ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

But that condition" is never applied to Genesis 49:10. If that "condition" did apply to that verse then we would have read that "condition" attached in some way to that verse. But that promise is "unconditional" and no matter how much you must depart from the context of Genesis 49:10 in order to try to find a "condition" you will fail. That is because the promise is "unconditional."

So you found a "condition" here. The problem with that "condition" is that it is not in regard to Genesis 49:10.

This says nothing about the requirements for the fulfilment of the promise of Genesis 49:10.

Here is what is said about the fulfillment of the promises made by the hand of Moses:

"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

The fact that there are no conditions attached to the promise of Genesis 49:10 proves that your theory is bankrupt and this in turn proves to be a HUGE, UNSURMOUNTABLE problem for those who adhere to the "Open View."

Those within the "Open" community cannot tell the difference between verses that are obviously "figurative" in nature from those that are to be taken "literally."

In His grace,
Jerry

There is no rule that states what is conditional has to be clearly stated every time. If Moses accepts God's offer, everything changes, and God, through Moses, would have accomplished his purposes. God made promises to King Saul which were not fulfilled because of his disobedience. And we see God "repenting", wishing he had not chosen Saul. You are building your argument on what is not there, a statement of condition not stated in Gen. 49:10. That does not imply there is no condition, we simply cannot build an argument either way. Gen. 49 does not say this promise is unconditional either.

Dueteronomy 28:1 Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

63 And it shall be, that just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess. 64 “Then the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other.

Israel was always under God's conditions.

--Dave

 

[Zeke]

And it was a good thing for all of us that Noah was there.

--Dave

Boy howdy.

 

[DFT_Dave]

But you forgot to mention that a thousand years passes for God just as does a day passes for God.

Since with God there is a speeding up of time while there is also a slowing down of time it is obvious that the "laws of time" which apply to mankind does not apply to God. But you would have us believe that He is constrained by the same "laws of time" as is mankind.

God is not bound by time and time is no constraint upon Him. In fact, time has no revelance in His eternal state. He is timeless.

And since with Him there is a speeding up of time while there is also a slowing down of time it is useless to argue that He is under the same "laws of time" as is mankind. Everyone knows that the same thing cannot be said of man.

In His grace,
Jerry

God does not measure himself by years, days, months, etc. As I have said, time for God is "sequence of activity", God does not do everything all at once. He does some things before he does other things.

Do you think God does everything he can possibly do all at once, continuously, and forever?

When God created the world he brought into existence a new way to measure time as days, years, ect. Time, as a sequence of activity, is not something outside of God, it is an intrinsic part of his being because he is "free to chose what he will do, how much he will do, and when he will do it. That's one reason why days and years are meaningless to him.

When you say "with God there is a speeding up of time while there is also a slowing down of time" you are defeating your own argument that God is timeless which means he has "no time". Time cannot speed up or slow down for God if he has no time.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is another example where God changes His mind and instead of destroying all of mankind he spares a few. Before Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord He said:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.6:5-7).

Was it really in the plans of God to destroy mankind at that point? Was this a realistic option?

Of course not!

If God destroyed all of mankind then the following statement made by Him would have never been fulfilled:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen.3:15).

God says that if He says something then He will make it happen:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

If the Lord would have destroyed mankind at that point then what He said at Genesis 3:15 would not have been "made good."

this would have made Him a liar, but we know that God cannot lie:

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).

What does all of this teach us. That any narrative that shows God changing His mind cannot be taken literally. It can only be understood in a figurative sense.

The same can be said about the word "repent" as used in the same verse:

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them" (Gen.6:6-7).

Did the Lord really change His mind in regard to the fact that He had created man?

If He did not create man then He would never have received the love from all of His saints. He would have never received the praise of the glory of His grace. So again, we can only conclude that His words in regard to having a change of mind in regard to the creation of man cannot be taken literally.

Those within the "Open Theology" community cannot distinguish between which things should be taken literally and which things shouldn't.

In His grace,
Jerry

A agree that God cannot lie, but he can change his mind about what he promised us when we do not keep up our end of the bargain. This is the story of the Bible from cover to cover.

God certainly did mean it when he said to Adam if you eat of this fruit you will die, even though he did not die immediately, eventually he and Eve did die, when they did not have to had they not disobey God. Israel eventually was driven from the land because of their rebellion. Paul warns us in Romans 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

Every text of scripture where God repents there is the issue of utter disregard for God's warnings, sin, and rebellion. Noah warned everyone that judgment was pending and that they would be destroyed. Everyone perished except Noah, because he was a righteous man, and his family. Doesn't that mean that God really did wish he had not created man? Ya think? And if Noah was no better then everyone else at that time, then yes, the whole human race would have perished and the promise to Eve would not have been fulfilled. This does not mean that God lied to Adam, it means that nobody after him was able to carry out the promise. The promise would have been nullified because of the wickedness of men, not because God just decided to change his mind for no justifiable reason. If the world had an abundance of righteous men on the earth, and he then changed his mind about his promise, then he would have become a liar.

Jonah was sent to warn Nineveh that they were going to be destroyed. But they repented then God repented of destroying them. I don't think many Christians believe that God did not mean it.

In I Samuel 13:13 it states, "Samuel said to Saul, 'You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you; for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.'”

We see that Saul did not receive what God had promised him. In I Samuel 15:10, it says, "The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 'I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.' And Samuel was angry; and he cried to the Lord all night.'" And Samuel said to him to Saul in verse 28, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.” Then in verse 35 it says, "Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. 16:1 The Lord said to Samuel, 'How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.'”

It should be obvious that God would not repent from judging Saul, not that he never repents from anything. He did repent of making Saul King.

Do you still think that God never really repents, are all these examples to be taken figuratively? I think almost all Christian would take these texts literally, accept liberal ones.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

That is not why I quoted the verse and I cannot for the life of me why you thought that the issue I was raising was about "individual election." If you will read what I said then you will see that this verse teaches that the eternal things of God are timeless:

Of course in "time" He was crucified in the first century. with that in mind how do we understand the following verse":

"According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

How is it possible that some were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world since He did not even exist as a flesh and blood man until the first century?

The reason we can read this is that the eternal things of God are timeless. Therefore things that did not happen until the first century can be spoken of as occuring "before the foundation of the world."

In His grace,
Jerry

Eph. 1:4 is still in a context of corporate election that we have tried to explain to you. It is about the Church and Christ. Which individuals eventually make up the Church is not based on predestination nor is it foreknown through supposed simple FK.

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/how-do-you-explain-ephesians-1-and-predestination/

There is no hint of your timeless explanation which you are trying to prooftext back into a passage resolved by a corporate vs individual understanding (when Paul wrote this to the Ephesians, they were in Christ/Church; they were not in Him before creation, but the Church was purposed from the beginning).

Don't do what STP does with time theories trying to have us on the cross with Jesus or in heaven now before the resurrection (twisting of verses that talk about identification with Christ, not timeless theories?!).

Your time theories about Peter and speed up, etc. are bizarre. Where are you getting these ideas? Anderson? They are not in the text for sure. Metaphor, man.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Don't do what STP does with time theories trying to have us on the cross with Jesus or in heaven now before the resurrection (twisting of verses that talk about identification with Christ, not timeless theories?!).

How dare we believe what God has said concerning the positional truth of the Body of Christ. How dare we believe that God is able to foreknow those whom would believe and identify them with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.

It has nothing to do with "time travel" theories.

It's a matter of unbelief to maintain that the church the Body of Christ , as a unit, was identified with him on the cross, yet none of the individual members were identified with him on the cross. It's impossible to separate the members from the unit.

 

[themuzicman]

Just because you assert that there is a condition attached to genesis 49:10 does not mean that there is a condition.

When I asked you what that condition is and who must fulfill those so-called conditions you have no answer.

There are unconditional promises of God in the Scriptures whether or not you believe that there are. Just because you say that a promise is conditional means nothing unless you can name those conditions. And you have not done that.

This leaves a HUGE, UNSURMOUNTABLE problem for those who advocate the "Open View."

In His grace,
Jerry

So, you're saying that God is incapable of sustaining the house of Judah through to Christ, without having determined what everyone would do beforehand?

That doesn't sound very omnipotent.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

But that condition" is never applied to Genesis 49:10. If that "condition" did apply to that verse then we would have read that "condition" attached in some way to that verse. But that promise is "unconditional" and no matter how much you must depart from the context of Genesis 49:10 in order to try to find a "condition" you will fail. That is because the promise is "unconditional."

Let us see if Gen 49 is prophecy:

5 b“Simeon and Levi are brothers;
weapons of violence are their swords.
6 Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men,
and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.
7 Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,
and their wrath, for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob
and scatter them in Israel.

Levi becomes the father of all Priests and Temple workers. They are consecrated (set apart) from Israel to do temple work. They certainly weren't scattered in Israel. Even after the exile, the Levites serve as priests.

Simeon's tribe gains its own land, and remains a tribe up until the exile.

Not exactly feeling this as prophecy, Jerry.

Muz

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A agree that God cannot lie, but he can change his mind about what he promised us when we do not keep up our end of the bargain.

You agree that God cannot lie and that is the ONLY thing in my post that you addressed.

Why did you even bother to quote what I said if you were going to just ignore every thing in that post?

Your lack of an answer only proves exactly how bankrupt your theories are. You have no answer so you just evade the whole issue in the hope that no one will notice that you really have no answer.

There is no rule that states what is conditional has to be clearly stated every time.

There has to be a reason to suppose that there is a condition or conditions. But you just pull out of thin air an assumption that there are conditions in regard to the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10.

Then when asked to name the conditions you have no answer!

Let us look at the verse again:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

The person holding the sceptre is the one who will rule as King, the one "unto him the gathering of the people be."

And it is not difficult to determine exactly who is in line to fulfill this verse:

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom" (Heb.1:8).

If any "condition" must be met it is the Lord Jesus who will meet the conditions. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that He will not meet any and all the conditions that you might think up.

Are you willing to argue that there is a possiblility that He might fail in keeping any condition that you might dream up? If so what is that condition and what makes you think that He might fail to live up to that condition.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Gurucam]

o


o


o
Is pre ordination that important?

o Salvation and deliverance is about Jesus' Spirit which one must reach from within one's own heart . . . . . in the same manner as Noah did, so as to come to know (from God) about the flood and that he must build an arc. This is how one (those few children of God) will know about the big crash and when and what to do. This is how I know what I must tell you and that I must tell you this now. This is how God communicates with His children at every moment and every event. This is what being saved is all about. And when one is unconditionally obedient to precisely what the Spirit has in mind for one as discern within one's heart, one becomes delivered into God's kingdom of heaven, here on earth and elsewhere (like Noah was). Need more? http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68923 God ahead, click on it.​ o

 

[DFT_Dave]

You agree that God cannot lie and that is the ONLY thing in my post that you addressed.

Why did you even bother to quote what I said if you were going to just ignore every thing in that post?

Your lack of an answer only proves exactly how bankrupt your theories are. You have no answer so you just evade the whole issue in the hope that no one will notice that you really have no answer.

There has to be a reason to suppose that there is a condition or conditions. But you just pull out of thin air an assumption that there are conditions in regard to the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10.

Then when asked to name the conditions you have no answer!

Let us look at the verse again:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

The person holding the sceptre is the one who will rule as King, the one "unto him the gathering of the people be."

And it is not difficult to determine exactly who is in line to fulfill this verse:

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom" (Heb.1:8).

If any "condition" must be met it is the Lord Jesus who will meet the conditions. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that He will not meet any and all the conditions that you might think up.

Are you willing to argue that there is a possiblility that He might fail in keeping any condition that you might dream up? If so what is that condition and what makes you think that He might fail to live up to that condition.

In His grace,
Jerry

Your ignoring my answers, you're making me repeat myself. I told you that our rebellion against God can cancel any promise that God makes to us, and that would include or affect Gen. 49:10. My answer may not be good enough for you, but it is an answer. Let's move on. I gave you three examples of God repenting which you have not addressed as yet, and that was the main part of your last post. That was a long post, and the most I could do last night while watching the football game. I will answer other question you have asked, one at a time, as I have time.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, you're saying that God is incapable of sustaining the house of Judah through to Christ, without having determined what everyone would do beforehand?

That doesn't sound very omnipotent.

No, it is Dave and godrulz who argue that it was a real possibility that the house of Judah would be destroyed and therefore thwart the Divine plan in regard to placing the Lord Jesus upon the throne.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your ignoring my answers, you're making me repeat myself. I told you that our rebellion against God can cancel any promise that God makes to us, and that would include or affect Gen. 49:10.

You IGNORED the fact that the verse is in regard to the Lord Jesus being King. Do you think that it is a real possibility that He would be found in rebellion against God?

Again, if you are going to quote me at least address the points which I make. Now you want to move on despite the fact that you have provided no answer in regard to what I said in regard to what happened before God found grace in Noah. And you still haven't answered whether or not you believe that it was a real possibility that the Lord Jesus would rebel against God and therefore loose His future place as King.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's a matter of unbelief to maintain that the church the Body of Christ , as a unit, was identified with him on the cross, yet none of the individual members were identified with him on the cross. It's impossible to separate the members from the unit.

The answer that they give in regard to this is an insult against the intelligence of thinking people.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

Here we read that from the beginning God has chosen "you" to salvation through belief in the truth. But they argue that the word "you" is only referring to corporate salvation even though it is only "individuals" who come to believe the truth.

And they actually expect others to believe their nonsense.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[themuzicman]

No, it is Dave and godrulz who argue that it was a real possibility that the house of Judah would be destroyed and therefore thwart the Divine plan in regard to placing the Lord Jesus upon the throne.

You are assuming, of course, that God pre-determined which clan Christ would be born from.

This isn't demonstrated from Scripture. As I pointed out before, Jacob's statements in Gen 49 don't all exactly work out like he says they will.

Muz

 

[DFT_Dave]

Concerning Titus 1:2

2 επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων --before ages of time

NASB translate: "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago"

RSV translate: "hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago"

YLT translates: "hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,

It would not be accurate to translate this verse as "before the world began" because the greek does not use the word for world.

The greek does not say "before time began" either.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You IGNORED the fact that the verse is in regard to the Lord Jesus being King. Do you think that it is a real possibility that He would be found in rebellion against God?

Again, if you are going to quote me at least address the points which I make. Now you want to move on despite the fact that you have provided no answer in regard to what I said in regard to what happened before God found grace in Noah. And you still haven't answered whether or not you believe that it was a real possibility that the Lord Jesus would rebel against God and therefore loose His future place as King.

I never said that Christ would or could rebell against God. I said that our, mans, rebellion could nullify God's promises to Israel or us. I gave examples of this which I'm would like you to address, but perhaps you don't know how. You made a long commentary of how God cannot "repent", change his mind. I put down three examples of when it says that God did repent. Can you respond?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, it is Dave and godrulz who argue that it was a real possibility that the house of Judah would be destroyed and therefore thwart the Divine plan in regard to placing the Lord Jesus upon the throne.

Yes, even the house of Judah could be destroyed If it rebelled against God, if it had then Christ would have come to his throne through Moses instead. But Judah did not rebell and Moses did not take up God's offer to make of him the nation of promise.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I never said that Christ would or could rebell against God. I said that our, mans, rebellion could nullify God's promises to Israel or us.

But the following was a promise in regard to the Lord Jesus:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

How could man's rebellion nulify promises made by God in regard to Jesus Christ as King? Is God not capable of making a promise and then carrying out that promise?:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

I gave examples of this which I'm would like you to address, but perhaps you don't know how. You made a long commentary of how God cannot "repent", change his mind. I put down three examples of when it says that God did repent. Can you respond?

I have shown that when it is said that God "repents" that the language is "figurative" and cannot be be interpreted as being "literal."

The verses which speak of the very nature of God forbids the thought that He repents or changes in any way:

"For I am the Lord, I change not" ( Mal. 3:6).

"I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent" (Ezek. 24:14).

"With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jms.1:17).

"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent" (Num.3:19).

 

[DFT_Dave]

The answer that they give in regard to this is an insult against the intelligence of thinking people.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

Here we read that from the beginning God has chosen "you" to salvation through belief in the truth. But they argue that the word "you" is only referring to corporate salvation even though it is only "individuals" who come to believe the truth.

And they actually expect others to believe their nonsense.

In His grace,
Jerry

I take this to be specific. But also that their election was because of their faith not the cause of their faith. God has chosen them not for salvation but God has chosen that their salvation, and ours, to be through our believing the truth and sanctification of the Spirit.

--Dave