ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
The future does not exist … yet.
Any thinking being can imagine it, predict it with greater or lesser accuracy, even plan for it, saying, “Tomorrow I will go to Whereeverville and do whatever I can … if the Lord wills/allows. We can carry out our plans often without hindrance because we live in a universe that works in spite of changing, often surprising unforeseen events. And God can adjust as well. Despite what the SV says God must adjust because it is the way God made the universe and is clearly evident in the things made.
As for God and the future … God knows everything that can be known. He can plan and execute His plan regardless of unforeseen contingencies or in response to unforeseen possibilities because God is omnipotent. To say that God ‘knows’ the future (even the things God has declared He will do) as already a fact of history is incorrect. To say that God ‘knows’ what God will do in the future is only accurate in as far as we remember that God CAN change His mind IF He so chooses; and to a great extent, so can we. God has given us enough evidence of His character and intentions toward mankind to ‘KNOW’ by faith that there are SOMETHINGS God will do in the future because God is faithful and omnicompetent; God is able. There are SOMETHINGS that God may or may not do because God is a God of relationship; response able, able to respond to changing circumstances (like our decisions and actions). There are SOMETHINGS God has decreed in His word that no contingency will have an effect on because God is sovereign.
Philetus
themuzicman
Well-known member
If you're referring to me, I'd like to know what you think I said sarcastically. I think I'm dialoging in good faith, here.
Muz
Muz
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
God is Open.
When we look at the acts of God, we can see over and over that He wants to forgive us for our sins.
Jonah and Nineveh, that great city, are a great demonstration on His love.
Jonah 1:2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
Jonah 3:2-10 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Jonah 4:1,2 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.
What a wonderful God we have!!
In Christ,
Bob Hill
When we look at the acts of God, we can see over and over that He wants to forgive us for our sins.
Jonah and Nineveh, that great city, are a great demonstration on His love.
Jonah 1:2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
Jonah 3:2-10 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Jonah 4:1,2 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.
What a wonderful God we have!!
In Christ,
Bob Hill
themuzicman
Well-known member
Ah, ok.. it came immediately after mine...
Muz
Muz
Has any Calvinist, or other settled viewer for that matter, gotten mad, or upset, when their prayers were not answered the way they wanted them to be answered?
Muz,
Look, this is going nowhere. You use the same proof texts that I would use! Unless there is less of a disagreement here than there appears to be, I just don't get it! It seems clear to me that our disagreement is on a paradigm level which cannot be addressed by quoting proof texts.
This is what I know.
Before I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ I was dead in sins. I wasn’t going to be dead, I wasn't dead physically, and I wasn't merely potentially dead or virtually dead but I was spiritually dead in that I had no fellowship with God, I was relationally separated from Him because of my sin. When I believed then God judicially declared me righteous on the basis of Christ's death and gave me power over sin by virtue of His resurrection. That is all true of me right this exact minute. It is not something that will be true once I die and go to heaven but it is already true right now. Christ's righteousness has been (past tense) imputed to me and I am as righteous before God as I could ever be. I have been relationally reunited with God and am therefore spiritually alive because it would not be possible otherwise. This is all true because of my current and continuing and uninterruptible position in Christ and this is all true not in a physical sense but in a spiritual one. By Christ's stripes I have been healed SPIRITUALLY not physically. That's the gospel Muz! That's basically the whole Christian faith in a nutshell.
And one final point.
I didn't miss the point about proper exegesis. It apparently is you who missed mine. That point being that the plain (not necessarily the literal meaning but the plain meaning (i.e. the obvious or surface meaning if you will) of the text trumps any point of theology unless a logically sound reason is given for taking a passage to mean something other than what it seems to be saying. You have failed to provide any such logically sound reason. In effect your argument is circular. You are saying that the context of Gal. 2:19-20 renders those verses symbolic but fail to see that it is the same theology that tints your interpretation of Gal. 2:19-20 that tints the whole chapter for you! Of course you are going to think the context supports your interpretation of the last two verses because the same theology that colors the last two verses also colors the whole chapter as well as, it seems the whole of the Pauline epistle. This is as good an example as I can think of as to why we must careful to let the text speak for itself unless forced to do otherwise and even then the reason must be based on a clearly establish Biblical principle and not just some strongly held dogma or theology.
At any rate, I am content at this point to simply agree to disagree. Unless you can come up with something else that hasn't already been said, all there is left to do is repeat ourselves.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Look, this is going nowhere. You use the same proof texts that I would use! Unless there is less of a disagreement here than there appears to be, I just don't get it! It seems clear to me that our disagreement is on a paradigm level which cannot be addressed by quoting proof texts.
This is what I know.
Before I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ I was dead in sins. I wasn’t going to be dead, I wasn't dead physically, and I wasn't merely potentially dead or virtually dead but I was spiritually dead in that I had no fellowship with God, I was relationally separated from Him because of my sin. When I believed then God judicially declared me righteous on the basis of Christ's death and gave me power over sin by virtue of His resurrection. That is all true of me right this exact minute. It is not something that will be true once I die and go to heaven but it is already true right now. Christ's righteousness has been (past tense) imputed to me and I am as righteous before God as I could ever be. I have been relationally reunited with God and am therefore spiritually alive because it would not be possible otherwise. This is all true because of my current and continuing and uninterruptible position in Christ and this is all true not in a physical sense but in a spiritual one. By Christ's stripes I have been healed SPIRITUALLY not physically. That's the gospel Muz! That's basically the whole Christian faith in a nutshell.
And one final point.
I didn't miss the point about proper exegesis. It apparently is you who missed mine. That point being that the plain (not necessarily the literal meaning but the plain meaning (i.e. the obvious or surface meaning if you will) of the text trumps any point of theology unless a logically sound reason is given for taking a passage to mean something other than what it seems to be saying. You have failed to provide any such logically sound reason. In effect your argument is circular. You are saying that the context of Gal. 2:19-20 renders those verses symbolic but fail to see that it is the same theology that tints your interpretation of Gal. 2:19-20 that tints the whole chapter for you! Of course you are going to think the context supports your interpretation of the last two verses because the same theology that colors the last two verses also colors the whole chapter as well as, it seems the whole of the Pauline epistle. This is as good an example as I can think of as to why we must careful to let the text speak for itself unless forced to do otherwise and even then the reason must be based on a clearly establish Biblical principle and not just some strongly held dogma or theology.
At any rate, I am content at this point to simply agree to disagree. Unless you can come up with something else that hasn't already been said, all there is left to do is repeat ourselves.
Resting in Him,
Clete
patman
Active member
Clete said:
In some cultures, maybe.
He is only pretending to be respectful, his respect for the conversation is still where it was a month, year, decade ago. But good luck, you have more patience than I.
If he makes you mad, just come back to this post and look at the magical dancing banana! It will help
:bannana:
sentientsynth
New member
My banishment was a good little break. I should be banned more often.Clete said:
Honestly, I wasn't really interesting in discussing figures of speech, per se, but rather if patboy knew what figures were. It seemed as though he was belittling the settled view because settled viewers see that scripture is replete with figures.
I agree. Certain figures can be difficult to spot, especially when dealing with archaic languages. A recommendation that I would make is to pick up "the Book of Job" by E.W. Bullinger, which includes discussion of the book itself and a translation which takes figures of speech into full consideration. You may disagree with ol' Bulli in regards to the discussion aspect of the book, but the bulk of it is the new translation. Also, if you have the Companion Bible, then you have the new translation, but you may not have the full explanations that Bulli gives in the book.
I must admit that I'm a little blind-sided by this admission. So many times those who oppose limited atonement do so on the basis of verses that include this word "all" or sometimes the word "world." I forget where I read it in Gill's commentary, but he relates an occassion where two men were having a conversation, and "all" was used to denote only these two men. Just a factoid.
I agree.
:shut:
Yes. Thank you.
sentientsynth
New member
Mr. Hill, I became sarcastic with you only after you demonstrated a thorough lack of respect for the debate. You accused me of "jumping to wrong conclusions only because want to", remember?Bob Hill said:
You've ignored point after point that I've made, only to make false accusations about me.
So ... whatever. Sit on your thumb and twirl, Mr. Hill.
sentientsynth
New member
Not me. I respect God's sovereignty. He has the best in mind for me, and I don't always know what's best for myself or the ones that I care about. He, in the other hand, does. So if "I don't get my way", then I understand that God has something else in store, something that He desires to accomplish through means that I haven't considered. God works in mysterious ways.Lighthouse said:
See ya later little fella! :wave2:sentientsynth said:
Maybe in a year or so when you get a little older and more mature you can come back to TOL and give it another try.
Does the magical dancing banana thing work when others make me mad? It would seem that SS is no longer a problem! :BRAVO:patman said:In some cultures, maybe.
He is only pretending to be respectful, his respect for the conversation is still where it was a month, year, decade ago. But good luck, you have more patience than I.
If he makes you mad, just come back to this post and look at the magical dancing banana! It will help
:bannana:
Is Knight cool or what!
:knight:
Philetus
New member
And the bananas danced.
:banana: ........ :banana: ........... :banana: ........... :devil: ......... :banana:
And all God’s bananas said, …………….Peeeeeeeellllllll, SS! You bad, bad banana.
I'm go’na try Patman's remedy for not letting anger get the best of me.
Good move, Knight. That was uncalled for.
Sorry Pastor Hill. Of all people, you don't deserve that kind of talk.
Philetus
patman
Active member
Clete said:Does the magical dancing banana thing work when others make me mad? It would seem that SS is no longer a problem! :BRAVO:
Is Knight cool or what!
:knight:
Knight is indeed ->DA MAN<-
Hope SS is enjoying his new vacation! I wonder who is taking who seriously now? :chuckle:
But anyway, yes, the magical banana of whom is full of dance may bring about relief from the frustrations all around. Especially when used like Philetus!
Notice the evil banana is off beat.... hehehe
Philetus
New member
I would like the thinking of my Open View friends (and anyone who would like to respond) on the following:
Luke 4:1-4 records that having been lead by the Spirit into the wilderness (the desert) Jesus was tempted by the devil for forty days. Having eaten nothing during that time Jesus was understandably hungry. At that point Jesus was tempted (by the devil, AKA Bad Banana ... here after refered to as B.B.
atrol: ) to prove his identity as the Son of God by turning stones into bread in order to satisfy his hunger. At that point Jesus quoted Deut. 8:3 In context the reply, (especially/specifically verse 2b) seems very supportive of the OV.
Deut. 8:1-9 ….
Here in context is God, A) leading in the desert, ‘causing’ hunger and then satisfying that hunger with manna; B) humbling and testing in order to know what is in the heart of man; and 3) teaching trust and dependence on God resulting in obedience and blessing.
In either passage what is the nature between leading and causing … the connection between being lead by the Spirit and being tempted by the devil?
Any thoughts?
Philetus
- Status