ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[elected4ever]

I might add that there was no flaw in the design or workmanship of God's creation untell man decided to abuse God's creation. Are you saying that God made a mistake in puting man in charge of His creation? :noway:

 

[lee_merrill]

I might add that there was no flaw in the design or workmanship of God's creation untell man decided to abuse God's creation.

Certainly, agreed...

Are you saying that God made a mistake in puting man in charge of His creation?

No, I'm saying when God sees a sinful deed about to take place, and makes a choice to allow it to happen, then that involves God in the consequences of that deed, then there is responsibility for the outcome, or (in another case) in removing the hedge, around a righteous man...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[elected4ever]

Not necessarily, but if someone sees them about to injure someone else with their product, and chooses not to stop this when they could, then there is responsibility.

Blessings,
Lee

Wasn't man given dominion over this creation? Is it not man's responsibility to properly use what God had made him in charge off?

 

[lee_merrill]

Wasn't man given dominion over this creation? Is it not man's responsibility to properly use what God had made him in charge off?

Right, but let's not be deists! God is involved in the world, and makes decisions to intervene, when he sees a sinful act that must not take place. So then to decide not to intervene would bring a measure of responsibility for the consequences, just as it would with us with a rock (that we didn't push) rolling down a hill, that we could stop. In our case, we didn't even make the rock, or the man, but there is still responsibility for the consequences.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[elected4ever]

Right, but let's not be deists! God is involved in the world, and makes decisions to intervene, when he sees a sinful act that must not take place. To decide not to intervene then would bring a measure of responsibility for the consequences.

Blessings,
Lee

If God intervenes then is God taking back control if that intervention is not requested by man? Man would not have dominion if God took back control arbitrarily. Is it not man's responsibility to request help from God?

 

[lee_merrill]

If God intervenes then is God taking back control if that intervention is not requested by man? Man would not have dominion if God took back control arbitrarily.

Certainly God's intervention is not arbitrary, yet he also doesn't ask permission from Herod, when he stops his sinning, as one example.

God is not dancing attendance on man's free will--"The Lord, he is God..."

So then in God's decisions to intervene, or not to intervene, this entails responsibility.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[elected4ever]

No, I'm saying when God sees a sinful deed about to take place, and makes a choice to allow it to happen, then that involves God in the consequences of that deed, then there is responsibility for the outcome, or (in another case) in removing the hedge, around a righteous man...

Blessings,
Lee

Was Job better or worse off as a result of his trials?

 

[elected4ever]

Certainly God's intervention is not arbitrary, yet he also doesn't ask permission from Herod, when he stops his sinning, as one example.

God is not dancing attendance on man's free will--"The Lord, he is God..."

So then in God's decisions to intervene, or not to intervene, this entails responsibility.

Blessings,
Lee

God certainly answered the prayer of someone. I agree it wasn't Herod. The prayers of a righteous man avails much. Hummmm, maybe John the Baptist? :think:

 

[lee_merrill]

Was Job better or worse off as a result of his trials?

Much better, "You have seen what the Lord finally brought about," says James, and "When he has tried me, I will come forth as gold," said Job. "We consider those blessed who have persevered," and rightly so.

God certainly answered the prayer of someone. I agree it wasn't Herod. The prayers of a righteous man avails much. Hummmm, maybe John the Baptist?

That could be, yet God still does act in the world sometimes without a specific request, I would say, though he gave the earth to man, the Lord is King over all the earth, and we are then his servants.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Then why does the OVer insist that God changes His mind and can make amends for past mistakes that he made because of poor judgement? You can't have it both ways. I agree that pure Calvinism is wrong but so is the OVT that I have seen on this board. Just because one is wrong in certain assumptions does not make the opposite right. We need not place one in one camp or the other.

Been listening to Matt Slick again, have we? :bang:

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pastor Hill,

What did have in mind when He said in Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Yet this is actually "Into my heart," are we to conclude that God did not think of even the possibility that Judah would sin in this way? The thought of this possibility did not in any way occur to him?

And what I would really need from you now please, is not more questions, but more answers! As in these pending questions from the discussion ...

God is all powerful. He can make anything that He thinks is important, happen exactly the way He wants it.

Except when his plan fails, and his expectations are disappointed, though?

Open Theism does try and have it both ways (as also shown by the recent insistence that God does not change his plan, only he changes his mind).

And if God sometimes changes his mind, then we need not always trust God's counsel, is this not correct?

Thus it will not always be best to follow the Lord's leading, events might turn out better with another choice, even from God's perspective.

Everything is already decided from here to eternity by Calvinists.

The Bible shows us that we actually have choices.

I do believe that believers can really choose within God's will, and there is real freedom in Christ, so this means God does not make every decision.

God bless you,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

I have to start a new topic before Lee drags me back in.

I always wondered what it would have been like had Adam and Eve not sinned and t things went according to his plan. I have no basis for this, but maybe someone can validate or invalidate it:

Would god have ever let Adam and Eve eat of the tree "Once they were grown up enough?"

Perhaps this belongs in a different thread, but the best OVers are on here...

I don't think God would have had them eat of the tree... ever. I heard a (reformed, oddly enough) professor say that God's intent seems to be to teach Adam and Eve about the nature and order of creation, and eventually about what is right and good for them to do (and, by implication what not to do.)

The tree would simply have been a symbol of God's sovereignty, even among men with free will, because the only reason to not eat of the tree is that God said so, and said that death would result for anyone who did.

Hopefully that answers your question.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

Been listening to Matt Slick again, have we? :bang:

Muz

Who is Matt Slick?

 

[Lighthouse]

Jacobus Arminius is now an open theist.

 

[godrulz]

Jacobus Arminius is now an open theist.

:noway: Huh? (you made me laugh...Open Theism is a free will theism like Arminianism, but they differ on exhaustive foreknowledge, as you know).

 

[godrulz]

Who is Matt Slick?

http://www.carm.org/index/faq.htm

He is president of CARM, a generally good apologetic site. Being a grad from a Calvinistic seminary makes him anti- Open Theism. I do not find the arguments used credible. He would be just as much against Arminianism, I suppose.

 

[Lighthouse]

:noway: Huh? (you made me laugh...Open Theism is a free will theism like Arminianism, but they differ on exhaustive foreknowledge, as you know).

I only meant that now that he is in Heaven, he is now an OVer. Just like John Calvin. Or even Augustine.

 

[godrulz]

I only meant that now that he is in Heaven, he is now an OVer. Just like John Calvin. Or even Augustine.

Even funnier! Good one. It is good to see you more active again. Roar like a lion, for the Lion, mighty- in -spirit- one (do not let anyone look down on your youth, Timothy). Even if we struggle with areas of our lives, we can boldly proclaim truth as we understand it. Let us be teachable as we teach.

 

[themuzicman]

I might add that there was no flaw in the design or workmanship of God's creation untell man decided to abuse God's creation. Are you saying that God made a mistake in puting man in charge of His creation? :noway:

Why would it be a mistake for things to be as God intended them to be?

Adam made the mistake, not God.

Muz

 

[patman]

You all say I rejoice in injury and affliction? That's a pretty serious charge, if so, how do you know this?


But what I meant was some responsibility for the consequences that will happen, as in allowing a rock to roll down a hill towards a house, when you could stop it.

Blessings,
Lee

If you don't rejoice at God's will.. then what? You think God is bad for doing his will?

You are confusing lee...