Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Duffy YouTube Debate v CJ Borns Open Theism 11/23/19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Tambora View Post
    That would be the conclusion for that type of reasoning.

    One could also declare Jonah a false prophet for telling Nineveh that they would be destroyed in 40 days with that type of reasoning.
    Because it leaves out all the scriptures where GOD says if one repents from their evil HE will repent of the evil HE thought to do to them.
    The 40 days came and went and Nineveh was not destroyed.
    And yet Jonah was a prophet of GOD, not a false prophet.
    You're too kind here really. It's not just that they "leave out all the scriptures...", right? That is to say that, "all the scriptures" is an accurate way to say it but that phrase happens to include an entire book of the Old Testament. I mean, it's one thing to gloss over passages that are scattered here and there but they ignore one whole entire book of the bible! The book of Jonah is literally and specifically about a prophecy that not only didn't come to pass but about how the prophet who gave the prophecy not only expected it to not to come to pass but was angry about it! Indeed, it is Jonah's attitude that is the main point of the book! Nineveh and their wickedness, God's threat to destroy them and their subsequent repentance is all just the back drop to the real point of the book which was Jonah and his poor attitude about God's repentence and mercy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tambora
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    That's a great point!
    Why wouldn't Matthew 10:23 count as a predictive prophesy?
    So, by w2g's reasoning, if Peter isn't in Hell right now it means that Jesus must have just been guessing about who He would deny before the Father or else He was false prophet in which case Peter would still be in Hell anyway, right?
    That would be the conclusion for that type of reasoning.

    One could also declare Jonah a false prophet for telling Nineveh that they would be destroyed in 40 days with that type of reasoning.
    Because it leaves out all the scriptures where GOD says if one repents from their evil HE will repent of the evil HE thought to do to them.
    The 40 days came and went and Nineveh was not destroyed.
    And yet Jonah was a prophet of GOD, not a false prophet.



    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Tambora View Post

    Not only that, Clete, but Matthew 10:23 should settle the matter.
    But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.



    Peter denied Christ.
    If those words were set in stone for all time and all situations then Peter didn't have a chance.
    That's a great point!
    Why wouldn't Matthew 10:23 count as a predictive prophesy?
    So, by w2g's reasoning, if Peter isn't in Hell right now it means that Jesus must have just been guessing about who He would deny before the Father or else He was false prophet in which case Peter would still be in Hell anyway, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Thanks Clete. Appreciate the kind words.
    I'm not quite so willing as you to say what way 2 go believes in opposition to what he says he believes about open theists, but you have no doubt had more conversations with him. I prefer to think that he doesn't see the difference between what open theists say and his "guessing" denigration of them/us, however misguided it might be.
    I'm convinced it's just a pejorative. He puts it in those terms to intentionally mischaracterize it for emotional effect. He wouldn't use that terminology in any other context. I bet he doesn't go around insisting that meteorologists are merely guessing. And what God is doing is far more than what any meteorologist could hope to do.

    I think the problem is that we tend to think of our set of doctrines as a whole, systematic package. And if one particular doctrine is shown to be wrong, what does that mean for the rest, including our assurance of salvation?

    Of course that raises the question about what we are counting on to save us? Is it the blood of Jesus Christ? Or is it the good feeling we get when we consider our position in Christ, as achieved through our following of our doctrine? I think Will made this point with CJ, or maybe with Matt Slick, that many of us are relying on God's inability to change to keep us safe (because we think we are in a safe condition already), rather than relying on God's power and His promises to us to save us. This is a seriously important point, imo, and one that many, many Calvinists who are writing and speaking against open theism seem to miss. If we don't think God is powerful enough to keep His word, or trustworthy enough to keep His word, unless He can somehow see into the future to determine if He's right, what does that say about who/what God is to us? God then becomes merely an excuse to hang onto a wrong doctrine.
    I agree with you here. There's a whole list of emotionally based reasons why people cling to the religious beliefs in spite of clear reason. When I did family counseling we called in "entrenchment". People cling to the familiar because they're emotionally invested in it. Pastors are probably the most entrenched people when it comes to doctrine because, in addition to likely haven grown up in the doctrinal system that they're now a pastor of, they've spent years of their lives and thousands and thousands of dollars learning their doctrine and then more years and more money teaching that doctrine to others. For them to ever even consider that they been wrong that whole time is way more than the typical human being has the emotional fortitude to pull off.

    Not that it counts as an excuse.

    And the Calvinists I know and love are some very good people--they really try to choose well, I think, and often make the right choices.

    However, I'm not sure Calvinists trying to choose well are consistent with their premises that God doesn't really give them a choice. Where I agree with your statement is that if the future is settled, the Calvinists' view of scripture is the only possible one.
    I agree! Most all of the Calvinists I've met personally are terrific to be around. They love God, raise their kids well and are helpful to their neighbors, etc. I've rarely met a person who calls himself a Calvinist who is an actual theologian though. Most of them don't really think it through in any sort of rigorously logical way and, in fact, I'd say most of them believe that it isn't something that needs to make logical sense anyway. They just believe what they are taught to believe and trust that they being taught rightly. That's the part I was never able to do. I've always had to confirm things.

    I just recently got my cert of occupancy, so I appreciate the reference to codes and their purposes. And I have come to appreciate many of the codes I didn't understand before. I can give you a potential reason for the max 3 ft cord, I think. The cord needs to be long enough to reach the outlet (or the hard-connect) without allowing the cord too much slack that it sits on the floor of the sink where caustic chemicals are kept, and which might degrade the integrity of the insulation, or such that it is subject to abuse from the items under the sink in some other way (friction from moving the trash can in and out, for instance).
    LOL! You know I had my head under a kitchen cabinet yesterday and realized that I had misquoted the code on that cord length. I said 18" and it's actual 36". Leave it to me to say something as obscure as that to someone who would know enough to catch the error!

    And you're right, that's pretty much the gist of the reasoning I've heard for the code and there's always some sort of justification for any particular code but there's a point at which the codes get a little silly. I've inspected something like 3000 homes and never one time have I ever seen a power cord that was compromised by some caustic substance under the kitchen sink and there's lots of times when 36" of cord is plenty enough to have some of it sitting on the bottom of the cabinet anyway. Seems like the code should require the cord to be up off the bottom of the cabinet if they're worried about it sitting in something that's going to eat the sheathing off the cord.

    Isolation links in a light fixture's metal pull chain is another one that I just roll my eyes at. That, and the fact that duct tape is not approved for use on A/C ducts!
    Last edited by Clete; January 12th, 2020, 08:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tambora
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    I can assure you that there is not one single instance of any Open Theist that believes God guesses. Not even the term "educated guess" would be an accurate way to describe what God does when He makes predictive prophecies, although that phrase, if used properly, is far more tollerable than the stupid lie that way 2 go is spreading here.

    Having said that, Jesus did not know, in the absolute sense of the word, that Peter would deny Him three times. Jesus knew Peter extremely well and the entire sequence of events was clearly orchestrated by God and so there was a very very high degree of certainty that Peter would do as Christ predicted because it was all about God teaching Peter something about himself and not about Jesus' ability to predict the future. Nevertheless, it was possible for Peter to repent and had he done so, it would not have broken God nor would it have made Jesus a false prophet. On the contrary, Jesus would have been elated at Peter's repentance and rejoiced that His prophecy had the desired effect.

    In fact, if Peter could not have repented, then the whole story loses it's meaning. After all, it isn't difficult to know what a puppet will do when you're the one pulling the strings. So the resident liar in this thread, way 2 go, has a choice to make. Does he believe that Peter had a choice and thus could have done otherwise as Open Theism teaches or does he believe that Peter's actions were not chosen but were instead predestined and that he could not have done otherwise as the Calvinist teaches?

    He, of course, will not take a stand here. He's not half as honest as it would require for that to happen. He'll likely ignore the point entirely and find some sort of way to repeat the lie he came here to propagate.

    Clete
    Not only that, Clete, but Matthew 10:23 should settle the matter.
    But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

    Peter denied Christ.
    If those words were set in stone for all time and all situations then Peter didn't have a chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    Your whole post was excellent, of course, but the above quoted bit was a particularly brilliant summation of the argument.
    Thanks Clete. Appreciate the kind words.

    What I don't understand, (I really truly do not understand it) is why people are so afraid of such a simple idea? It's especially confounding that Christians, who claim that they build their doctrine on the bible, would so stubbornly cling to their doctrine over the simplest reading of so many passages of scripture. I mean, way2go doesn't actually believe that we think God is merely guessing! He flat out does not believe that. It's just a tactic. It's a rhetorical tactic that he uses as a pejorative. But why? If his doctrine is so right and ours so obviously false, then where is the need for such substantively vacuous tactics. Why not just make the biblical case against our position? His handling of the Hezekiah story is similarly dismaying. Why does he feel the need to twist himself in such knots to force a perfectly clear story into something so convoluted that it ends up meaning the effective opposite of what it says.
    I'm not quite so willing as you to say what way 2 go believes in opposition to what he says he believes about open theists, but you have no doubt had more conversations with him. I prefer to think that he doesn't see the difference between what open theists say and his "guessing" denigration of them/us, however misguided it might be.

    Why do we never come across a Christian who, when shown totally clear biblical evidence that obviously contradicts some doctrine they've been taught, says anything similar too, "Oh, well I hadn't ever considered that. Maybe this doctrine was taught to me in error. Tell me more, please!"? Why, instead of finding a default allegiance to the plain reading of scripture do we find a totally blind, even hysterical clinging to their doctrines?
    I think the problem is that we tend to think of our set of doctrines as a whole, systematic package. And if one particular doctrine is shown to be wrong, what does that mean for the rest, including our assurance of salvation?

    Of course that raises the question about what we are counting on to save us? Is it the blood of Jesus Christ? Or is it the good feeling we get when we consider our position in Christ, as achieved through our following of our doctrine? I think Will made this point with CJ, or maybe with Matt Slick, that many of us are relying on God's inability to change to keep us safe (because we think we are in a safe condition already), rather than relying on God's power and His promises to us to save us. This is a seriously important point, imo, and one that many, many Calvinists who are writing and speaking against open theism seem to miss. If we don't think God is powerful enough to keep His word, or trustworthy enough to keep His word, unless He can somehow see into the future to determine if He's right, what does that say about who/what God is to us? God then becomes merely an excuse to hang onto a wrong doctrine.


    Not only that but doesn't their own life experience tell them that the future is not settled? The Calvinist goes through every day of his life making one choice after another, hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day, every single day and yet even the ones that give lip service to our having the ability to choose believe that it's something quite different than what their experience tells them it is and other Calvinists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the existence of choice at all! It's complete insanity. The Arminian is in no better shape in this regard than the Calvinist, perhaps worse, because at least the Calvinist is logically consistent with his own premises whereas the Arminian is logically all over the place, practically cherry picking which Greek doctrines he wishes to hang on to and which he prefers to discard.
    And the Calvinists I know and love are some very good people--they really try to choose well, I think, and often make the right choices.

    However, I'm not sure Calvinists trying to choose well are consistent with their premises that God doesn't really give them a choice. Where I agree with your statement is that if the future is settled, the Calvinists' view of scripture is the only possible one.
    As for me, I have always been one who questions everything. I'm not nearly as interested in what I should believe as I am in why I should believe it. That goes for more than just theology, too! I inspect homes for a living and when I was learning the job, I'd go to these classes that would give you handouts of various code requirements that you are supposed to look for and write up if you find something that violates this list of rules. Some of them make intuitive sense but some just don't. The power cord on a garbage disposal isn't allowed to be longer than 18 inches, for example. Why? I've been told a couple of different answers but they don't make any sense and so I don't even bother looking most of the time and I doubt that I'd write it up if I did happen to notice one that was a whole whopping 3 feet! I mean who cares, right? There's no reason for it - not that makes any sort of common sense anyway. And that's just the way I have always been about everything. Whether it's work or hobby, faith or science, I just do not believe something BECAUSE someone says it. If the "why" or "how so" isn't there, it's held as suspect in my mind until a proper supporting argument has been made and even then I'm prepared to drop it like a hot rock if a better argument comes along to refute it. I spent the first two decades of my Christian life wading through a maze of doctrines that eventually lead me to not only Open Theism but Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and even now, my attitude about right doctrine hasn't changed. If someone could present to me a compelling argument that falsified any single doctrine or even my entire theological construct, I'd happily drop it in favor of the truth! I wouldn't hesitate for one minute! I want to know THE TRUTH! I'm not a dispensational open theists because I think it's cool. In fact, quite the contrary, I'm so theologically isolated it's pathetic. I could almost wish it weren't true and that the nearest Baptist church to my house is where I could go to find all the doctrinal truth there is to know! As it is, no one has yet presented an argument against my beliefs that is even half as good as those which support it, not the least of which is the completely plain reading of virtually every passage of scripture!

    Anyway, I blathered on there for longer than I intended!

    God bless!
    Clete
    I just recently got my cert of occupancy, so I appreciate the reference to codes and their purposes. And I have come to appreciate many of the codes I didn't understand before. I can give you a potential reason for the max 3 ft cord, I think. The cord needs to be long enough to reach the outlet (or the hard-connect) without allowing the cord too much slack that it sits on the floor of the sink where caustic chemicals are kept, and which might degrade the integrity of the insulation, or such that it is subject to abuse from the items under the sink in some other way (friction from moving the trash can in and out, for instance).

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    How can you say "no"? What is foreknowledge unless it is knowledge before the event happens?
    Yes. And God would never lie and say the opposite of what He knows, would He? So if the future is settled, and God "knew" Hezekiah would die of the illness, but he didn't die of the illness, then God either KNEW a falsehood (which I would say is impossible), or God KNEW the truth but told the opposite (which I would say is a lie). Neither of these possibilities are tenable for a good and perfect God. The only remaining choice is to question the premise that the future is settled. Thus, the future is NOT settled.
    Your whole post was excellent, of course, but the above quoted bit was a particularly brilliant summation of the argument.

    What I don't understand, (I really truly do not understand it) is why people are so afraid of such a simple idea? It's especially confounding that Christians, who claim that they build their doctrine on the bible, would so stubbornly cling to their doctrine over the simplest reading of so many passages of scripture. I mean, way2go doesn't actually believe that we think God is merely guessing! He flat out does not believe that. It's just a tactic. It's a rhetorical tactic that he uses as a pejorative. But why? If his doctrine is so right and ours so obviously false, then where is the need for such substantively vacuous tactics. Why not just make the biblical case against our position? His handling of the Hezekiah story is similarly dismaying. Why does he feel the need to twist himself in such knots to force a perfectly clear story into something so convoluted that it ends up meaning the effective opposite of what it says.

    Why do we never come across a Christian who, when shown totally clear biblical evidence that obviously contradicts some doctrine they've been taught, says anything similar too, "Oh, well I hadn't ever considered that. Maybe this doctrine was taught to me in error. Tell me more, please!"? Why, instead of finding a default allegiance to the plain reading of scripture do we find a totally blind, even hysterical clinging to their doctrines?

    Not only that but doesn't their own life experience tell them that the future is not settled? The Calvinist goes through every day of his life making one choice after another, hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day, every single day and yet even the ones that give lip service to our having the ability to choose believe that it's something quite different than what their experience tells them it is and other Calvinists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the existence of choice at all! It's complete insanity. The Arminian is in no better shape in this regard than the Calvinist, perhaps worse, because at least the Calvinist is logically consistent with his own premises whereas the Arminian is logically all over the place, practically cherry picking which Greek doctrines he wishes to hang on to and which he prefers to discard.

    As for me, I have always been one who questions everything. I'm not nearly as interested in what I should believe as I am in why I should believe it. That goes for more than just theology, too! I inspect homes for a living and when I was learning the job, I'd go to these classes that would give you handouts of various code requirements that you are supposed to look for and write up if you find something that violates this list of rules. Some of them make intuitive sense but some just don't. The power cord on a garbage disposal isn't allowed to be longer than 18 inches, for example. Why? I've been told a couple of different answers but they don't make any sense and so I don't even bother looking most of the time and I doubt that I'd write it up if I did happen to notice one that was a whole whopping 3 feet! I mean who cares, right? There's no reason for it - not that makes any sort of common sense anyway. And that's just the way I have always been about everything. Whether it's work or hobby, faith or science, I just do not believe something BECAUSE someone says it. If the "why" or "how so" isn't there, it's held as suspect in my mind until a proper supporting argument has been made and even then I'm prepared to drop it like a hot rock if a better argument comes along to refute it. I spent the first two decades of my Christian life wading through a maze of doctrines that eventually lead me to not only Open Theism but Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and even now, my attitude about right doctrine hasn't changed. If someone could present to me a compelling argument that falsified any single doctrine or even my entire theological construct, I'd happily drop it in favor of the truth! I wouldn't hesitate for one minute! I want to know THE TRUTH! I'm not a dispensational open theists because I think it's cool. In fact, quite the contrary, I'm so theologically isolated it's pathetic. I could almost wish it weren't true and that the nearest Baptist church to my house is where I could go to find all the doctrinal truth there is to know! As it is, no one has yet presented an argument against my beliefs that is even half as good as those which support it, not the least of which is the completely plain reading of virtually every passage of scripture!

    Anyway, I blathered on there for longer than I intended!

    God bless!
    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
    i keep using it because it's true
    And I keep arguing against it because it's not.

    the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.
    Except what God decides to do, or to allow in what is happening. And yes, you're right--that the open theist doesn't know what God is going to do in the future--UNLESS God reveals it, which He does numerous times, sometimes even when it ISN'T the future (like Nineveh and Hezekiah examples).

    God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
    and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.
    Yes, just like Nineveh! If they were unrepentant, the punishment would have happened. Only in that case God only told them about the current plan, not the contingency plan. In the Rev 16 case, God may be again telling us about the current plan, assuming no repentance. However, I think it's more likely that He knows the general mindset of man, and knows that it is usually just a remnant that repents and is saved. So how hard is it to say that there are some that will never repent??
    Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
    Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.
    I answered these with specific, current-day examples, which you never responded to. Should we repeat???


    Did God need foreknowledge to know Hezekiah was going to die. no
    Did God need foreknowledge to keep Hezekiah alive 15 more years . no
    How can you say "no"? What is foreknowledge unless it is knowledge before the event happens?
    your Hezekiah verses are about whether or not the future is settled
    Yes. And God would never lie and say the opposite of what He knows, would He? So if the future is settled, and God "knew" Hezekiah would die of the illness, but he didn't die of the illness, then God either KNEW a falsehood (which I would say is impossible), or God KNEW the truth but told the opposite (which I would say is a lie). Neither of these possibilities are tenable for a good and perfect God. The only remaining choice is to question the premise that the future is settled. Thus, the future is NOT settled.

    4.God knew he was going to extend Hezekiah life and needed Hezekiah and us to know it was a miracle
    So you're saying God told Hezekiah something that wasn't true on purpose. God lied so that we would know He can do miracles?? Jesus never needed that. I guess I'm starting to see why Clete keeps calling you a liar, if you say God is a liar.



    so which is it the open theist says God knows everything that is knowable or God doesn't know what is knowable,
    How do we know if something is knowable? If God says, "I'm going to find out ____", isn't that the same as God saying 1) that ____ IS knowable, and 2) He doesn't already know _____? And when you say He is NOT going to find out _____, are you not calling God a liar??

    The only other way to read this is to say the text is not telling us the truth. Calvinists do this, but to avoid impeaching God's character, they call it anthropomorphism.

    How can a God who knows everything find out something? The only way is if that something comes into existence at a particular point in time. So in Sodom's case, the knowledge God was seeking was a fluid thing--something that was not available ("unknowable"), and then it became knowable. I postulated that the knowledge was something that God had to experience to find it out. And in terms of evil, future evil is not already in existence, else God could judge someone for future evil--but He never does--His future judgments are contingent on the playing out of the future evil. (This is different than God judging for current evil to prevent future evil, as it seems He often does--like the flood of Noah, or the judgment of Canaan by the Israelites.)

    How does God know how many hairs are on our heads? [Mat 10:30 CSB] "But even the hairs of your head have all been counted. He counts?? Why would God need to count our hairs, if He knows already? If you think it's merely anthropomorphic language, do you really think Jesus didn't know how to say, God knew (or even "foreknew") how many hairs you would have?

    and either way doesn't know the future but guesses .
    the open theist God is created in mans image
    If you call God a liar, and God says He doesn't lie, who is making God in a different image??

    Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,


    there were not 10 righteous in sodom ,you know how I know ,sodom was destroyed
    Yes...and? How does that apply to the events as they happened? It's all very well to look back with 20/20 hindsight and make some great proclamation about the event. But Abraham was hoping, and God didn't tell him whether He knew, there were less than 10 at the time. It doesn't say one way or the other. And Gen 18:20 can be understood as "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and the outcry is that their sin is very grave."

    The story has the angels going down there planning to stay the night in the square. Knowing now what happened, it seems like that would be a bad idea for them, except we are assured they can handled themselves in an unruly crowd. Lot doesn't know that, but convinces them to stay in his house, because he knows how bad the city is. They are so bad that they won't repent when Lot appeals to them: [Gen 19:7 NKJV] and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!
    The angels see two possible things there: 1) that all the people of Sodom were wicked, 2) except Lot and his family. At this point, and not before, they explain to Lot that they are going to destroy the city. I think this is where the decision to actually destroy was made, and it came after they had tested the people of the city and found them to be wicked--without repentance.
    [Gen 19:13 NKJV] "For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
    My reading is by no means the only possible one, but it allows the statements to be taken literally, instead of taken as opposite of what it really says.

    since Abraham never actually sacrificed his son we only know from what Abraham believed
    As I said, your statement adds nothing to the conversation. If you want to elaborate, we can talk more about it, but until then, your point isn't discussable. Hebrews doesn't say when Abraham believed God could/would raise Isaac from the dead. His statement to Isaac on the way up the mountains suggests Abraham wasn't yet thinking that he would really have to kill Isaac.

    So if Abraham didn't yet know, how did God know Abraham would be faithful, unless the future is settled. But to use it as an argument for a settled future is circular--and in conflict with the text itself, as Calvin admitted.

    Leave a comment:


  • way 2 go
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    I wanted to go back and address this post of yours more completely.
    I'm pretty sure you are feeling the inadequacy of your argument,
    i keep using it because it's true

    the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

    God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
    and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

    Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
    Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.


    and thus you keep trying to inflate its impact through repetition. But hopefully you are also beginning to understand why the "guessing" argument is inadequate. For instance, in the Hezekiah case, if God was foretelling the future when He said Hezekiah would not survive his sickness:
    Did God need foreknowledge to know Hezekiah was going to die. no
    Did God need foreknowledge to keep Hezekiah alive 15 more years . no

    your Hezekiah verses are about whether or not the future is settled


    [2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

    ...
    [2Ki 20:4 KJV] And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
    [2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee...


    In these verses God tells Hezekiah two opposite things--1. that he would not recover from his sickness, and 2. that he would recover from his sickness.
    Assuming your view for a moment, that the future is settled, and assuming God only prophecies what is the truth, and that God knows the future (Do you agree with these 3 things?), then please tell me what happened?
    1. God knew the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, but told Hezekiah a lie to get him to pray for mercy
    2. God did not know the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, so He didn't lie, but it shows God can't see into the (settled) future, so He was guessing

    I'm pretty sure you won't pick #2, which leaves you with #1--you believe God lies in His prophecies sometimes.

    Now, let's add one more option, which removes the settled future proposition:
    3. God told Hezekiah the truth, that he would die of his sickness, then, in response to Hezekiah's prayer, God changed Hezekiah's fate.

    Each of these three options removes one of the three propositions I offered.
    #1 removes the option that God always prophecies the truth. Thus you are saying that God sometimes lies.
    #2 removes the option that God knows what the truth is. Thus you are saying that God is NOT omniscient.
    #3 removes the option that the future is settled. Thus God told the truth--that Hezekiah was not going to outlive his sickness, but God changed the truth (Hezekiah's future) so that he WOULD outlive his sickness.
    Which of these three options do you choose?
    4.God knew he was going to extend Hezekiah life and needed Hezekiah and us to know it was a miracle



    so God didn't know how many righteous there were; he had to learn. Because "righteous" is not in what you think, but in what you do with what you think. Temptations are offered because they can either be embraced or rejected. Those angels went into Sodom and were prepared to offer themselves as bait in the open square--to see if the people would be as wicked as they seemed to have grown over time.
    so which is it the open theist says God knows everything that is knowable or God doesn't know what is knowable,
    and either way doesn't know the future but guesses .
    the open theist God is created in mans image

    Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,

    [And, by the way, there were likely 10 people in Sodom that might have been considered righteous--Lot, his wife, their two unmarried daughters, and at least two (maybe three?) married daughters and their husbands. [Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.]
    there were not 10 righteous in sodom ,you know how I know ,sodom was destroyed

    Gen 18:32 Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it."




    Does Hebrews say when God knew? No. So your reference adds nothing to the discussion.
    since Abraham never actually sacrificed his son we only know from what Abraham believed

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    I wanted to go back and address this post of yours more completely.
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
    the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

    God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
    and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

    Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
    Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.
    I'm pretty sure you are feeling the inadequacy of your argument, and thus you keep trying to inflate its impact through repetition. But hopefully you are also beginning to understand why the "guessing" argument is inadequate. For instance, in the Hezekiah case, if God was foretelling the future when He said Hezekiah would not survive his sickness:

    [2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
    ...
    [2Ki 20:4 KJV] And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
    [2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee...


    In these verses God tells Hezekiah two opposite things--1. that he would not recover from his sickness, and 2. that he would recover from his sickness.
    Assuming your view for a moment, that the future is settled, and assuming God only prophecies what is the truth, and that God knows the future (Do you agree with these 3 things?), then please tell me what happened?
    1. God knew the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, but told Hezekiah a lie to get him to pray for mercy
    2. God did not know the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, so He didn't lie, but it shows God can't see into the (settled) future, so He was guessing

    I'm pretty sure you won't pick #2, which leaves you with #1--you believe God lies in His prophecies sometimes.

    Now, let's add one more option, which removes the settled future proposition:
    3. God told Hezekiah the truth, that he would die of his sickness, then, in response to Hezekiah's prayer, God changed Hezekiah's fate.
    so God didn't know how many righteous there were; he had to learn. Because "righteous" is not in what you think, but in what you do with what you think. Temptations are offered because they can either be embraced or rejected. Those angels went into Sodom and were prepared to offer themselves as bait in the open square--to see if the people would be as wicked as they seemed to have grown over time.

    [And, by the way, there were likely 10 people in Sodom that might have been considered righteous--Lot, his wife, their two unmarried daughters, and at least two (maybe three?) married daughters and their husbands. [Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.]

    Each of these three options removes one of the three propositions I offered.
    #1 removes the option that God always prophecies the truth. Thus you are saying that God sometimes lies.
    #2 removes the option that God knows what the truth is. Thus you are saying that God is NOT omniscient.
    #3 removes the option that the future is settled. Thus God told the truth--that Hezekiah was not going to outlive his sickness, but God changed the truth (Hezekiah's future) so that he WOULD outlive his sickness.
    Which of these three options do you choose?

    Gen 18:24 Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city. Will You also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?
    There are two options here:
    1. God knew there were not even 10 righteous people, so there's no conflict, except a perceived one.
    Maybe you don't understand what God means by "righteous".


    kinda like saying God needed to learn Abraham's heart even tho Hebrews 11:19 tells us God knew

    to quote AMR
    To make such a bold claim is to ignore the related texts to this passage, especially Hebrews 11:19, which says, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men (Isaac) even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." If we exposit the passage, it demonstrates without any doubt that Abraham had a God-fearing heart leading up to his sacrifice of Isaac. Since God knows this—all openists acknowledge God has perfect knowledge of the past and present—it is absolutely error to interpret Gen 22:12 as saying that when Abraham lifted the knife did God 'learn' that Abraham feared God. It is easy to make the Bible say what we want it to say when we only appeal to certain texts and certain parts of certain texts.
    Does Hebrews say when God knew? No. So your reference adds nothing to the discussion.

    What did Abraham tell Sarah before he left to sacrifice Isaac? It's possible that he didn't tell her anything--as he didn't go back to her after the experience. In fact, it's possible that Sarah never saw her son alive again. She died alone--without Abraham, Isaac, or even Ishmael--in a place separate from Abraham. She probably had some servants, but it seems there was a falling away, where they lived separately for some time between the supposed sacrifice of Isaac and the death of Sarah. Go read the end of Gen 28 through the beginning of Gen 29, and you'll see what I mean. Note where Abraham and Isaac lived and where Sarah died.

    Why is that important? Consider, if Abraham had told Sarah what God had told him to do, what would her reaction have been? Disbelief? Loss of trust in Abraham, if not in God Himself? Why is that a problem if Abraham had followed up with, "Don't worry, Sarah. God will raise him from the dead, and everything will be fine." She likely would have said, "If leave here with Isaac, don't ever bother coming back!"

    Abraham was not at the beginning of his travels the pillar of faith he was at the end of his life. He grew in faith. Even Calvinists say that the purpose of God's directive to sacrifice Isaac was not for God to find out whether Abraham was going to be faithful, but for Abraham to find that out. If Abraham didn't know, did God know more of Abraham's heart than Abraham knew? Can you honestly say that God knew Abraham would sacrifice his only son before Abraham knew it, especially if Calvinists insist that the trial was to teach Abraham about his own faith???

    Here's what Calvin says about it. Note how Calvin doesn't seem to like Augustine's exposition, but Calvin has no way out of it, due to his presupposition that God knows all things of the future?? "Verse 12. Now I know that thou fearest God . The exposition of Augustine, 'I have caused thee to know,' is forced. But how can any thing become known to God, to whom all things have always been present? Truly, by condescending to the manner of men, God here says that what he has proved by experiment, is now made known to himself. And he speaks thus with us, not according to his own infinite wisdom, but according to our infirmity. Moses, however, simply means that Abraham, by this very act, testified how reverently he feared God."

    But this flies in the face of the Westminster Confession that states God doesn't know the future because He can see into it (as Calvin stumbles, here), but because God ordained everything future!

    Openists offer a different idea--that Abraham didn't know yet that he would sacrifice his son any more than God knew--until the time came to plunge the knife. Then both Abraham and God knew simultaneously that Abraham loved God more than his only son.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
    I didn't know open theism relied on satan so much doesn't really help tho.


    still the open theist God is a really good guesser

    Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

    Jer 31:15 So says Jehovah: A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.
    Any free-willed being involved must be relied upon for determining why something happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • way 2 go
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Who do you think talked Herod into killing all the children?
    If Satan, then God could reasonably tell what would happen by knowing Satan and his mindset.
    I didn't know open theism relied on satan so much doesn't really help tho.


    still the open theist God is a really good guesser

    Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

    Jer 31:15 So says Jehovah: A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
    Herod Kills the Children
    Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.
    Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
    Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
    Who do you think talked Herod into killing all the children?
    If Satan, then God could reasonably tell what would happen by knowing Satan and his mindset.

    Leave a comment:


  • way 2 go
    replied
    Herod Kills the Children
    Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.
    Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
    Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

    Leave a comment:


  • way 2 go
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post

    You might be confusing CJ's statements about Will's belief in "the future" with Will's actual belief about the future. Will was trying to say that the future, as a thing, does not exist. But the future, as a concept, exists. In other words, God can reasonably say, "In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed." And then when they aren't destroyed after 40 days passes, we see God's mercy, not incompetence.
    the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

    God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
    and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

    Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
    Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.


    Most open theists don't agree with your conclusions about Adam and Satan's whereabouts. And my opinion on the activities re. Sodom was that the angels were testing to see how far the people of Sodom would actually go--not just what had already happened there. I expect Will and many OTs agree with me in that.
    so God didn't know how many righteous there were he had to learn

    Gen 18:24 Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city. Will You also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?


    kinda like saying God needed to learn Abraham's heart even tho Hebrews 11:19 tells us God knew

    to quote AMR
    To make such a bold claim is to ignore the related texts to this passage, especially Hebrews 11:19, which says, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men (Isaac) even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." If we exposit the passage, it demonstrates without any doubt that Abraham had a God-fearing heart leading up to his sacrifice of Isaac. Since God knows this—all openists acknowledge God has perfect knowledge of the past and present—it is absolutely error to interpret Gen 22:12 as saying that when Abraham lifted the knife did God 'learn' that Abraham feared God. It is easy to make the Bible say what we want it to say when we only appeal to certain texts and certain parts of certain texts.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X