ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Different "mystery"... lol

Muz

:chuckle:
The bigger the 'mystery' ..... duh.

 

[Philetus]

We already knew Lon was an idiot.

I should have paid closer attention. I thought you were talking to STP, because you pretty much say the same sort of things to him. I apologize, because it seems that Lon may have been saying the things you accuse him of.:kookoo:

We are all idiots ... some are just more mysterious idiots than others.

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :devil: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:​

OV theology is too 'basic math' with no account nor acknowledgement of the higher 'nonexistent' math. It is like trying to substantiate algebra to someone who says the letter representations are gibberish. I can't even get you to acknowledge that there are letter values for God." Lon ​

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :devil: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:​

 

[Lon]

Paul was referring to our inability to assess ourselves clearly. The "glass" is a mirror.

This is the problem with all of your "mystery" talk. You use it to say that Scripture doesn't mean what it actually says, as though God is unable to communicate clearly to us.

Muz

That is true. Being a bit more studied than most in your camp, I'd expect you to appreciate this more than others. You know as well as I do exactly what this means and have stated it clearly, your qualifications afterwards besides the point.

Some do simple math, but at least you recognize the algebraic values. This isn't always true with others in your camp. I know you know this.

I think (best guess so far) that you are a bit more on page with us (tradition/orthodox). Your discussion at least makes connections on points and you don't prattle meaninglessly very often but dig to the foundations of these questions which I appreciate about you very much. Some OVer's reject all classic traditions, belief, and scholarship, which is a henious error as you seem to recognize. I would no more throw out all of the portions of the OV. The discussion is meaningful in clarifying and OV brings a good light that solidifies my doctrinal stances.

Most, probably do not appreciate the Calvinists here, but the dialogue definitely helps me wade through issues in clarity. I'm reading alot, buying books, reading my bible, not just devotionally, but doctrinally/purposefully.

In Him

Lon

 

[Philetus]

That is true. Being a bit more studied than most in your camp, I'd expect you to appreciate this more than others. You know as well as I do exactly what this means and have stated it clearly, your qualifications afterwards besides the point.

Some do simple math, but at least you recognize the algebraic values. This isn't always true with others in your camp. I know you know this.

I think (best guess so far) that you are a bit more on page with us (tradition/orthodox). Your discussion at least makes connections on points and you don't prattle meaninglessly very often but dig to the foundations of these questions which I appreciate about you very much. Some OVer's reject all classic traditions, belief, and scholarship, which is a henious error as you seem to recognize. I would no more throw out all of the portions of the OV. The discussion is meaningful in clarifying and OV brings a good light that solidifies my doctrinal stances.

Most, probably do not appreciate the Calvinists here, but the dialogue definitely helps me wade through issues in clarity. I'm reading alot, buying books, reading my bible, not just devotionally, but doctrinally/purposefully.

In Him

Lon

Say something, Lon. Say anything. But say something.

 

[Lon]

Well, the following might be a lot tamer but where is the substance?


Where in the world did you get the idea that Open Theism makes its adherents holy?:kookoo:

So basically you are saying "the more mysterious we can make (or keep) God the closer we are to knowing Him"? :kookoo: :kookoo:
You seem to think of theology as an effort to make God more complicated rather than an effort to understand what we can.

Open Theism doesn't have God in a box. The future is OPEN. Get it? There is NO BOX. God is alive, dynamic, relational, AND sovereign. MOVING. It ain't math; it's basic vocabulary.

Philetus

BTW, Are you happy now that you have the goat? I am! But keep your eye on him. He eats everything in sight and especially likes tulips. Oh, yeah ... I forgot ... he likes boxes, too.

Tulips I understand, but boxes not at all, unless by this you mean you wish to avoid them also.

Let me try this statement and remember it is challenging but I don't wish to malign:

OV seems rational because it is simplistic.

Okay, there is a loaded statement so I'll try to unload it so you can address the concerns and evaluation.

First of all, it seems rational, but only to an OVer. Because it accounts not at all for finite containing infinite. I believe an OVer cannot understand the boxiness. We can explain some things in science simply enough that a child can understand it. No problem. The problem would be to say "All science is simplistic enough that a child could understand it. This is simplistically wrong. In the same way it is wrong to say that all theology is so simple that any child could understand it. In that quote there were many scriptures that indicate VERY clearly that there are perplexing issues in our faith that no child could hope to understand. To say otherwise is to simplify and eradicate those very scriptures. Why oh why do you guys accuse me every time I use a scriptural term and blatant truth? This very much perplexes me. I use scripture to defend it yet it almost always receives a curt "ridiculous" answer. This simply doesn't suffice. You say you want substantial dialogue yet simplify scripturally givens instead of addressing them. I do not believe it intentional obfuscation, but it is neglected none-the-less.

Second, "...rational because it is simplistic..."

Look over that quote I posted again. In it the author sites verse after verse that says "God never changes, He is always the same."

Again, I'm not sure at this point the obfuscation is intentional. They seem to be proof texts we are looking at, BUT they are scripturally given doctrinal statements and mostly from doctrinal books rather than narrative. Doctrinal statements are for building doctrine, and doctrinal books are strong scriptural clarifiers. AMR said this correctly, we must build doctrine from doctrinal books and interpret narrative from those doctrinal truths and not the other way around. This is why OV is simplistic, it for the most part, ignores the doctrines given in scripture and upholds narrative over doctrine for interpretation.

I want to substantiate this in the next post by showing this to be true with scripture passages that reveal this as true. I'll start with God repenting in the narrative and then use doctrinal passages to show the OV has this very wrong.

After that, I'll take His other attributes in turn and show that 1) God is infinite and we are finite. This is a very important point in dilineation that must be made solidly. 2) I'll also attempt to address those greek influences vs. doctrinal scriptures. If I can get you to realize that truths from scripture are there, it matters not at all who else agrees or disagrees including the Greeks. Scripture is the imperative and I'll try to show these one at a time, addressing the attributes of God.

 

[themuzicman]

That is true. Being a bit more studied than most in your camp, I'd expect you to appreciate this more than others. You know as well as I do exactly what this means and have stated it clearly, your qualifications afterwards besides the point.

Some do simple math, but at least you recognize the algebraic values. This isn't always true with others in your camp. I know you know this.

I think (best guess so far) that you are a bit more on page with us (tradition/orthodox). Your discussion at least makes connections on points and you don't prattle meaninglessly very often but dig to the foundations of these questions which I appreciate about you very much. Some OVer's reject all classic traditions, belief, and scholarship, which is a henious error as you seem to recognize. I would no more throw out all of the portions of the OV. The discussion is meaningful in clarifying and OV brings a good light that solidifies my doctrinal stances.

Most, probably do not appreciate the Calvinists here, but the dialogue definitely helps me wade through issues in clarity. I'm reading alot, buying books, reading my bible, not just devotionally, but doctrinally/purposefully.

In Him

Lon

Don't confuse OVT with MAD. They are not synonymous.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Does God repent?

Does God repent?

1Samuel 15

Does God repent?

I'm using the previous quote given to springboard into this discussion.

1Sa 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.

Context: Saul says he repents of not following Jehovah. The problem: Saul is driven not by devotion to Jehovah, but his own desires and fears.
The only reason he is repenting is because Samuel is telling him that his reign as king has ended. The rest of the entire book is about Saul trying to hold onto the kingdom by his own power against Jehovah's command. Instead of stepping down humbly, he raises himself up by his own bootstraps which reveals very clearly his unrepentant heart. Contrast this to David's heart and actions. He constantly waits on Jehovah to accomplish His will. With Saul, God did not change His mind. Did he know Saul was an awful king? Let's look:

1Sa 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Do everything the people request of you.5 For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is me that they have rejected as their king.

In verse four, we see the elders asking for a king just like all the other nations. They do not seek God, and in fact it is a rejection of God's sovereignty.

8:11-18 explains very clearly that Saul will be a lousy king. Verse 18 is explicit: "In that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD won't answer you in that day."

1Sa 9:20 "Whom does all Israel desire? Is it not you, and all your father's family?"

Samuel, following God's direction, appoints Saul, not because he will be a great king, but because he will be a bad one just as it was already foretold.

1Sa 12:14 If you fear the LORD, serving him and obeying him and not rebelling against what he says, and if both you and the king who rules over you follow the LORD your God, all will be well.
1Sa 12:15 But if you don't obey the LORD and rebel against what the LORD says, the hand of the LORD will be against both you and your king.
1Sa 12:16 "So now, take your positions and watch this great thing that the LORD is about to do in your sight.
1Sa 12:17 Is this not the time of the wheat harvest? I will call on the LORD so that he makes it thunder and rain. Realize and see what a great sin you have committed before the LORD by asking for a king for yourselves."

There is a promise if Israel was to obey, but note it isn't going to happen. Samuel is very clear in 12:17.

Now for the troubling passages that seem to perplex:

1Sa 15:11 "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from me and has not done what I told him to do."

This comes after the prophesied disobedience. Saul spares the Amalekite king and the best of the possessions against the Lord's command.
Was this anticipated? It surely was as we have clearly seen. There is no surprise here. It is all working out exactly as God planned.

But what do we do with these two verses? 1Samuel 15: 11 and 1Sa 15:35 ...but the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Regret is not the best translation of this word, but it would take a commentary to clarify this point so translators use what works best. The Hebrew word is 'to sigh.' We cannot convey this well in English without much explanation so we must go to the doctrinal scriptures to understand this passage.


Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a human being, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not make it happen?

Human beings change their minds. Note Moses very specifically says God is NOT like this. This is a DOCTRINAL passage in explanation and is very clear. There can be no question here, it is true.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!

Can we attribute change to such a statement? Again, this is doctrine, not narrative. It is intended to teach blatant truths to be held to. We cannot go against doctrine even if narrative 'suggests' otherwise. This is a strong hermeneutic principal. We cannot get this wrong.

Psa 89:34 I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips.

Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but You shall endure; yea, all of them shall become old like a garment; like a robe You shall change them, and they shall be changed

Notice: God does not change, He changes 'us.'

Mal 3:6 For I am Jehovah, I change not. Because of this you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.


For a proper understanding of "God repenting that He had made Saul king." We must first see the dictates of doctrinal passages. We cannot ever interpret by our own inclination. Scripture interprets scripture or we get it wrong. In Judges, the recurring theme: "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." is a warning against doing such even in scripture reading and interpretation.

In my next post I desire to address some specific characteristics of God given doctrinally. Again, I will display doctrinal passages over and above narrative.

 

[Lon]

Don't confuse OVT with MAD. They are not synonymous.

Muz

Thank you, that is an easy point to forget.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
Don't confuse OVT with MAD. They are not synonymous.

Muz

Thank you, that is an easy point to forget.

That shouldn't be difficult even though most (I think) OVT posting on TOL are MAD. I'm not.
Nor think for a second that most OVT are MAD. Most OVT, like the rest of the world, (I'm sure it is fair to say) have never even heard of MAD.

Tulips I understand, but boxes not at all, unless by this you mean you wish to avoid them also.

Avoid them? Absolutely! "God is not in a box" is my tongue in cheek way of saying that it is a settled view that puts God in a box; a 'no-future-box' without any way of movement.

Thanks for the above post. I'm going to be in KY this weekend; leaving in about an hour. Don't know if my mom's connection (if she still has one) or old computer can access TOL but I'll try. I'm printing out your post to take with me to reflect on an answer.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Quote: OV seems rational because it is simplistic.

Hey Lon, can you tell me who made the above statement and where you found it?

I’m not sure I even agree with it.

OV certainly isn't convoluted as is Calvinism, but simplistic doesn't do it justice.

Neither does OV seem rational ........... unlike Calvinism OV simply is rational.

Film at 11
Philetus

 

[Lon]

That shouldn't be difficult even though most (I think) OVT posting on TOL are MAD. I'm not.
Nor think for a second that most OVT are MAD. Most OVT, like the rest of the world, (I'm sure it is fair to say) have never even heard of MAD.



Avoid them? Absolutely! "God is not in a box" is my tongue in cheek way of saying that it is a settled view that puts God in a box; a 'no-future-box' without any way of movement.

Thanks for the above post. I'm going to be in KY this weekend; leaving in about an hour. Don't know if my mom's connection (if she still has one) or old computer can access TOL but I'll try. I'm printing out your post to take with me to reflect on an answer.

Philetus

You are welcome. We all must avoid boxing God. It is difficult because we are finite (in essence, little compartments of a much larger whole). God is infinite which means all our conceptions are boxed in. We have finite parameters. So while I agree that even we of the classical orthodox persuasion must recognize our borders, it is no less true that OV also must do the same. We are all in the same type of box problem. It is our finiteness that God has in mind when He reveals Himself to us.

Exo 33:20 "And He said, You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live."

Whatever condition man is in, whether by sin, or his own limited capacity: We cannot see Him fully and live. This is a case of the finite meeting the infinite. The rest of the passage explains in narrative how much Moses was allowed to see. He was said to have talked to God "Face to face" but it is clear that this expression wasn't all of God's glory from this passage. It was 'as much as Moses could handle.'

We, who follow Him must understand this. Think of finiteness as a container which can only hold so much. We can and should understand what we can contain. We should be good theologians with what God has revealed to us (placed in our containers). At the same time we must recognize that we of finite ability do not ever contain the infinite. The difference is like a glass of salt water and the ocean. There is a limit to us as created beings. This limit is always what I am talking about when I suggest a glass darkly (given in scripture) or our limitation (also a scripturally given concept). The one thing I'd like to see agreement on is that we are finite creatures. Once we can accept that concept, the rest becomes more meaningful not less. It is our proper place as created beings I'm striving for here. We need to recognize we are finite. We have limitations in our discussion.

It is a place of humbleness. We can only attain and apprehend where we are full. God is vastly beyond that limitation. Once we recognize that a glass does not contain the ocean, the ocean becomes mysterious and vastly appreciable. Of course we are not glasses, but in comparison, it is true, we are finite, He is infinite.

 

[patman]

Sure I am. It's easier for me since I know that God foreknows how to bring good from the evil that men do.



Actually this is untrue since foreknowledge leads to foreordination. They aren't the same, but they are related. It's just that what you appropriately call foreordaining is the same as allowing when foreknowledge is present. If foreknowledge is untrue sin would simply be ordained by God and not foreordained through His allowance of sin. Another way to say it is that God decreed man to have free will and foreknew that some men would sin.



He created man and foresaw what man would do within creation(i.e. sin). But God didn't create man's actions. Man did that himself. God is the First Cause of everything, but God didn't create everything. God gave man the ability to create independently and that is where sin comes from.

You do get it!



Well, there's two ways to look at this. Either A, 'God looked at all possible worlds and decided to create the best choice that He had'; or, B, 'God decided to create this world because He loved you'.

It's my nature to say that they are indeed the same world, but that option B was the reason God created this world. God is perfection and God is only able to create the best out of love. Creating inferior worlds is impossible for God in my opinion.

Put simply, God didn't abort creation because that would entail aborting you. God loved you and wanted you; despite the suffering and evil which God foreknew would come into the world in the process. God's purpose was greater than suffering even if we don't always love ourselves as much as God does.

God Bless,
Rob

Hi Rob

You describe God as a creator who loved me enough to chose a creation timeline that included my salvation. That's good for me. But he also chose a creation with a timeline that someone else was condemned to eternal anguish.

Doesn't that mean God showed favoritism towards me, and others like me?

Doesn't the Bible clearly tell us God does not use favoritism?

Your theology says God chose a creation that had this timeline, and person A choses Christ, and person B choses Hell. Yet he could have chose a different plan where person B choses heaven and person A choses hell. But he chose the better of the two.

By this, the main differing factor for why person B was heaven or hell bound was ultimately the timeline God choose. Even if that timeline were best, the results of that timeline had both positive and negative consequences for the people who lived it. In otherwords, God choose to initiate a good-evil timeline that he KNEW would come about while doing so, to bring good about.

Even though there is good mixed with the evil, there is still evil. By this, you are saying, in your own words, that God knowingly did evil that good would come of it.

If God foresaw the best timeline, that would mean we are not truly free if he chose a timeline where things worked the way he wanted it.

 

[Lon]

Hi Rob

You describe God as a creator who loved me enough to chose a creation timeline that included my salvation. That's good for me. But he also chose a creation with a timeline that someone else was condemned to eternal anguish.

Doesn't that mean God showed favoritism towards me, and others like me?

Doesn't the Bible clearly tell us God does not use favoritism?

Your theology says God chose a creation that had this timeline, and person A choses Christ, and person B choses Hell. Yet he could have chose a different plan where person B choses heaven and person A choses hell. But he chose the better of the two.

By this, the main differing factor for why person B was heaven or hell bound was ultimately the timeline God choose. Even if that timeline were best, the results of that timeline had both positive and negative consequences for the people who lived it. In otherwords, God choose to initiate a good-evil timeline that he KNEW would come about while doing so, to bring good about.

Even though there is good mixed with the evil, there is still evil. By this, you are saying, in your own words, that God knowingly did evil that good would come of it.

If God foresaw the best timeline, that would mean we are not truly free if he chose a timeline where things worked the way he wanted it.

I admittedly stink at analogy, but it is where my mind goes to try to explain a thing. Sometimes I'm fortunate enough to hit the nail on the head for all, but it is always in striving for the better analogy where that happens.

In a way, we can understand part of this but our limitations provide the confusion.

I had kids, knowing they'd sin. I wasn't ever deluded to believe they'd be perfect and there would be no problems. In essence, I'm indirectly responsible for them sinning, but this isn't/wasn't my desire in having them. I desire to see them potentialize in His kingdom. I desire to have them interact with their God.

To the evil: I decided beforehand that when (not if) my kids sin, I would need to interact and use those occassions to explain and teach. To use those circumstances to bring about some good. A teachable moment. Making the most of a bad circumstance.

Where analogy breaks down: I'm not omniscient. I don't know about the sin until afterwards, but I could at least anticipate them happening. I wasn't caught surprised. I preordained their sinning by having them, but I did not cause the sin directly. I created them (well God created them), knowing they would sin, but it was and is not my desire that they do so.

I hope this helps a little in seeing this from a Calvinist perspective. It isn't as heinous or implicable as is supposed. I preordained my children to sin, but I'm not implicated by their sins. I'm not desirous of them to do so, but I'm indirectly responsible for this. If my child commits a crime, I'm not sent to jail along with them. We understand implicability. It would be odd to suggest implication and it should be seen as odd to do so against Calvinism as well.

This is a simple analogy that should help shed some reasonable light in natural practicallity.

Lon

 

[Nang]

I admittedly stink at analogy, but it is where my mind goes to try to explain a thing. Sometimes I'm fortunate enough to hit the nail on the head for all, but it is always in striving for the better analogy where that happens.

In a way, we can understand part of this but our limitations provide the confusion.

I had kids, knowing they'd sin. I wasn't ever deluded to believe they'd be perfect and there would be no problems. In essence, I'm indirectly responsible for them sinning, but this isn't/wasn't my desire in having them. I desire to see them potentialize in His kingdom. I desire to have them interact with their God.

To the evil: I decided beforehand that when (not if) my kids sin, I would need to interact and use those occassions to explain and teach. To use those circumstances to bring about some good. A teachable moment. Making the most of a bad circumstance.

Where analogy breaks down: I'm not omniscient. I don't know about the sin until afterwards, but I could at least anticipate them happening. I wasn't caught surprised. I preordained their sinning by having them, but I did not cause the sin directly. I created them (well God created them), knowing they would sin, but it was and is not my desire that they do so.

I hope this helps a little in seeing this from a Calvinist perspective. It isn't as heinous or implicable as is supposed. I preordained my children to sin, but I'm not implicated by their sins. I'm not desirous of them to do so, but I'm indirectly responsible for this. If my child commits a crime, I'm not sent to jail along with them. We understand implicability. It would be odd to suggest implication and it should be seen as odd to do so against Calvinism as well.

This is a simple analogy that should help shed some reasonable light in natural practicallity.

Lon

You are a very wise and reasonable man, Lon.

I am blessed to be able to read your thoughts and insights.

Thank you for posting them.

Nang

 

[patman]

I admittedly stink at analogy, but it is where my mind goes to try to explain a thing. Sometimes I'm fortunate enough to hit the nail on the head for all, but it is always in striving for the better analogy where that happens.

In a way, we can understand part of this but our limitations provide the confusion.

I had kids, knowing they'd sin. I wasn't ever deluded to believe they'd be perfect and there would be no problems. In essence, I'm indirectly responsible for them sinning, but this isn't/wasn't my desire in having them. I desire to see them potentialize in His kingdom. I desire to have them interact with their God.

To the evil: I decided beforehand that when (not if) my kids sin, I would need to interact and use those occassions to explain and teach. To use those circumstances to bring about some good. A teachable moment. Making the most of a bad circumstance.

Where analogy breaks down: I'm not omniscient. I don't know about the sin until afterwards, but I could at least anticipate them happening. I wasn't caught surprised. I preordained their sinning by having them, but I did not cause the sin directly. I created them (well God created them), knowing they would sin, but it was and is not my desire that they do so.

I hope this helps a little in seeing this from a Calvinist perspective. It isn't as heinous or implicable as is supposed. I preordained my children to sin, but I'm not implicated by their sins. I'm not desirous of them to do so, but I'm indirectly responsible for this. If my child commits a crime, I'm not sent to jail along with them. We understand implicability. It would be odd to suggest implication and it should be seen as odd to do so against Calvinism as well.

This is a simple analogy that should help shed some reasonable light in natural practicallity.

Lon

Hi Lon

It is difficult to truly apply the correlation to of a wise father with insight to the future and a wise father with complete future knowledge, as calvinist say of God.

I can see however, that you intended for your children to live good lives, even though you knew they would ultimately sin. But I hope you understand that doesn't make you any less responsible for their sin. For example, if a parent sees a sin and doesn't discipline appropriately, that parent shares blame with the child the next time he sins.

Also, a parent shares blame with the sins of a child when the parent foresees a sin, yet does nothing. For example, if a parent knew their child was planning on shooting up a school, and did nothing, that parent shares in the blame.

Any way you cut it, blame for sin is shared with a parent when there is knowledge of sin and nothing is done about it.

I do not believe God is doing nothing about sin, just for the record. But I do believe the same principle can be applied to God if he knowingly created Adam in such a way that he would sin.

If I had a wind-up toy, and I understand that by winding the toy that it will act in a certain way, I am responsible for what that toy does because I knowingly initiated the actions of the toy, even though all I did was wind it up.

If we were kids, each with our own wind-up toy, and we got them to fight for each other, I would claim victory if my toy won. I would justify I wound it better than you did, or I directed it on a better path than you did.

If God knows the future to the extent that calvinism says, that makes us the ultimate wind-up toy. God knew when he made Adam he knew was winding Adam straight towards the tree. If only God didn't wind Adam so much, he wouldn't have made it to the tree, or if he wound him a little more he would have just passed it up. Instead, calvinism places God as winding Adam *just right* so Adam would sin, bringing sin on us all (because that is what happened).

Then it is said that was God's will. And somehow God isn't to blame. But non-christians cannot look over the obvious truth, that God is to blame. So they ask "Why does God condemn us when he made us like this?"

I do not accuse God. God would never do such a thing. That is why I stand against the S.V. and Calvinism.

 

[Nang]

I do not believe God is doing nothing about sin, just for the record. But I do believe the same principle can be applied to God if he knowingly created Adam in such a way that he would sin.

So what is the alternative for the person who knows if they produce children, the children will not be perfect?

Not have children?

Are you saying God should not have created us?

Or are you saying that God should have created us perfect like Himself? (You do know that is an impossibility . . .God by definition, cannot be create.)

Nang

 

[patman]

So what is the alternative for the person who knows if they produce children, the children will not be perfect?

Not have children?

Are you saying God should not have created us?

Or are you saying that God should have created us perfect like Himself? (You do know that is an impossibility . . .God by definition, cannot be create.)

Nang

I am saying Calvinism cannot be correct because any way you look at it, it makes God out to be the author of the sin that sends millions to hell.

 

[patman]

It would be like a rich man having children, then sending them to the middle east to be raised by muslims to help guarantee they won't be raised christian.

 

[RobE]

Hi Rob

You describe God as a creator who loved me enough to chose a creation timeline that included my salvation. That's good for me. But he also chose a creation with a timeline that someone else was condemned to eternal anguish.

Well, I said....

Well, there's two ways to look at this. Either A, 'God looked at all possible worlds and decided to create the best choice that He had'; or, B, 'God decided to create this world because He loved you'.

Doesn't that mean God showed favoritism towards me, and others like me?

Doesn't the Bible clearly tell us God does not use favoritism?

This is what Calvinism has concluded. I believe God shows compassion and love by creating all of us. Life in itself is a gift. It rains on the good and evil alike. The grace of life was universally given without our consent. Eternal life requires our consent. How is God wrong as long as it's universally offered despite what God foreknows?

Your theology says God chose a creation that had this timeline, and person A choses Christ, and person B choses Hell. Yet he could have chose a different plan where person B choses heaven and person A choses hell. But he chose the better of the two.

But this is only conjecture. Who's to say that 'B' doesn't choose hell in every possible world? I'm not sure you have considered this. Imperfect vessels remain imperfect no matter what environment you place them in.

Even though there is good mixed with the evil, there is still evil. By this, you are saying, in your own words, that God knowingly did evil that good would come of it.

No. I'm saying God allowed evil for a higher purpose. What evil did I say that God did?

If God foresaw the best timeline, that would mean we are not truly free if he chose a timeline where things worked the way he wanted it.

From my perspective, man's free decision causes --------> Sin and God's foreknowledge.

Your perspective, God's foreknowledge causes --------> Sin and Man's free decisions.

Have you considered that things work out the way God wants them to in any timeline?

Patrick, I would normally speak of children now, but I see Lon has already done so. God loves us. God loves the world. God even loves His enemies, but hates their actions. From both our perspectives God allows evil as not to interfere with the free actions of man. Foreknowledge only specifies 'when' God finds out, not what God is going to do about it.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon

It is difficult to truly apply the correlation to of a wise father with insight to the future and a wise father with complete future knowledge, as calvinist say of God.

I can see however, that you intended for your children to live good lives, even though you knew they would ultimately sin. But I hope you understand that doesn't make you any less responsible for their sin. For example, if a parent sees a sin and doesn't discipline appropriately, that parent shares blame with the child the next time he sins.

Also, a parent shares blame with the sins of a child when the parent foresees a sin, yet does nothing. For example, if a parent knew their child was planning on shooting up a school, and did nothing, that parent shares in the blame.

Any way you cut it, blame for sin is shared with a parent when there is knowledge of sin and nothing is done about it.

I do not believe God is doing nothing about sin, just for the record. But I do believe the same principle can be applied to God if he knowingly created Adam in such a way that he would sin.

If I had a wind-up toy, and I understand that by winding the toy that it will act in a certain way, I am responsible for what that toy does because I knowingly initiated the actions of the toy, even though all I did was wind it up.

If we were kids, each with our own wind-up toy, and we got them to fight for each other, I would claim victory if my toy won. I would justify I wound it better than you did, or I directed it on a better path than you did.

If God knows the future to the extent that calvinism says, that makes us the ultimate wind-up toy. God knew when he made Adam he knew was winding Adam straight towards the tree. If only God didn't wind Adam so much, he wouldn't have made it to the tree, or if he wound him a little more he would have just passed it up. Instead, calvinism places God as winding Adam *just right* so Adam would sin, bringing sin on us all (because that is what happened).

Then it is said that was God's will. And somehow God isn't to blame. But non-christians cannot look over the obvious truth, that God is to blame. So they ask "Why does God condemn us when he made us like this?"

I do not accuse God. God would never do such a thing. That is why I stand against the S.V. and Calvinism.

Responsible and implicable are separated ideas. I hope analogy continues to help you see this clearly. It is important for you to correctly analyze a Calvinistic stance and is the problem with not seeing it correctly. It is like trying to throw parents in jail for their children's behavior. It is the difference between responsibility and impicability. God is not implicated in a Calvinist understanding. It is an extrapolated misconception that needs continued clarifying and understanding.
God is responsible for us. He chooses to be. He is not implicated however.