ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
We are in a fix of our own making. We (SV) are asked the same questions you are asked: "Why does God allow this? Why doesn't He do something? Doesn't this (or that) grieve Him?"

Our answers are similar. While I've read (to my grief) from some that "God is the author of such." I have to reject such a position. Rather, as was true in Lazarus' case, God is grieved by pain and suffering and He was/is moved with compassion. I believe being in the presence of sin hurts God even more profoundly than it does us. I believe that we are responsible (universal 'we') for the condition of sin, not, nor ever God. The parable of the wheat and tares explains a little for us why God doesn't put an immediate stop (some of the wheat would be harmed). God is not willing that any should perish, and He has done much to ensure that none of the wheat suffers condemnation. While there are horrors in the world, I believe God isn't powerless, but has constraint for whatever it would do to us if He were to intervene as we'd demand. He'd have to judge not just the atrocity, but all who have atrocities in their heart. God says Himself, that He is waiting until the full harvest will be brought in. While He loves the world, those who are to be redeemed are precious to Him.

Well the answer is similar, but I guess what I hoped you would put future knowledge in with this... If God saw all this would happen and went on with creation as planned which would result in this world, this presents a problem with God's goodness.

Especially when you think that anything is possible, with future knowledge, a perfect world without sin would be "in the can."

Let us never say God did evil that good may come of it (another popular S.V. response you'll read from others on this form).
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
Why won't you let me forget Rob, why? WHY?

-sigh-

May the record show the popular S.V. belief that somehow authoring sin does not make one responsible for sin.

Patrick,

Your sadness as expressed in this.....

... If God saw all this would happen and went on with creation as planned which would result in this world, this presents a problem with God's goodness.​

omits the fact that God has a purpose and plan beyond the suffering.

Creating a situation with love is the problem and free will was the solution. Creating a situtation where love would exist without the ability to do otherwise is impossible as the o.v. readily admits.

My perspective says that God knew you and evil in the same instance; and chose to give you existence(out of His great love for you) despite the evil. Could there be a more relational loving father than that?

We do the same thing when we pro-create. We know that our children will suffer and will face adversity in their life. We pray and hope that they will survive this world and be reconciled to their creator in the afterlife. Do we know that some of them might not accomplish this for themselves? Certainly!

But without their existence, there is no possibility of love, relationship, or eternity. Life is a gift, from us in cooperation with the creator, to our children. When God first knew us in His thoughts and loved us; He decided to give us that gift to do with as we please. Is the life-giver responsible for how that gift is spent? Isn't that gift awesome and worthy of praise itself? Is the father responsible for the sins which he knows his son will commit? Does His own love condemn him to being responsible?

Your Brother in Christ from Eternity,

Rob Mauldin
 

patman

Active member
RobE said:
Patrick,

Your sadness as expressed in this.....

... If God saw all this would happen and went on with creation as planned which would result in this world, this presents a problem with God's goodness.​

omits the fact that God has a purpose and plan beyond the suffering.


I didn't omit it, i answered it before you said this when I said:

Let us never say God did evil that good may come of it (another popular S.V. response you'll read from others on this form).

But you will say it anyway... that is what is truly sad, Rob..
 

bling

Member
MitchellMcKain said:

Christians talk about falling short, but in a sense this is a bit silly. We are comparing finite beings to an infinite God. How could we ever "measure up"? As a parent and teacher I have high expectations because I know that it is only be reaching for those expectations that my students and children can learn. But in the end, it really isn't about how far you are from having fulfilled those expectations, it is really about how much you have learned.
In a way I see God expecting very little from humans, “faith (or trust might be a better word)”.


MitchellMcKain said:
Christians often say that the purpose of creation is to give glory to God. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would God need glory and how could we possibly add anything significant to an infinite God? The Bible is God's message to us and it is focused on what we need to hear, and the fact is, that we need to see the glory of God in creation and through that reach out to all the possibilities of life.
Wow, I could not agree with you more. I run into this same issue. Our “mythical” characters Adam and Eve were not made to glorify God. A rock can bring glory to God. Glorifying God is scriptural, but may mean being God’s children verses being children of satan. My children give me glory, because they are mine and not because they obey me.


MitchellMcKain said:
Yes it is all about love. But then, love is also about everything. In other words, love isn't just sitting and saying, "love, love, love", all day. But, for example, I think one of the key points in this conflict between Open Theism and Calvinism is that God is not about power and knowledge but about goodness and love.
If you get a chance you might look at the tread I created and comment. My opening post is really in the middle of the discussion. So are trying to use a truism to prove the assumptions to the truism as far as I can tell and I am trying to point that out. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35943

MitchellMcKain said:
I don't know how to respond to this because I am not quite comprehending your thinking here. Since we are not robots, what is the difference between our capacity and God's capacity to work through us? The endless process of becoming all we are capable of, is the same thing as receiving all His gifts. Is that not how God works through us?
Yes, I was trying to address the idea of limiting God working through us by limiting self. Jesus is the best example, but I use Paul as( the secular historical description): a short, bald, bowlegged, asthma, poor eye sight, Jew sent to gentiles, poor, fanatical, and poor speaker, yet God worked will with that.




MitchellMcKain said:
This is not really true. People are different and are challeged by different things. Using my previous imagery, the direction people choose on the plain of possiblilities determines which of the pits of darkness they have to navigate around.

The sin, "to covet" has never been a great challenge to me. My great challenge has always been pride and arrogance. Also, I guess I tend to be rather passive, and so while it is easy for me to accept what God provides with gratitude, it is much much more of challenge for me to take action and be a part of the work of God.
I would hear about a brother caught up in some sin and say, “I would never do that”. Well I am experienced enough now to know I am fully capable of doing anything bad if I yield. As I tell my students and myself, “you can not keep from sinning, but you can fell your life with so much good stuff you do not have time to work sin in.” The indwelling Spirit wants to do good stuff with you which can include: working for money, teaching others, studying, praying, loving, giving and there is just lots of good stuff. Fill your heart, mind, and time with this.
I visited with a college group of guys really trying to be Christ like (I was not their leader). They started confessing all their sins every day in the group, it got longer and longer. One day Jim stopped in the middle of his confessing and took out a little note book read it and went back to confessing. The teacher asked about the note book and Jim used it to keep up with his sins that day, so he could review it before they met. The teacher throw the book away and said from now on they would only talk about the good stuff they did that day. The group did not have much to say. Months went on and the groups list of good stuff really increased. One day Jim came in really excited about a wonderful day, He got up early, studied intently, took good notes, met some wonderful people he was able to share Christ with, etc. at the end the teacher as Jim to confess his sins that day, Jim sat there and thought for a long while, his fellow students tried to help him by going through the sins he was always getting caught up in, but Jim kept saying “no”, in frustration Jim said, “I do not remember any”. I really did not make this up and it shocked me at the time, but that was the way my young prisoner students acted also.

How powerful is God?
 

Lon

Well-known member
patman said:
Well the answer is similar, but I guess what I hoped you would put future knowledge in with this... If God saw all this would happen and went on with creation as planned which would result in this world, this presents a problem with God's goodness.

Especially when you think that anything is possible, with future knowledge, a perfect world without sin would be "in the can."

Let us never say God did evil that good may come of it (another popular S.V. response you'll read from others on this form).

I do not believe OV escapes this question at all either. Foreknowledge has not a lot to do with it but only in initial appearance. Rob does have a good answer but let me take it to the OV position to show what I mean.

When and as evil is happening, even in OV, God would be aware and in power would be able to intervene. Again Rob spoke to the parable of the wheat and tares and I find that God's answers should be our answers that "He is not willing that any should perish" and "is waiting for the end of the season so that all may be brought into the storehouse."

While a superficial glossing of these truths may not mean much, it is God's answer to pain and suffering in this world. As a nation, while we had prayer in school, taught Biblical truths there, and were embracing christian principles as a nation, our crime rate wasn't the same (and not as meaningless and random). We could certainly go a rabbit trail here if the replies regarding this were spoken and it is not my intention to do so when looking at history but merely to point out that 'we' are responsible collectively for the evils in this world and we have the tools from God to do what should be done. My simple answer: Walk the Talk and evangelize one at a time. This being not all that can and should be done, but it is a starting point for each individual.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Lonster said:
I do not believe OV escapes this question at all either. Foreknowledge has not a lot to do with it but only in initial appearance. Rob does have a good answer but let me take it to the OV position to show what I mean.

When and as evil is happening, even in OV, God would be aware and in power would be able to intervene.

You sure? If free will is truly a part of God's creation, then God would be violating His Own Word in creation if He went around violating free will.

Again Rob spoke to the parable of the wheat and tares and I find that God's answers should be our answers that "He is not willing that any should perish" and "is waiting for the end of the season so that all may be brought into the storehouse."

That imposes upon the text something that isn't there. The fact that there are tares in the wheat doesn't mean that an individual is always a wheat or a tare.

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lonster said:
Thanks. Spelling error noted. I SOOOO wish this forum had a spell checker. I genrally spel purty gud, bot fergiv mee wan eye du mack eh mistaik.
Firefox has a spell checker built in! You can download it from the following link...

Firefox 2.0
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
mitchellmckain said:
Granted. I can do better than that. I will stop responding to your posts altogether. Your statement clearly shows that just as I don't care for debate, you do not care for discussion. I think that this means you only participate for the feeling of satisfaction you get at ridiculing those who believe differently than you do. Somehow you imagine that this "proves" you are right. Thus the presumption I began with that you had any idea what the word "proof" meant, is shown to be entirely mistaken. It is also, in fact, clear that you are not even interested in the meaning of the word "proof" and my attempts to communicate with you have been a waste of my time.
You mean it has been shown as in proven, right? Or is it just your opinion?
:chuckle:

So since I do not want to be a part of your neurotic need to "prove" things, we really have no reason to continue responding to each others posts.
I knew it was a waste of time when I started. The discussion was not for your benefit (although you could have chosen to make it so).

:wave2:
 

Philetus

New member
themuzicman said:
You sure? If free will is truly a part of God's creation, then God would be violating His Own Word in creation if He went around violating free will.

Muz

Yeper! Good reply, muz.


Who said God has free will? :chuckle:




(the joys in reading this thread are so short lived)

:wave2:
 

Lon

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
You sure? If free will is truly a part of God's creation, then God would be violating His Own Word in creation if He went around violating free will.

Are you in agreement with Patman and Clete's qualifiers? They both understand that freewill comes with social, economic, physical, and Godly restraint.

LOL Philetus.

themuzicman said:
That imposes upon the text something that isn't there. The fact that there are tares in the wheat doesn't mean that an individual is always a wheat or a tare.

Muz

I don't agree it is reading anything into it, but I read it as you do as well. Without the 'fruit' of righteousness, the angels who reap might accidentally rip out a weedy looking wheat stalk. The parable implies something to this effect.
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
Originally Posted by themuzicman

You sure? If free will is truly a part of God's creation, then God would be violating His Own Word in creation if He went around violating free will.

Muz

I would need to check with Paul, Joseph, and the Blind Man.

I'll get back to you
Rob
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Lonster said:
Are you in agreement with Patman and Clete's qualifiers? They both understand that freewill comes with social, economic, physical, and Godly restraint.

No, I'm not in agreement, there.

I don't agree it is reading anything into it, but I read it as you do as well. Without the 'fruit' of righteousness, the angels who reap might accidentally rip out a weedy looking wheat stalk. The parable implies something to this effect.

Well, there is not "Fruit of righteousness" mentioned in the parable. And Jesus explains the parable. There are those in the Kingdom of Heaven who are good, sons of God, and those in the kingdom of heaven who are evil, sons of the devil, and that will be the case until the end of the age where the evil are judged by their deeds.

It's an eschatological parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, and has nothing to do with "fruits of righteousness."

If anything, the point is that by taking out the tares, the wheat may be affected by the upheaval. It's not that one would mistake wheat for tare.

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lonster said:
Are you in agreement with Patman and Clete's qualifiers? They both understand that freewill comes with social, economic, physical, and Godly restraint.
What?
I don't even know what this means!
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
I believe every man has the freedom to believe because it says in 1 Ti 2:4 that God “desires [wills] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

God wills it, but since God leaves the decision to us, none of us would trust Christ as his Savior. However, we were not left to ourselves. In 2 Pe 3:9 it says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should have room for repentance.” The basic meaning of the Greek word coreo is “have room, accommodate.”

All the definitions in the Bauer Danker Greek English Lexicon are nuances of this basic meaning.

Matthew 19:11,12 is a good example. “But He said to them, ‘All cannot accept (coreo) this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept (coreo) it, let him accept (coreo) it.’”

In the KJV coreo is translated receive 3, contain 2, come 1 [our verse], go 1, have place 1, receive 1, be room to receive 1.

In the NKJV it is translated accept 3, goes 1, room to receive 1, containing 1, has place 1, could contain 1, and open 1.

It is defined 1) to leave space (which may be filled or occupied by another), to make room, give place, yield 1a) to retire 1b) metaphorically, to betake one’s self, turn one’s self 2) to go forward, advance, proceed, succeed 3) to have space or room for receiving or holding something.

The word “willing”, here is, counseling. no one can prevent His counsel, from happening. He is going to bring His counsel, to pass. The participle, counseling, which correlates to the word counsel, is found in this passage. Here is my translation of 2 Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness but is long-suffering toward us, not counseling, any to perish but [counseling] all to have room for repentance.

No one can resist God’s ability to give counsel.

God has determined that everyone will have room for repentance, and they do.
But they can resist His counsel for them. Luke 7:30: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.”

Further, it shows us that every man is enlightened by Jesus Christ in John 1:9: “That was the true Light which enlightens every man coming into the world.”

We may not have been able to believe on our own, but God enlightened everyone coming into the world and counseled that everyone would have room for faith in his being.

God also made sure that everyone in the world heard the word.
Col 1:5,6 “because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.” This idea is restated in Col 1:23: “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

God’s word generates faith in those who hear “as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit” from it: Rom 10:17,18 “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’”

Finally, John 12:32 has the Lord Jesus Christ say, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself.

He has done that, but not all have responded.

Another concept of free will, is man’s ability to hinder God’s will. Man can do that because God created man with the ability to make choices contrary to God’s will.

This is shown by the general response to 1 Ti 2:4 God “desires [Greek, wills] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

But all men are not saved.

Even Christians reject the will of God for them. Everyone of us have. 1 Th 4:3-7 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.

Man is even able to resist God’s will.
Lk 7:30: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will [The stronger word, counsel, as above.] of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.”

Untold millions have rejected God’s counsel for them since that time.

Though man does reject God’s counsel for himself and does resist His will, no one can resist His counsel as it pertains to His purpose.

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will [counsel]?” The answer is, no one.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

Lon

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
You sure? If free will is truly a part of God's creation, then God would be violating His Own Word in creation if He went around violating free will.

Muz

Clete said:
What?
I don't even know what this means!

I'm looking for your quote about freewill which was really well said and themuzicman should learn from it. You'd basically answered a charge concerning unqualified absolute freewill. themuzicman doesn't believe in qualified freewill (social, economic,physical, or godly restraint etc.). If you happen to recall where you said it, it'd help, but I'll keep looking as well and edit as I find it. Bob presented here similarly. There are constraints on freewill themuzicman.

Aha! Found it.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1351157#post1351157
cellist said:
Wouldn't He have to "twist their arms," so to speak, to be sure these events happened; violating free will? It seems that in your desire to protect free will you are potentially undermining it.

Clete said:
Only if you are under the delusion that free will mean(s) that one has not been influenced by anything other than one's own will. But that is not what it means at all. At long as one has the ability to do otherwise, his action is free.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete posited this well muzicman. Rob E did a nice brief as well. That's six against one for now.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Are you saying that Muz believes that to have a free will means that you can't have been influenced by anything other than your own will?

I'd be very much surprised to discover that he believes that. He has already stated that men's actions, to one degree or another, often fall into predictable patterns. This single point alone would seem to belie such a position.

Further, isn't it just intuitive that when you plead with your grandmother to give you one more piece of candy that when she gives in, she does so freely in spite of the strong influence imposed by her grandchild?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Lon

Well-known member
Clete said:
Are you saying that Muz believes that to have a free will means that you can't have been influenced by anything other than your own will?

I'd be very much surprised to discover that he believes that. He has already stated that men's actions, to one degree or another, often fall into predictable patterns. This single point alone would seem to belie such a position.

Further, isn't it just intuitive that when you plead with your grandmother to give you one more piece of candy that when she gives in, she does so freely in spite of the strong influence imposed by her grandchild?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Good points. I think sometimes that our positions are just polarizing because sometimes I disagree because a tenure of our arguments lead me against a truth and I have to reread to understand what was really being asked. I don't know, but clarification is so important for what we do appreciate about one another. Those times where we agree, I cherish and hold up the light of it as special grace and understanding from God, and His Holy Spirit is present in such "where two or more agree..." I feel His presence in our agreements.

I'm hoping he just misread is all.
 

Lon

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
No, I'm not in agreement, there.



Well, there is not "Fruit of righteousness" mentioned in the parable. And Jesus explains the parable. There are those in the Kingdom of Heaven who are good, sons of God, and those in the kingdom of heaven who are evil, sons of the devil, and that will be the case until the end of the age where the evil are judged by their deeds.

It's an eschatological parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, and has nothing to do with "fruits of righteousness."

If anything, the point is that by taking out the tares, the wheat may be affected by the upheaval. It's not that one would mistake wheat for tare.

Muz

You are truly a musician in presentation. And 'how' does this differ in any way from post #5315? The only point I don't get is in a fruit-bearing parable why it makes a difference in your analysis. It was simply an extrapolated idea to the rhetorical question of the harvest.
My point was the same I'd thought: "If anything, the point is that by taking out the tares, the wheat may be affected by the upheaval." Which is what my initial post said. Sometimes I read you as disagreeing with yourself.
 

patman

Active member
Lonster said:
I do not believe OV escapes this question at all either. Foreknowledge has not a lot to do with it but only in initial appearance. Rob does have a good answer but let me take it to the OV position to show what I mean.

When and as evil is happening, even in OV, God would be aware and in power would be able to intervene. Again Rob spoke to the parable of the wheat and tares and I find that God's answers should be our answers that "He is not willing that any should perish" and "is waiting for the end of the season so that all may be brought into the storehouse."

While a superficial glossing of these truths may not mean much, it is God's answer to pain and suffering in this world. As a nation, while we had prayer in school, taught Biblical truths there, and were embracing christian principles as a nation, our crime rate wasn't the same (and not as meaningless and random). We could certainly go a rabbit trail here if the replies regarding this were spoken and it is not my intention to do so when looking at history but merely to point out that 'we' are responsible collectively for the evils in this world and we have the tools from God to do what should be done. My simple answer: Walk the Talk and evangelize one at a time. This being not all that can and should be done, but it is a starting point for each individual.

I do not see a problem presented with any view that believes in freewill and also presents God as allowing evil to happen. Free is the keyword, if you were forced to do good all the time, it would not be a choice anymore.

Freedom is important because love requires it. God is love.

Here is something I wrote on my website about the problem of evil in the scope of open theism, let me know what you think:

The Problem of Evil is a big deal and often goes misunderstood. The problem is "If God is good, how can he create a world that is so evil? How can evil exist with a good God?"


I am an Open Theist, I believe this theology to be consistent with the Bible for many reasons, This is an invitation to see the answer through it's scope.


Open Theism, if you don't know, believes the future is open, even to God, to change and some uncertainty and is thus unwritten. Using this theology answers many of the questions about the problem of evil when you apply freewill to the equation.


It might be a strange question, but think about it: What if God cannot see beyond the decisions we have not yet made. Many say the tests God puts man through are for man to know the outcome... I say that they are so God knows too. When Abram went to Sacrifice his son, God was testing to see if he loved God, and when God knew the answer, he admitted, "NOW I know."


Adam and Eve weren't give the tree as a test for their own good.... If God knew the future, he would have known the outcome was not good. Instead, the tree was about choice, a choice we needed to have in order to be free.


Being free is important for us because it allows for us to experience and give true love. But being free means we need to have a way to reject love. God created a world, perfect and sinless and intended it to stay that way. His creation was good, and saw no evil.


But this creation requires a certain amount or rules and order to function correctly. He made gravity, for example. It always pulls things down. He made rocks hard, he made ground soft, each has its reason for being made the way it is. God made man with very complex bodies and a powerful mind. But if a man were to jump off a cliff, gravity would take over and that man's body simply cannot withstand the impact.


God didn't create event of a man jumping off a cliff leading to his death, this suffering is not a creation at all. If is rather a choice that man made.


Man took the good things God created and began to use them in ways that opposed the order of things. It is just a choice.


I believe God did not know that Adam would eat of the forbidden tree. I do not think God knew the men to follow Adam would sin in much much worst ways than he did. He knew it was a possibility, which is why he planned from the very beginning, and before that even, to allow Jesus to be the sacrifice that would atone the world of those who wished to be atoned.


Why is Everyone Evil?

Did we really get evil because we inherited it from Adam? I think not, when you have a theology that says everything is planned, It is easy to believe that God made us evil (supposedly for his GOOD purposes....), but I do not believe either to be the case.


What God did was give us a law, written in our heart. Paul talks about all this in the first few chapters of Romans. The first law, was written on our hearts. Remember, Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Not of the tree of MAKE ME EVIL, as predestinationalist think.


Adam and Eve received this knowledge, a law, of what is to do and what not to do. They didn't have it before, they relied on God for such understandings. Eating the tree was the perfect way to leave God because now, no longer do you need God to know what to do, you can look to this law, written on your heart, your conscience.


Now, evil is not that God made us naturally evil because Adam was that way. God did tho give us all this conscience because of Adam. God saw it fitting to let us all have this conscience because Adam had one now. The conscience can be thought of as the first law.


It, as it turns out, is this law that, in essence, brings about sin. Paul goes on about this in his writing. He asks that because of this "feature" of the law, does that make the law sin too? No, because the law is meant to prevent this sin. It is the person who uses the law to find out what sin is to commit that sin and then fall from God.


But the thing you might wonder is why does everyone sin? Not because God made us that way... it isn't built in our hearts and souls to sin. Some want this to be true because they argue "It creates a need for Christ," what they fail to see is that we always have that need, be it for forgiveness, or just the oxygen that we breathe.


We were all given these incredibly strong and complex bodies, a fantastically designed mind, and the great and wonderful freedom to go in the path we wish. It is a power we have, compared to other creation, we have super powers, if you will.


We often do not want to give up this power or want more for ourselves and use our knowledge of evil to get it, in some small way, or some bigger way. Wanting power isn't bad, I think we were designed to want to grow and gain for for ourselves, but that good desire along with our knowledge of sin is a troubling combination, but necessary to instill order in the human race who has chosen to live without God's help.


So evil by nature? Not quite... at least not in the way some say.


Natural Evil

Natural Evil includes other evils of the world, such as natural disasters and disease.


There are many aspects of life today that were not issues for man in the garden. Disease, for example could be cured instantly by the tree of life... But I do not believe disease was a problem for early man. The same goes for natural disasters.


The Flood is the event that I believe changed everything. Before the flood, men lived for hundreds of years, then gradually the life span shortened. God said he intended to destroy the earth, he did.


I believe the flood caused new mountains to be formed, the elevation to change and the atmosphere to change. I believe the water that covered the earth fell into what is now the atlantic ocean as the mountains formed. This triggered all sorts of conditions that threw off the true natural balance.


The piles of dead flesh, the gigantic mass of water, just imagine what mutations of viruses and bacteria would result. These things that were good before the flood and had a good function changed over time, and still are changing.


The flood rearranged the entire earth, weather, the land, everything changed. Earthquakes, hurricanes, everything was made possible from this one event.


That's my theory. If I am wrong, it doesn't matter. By faith we can know God didn't cause unjust evilness(wickedness) in this world.


Open Theism

Open Theism is a handy theology that you can use to sort through this yourself. It frees preconceived notions from your mind so you can read the bible without adding your own ideas... It is fully compatible with the word. Best of all, it erases the ideas that a Good God caused Evil, and allows you to see God as one of passion and who is flexible, who can change his mind and who can do is he really wishes.


God is all knowing... but the future isn't a thing to be known because God didn't create and predestine every little thing. The future is open, not settled. It completely solves the problem of evil and helps one to understand what the Bible is saying.

http://www.christian-revolution.net/studyRender.php?studyID=40
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top