ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[eph39]

About the only argument I've ever read that makes me consider OT as possibly valid (I'm undecided) is the "divine emotion" argument, if I may call it that. It's an old one but: whether God merely knew all events from eternity past or preordained and orchestrated them down to the drift of molecules in space, then His various emotional responses to human behavior makes no sense. Emotional responses, if genuine, are just that: reactions to new stimuli (I put it in very limited human terms here, forgive me).

I could not possibly be genuinely angry, joyful, or sorrowful over actions I knew with 100% certainty would happen; much less if I was the one who infallibly MADE them happen.

That leaves me with one of two conclusions - correct them if you like: either the Bible's depictions of God's emotions are false because He faked them, or they are genuine because He did not know precisely which choice humans would make from moment to moment - because those choices did not yet exist in any meaningful sense - and so He was able to be genuinely disappointed, pleased, or whatever.

For that reason alone I give OT some credence. But I've not explored any further into it than that, really.

Hi, by the way.

 

[Nang]

Paul was called mid acts

The Book of Acts in the Bible is not an actual calendar, but a historical chronology.

So the term "mid acts" is meaningless when discussing doctrines that transcend chronological time, except to a few radicals who attempt to distinguish Godly truths according to temporal events rather than according to eternal and Godly principle and purpose.

No, Jesus Christ is the same today, tomorrow, and forever.

and given the dispensation of grace. The ministry that Jesus died for the sins of the world. It was brought out with the fall of national Israel.

See? What I mean . . .

The eternal principle found in Holy Scripture throughout, is that God provided a Savior according to Covenant promise, to save a people called out of all nationalities in all of history.

(God was saving souls way before the nation of Israel was raised up for a short time, and God still saves souls since the demise of national Israel. The salvation of God is according to grace, and not the historical condition of the Jewish people.)

Nang

 

[Nick M]

The Book of Acts in the Bible is not an actual calendar, but a historical chronology.

Right. And he was called in Acts 9, whenever that was.

No, Jesus Christ is the same today, tomorrow, and forever.

So then he is still hanging dead on the cross? I await your answer.

The eternal principle found in Holy Scripture throughout, is that God provided a Savior according to Covenant promise, to save a people called out of all nationalities in all of history.

Ephesians 2:12

that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Don't you just find it easier to believe what the Bible says rather than interpret it to make it say what you want it to say? You know, to invent your own doctrine?

 

[themuzicman]

About the only argument I've ever read that makes me consider OT as possibly valid (I'm undecided) is the "divine emotion" argument, if I may call it that. It's an old one but: whether God merely knew all events from eternity past or preordained and orchestrated them down to the drift of molecules in space, then His various emotional responses to human behavior makes no sense. Emotional responses, if genuine, are just that: reactions to new stimuli (I put it in very limited human terms here, forgive me).

I could not possibly be genuinely angry, joyful, or sorrowful over actions I knew with 100% certainty would happen; much less if I was the one who infallibly MADE them happen.

That leaves me with one of two conclusions - correct them if you like: either the Bible's depictions of God's emotions are false because He faked them, or they are genuine because He did not know precisely which choice humans would make from moment to moment - because those choices did not yet exist in any meaningful sense - and so He was able to be genuinely disappointed, pleased, or whatever.

For that reason alone I give OT some credence. But I've not explored any further into it than that, really.

Hi, by the way.

Welcome! You do make a good point about God and emotions.

What do you think of Exodus 32, where God changes His mind because of Moses' appeal?

Muz

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's completely settled in advance.

Can you support that with Scripture?

God only need to be omnipotent to construct the future any way He wants. Thus He can know the future because He created it !

Does His being omnipotent necessitate that He created the future? If He is omnipotent didn't He have the choice to not create the future?

And if He created it at which point did He?

If you're in the present and have that ability to recognize the present, God is ahead of you. God created the present.

Again I must ask for Scripture.

Maybe the question should be, "Does the future control you?"

No, the question is; Does the future exist?

How else is the Holy Spirit going to ~lead~ you?

I thought God was omnipotent? Are you telling me it would be impossible for Him to lead us if He did not know the future?

I failed to continue to discuss to others here on my question, "What is the the original source of your thought?". Many couldn't answer it. They're too busy being a free willist, some sort of unconscious loop or feedback like a microphone and an amplifier just to keep a thought whistling. How annoying!

Thats why TOL is loud!

I'm wearing ear plugs!

My brain is the original source of my thought. With the thoughts you present here I can only assume you are as some dinosaurs; your brain is at the other end.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[godrulz]

It's completely settled in advance.

God only need to be omnipotent to construct the future any way He wants. Thus He can know the future because He created it !

If you're in the present and have that ability to recognize the present, God is ahead of you. God created the present.

Maybe the question should be, "Does the future control you?"

How else is the Holy Spirit going to ~lead~ you?

I failed to continue to discuss to others here on my question, "What is the the original source of your thought?". Many couldn't answer it. They're too busy being a free willist, some sort of unconscious loop or feedback like a microphone and an amplifier just to keep a thought whistling. How annoying!

Thats why TOL is loud!

I'm wearing ear plugs!

Omnipotence and omniscience are not identical. The wrong assumption is to think that God is omni/pancausal/deterministic. If we are in the image of God with free will, then the future is partially open/unsettled (creatures settle aspects with their wills) and partially settled/closed (God determines some vs all things).

God simply does not create all the future, especially evil which is contrary to His will and a product of Satan/men.

 

[godrulz]

{I lost you in that question} God positions and places the bank in front of a bank robber. How else is he going to rob a bank? (I covered that in my past posts.)


umm. I thought only atheist believe that.

Men, not God, builds banks. Any person can choose to rob or not rob the bank. Until the choice is made or premeditated, it is known as a possibility, not an actuality/certainty. God does not know these things in eternity past as actual since they do not exist yet and He does not cause them. If we are puppets on a string, then God could predict and know in advance (but it still does not make the anticipated future actual/real until it happens).

 

[eph39]

Welcome! You do make a good point about God and emotions.

What do you think of Exodus 32, where God changes His mind because of Moses' appeal?

Muz

Well, all I take it to mean is that He changed His mind in response to Moses. Not being snide, but that is all it says to me so I must be missing where you'd tie that to O.T....they seem to be separate issues, know what I mean?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What do you think of Exodus 32, where God changes His mind because of Moses' appeal?

Let us look at the following verse:

"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Ex.32:14).

In this case the Hebrew word translated "repented" means a change of mind, the same meaning as is used in the folowing verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

This verse is speakong of the very nature of God--that He does not change His mind. The use of the same word at Exodus 32:14 is "figurative" in nature. It should not be taken literally.

Let us look at what is said in verse ten:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex.32:10).

It is clear that the destruction of Israel was not in God's plan, especially with the promise of Genesis 49:10 to Judah in view.

When the Scriptures show God changing His mind figurative language is being employed, and the figure is "Anthropopatheia":

"Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, and inanimate things...Gen. 1:2; 8:21; Ps.74:11; Jer.2:13; Hos.11:10" (The Companion Bible, Appendix 6:Figures of Speech).

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[godrulz]

Scripture teaches that God can change His mind, but will not do so in all cases. This is contrary to traditional strong immutability, etc. and support for Open Theism. There is no reason to make it anthropomorphic since the phrase would convey no truth if not taken literally. How could Scripture show the possibility of a personal God changing His mind in response to changing contingencies apart from the 35x it uses the phrase?! The only reason to not take it at face value is to retain a flawed, preconceived doctrine of God. Sanders and Boyd, etc. make a convincing case on principle and from Scripture.

 

[Eggasai]

I'm sorry but could someone please tell me what Open Theism is all about because the links and the discussion has left me baffled. The discussion at this point seems to question whether or not God can change his mind given the fact that God 'repented' that he ever made man during the Antediluvian period (lit before the deluge). This is actually a really easy concept to master.

Consider for a minute that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world? Or perhaps that God predestined us to be conformed to the likeness of Christ:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29)​

The way I finally came to terms with this is that we were always going to be conformed to the likeness of Christ because God's righteousness is changeless. Technically God changed his mind or attitude towards man in the Antediluvian period but not really, he just got fed up with the growing wickedness of man.

Not sure I'm even on topic here, be back later to see if anyone bothers to set me straight.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Scripture teaches that God can change His mind.

Then why do we read the following?:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

Can we not understand that what the Lord speaks of doing here was not a real possibility:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex.32:10).

How could He consume them without completely destroying the tribe of Judah and therefore breaking the following promise which He had made earlier?:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

Often times in the narrative figurative language is used, and sometimes the narrative seems to contradict the teaching of Scriptures that the Lord does not repent or have a change of mind:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm sorry but could someone please tell me what Open Theism is all about because the links and the discussion has left me baffled.

Mark, you might look at the article at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

I am not sure if the info there is correct or not as I do not follow this very closely. godrulz could probably tell you if the article is correct or not.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[godrulz]

Then why do we read the following?:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

Can we not understand that what the Lord speaks of doing here was not a real possibility:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex.32:10).

How could He consume them without completely destroying the tribe of Judah and therefore breaking the following promise which He had made earlier?:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

Often times in the narrative figurative language is used, and sometimes the narrative seems to contradict the teaching of Scriptures that the Lord does not repent or have a change of mind:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

In His grace,
Jerry

God is personal, not a robot. Due to changing contingencies, He could fail to be righteous and true if He does not change His mind at times. The changeless proof texts show that God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like humans do.

I Sam. 15 has a case where God changes His mind and a verse where He does not change His mind. Will not is not the same as cannot. Open Theists can take these verses at face value, while alternate views must dismiss one motif as figurative.

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course, read all my past posts. You'll find plenty.

Are you a gambling man? Because I'm willing to bet I won't find it in your past posts. And I won't even be gambling, because it's a sure thing.

Again, once you have settled activity of your brian waves and trace your thoughts back to it's original source, then you'll have the "ah! ha!" moment. With your limited vision, you'll see in 360 degrees.

lain:

The Chinese knows better not to talk about the Tao cause if they were able to discuss Tao in human language, they'll fall right back into their own busy minds too busy to see it.

Are you serious with this?

Warning:
-Read below at your own risk.-​

It will be unpleasant to Christians and will make them furious cause they are too picky and choosy.

The Chinese views it in this way:
---------------------
" The perfect Dao is without difficulty, save that it avoids picking and choosing. Only when you stop liking and disliking will all be clearly understood. A split hair's difference, and heaven and earth are set apart! If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind."
---------------------

Thou art a godless fool.

{I lost you in that question} God positions and places the bank in front of a bank robber. How else is he going to rob a bank? (I covered that in my past posts.)

That is of the utmost ridiculous stupidity.

umm. I thought only atheist believe that.

My point, exactly. You thought wrong. God create us all to think for ourselves. It is a deceived mind that wants to blame their thoughts on someone else.

 

[godrulz]

Mark, you might look at the article at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

I am not sure if the info there is correct or not as I do not follow this very closely. godrulz could probably tell you if the article is correct or not.

In His grace,
Jerry

I have not read the whole article, but I did edit a few sentences where Mormons tried to appear Christian (they have some Open Theism concepts).

www.opentheism.info

http://www.gregboyd.org/

I would trust these links more.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The changeless proof texts show that God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like humans do.

That is not what Numbers 23:19 is saying.

Open Theists can take these verses at face value, while alternate views must dismiss one motif as figurative.

What about the verses I discussed before?:

Can we not understand that what the Lord speaks of doing here was not a real possibility:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Ex.32:10).

How could He consume them without completely destroying the tribe of Judah and therefore breaking the following promise which He had made earlier?:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).

Please address the point that I am making here.

In His grace,
Jerry