ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[elected4ever]

I have to start a new topic before Lee drags me back in.

I always wondered what it would have been like had Adam and Eve not sinned and t things went according to his plan. I have no basis for this, but maybe someone can validate or invalidate it:

Would god have ever let Adam and Eve eat of the tree "Once they were grown up enough?"

Perhaps this belongs in a different thread, but the best OVers are on here...

The question is moot because Adam and Eve did eat the fruit. God never said that they could not eat of the tree of life. Why didn't they eat of that tree first? We only know that Adam and Eve were innocent until they eat of the tree that God told them not to eat off.

 

[Philetus]

Josh 3:10 And Joshua said, By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.

”On my next post, I'll show that God didn't do what He said He would in these verses.” (Bob Hill)

When God changes his mind, when he regrets he made Saul king, when he regrets that he made man on the earth. These would indicate mistakes, errors in judgment. Pastor Bob has again stopped discussing points with me, and I wish he would answer my questions. Please...


How then were people included in the plan to have Saul be king, what adjustment was made to include people in this plan? No, OVT says this plan was abandoned, not adjusted.


I agree that my views are Calvinistic, I also think I have heard what the OVT is really saying, they say God changes his mind, he repents.

He makes erroneous judgments.

So then again, we may not always trust God's counsel, for he may repent of that decision, and have to reverse it.

I grow tired of OVT people denying the plainest facts about their view, and also the plain facts in Scripture, in order to maintain it. Currently pending points continue below:


So if the Bible says the Lord took away, then that is who did it? And then Satan only served the Lord's good purpose, with a bad intent, as the Sabeans served the devil's intent, not with an intent to serve the devil, but to serve themselves.


Foolish fellow that I am, when I read "the trouble the Lord had brought on him," I think it means the Lord brought the trouble. This argument OVTers say is extraordinarily complex and convoluted, and yet they only tell me it's a figure of speech or a manner of speaking [i.e. it doesn't mean what it plainly says] because the context says otherwise, only the context says the Lord took away, every person in the whole book says the Lord did it, and the Lord does not correct this, Scripture even says this.

Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

I suppose we might consider the gift here a manner of speaking, if our theology demanded it, we need not conclude the Lord gave back to Job, actually! For his friends and relatives gave, and then we can erase a plain statement that God gave, without any compunction.


No, what I meant is that the taking away involved sinful deeds, so then if the Lord did this, to say the Lord did cause a sinful deed, in your view, would then be blasphemous.


So then God made a choice when he saw these events happening, and to see a rock about to roll into a house, and not stop it, when you could, involves you in the consequences.

This a really is plain argument.


So this is a choice God makes, and then what happened to Job was chosen in your view to be allowed to continue, for this purpose. Then God indeed was involved in what happened to Job, he has responsibility here.

Blessings,
Lee

:down:

LEE: How then were people included in the plan to have Saul be king, what adjustment was made to include people in this plan? No, OVT says this plan was abandoned, not adjusted.

None of that post was addressed to you. It was a reply to E4e. Are you intentionally trying to prove Patman’s assessment of you? Seems so.

But, I’ll address the one point above.

God didn’t make a mistake in making Saul king. Saul screwed up. God adjusted; anointed David king and patiently allowed things to play out. God never abandoned his plan. God abandoned Saul. God simply adjusted in order to continue including people in His plan. Saul disqualified himself by not repenting. David screwed up so many times he looked like a US congressman. The only reason he was not disqualified was that he repented … a lot! He was a man after God’s own heart.

When the bible says that God repents, God doesn’t abandon His plan --- though often if it were not for a few righteous intercessors like Abraham, Moses and my mother most of us would be destroyed. But NO! In mercy God adjusts His plan to continue toward His goal of redeeming all things unto Himself.

I’m with Patman on this. There comes a point at which one must admit that no matter what … some people will never hear the truth about God. You don’t have a clue what Open View Theism is and I’ve been convinced for over a week that you never will. I just hope and pray that God will send a messenger your way that with the help of the Holy Spirit you will hear and your eyes will be OPENed. I doubt that I’m that messenger. So lets not waste anymore of our time.

God’s grace and blessing,
Philetus

 

[elected4ever]

Bob, I totally agree with that statement. Would you agree with me that the foreknowledge of God spoken of in Romans 8 is to be understood as those who attain to the redemption of the body and not the foreknowledge of God from the foundation of the world. In other words those who God foreknows are those who attain to the redemption of the body, too wit, the resurrection?

 

[Philetus]

with smiles added

Lee, would you please quit making asinine statements :up: like, "No, God doesn't sin when he ends a life, and he has a right to act, but the question is whether his choice when he sees a sin taking place, and does not intervene, entails some responsibility for that decision." God is never responsible for the acts of sin that a man does. :up: It is man's responsibility to to punish evil.:idunno: Man's failure to do so does not make God complicit in the act.

TWO thumbs :up: :up: and one :idunno:

 

[Philetus]

Bob, i totally agree wit that statement. Would you agree with me that the foreknowledge of God spoken of in Romans 8 is to be understood as those who attain to the redemption of the body and not the foreknowledge of God from the foundation of the world. In other words those who God foreknows are those who attain to the redemption of the body, too wit, the resurrection?

E4E,
I wanted to know more about this point that you raised eariler. Can you flesh it out a little more?

 

[patman]

patman,

I have not seen any basis in the Bible for Adam and Eve not sinning. Therefore, I strongly assert that there is no basis that would convince all of us OVers.

However, there is a basis that all believers of this dispensation would be chosen in Him. This determination was made before the foundation of the world. What was the determination? That we who would be saved would be holy and without blame before Him in love.

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

Further, God had the basis of redemption, Christ the lamb of God who was foreordained before the foundation of the world. 1 Pet 1:19,20 the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world.

There are some things that God determined before the foundation of the World. The most important one was the death of the Son of God for believers’ salvation.

Thank you Lord Jesus,
Bob Hill

I agree with all of that. Yet I also believe in creation, God did not design us to be sinners, yet the freewill offered to us would inevitably result in sin needing saving, requiring Christ.

The real reason I asked this is because I imagine God has hoping Adam and Eve would not sin. And I also do not believe God knew they would sin when he made them. So had they not sinned and grew in God as God wanted, what of the tree of good and evil? Was it always to be their way out? Or was it ever to be their upgrade?

Knowing this might mean something. I don't think it's moot. I believe the new heaven and new earth will be designed and populated by a people God had originally wanted in the Garden.

Furthermore, we can see an answer can show us what God had wanted for his people(or never wanted). Which ever it was..

 

[elected4ever]

with smiles added



TWO thumbs :up: :up: and one :idunno:

Is man not responsible to punish evil?

 

[patman]

Lee, would you please quit making asinine statements like, "No, God doesn't sin when he ends a life, and he has a right to act, but the question is whether his choice when he sees a sin taking place, and does not intervene, entails some responsibility for that decision." God is never responsible for the acts of sin that a man does. It is man's responsibility to to punish evil. Man's failure to do so does not make God complicit in the act.

Thanks e4e. I am glad not all settled viewers take things to the sinful places he does. Good job in your discernment there.

 

[Philetus]

Is man not responsible to punish evil?

In what context? Civil matters? Yes, I think so. But, then "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." Some things are to be left up to God. Hence my :idunno: . (I didn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you might be suggesting we take Lee out all together. He is a nice guy, after all.)

 

[elected4ever]

I agree with all of that. Yet I also believe in creation, God did not design us to be sinners, yet the freewill offered to us would inevitably result in sin needing saving, requiring Christ.

The real reason I asked this is because I imagine God has hoping Adam and Eve would not sin. And I also do not believe God knew they would sin when he made them. So had they not sinned and grew in God as God wanted, what of the tree of good and evil? Was it always to be their way out? Or was it ever to be their upgrade?

Knowing this might mean something. I don't think it's moot. I believe the new heaven and new earth will be designed and populated by a people God had originally wanted in the Garden.

Furthermore, we can see an answer can show us what God had wanted for his people(or never wanted). Which ever it was..

One can be a sinner and be innocent because the law did not exist until God told Adam specifically not to eat. It is not doing wrong things that condemns a man if there is no law being violated but when we have knowledge that a thing is wrong then the sin that already exist becomes apparent and we are judged guilty and our innocents is lost. If I take money when I am 2 years old I remain innocent even though I stole. But if I take money when I am 20 then I have committed an act of sin and I am judged for it. If God had never said do not eat then Adam would have remained innocent even though he was a sinner.

 

[elected4ever]

In what context? Civil matters? Yes, I think so. But, then "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." Some things are to be left up to God. Hence my :idunno: . (I didn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you might be suggesting we take Lee out all together. He is a nice guy, after all.)

Vengeance is when we take matters into our own hands to vindicate a supposed or actual wrong suffered. God will vindicate us in these matters. Man was given governmental authorities that are to to be a terror to the wicked but when these authorities refuse to punish evil then God said that this wickedness will be avenged by him. So we as a society do have the responsibility to judge the wicked.

That might not be well put but I hope it helps.

 

[elected4ever]

I agree with all of that. Yet I also believe in creation, God did not design us to be sinners, yet the freewill offered to us would inevitably result in sin needing saving, requiring Christ.

The real reason I asked this is because I imagine God has hoping Adam and Eve would not sin. And I also do not believe God knew they would sin when he made them. So had they not sinned and grew in God as God wanted, what of the tree of good and evil? Was it always to be their way out? Or was it ever to be their upgrade?

Knowing this might mean something. I don't think it's moot. I believe the new heaven and new earth will be designed and populated by a people God had originally wanted in the Garden.

Furthermore, we can see an answer can show us what God had wanted for his people(or never wanted). Which ever it was..

Sometimes our sensitivities cloud our belief and we remain confused in a matter. We cannot let our feeling dictate what is right and wrong. It is what is true that counts and I like everyone else struggle for an understanding.

When God said,"let us create man in our own image and in our likeness", it was a statement about more than man just being a creation. I think that God intended for man to become as He is. Man could not remain just a creation and accomplish that. I believe that all that has happened down through history was known by God and his plan was complete from the foundation of the world to accomplish His goal of making man into his express image.

 

[Bob Hill]

I enjoy studying about Open Theism/Open View.

Amos 7:2-6 And so it was, when they had finished eating the grass of the land, that I said: “O Lord God, forgive, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, For he is small!” 3 So the Lord repented concerning this. “It shall not be,” said the Lord. 4 Thus the Lord God showed me: Behold, the Lord God called for conflict by fire, and it consumed the great deep and devoured the territory. 5 Then I said: “O Lord God, cease, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, for he is small!” 6 So the Lord repented concerning this. “This also shall not be,” said the Lord God.

God is sure OPEN

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man because the man sinned.

Since I was a strong Calvinist at one time, it is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

What did God have in mind when He said in Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

In Christ,
Bob

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism is more about the openness of creation and the future, not the openness of God. God experiences reality as it is, so the future is at least partially open to Him as well as us.

 

[patman]

One can be a sinner and be innocent because the law did not exist until God told Adam specifically not to eat. It is not doing wrong things that condemns a man if there is no law being violated but when we have knowledge that a thing is wrong then the sin that already exist becomes apparent and we are judged guilty and our innocents is lost. If I take money when I am 2 years old I remain innocent even though I stole. But if I take money when I am 20 then I have committed an act of sin and I am judged for it. If God had never said do not eat then Adam would have remained innocent even though he was a sinner.

I agree in almost all of this. But would a 1000 year old wise, holy, sinless man start sinning because he suddenly understands what evil is? Had creation went on sinless, wouldn't there need to be some structure, some rules to keep them from hurting each other in ignorance? Or were they to live by the laws of love? I don't know.. maybe the 'law' of love was God's intended law apart from the tree.

I am just wondering. There is probably no way to find out other than wait to ask God...

 

[lee_merrill]

Patman: You would have LOVED for that rock smashing into that house to have been God's plan!!!!! It is what makes you get up in the morning.

Philetus: It's a fact. Sad but true.

Bob Hill: Seems more like a fact.

You all say I rejoice in injury and affliction? That's a pretty serious charge, if so, how do you know this?

Lee, would you please quit making asinine statements like, "No, God doesn't sin when he ends a life, and he has a right to act, but the question is whether his choice when he sees a sin taking place, and does not intervene, entails some responsibility for that decision." God is never responsible for the acts of sin that a man does.

But what I meant was some responsibility for the consequences that will happen, as in allowing a rock to roll down a hill towards a house, when you could stop it.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[elected4ever]

But what I meant was some responsibility for the consequences that will happen, as in allowing a rock to roll down a hill towards a house, when you could stop it.

Blessings,
Lee

When a manufacturer makes a product and that product injures someone because of the misuse by the person who bought the product, is the manufacture responsible for the owners misuse? The manufacture releases control of the product into the hands of its owner and the owner is responsible for the use of the product.

God made man.
Man is an independent agent by design.
God releases control of the body into the hands of a man.
Man misuses his free agency and body.
Man is responsible, Not God.

 

[lee_merrill]

When a manufacturer makes a product and that product injures someone because of the misuse by the person who bought the product, is the manufacture responsible for the owners misuse?

Not necessarily, but if someone sees them about to injure someone else with their product, and chooses not to stop this when they could, then there is responsibility.

Blessings,
Lee