ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Lee,

You think it was the nails that killed Jesus, the person who drove them into his hand? Did not Jesus have the power to heal his hands as they went in? Did the spear in his side make him die? Perhaps the whip? Jesus is above these things. When he died, he chose to die. No one killed him. Someone crucified him, but no one killed him.

God did not plan sin in his son's death. Sinners though, naturally, sinned in other ways during the crucifixion. Not God's Fault nor his idea.

John 10: 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.​

 

[Clete]

Why is that, though? If God told someone to rape a person, it would not be a sin?

No, sin is sin, even if God (per impossible) were to command it, that does not change the nature of the deed.

I agree. That which is not in the best interest of others is evil. God does not do evil because He chooses not too do so, otherwise to say that God is good would be meaningless.

But the killing an innocent person is a sin.

Short sighted. This is generally true but it is certainly not in the case of Jesus who was offered as a JUST sacrifice for the sins of others.

Well, but you need to answer my points more specifically. This even sounds more like a conclusion, than arguments.

Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

What then, does this mean? And I thought the Open View was majoring on taking the plain sense of a verse as the sense, as even being a firm rule--God says he changed his mind, he changed his mind, Scripture says the Lord took away, thus the Lord took away.

The Open View does not deny the existence of figures of speech in the Bible. Indeed, there are figures of speech on every single page! The difference between the Open View and the Settled View in regards to figures is that we make our decision as to what is and what is not a figure based on the Biblical principle that God's power is founded upon His righteousness (i.e. qualitative attributes trump the quantitative ones). What the Open View "majors in" is quality over quantity.

Yet "the Son of perdition" implies God appointed at least that there be someone to betray Jesus, and that was--a sin.

As though there would have been a shortage of such people had God not predestined there to be someone for Jesus to pick. It seems you give mankind too high a righteousness rating Lee. It was the other eleven loyal disciples that posed a greater challenge to find, I can promise you that.

Wounding Jesus also was a sin, and also ordained by God, for how else could it be that by his wounds we are healed?

I'm astonished you cannot see this.

No one killed Jesus because they were predestined too, Lee! They killed Jesus because they wanted to. They completely chose to do it and could have chosen not to do it. In fact the entire nation of Israel could have repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah! And guess what Lee! God would not have exploded nor would the Bible have been ruined. God would have been delighted and would have found a way to still provide for the salvation of His people. Jesus most likely would have had the High Priest perform the all important sacrifice ceremonially at the temple at the appointed time (i.e. Passover). Or perhaps the Romans would simply have executed Israel's new King and fulfilled the prophecies that way. In any case, no matter how it went down, God would fulfill His word and no one had to be predestined to do anything.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

...And guess what Lee! God would not have exploded nor would the Bible have been ruined. God would have been delighted and would have found a
way to still provide for the salvation of His people...

I grow tired of the S.V. saying the the O.V. weakens God. It takes a more powerful God to deal with us without future knowledge. He is powerful and can handle anything and doesn't need these "tools"(i.e. ability to see the future).

 

[Clete]

I grow tired of the S.V. saying the the O.V. weakens God. It takes a more powerful God to deal with us without future knowledge. He is powerful and can handle anything and doesn't need these "tools"(i.e. ability to see the future).

Well said! :thumb:

And they regularly accuse us of bringing God down to the level of man and/or elevating man to the level of God. Their god is a pathetic, weak, know-it-all, control freak that wouldn't know a relationship if one kissed him on the mouth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

If you say God sinned when he sent Jesus to the cross...

No, I say the people who crucified Jesus sinned, their intent was the essence of their sin, to murder an innocent person.

You think it was the nails that killed Jesus, the person who drove them into his hand?

No, the sin was in the intent to kill him.

All life is in his hand, innocent and guilty. He has every right to take it away.

Yet "death came to all men, because all sinned," except Jesus, so it was a sin to seek to kill the Son of God.

How could anyone deny this?

Patman: Judas didn't kill him, the jews didn't kill him, the Romans didn't kill him, he gave us his life, on his own.

Clete: ... it is certainly not [true that this was a sin] in the case of Jesus who was offered as a JUST sacrifice for the sins of others.

Why then did Jesus pray "Father, forgive them" if they were not sinning?

All this time, S.V. has been accusing the O.V. of taking power away from God?

I actually claim OVT says God willingly gave up some of his power, which then means he is not omnipotent, even by the OVT definition.

And I do follow scripture. The bible said Satan struck Job, and that is who I SAY did it too. But you gotta go and point the finger at God, just like Job did!

Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

What then, does this mean?

The difference between the Open View and the Settled View in regards to figures is that we make our decision as to what is and what is not a figure based on the Biblical principle that God's power is founded upon His righteousness (i.e. qualitative attributes trump the quantitative ones).

So how are "God changed his mind" and "the Lord took away" different? One is qualitative and the other quantitative?

But I don't hold that "God changed his mind" is a figure of speech, I hold there is another meaning of the word, as in the NIV translation, "grieved."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Why then did Jesus pray "Father, forgive them" if they were not sinning?

It would help if you would take the time to both read and understand to my entire post, Lee. I did not say that it wasn't a sin for those who crucified Christ. The point was that it wasn't a sin for God to do it because it was God who was offering His own life willingly in a just manner in order to pay for the sin debt we all owe. God sacrificed the life of His only begotten Son for us. This was the taking of an innocent life that was not sinful (on God's part). Get it?

I actually claim OVT says God willingly gave up some of his power, which then means he is not omnipotent, even by the OVT definition.

I know of no power that God gave up. Which power are you referring too? If you mean that God chose not to exercise His power then I would agree with that but that isn't the same thing as having given it up.

Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

What then, does this mean?

It means that it God specifically permitted it to be taken away in order to test Job. It does not mean that God Himself took it away. God was using the evil of Satan (which Satan did not have to do).

So how are "God changed his mind" and "the Lord took away" different? One is qualitative and the other quantitative?

YEAH! One renders God arbitrary and unjust and the other makes Him personal, relational, loving and just. It's perfectly pathetic that you cannot tell the difference.

But I don't hold that "God changed his mind" is a figure of speech, I hold there is another meaning of the word, as in the NIV translation, "grieved."

There are a dozen or so times that the Bible says that God repented, Lee. Even if you could make a case for such a translation in one particular case (which I doubt) you certainly cannot do so for all of them. The bottom line is that God changes His mind (repents) and that's a death blow to the Settled View. I don't care how you want to translate the word ‘nacham’; in any case your Settled View goose is cooked.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

This was the taking of an innocent life that was not sinful (on God's part).

I agree that God did not sin here, now my question was whether this was a sinful deed on man's part, and then, did God not plan the cross?

If you mean that God chose not to exercise His power then I would agree with that but that isn't the same thing as having given it up.

And if others have an ability (even by your decision) to thwart your will, then you are not at that moment omnipotent, you don't at that moment have all power.

It means that it God specifically permitted it to be taken away in order to test Job. It does not mean that God Himself took it away.

Then did God only "permit" the gifts that Job received? For the verbs both have the same forms here, active forms, and so God is an agent, and an agent in both.

This also doesn't fit with Job saying "Shall we receive good from the Lord, and not trouble?"

Lee: So how are "God changed his mind" and "the Lord took away" different? One is qualitative and the other quantitative?

Clete: YEAH! One renders God arbitrary and unjust and the other makes Him personal, relational, loving and just.

That was not my question, though, is one qualitative, and the other quantitative?

Even if you could make a case for such a translation in one particular case (which I doubt) you certainly cannot do so for all of them.

But would you say the NIV is mistaken? If so, on what basis, may I ask? And yes, not all places mean "grieved," and in these other various places where the OVT says God changed his mind, the meaning "relented" will do, which can be a change of response, and not a change of plan.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

I agree that God did not sin here, now my question was whether this was a sinful deed on man's part, and then, did God not plan the cross?

Of course it was a sinful act on the man's part and of course God planned it!

Have you ever planned anything Lee? Have you ever had to anticipate someone else's action? Have you ever had a plan in place that took several possible outcomes into consideration? Why do you suppose that God is incapable of something that you do on nearly a daily basis? How much better at such planning do you suppose an omniscient God would be than you are, or is it that you really do believe that such planning would be too difficult for God to accomplish?

And if others have an ability (even by your decision) to thwart your will, then you are not at that moment omnipotent, you don't at that moment have all power.

If this is what it meant to be omnipotent then God never has been omnipotent since He created the first living being.

Then did God only "permit" the gifts that Job received? For the verbs both have the same forms here, active forms, and so God is an agent, and an agent in both.

Lee, this is a stupid question. The comment Job made concerning God having taken away was a statement of faith not a statement of fact. It was a figure of speech. How is it that you cannot understand what he is saying? Job was simply saying that he trusted God, no matter what. Job didn't know why all the stuff happening to him was happening. All he knew is that the whole world had fallen out from under him and he was resolved to trust God in spite of his misfortune. He was not actually accusing God of doing evil. The proof of this is in the very fact that it says that he did not sin by having said what he said, or don't you believe that falsely accusing God of doing evil would be a sin? Oh no wait! You believe it wasn't a sin because the accusation was true! That's stupidity Lee. God does not do evil. If your theology comes to a different conclusion then your theology is evil, not God. This is what I mean by figuring out that something is a figure of speech by placing a greater emphasis on God qualitative attributes than on His quantitative attributes. You take Job's comments at face value because doing so preserves God's omnipotence and foreknowledge, I know for a fact that he was using a figure because the Bible teaches that God's power is founded upon His righteousness and so if God is not righteous His omnipotence is meaningless.

This also doesn't fit with Job saying "Shall we receive good from the Lord, and not trouble?"

IT’S A FIGURE OF SPEECH, LEE!!!!

:bang: :bang: :bang:

That was not my question, though, is one qualitative, and the other quantitative?

That's the question I answered in the affirmative. Can you read Lee or am I just completely wasting my time?

But would you say the NIV is mistaken?

The NIV is not even a Bible as far as I am concerned. I couldn't care less what it says. You may as was well be reading the Koran.

If so, on what basis, may I ask? And yes, not all places mean "grieved," and in these other various places where the OVT says God changed his mind, the meaning "relented" will do, which can be a change of response, and not a change of plan.

The word nacham does not mean relent it means repent, but even if it did mean relent it would crush the Settled View. Simply put, the Settled View cannot survive a single use of the Hebrew word 'nacham' because no matter how you slice it, nacham is a word that indicates change and that cannot make any rational sense in a world where God either knows the entire future or predestined it from "before the beginning of time".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Equating the NIV with the Koran or suggesting it is not even a Bible is...never mind

 

[Clete]

Equating the NIV with the Koran or suggesting it is not even a Bible is...never mind

I won't get into this issue here but suffice it to say that you have to draw the line somewhere and the NIV has about 12 stikes against it (that I know of). It is not a Bible. It contains Biblical truths to be sure, but so does the Koran. Is the NIV as bad as the Koran? No, its worse. It pretends to be the Word of God, whereas everyone knows that the Koran is of Satan.

Now on with Open Theism.

 

[patman]

No, I say the people who crucified Jesus sinned, their intent was the essence of their sin, to murder an innocent person.


No, the sin was in the intent to kill him.

....

Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

What then, does this mean?

I agree their intent was sin, but God did not intend for them to intend to sin. He knew they would, just because people are and always have been evil, but God didn't make them sin. Has there been no intent to sin, God still could have arranged the death of his son to save the world.

This is the difference, you say God did intend for them to sin, thus making God, again, the author of sins! But I say God did not need sin to do his will, and never author sins, thus he did not arrange for sin in the crucifixion. Your theology makes you proclaim God as the originator of sin.

And that is a sin, Lee.

Blasphemy.

You asked what this meant:

Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

It means Job thought God took away. The story tells us the behind the scenes, what Job couldn't see, that SATAN did it. It simply shows Job didn't sin even though he was mistaken about who took away.

You twist the verse, even though you know the whole story, to fit your theology. Bad intent, Lee.

 

[patman]

Well said! :thumb:

And they regularly accuse us of bringing God down to the level of man and/or elevating man to the level of God. Their god is a pathetic, weak, know-it-all, control freak that wouldn't know a relationship if one kissed him on the mouth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hehehe,

OUCH!

It makes me so mad to read people who say "If God doesn't know the future I don't want him to be my God." Well I am so glad their love for God is conditional. No, not really.

It just blows me away. God created this entire universe, and they freak out at the thought that he might not know the future. Why does future knowledge trump creating an entire universe with a billion billion stars? What needs to be explained? He does as he pleases without future knowledge.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10459&stc=1

 

[Bob Hill]

I think you guys know the answer, but was Jesus Christ forsaken by the Father while on the cross?

Lets see if we can understand whether God rejected Jesus while on the Cross, or if Jesus was just left alone to give His life by Himself.

When I look at the whole account in all of the gospels, I see that Christ died spiritually for our sins before He died physically. I think this is important.

That’s why He could cry out and say it is finished, before He died.

It may be that this was the time in Matthew and Luke when the 6th through the 9th hours took place and the darkness signified His spiritual death. I think this is the time Christ felt separated from the Father, but I don’t think we have any basis that He was separated, in reality.

Here is how I see it in a harmony of 3 of the gospels.

Luke 23:32-46 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots. 35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God." 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself." 38 And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." 44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Mat 27:45,46 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Christ certainly felt forsaken, but I don’t think He was.

The Son of God had the ability of suffering and dying for our sins. He gave His life for us. I believe it was a shout of victory when He made the statement in John 19:28-30.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine,
He said, "It is finished!"
And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Luke 23:45,46 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

I think you guys know the answer, but was Jesus Christ forsaken by the Father while on the cross?

Lets see if we can understand whether God rejected Jesus while on the Cross, or if Jesus was just left alone to give His life by Himself.

When I look at the whole account in all of the gospels, I see that Christ died spiritually for our sins before He died physically. I think this is important.

That’s why He could cry out and say it is finished, before He died.

It may be that this was the time in Matthew and Luke when the 6th through the 9th hours took place and the darkness signified His spiritual death. I think this is the time Christ felt separated from the Father, but I don’t think we have any basis that He was separated, in reality.

Here is how I see it in a harmony of 3 of the gospels.

Luke 23:32-46 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots. 35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God." 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself." 38 And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." 44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Mat 27:45,46 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Christ certainly felt forsaken, but I don’t think He was.

The Son of God had the ability of suffering and dying for our sins. He gave His life for us. I believe it was a shout of victory when He made the statement in John 19:28-30.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine,
He said, "It is finished!"
And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Luke 23:45,46 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

I see that SS is logged in and reading this thread and so I wanted to get one last post in here before he jumps in and ruins things again...

Pastor Hill,

It seems perfectly clear to me that the text indicates that Jesus died spiritually and went to the place of the rigteous dead (Abraham's bossom - paradise) for three days. What I do not see is why you would say "Christ certainly felt forsaken, but I don’t think He was". If He was not separated from the Father then He was not spiritually dead. What in the verses you quote gives any indication other than that Jesus was, in fact, separated from the Father just as every other righteous dead person was prior to the cross?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

Bob Hill,

There is something in your latest post that I don't understand.

I think this is the time Christ felt separated from the Father, but I don’t think we have any basis that He was separated, in reality.

Is it that Christ didn't know that He wasn't separated from the Father, and received a false impression of the situation?

Or is it that Christ knew, but felt this separation anyway?

Could you provide a definition of "felt"?

I agree with you when you say "I don’t think we have any basis that He was separated, in reality...".

But this begets the question, "If this was the case, then why did Christ feel as though He were, in fact, separated from the Father?"

Do Christ's perceptions not reflect reality?


SS

 

[sentientsynth]

What I do not see is why you would say "Christ certainly felt forsaken, but I don’t think He was".

I too am hoping for a little clarification.

 

[Lighthouse]

IT’S A FIGURE OF SPEECH, LEE!!!!

:bang: :bang: :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Isn't it amazing how Calvinists will climb all over verses that claim God's emotions as figures of speech, but refuse to believe any other verses could be?

 

[Bob Hill]

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

I am hoping and trying to understand whether God rejected Jesus while on the Cross or if Jesus was just left alone to do His thing. Please notice my tentativeness.

When I look at the whole account in all of the gospels, I see that Christ died spiritually for our sins before He died physically. That’s the main reason why I do not believe that Father forsook Him while He was on the cross. How could He cry out and say it is finished, before He died?

It may be that this was the time in Matthew and Luke when the 6th through the 9th hours took place and the darkness signified His spiritual death. I think this is the time Christ felt separated from the Father, but I don’t think He was, in reality.

Here is how I see it in a harmony of 3 of the gospels.
Luke 23:32-46 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots. 35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God." 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself." 38 And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." 44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Mat 27:45,46 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Luke 23:45,46 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.

God was with Him all the way.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Are we or are we not in agreement that God the Father has access to, and is probably everywhere in this universe?

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

The physical death of Christ was a sufficient substitute for the penalty of sin. Albert Barnes "The Atonement" shows why it did not have to be spiritual or eternal death forever in hell.