ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

This is necessary in order to have genuine love relationships, a higher good than creating robots.

So then we can sin in heaven? And have a second fall? But then there we be no more sacrifice for sins.

So, just where do you suppose God will let us run our ship? And in what direction … HIS direction only?

Within the bounds set by his will, I believe:

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…”

Outside the bounds of what is forbidden (the outside is infinite, what is forbidden is small) there is freedom to choose.

Exercise a little self control and just admit this whole notion of absolute meticulous control that you get from total foreknowledge and immutability is wrong.

Well, you see, I don’t believe in meticulous control.

“God THOUGHT they MIGHT???? What happened to GOD KNOWS?

You may have noticed I use understatements as a rule. Certainly I believe God knew, though.

… you can’t admit that God given freedom gives you the option of being out-of-control …

Only I believe that sin is bondage, so then a choice to sin is not really part of real freedom.

I have a pending response to you as well, Philetus:

… the suffering of Christ Jesus on our behalf is the work of sinful men and the result of sin itself. God willed himself to be handed over to sinful men and die. God did not cause our suffering.

I was speaking here of the suffering of Christ, who was an innocent man, the claim here was that God would not afflict an innocent person.

It isn’t the suffering that produces ‘some greater good’.

“By his wounds we are healed.”

How is he commanding sin lee?

Actually I meant God’s decree: “at God’s command [i.e. by God’s decision and decree] sinful people punished them, and their fear was of those sinful men, so sinful people and sinful deeds are involved here, and by the plan of God.”

God in chapter 20 said they were going to Babylon, now here he is, 4 chapters later, changing his mind.

Well, here is a similar instance:

Jeremiah 44:12 I will take away the remnant of Judah who were determined to go to Egypt to settle there. They will all perish in Egypt…

That seems pretty clear, only…

Jeremiah 44:14 None of the remnant of Judah who have gone to live in Egypt will escape or survive to return to the land of Judah, to which they long to return and live; none will return except a few fugitives.

So then all the people who went to Egypt were not to perish, only all who were determined to go there, but it does look like God changed his mind between two verses.

Thanks for sharing.

You’re quite welcome…

And I have some pending questions for Patman:

… if Scripture says both Satan did it, and God did it, then I think the Open View point is still done for, regardless of who was the ultimate cause, there is agency both by Satan (for a bad purpose) and also by God (for a good purpose).

"A good God causes Satan to Cause Evil to make Good?"

That’s right, he does.

"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)

I already explained how you were taking the verse out of it's context.

I, foolish person that I am, when I read “the Lord took away,” think it means the Lord took away.

Yes yes yes, bad things happen to good people when God punishes the wicked.

Then God’s actions do afflict the righteous sometimes? We also left out God refining the righteous, God afflicts his people for that reason, you know!

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

And sometimes this discipline is at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Of which we see an example with Solomon, for instance.

He sometimes uses hard lessons, this is true, but he does not cause sin in this, ever.

1 Kings 11:23 And God raised up against Solomon another adversary, Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, Hadadezer king of Zobah.
1 Kings 11:25 Rezon was Israel's adversary as long as Solomon lived, adding to the trouble caused by Hadad. So Rezon ruled in Aram and was hostile toward Israel.

This is quite clear language, God did this, though I agree that sin does not flow from God, he is not the source of sin, but his actions do bring about sinful actions.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Actually I meant God’s decree: “at God’s command [i.e. by God’s decision and decree] sinful people punished them, and their fear was of those sinful men, so sinful people and sinful deeds are involved here, and by the plan of God.”


Well, here is a similar instance:

Jeremiah 44:12 I will take away the remnant of Judah who were determined to go to Egypt to settle there. They will all perish in Egypt…

That seems pretty clear, only…

Jeremiah 44:14 None of the remnant of Judah who have gone to live in Egypt will escape or survive to return to the land of Judah, to which they long to return and live; none will return except a few fugitives.

So then all the people who went to Egypt were not to perish, only all who were determined to go there, but it does look like God changed his mind between two verses.


You’re quite welcome…

And I have some pending questions for Patman:

… if Scripture says both Satan did it, and God did it, then I think the Open View point is still done for, regardless of who was the ultimate cause, there is agency both by Satan (for a bad purpose) and also by God (for a good purpose).


That’s right, he does.

"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)


I, foolish person that I am, when I read “the Lord took away,” think it means the Lord took away.


Then God’s actions do afflict the righteous sometimes? We also left out God refining the righteous, God afflicts his people for that reason, you know!

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

And sometimes this discipline is at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Of which we see an example with Solomon, for instance.


1 Kings 11:23 And God raised up against Solomon another adversary, Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, Hadadezer king of Zobah.
1 Kings 11:25 Rezon was Israel's adversary as long as Solomon lived, adding to the trouble caused by Hadad. So Rezon ruled in Aram and was hostile toward Israel.

This is quite clear language, God did this, though I agree that sin does not flow from God, he is not the source of sin, but his actions do bring about sinful actions.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I am going to have to make my posts WAY shorter because you are getting lost somewhere.

God disciplining and God causing(decreeing if you will) sin are different. But that doesn't matter, God doesn't cause sin in either case. The difference is eluding you tho, so you might want to consider figuring them out.

You also missed the answers of your "pending questions," I don't know how, I repeat it in just about every post. Figure of speech sums it up. Just keeping it short.

I wanted to briefly thank you for addressing Jeremiah 44, though we were talking about 20 and 24, it is good to know that about 44. Even though that is a totally different situation.

Lee, were the people of Judah in Egypt really destroyed there and never returned to Judah?

 

[patman]

I have always said that man was created an autonomous creation and was given authority by God to make independent decisions. Man cannot be in the express image of God and not have freedom of choice. That does not mean that God does not know. God has a plan and regardless of the actions of man God will complete it. God knows the ending from the beginning and continued the plan anyway.

God is not surprised by our actions but the choice of God to make us as He is required that man must choose to become as God is. It is evident that man can choose not to be as God is but God knows who will and who wont but that is a choice made by the individual, not God. There is nothing wrong with God knowing. I believe it is man's arrogance to imply that man has the ability to to derail God and cause God to change His plan. That is like man having the ability to save himself. What i see from most OVers is pure legalism. As if according to the flesh they can keep the righteousness of God and have somewhat to boost of their righteousness according to their flesh. We are no longer of the flesh but of the spirit and we are as God is according to the the righteous spirit born within us.

elected4ever,

You do well to say God doesn't author sin. Lee, Jim, and SS have been doing God wrong by saying he does. They say he does because he "plans" everything. That you and they almost share in common, though they come to the logical conclusion that if God plans the everything, that includes... well everything, including sin.

God's future knowledge, at any capacity, does not make him a sinner, of course, as long as you keep it that simple. But when you realize he created creation how it is knowing how it would go and stick to the plan theory about God, you see that everything really is an illusion of freewill and God is the author of sin, as he authored everything else. Causality.

Open Theism is typically a Grace oriented theology that allows it's followers to believe God can change whatever he wants because the future is wide open to anything. We say his real plan was a perfect creation than man made imperfect via unforeseen rebellion.

 

[Bob Hill]

I’ve been on too many weird threads lately.

I’m so glad I can come back to our Open Theism thread, where the view about God that the Bible really presents abounds.

When our God shows us His capacity to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, and other emotions, it makes me feel very good.

I believe the OV is the only theology that is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God without bending His Word.

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 become angry, 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 our site as well as TOL.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

God disciplining and God causing(decreeing if you will) sin are different. But that doesn't matter, God doesn't cause sin in either case.

If God causes sin, he doesn't cause it? And if God's discipline involves sinful actions by sinful men, then how is he not an agent here?

You also missed the answers of your "pending questions," I don't know how, I repeat it in just about every post. Figure of speech sums it up.

And again I ask which grammar supports this claim? You need some grammatical warrant to say it is (whatever expression you may be referring to here) a phrase like "It's raining cats and dogs," which people would understand as a figure of speech. But just saying "it's a figure of speech" is not an argument.

Lee, were the people of Judah in Egypt really destroyed there and never returned to Judah?

God said they would be, and then two verses later said some small number would return, so he plainly meant that the main prophecy applied to most of the people in Egypt, as the other main prophecy applied to most of the people as well, who were deported to Babylon.

And it may seem that the shorter posts indicate some questions you are not stepping up to:

I, foolish person that I am, when I read “the Lord took away,” think it means the Lord took away.

… if Scripture says both Satan did it, and God did it, then I think the Open View point is still done for, regardless of who was the ultimate cause, there is agency both by Satan (for a bad purpose) and also by God (for a good purpose).

"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)

Then God’s actions do afflict the righteous sometimes? We also left out God refining the righteous, God afflicts his people for that reason, you know!

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

And sometimes this discipline is at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Of which we see an example with Solomon, for instance:

1 Kings 11:23 And God raised up against Solomon another adversary, Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, Hadadezer king of Zobah.
1 Kings 11:25 Rezon was Israel's adversary as long as Solomon lived, adding to the trouble caused by Hadad. So Rezon ruled in Aram and was hostile toward Israel.

This is quite clear language, God did this, though I agree that sin does not flow from God, he is not the source of sin, but his actions do bring about sinful actions.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

I have always said that man was created an autonomous creation and was given authority by God to make independent decisions. Man cannot be in the express image of God and not have freedom of choice. That does not mean that God does not know. God has a plan and regardless of the actions of man God will complete it. God knows the ending from the beginning and continued the plan anyway.

God is not surprised by our actions but the choice of God to make us as He is required that man must choose to become as God is. It is evident that man can choose not to be as God is but God knows who will and who wont but that is a choice made by the individual, not God. There is nothing wrong with God knowing. I believe it is man's arrogance to imply that man has the ability to to derail God and cause God to change His plan. That is like man having the ability to save himself. What i see from most OVers is pure legalism. As if according to the flesh they can keep the righteousness of God and have somewhat to boost of their righteousness according to their flesh. We are no longer of the flesh but of the spirit and we are as God is according to the the righteous spirit born within us.

Actually, it's a pretty simple logical proof to show that free will is incompatible with foreknowledge.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

God disciplines those He loves. God loves us all. But, God does not discipline us all in the same way.

God is holy and just and righteous and loving and patient. God’s very existence and character preclude (rules out) any attitude or action that is contrary to His being as His will or intention. When our children get into trouble because of their own actions we might say that we are ‘using’ the consequences of those actions to discipline our children, though we neither caused the actions nor can we control the consequences. But, rather than bail our children out, we allow them to face the fallout.

God can but doesn’t always bail out His children either. In fact, one of the basic principles of the Gospel is that SIN pays a wage. It is the rare occasion in scripture (and characteristic of the Old Covenant) that God directly intervenes and destroys the wicked (Sodom & Gomorrah and the flood). To recognize that God has said, “Every soul that sins dies” and thereby acknowledge that God is behind the decree is healthy. I don’t take issue with your position at that point.

But, when you universalize the principle and make God the culprit behind every evil deed, I have to disagree. Here are two stories from the Gospels that illustrate this:

John 9:
1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

24 A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner." 25 He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"​

Now, we know that the statement of Jesus, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," is untrue taken at face value. All have sinned. And at face value the statement of the Pharisees is accurate. "We know this man is a sinner." But, they wanted to make his sin the direct cause of blindness and the work of God. Surely Jesus is saying that their sin is not the direct cause of the man’s blindness. It is simply a consequence of living in a fallen world and that is always an opportunity for God to display his redemptive and healing work in the world. The greater blindness is on the part of the Pharisees. They were insisting that the man's blindness was reason for giving Glory to God.
Lee, How can you still maintain that God caused the man’s blindness so that he might also display 'some greater good'?

LUKE 13: 1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."​

“I tell you NO!” God doesn’t cause sin and suffering. Sin pays its own wage. God’s remedy for sin and suffering is forgiveness, cleansing and healing. And more often than not, the healing is withheld because the ‘greater good’ is in our need for forgiveness and cleansing. God’s grace is sufficient.

The very essence of the Gospel is that God took upon Himself the sin and suffering that sin caused and in doing so dealt with His children in a way that the world (including Israel) had previously not known: Grace. It is by his stripes that we are healed: stripes that we inflicted. The reason that they are our healing is that God willingly took them. He didn’t cause them or inflict them upon himself and he did not deserve them. He who knew no sin ‘took them’. That is what makes the suffering of Jesus unique in every way. That is why by His stripes and no others we are healed.

Peace,
Philetus

​

 

[lee_merrill]

How can you still maintain that God caused the man’s blindness so that he might also display 'some greater good'?

Because the devil would not make him blind so that the work of God would be displayed in his life? Nor would chance events have such a purpose, either.

“I tell you NO!” God doesn’t cause sin and suffering.

Yet that is not what Jesus meant, he said they weren't special sinners, that is not the reason they suffered. And "you too will similarly perish" puts the responsibility on God for this, does it not? Jesus is saying that this is by God's decision, so indeed God was the agent here, and he caused this suffering.

It is by his stripes that we are healed: stripes that we inflicted. The reason that they are our healing is that God willingly took them. He didn’t cause them or inflict them upon himself ...

He did though, this is stated clearly.

"Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand." (Isa. 53:10)

Or as Jesus asked, "The cup the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" (Jn. 18:11)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

lee_merrill ... Because the devil would not make him blind so that the work of God would be displayed in his life? Nor would chance events have such a purpose, either.

I didn't say the devil did it. I said God didn't do it. Chance hasn't a purpose or intent.

lee: Yet that is not what Jesus meant, he said they weren't special sinners, that is not the reason they suffered. And "you too will similarly perish" puts the responsibility on God for this, does it not? Jesus is saying that this is by God's decision, so indeed God was the agent here, and he caused this suffering.

Suffering because we live in a fallen world which is the result of our sinfulness isn't the same as saying God is the cause of sin and suffering.

lee: He did though, this is stated clearly.

"Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand." (Isa. 53:10)

Or as Jesus asked, "The cup the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" (Jn. 18:11)

Saying that God subjected His Son to suffering is not the same as saying God caused the sin and the suffering that resulted.

We will just have to disagree. :wave:

​

 

[lee_merrill]

I didn't say the devil did it. I said God didn't do it. Chance hasn't a purpose or intent.

Then I wonder whose purpose it was that the works of God would be displayed in his life, that he was born blind.

Suffering because we live in a fallen world which is the result of our sinfulness isn't the same as saying God is the cause ...

Then sin being in the world, this sin had the purpose that the works of God would be displayed? Well, no.

Saying that God subjected His Son to suffering is not the same as saying God caused the sin and the suffering that resulted.

Yet Scripture is clear here.

Isa. 53:10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief ...

We will just have to disagree. :wave:

No, I won't let this go, this is a critical question, for in times of trouble, we have to know what is happening.

2 Corinthians 12:8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.

So then God was powerless? No, this was by God's decision, that the devil should afflict Paul, it was a gift to him, and Paul then gloried "in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties, for when I am weak, then I am strong."

For the power of Christ is not primarily restoration power, but resurrection power.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

:bang:

 

[Bob Hill]

Philetus,

Thank you for the excellent posts you have been making!!!!

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

We Open View Theists believe 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 do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

It is also the best answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

Sealed until the Day of Redemption, when this body is going to be changed,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Philetus,

Thank you for the excellent posts you have been making!!!!

Bob

He is one of the best posters here. Your posts (Hill) have the most substance and biblical content (even if I disagree with some of your conclusions).

 

[lee_merrill]

Would either of you folks, however, be inclined to address my points here, please?

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I agree by the way that Philetus has the best responses overall, of all the Open Theists here...

 

[Philetus]

Would either of you folks, however, be inclined to address my points here, please?

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I agree by the way that Philetus has the best responses overall, of all the Open Theists here...

You made a point? :chuckle:




PS: That why I get into trouble more than anyone .... I can't hold a candle to godrulz and Bob Hill. But, I bet I have more fun. :chuckle: Thanks guys.

​

 

[Philetus]

Then I wonder whose purpose it was that the works of God would be displayed in his life, that he was born blind.


Then sin being in the world, this sin had the purpose that the works of God would be displayed? Well, no.


Yet Scripture is clear here.

Isa. 53:10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief ...


No, I won't let this go, this is a critical question, for in times of trouble, we have to know what is happening.

2 Corinthians 12:8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.

So then God was powerless? No, this was by God's decision, that the devil should afflict Paul, it was a gift to him, and Paul then gloried "in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties, for when I am weak, then I am strong."

For the power of Christ is not primarily restoration power, but resurrection power.

Blessings,
Lee

It is God’s purpose to display God’s glory, always! Causing blindness, sin and suffering is not God’s purpose, ever! Death and suffering are the direct results (and most times indirectly the accumulative results) of sin. It is the devil's purpose to kill, steal and destroy God’s creation. The devil’s purposes are diabolically opposed to God’s. It’s the warfare model as apposed to your blueprint model, Lee.

It is critical for our understanding, Lee. God never causes our suffering and doesn’t always remove our suffering in this life. That teaches us the sufficiency of God’s grace. What God has done is take upon himself the ultimate penalty for our sin … death. God is never powerless, not even on the cross. But on the cross God’s power is shown in what the world judges as ‘weakness’. That is why Paul says if we have anything to boast of, we boast of our ‘weakness’. In our weakness God’s power is most obvious. It is the lesson most evident in the cross. And what is weaker than a dead body? The resurrection power of Jesus at work in our suffering is the proof for faith that we can hope.

Philetus

​

 

[lee_merrill]

It is God’s purpose to display God’s glory, always!

Certainly, it is!

Causing blindness, sin and suffering is not God’s purpose, ever! Death and suffering are the direct results (and most times indirectly the accumulative results) of sin.

Yes, death is the result of sin, and whose decision was this? may I ask...

And as far as these aspects you mentioned:

Exodus 4:11 The Lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

Deuteronomy 28:27-28 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.

Isaiah 65:15 You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name.

Will you deny these plain Scriptures?

God never causes our suffering ...

Deuteronomy 28:22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish.

Deuteronomy 28:25 The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven ... [Note that the fulfilment of this involved actions by sinful men].

1 Kings 14:15 And the Lord will strike Israel, so that it will be like a reed swaying in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land that he gave to their forefathers and scatter them beyond the River, because they provoked the Lord to anger by making Asherah poles.

Isaiah 19:22 The Lord will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the Lord, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them.

Will you deny these plain Scriptures? I begin to lose hope...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

If God causes sin, he doesn't cause it? And if God's discipline involves sinful actions by sinful men, then how is he not an agent here?


And again I ask which grammar supports this claim? You need some grammatical warrant to say it is (whatever expression you may be referring to here) a phrase like "It's raining cats and dogs," which people would understand as a figure of speech. But just saying "it's a figure of speech" is not an argument.


God said they would be, and then two verses later said some small number would return, so he plainly meant that the main prophecy applied to most of the people in Egypt, as the other main prophecy applied to most of the people as well, who were deported to Babylon.

And it may seem that the shorter posts indicate some questions you are not stepping up to:

I, foolish person that I am, when I read “the Lord took away,” think it means the Lord took away.

… if Scripture says both Satan did it, and God did it, then I think the Open View point is still done for, regardless of who was the ultimate cause, there is agency both by Satan (for a bad purpose) and also by God (for a good purpose).

"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)

Then God’s actions do afflict the righteous sometimes? We also left out God refining the righteous, God afflicts his people for that reason, you know!

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

And sometimes this discipline is at the hands of sinful men.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Of which we see an example with Solomon, for instance:

1 Kings 11:23 And God raised up against Solomon another adversary, Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, Hadadezer king of Zobah.
1 Kings 11:25 Rezon was Israel's adversary as long as Solomon lived, adding to the trouble caused by Hadad. So Rezon ruled in Aram and was hostile toward Israel.

This is quite clear language, God did this, though I agree that sin does not flow from God, he is not the source of sin, but his actions do bring about sinful actions.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I don't answer all your posts questions until we can agree on the basics. I will answer more as soon as we can get past this.

Your idea that God uses sinners to sin to bring about judgement is wrong because.....

• Sin is disobeying God. If God commanded a nation to punish Israel, it would be obeying God to do so.
• If you obey God, you are not sinning
• God holds life in his hands, and give and take life as he wishes, and do so justly
• God can give Israel's judgement into the hands of a sinner to carry it out and it would not be sin

God never lies. He named Satan as the one guilty of afflicting Job. Job, who is human and who is wrong at times, was however wrong when he said God took away.

Your proof is:

"Job did not sin when he said 'God did it'"

The problem is not sinning and being not being wrong are not the same thing.

Let me reword this

sinning and being wrong are different.

I can say "It is 5:00" when it is really 4:55 AND NOT SIN. But I am wrong.

A wrong answer is not a sin. It is just a mistake. So you cannot equate the two.

So it cannot be both because 1. God said who did it. He doesn't lie. 2. Your premise is an assumption at a stretch that is based on a very faulty argument.

GOD did not afflict Job at all.

 

[Bob Hill]

godrulz,

Thank you. You and I have a few differences, but I really appreciate your godly attitude.

In Christ,
Bob