Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

BrianJOrr

New member
Desert Reign,

I have a few concerns with your response:

You said: “Firstly, let me get one thing straight. The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes.”

Seriously? A text by itself does have a meaning, but a key aspect of a literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation is letting Scripture interpret Scripture (unless you don’t ascribe to that method). That is how we do a consistent systematic theology, which leads to predictable and consistent outcomes (I guess that goes against your doctrine of God considering nothing can be predictable and consistent if we all have libertarian free will, right?) What is a common mistake many make in biblical interpretation? Taking a passage by itself to establish a doctrine (this is what cults are famous for: isolating a verse and proof-texting). So, if we take these two passages (Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17) and look at each one separately, one says “to keep alive,” and the other says “to raise up” which one are we to use then, both speaking of the same situation, which one best interprets the authorial and theological intent of that incident? Don’t you think Paul, an inspired writer of Scripture, would better understand Ex. 9:16 than we could? If he is using this verse to support his context and theological purposes regarding God’s sovereign will (which I already covered in the previous post), then why would he bypass the Greek of the LXX (διατηρέω = to keep; preserve) from Exous 9:16 and use a more dynamic word (ἐξεγείρω = to raise to life, cause to exist) that carries a meaning opposite to that of the LXX’s word? If he wanted to carry over the context of keeping Pharoah alive or preserving his life, he could have used the same word, or he could have used διαμένω, which means to continue, to remain; or ζῳογονέω, which means to keep alive, preserve life; or φυλάσσομαι, which means keep away from, keep, guard closely. He uses that word, which supports his context of Romans 9 altogether, and which is the translators use this form in the OT as we see in most Bibles. The NT interprets the OT.


You said, “Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”

I think you are the one who is in error on this. You are wanting to keep Exodus 9:16 in isolation from Romans 9:17, to support your desired interpretation of Exodus 9:16 because this verse as Paul uses it in Romans 9:17 is devastating to your openness theology. And how is this random?


You said, “In my view, when people attempt to use other passages to derive meaning, it is a sign that they have axes to grind; that the passages they choose to adduce are chosen by them for their own subjective purposes and this is usually because they are unhappy with the plain meaning of the first passage - they in short want to make the Bible say something different to what it does say.”

Again, are you serious? Do you not have an axe to grind in your promotion of openness theology? You are trying to take passages, which have generally supported the classical understanding of God for the last two millennia, to support open theism. Let me ask you this, “If one asks you show the biblical support for the deity of Christ, do you take only one verse to do so, or do you take the corpora of NT texts that demonstrate his deity to prove your case? Do you not respond to those who take one verse that could be interpreted to mean that Jesus is not divine and tell them, “you must look at all the scriptural support, not just one verse.”


You said, “As I said, the use of a Greek word in the New Testament has no bearing on the interpretation of Exodus and the context of the Exodus passage itself is quite clear.”

Well, to my question earlier about Paul’s choice to use a different word to establish the context of Exodus 9:16 into his context of Romans 9. His using the Exodus passage in the manner he does is to show us that that is what the author intended to show. His use of it gives us further clarity of the theme as a whole.


You said, “However, I would question your interpretation of Paul, which also relies heavily on Augustinian / Calvinistic presuppositions.”

I question your interpretation. The burden of proof lays in the lap of open theists, for your understanding rivals the classical orthodox understanding of divine foreknowledge (Although it was the Socinians who pioneered this view, but they were ultimately silenced and shown to be in error.). What presuppositions are you operating under? If you want to state that yours is a ‘plain’ reading of the text, I would say you are failing to do just that. You are not applying a grammatical, historical interpretation of the text, which espouses such a framework in interpretation. Whose presuppositions should we rely on when interpreting the texts? Yours?


You said, “However, Paul's example of Pharaoh is not an example that supports general predestination but rather shows that God chose Israel as the quality vessel and Egypt as the cheap vessel for his particular purposes. This was his right to do but it does not mean that he predestined everything. He chose to show the nations who he was by doing some bad things to Pharaoh and some good things to Israel. It's that simple. He chose Jacob to be the progenitor of his chosen nation over Esau without reference to anything good or bad they had done.”

You have not demonstrated that. Just curious, have you have read The Justification of God, by John Piper?

You said, “Pharaoh could have chosen to be the good guy and acknowledge YHWH but chose not to.”

I think God’s purposes demonstrate otherwise: Pharaoh did not listen to the warnings from God through Moses, “so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land” (Exod. 11:9). Pharaoh’s hardening, by himself and by God, was purposely done so God could demonstrate his power. Though pharaoh hardened his heart, as all men do toward God, could he have unhardened it if God ultimately hardened it to continue out his purposes? God hardened it to show his glory to Israel and ultimately to the world.

I think your disregard for the analogy of faith in this regard is troubling.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

A text by itself does have a meaning, but a key aspect of a literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation is letting Scripture interpret Scripture (unless you don’t ascribe to that method).

Too right I don't (subscribe to it). To put it crudely, it is little more than using a word in one context that has a specific meaning in that context to impose that same meaning on a word in another context in defiance of the meaning that the word has in its latter context. As I said before, the only hermeneutical issue is what is meant by local context. You have apparently misrepresented me in the latter part of your post as assuming that local context means the verse in which a word appears. But this is very far from the case. The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period. I have gone over this all in more detail in the 1-1 that I linked to in my last post and I would suggest that you read all of it because it will save a great deal of time and perhaps misapprehensions. If you think I am being unrealistic or unchristian in denying your cherished principle of hermeneutics, then I might suggest you respond more fully to the issues raised in that 1-1: perhaps Lon was the wrong person to debate with but you will need to do a lot better than him if you are to persuade me to abandon the basic principle of all hermeneutics which is that the meaning of words is a function of the contexts in which they appear. If, as you say, you are doing a PhD in a hermeneutics related subject then you should certainly be up to it! Your basic question posed in the OP was how open theists interpret certain scriptures. I have gone one better and told you how I interpret the whole Bible. I would hope this is sufficient for you and I don't really want to get into a great long debate on the exact meanings of myriad scripture verses. I have already done that with Lon.

Taking a passage by itself to establish a doctrine
Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Your question was about how open theists interpret scripture, not how they do theology.

which one best interprets the authorial and theological intent of that incident?
Same issue: whilst you may be searching for 'theological intent', I am only interested in what the passage means. In fact you describe my approach as 'troubling'. I will tell you what I find troubling, which stares at me when I read your posts is that when you approach scripture you seem desperate by any and all means to impose some kind of theology on it. It's like you think of it as some kind of cipher that needs decoding. And I lament to myself that you will never appreciate scripture for what it is because you are always trying to make something of it that perhaps is not there. I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. It is not a tenet of our faith that God inspired the Chalcedonian creed. I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost. The rest can look after itself.

I think you are the one who is in error on this. You are wanting to keep Exodus 9:16 in isolation from Romans 9:17, to support your desired interpretation of Exodus 9:16 because this verse as Paul uses it in Romans 9:17 is devastating to your openness theology.
I suggest you read the 1-1. In which I explain that Romans would be my preferred text for developing an openness theology. 'Devastating'? - don't make me laugh!

By the way, the 1-1 is of course closed but if you wanted to raise issues from it I'd be happy to respond.
 
Last edited:

BrianJOrr

New member
Desert Reign,

I did not go through your 1-1 in detail; it’s quite long, but I will check it out.

You said, “You have apparently misrepresented me in the latter part of your post as assuming that local context means the verse in which a word appears. But this is very far from the case. The local context might be the entire book or letter.”

I don’t assume “local context means the verse in which a word appears.” I already demonstrated that in the portion of Romans 9:14-18 I went through earlier.

I am not trying to persuade you to abandon the basic principle of all hermeneutics; I am trying to figure out why you are not using them.

You said, “the meaning of words is a function of the contexts in which they appear.” Context drives meaning; but you are failing to see the OT through the interpretive lens of the NT. Do you have a Bible that has cross-references in it? Have you abandoned the use of those? Afterall, it takes you away from the text. Are you implying that we are not use other Scriptures to interpret Scriptures? You have provided no interaction with the Scriptures to prove your point regarding Romans 9 and Exodus 9. You just asserted what it is, saying, “its that simple.” Well, I have to contend that your simple explanation lacks sound exegesis (Now, you might have fleshed this out further in your 1-1; so I will have to check).

You said, “whilst you may be searching for 'theological intent', I am only interested in what the passage means.”

How have I not done that? You do not adopt the principle of Scripture-interpreting-Scripture, so how do you come up with a coherent, integrated theology, pulled from the texts? I asked you a question about the deity of Christ but you did not answer it. Can I go so far and say that you also believe Greek philosophy has influenced early Christian doctrine, which still exists today? This is a claim that open theists have failed to make plausible arguments for. What is more obvious is that their view is grounded in experience, not apostolic teaching.


You said, “In fact you describe my approach as 'troubling'. I will tell you what I find troubling, which stares at me when I read your posts is that when you approach scripture you seem desperate by any and all means to impose some kind of theology on it. It's like you think of it as some kind of cipher that needs decoding.”

Performing exegesis of passages using context, other Scriptures, and tracing out arguments and themes between other texts is code breaking, huh?

You said, “And I lament to myself that you will never appreciate scripture for what it is because you are always trying to make something of it that perhaps is not there.”

Openness theology comes to the table stating God’s divine foreknowledge as we have known it for the last two millennia has been misunderstood. Talk about trying to insert a theology that was never there; a plain reading of the Scriptures clearly has revealed the classical understanding of divine foreknowledge. The quest to get God off the hook for evil in the world is the theology open theists are trying to force into the texts.

You said, “I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. It is not a tenet of our faith that God inspired the Chalcedonian creed. I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost. The rest can look after itself.”

So, do you believe that God is not triune? After all trinity is not in the Bible. How do you come to that conclusion that he is triune? If you affirm that, using that language, then you are using creedal language to do so. The creeds were the result of a theology derived from the texts, not inserted into the texts. Do you know who else says speaks in the same manner as you do regarding their view of Scripture? Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Their get their theology from a plain reading of Scripture.

How are you different?

I too don’t want to get into a longer than need be discussion. I will read your 1-1 and see if there is anything I want to engage with your more on.

Thanks
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Desert Reign,

I did not go through your 1-1 in detail; it’s quite long, but I will check it out.
Thank you. It will save us both a lot of time.

I don’t assume “local context means the verse in which a word appears.” I already demonstrated that in the portion of Romans 9:14-18 I went through earlier.
OK, thanks.

I am not trying to persuade you to abandon the basic principle of all hermeneutics; I am trying to figure out why you are not using them.
I think you are confusing exegesis with doing theology. Especially systematic theology. It is natural to want to take the whole Bible into account when doing systematic theology and in that case you probably do need to allow everything to inform everything else. But the meaning of some given passage is not determined by some other passage that is outside its local context.

You said, “the meaning of words is a function of the contexts in which they appear.” Context drives meaning; but you are failing to see the OT through the interpretive lens of the NT.
I am not failing. Your use of the word implies your assumption of your conclusion. You're doing a PhD - surely you ought to have some level of self-criticism? If I was marking your PhD, I would mark you down for saying that someone you happen to disagree with was failing to see your point of view. If you accept that 'context drives meaning' then how do you relate that to your notion that you cannot understand the meaning (of an Old Testament text) without the New Testament? In the same sentence you are making two incompatible statements and yet you are accusing me of failure for not making the same logical mistake!

Do you have a Bible that has cross-references in it? Have you abandoned the use of those? Afterall, it takes you away from the text. Are you implying that we are not use other Scriptures to interpret Scriptures? You have provided no interaction with the Scriptures to prove your point regarding Romans 9 and Exodus 9. You just asserted what it is, saying, “its that simple.” Well, I have to contend that your simple explanation lacks sound exegesis (Now, you might have fleshed this out further in your 1-1; so I will have to check).
Yes, I see no need to repeat myself here.

You said, “whilst you may be searching for 'theological intent', I am only interested in what the passage means.”

How have I not done that? You do not adopt the principle of Scripture-interpreting-Scripture, so how do you come up with a coherent, integrated theology, pulled from the texts?
Ah, yes, that is an excellent question and thank you for giving me an opportunity to answer it. I would first remind you that it is not the question that you asked in the OP, which is about how open theists interpret certain scriptures. I try not to divert from the subject of an OP if I can but since you are the originator of the thread then I am more than willing to digress.

As background, you might want to look here. This explains the limits of a 'coherent, integrated theology'. It is a disavowal of the idea that formulations are paramount in theology and an affirmation that Christian faith is about relationships. Thus, when reading the Bible, the primary interpretive principle is not some doctrine of God but the historical outworking of a relationship. When reading the Bible, the Christian should thus seek not to glean from it a set of doctrines but to grow in relationship with God through learning how others have grown (or not) in that relationship. Also see 1-1 on Hebrew thought patterns. Doctrines are ok in moderation but a complete systematic theology is not to be found because the nature of Christian faith is not about systematising. Living relationships cannot fundamentally be systematised. I know this is hard for you to comprehend, all you who have spent your lives debating on which statement of faith is the right one, whether Origen was a heretic or not or whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit is given at conversion or afterwards. I can offer no apologies. Just a warning that if you instinctively seek ways to refute this stance by arguing that some or other doctrine is wrong or that I have misinterpreted some or other scripture or if you treat openness like any other heresy, then you will get nowhere. If you are to understand, then you need to start by getting an appreciation of how very very far away from a systematising theology openness is. Openness is not about whether Calvin was right or wrong. Openness is antithetical to predestination, not a doctrinal refutation of it.

I asked you a question about the deity of Christ but you did not answer it.
This is a complex issue but I will try to answer it simply here.
I believe what Jesus said about man that it is not what goes into a man that makes him what he is but what comes out of him. In the same way, it is not the substance of God that makes him what he is but his actions and his words. This is a relational perspective. The historical doctrinal formulations of the church have focused on the substance of God and of Christ (and the Holy Spirit of course). It was the substance question that challenged the fathers. But the substance question is unanswerable because it relies on false assumptions about the nature of reality. I worship Jesus because he is righteous, because he died for me, because he performed miracles, because he taught the teachings of God, because he is seated at the right hand of the Father, because he is one with the Father. (As an aside let me completely disavow the teachings of the Arians, especially the Jehovah's Witnesses, who teach that the worship we give to Jesus is a different kind of worship to the worship we give to God and that true worship is something that can only be given to the one who is in substance God.)

Can I go so far and say that you also believe Greek philosophy has influenced early Christian doctrine, which still exists today? This is a claim that open theists have failed to make plausible arguments for. What is more obvious is that their view is grounded in experience, not apostolic teaching.
To argue that Greek philosophy did not influence Christian doctrine, is quite ridiculous. It is a truism. If this were not so, then we would not be discussing the Athanasian creed; instead we would be discussing the Chung Wei creed or the writings of Ibn al Musri 'Against Heretics' instead of Irenaeus. The only issue is whether or not the influence was compatible with authentic Christian faith. I mean, New Testament writers themselves were influenced by Greek philosophy, let alone the early church fathers. See 1-1: it is an equally undisputed fact that no writer of the Old Testament was influenced by Platonic thought and it it is therefore quite quite bizarre to attempt to interpret it along Platonic lines.

Openness theology comes to the table stating God’s divine foreknowledge as we have known it for the last two millennia has been misunderstood. Talk about trying to insert a theology that was never there; a plain reading of the Scriptures clearly has revealed the classical understanding of divine foreknowledge. The quest to get God off the hook for evil in the world is the theology open theists are trying to force into the texts.
This seems all unsupported and undeveloped assertion. If you were concerned about what has been orthodox for two millennia, you would not be Reformed. You would be Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. You are welcome to your opinions and I respect you for them, is about as much as I need to say in response.

So, do you believe that God is not triune? After all trinity is not in the Bible. How do you come to that conclusion that he is triune? If you affirm that, using that language, then you are using creedal language to do so.
See above on relational theology. Your express acceptance that the trinity is not in the Bible is an excellent example of the point I was making on the distinction between exegesis and (systematic) theology. Indeed, your acceptance that trinity is not in the Bible is a good starting point for understanding relational theology. There is hope for you yet. If you keep on developing this line of thought, as you read the Bible more, perhaps you will also realise that (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible either and for the exact same reason that trinity also is not.

The creeds were the result of a theology derived from the texts, not inserted into the texts. Do you know who else says speaks in the same manner as you do regarding their view of Scripture? Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Their get their theology from a plain reading of Scripture.
See above on relational theology and Jehovah's Witnesses. JWs also expressly alter scripture to suit their own presuppositions so that is hardly what I would call plain reading.

How are you different?
I can't answer that. I can only state as clearly as possible what my position is. It is your privilege to assess it.

I too don’t want to get into a longer than need be discussion. I will read your 1-1 and see if there is anything I want to engage with your more on.

Thanks
And thank you for allowing me to express myself more generally.
 
Last edited:

BrianJOrr

New member
Desert Reign,

I see I have a few things to clear up ( I didn't mean to imply that hellenization didn't occur the early church. My mistake, in deviating from the OP, though I think it is an important element in my inquiry). I will be working the next three days, so I won't be responding fully now. Thanks for responding to my points.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Desert Reign,

I see I have a few things to clear up ( I didn't mean to imply that hellenization didn't occur the early church. My mistake, in deviating from the OP, though I think it is an important element in my inquiry). I will be working the next three days, so I won't be responding fully now. Thanks for responding to my points.

Sure thing, Brian.

By the way, I seem to recall there was some issue about Ex 9:16 appearing after the fourth plague in some mss. and that might have been what prompted me to say it was after the 4th plague. And also, I checked the LXX and Paul wasn't quoting from it at all. It seems to me that he was just quoting from memory and the words actually used in the LXX fully corroborate my view of Ex 9:16.

Take care and don't work too hard!
 
Last edited:

jsjohnnt

New member
Nope.

God is not responsible for evil — that is explicit. He does not need our defense.
Mere affirmation to the contrary leaves me a little thirsty. If God is the creator of all things, how do you exempt Him from a creative connection, if not "responsibility," to evil?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Mere affirmation to the contrary leaves me a little thirsty. If God is the creator of all things, how do you exempt Him from a creative connection, if not "responsibility," to evil?

Here is the logical answer:

If God is the creator of all things then God is also the creator of himself.

This is not a trivial argument.

A creative connection does not equal responsibility. God is responsible for creating the world but that doesn't mean he is responsible for everything that goes on in it.

If you reject the conclusion, which I am sure all reasonable people would, then you must also reject the original premise: God is not the creator of all things. Here's a definition:

God + the created world = all things.

If you want to make a generalisation of this, then you can't exempt God from your generalisation of 'all things'. Otherwise you are special pleading. God is not not a part of the universe.

If, when you make a statement like 'God has created the universe and the universe is/contains evil' then you are making an assumption that God is not a part of the universe and that your analysis of the universe (specifically being/containing evil) doesn't include God. In other words you are judging the state of the world without reference to God - as if God did not exist.

To me, this is the most basic level of logic you can have when talking about the universe, when making generalisations. Ultimately, that is what a generalisation is. I think there was one person here (Lighthouse if I recall) who correctly understood this. It is ridiculously simple yet strangely defeats most people. I can't exactly think why, except that it is ingrained into their thinking already that the universe does not include God; that the universe is a purely physical thing. It is ingrained into their thinking that there is a domain of the universe where God is absent: the physical world. People tend to believe there are two different and utterly separate realms and that when you make truth statements (generalisations), you are only talking about the physical world. God is not invited to the party. It's like they are talking behind God's back.

Of course you could get into a discussion of whether evil/good are valid concepts anyway. If you are going to make a statement about the world that is objectively verifiable such as

'The world is/contains evil.'

then in order to judge if this statement is true you need a definition of evil. Where does that definition come from? You can't say that it is just what you or others subjectively feel because you and these others are part of the created world. You would be making up your own definition about yourself, which would then be circular. But if you are keeping God out of it, you can't then bring him into it. It would make no logical sense to state that God thinks the world is evil, therefore it is and then go on to define the universe as excluding God. The moment you make the created universe subect to a definition from God about evil (or anything at all really) then you are linking God and the created world inextricably.

But don't worry too much if you don't understand - it's just the way I explain it. Plato obviously didn't get it either.

And finally, there is the moral issue. Because the cross of Christ proves that God and the world are inextricably linked. God is responsible for creation, not for every choice of every being in that creation. But then you could ask, to what extent is God responsible? The answer is that God has accepted his responsibility for the outcome of giving people freedom through his own Son bearing the penalty for that freedom. God has accepted his responsiblity, now we must accept ours.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Mere affirmation to the contrary leaves me a little thirsty.
I was talking to a Christian. The Bible declares that God is good.

If God is the creator of all things, how do you exempt Him from a creative connection, if not "responsibility," to evil?

I take "responsibility" for myself. God can look after Himself. In fact, He also provided the only possible means of salvation for the world.

He is not responsible for evil, and even if He was, He would be the only possible solution to it.
 

jsjohnnt

New member
Here is the logical answer:

If God is the creator of all things then God is also the creator of himself.

This is not a trivial argument.

A creative connection does not equal responsibility. God is responsible for creating the world but that doesn't mean he is responsible for everything that goes on in it.

If you reject the conclusion, which I am sure all reasonable people would, then you must also reject the original premise: God is not the creator of all things. Here's a definition:

God + the created world = all things.

If you want to make a generalisation of this, then you can't exempt God from your generalisation of 'all things'. Otherwise you are special pleading. God is not not a part of the universe.

If, when you make a statement like 'God has created the universe and the universe is/contains evil' then you are making an assumption that God is not a part of the universe and that your analysis of the universe (specifically being/containing evil) doesn't include God. In other words you are judging the state of the world without reference to God - as if God did not exist.

To me, this is the most basic level of logic you can have when talking about the universe, when making generalisations. Ultimately, that is what a generalisation is. I think there was one person here (Lighthouse if I recall) who correctly understood this. It is ridiculously simple yet strangely defeats most people. I can't exactly think why, except that it is ingrained into their thinking already that the universe does not include God; that the universe is a purely physical thing. It is ingrained into their thinking that there is a domain of the universe where God is absent: the physical world. People tend to believe there are two different and utterly separate realms and that when you make truth statements (generalisations), you are only talking about the physical world. God is not invited to the party. It's like they are talking behind God's back.

Of course you could get into a discussion of whether evil/good are valid concepts anyway. If you are going to make a statement about the world that is objectively verifiable such as

'The world is/contains evil.'

then in order to judge if this statement is true you need a definition of evil. Where does that definition come from? You can't say that it is just what you or others subjectively feel because you and these others are part of the created world. You would be making up your own definition about yourself, which would then be circular. But if you are keeping God out of it, you can't then bring him into it. It would make no logical sense to state that God thinks the world is evil, therefore it is and then go on to define the universe as excluding God. The moment you make the created universe subect to a definition from God about evil (or anything at all really) then you are linking God and the created world inextricably.

But don't worry too much if you don't understand - it's just the way I explain it. Plato obviously didn't get it either.

And finally, there is the moral issue. Because the cross of Christ proves that God and the world are inextricably linked. God is responsible for creation, not for every choice of every being in that creation. But then you could ask, to what extent is God responsible? The answer is that God has accepted his responsibility for the outcome of giving people freedom through his own Son bearing the penalty for that freedom. God has accepted his responsiblity, now we must accept ours.
God does not exist in space and time, IMO. Therefore, he is not a part of the universe. The fact that He is the creator of same, would exclude Him as "part" of the universe, as well, but thanks for your answer.
 

jsjohnnt

New member
Desert Reign wrote: "God + the created world = all things."

God is totally "other" than the universe he created. He is not a "thing" or one of the "other guys" in the universe. In fact, he is so not a part of this world (cosmos), we really have no explanation for his existence. As a consequence , He is everywhere in the biblical record "assumed." There is no biblical apologetic for God, only the Great Assumption "in the beginning, God . . . . .."
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God is totally "other" than the universe he created. He is not a "thing" or one of the "other guys" in the universe. In fact, he is so not a part of this world (cosmos), we really have no explanation for his existence. As a consequence , He is everywhere in the biblical record "assumed." There is no biblical apologetic for God, only the Great Assumption "in the beginning, God . . . . .."

Are you only here to spout non sequitur?
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Here is the logical answer:

If God is the creator of all things then God is also the creator of himself.

This is not a trivial argument.

A creative connection does not equal responsibility. God is responsible for creating the world but that doesn't mean he is responsible for everything that goes on in it.

If you reject the conclusion, which I am sure all reasonable people would, then you must also reject the original premise: God is not the creator of all things. Here's a definition:

God + the created world = all things.

If you want to make a generalisation of this, then you can't exempt God from your generalisation of 'all things'. Otherwise you are special pleading. God is not not a part of the universe.

If, when you make a statement like 'God has created the universe and the universe is/contains evil' then you are making an assumption that God is not a part of the universe and that your analysis of the universe (specifically being/containing evil) doesn't include God. In other words you are judging the state of the world without reference to God - as if God did not exist.

To me, this is the most basic level of logic you can have when talking about the universe, when making generalisations. Ultimately, that is what a generalisation is. I think there was one person here (Lighthouse if I recall) who correctly understood this. It is ridiculously simple yet strangely defeats most people. I can't exactly think why, except that it is ingrained into their thinking already that the universe does not include God; that the universe is a purely physical thing. It is ingrained into their thinking that there is a domain of the universe where God is absent: the physical world. People tend to believe there are two different and utterly separate realms and that when you make truth statements (generalisations), you are only talking about the physical world. God is not invited to the party. It's like they are talking behind God's back.

Of course you could get into a discussion of whether evil/good are valid concepts anyway. If you are going to make a statement about the world that is objectively verifiable such as

'The world is/contains evil.'

then in order to judge if this statement is true you need a definition of evil. Where does that definition come from? You can't say that it is just what you or others subjectively feel because you and these others are part of the created world. You would be making up your own definition about yourself, which would then be circular. But if you are keeping God out of it, you can't then bring him into it. It would make no logical sense to state that God thinks the world is evil, therefore it is and then go on to define the universe as excluding God. The moment you make the created universe subect to a definition from God about evil (or anything at all really) then you are linking God and the created world inextricably.

But don't worry too much if you don't understand - it's just the way I explain it. Plato obviously didn't get it either.

And finally, there is the moral issue. Because the cross of Christ proves that God and the world are inextricably linked. God is responsible for creation, not for every choice of every being in that creation. But then you could ask, to what extent is God responsible? The answer is that God has accepted his responsibility for the outcome of giving people freedom through his own Son bearing the penalty for that freedom. God has accepted his responsiblity, now we must accept ours.


good stuff for thought. i do not 'blame' God for any percieved 'bad" thing and know that God did not "create" evil. when we go to accepted beliefs and The Bible as God's Word, which i do, we can stop right there. is it evil not to ? mankind has done worse things.
since God created all things and not evil, and God always was, evil could not exist. evil can only exist if something is aware of it. how could God not be aware of the possibilty for evil. so God knew, but wanted to "create" anyway ? implying self pleasure. then the law that cannot be kept. yes the salvation through Christ. the Love and Majesty of God Is worth it. but why ?

i'm not questioning God, and i am Blessed for made, content with what i will never know on earth. yet i wonder why. God knows existence in the flesh and temptation. if we talk about God not being "in" the universe or time (which i've said), and space, then think of God as a MIND/SPIRIT. for lack of a better term, God has a Mind. that Is God.and this is the expression of God's Love and Creation. whether uni or multiverses, the "expression" and 'manifestation' of God's Spirit and Perfect Will must also be physical. then purified ?
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Mere affirmation to the contrary leaves me a little thirsty. If God is the creator of all things, how do you exempt Him from a creative connection, if not "responsibility," to evil?


maybe we have to experience "evil" and "sin" to know God Eternally ? awareness of Infinite Good and Infinite Love of God requires awareness of evil ? God tried to give us a shortcut, more than once. we chose our own way. stop blaming, maybe ? God wanted to share His Power and Glory. and in a more blunt version, so what if He did ? If God created evil, what are we gonna do about ? cry foul ? jk - drink it up, soak it in. we're only here for minute - God Bless
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
God does not exist in space and time, IMO. Therefore, he is not a part of the universe. The fact that He is the creator of same, would exclude Him as "part" of the universe, as well, but thanks for your answer.

Desert Reign wrote: "God + the created world = all things."

God is totally "other" than the universe he created. He is not a "thing" or one of the "other guys" in the universe. In fact, he is so not a part of this world (cosmos), we really have no explanation for his existence. As a consequence , He is everywhere in the biblical record "assumed." There is no biblical apologetic for God, only the Great Assumption "in the beginning, God . . . . .."


You were the one who said 'mere affirmation leaves me a little thirsty'.

I have given you what appears to be an irrefutable logical argument which you have completely ignored and all you have done is to maintain your denial. If you assert that God is not a thing, then that is the same as saying that God is nothing. How about you take a lesson from your own book? Mere denial leaves us all a little thirsty. As you have not dealt with anything I said, I don't see the point in further comment.
 
Last edited:

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
good stuff for thought. i do not 'blame' God for any percieved 'bad" thing and know that God did not "create" evil. when we go to accepted beliefs and The Bible as God's Word, which i do, we can stop right there. is it evil not to ? mankind has done worse things.
since God created all things and not evil, and God always was, evil could not exist. evil can only exist if something is aware of it. how could God not be aware of the possibilty for evil. so God knew, but wanted to "create" anyway ? implying self pleasure. then the law that cannot be kept. yes the salvation through Christ. the Love and Majesty of God Is worth it. but why ?

The Bible says 'And God saw that it was good... and God saw that it was good... and God saw that it was very good.'

This was possibly the first thought that led me eventually to an openness theology. It was obvious that theologians generally could not cope with the incarnation. So long as they maintained this 'God is other' paradigm, then the incarnation - when the 'other' became physical - was a mystery, was inexplicable or a paradox or a logical contradiction. Depending on which branch of Christianity you hail from, you would prefer one or other of those terms, but for all branches, the meaning is the same: the incarnation cannot be justified along with a premise that God is other.

And the evangelicals will say God can do anything so he can do the incarnation and the Catholics will say God is a mystery so we cannot know how this works but these are not explanations, they are anti-explanations. They not only have no explanation for it but they revel in the fact that it is incomprehensible. They make a virtue out of a vice. But the Bible exhorted me to be ready with an explanation of the faith within me not an anti-explanation. And being keen to do what the Bible clearly told me, I was not in the mood for anti-explanations.

I just don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, say that God is completely other and then say that he has become man in Christ Jesus. And worse, not only say that God has become man, but that Jesus is the perfect representation of God, as the Bible says. So not only has God who is supposed to be completely other become man, but if Jesus is the perfect representation of God, then everything God is, Jesus is. So it looks more like the exact opposite. This is very different to what theologians in their ivory halls seemed to me to be saying. In fact I remember once playing with some theologians by going through some rhetorical questions with them along these lines:

Do you believe that everything that God is, Jesus is?
Yes, of course.
Do you believe that God is flesh?
No, of course not.
But you believe that Jesus is flesh?
Yes.
So Jesus is everything that God is but Jesus is also flesh.
Yes.
So Jesus is more than God?
Errrrm.

So much for the two natures theology... So God emptied himself to become more than himself??? It's like relieving a baby of his dummy. And still they revel in 'it's a mystery', 'we are only human and cannot understand these things'...

But if what God made was very good, then there didn't seem to me to any problem in God becoming or being man. The real problem for the theologians was that there was something bad about the world being finite, or transient, or physical and it was this inherent badness, that made it hard for them to accept the incarnation. We need (I mean all of us) to accept what the Bible says about the world - that it is very good. Then we will not need to speak of God as other because we can accept ourselves again.
 
Last edited:
Top