ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nang

TOL Subscriber
How about this, when God the Father turned His back on God the Son, how was that possible if omnipresence is a true Biblical doctrine?

If not, do you deny that Jesus clearly articulated this when He said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me"?

The Psalmist further gives us a glimpse of this prophetically by rendering it thus:

1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?


Nang- is the Bible correct? Was God the Father far from the words of the suffering Christ's groaning when He turned His back on God the Son? Or did His omnipresence refute this?

The Father did not absent Himself from the cross . . .just the opposite . . .it was the very wrath applied by the hand of the Father, that Jesus suffered in our stead on the cross.

God the Father was there JUDGING His Son for our sins!!!

God was not absent. God was there, imputing sin upon Jesus Christ; imposing our deserved deaths upon His undeserving Son.


Your arguments against Godly omnipresence have no basis at all.

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Good question.

The passage was two verses out of Genesis 18:20&21:


"And the Lord said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to their outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

This denotes a testing from the Lord, as also taught in Deut. 8:2 and 13:3.

It is not a matter of God not knowing what is occurring, but God establishing basis for judgment according to testing accompanied by Godly witness, which is a permeating Scriptural principle found throught the Bible.

God is not arbitrary, but establishes legal witness to validate all His judgments.

Sounds great Nang, except that this isn't at all what the passage says. You just quoted the verse for crying out loud! Why not believe what it plainly states (both in English and in the original language, by the way)?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Sounds great Nang, except that this isn't at all what the passage says. You just quoted the verse for crying out loud! Why not believe what it plainly states (both in English and in the original language, by the way)?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

God imposes legal judgments according to witness . . .in S&G all were corrupt, so two representatives of God visited the city to judge their sin, according to God's holy Law. Else why, in this case, did God appear to Abraham prior, as two persons?

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." Deut. 17:6

The words "I will know" are spoken by God as the fair and righteous JUDGE. His presence imposed upon the sinners of S&G, was first-hand eye-witness against their sins and produced the necessary evidence for their destruction.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The cross more effectively argues against the impassibility of God than it does His omnipresence. One could argue that the forsaking of the Son by the Father doesn't necessarily imply that He was no longer present but there's no getting around the fact that He was very definitely affected by the Son's suffering on the cross.

That having been said. You cannot lean too heavily on this idea that it was God doing all the harm to Jesus on the cross. Jesus did ask His Father to "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." And so God the Son clearly suffered at the hands of human beings. Talk about blowing a doctrine out of the water! I truly do not understand how anyone could buy into the idea that God cannot be affected by His creation.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete,

God imposes legal judgments according to witness . . .in S&G all were corrupt, so three representatives of God visited the city to judge their sin, according to God's holy Law. Else why, in this case, did God appear to Abraham prior, as three persons?

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." Deut. 17:6

The words "I will know" are spoken by God as the fair and righteous JUDGE. His presence imposed upon the sinners of S&G, was first-hand eye-witness against their sins and produced the necessary evidence for their destruction.
Sounds great Nang, except that this isn't at all what the passage says. You just quoted the verse for crying out loud!

Why not believe what it plainly states (both in English and in the original language, by the way)?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The cross more effectively argues against the impassibility of God than it does His omnipresence. One could argue that the forsaking of the Son by the Father doesn't necessarily imply that He was no longer present but there's no getting around the fact that He was very definitely affected by the Son's suffering on the cross.

That having been said. You cannot lean too heavily on this idea that it was God doing all the harm to Jesus on the cross. Jesus did ask His Father to "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." And so God the Son clearly suffered at the hands of human beings. Talk about blowing a doctrine out of the water! I truly do not understand how anyone could buy into the idea that God cannot be affected by His creation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jesus was not judged by the Romans who crucified Him . . .they were mere instruments used to inflict the Father's judgment against the sins Jesus bore.

That is why Jesus pled with the Father to forgive them for nailing Him to the cross. They did not have judgment against His Person in their hearts; in fact, they had no idea what was really happening . . . thus Jesus excused them, by praying,"they know not what they do."
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jesus was not judged by the Romans who crucified Him . . .they were mere instruments used to inflict the Father's judgment against the sins Jesus bore.

That is why Jesus pled with the Father to forgive them for nailing Him to the cross. They did not have judgment against His Person in their hearts; in fact, they had no idea what was really happening . . . thus Jesus excused them, by praying,"they know not what they do."

I totally understand what Jesus was forgiving, that wasn't the point. The point was that there was something that needed to be forgiven relating to the crucifixion of Christ! It pretty much kills the whole impassibility thing (not to mention that fact that God died!).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I totally understand what Jesus was forgiving, that wasn't the point. The point was that there was something that needed to be forgiven relating to the crucifixion of Christ! It pretty much kills the whole impassibility thing (not to mention that fact that God died!).

The present subject being discussed is omnipresence, not impassibility.

Please try to keep up with the conversations, Clete . . .

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The present subject being discussed is omnipresence, not impassibility.

Please try to keep up with the conversations, Clete . . .

Nang

My original comment was a simple generic observation that the crucifixion, which was brought up by the guy on my side of the debate here, was actually better for arguing impassibility rather than omnipresence. It was not my intention to change the subject and I would have left it at that had you not responded to it in a way that make me think you missed the point.

I'm out of here till morning
 

patman

Active member
The present subject being discussed is omnipresence, not impassibility.

Please try to keep up with the conversations, Clete . . .

Nang

Sorry to but in. I couldn't resist to point out that Clete has more experience than you do with conversations on TOL. I don't think you need to police his posts.:think:
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Sorry to but in. I couldn't resist to point out that Clete has more experience than you do with conversations on TOL. I don't think you need to police his posts.:think:


Amusing . . .I suppose you think that Clete has more experience in Christian apologetics than myself? (Do you know anything about me, or how old I am, and/or how long I have been contributing public Christian witness like this, elsewhere on the internet? :chuckle: No, you know nothing about my "experience" at all, and being ignorant of my person, you are in no position to correct me, are you? )

If Clete would police his own posts, I would not have to.

But thanks for sharing, anyway . . .

Nang
 

Philetus

New member
Amusing . . .I suppose you think that Clete has more experience in Christian apologetics than myself? (Do you know anything about me, or how old I am, and/or how long I have been contributing public Christian witness like this, elsewhere on the internet? :chuckle: No, you know nothing about my "experience" at all, and being ignorant of my person, you are in no position to correct me, are you? )

If Clete would police his own posts, I would not have to.

But thanks for sharing, anyway . . .

Nang

108?
Just guessing. :chuckle:
Wow, you guys had quite a night!
 

Lon

Well-known member
And thus you quote Wikipedia to prove your point. Oh sure they have a few Bible verses sprinkled in, but the theology doesn't come from the Bible. Such as in this totally contradictory statement:



Contradictory theology like this is what pushes people away from God! First they say God is NOT in every location, then they say He is everywhere in the universe.

Lon, Omni is a Latin term that means "All". Omnipresence means ALL present. That is pantheism whether you realize it or not. You are not willing to admit this because you have been taught as I was taught to NEVER compromise on the omnis. The problem is that the Latin term "Omni" is not found anywhere in the original Scriptures! You say, how do I know that? Because the original Scriptures are written in Greek and Hebrew, NOT Latin.

I hope you will consider this evidence. We are not in the least assaulting the power, might, and glory of God (as SV'ers are taught questioning the Greek philosophical views of God contained in the "omni's and Im's" does).

All things about God must be put into line with the Scriptures. Why? Because God gave us His Word so that we could KNOW and UNDERSTAND Him! How does God reveal Himself in Scripture Lon? Does He reveal Himself as being in all places at all times with no exceptions? That is what OMNI-present means Lon.

It is entirely unBiblical.

God bless!

You assume too much. I merely did a quick search in order to help you work through a bit of your rationale which is both shortsighted in one aspect and overstated on another.

The Wiki defense is fine, there are a few interesting points, but by no means the authority for definition, but rather similar to a TOL post. Just a perspective.

I give scripture all the time and that last link gave much for which you have yet to address.

There are plenty of omni equivolent verses. change it to "All" or go ahead and use pas or kol from those originals.
 

patman

Active member
Amusing . . .I suppose you think that Clete has more experience in Christian apologetics than myself? (Do you know anything about me, or how old I am, and/or how long I have been contributing public Christian witness like this, elsewhere on the internet? :chuckle: No, you know nothing about my "experience" at all, and being ignorant of my person, you are in no position to correct me, are you? )

If Clete would police his own posts, I would not have to.

But thanks for sharing, anyway . . .

Nang

:loser:

How on earth did you make that transition?

:loser:

Clete has more experience than you do with conversations on TOL

:loser:

:chuckle:

Hey, is this how you read the Bible too?? Work on your comprehension skills and stop getting ahead of the conversations... might help you:dunce:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Don't you understand that the point you've made here disproves your own position?

This is a point I've made a thousand times and no one seems to want to let it sink in! You cannot talk about a timeless God without contradicting yourself! The reason you cannot is because the words and concepts that we use are not plucked out of thin air but are based on other, more fundamental concepts.

The concept of red implies the concept of color, which in turn implies sight, all of which combined implies cognition and intelligence, which implies an intelligent Creator.

All concepts are based on other more foundational concepts - all of them! (Aside from God, of course). If you deny the truth of a concept which is foundational to a concept you affirm, you beg the question (a.k.a. the Stolen Concept Fallacy), which is irrational. This is presuppositional apologetics in its most basic form and yet every Presuppositionalist I've ever known (which isn't many) commits this fallacy in regards to the timeless existence of God! They affirm the existence of God but deny that God has duration or experiences sequence, and, as you have correctly pointed out to Philetus, you can't talk about God without using terms which imply both duration and sequence (i.e. time) and so anyone who holds to such a position cannot keep from contradicting themselves because they beg the question right off the bat when they utter the first syllable concerning the existence of a timeless God.

Your own point proves your worldview to be false because the self-contradictory cannot be the truth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

As with Knight's statement that this should be a red flag, I agree, but not for me, but OV. I have not stated my position a thousand times, but I again say I see your thousandth as incorrect and finitely/logically bound so tight, there is no room for the infinite.

Your assumption is your logic, reasoning capacity, isn't: finite, limited or incapable of conceiving the limitless, infinite, eternal being of God. But it is.

I on the otherhand am saying that finite cannot comprehend infinite. It is like trying to gather the ocean in a jar. It cannot be done. Our logic containers and brain mass are not elevated. We are the product of a vast Creator.

My dog is logical, but she can never attain to understand me fully because she is incapable. She'll never understand why I shave, take out the trash, or wear clothes. There is no escaping this for her. In comparison, I'm finite, but there is a huge chasm between our finite differences she can never bridge.

To say God is limited by our understanding and vocabulary is like saying that I'm just a dog in my dog's eyes. Of course I'm not a dog, and my dog would be wrong to believe such. This is what I believe your scenario points to. It is outside of your logical parameters so you assume you are correct when in fact, God is uncontainable by our comprehension. The ONLY things we know about Him are those things He's expressed.

I recognize God's working in our time constraints, for us, in a relational way. That He is unconstrained by those Himself is evident and clear from my scripture reading. I wish to put this problematic extrapolation to rest. God is relational to us, but transcendant (above us, out or our reach. Incapable of being grasped by finite creatures):

Num 23:19 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?

Ecc 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labor to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it

Rom 11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?

Job 37:23 The Almighty, whom we cannot find out, is exalted in power; and to judgment and overflowing righteousness He does no violence.
Job 37:24 Therefore, men fear Him; He does not respect any who are wise in heart.

Omnipotence:
Job 5:17 Behold, blessed is the man whom God corrects. Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.

Job 42:2 I know that You can do all, and not any purpose is withheld from You.

Ominscience:
Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

Deu 31:21 And it shall be when many evils and troubles have found them, this song shall testify against them as a witness. For it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed. For I know their imagination which they do, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I swore.

Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Psa 44:21 shall not God search this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

1Jn 3:19 And in this we shall know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him,
1Jn 3:20 that if our heart accuses us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well, you figure out what you really mean, and then try asking again later, for this is too contradictory and convoluted to be reanswered any more simply than I have.
The question speaks for itself.

You are intentionally being obtuse to avoid answering the question. Even Lon answered it without equivocation.

YES or NO..... Prior to creation was there a point in time when God designed (in His mind) a flower?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
And for you....
How so?

You said....
I find it hard to discuss timelessness without using time related questions.
To which I said....

That should be a giant red flag for you.

And then you said....
And for you....

I don't have a hard time discussing time because I don't believe "timelessness" means "no time" but instead means an infinite amount of time (i.e., a period of time that cannot be "timed" or measured).

Therefore... why would this be a red flag for me? Please explain.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Good. So then you deny the unBiblical doctrine of Omnipresence?
Curious how so many of the open theists who are regularly posting to this thread, and who never hesitate to post in opposition to classical theists, and do not deny God's immanence/omnipresence are now suddenly silent.:think:

Speaks volumes about the willingness of some to challenge their own, like PK, when they know them to be spreading ill-formed doctrine. Tells me that this is not a thread that purports to discuss open theism, but merely a thread to denounce opponents to open theism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top