Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

Derf

Well-known member
Hi Lighthouse. I thought you may have put me on ignore. If you did, please let me know,
as I'm trying to understand a message in the quotes tab.
The tree was available, but it wasn't right in front of them unless thy went up to it.
You're mincing words unnecessarily. At the very least, there were 2 trees in the middle of the garden, so even if there were no other trees "in front of her face", the tree of life was there.


Man was created with the ability to disobey. Otherwise they never would have. Jesus never had that ability.
Of course there is some disagreement about Jesus' ability to disobey, mostly coming from His own prayers that the Father's will be done over His own. If His own will was at any point different from the Father's, and Jesus had full authority given Him from the Father, then it sure seems like He had the capacity to disobey.
We won't be sinful because our sin will be removed.
Yes, but we will still be human. Thus "human" nature doesn't of necessity include "sin" in it.

Did you mean "nondescript"?
Nope.

Not equatable to dying of an illness. And what makes you think the child was innocent anyway?
There were at least some infants that were not guilty of capital crimes, I would wager. Surely in a nation as big as Egypt there had to be some infant firstborns. You seem like you are grasping at straws.

Either is an argument from silence. There well may have been no infant firstborns at tat time. You don't know. And why are you assuming the were innocent?
This is getting old...

I didn't say he wasn't responsible?

And I'll leave the argument that guns kill people to the liberals.
Well, yes, you did. And no, you don't seem to be leaving that argument to the liberals, as you employed it (the argument, not the guns), and still seem to be doing so, on the issue of David's son.


Why do you assume they were innocent?
and older...


How does that lead to it being OK to murder? You're being illogical.


That is not logical at all.
Again, if one assumes that because all have sinned and thus all are guilty and therefore worthy of death, and if one uses that argument to justify random killings, one is justifying murder. You'll have to read back through the posts to see that that is what you are suggesting.


Actually, being on the spectrum, it's very difficult for me to not think logically.
I have no idea what "being on the spectrum" means. But it seems like you have no difficulty at all thinking illogically. Or maybe it's that you aren't using the same meaning of the words--that you're equivocating.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Hi Lighthouse. I thought you may have put me on ignore. If you did, please let me know,
as I'm trying to understand a message in the quotes tab.You're mincing words unnecessarily. At the very least, there were 2 trees in the middle of the garden, so even if there were no other trees "in front of her face", the tree of life was there.
Both trees, as well as many others, were in the Garden.

Of course there is some disagreement about Jesus' ability to disobey, mostly coming from His own prayers that the Father's will be done over His own. If His own will was at any point different from the Father's, and Jesus had full authority given Him from the Father, then it sure seems like He had the capacity to disobey.
Is Jesus God?

Yes, but we will still be human. Thus "human" nature doesn't of necessity include "sin" in it.
Human and human nature are two separate things.

Then what did you mean? Because "indescript" Isn't a word.

There were at least some infants that were not guilty of capital crimes, I would wager. Surely in a nation as big as Egypt there had to be some infant firstborns. You seem like you are grasping at straws.
Do you know of any?

Well, yes, you did. And no, you don't seem to be leaving that argument to the liberals, as you employed it (the argument, not the guns), and still seem to be doing so, on the issue of David's son.
God made the child ill. I said that. That means He is responsible.:dunce::duh:

Again, if one assumes that because all have sinned and thus all are guilty and therefore worthy of death, and if one uses that argument to justify random killings, one is justifying murder. You'll have to read back through the posts to see that that is what you are suggesting.
That's not my argument at all. That death, in Romans 6:23, is a spiritual death; not a physical one.

I have no idea what "being on the spectrum" means. But it seems like you have no difficulty at all thinking illogically. Or maybe it's that you aren't using the same meaning of the words--that you're equivocating.
Maybe you should have looked it up. Let me clear it up: I'm on the autism spectrum.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Both trees, as well as many others, were in the Garden.
thus right in front of their faces.
Is Jesus God?


Human and human nature are two separate things.


Then what did you mean? Because "indescript" Isn't a word.
maybe you should have looked it up. It means, ...surprise..., "not described".
Do you know of any?


God made the child ill. I said that. That means He is responsible.:dunce::duh:
then why make it that He wasn't responsible. That's why I said you're talking in circles.
That's not my argument at all. That death, in Romans 6:23, is a spiritual death; not a physical one.
But we weren't talking about a spiritual death.
Maybe you should have looked it up. Let me clear it up: I'm on the autism spectrum.
Clear up something else for me. Why does that matter?
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
You too. Thank you as well.

Certainly. Teachers 'tweak' our minds. Synapses literally connect when we learn something. Check this short video out:
Fascinating video! But if that's what you mean by "tweaking" a mind, God is not special in being able to do it, thus it doesn't really apply to what I was getting at. The video appears to be showing how our brain responds to every stimulus.

:think: Good thought. More than you meant, past your own dissention? :up:
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question. My point was that God can cause His purposes to be achieved no matter the resistance. But His purposes, as far as I can tell, don't include forcing someone to love Him, whatever the means. So if there are those that continue to stand in the way of His achieving His purposes, He has a number of options at His disposal to counteract them. One way is to kill them, another is to banish them--both remove the person from the scene where something they would inhibit needs to take place. One way is to bring troubles (waterdams) into their lives that cause them to achieve His purposes even, possibly, without ever agreeing with or acknowledging Him at all. One way is to cause the path He wants them to take to be made smooth (digging new water channels). Oftentimes He brings in other actors (Nebuchadnezzar, for instance) when His chosen people don't do what He wants them to do! None of these violate the will of the target, because they are externally applied--not rewiring the brain to make it want what God wants. Of course, each new actor requires similar efforts to bring about the intermediate purposes that then bring about the more ultimate purposes.

What are God's ultimate purposes? I'm not so sure that His ultimate purposes are expressed very well in individual salvation (I could be wrong, of course), but in having a people that will love, honor, worship, and praise Him, not because he rewires them to do so, but because they want to, with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind. If rewiring is the necessary component now, then the unwiring that God also must have caused seems to be at crosspurposes with His will. Yes, at this point we can declare "mystery" and move on, but must we? Only if we say that God causes people both to love Him and hate Him by wiring them that way.

I embraced that fully ala Job 13:15 and Romans 9
It has to play out in time. I agree it causes a conundrum, but we are talking about God casting His efforts. Who can resist His will? Paul asks. In that sense, the Calvinist sees things unfolding as God knows they will. For me, Christ entering the world caused some to build, others to stumble. When I read of the ten plagues on Egypt, I see grace: God gave Pharoah 10 opportunities to listen to God. Ten of them!
Got questions does a fairly good job on this.
Casting His efforts against whom? If none resist His will, and His will is all encompassing, then He's casting against Himself. Playing out in time is unnecessary if He makes both His enemies to be enemies and His friends to be friends.

The timeline and us stuck in it, often makes concepts hard to understand and so has Calvinists seeing God as purposing, and others seeing God as reacting. Malachi 1:2 might be of service to you
Did you notice that God didn't say He hated Esau from birth? Malachi was written after Esau and his descendants had chosen to reject the God of their father Isaac. The time issue, as you've stated twice now, seems to be the crux of the matter. That's probably why Open Theism appealed to me from the first time I heard it described--it deals with the time aspect in a way the others can't. That doesn't make it true, but it seems to make it more compatible with almost everything I've read in the bible, taken as a whole.

For me: Love will either be accepted or rejected. Grace will either be despised or received, etc. etc. God cannot change Who He is, He is always loving. Always Gracious. Therefore, Him, Himself, will harden or soften. He is not a respecter of persons, because His character and nature doesn't change. He therefore applies Himself and by doing so, some will be softened, some hardened. The Calvinist leaves this as a mystery, but to me, I believe this would/could take some mystery out of it. At the same time, I am ever mindful that we must realize His ways are higher. Mine is my finite best attempt to understand.
I agree that love will be accepted or rejected, but we also recognize that rejection can turn to acceptance, and I believe acceptance can turn to rejection.

I'm also trying to question what we mean by our standard "christian" language. We use phrases often without thinking about what it really means, just what we have come to think it means. What does it mean to be "spiritually dead" (from your "Got Questions" reference)? Is "spiritually dead" even a biblical phrase?

What does it mean to "harden"? Does it really mean to make a person NOT want to listen to God? If God is doing this by tweaking the brain/rewiring, then He seems to be divided against Himself.

What does "respecter of persons" mean? If God is not that, then we should know what that means. He seemed to be a respecter of Jacob over Esau.

Thank you for all your encouragement from the rest of the thread. I truncated it but it is a good conversation and I thank you as well. His blessings this day -Lon
And His blessings on you, too, Lon.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
thus right in front of their faces.
If there's ice cram in my freezer it's not right in front of my face, unless I open the freezer.

maybe you should have looked it up. It means, ...surprise..., "not described".
I did. Couldn't find it.

then why make it that He wasn't responsible. That's why I said you're talking in circles.
I never said He wasn't responsible.

But we weren't talking about a spiritual death.
You were assuming that I presumed all were guilty, from the moment of birth, of a capital offense.

Clear up something else for me. Why does that matter?

:doh:
Did you forget the rest of the conversation? I am mostly incapable of being illogical as a result of my Asperger's.
 

Derf

Well-known member
If there's ice cram in my freezer it's not right in front of my face, unless I open the freezer.
Logically, what if you're standing in your freezer?


I did. Couldn't find it.
Logically, this shows the limits of not only your knowledge, but your ability to research the truth of a matter.


I never said He wasn't responsible.
"Technically" you did (see yellow highlight):
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD. [Exo 12:12 KJV]

The first-born all died. Did God "kill" them or not? If so, then God sometimes kills those that "don't deserve it". If not, who was Moses erroneously quoting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Technically the angel killed them. But they deserved it.


You were assuming that I presumed all were guilty, from the moment of birth, of a capital offense.
See green highlight above.

Between the two of the above highlights in your quote, you either took issue with God's responsibility or you presumed they all deserved their fate ("guilty of a capital offense" is your current phraseology), or both. But in whichever is the case, you are being inconsistent and speaking against your own position ("talking in circles" was my previous phraseology). In other words, you are being illogical.

:doh:
Did you forget the rest of the conversation? I am mostly incapable of being illogical as a result of my Asperger's.
Nope, didn't forget. I was hoping against hope, I suppose, that you were heading a different direction, as any human who claims logic as a super power is going to be hard to come to consensus with. On anything. Ever. But you've spelled it out pretty clearly.

Fortunately, you have allowed an out for yourself by using the "mostly" caveat. So the following verses only "mostly" apply to you.
Proverbs 25:14 Whoever boasts himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain.
Proverbs 26:12 See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Isaiah 5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!​

And I want to tell you how honored I am to have been the recipient of all the illogic you've been saving up for the last few months, just to use it on replying to ME! :salute:
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Logically, what if you're standing in your freezer?
There's a McDonald's down the street; it's not in front of my face.

Logically, this shows the limits of not only your knowledge, but your ability to research the truth of a matter.
I don't think you know the meaning of the word "logically."

"Technically" you did (see yellow highlight):
Who commanded the angel?

See green highlight above.
You're still assuming. I already told you that I was referring to adults.

Between the two of the above highlights in your quote, you either took issue with God's responsibility or you presumed they all deserved their fate ("guilty of a capital offense" is your current phraseology), or both. But in whichever is the case, you are being inconsistent and speaking against your own position ("talking in circles" was my previous phraseology). In other words, you are being illogical.
No, I'm being intentionally obstinate. Because your willful ignorance deserves it.

Nope, didn't forget. I was hoping against hope, I suppose, that you were heading a different direction, as any human who claims logic as a super power is going to be hard to come to consensus with. On anything. Ever. But you've spelled it out pretty clearly.
Super power?:confused: Are you a liberal? That would explain the stupidity.

Fortunately, you have allowed an out for yourself by using the "mostly" caveat. So the following verses only "mostly" apply to you.
Proverbs 25:14 Whoever boasts himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain.
Proverbs 26:12 See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Isaiah 5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!

And I want to tell you how honored I am to have been the recipient of all the illogic you've been saving up for the last few months, just to use it on replying to ME! :salute:
I'm not boasting about anything. And, as I stated above, I'm intentionally being annoying.
 
Last edited:
Top