ECT Open Theism debate

glorydaz

Well-known member
Agreed. :cheers:

I'm not trying to suggest any of it is wrong, either. I'm trying to grasp how Jesus, knowing this, could be so grieved about the coming trial that His will was that He not go through it, which was in opposition to God's (and His own, supposedly, as God the Son's will would never be in opposition to God the Father's). Whether the result was predetermined in some way or not is hardly enough evidence to counteract the scripture that says the wills conflicted.

His Humanity was just as real as His Deity. He was well aware of what He would be enduring, and it was only NATURAL that He would dread it. But, whatever He said or did, it was what He'd been told to do. Don't you think, like His prayers, they were to show His followers how they should pray....not my will but thine be done? John 12:50.. "whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak". His disciples would be facing deaths like his before too long, and seeing our Lord endure had to be a help to them.

Matt. 26:36-45
Spoiler
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. 43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. 44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Spoiler


And if the Son of God had a separate human will from His divine will, what does that mean? Can a single person have 2 wills, even if just for a second

I think of it in the same the way it is for us. We have our own will, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us revealing God's will to us.

But if the 2nd person of the Trinity was upholding the universe even through the crucifixion and death, did the Father ever really forsake the Son in any way? Was Jesus wrong to ask why He did (potentially giving us an impression of a incorrect view of how things are), or was it a figure of speech?

I can't help but comment on this one, too. I never have believed the Father forsook Him. It just felt that way in His humanity. I say this because of the Psalm from which those words were spoken....proven the scripture fulfilment.

Psalm 22:1 and then Psalm 22:24 "For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."
 

Cross Reference

New member
Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
Agreed.

I'm not trying to suggest any of it is wrong, either. I'm trying to grasp how Jesus, knowing this, could be so grieved about the coming trial that His will was that He not go through it, which was in opposition to God's (and His own, supposedly, as God the Son's will would never be in opposition to God the Father's). Whether the result was predetermined in some way or not is hardly enough evidence to counteract the scripture that says the wills conflicted.

You are confusing Jesus' will with His desire. The "nevertheless" by Him speaks of that being the case. [Matt 26:39 KJV]
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Agreed. :cheers:

I'm not trying to suggest any of it is wrong, either. I'm trying to grasp how Jesus, knowing this, could be so grieved about the coming trial that His will was that He not go through it, which was in opposition to God's (and His own, supposedly, as God the Son's will would never be in opposition to God the Father's). Whether the result was predetermined in some way or not is hardly enough evidence to counteract the scripture that says the wills conflicted.

And if the Son of God had a separate human will from His divine will, what does that mean? Can a single person have 2 wills, even if just for a second

Good points, all.

But if the 2nd person of the Trinity was upholding the universe even through the crucifixion and death, did the Father ever really forsake the Son in any way? Was Jesus wrong to ask why He did (potentially giving us an impression of a incorrect view of how things are), or was it a figure of speech?
I heard Matt say the two natures of Christ are separate. Human and Divine. The human nature did not become divine and vice versa.
 

Derf

Well-known member
His Humanity was just as real as His Deity. He was well aware of what He would be enduring, and it was only NATURAL that He would dread it. But, whatever He said or did, it was what He'd been told to do. Don't you think, like His prayers, they were to show His followers how they should pray....not my will but thine be done? John 12:50.. "whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak". His disciples would be facing deaths like his before too long, and seeing our Lord endure had to be a help to them.
I'm sure that was a useful consequence, but you don't sweat drops of blood merely for a show.
Matt. 26:36-45
Spoiler
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. 43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. 44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Spoiler




I think of it in the same the way it is for us. We have our own will, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us revealing God's will to us.
That makes plenty of sense, but our fleshly wills are not tuned to the Father's so tightly as His was in the "en-hypostasis".

Is it possible that in your quote from Matthew, that Jesus was not necessarily telling His disciples that THEIR flesh was weak, but HIS? The context mostly suggests the disciple's, but what was the temptation for them? They seemed to have few enough cares up to that point of the night. Certainly they were all about to be tested in their loyalty to Jesus, and all fail, I think, as they all ran away.

I can't help but comment on this one, too. I never have believed the Father forsook Him. It just felt that way in His humanity. I say this because of the Psalm from which those words were spoken....proven the scripture fulfilment.

Psalm 22:1 and then Psalm 22:24 "For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."
Does it, then, only provide a picture for us that even in our deepest despair, God never really leaves us? I'm not meaning to demean the passage with my "only", as such a reassurance is the kind of thing we need in our deepest despair.

Or, as I've heard elsewhere, is it also a picture of God's holiness in looking on the man upon whom the sins of the whole world rested?
 

Derf

Well-known member
You are confusing Jesus' will with His desire. The "nevertheless" by Him speaks of that being the case. [Matt 26:39 KJV]

I'm not sure I can tell the difference between the two. If it was Jesus' "desire" instead of "will", then it was to be compared with God's "desire" vs. "will".

In either case, Jesus was submitting His will/desire to the Father's, which He always did. But was He unable to do different? If the answer is that He was unable, I question the text. If the answer is that He was able, the whole Godhead might have, in the event He was able and decided to, been found in tatters, which seems preposterous.

This is why Duffy went with the "God takes risks" line.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I'm not sure I can tell the difference between the two. If it was Jesus' "desire" instead of "will", then it was to be compared with God's "desire" vs. "will".

In either case, Jesus was submitting His will/desire to the Father's, which He always did. But was He unable to do different? If the answer is that He was unable, I question the text. If the answer is that He was able, the whole Godhead might have, in the event He was able and decided to, been found in tatters, which seems preposterous.

This is why Duffy went with the "God takes risks" line.
Did you see post #20 by AMR?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ah, as to the above. I realize some believe man is bipartite (body, soul/spirit- I'm assuming), and others of us think he is tripartite (with body, soul, and spirit). 1 Thessalonians 5:23


You mention that our Lord had a genuine human soul. Wouldn't you think that includes His having a genuine human spirit?
1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.​
The tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul.

The history of the church maintains man is a dichotomy, body and soul/spirit. After Apollinaris employed trichotomy in a manner impinging on the perfect humanity of Jesus, it was gradually discredited. Trichotomy reared up again among evangelical circles with the notions of "carnal Christian" and by New Agers who make the same material and immaterial distinctions (spirit, soul more valued over body). It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul. The following facts militate against this philosophical distinction: Ruach-pneuma (soul, Heb/Grk), as well as nephesh-psuche (spirit, Heb/Grk), is used of the brute creation, Eccl. 3:21; Rev. 16:3. The word psuche is even used with reference to Jehovah, Isa. 42:1; Jer. 9:9; Amos 6:8 (Heb.) ; Heb 10:38.

The disembodied dead are called psuchai, Rev. 6:9;20:4. The highestexercises of religion are ascribed to the psuche, Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46; Heb.6:18,19; James 1:21. To lose the psuche is to lose all. It is perfectly evidentthat Scripture uses the two words interchangeably.

Notice the parallelism in Luke1:46,47: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced inGod my Saviour." The Scriptural formula for man is in some passages"body and soul," Matt. 6:25; 10:28; and in others, "body andspirit," Eccl. 12:7; I Cor. 5:3,5. Death is sometimes described as thegiving up of the soul, Gen. 35:18; I Kings 17:21; Acts 15:26; and then again asthe giving up of the spirit, Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59. Moreover both"soul" and "spirit" are used to designate the immaterialelement of the dead, 1 Pet. 3:19; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4.

The mainScriptural distinction is as follows: the word "spirit" designatesthe spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controlsthe body; while the word "soul" denominates the same element as thesubject of action in man, and is therefore often used for the personal pronounin the Old Testament, Ps. 10:1,2; 104:1; 146:1; Isa. 42:1; also Luke 12:19.In several instances it, more specifically, designates the inner life as theseat of the affections. All this is quite in harmony with Gen. 2:7, "AndJehovah God . . . breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man becamea living soul." Thus it may be said that man has spirit, but issoul. The Bible therefore points to two, and only two, constitutional elementsin the nature of man, namely, body and spirit or soul. This Scripturalrepresentation is also in harmony with the self-consciousness of man. While manis conscious of the fact that he consists of a material and a spiritualelement, no one is conscious of possessing a soul in distinction from a spirit.

There are two passages, however, that seem to conflict with the usual dichotomic representation of Scripture, namely, 1 Thess. 5:23, and Heb. 4:12. But it should be noted that:

(a) It is a sound rule in exegesis that exceptional statements should be interpreted in the light of the full counsel of Scripture, the usual representation of Scripture. In view of this fact some of the defenders of trichotomy admit that these passages do not necessarily prove their point.
(b) The mere mention of spirit and soul alongside of each other does not prove that, according to Scripture, they are two distinct substances, any more than Matt. 22:37 proves that Jesus regarded heart and soul and mind as three distinct substances.
(c) In 1 Thess. 5:23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly," by an epexegetical statement, in which the different aspects of man's existence are summed up, and in which the Apostle feels perfectly free to mention soul and spirit alongside of each other, because the Bible distinguishes between the two. Paul cannot very well have thought of them as two different substances here, because he speaks elsewhere of man as consisting of two parts, Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5;
(d) Heb. 4:12 should not be taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart.

AMR
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Open View is that it is GOD's wisdom that results in GOD knowing every possible outcome of any situation.
And in His wisdom can therefore intervene whenever necessary (with persuasion or prevension) to make sure everything stays on track (so to speak).

For instance"
GOD desires Jonah to go to Nineveh to reveal His proclamation towards them.
Jonah goes the opposite direction.
GOD intervenes to 'persuade' Jonah by having him swallowed by a fish and spit out.
Jonah makes a beeline to Nineveh.

Another:
GOD desires to tell Abraham to kill his son.
Abraham heads out to do it.
GOD intervenes to 'prevent' Abraham from killing his son.

So it didn't matter which Jonah and Abraham had decided to do when first commanded because GOD could intervene by persuasion or prevention to keep His plan on track.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Agreed. :cheers:

I'm not trying to suggest any of it is wrong, either. I'm trying to grasp how Jesus, knowing this, could be so grieved about the coming trial that His will was that He not go through it, which was in opposition to God's (and His own, supposedly, as God the Son's will would never be in opposition to God the Father's).
Perhaps you have misread the account in the garden? Our Lord was always pointedly stating, "not my will, but yours", "if it be your will", and so on. Here we have the crucial essence of worthwhile prayer and supplication when we all pray...doing so seeking to align with the will of God. I find no evidence in Scripture that Jesus did not want to submit to that which He had covenanted to do in eternity.

And if the Son of God had a separate human will from His divine will, what does that mean? Can a single person have 2 wills, even if just for a second.
A single human person has but one will. That is indisputable. Our Lord, however, was something different so we cannot import our human notions to describe the God-man. Nevertheless, at no point in Scripture do we find the human and divine will of Jesus Christ out of accord.

But if the 2nd person of the Trinity was upholding the universe even through the crucifixion and death, did the Father ever really forsake the Son in any way? Was Jesus wrong to ask why He did (potentially giving us an impression of a incorrect view of how things are), or was it a figure of speech?
Well, there is no "if" here, only unwarranted speculation. We cannot have the Second Person of the Trinity geographically confined to one region of the earth for thirty-three years, nor confined to the location of the glorified Lord now at the right hand of the Father.

Matthew 27:46 is a passage that drove Luther into seclusion to contemplate. This is not a cry of despair of abandonment as if the ontological nature of Christ has been separated from His divinity, as if He is no longer omnipresent. Such views of "forsaken" assume that this means God is separating Himself from something, severing ties. This would break the Trinity! No, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance.

Instead, the view here is that God has turned His face away from Christ, that the comforting grace of God is no longer present with Him and He will only experience God's wrath and judgment. Thus there is here a matter of the intimate fellowship between God the Father and God the Son.

Imagine our Lord's agony--His divinity eternally enjoys God's Trinitarian love and perfect relationship, but because He bore the sins of humanity, God has forsaken, turned His face away from, such that at that moment Christ only experiences the wrath and judgment of God. As we see from Luke 23:46, Christ suffers not from despair of any ontological ties being severed, but is actually sustained by God the Father as He pours out His wrath upon Christ.

Jesus' cry does not in any way diminish His deity. Jesus does not cease being God before, during, or after this. Jesus' cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person or destroy the Trinity. Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit. And finally, it does not cause Him to disavow His mission. Both the Father and Son knew from all eternity that Jesus would become the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (Acts 15:18). It is unthinkable that the Son of God might question what is happening or be perplexed when His Father's loving presence departs.

Far from being some sort of desperate plea of doubt from the cross (as it is sometimes blasphemously portrayed), the words “Why did You forsake Me?” are meant to show precisely the opposite. For the “forsaking” is now in the past (“why did You forsake Me?”), while Jesus' successful completion of the Father's mission and victory over sin is now an accomplished reality (τετέλεσται: “It has now been accomplished!”). Jesus was handed over (i.e., forsaken) on account of our transgressions (i.e., to redeem us from sin), and was raised up on account of our justification, i.e., so that we too could be raised, having been justified by His death (Romans 4:25).

At this point we should guard against misunderstanding. Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist in an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature's being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father's divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the Person of the Mediator was and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fulness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God.

For those wishing to dig a wee bit deeper, here are ten reasons why I cannot abide the notion that Our Lord was abandoned by God on the Cross:
Spoiler

1. The Father was never more pleased with the Son than at the Cross.

The Cross was Jesus’ ultimate act of obedience: obedience—even to the point of the Cross (Phil 2:8). If ever the Father could say, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’, it was at the Cross. The OT sacrifices were a ‘sweet smelling aroma’; how much more was Christ’s sacrifice a delight to God? ‘Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma’ (Eph 5:2).

2. The Cross was the Father’s plan.

Jesus was ‘delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2:23). ‘It was the will of the Lord to crush Him’ (Isa 53:9, ESV). And the Lord takes pleasure in His will. In fact, the word for ‘will’ in Isaiah 53 is chaphets, pleasure, delight. ‘Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him’ (NKJV). Which takes us back to point one.

3. The Triune union cannot be severed.

That really should be an obvious point. Father, Son and Spirit each fully and together possess the divine being or substance. They cannot turn on each other. The problem here is that some misunderstand the Trinity. The Trinity is three individuals who get along really well with each other. But they’re independent enough to turn on each other, as well. This social model has made deep inroads in evangelicalism’s Trinitarian thinking, but it’s not the Bible’s God. That’s playing with tritheism.

4. If the Father turned away from the Son, the Son turned away from Himself.

The Father fully possesses the divine attribute of justice. The Son fully possesses the divine attribute of justice. If justice demands the Father turn away from the Son, then precisely the same justice demands that the Son turn away from the Son. This would not be Father against Son, God against God. This would be Son against Himself, separating Himself from Himself (or the Son’s divine nature rejecting the human nature). Of course, the perfect Son was repulsed to be treated as a criminal—it was a heavy burden to bear—but this is another matter.

The rejection theory is well meant, but it doesn’t make sense. Men in the past who proffered such rejection theories, e.g., Moltmann, wanted a God who felt pain, but it only humanizes Him, which leaves us all in a desperate muddle.

5. Was Jesus banished from God’s presence all through His earthly life?

Jesus wasn’t just ‘made sin’ at the Cross, but all through His earthly life. He was ‘born under the [curse of the] law’ (Gal 4:4). Did the Father ‘turn His face away’ from Jesus through all His earthly life?

6. Psalm 22:1 doesn’t say the Father rejected the Son.

Psalm 22:1 is a key verse for the rejection theory. ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?’ (Ps 22:1). What does it mean? Two things. First, context is clear. Look at the parallel verse: ‘why are you so far from helping me?’ This is the issue: ‘no help’. The sufferer is asking why God doesn’t save him from his oppressors. I.e. ‘Why do you let my oppressors torment me?’ The Father gives the Son over to suffering. Psalm 22:1 is the equivalent of Isaiah’s statement, ‘It pleased the Lord to bruise Him’. In fact, the Psalm later says it: ‘You have brought me to the dust of death’ (Psalm 22:15).

Secondly, it’s a rhetorical question. The sufferer knows full well why God does this. What’s the point of asking it, then? To express his distress. This is real suffering. He really doesn’t want to go through it. He would rather God saved Him instantly out of it. ‘If it is possible, let this cup pass from me. But not my will…’ (Matt 26:39).

Perhaps it also means, ‘It feels like you have abandoned me’ (Calvin), or ‘It’s really hard in my present circumstances to feel your closeness’ (which is a very real human reaction, as the extent of physical pain clouds over our spiritual senses).

7. Psalm 22 affirms that the Father sustained the Son on the Cross.

Reading the whole of Psalm 22, we find it strongly affirming that God sustained the sufferer. I’m particularly drawn to the participles of Psalm 22:9. ‘You are the one bringing me up, from the time of my birth, and you are the one making me trust from the time I was breastfeed onwards’. The verbs are not just about the time of being born. These are ongoing realities. See also Isa 50:7, of Jesus at crucifixion, ‘The Lord God helps me’.

The Psalm heads to the great turning point at Psalm 22:21: ‘You have answered Me’. No hint of relational abandonment in that. Put Psalm22:24 in large letters: ‘He has not hidden His face from Him’.

8. Rejection would have been unjust.

Jesus became sin for us, but He was still the perfect Son of God. ‘Truly, this was a righteous man’ (Matt 23:47). The implications of this need to be honored. To personalize this, if you were a judge, and your own innocent son valiantly stepped forward at a trial to take a criminal’s punishment upon himself, would you be angry with him and reject him?

9. The value of the Cross doesn’t need bolstering with a ‘rejection by God’ theory.

Christ paid our debt. Our debt was eternal death, so where is there eternal death at the Cross? It’s not enough that Christ merely physically died, is it? We are due physical and spiritual death. Therefore, we need to bolster the cost of the Cross. We need to find spiritual death at the Cross.

The ‘rejection by God’ theory looks like the answer. However, division within the Triune God is not the same as our everlasting spiritual death. The Cross simply wasn’t everlasting; it was only a few hours.

Also, this misunderstands the atonement. The atonement doesn’t need to be a tit for tat arrangement—an exact exchange, as it were. An equivalent payment, yes; an exact payment, no. The payment is not precisely what is demanded in the obligation, but an equivalent.

There is inestimable value in the death of God’s Son. The value is in the Person: God’s righteous, precious Son. And the nature of His death: a freely given sacrifice, with perfect love for us and obedience to God. That’s what makes it ‘sweet smelling’ (Eph 5:2). We’re so used to people dying, that we miss the uniqueness of Christ’s death. It was the purest life that was willingly offered.

How could we forget this, that we would need to seek the value of the Cross elsewhere? That’s enough ‘value’ to pay the sins of all God’s elect people; and for the sins of the whole world, and a thousand worlds besides, many would add. When I remember who it was who died on the Cross—not just the method of execution, and not some theory of Trinitarian disruption—that’s when I must fall silent (Isa. 6:5). It was the incarnate Son of God.

10. It’s not in Scripture.

There is no clear statement in Scripture that the Father turned His face away. If the Father-Son relationship was separated at the Cross, that would be monumental. It would be the core meaning of the Cross. You would expect it to be everywhere in Scripture. But of course it’s not.

Does The Father turn His face away? The Father gives His Son to die, yes. He prays, Please take this cup from me, yes. He bears the full weight of my sin, yes. But ‘He has not hidden His face from Him’ (Psalm 22:24). The Father gives His Son over to execution, but actually sustains Him through His suffering. As Jesus bore the full weight of sin, He was sustained by His God; and the Father was never more pleased with the Son.


AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I heard Matt say the two natures of Christ are separate. Human and Divine. The human nature did not become divine and vice versa.
Giving him the greatest amount of charity per the ninth commandment obligations, I think by "separate" Mr. Slick might have meant "distinguishable". Of course they are distinguishable but the two natures cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

See Spoiler content in my earlier post above:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127577-Open-Theism-debate&p=5146012&viewfull=1#post5146012

There was no communication of the attributes between the human and divine natures, no between the divine and human natures. The doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum is something you and others may want to search and research. Here is a short intro that gets to the heart of the matter and the differences between Lutherans and Reformed, especially as it relates to the Lord's Supper and the answer to the question, when one is partaking of the Supper, "What is in the mouth?" ;)

AMR
 

Cross Reference

New member
I'm not sure I can tell the difference between the two. If it was Jesus' "desire" instead of "will", then it was to be compared with God's "desire" vs. "will".
That's infortunate because there a big difference. Will means, "no choice in the matter" But then His love TO His Father left Him with no choice in the matter. His will was the father's will.

In either case, Jesus was submitting His will/desire to the Father's, which He always did. But was He unable to do different? If the answer is that He was unable, I question the text. If the answer is that He was able, the whole Godhead might have, in the event He was able and decided to, been found in tatters, which seems preposterous.
"Tatters"? Only if He had failed when tempted. . .

This is why Duffy went with the "God takes risks" line.
God always has His plans worked out in advance. Those through whom He chooses to work His will for His purposes are merely given the opportunity to be blessed and advanced in the knowing of His ways.. A "Moses" kind of thing.

Jesus could have quit anytime He wanted but there would have been no way for man to be redeemed had he done so.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Open View is that it is GOD's wisdom that results in GOD knowing every possible outcome of any situation.

Knowledge without power is weak. Power without knowledge is dangerous.

Wisdom is a function of knowledge. Open theists (unsettled theists— versus their common label settled theists of their opponents—admit God learns. God accretes knowlege. God's knowledge is discursive. Further, God can get it wrong, albeit, recover very, very, quickly. In other words, just like our own knowledge.

One of the questions asked from the internet in the second debate was one I submitted and was graciously accepted by Rev. Enyart to offer up in the debate:

If God is continually learning, then was the God of Abraham less knowledgeable than God is right now?

Mr. Duffy's answer was essentially that God just has more information. He is just as smart now as he was then. This was weak and obviously not fully considered. In the first case, possessing a great deal of information is not much of use if one is not able to learn from it. Hence, the more information learned, the more one knows.

In the second case, if one knows more, one will act and do differently based upon that knowledge, if the person is indeed in possession of wisdom, for the very word, wisdom, means the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment.

In the third case, knowledge is not mere accretion of facts. For example, God’s knowledge, can be defined as that perfection of God whereby God, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act (see, 1 Samuel 2:3; Job 12:13; Psalms 94:9, 147:4; Isaiah 29:15, 40:27,28).

God’s knowledge differs from that of man on several different points. God’s knowledge is intuitive, not demonstrative or discursive. As such His knowledge is innate and immediate, not resulting from observation or from a process or reasoning. Since God is a perfect being, His knowledge is also simultaneous and not successive, so that God sees things equally vividly in their totality, and not piecemeal (discursively) one after another. God’s knowledge is complete and fully conscious, while our knowledge is always partial, often indistinct, and frequently failing to rise into the clear light of consciousness.

God’s necessary knowledge (knowledge not determined by an action of divine will) is that knowledge God has of Himself and of all things possible, a knowledge that rests on the consciousness of His omnipotence. The free knowledge of God is the knowledge He has of all things actual—of things that existed in the past, the present, or will exist in the future. This knowledge is founded on God’s infinite knowledge of His own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose. We refer to it as free knowledge because it is determined by a concurrent act of the will. One may also see it referred to as scienta visionis, knowledge of vision.

The extent of God’s knowledge is all-comprehensive—God is omniscient. He knows all things as they actually come to pass, past, present, and future and knows them in their real relations. God also knows what is possible and what is actual; all things that might occur under certain circumstances are present to God’s mind. The Scriptures speak of God’s perfect knowledge, Job 37:16, that He looks into man’s hearts, 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9,17; Psalms 139:1-4; Jeremiah 17:10, that God observes our ways, Deuteronomy 2:7; Job 23:10, 24:23, 31:4; Psalms 1:6, 119:168, that God knows the place of their habitation, Psalms 33:13, and the days of our lives, Psalms 37:18.

Then there is God’s foreknowledge of the free actions of persons, and therefore of conditional events. We can all understand how God can foreknow things when necessity is paramount, but some find it difficult to conceive of God having previous knowledge of the actions which freely originated by man. But scriptures teach us of God’s foreknowledge of contingent events: 1 Samuel 23:10-13; 2 Kings 13:19; Psalms 81:14,15; Isaiah 42:9, 48:18; Jeremiah 2:2-3, 38:17-20; Ezekiel 3:6; Matthew 11:21. And the Scriptures teach us of the freedom of man. Moreover, the Scriptures also do not permit us to deny God’s foreknowledge and man’s freedom. Obviously we have an apparent problem here and I fully admit that the Scriptures do not fully explain the situation. Nevertheless, we can make an approach to a solution.

God has decreed all things, and has decreed them with their causes and conditions in the exact order in which all things come to pass. God’s foreknowledge of future things and also of contingent events rests on His decree. This solves the problem as far as the foreknowledge of God is concerned. But, then we must ask, is God’s predetermination of things consistent with the free will of mankind? This question seems to be a stumbling block for not a few, especially open theists.

I would answer the question, no, if the freedom of the will is regarded as arbitrariness, but also answer that this arbitrariness conception of the freedom of mankind is unwarranted.

Our freedom is not something indeterminate, hanging in the air that can be swung arbitrarily in either direction. Our freedom is rooted in our nature, connected to our instincts and emotions, determined by our intellectual considerations and by our characters. If we conceive of our freedom as reasonable self-determination, then we have no sufficient justification for saying that our freedom is inconsistent with divine foreknowledge. Freedom is not arbitrariness. There is in all our actions a why for acting—a reason which decides action. The truly free person is not the uncertain, incalculable person, but the person who decides action.

In other words, freedom has its laws—spiritual laws—and the omniscient God knows what these laws are. Even having said this, I admit that there is an element of mystery that remains, but that mystery in no way gives a warrant to deny God’s exhaustive foreknowledge or our self-determination. In fact, whether Arminian, open theist, or Calvinist, we must recognize that on the one hand God asks all to repent, yet we know if God has predestined repentance, then why would God ask? Here we see the will of God in two divided senses, preceptive (commands, expectations, precepts) and decretive (what cannot not be), much like our own two divided senses of our will, wherein we may have expectations of some thing, yet we truly want something else even more, forestalling the expectations, precepts, commands, for the sake of what we actually desire and will, what we volitionally do.

For example, Calvinists, Arminians, and open theists affirm these two senses of the will of God when they ponder deeply 1 Timothy 2:4. All of us can say that God wills for all to be saved. But when queried why all are not saved we all answer that God is volitionally wills something more than saving each and every person. We should all affirm God has no unfulfilled desires. After all, Scripture says God accomplishes all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10); He works all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11). Nothing can ever frustrate Him in an ultimate sense. Given this, statements in Scripture that may appear to imply God has unfulfilled desires cannot mean what they are claimed to mean. Some other sense must be made from these passages that are in accord with what Scripture has made plain in its teachings (didactic passages), such as Isaiah 46:10 and Ephesians 2:11. Enter these two senses of the will of God just discussed. The preceptive will of God is what God has commanded for all persons, precepts that we are to live by and be governed by. Our duty. The decretive will of God, is actually what God volitionally wills. This is what will means, the mind choosing. This must be the case, for if God actually volitionally willed that all would be saved, then all would be saved. Obviously, not all are saved, hence, the will of God in this matter, properly understood, cannot mean what others will claim it to mean.

The open theist has no possible proper answer to my previously submitted question. They may think they have an answer, "it is just information", and prepare some nice word salad to obfuscate the underlying issues. But the fact remains, that if God continues to learn day by day, minute by minute, second by second, who is to say He will not learn something new that will upend what has been promised? The openist will retort, God is true to His nature, so we need not worry. If that is the case, then why does God need to learn anything at all? Well, they may say, God's newfound information may take the suffering of others in a different direction, lessening it somewhat, or eliminating it altogether. This then makes God the master chess player, outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting His autonomous creatures. God is working the numbers, the probabilities, staying way ahead in His moves against his opponents, creatures that do things before God knows what they have done. The humanistic parallels and analogies at work here describing God should give any reasoned person pause. Does anyone want to align with the thinking of some of the recent proponents of open theism:

“Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dynamic, personal God than it would be to ask them to find it in a deity who is immutable and self-enclosed. Modern thinking has more room for a God who is personal (even tripersonal) than it does for a God as absolute substance. We ought to be grateful for those features of modern culture, which make it easier to recover the biblical witness.”

“We are making peace with the culture of modernity.” Src: The Openness of God. Pinnock, p. 107​

The fact is that the open theist's charges (Greek! Philosophy!) against classical theism are not new. In fact they are a repetition of liberal theology. Open theists are parroting the liberal theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These claims originated in nineteenth century Germany, and were connected to Ferdinand Christian Baur (1869) and August Neander (1850). They were picked up later by Albrecht Ritschl (1889). The exposition of these claims that resurrected them all over again came from Alfred (Adolph) von Harnack (1930) published as “What is Christianity?” Walter Bauer (1960) further developed Harnack’s thesis.

In open theists like Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, et al., we see the real motivation of open theism: mixing a theological system with contemporary culture which appeals to our modern world.

AMR
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
That's a point in which I don't think offers an argument.
Neither side thinks GOD will ever sin.

And in the hypothetical "if He did" ...... well, who would punish Him?

I don't think that punishment, or lack of it, is the real point. If God decided He would sin, and that would be to not act in a way that His own principles of love dictates, then He would be denying Himself. That would make the devil correct in His accusations that God is selfish and that He does things only for His own good.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I'm sure that was a useful consequence, but you don't sweat drops of blood merely for a show.That makes plenty of sense, but our fleshly wills are not tuned to the Father's so tightly as His was in the "en-hypostasis".

Yes, His dread was real. I didn't mean to suggest our will even comes close what His was. God has to give us the desire do His will, while Jesus was born with the desire to do the Father's will. The Spirit didn't come to dwell in me until I was fully grown, and had already succumbed to the lusts of the flesh, etc.

Is it possible that in your quote from Matthew, that Jesus was not necessarily telling His disciples that THEIR flesh was weak, but HIS? The context mostly suggests the disciple's, but what was the temptation for them? They seemed to have few enough cares up to that point of the night. Certainly they were all about to be tested in their loyalty to Jesus, and all fail, I think, as they all ran away.

Both, I'm sure. It's a fact He and they had already experienced.

Does it, then, only provide a picture for us that even in our deepest despair, God never really leaves us? I'm not meaning to demean the passage with my "only", as such a reassurance is the kind of thing we need in our deepest despair.

Or, as I've heard elsewhere, is it also a picture of God's holiness in looking on the man upon whom the sins of the whole world rested?

Yes, I've heard that, too, but I'm not buying it. God never forsakes anyone...no matter what sins they carry. Hebrews 13:5

I'm convinced it was to fulfil Scripture.

Matthew 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Matthew 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God.
AMR

Before I address the rest of your post, dear brother....and thank you for responding.....I'm not convinced the idea came about because of the Greeks. Rather, it is based on other scripture verses that speak of the spirit of man. The primary proof, as I see it, is the Jewish Temple, which had the outer court, the inner court, and the innermost court where God came, and communed with man. However, that is not what this thread is about, so I won't derail it with how man is created in the same image as our TRIUNE GOD. ;)

Spirit/Soul still says the same thing. Human Beings have a spirit.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't think that punishment, or lack of it, is the real point.
There are several points that can be brought out.
This is just one of them.

If God decided He would sin, and that would be to not act in a way that His own principles of love dictates, then He would be denying Himself.
First of all, I believe GOD's great wisdom is what prevents GOD from choosing to sin, rather than some restriction on the capabilities of GOD.

But per your statement, I'm not sure what you are suggesting by 'denying Himself'.
I mean, when you sin, are you denying yourself?

That would make the devil correct in His accusations that God is selfish and that He does things only for His own good.
What has GOD ever done that was not for His own good?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
There are several points that can be brought out.
This is just one of them.


First of all, I believe GOD's great wisdom is what prevents GOD from choosing to sin, rather than some restriction on the capabilities of GOD.

But per your statement, I'm not sure what you are suggesting by 'denying Himself'.
I mean, when you sin, are you denying yourself?


What has GOD ever done that was not for His own good?

When you and I sin it is not a denial of who we are. It is who we are because of our sinful nature. God does not have a sinful nature. His character is perfection. His motives are perfection. Thus, for God to choose to sin, to act outside of the parameters of His love for others, would be a denial of who He is.

I think you misunderstood my last comment. I may not have phrased it the right way, so no big deal. What I meant by what I said is that the devil's accusations against God charge God with ruling the universe selfishly. That what He does is for His own benefit, not for the benefit of others. Yes, it's also for His own good to be perfect and to rule the universe perfectly, but that is not a selfish motive when it is done for the good of all of His creation. An analogy of this would be that treating my wife well is good for me, but that is not why I do it. I do it to make her happy and give her a good life because I love her. That this is also good for me is a by-product, not the motive. Make sense to you?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When you and I sin it is not a denial of who we are. It is who we are because of our sinful nature. God does not have a sinful nature.
Back up to Adam.
Was Adam created with a sinful nature?

His character is perfection.
Because .... He has no choice to make????

His motives are perfection.
From what I can tell, GOD does not have to be good and loving to all, and isn't loving and good to all.

Thus, for God to choose to sin, to act outside of the parameters of His love for others, would be a denial of who He is.
There's that 'love' again.
GOD does't have to love everyone just because GOD is love.
GOD gets angry and kicks folks out of His presence and dumps His enemies in the lake of fire.

I think you misunderstood my last comment. I may not have phrased it the right way, so no big deal. What I meant by what I said is that the devil's accusations against God charge God with ruling the universe selfishly. That what He does is for His own benefit, not for the benefit of others. Yes, it's also for His own good to be perfect and to rule the universe perfectly, but that is not a selfish motive when it is done for the good of all of His creation. An analogy of this would be that treating my wife well is good for me, but that is not why I do it. I do it to make her happy and give her a good life because I love her. That this is also good for me is a by-product, not the motive. Make sense to you?
Sense?
Well ..... not really.
It seems you are insinuating that since GOD's nature is love, then GOD must love everyone and everything.
I don't think that means that GOD has to love everyone or everything.
Also, what GOD does can be 'good' for one group of folks and 'bad' for another group of folks.
Why is GOD being good to some and bad to others?
Is that what a good father does, only protect and save some of his children?

I think folks tend to forget that the attributes of GOD also include wrath, anger, jealousy, hatred, etc.
"GOD is love" only tells a small portion of the story.
 
Top