elected4ever
New member
The Existentialism of Bob Hill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
I believe the Open View of God.
It develops an honest responsible character.
Where does this conclusion come from? Obviously there are no Calvinists or Settled Theists who are honest or responsible in their character. Obviously all Open Theists are honest and responsible. The honest and responsible atheists out there must be utterly ignored for this theory to work. Only existentialism would lead someone to think this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It allows real choice for man, rather than making man a semi robot.
This is code language for existentialist Lucifer autonomy. So-called "real choice" is the libertarian freedom Lucifer presented to Adam and the very sin which caused the fall of man (all according to God's decrees, of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It produces moral responsibility.
Of course, there are no morally responsible Calvinists or Settled Theists. Only Open Theists show any moral responsibility. And Mormons. So it looks like the true religion is a toss-up between Open Theism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It causes freedom for man and contingency to exist.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? "Hath God said?" Open Theism is the existentialist invitation to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, to be autonomous, to be libertarianly free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
The application of these laws to certain passages clears up problems.
The future actions of men under the law of freedom are unknowable.
The law of freedom? Where does this come from? Is it written down somewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
There are some things God does not know before hand. Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.
So hellbent are Unsettled Deists on proclaiming the ignorance of God and making Him less than God that they do violence to language. Instead of recognizing an obvious figure of speech that emphatically and richly expresses God's favor toward Abraham, the proponent of this toxic theology uses it make God into a finite being who cannot be trusted (according to God's decrees, of course). Abraham trusted a God who knew what was going to happen and would decree evil for His own good purposes. The Open Theist version of Abraham would not have obeyed God. He would have reminded God that He doesn't know the future and that maybe He's wrong about this course of action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Even when God thinks or says something will happen, it may not under the law of freedom.
Such is the finite God of Open Theism. Is "Theism" even an appropriate term for this theology? Is "theology" even an appropriate term? It should probably be something more like "Open Demigod-ism".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
“God said ‘She will return to Me!’ But she did not return” Jer 3:7 And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return..
Open Theism proudly proclaims God's rashly impulsive declarations. He's like a child really. He lacks maturity and judgment. He just flies off and makes these bold statements, only to make Himself look like an idiot later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God is limited in His promises to bless when man does not do as He commands (Psa 78:41).
Even promises that appear to be unconditional may be broken (Ex 23:27-31; 33:1,2; 34:10; Deu 7:1; Josh 1:4,5; 3:10; 15:63; 16:10; Jud 2:1-3,20-23; 3:1-4,5).
So much for trusting God. Open Theism proudly proclaims the untrustworthy character of their God. Despite what the writer of Hebrews says, God breaks His promises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God broke a promise sworn to the fathers of Israel because of disobedience (Num 14:23,30,34).
See what I mean? Instead of rightly understanding the passage as a reference to the preservation of the elect of the nation, Open Theism proudly prefers to use it as a proof text for God's failure. Good job!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
When God saw the extreme wickedness of man, He was sorry He had made him. In fact, He repented that He had made him, Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Poor God. He's such a dolt. Mankind is His pinnacle creation. The very best He could do. Yet His design of man is so poor and flawed that the vast majority of men want nothing to do with Him. Where did God go wrong? Should He have made the brain bigger? Or maybe He made it too big? Not only that, but for those who are keeping score, Satan wins big every day. Far more people plummet into hell than pass through the gates of heaven. And since the Open Theist says God can do nothing to stop this, it's obvious that He is the Biggest Loser to have ever existed. According to the humanistic terms that Open Theists are so wont to apply to God, any engineer or designer whose creations failed the vast majority of the time would be considered an abject failure. Any athletic team who lost the vast majority of its competitions would be considered an embarrassment to their sponsors. Why do Open Theists trust this God? There is no rational basis for trusting Him. The only conclusion is self-delusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God repented in many other situations. Here are some examples: Ex 32:7-14; Deu 9:8-25; 1 Sa 15:11,35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 20:16; 26:19; Joel 2:13; Jon 3:10; Zec 8:14; Mal 3:6.
Of course, just as we'd expect from a God Who is the Supreme Loser. Unless, perhaps those passages are to be understood figuratively. Naw ~ that would deprive the Open Deists of further proof that their God is less than God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Isaiah prophesied by the word of the Lord to Hezekiah that he would die soon (2 Ki 20:1-5), but he didn’t.
If God were not so impetuous, He wouldn't be such a huge embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Under some circumstances, God said He would not repent. The context of these passages show why (Num 23:19; 1 Sa 15:29; Psa 110:4).
When God foreknows, declares, or prophesies an event as being sure, to make sure, He makes it happen.
Yet He still breaks promises. That make Him even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11). Does this mean all things, even outside of this context? 1 Ti 2:4; 1 Th 4:3; 5:18
On the Open View, of course not. That would make God more God-like and trustworthy. That is unacceptable to the Open Theist. God must be more like man, fallible, errant, ignorant and fickle. It's the only way man can relate, and it's all about "relationship" isn't it? A God who is really God-like can't have relationships with man, so He cannot possibly be like a real God. Like a Rock. He must be more warm and cuddly, like Sand.
THANK YOU HILSTON FOR EXPRESSING SOME OF MY DEEP CONCERNS WITH THE OV POSITION EXPRESSED ON THIS BOARD
:first:
:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
I believe the Open View of God.
It develops an honest responsible character.
Where does this conclusion come from? Obviously there are no Calvinists or Settled Theists who are honest or responsible in their character. Obviously all Open Theists are honest and responsible. The honest and responsible atheists out there must be utterly ignored for this theory to work. Only existentialism would lead someone to think this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It allows real choice for man, rather than making man a semi robot.
This is code language for existentialist Lucifer autonomy. So-called "real choice" is the libertarian freedom Lucifer presented to Adam and the very sin which caused the fall of man (all according to God's decrees, of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It produces moral responsibility.
Of course, there are no morally responsible Calvinists or Settled Theists. Only Open Theists show any moral responsibility. And Mormons. So it looks like the true religion is a toss-up between Open Theism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
It causes freedom for man and contingency to exist.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? "Hath God said?" Open Theism is the existentialist invitation to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, to be autonomous, to be libertarianly free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
The application of these laws to certain passages clears up problems.
The future actions of men under the law of freedom are unknowable.
The law of freedom? Where does this come from? Is it written down somewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
There are some things God does not know before hand. Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.
So hellbent are Unsettled Deists on proclaiming the ignorance of God and making Him less than God that they do violence to language. Instead of recognizing an obvious figure of speech that emphatically and richly expresses God's favor toward Abraham, the proponent of this toxic theology uses it make God into a finite being who cannot be trusted (according to God's decrees, of course). Abraham trusted a God who knew what was going to happen and would decree evil for His own good purposes. The Open Theist version of Abraham would not have obeyed God. He would have reminded God that He doesn't know the future and that maybe He's wrong about this course of action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Even when God thinks or says something will happen, it may not under the law of freedom.
Such is the finite God of Open Theism. Is "Theism" even an appropriate term for this theology? Is "theology" even an appropriate term? It should probably be something more like "Open Demigod-ism".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
“God said ‘She will return to Me!’ But she did not return” Jer 3:7 And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return..
Open Theism proudly proclaims God's rashly impulsive declarations. He's like a child really. He lacks maturity and judgment. He just flies off and makes these bold statements, only to make Himself look like an idiot later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God is limited in His promises to bless when man does not do as He commands (Psa 78:41).
Even promises that appear to be unconditional may be broken (Ex 23:27-31; 33:1,2; 34:10; Deu 7:1; Josh 1:4,5; 3:10; 15:63; 16:10; Jud 2:1-3,20-23; 3:1-4,5).
So much for trusting God. Open Theism proudly proclaims the untrustworthy character of their God. Despite what the writer of Hebrews says, God breaks His promises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God broke a promise sworn to the fathers of Israel because of disobedience (Num 14:23,30,34).
See what I mean? Instead of rightly understanding the passage as a reference to the preservation of the elect of the nation, Open Theism proudly prefers to use it as a proof text for God's failure. Good job!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
When God saw the extreme wickedness of man, He was sorry He had made him. In fact, He repented that He had made him, Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Poor God. He's such a dolt. Mankind is His pinnacle creation. The very best He could do. Yet His design of man is so poor and flawed that the vast majority of men want nothing to do with Him. Where did God go wrong? Should He have made the brain bigger? Or maybe He made it too big? Not only that, but for those who are keeping score, Satan wins big every day. Far more people plummet into hell than pass through the gates of heaven. And since the Open Theist says God can do nothing to stop this, it's obvious that He is the Biggest Loser to have ever existed. According to the humanistic terms that Open Theists are so wont to apply to God, any engineer or designer whose creations failed the vast majority of the time would be considered an abject failure. Any athletic team who lost the vast majority of its competitions would be considered an embarrassment to their sponsors. Why do Open Theists trust this God? There is no rational basis for trusting Him. The only conclusion is self-delusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God repented in many other situations. Here are some examples: Ex 32:7-14; Deu 9:8-25; 1 Sa 15:11,35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 20:16; 26:19; Joel 2:13; Jon 3:10; Zec 8:14; Mal 3:6.
Of course, just as we'd expect from a God Who is the Supreme Loser. Unless, perhaps those passages are to be understood figuratively. Naw ~ that would deprive the Open Deists of further proof that their God is less than God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Isaiah prophesied by the word of the Lord to Hezekiah that he would die soon (2 Ki 20:1-5), but he didn’t.
If God were not so impetuous, He wouldn't be such a huge embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
Under some circumstances, God said He would not repent. The context of these passages show why (Num 23:19; 1 Sa 15:29; Psa 110:4).
When God foreknows, declares, or prophesies an event as being sure, to make sure, He makes it happen.
Yet He still breaks promises. That make Him even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11). Does this mean all things, even outside of this context? 1 Ti 2:4; 1 Th 4:3; 5:18
On the Open View, of course not. That would make God more God-like and trustworthy. That is unacceptable to the Open Theist. God must be more like man, fallible, errant, ignorant and fickle. It's the only way man can relate, and it's all about "relationship" isn't it? A God who is really God-like can't have relationships with man, so He cannot possibly be like a real God. Like a Rock. He must be more warm and cuddly, like Sand.
THANK YOU HILSTON FOR EXPRESSING SOME OF MY DEEP CONCERNS WITH THE OV POSITION EXPRESSED ON THIS BOARD
:first:
: