sets human beings up to be false prophets. He tells them to say stuff that might not come to pass. Jonah is one such example. Open Theists say that Jonah's prophecy didn't come true (of course, they miss the obvious figure in the context). This implies that God set Jonah up to be a false prophet according to Deu 18:22:lee_merrill said:
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
When someone in the Bible says "As it is written," it doesn't really mean what it says, because that would suggest that the future is determined in advance. "As it is written" really means "As it turns out, by coincidence."God plays dice, Lee.
Think of it this way: God's prescriptive will comprises His laws. God's decretive will comprises His plans. They are two different things. If it helps, call one "His will" and the other "His rules."Lee said:
lee_merrill
New member
Odd how good he is at his estimates, no? Actually, he often must reverse himself, and there may even be many places where we only read up to the point at which God had not yet had to reverse himself.Hilston said:
And yes, a false prophet is one who says "X will happen," and it doesn't happen.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, he does actually do this.
Well...
My webby page on this topic may be viewed here.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. The Open View may be down for the count, note in the other thread, on their strongest point, they now fall silent, too. Time to prepare a eulogy. Perhaps...
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Lee, you asked "So then why didn’t he do this, and skip the sin part," when replying to my point that God didn't need sin to send Joseph to Egypt.
You obviously deny freewill if you cannot answer this for yourself. God didn't do it this way because the brothers already screwed that opportunity up. Had they not done that, God would have only needed to say "Go forth," just like he did with most of his prophets, and it would have been so.
God doesn't make sin happen. Just because it happened, doesn't mean it was God's idea. Can you agree with this?
Also, you submitted a lot of verses that have nothing to do with what you and I are discussing. Yeah, I know God punishes, and punishment isn't "good" for the person experiencing it. There is a difference between bringing hardships on those who deserve it, and causing sin. BIG difference.
In fact, you seem to blur the two together purposefully. Just so it fits into your theology. God's bringing hardship is only for those who deserve it. For God, the punishment fits the crime. God is just, right?
So why is it you say that God is causing sin when he punishes?
In the Old Testament, It prophicied that The Messiah would Be Crucified on a Cross. So that would defeat the "open thiest" idea. God is a Omnipitant or all knowing God. I would be pretty confident that God know yesterday, today, and the Tomorrow. I couldnt follow a God who didnt know the Future. It's His Hands. We do have Free Will, which we can do pretty much anything we want, but the only unforgivable Sin is Denying Christ as your savior.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Patman,
Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Now this was including the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, who sinned indeed in doing this.
Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.
Similarly here, this must reference another taking of the city. And then in Amos:
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?
This includes all disasters that befall any city, which would include disasters due to sinful actions by sinful human beings.
"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)
Now Satan is sinning all the time. Yet here a messenger of Satan is used by God to bring humility in the life of Paul, "given" must refer to God as the agent here.
And you need to answer my reply about God's intent: The grammar demonstrates that it was the very deeds that his brothers did that God meant, how do you have an intent for a deed you are uninvolved in? "I intend that Patman's next post be for encouragement for the Padres fans." No, that doesn't work, I cannot have a purposeful intent for something you do.
Indeed, as before, a false prophet is someone who says "X will surely happen," and it doesn't happen.
And it is lying to say "Truly, truly" as Jesus did with Peter, knowing you might be wrong.
And the verse that is quite unanswerable, from the OVT perspective:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, he does actually do this.
Blessings,
Lee
Yet God could certainly have stopped them at any point in time. And what about Joseph's free will, why do the brothers and their free will get to trump Joseph's free will?patman said:
So then he stops the brothers somehow, and then waits and says "Go forth," and there is no need to tolerate a sin in the process.
No, because if people can cross the will of God, by a power to decide that they have, then God is not omnipotent. The alternative is that God's will is never crossed.
The point however is that these judgments involve sinful people doing sinful deeds.
Not every time, certainly. But here?
Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Now this was including the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, who sinned indeed in doing this.
Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.
Similarly here, this must reference another taking of the city. And then in Amos:
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?
This includes all disasters that befall any city, which would include disasters due to sinful actions by sinful human beings.
"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)
Now Satan is sinning all the time. Yet here a messenger of Satan is used by God to bring humility in the life of Paul, "given" must refer to God as the agent here.
And you need to answer my reply about God's intent: The grammar demonstrates that it was the very deeds that his brothers did that God meant, how do you have an intent for a deed you are uninvolved in? "I intend that Patman's next post be for encouragement for the Padres fans." No, that doesn't work, I cannot have a purposeful intent for something you do.
Yes, it's pretty straightforward to close Open Theism, it's surprising that many have subscribed to it, and do not apparently discern such cardinal difficulties, especially when they point out instances where they say God was wrong about a prophecy (or more properly, estimate).industry said:
Indeed, as before, a false prophet is someone who says "X will surely happen," and it doesn't happen.
And it is lying to say "Truly, truly" as Jesus did with Peter, knowing you might be wrong.
And the verse that is quite unanswerable, from the OVT perspective:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, he does actually do this.
Blessings,
Lee
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Lee, I read all of your post and of course disagree with all of it for the same reasons I already stated. I don't have a lot of time to answer a long post, point by point. I try to keep it short.
Here is a Bible verse that agrees with what I say. I just happened upon it.
Lamentations 3:33 For He does not afflict willingly, Nor grieve the children of men.
Now you use this verse:
Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
So who has the better verse?
All your verses show a clear bias by you to make them sound as thought God causes evil for the undeserving. Do I need to bring out the book of Job for you?
I do not need to reword Lamentations. Only bring it into context. Read the entire chapter. Or just look a few verses before your submission for the obvious point.
patman
Active member
industry said:
Knowing the future is nothing to an all powerful God who created us, loved us, and saved us.
The Open View might sound strange at first. It did for me! But I find both scripture and logical reasoning alike point towards the Open View as being best theology.
Those who are used to thinking God knows the future sometimes come to this conclusion you do, "How can God be in control without future knowledge." But as I said, what is future knowledge compared to a hand that moved the mountains to their place? Or a God who spoke the universe, and slung the stars in their place? Can he not handle simple little us?
BTW, he does have some future knowledge, according to the O.V., for example, he knew Jesus would die for the sins of sinners to save them. But for the large part, we Believe God knows all things, and simply say the future is not a thing to be known.
lee_merrill
New member
With which indeed, I agree, for "does not afflict willingly" includes grieve, he does not grieve the children of men willingly:patman said:
Lamentations 3:33 For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men. (NIV, similarly ESV, NAU, NET, NLT)
Then God does decree calamities, and yet God does not relish them, they are not "from the heart" (the first verse above, rather literally).
But you need to address the examples of (say) a messenger of Satan being sent to afflict Paul. And Job is another similar example:
Job 1:21-22 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
Now it would be a sin to say God did this, when in fact he did not.
Job 2:10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
Job did not sin in what he said.
So God sent the trouble, and this is another example, and a quite clear one.
Job 42:11 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.
The problem, however, is when a predicted event is a free will decision, which the Open View says is by definition unknowable by God. How can God predict the outcome? Quite simply, he can't, if the Open View is correct.
Blessings,
Lee
sentientsynth
New member
Or he could have said, "Gee. Joseph's brothers sure do hate him. I better get him out of there before those guys use their free-will and do something that I'm not expecting. Hey, Holy Spirit, are you down with that? What about you, Son? Just want to make sure that you guys agree with me. I know how often it is that your will is contrary to my will, how often it comes down to a game of paper-rock-scissors. I love having invented that game!"lee m. said:
How ridiculous.
industry said:
Open Theism does not deny that God settles/knows some of the future. The coming of the Messiah (first/second) are within God's ability to bring to pass as He intended (Is. 46; 48). There is another motif in Scripture that shows that God does not settle/know all of the future. This is by His sovereign choice based on the free will vs deterministic creation He chose. Since He is omnicompetent (including omnipotent), any future contingency is able to be dealt with, even without exhaustive definite foreknowledge. It takes more skill and greatness to win a chess game or sports event without knowing/controlling every move and the other team in advance. God is responsive, creative, brilliant. He does not need to be a cosmic control freak.
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
To explain Job. He was wrong! Job said so many wrong things that God himself had to show up. He said the exact same things you are saying. And God showed up and let him have it. BUT HE COVERED HIS MOUTH, unlike you are.
All that stuff Job said, he took back.
Job 42:6 "Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.”
His younger friend, Elihu, tried to tell him to stop speaking these words! He was the only one with his head on straight.
Job 36
5 “ Behold, God is mighty, but despises no one;
He is mighty in strength of understanding.
6 He does not preserve the life of the wicked,
But gives justice to the oppressed.
7 He does not withdraw His eyes from the righteous;
But they are on the throne with kings,
For He has seated them forever,
And they are exalted.
8 And if they are bound in fetters,
Held in the cords of affliction,
9 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions—
That they have acted defiantly.
Look at what he told Job here
Job 35
13 Surely God will not listen to empty talk,
Nor will the Almighty regard it.
14 Although you say you do not see Him,
Yet justice is before Him, and you must wait for Him.
15 And now, because He has not punished in His anger,
Nor taken much notice of folly,
16 Therefore Job opens his mouth in vain;
He multiplies words without knowledge.”
Job was out of his mind when he said all that stuff. Elihu could see it. God could see it. And finally Job could see it after a while. Why can't you see it? God doesn't cause evil.
But he works with sinners. He lets sinners teach other sinners, just like you and I. He also uses spirits to teach. He has always done that. He even allowed Satan to test Job. But God never did evil!
Just like Paul.
2 Corinthians 12:7-9
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Paul and Job went through the same thing. God allows them to be tested by Satan. But does God cause this? No. Just like God allows you to go on with your words against his name, he allows spirits to test others. So how does this help your position? It doesn't.
patman
Active member
More from Job
More from Job
Job 34
10 “ Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.
11 For He repays man according to his work,
And makes man to find a reward according to his way.
12 Surely God will never do wickedly,
Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.
13 Who gave Him charge over the earth?
Or who appointed Him over the whole world?
14 If He should set His heart on it,
If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,
15 All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust.
16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
Listen to the sound of my words:
17 Should one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn Him who is most just?
18 Is it fitting to say to a king, ‘You are worthless,’
And to nobles, ‘You are wicked’?
19 Yet He is not partial to princes,
Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor;
For they are all the work of His hands.
................
34 “Men of understanding say to me,
Wise men who listen to me:
35 ‘Job speaks without knowledge,
His words are without wisdom.’
36 Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost,
Because his answers are like those of wicked men!
37 For he adds rebellion to his sin;
He claps his hands among us,
And multiplies his words against God.”
More from Job
Job 34
10 “ Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.
11 For He repays man according to his work,
And makes man to find a reward according to his way.
12 Surely God will never do wickedly,
Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.
13 Who gave Him charge over the earth?
Or who appointed Him over the whole world?
14 If He should set His heart on it,
If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,
15 All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust.
16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
Listen to the sound of my words:
17 Should one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn Him who is most just?
18 Is it fitting to say to a king, ‘You are worthless,’
And to nobles, ‘You are wicked’?
19 Yet He is not partial to princes,
Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor;
For they are all the work of His hands.
................
34 “Men of understanding say to me,
Wise men who listen to me:
35 ‘Job speaks without knowledge,
His words are without wisdom.’
36 Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost,
Because his answers are like those of wicked men!
37 For he adds rebellion to his sin;
He claps his hands among us,
And multiplies his words against God.”
lee_merrill
New member
How is it that God said "Job spoke what was right"? He was wrong to blame God in order to justify himself, we must read the Lord's rebuke, and where he said Job was wrong. He also said Job was right, and in a way that implies he was right overall.patman said:
After saying "No plan of yours can be thwarted", which God then replied to by saying "Job spoke of me what was right."
Not at all, "Job did not sin in what he said," we read in the first chapter, part of which is "Shall we not accept trouble from God?"
"One perfect in wisdom is with you"?!
Well, Elihu was a bit brash and impulsive, but he did have some good thoughts, and also some bad ones. The Lord does not comment on what he said.
"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, may the name of the Lord be praised" In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
If what you are saying is correct, Job charged God with wrongdoing right there.
I agree, and God does not do evil, but sometimes his plan includes sinful deeds, we may think here of ... the cross.
So then the devil gave this messenger so that Paul could be humble? No, humility is not the devil's purpose, so the giver here must be God.
You have also skipped my other examples.
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Lee, no offense, but you are really bad at following a story.
Job, at first, didn't curse God. Then Satan hurt him again, and he still didn't curse God. Then his friends came to help out, and THEN he went off. He said the things you call "True" and right.
He spoke wickedly against God, and you embrace it.
So Job's friends, all except Elihu, were rebuked by God. Even God told Job he had done wickedly
Job 40
1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said:
2 “Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.”
......
6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
7 “Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me:
8 “ Would you indeed annul My judgment?
Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?
Do you really think Job didn't speak falsely? Was he repenting just for the fun of it?
Job 42
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”
It was there, at that point that Job finally spoke rightly after chapters and chapters of misunderstood sayings.
But Job wasn't the only one who sinned. His other friends did too. But Elihu was not required to repent because he spoke no wrong.
7 And so it was, after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. 8 Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you. For I will accept him, lest I deal with you according to your folly; because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.”
9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did as the LORD commanded them; for the LORD had accepted Job.
Lee, you try so hard to prove your point that you disregard a chronological story and use verses scattered here and there to do it. You just can't do that. Now Job thought God caused wickedness. Job repented. Will you repent?
- Status