ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

Okay, I will treat you as if you are a complete idiot, since that is how you want it.
Abraham was in "faith" No, he wasn't. Abraham had faith and he obeyed God by faith.
Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" No, it is not possible because Abraham was never in "faith".

If Abraham was never "in faith" then why do the Scriptures say that he was?:

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Ro.4:19-20).

Is it possible that Abraham did not have a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife? No, Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife. This is proved by his three day journey to the mountain with Isaac and his binding Isaac on the altar. The problem with this question is that it is not asking the extent of Abraham's fear and reverance of God, proving that you are asking the wrong question.

No, the point is whether or not he "feared God" before he lifted the knife and not the "extent" of that fear. The verse we are discussing says nothing about the "extent" of Abraham's fear or reverence of God:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

A literal reading of the verse can only being understood as saying that God did not know that Abraham feared Him until He saw him take up the knife--"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son...for NOW I know that thou fearest God."

But you yourself said that Abraham actually had a fear or reverance of God BEFORE he he lifted the knife:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

So you must now agree that the words at Genesis 22:12 cannot be taken literally.

Of course since you refuse to even acknowledge that there are verses which say that Abraham was "in faith" it would not surprise me if you now refuse to even acknowledge your own words here:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If Abraham was never "in faith" then why do the Scriptures say that he was?:

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Ro.4:19-20).

Don't be an idiot.
It did not say he was in "faith", it said his faith was not weak.

No, the point is whether or not he "feared God" before he lifted the knife and not the "extent" of that fear. The verse we are discussing says nothing about the "extent" of Abraham's fear or reverence of God:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

Don't be an idiot.
The point is whether Abraham's faith was tried and how he passed the trial of his faith.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,​

A literal reading of the verse can only being understood as saying that God did not know that Abraham feared Him until He saw him take up the knife--"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son...for NOW I know that thou fearest God."

But you yourself said that Abraham actually had a fear or reverance of God BEFORE he he lifted the knife:

So you must now agree that the words at Genesis 22:12 cannot be taken literally.

Don't be an idiot.
A literal reading of the verse can only be understood as saying that Abraham passed the trial of his faith. So you must now agree that the words at Genesis 22:12 must be taken literally.

 

[Lon]

Thank you for mentioning the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge. I was not aware of the debate between the Arminian View and the Calvinist View. In my ignorance of these two views, I assumed you were talking about prescience and not causation when you mentioned foreknowledge. The good thing about ignorance is that it has a cure. :dunce:

Not a problem, but yes.

The problem I have with the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge (simple prescience) is that it is not needed and makes God appear to have a dubious intent when He makes conditional covenants.

I don't see what seems apparent to you here. The way the Arminian sees this is that God knows all potentials, so God's interaction ensures specific ones. Did I wonder about these things as any OVer? Yes, but I came to different conclusions. I have a prior commitment that God is pure and mankind is affected by sin. It doesn't matter too much regarding appearances. One of the biggest hurdles for my theology was trying to understand that God is good regardless of appearances to me.

The problem I have with the Calvinist View (total foreordination) is it makes God into a liar.

Again, totally dependent upon one's suppositions. If we perceive ingenuine intent, sure. I don't assume that. I settled that issue before I looked at the texts concerning these. I simply ran a scenario in my mind: If I offer my kids an incentive to clean their rooms, is it genuine if they don't do it? Yes. Would it be genuine if I somehow knew they would not? Yes. "Why?" Because I'm trying to mold more than actions, I'm trying to mold kids. If you say I lied, I disagree. I set a condition, that if met would produce an incentive. The condition is true regardless of what I know. Regardless of objections, I cannot believe 'dubious' intent is the only answer you can come up with, nor that you'd really judge me concerning the incentive regardless of what I know. If you were my best friend, I can't imagine 'dubious' would be your first thought. How much more so with our God (from one friend to another)?

Are you sure about that? The OP says otherwise:

My belief is that the future is open to an extent that puts it on the far side of Calvinism in the spectrum of completely settled to completely open.

Well yes, that far spectrum is the 'completely open' side.
I do realize most open theists recognize some limitations, but it is more open than closed. Even though I'm an optimist (half-full), on this specific, I tend rather to look at and define what is closed. To me, the best way to travel the 'open' road is to know precisely where it is closed and believe it the better descriptor. The road is not going to change course for my driving considerations today. Can it be changed to accomodate? Yeah, but in my estimation, the constraints regarding roads, directions, and including our lives, are the more accurate descriptors concerning our directions. We all tend to give directions regarding fixed placemarkers.

The openness of the future is to accomodate synergism.

The Century Dictionary defines synergism as
"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, [is] cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."
​

​

I am a monergist because scripture points me in that direction:
Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.

Here is a verse that supports synergism but causes problems with monergism:

2 Chronicles 7:14​ If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.​

I disagree. This is a description of 'His people,' not other people. Thank you for your thoughtful post and what I perceive as careful study here. Even as we disagree, I'm drawn deeply into conversations that discuss these things with a researched commitment.
His blessings,

Lon

 

[Jay Walk]

I have a prior commitment that God is pure and mankind is affected by sin. It doesn't matter too much regarding appearances. One of the biggest hurdles for my theology was trying to understand that God is good regardless of appearances to me.

This being the idol non-calvinists refuse to put away and embrace God. They refuse to drop their preconceptions of how God should be that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. They conform God to their presuppositions. Indeed God is good no matter how much they don't like him.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Not a problem, but yes.


I don't see what seems apparent to you here. The way the Arminian sees this is that God knows all potentials, so God's interaction ensures specific ones. Did I wonder about these things as any OVer? Yes, but I came to different conclusions. I have a prior commitment that God is pure and mankind is affected by sin. It doesn't matter too much regarding appearances. One of the biggest hurdles for my theology was trying to understand that God is good regardless of appearances to me.


Again, totally dependent upon one's suppositions. If we perceive ingenuine intent, sure. I don't assume that. I settled that issue before I looked at the texts concerning these. I simply ran a scenario in my mind: If I offer my kids an incentive to clean their rooms, is it genuine if they don't do it? Yes. Would it be genuine if I somehow knew they would not? Yes. "Why?" Because I'm trying to mold more than actions, I'm trying to mold kids. If you say I lied, I disagree. I set a condition, that if met would produce an incentive. The condition is true regardless of what I know. Regardless of objections, I cannot believe 'dubious' intent is the only answer you can come up with, nor that you'd really judge me concerning the incentive regardless of what I know. If you were my best friend, I can't imagine 'dubious' would be your first thought. How much more so with our God (from one friend to another)?

I borrowed 'dubious' from you, since it was your reaction to the parable I told earlier.

But, you bring up an important point. Each of us starts from a position of enmity with God. Because of enmity with God, He has the appearance of evil to the unsaved (just read some of the posts on this site). That appearance is mitigated in both the open view and in the synergism view, but is aggravated in the Calvinist view and in the monergism view.
Let's use your example. People with enmity to God will see your example and apply their understanding of the Calvinist God to the example and come up with this:

God offers people an incentive. He will not torture them for all eternity if they clean their room. He does this knowing full well that He predetermined most people for eternal torment.​

This is not what you mean at all, but you are not in enmity with God.
Your good intentions have defiled the name of God in their eyes.

I hold to the open view and to synergism.
Right from the beginning of the Bible, God lays out the foundations for the open view and for synergism:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

If - This is the foundation of the open view. The very use of the word means that there are options, and any foreordaining that denies the ability to exercise that option makes the use of the word duplicitous at best, but an outright lie to those in enmity with God.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted - This is the foundation of synergism. Man shoulders the burden of doing well. The reward for man's choice and actions is to be accepted.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Don't be an idiot.
A literal reading of the verse can only be understood as saying that Abraham passed the trial of his faith. So you must now agree that the words at Genesis 22:12 must be taken literally.

A "literal" reading of the verse can only be understood as speaking about when God knew when Abraham feared or reverenced God:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

And you yourself now admit that Abraham had that fear or reverence for God before he lifted up the knife:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

So anyone wityh the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that the following in "bold" cannot be taken literally:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

Since you have no answer and your own words prove my point you revert to the childish behavior of name calling. Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual discernment can see that what is said in "bold" cannot be understood literally but you are incapable of seeing that truth.

 

[Lon]

I borrowed 'dubious' from you, since it was your reaction to the parable I told earlier.

Okay, my bad....

But, you bring up an important point. Each of us starts from a position of enmity with God. Because of enmity with God, He has the appearance of evil to the unsaved (just read some of the posts on this site).

Agree with you here.

That appearance is mitigated in both the open view and in the synergism view, but is aggravated in the Calvinist view and in the monergism view.
Let's use your example. People with enmity to God will see your example and apply their understanding of the Calvinist God to the example and come up with this:

God offers people an incentive. He will not torture them for all eternity if they clean their room. He does this knowing full well that He predetermined most people for eternal torment.
​

This is not what you mean at all, but you are not in enmity with God.
Your good intentions have defiled the name of God in their eyes.

I believe you correct that mitigation is the concern but it again, is primarily man-centered in concern. I try not to get into that position. If an unbeliever has a hang-up with God, they need to wrestle with Him. We are lights and ambassadors but we need to point back to Him, not necessarily field every grievance.

I hold to the open view and to synergism.
Right from the beginning of the Bible, God lays out the foundations for the open view and for synergism:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

If - This is the foundation of the open view. The very use of the word means that there are options, and any foreordaining that denies the ability to exercise that option makes the use of the word duplicitous at best, but an outright lie to those in enmity with God.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted - This is the foundation of synergism. Man shoulders the burden of doing well. The reward for man's choice and actions is to be accepted.

I agree that 'if' is foundational for your guys. I'd simply point back to the beginning of this thread. I address that condtion starting on page two which goes for about 20 pages and is important for the discussion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since you have no answer and your own words prove my point you revert to the childish behavior of name calling. Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual discernment can see that what is said in "bold" cannot be understood literally but you are incapable of seeing that truth.

You seem to have a very poor grasp of language.
I did not call you a name, I told you to stop a destructive behavior you were repeatedly doing.

A "literal" reading of the verse can only be understood as speaking about when God knew when Abraham feared or reverenced God:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

You are stuck on the timing, which is only relevant if you are an Open Theist.
If you are not an Open Theist, then you would never read the verse literally, so you are in no position to understand what would constitute a "literal" interpretation of the verse.

And you yourself now admit that Abraham had that fear or reverence for God before he lifted up the knife:

Please try to keep up.
You have tried to say that the fear and reverence for God that Abraham showed when he lied to Abimelech about whether Sarah was his wife is the same fear and reverence for God that Abraham showed when he offered up Isaac.
I have repeatedly tried to get you to understand that Abraham had grown in faith, and the quality of the fear or reverence for God that he had when he passed the trial of his faith was not the same as the quality of the fear or reverence for God when he took Hagar in order to father a son.

So anyone wityh the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that the following in "bold" cannot be taken literally:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

You mean anyone without the slightest bit of spiritual discernment will come to the same conclusion as you did.

Anyone with spiritual discernment would understand that there was a change in Abraham's faith and fear of God and that God was commenting on the change, not making some non-literal non-sequiter remark.

So, as it relates to Open Theism, Abraham went through a trial of his faith where not even God could 100% determine whether Abraham would choose to sacrifice Isaac or whether he would choose to spare Isaac, but Abraham made his decision alone. This is different than the prophecy about Peter denying Jesus three times before the **** crowed, where God intervened enough to set Peter up in situations where he would deny Jesus. Peter was not being tested, he was being humbled, and being humbled was not of his own choice though the denials were.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You seem to have a very poor grasp of language.
I did not call you a name, I told you to stop a destructive behavior you were repeatedly doing.

Here is what you said:

Okay, I will treat you as if you are a complete idiot, since that is how you want it.

Even though you say that you will treat me as if I am a "complete idiot" you now assert that you are not name calling.

You are stuck on the timing, which is only relevant if you are an Open Theist.

The whole point of the argument is in regard to timing, specifically the word "now":

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

According to a literal reading of this verse God did not know that Abraham feared or respected Him until he took the knife to slay Abraham. However, you even admit that Abraham feared Him before that:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

Since you have no answer you attempt to pretend that the "time" element is not important despite the fact that that element is the central issue in this discussion:

You are stuck on the timing, which is only relevant if you are an Open Theist.

Since you are an Open Theist then the "timing" is relevant and by your own words Abraham had a fear or reverence of God BEFORE he lifted the knife.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is what you said:

Okay, I will treat you as if you are a complete idiot, since that is how you want it.

Even though you say that you will treat me as if I am a "complete idiot" you now assert that you are not name calling.

"as if"

See, you have a very poor grasp of language!
:rotfl:

Since you are an Open Theist then the "timing" is relevant and by your own words Abraham had a fear or reverence of God BEFORE he lifted the knife.

So, now your argument is that God didn't know what he was talking about?
:rotfl:

Since you have such a difficult time understanding language and are not able to comprehend the explanation I have provided, it is your turn.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,​

Explain in your own terms the timing of "when" and what was "tried" in the verse above, and use only verses from Hebrews 11 and the Genesis 22 to support your explanation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Explain in your own terms the timing of "when" and what was "tried" in the verse above, and use only verses from Hebrews 11 and the Genesis 22 to support your explanation.

I have already explained the timing in reply to what you said here:

You are stuck on the timing, which is only relevant if you are an Open Theist.

Here is what I said:

The whole point of the argument is in regard to timing, specifically the word "now":

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

According to a literal reading of this verse God did not know that Abraham feared or respected Him until he took the knife to slay Abraham. However, you even admit that Abraham feared Him before that:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

Here is your pitiful response to what I presented that proves that you are in error:

So, now your argument is that God didn't know what he was talking about?

No, I have said numerous time that the language at Genesis 22:12 is figurative and cannot be taken literally. This figure of speech is called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

No matter how much you protest from now on your very words here prove that a literal reading of Genesis 22:12 is not in order. Again, you said:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

Therefore you blunder when you say that the part "bolded" here should be taken literally:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

 

[genuineoriginal]

I have already explained the timing in reply to what you said here:

Here is what I said:

The whole point of the argument is in regard to timing, specifically the word "now":

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

According to a literal reading of this verse God did not know that Abraham feared or respected Him until he took the knife to slay Abraham. However, you even admit that Abraham feared Him before that:

Here is your pitiful response to what I presented that proves that you are in error:

No, I have said numerous time that the language at Genesis 22:12 is figurative and cannot be taken literally. This figure of speech is called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

No matter how much you protest from now on your very words here prove that a literal reading of Genesis 22:12 is not in order. Again, you said:

Therefore you blunder when you say that the part "bolded" here should be taken literally:

"And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:9-12).

Aren't you getting tired of building and tearing down the same strawman, over and over?

Your claim is that the Open Theist view on the verse is wrong because God had no reason to say, "now I know that thou fearest God," since Abraham already feared God before the offering of Isaac, and God already knew it.

Most of the people following your argument have concluded that you are saying Open Theism is wrong because God says meaningless random things that can't be taken literally or understood by examining the context.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I agree that 'if' is foundational for your guys. I'd simply point back to the beginning of this thread. I address that condtion starting on page two which goes for about 20 pages and is important for the discussion.

I tried to find the exposition on "If" but couldn't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your claim is that the Open Theist view on the verse is wrong because God had no reason to say, "now I know that thou fearest God," since Abraham already feared God before the offering of Isaac, and God already knew it.

I never said that God had no reason to say those words. Hiowever, it is a fact that God did know that Abraham feared God BEFORE he raised the knife. And you even admit that is true:

Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife.

Therefore we can understand that figurative languague is being employed.

Most of the people following your argument have concluded that you are saying Open Theism is wrong because God says meaningless random things that can't be taken literally or understood by examining the context.

Are we supposed to believe that the following words in "bold" spoken to Adam by God are to be taken literally?:

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).

Of course His words are not to be taken literally because He certainly knew Adam's location. But you would say that since His words there cannot be taken literally then they are meaningless random thoughts and cannot be understood by examining the context.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I never said that God had no reason to say those words.

But you would say that since His words there cannot be taken literally then they are meaningless random thoughts and cannot be understood by examining the context.

recap:
I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I ask you to explain why God would say it.
You say Abraham did not pass a trial because he already had faith, implying God had no reason to say, "Now I know".
I point out that you are implying God said it for no reason.
You say He had a reason, but that I am the one saying God said it for no reason.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but now have to thank you for confirming that you are a idiot.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I explain why God would say, "Now I know" because of Abraham passing the trial of his faith.

You must pervert the verse in order to cling to your mistaken belief and so you do just that. The words "now I know" are in regard to knowing that Abraham "fearest God" and not to Abraham passing the trial of his faith, as you imagine:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).

All I see from you is a willingness to pervert the Scriptures if it serves your purposes.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but now have to thank you for confirming that you are a idiot.

First you pervert the Scriptures and now, since you cannot answer the message, you attack the messenger.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The words "now I know" are in regard to knowing that Abraham "fearest God" and not to Abraham passing the trial of his faith

:sigh:

If you are correct, then there was no reason for God to say, "now I know," unless He got confused about the time and forgot that Abraham feared Him before He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. You have clung to a strawman argument so much that you forgot why you created the strawman argument (to disprove Open Theism) and turned it against your own beliefs instead. That is a sign that you are evil, insane, or an idiot. If you are not an idiot, then which of the other two options are you claiming?

If I am correct, then there was a valid reason for God to say, "now I know," since He was identifying the time when Abraham passed the trial of his faith. This explanation is short, simple, fits the context, is supported by additional scripture, and provides us a lesson on how far we are supposed to go in keeping our faith.

 

[Lon]

"now I know," unless He got confused about the time and forgot that Abraham feared Him before He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. You have clung to a strawman argument so much that you forgot why you created the strawman argument (to disprove Open Theism) and turned it against your own beliefs instead. That is a sign that you are evil, insane, or an idiot. If you are not an idiot, then which of the other two options are you claiming?

If I am correct, then there was a valid reason for God to say, "now I know," since He was identifying the time when Abraham passed the trial of his faith. This explanation is short, simple, fits the context, is supported by additional scripture, and provides us a lesson on how far we are supposed to go in keeping our faith.

Translation here hurts doctrine. I caution anyone without ability to understand concordance work and languages against building doctrines without the needed tools.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you are correct, then there was no reason for God to say, "now I know," unless He got confused about the time and forgot that Abraham feared Him before He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

I have already been over this with you when you said:

Most of the people following your argument have concluded that you are saying Open Theism is wrong because God says meaningless random things that can't be taken literally or understood by examining the context.

Here is my reply and you said nothing that addressed what I said:

Are we supposed to believe that the following words in "bold" spoken to Adam by God are to be taken literally?:

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).

Of course His words are not to be taken literally because He certainly knew Adam's location. But you would say that since His words there cannot be taken literally then they are meaningless random thoughts and cannot be understood by examining the context.

 

[godrulz]

The Adam reference is rhetorical, but the Abe. one can be taken at face value (normative approach unless context or absurdity dictates otherwise) if we embrace a better view. Open Theism does not make all things literal, but does not fall into the trap of making things that can be taken at face value (e.g. God changing His mind) as figurative to retain a flawed preconception.