TOL's James Hilston Agrees: Yes, God Can Change!!

[Hilston]

To Vaquero45:

Hilston wrote: ... you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil.

It's the determinist view that claims God planned every instance of evil that has ever occured and will ever occur. Obviously I still am not sure how you have seperated God "decreeing" all evil from God "being" evil.

Planning evil for good purposes is not the same a doing evil for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

I know you figure you have somehow, but it sure looks like the settled view God is already evil, and doesn't have to wait for someday from this side of the fence.

The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones. He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure. He says He has foreordained (predestinated, decreed) in advance good works for us to do. He says He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. He has planned evil to bring about many of these predestined results, and it is righteous of Him to do so. He cannot be unrighteous. He doesn't have the ability or a choice in the matter. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot oppose His own decrees.

The Open Theist has no assurance, because their God is not righteous in character or in nature, but righteous by choice. Which means He can choose today to become unrighteous.

You claim that the OV'ers can't trust God to stay good, but (again from our side) your "God could be evil?" problem is much worse.

Not at all. We know God plans evil for good purposes and we have full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakeable faith in God's immutable nature and character, His inability to lie or to deny Himself.

To answer your question above for myself, I do not think God "can" become evil, because He "immutably" does not want to.

If He is not righteous by nature, intrinsically, essentially, then His goodness is not immutable.

He has perfect character.

Is His character perfect by choice? Or is He essentially perfect by nature? It can't be both.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[koban]

To Vaquero45:

Hilston wrote: ... you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil.

Planning evil it for good purposes is not the same a doing evil it for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones. He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure. He says He has foreordained (predestinated, decreed) in advance good works for us to do. He says He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. He has planned evil to bring about many of these predestined results, and it is righteous of Him to do so. He cannot be unrighteous. He doesn't have the ability or a choice in the matter. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot oppose His own decrees.

The Open Theist has no assurance, because their God is not righteous in character or in nature, but righteous by choice. Which means He can choose today to become unrighteous.

Not at all. We know God plans evil for good purposes and we have full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakeable faith in God's immutable nature and character, His inability to lie or to deny Himself.

If He is not righteous by nature, intrinsically, essentially, then His goodness is not immutable.

Is His character perfect by choice? Or is He essentially perfect by nature? It can't be both.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

:darwinsm: You're a confused little man, Jimmy.

 

[Vaquero45]

Hilston wrote: ... you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil.

Vaquero45

It's the determinist view that claims God planned every instance of evil that has ever occured and will ever occur. Obviously I still am not sure how you have seperated God "decreeing" all evil from God "being" evil.

Planning evil it for good purposes is not the same a doing evil it for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

I don't think you can have your statement above, because the "doing evil for evil purposes" part is also on God in the settled view. His plan, His idea, and His fault?

Vaquero45

I know you figure you have somehow, but it sure looks like the settled view God is already evil, and doesn't have to wait for someday from this side of the fence.

The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones. He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure. He says He has foreordained (predestinated, decreed) in advance good works for us to do. He says He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. He has planned evil to bring about many of these predestined results, and it is righteous of Him to do so.

Same as above. If God planned all evil, including the evil that men do and the evil will to do it, and only for "good", then all evil is good. Why does God get frustrated when we defy His will, if that evil is actually good? To me, it is necessary that our good or bad will is our fault, if God judges righteously.

He cannot be unrighteous. He doesn't have the ability or a choice in the matter. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot oppose His own decrees.

I'm not 100% sure of the wording but I basically agree. I believe God's character is imutably good, but God can make free choices within His own "good" will, and would not deny Himself, as you also say. (did that make sense?)

The Open Theist has no assurance, because their God is not righteous in character or in nature, but righteous by choice. Which means He can choose today to become unrighteous.

Why do you say the OV's God is not righteous in character or nature?

Vaquero45

You claim that the OV'ers can't trust God to stay good, but (again from our side) your "God could be evil?" problem is much worse.

Not at all. We know God plans evil for good purposes and we have full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakeable faith in God's immutable nature and character, His inability to lie or to deny Himself.

I'm confident that God could not be evil for the same reasons, but don't believe He planned all evil, including the will of men to do so.

Vaquero45

To answer your question above for myself, I do not think God "can" become evil, because He "immutably" does not want to.

If He is not righteous by nature, intrinsically, essentially, then His goodness is not immutable.

Hmmmm... I do believe His nature is intrinsically and essentially righteous, unless I'm missing a definition. Again, I'm not sure why you say the OV God is not.

Vaquero45

He has perfect character.

Is His character perfect by choice? Or is He essentially perfect by nature? It can't be both.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

I don't catch the dichotomy I guess. I believe He is perfect by nature, which to me implies perfectly good character. Operating in that nature, all His choices are good. I'm not sure why God can't be free, and have perfect character. If you want to say He is not free to deny Himself I suppose I agree, but that is like saying God can't do what God will not do. Seems obvious.

 

[BillyBob]

Hilston wrote: ... you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil.

Hilston has watched too many 'Star Wars' movies....

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hilston has watched too many 'Star Wars' movies....

Don't leave out the Matrix trilogy. :dizzy:

 

[MontgomeryScott]

Hilston & Enyart

Hilston & Enyart

In the May 1, 2006, debate with James Hilston, the final moments boiled down to Hilston stating that Jesus had no choice and Enyart stating that Jesus had a choice when it came to his deciding moment in the garden of Gethsemane: to rebel against the Father or to obey the Father unto death. However, both men were approaching the situation upon different facets. It is true that Jesus could not have chosen to do evil, but it is because His nature would not allow him to choose otherwise – NOT because Jesus was following a scripted plan of the future. It is because the future did not yet exist and because there was no script that had to meticulously be followed which gives praiseworthy merit to the event of the temptation of Christ and allowed Christ’s character to be validated. Had Jesus been constrained by a scripted future, being dragged to his destination like a railroad car locked into its tracks to a predestined terminal event, tempting Christ would not have had any validity in authenticating his sinless and righteous character. Therefore, Jesus was not constrained by time, but by his nature to not have made any other choice than to be faithful to the father.



Enyart’s argument that Jesus was constrained to do good because “God is committed to righteousness,” falls utterly short of revealing the true nature of God. His position stated in this debate is contradictory to his position on absolute morality. In effect, such a view is similar to Euthyphro’s dilemma: if right is right merely because God willed it or is committed to it, then He might will or commit to something else as right at some point later in time. Instead, rightness flows from the character of God because righteousness is His essence – He cannot choose to be any other way (again, this inability to choose any other way is not a constraint based upon a predetermined future, but a constraint based upon His nature not being capable of choosing anything other than a righteous choice. God is free to be Himself, He is not free to not be Himself; a.k.a A=A, A cannot = non-A). Therefore, it is possible that God is free to choose evil, in the sense that the future is open for Him to choose, but not free in the sense that He cannot by His nature commit evil. Because I think Bob muddied the two issues and he undermined his teaching on absolute righteousness, I would NOT say, "Jesus had a choice but he wills to be committed to righteousness" (it implies he can will to be committed otherwise).

 

[godrulz]

Likewise, Judas was not predestined to be the Betrayer. He became such, but was not born or designated as such from all eternity (fatalism).

Lex Rex! not Rex Lex. (The Law is King, not the King is Law).

The will, not a 'nature', is the seat of choice. Jesus did have a choice. Confusing metaphysics (essence/nature/substance= God is eternal, uncreated, triune Creator, omnipotent, spirit, omniscient, omnipresent) with morals (technical terms for choice/holiness) leads to confusion. God is personal (will, intellect, emotions). God is moral (technical, theological sense vs 'morality'). We cannot be ontologically or metaphysically like God. We are in His moral, spiritual, personal image. We can be like Him somewhat in these areas. We are discussing the impeccability of Christ on another thread (Could Jesus have sinned?). Jesus is the God-Man, so there are different dynamics than in His preexistence with the triune Godhead.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Gen 3:15 Ge 4:3-5; 22:2,3,6-8,13; 35:14; Ex 18:12; 25:2,3; 29:14,18,24-28,36,40-42; 30:9,10,13-15,20,28; 31:9; 35:5,16,21,22,24,29; 36:3,6; 38:1,24,29; 40:6,10,29; Le 1:2-4,6,9,10,13,14,17-2:11,13-3:3,5-9,11,12,14,16; 4:3,7,8,10,18,20,21,23-25,28-30,32-34; 5:6-13,15,16,18,19; 6:5,6,9,10,12,14,15,17,20,21,23,25,30-7:2,5,7-10,13,14,16,25,30,32,37; 8:2,14,18,21,27-29; 9:2-4,7,8,10,12-17,21,22,24; 10:12,15-17,19; 12:6,8; 14:10,12-14,17,19-22,24,25,28,31; 15:15,30; 16:3,5,6,9,11,15,24,25,27; 17:4,8; 19:21,22; 22:12,18,21-24,27; 23:8,12-16,18-20,25,27,36,37; 24:7; 27:9; Nu 4:16; 5:9,15,18,25,26; 6:11,12,14-17,20,21; 7:3,10-13,15-17,19,21-23,25,27-29,31,33-35,37,39-41,43,45-47,49,51-53,55,57-59,61,63-65,67,69-71,73,75-77,79,81-83,87; 8:8,11-13,15,21; 9:7,13; 15:3-10,13,14,19-21,24,25,27; 16:15; 18:9,11,17,24,26-29; 23:3,15,17; 28:2,3,5-15,19,20,22-24,26-28,31; 29:2,3,5,6,8,9,11,13,14,16,18,19,21,22,24,25,27,28,30,31,33,34,36-38; 31:29,41,52; De 12:11,17; 16:10; 23:23; Jos 22:23,26; Jud 6:18; 11:31; 13:16,19,23; 1Sa 2:17,29; 3:14; 6:3,4,8,14,17; 7:9,10; 13:9,10,12; 26:19; 2Sa 6:18; 1Ki 18:29,36; 2Ki 3:20,27; 5:17; 10:25; 16:13,15; 1Ch 6:49; 16:2,29,40; 21:23,26,29; 22:1; 23:29; 2Ch 4:6; 7:1; 8:13; 29:18,21,23,24,27-29,32,35; 30:22; 35:14; Ezr 1:4; 3:5; 6:17; 7:16; 8:25,28,35; Ne 10:33,34,39; 13:9,31; Job 42:8; Ps 40:6; 51:16,19; 96:8; Isa 40:16; 43:23; 53:10; 57:6; 61:8; 65:11; 66:20; Jer 11:17; 14:12; Eze 20:28; 40:38,39,42,43; 42:13; 43:19,21,22,24,25; 44:11,27,29; 45:15,17,19,22-25; 46:2,4,5,7,11-15,20; 48:8; Joe 1:9,13; 2:14; Zep 3:10; Mal 1:10,11,13; 2:12,13; 3:3,4; Lu 23:36; Ac 21:26; Ro 15:16; Eph 5:2; Heb 10:5,8,10,11,14,18

Are you serious Jim? Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world, and you respond with verses like,

The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine

Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

How exactly do these verses show that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world? As far as I can tell, not one of your verses speaks of Christ's death as decreed before the foundation of the world. Chronologically, your oldest verse is Gen. 3:15 which of course takes place AFTER the foundation of the world.

 

[koban]

Are you serious Jim? Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world, and you respond with verses like,

The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine

Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

How exactly do these verses show that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world? As far as I can tell, not one of your verses speaks of Christ's death as decreed before the foundation of the world. Chronologically, your oldest verse is Gen. 3:15 which of course takes place AFTER the foundation of the world.

:think: I don't think Jim is serious, doogieduff. I think he's playing at some warped game here.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to:

• MontgomeryScott
• Godrulz
• DoogieDuh

Hi MontgomeryScott,

Thanks for your post. It brings out some important distinctions that need to be understood regarding God's nature/character.

It is true that Jesus could not have chosen to do evil, but it is because His nature would not allow him to choose otherwise – NOT because Jesus was following a scripted plan of the future.

Jesus knew the Father's will, and came to do the Father's will. He could not oppose the Father's will. He knew Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and the entire Mosaic corpus which, according to Jesus' own words, prophetically spoke of Him and His scripted future. Jesus knew that every action He took or didn't take was following the inexorable plan of God.

It is because the future did not yet exist ...

Thanks for being so forthright with this claim. But I have to ask, what exactly did God show the prophets in their visions when they wrote about the future if that future does not yet exist?

... and because there was no script that had to meticulously be followed which gives praiseworthy merit to the event of the temptation of Christ and allowed Christ’s character to be validated.

This reasoning is backward. Following a script makes the event no less praiseworthy than following His own nature. Neither are mutable. Christ cannot lie, cannot oppose His own desires (plan). His nature will not allow it. His own desires will not allow it. He cannot desire contrary to what He desires. If one attempts to ascertain the nature of the future (whether or not it is scripted) according to what "gives praiseworthy merit to the temptation of Christ," then you're doing the same thing the Open Theists do by viewing God through humanistic existentialist lenses.

... Had Jesus been constrained by a scripted future, being dragged to his destination like a railroad car locked into its tracks to a predestined terminal event, tempting Christ would not have had any validity in authenticating his sinless and righteous character.

Why?

Therefore, Jesus was not constrained by time, but by his nature to not have made any other choice than to be faithful to the father.

How is your statement NOT a tautology? I agree that Christ's nature/character would not allow Him to oppose the Father's will. But on your view, how does Christ's nature/character, which constrains Him from opposing the Father, authenticate His sinless and righteous nature/character?

Hi Godrulz,

Thanks for your post and giving me the opportunity to focus on some important issues regarded the meticulous details of God's script.

Likewise, Judas was not predestined to be the Betrayer. He became such, but was not born or designated as such from all eternity

Christ's betrayal, torture and execution, and every detail thereof, including the personnel, were inexorably decreed by God in advance. Luke writes:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Ac 2:23)​

Judas was the deliverer (betrayer), in precise accordance with God's decree (determinate counsel). Lest anyone think that God's decree left it open for anyone to step up and play the role of betrayer, note that God's decree named names. Luke writes:

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Ac 4:27,28) [Emphasis added]​

Note that Luke says that Herod and Pilate were decreed in God's predetermined plan. By inference, this includes everyone who had a hand in Christ's execution, including Judas. Jesus speaks of the inexorable nature of God's decree:

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [Emphasis added]​

(fatalism).

It is not fatalism, because fatalism includes the attitude of passivity and resignation. The regeneration of the saint works together with predestination and results in a dynamic, aggressive, and hope-driven activity and energy, knowing that God is working all things for His decreed purposes, that He is working in us both to will and work for His good pleasure, knowing that He has foreordained the good works we will do and that He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. This is not fatalism; it is predestination and regeneration: Compatibilism.

Lex Rex! not Rex Lex. (The Law is King, not the King is Law).

Here is the existentialist humanism of Open Theism in its full glory. God is not infinite according to the logical conclusions of Open Theism. In human affairs, the rule of law is a necessary principle. But God is infinite and cannot be adequately characterized in human terms. God's laws do not apply to God. This is why every sin of man, all of which boil down to man seeking autonomy or operating on presumed autonomy, is such an affront to God. God is the ultimate Judge, not some transcendent Law that God, too, must bow to.

The will, not a 'nature', is the seat of choice. Jesus did have a choice.

Then that means He still has a choice and could have turned evil yesterday. How would you know? Why do you trust this God?

Confusing metaphysics (essence/nature/substance= God is eternal, uncreated, triune Creator, omnipotent, spirit, omniscient, omnipresent) with morals (technical terms for choice/holiness) leads to confusion.

Is God moral by nature?

God is personal (will, intellect, emotions).

So you are saying God is moral by choice and not by nature. If God chose to be immoral, would He still be God by nature?

God is moral (technical, theological sense vs 'morality').

Note that the Open Theist's God must bow to a standard of morality outside of Himself, a standard He must choose to obey, which reigns over Him. Therefore, Open Theists sit in judgment of God.

We cannot be ontologically or metaphysically like God.

According to Open Theist tenets, one must logically conclude that God must be like us, not the other way around.

DoogieDuff?

Are you serious Jim?

What are you doing here, DoogieDuff? Aren't you afraid of wasting your time the way you did reading my One-On-One discussion with Knight?

Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world, ...

No he didn't. You're not paying attention.

... and you respond with verses like,

The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine.

Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

How exactly do these verses show that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world?

They don't. Nor were they intended to. You're not paying attention.

As far as I can tell, not one of your verses speaks of Christ's death as decreed before the foundation of the world.

Nor were they intended to.

... Chronologically, your oldest verse is Gen. 3:15 which of course takes place AFTER the foundation of the world.

Yeah, that's what "from" means. :loser:

Maybe you should just go away before you waste any more of your precious time.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[koban]

Combined reply to:

• MontgomeryScott
• Godrulz
• DoogieDuh

Hi MontgomeryScott,

Thanks for your post. It brings out some important distinctions that need to be understood regarding God's nature/character.Jesus knew the Father's will, and came to do the Father's will. He could not oppose the Father's will. He knew Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and the entire Mosaic corpus which, according to Jesus' own words, prophetically spoke of Him and His scripted future. Jesus knew that every action He took or didn't take was following the inexorable plan of God.

Thanks for being so forthright with this claim. But I have to ask, what exactly did God show the prophets in their visions when they wrote about the future if that future does not yet exist?

This reasoning is backward. Following a script makes the event no less praiseworthy than following His own nature. Neither are mutable. Christ cannot lie, cannot oppose His own desires (plan). His nature will not allow it. His own desires will not allow it. He cannot desire contrary to what He desires. If one attempts to ascertain the nature of the future (whether or not it is scripted) according to what "gives praiseworthy merit to the temptation of Christ," then you're doing the same thing the Open Theists do by viewing God through humanistic existentialist lenses.

Why?

How is your statement NOT a tautology? I agree that Christ's nature/character would not allow Him to oppose the Father's will. But on your view, how does Christ's nature/character, which constrains Him from opposing the Father, authenticate His sinless and righteous nature/character?

Hi Godrulz,

Thanks for your post and giving me the opportunity to focus on some important issues regarded the meticulous details of God's script.
Christ's betrayal, torture and execution, and every detail thereof, including the personnel, were inexorably decreed by God in advance. Luke writes:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Ac 2:23)​

Judas was the deliverer (betrayer), in precise accordance with God's decree (determinate counsel). Lest anyone think that God's decree left it open for anyone to step up and play the role of betrayer, note that God's decree named names. Luke writes:

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Ac 4:27,28) [Emphasis added]​

Note that Luke says that Herod and Pilate were decreed in God's predetermined plan. By inference, this includes everyone who had a hand in Christ's execution, including Judas. Jesus speaks of the inexorable nature of God's decree:

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [Emphasis added]​

It is not fatalism, because fatalism includes the attitude of passivity and resignation. The regeneration of the saint works together with predestination and results in a dynamic, aggressive, and hope-driven activity and energy, knowing that God is working all things for His decreed purposes, that He is working in us both to will and work for His good pleasure, knowing that He has foreordained the good works we will do and that He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. This is not fatalism; it is predestination and regeneration: Compatibilism.

Here is the existentialist humanism of Open Theism in its full glory. God is not infinite according to the logical conclusions of Open Theism. In human affairs, the rule of law is a necessary principle. But God is infinite and cannot be adequately characterized in human terms. God's laws do not apply to God. This is why every sin of man, all of which boil down to man seeking autonomy or operating on presumed autonomy, is such an affront to God. God is the ultimate Judge, not some transcendent Law that God, too, must bow to.

Then that means He still has a choice and could have turned evil yesterday. How would you know? Why do you trust this God?

Is God moral by nature?

So you are saying God is moral by choice and not by nature. If God chose to be immoral, would He still be God by nature?

Note that the Open Theist's God must bow to a standard of morality outside of Himself, a standard He must choose to obey, which reigns over Him. Therefore, Open Theists sit in judgment of God.

According to Open Theist tenets, one must logically conclude that God must be like us, not the other way around.

DoogieDuff?

What are you doing here, DoogieDuff? Aren't you afraid of wasting your time the way you did reading my One-On-One discussion with Knight?

No he didn't. You're not paying attention.

They don't. Nor were they intended to. You're not paying attention.

Nor were they intended to.

Yeah, that's what "from" means. :loser:

Maybe you should just go away before you waste any more of your precious time.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

See what I mean, doogieduff?

Just some warped little game. :sigh:

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jim,

I apologize for the delay in responding. I will respond to each of your points, but have a few minutes now to address a couple of things you said... You say,

Planning evil for good purposes is not the same a doing evil for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones.

Jim, by trade I am a Deputy Sheriff here in Colorado. I am currently assigned to the Patrol Division and I am a SWAT Operator on our regional SWAT Team. Last Saturday, I responded to a residence where a 5 year old boy had been playing in his garage. The 5 year old was jumping from a camping trailer and caught a rope that was bolted to the roof to swing on it. By chance (calvinists hate the phrase "by chance"), the rope looped around his neck and he hung by his neck for almost 10 minutes. One of his older brothers went to the garage to check on him and found him hanging. When I arrived, I assisted with offering medical attention to a 5 year old who was blue from the neck down, had no pulse and was not breathing. Now I ask Jim,

1. Why would God plan for a 5 year old boy to be hanged while playing in the garage?

2. What good can come from God's plan of having the 5 year old boy hanging in his garage to be found by his brother?

If I were a calvinist, I would hate God Jim. How do proponents of the settled view reconcile God planning evil things to happen to innocent children Jim? You continue,

He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure.

Jim, I'm disappointed. I thought you were a Greek student. I think you might be surprised if you look at Romans 8:28-30 in the original Jim. If you look closely, you'll see that "God works together with those who love Him..." Huge difference Jim.

Might I suggest a one on one between you and me? This thread goes way to fast, and gets too crazy. Let's do a one on one and discuss. I really am interested in your view, and you seem to be the most formidable calvinist I've come across...

What do you say?

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Hilston]

I apologize for the delay in responding. ...

No worries.

Previously Posted by Hilston: Planning evil for good purposes is not the same a doing evil for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones.

Jim, by trade I am a Deputy Sheriff here in Colorado. I am currently assigned to the Patrol Division and I am a SWAT Operator on our regional SWAT Team. Last Saturday, I responded to a residence where a 5 year old boy had been playing in his garage. The 5 year old was jumping from a camping trailer and caught a rope that was bolted to the roof to swing on it. By chance (calvinists hate the phrase "by chance"), ...

I'm not a Calvinist. Nevertheless, the Settled View not only recognizes the phrase (it just so happens that the phrase is in the Bible), but its Greek derivation fits perfectly with the Settled View. The Greek word for "by chance" is sugkurian, and it means "joint happening," i.e. "it just so happens." Everything that "just so happens" is according to God's meticulous and exhaustive plan.

Consider the following from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

The idea of chance in the sense of something wholly fortuitous was utterly foreign to the Hebrew creed. Throughout the whole course of Israel's history, to the Hebrew mind, law, not chance, ruled the universe, and that law was not something blindly mechanical, but the expression of the personal Yahweh. Israel's belief upon this subject may be summed up in the couplet, "The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh" (Prov 16:33).

A number of Hebrew and Greek expressions have been translated "chance," or something nearly equivalent, but it is noteworthy that of the classical words for chance, suntuchia, and tuche, the former never occurs in the Bible and the latter only twice in the Septuagint. [s.v. 'chance']​

... the rope looped around his neck and he hung by his neck for almost 10 minutes. One of his older brothers went to the garage to check on him and found him hanging. When I arrived, I assisted with offering medical attention to a 5 year old who was blue from the neck down, had no pulse and was not breathing. Now I ask Jim,

1. Why would God plan for a 5 year old boy to be hanged while playing in the garage?

I don't know why, specifically. But I do know why ultimately, which is to accomplish God's good pleasure and purposes. Your reasoning is curious to me. Why should it matter "why"? Are you suggesting that God could not have had a reason for this tragedy to happen? Why do you think this? Are you saying that you refuse to believe that God has good reasons for the evil He brings upon people?

Do you see that the God you describe is One who continually lets people down. He doesn't know what's going to happen, and He refuses to intervene. On the Settled View, God knows exactly what He is doing, down to every minscule detail, and He can be wholly trusted in every regard, exhaustively.

2. What good can come from God's plan of having the 5 year old boy hanging in his garage to be found by his brother?

Note the reasoning that is going on here. It seems you're suggesting that God could not have planned any good to come from this tragedy. Why do you assume this? It is a very humanistic and unbiblical way of looking at life that you're intimating here, Jeremy.

If I were a calvinist, I would hate God Jim.

Why?

How do proponents of the settled view reconcile God planning evil things to happen to innocent children Jim?

Ro 8:17,18 And since children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; since indeed we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Jeremy, you ask how the Settled View reconciles evil things happening to innocent children according to God's plan, and the biblical answer is that there is no reconciliation needed. God knows what He is doing. His immutable counsel is for His good purposes and good pleasure. I can trust that every tragedy and evil thing that has happened or will happen, whether to innocent or guilty people, all work together toward fulfilling every meticulous detail of God's decreed purposes, for the sake of the Elect, for the sake of His own good pleasure.

Previously Posted by Hilston: He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure.

Jim, I'm disappointed. I thought you were a Greek student. I think you might be surprised if you look at Romans 8:28-30 in the original Jim. If you look closely, you'll see that "God works together with those who love Him..." Huge difference Jim.

oidamen de oti tois agaposin ton theon panta sunergei eis agathon tois kata prothesin kletois ousin. It's right there in black and white, Jeremy: tois (those) kata (according-to) prothesin ([God's] pre-placement) kletois (called-ones) ousin (being) = those being called-ones according to God's pre-placement.

Might I suggest a one on one between you and me? This thread goes way to fast, and gets too crazy. Let's do a one on one and discuss. I really am interested in your view, and you seem to be the most formidable calvinist I've come across...

What do you say?

Sure, that would be fine.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jim,

I'll start our one on one this afternoon. Thank you for accepting the invitation. I would like to offer a couple of points in closing here... When asked why God would predestine a 5 year old to be accidentally hanged while playing, you reply,

I don't know why, specifically. But I do know why ultimately, which is to accomplish God's good pleasure and purposes.

What does that mean to you Jim? God caused a 5 year old to hang from a rope in his garage so that He could be glorified? Doesn't compute... You continue,

Your reasoning is curious to me. Why should it matter "why"? Are you suggesting that God could not have had a reason for this tragedy to happen?

Yes, I suggest exactly that...

Why do you think this? Are you saying that you refuse to believe that God has good reasons for the evil He brings upon people?

No, Jim, God says He will bring evil upon evil people. If a righetous man / nation turns from it's righteousness, then God will punish with evil. If an evil man / nation repents from the evil, then God will repent of the evil He promised for the man / nation. Please explain why God would cause / predestine and evil act "by chance" (which in reality means part of His eternal plan anyway, right?) for a 5 year old to be hanged from a rope in his garage?

Do you see that the God you describe is One who continually lets people down. He doesn't know what's going to happen, and He refuses to intervene. On the Settled View, God knows exactly what He is doing, down to every minscule detail, and He can be wholly trusted in every regard, exhaustively.

Do you see that the God you describe is a psychopath? One who predestined thousands of years of horrible acts so that He might somehow be glorified by them? In the Open View, we can love and truly be loved by a God who is in time with us, responding to our prayer, suffering with us through our tribulations (not causing them), and is still soverign, in complete control of His creation.

Note the reasoning that is going on here. It seems you're suggesting that God could not have planned any good to come from this tragedy. Why do you assume this? It is a very humanistic and unbiblical way of looking at life that you're intimating here, Jeremy.

I'll ask again... "What good can come from a 5 year old being hanged in his garage?"

Originally by Jeremy: If I were a calvinist, I would hate God Jim.

Why?

Because that would mean God is evil and can not be trusted. Think about it Jim... If an artist, in complete control of his canvas, paints a disgusting and evil painting, what can that tell us about the artist? If we equate God's creation to a blank canvas, what type of picture had God painted over the last 6,000 years Jim? God is a psychopath artist, who paints horrible and disgusting images on His canvas. Last week, He painted a 5 year old being hanged "by chance" from a rope in his garage. The image an artist paints speaks volumes about the true nature of the artist Jim.

Jeremy, you ask how the Settled View reconciles evil things happening to innocent children according to God's plan, and the biblical answer is that there is no reconciliation needed. God knows what He is doing. His immutable counsel is for His good purposes and good pleasure. I can trust that every tragedy and evil thing that has happened or will happen, whether to innocent or guilty people, all work together toward fulfilling every meticulous detail of God's decreed purposes, for the sake of the Elect, for the sake of His own good pleasure.

See artist comments above...

Previously Posted by Hilston: He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure.


oidamen de oti tois agaposin ton theon panta sunergei eis agathon tois kata prothesin kletois ousin. It's right there in black and white, Jeremy: tois (those) kata (according-to) prothesin ([God's] pre-placement) kletois (called-ones) ousin (being) = those being called-ones according to God's pre-placement.

Jim, I think you missed my point. In your translation, you passed over the "sunergei." Here's how I think Romans 8:28 should be translated:

“And we know that He [God] works with those loving God, with those called according to [His] purpose all things for good.”

There are at least two ways to translate Romans 8:28 which are consistent with the original syntax. The question is which way is most suitable to the immediate context of the verse and to the overall NT usage of the words used in the verse. (Of course, which way conforms best to the overall theology of the NT is also a consideration.)

Here’s the text in transliteration that Jim has already offered:

Oidamen de hoti tois agaposi ton theon panta sunergei eis agathon tois kata prothesin kletois ousin.

The main bone of contention is the subject of the verb sunergei. Jim, you did not address sunergei. This verb is in the singular, which would normally indicate a singular subject. However, it’s standard in Koine Greek to use a singular verb with a neuter plural subject. Thus, the noun panta, ‘all’ or ‘all things’, is eligible as well. That’s how Jim and the KJV took it: “all things work together for good.” This is a reasonable rendering for the verse in isolation.

Alternatively, one may take panta as the object of sunergei and then find a singular subject for the verb. My translation takes God as that subject. While”God” does not occur in the nominative (subject) case in the verse, it’s an entirely reasonable proposal. In fact, numerous NT manuscripts do just that, supplying the nominative ho theos immediately after the verb; I have no doubt the scribes who did this actually believed that “God” is the subject and inserted it for clarity rather than introducing it as a deliberate alteration of the sense. And it’s hardly unusual for Scripture to read simply “he” (usually, as here, implicit in the verb form) when predicating an action of God or of Jesus.

The advantage (speaking in purely linguistic terms) of understanding God as the subject of sunergei is that the verb means ‘to assist, to work together with’ someone. The overall NT usage of sunergeo bears this out:

And those men went out and proclaimed everywhere, the Lord working together [with them] and confirming the word through accompanying signs. (Mark 16:20)

I exhort... you to submit to such [persons] and to anyone who works together and labors [in ministry]. 1 Corinthians 16:16

We, then, working together [with God?] also exhort you not to receive the grace of God to no purpose. (2 Corinthians 6:1)

Do you see that [Abraham’s] faith was working together with his works, and of his works his faith was made complete? (James 2:22)

Especially in light of Paul’s teaching that we are God’s co-workers (sunergoi, 1 Corinthians 3:9), it fits that God and we would be co-workers in Romans 8:28.

Further, in the immediately preceding context, Paul is teaching about how the Holy Spirit “helps us [sunantilambanomai, another sun compound verb] in our weaknesses... intercedes for us... intercedes for the saints.” The whole context is about divine-human synergy, about God working with us on behalf of His good purpose. It isn’t about how “things” just happen to come together for us; it is about God working with us.

I am also considering a different twist on the passage, but haven't reached a conclusion as of yet. As I read verse 28 flowing forth from verse 27, I think the subject of sunergei could be the Holy Spirit:

For [the Spirit] intercedes on behalf of the saints, and we know that [the Spirit] is working together all things for good with those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose.”

The subject then switches to God (the Father) in verse 29, picking up on the use of theon in verse 28.

Therefore Jim, I believe God (Holy Spirit) "works together with" those who love Him...

God bless, and see you in the one on one,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Johnny]

Last week, He painted a 5 year old being hanged "by chance" from a rope in his garage. The image an artist paints speaks volumes about the true nature of the artist Jim.

Why is a God who stands idly by while a little boy hangs to death or while the beginnings of what would be the holocaust stirred any better? Would you trust this God any more than the God you fear? You might claim that it would violate free will to interact--but I would challenge that it was not the boy's will to hang nor would God have to interact in a way which would violate free will.

--

I am not a biblical scholar by any means, and it appears that you have a good grasp of scriptures. I'd like to ask about a two passages of scripture that I feel run contrary to the teachings of open theism. If you or any other open theist could answer I would much appreciate it.

First, Isaiah 45:7-10 (NKJV) "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! [Let] the potsherd [strive] with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto [his] father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?"
The first question I have about this passage is that it states that God creates evil. Secondly, it is directly implied that God fashions us the way we are and we are in no position to question him.

The next passage is from Romans 9:17. I'm sure you've got your answer prepared for these passages. Starting in verse 17, "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

I have a few questions about this passage. First, could Pharoah have resisted God's will? If so, why did Paul already anticipate what question would be asked--"How can God find fault in someone if they can't resist His will". It seems to me clear what Paul is saying: Pharoah didn't have a chioce, and no, you can't ask why God still holds him responsible. Second question: How did God know what Pharoah would do? Third question: How many people died because of Pharoah?

 

[Johnny]

And yes, I just realized I mispelled Pharaoh all the way through that post. The site is slow today and I don't have the patience to wait for the edit screen to come up.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Jeremy,

Hilston previously wrote: I don't know why, specifically [God would predestine a 5-year-old to accidentally hang himself]. But I do know why ultimately, which is to accomplish God's good pleasure and purposes.

What does that mean to you Jim? God caused a 5 year old to hang from a rope in his garage so that He could be glorified? Doesn't compute ...

How about these? Do they compute:

• Ac 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
• Ac 4:26-28 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God set up His only Son to be beaten, spit upon, whipped and tortured, His bones pulled out of joint, and executed at the hands of wicked men, all for the sake of His elect. Does that compute? It computes just fine, along with the following:

• Ge 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
• Ps 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.
• Ps 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.
• Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Hilston wrote: Your reasoning is curious to me. Why should it matter "why"? Are you suggesting that God could not have had a reason for this tragedy to happen?

Yes, I suggest exactly that ...

You sound like Job's wife and "friends."

Hilston wrote: Why do you think this? Are you saying that you refuse to believe that God has good reasons for the evil He brings upon people?

No, Jim, God says He will bring evil upon evil people.

Then why do the evil people prosper, Jeremy? Are we not praying enough? Does God need to be reminded that there are wicked people that He's forgotten to bring evil upon? God no longer deals with people as nations, the way He did during Israel's program. God no longer brings evil upon people for outward violations of His Laws the way He did among Israel and the nations. That all passed with the advent of the Mystery. In this current economy, men stand before God as individuals, and it is the righteous who are persecuted.

• 1Co 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
• Ga 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
• Ga 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
• 2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

If a righetous man / nation turns from it's righteousness, then God will punish with evil. If an evil man / nation repents from the evil, then God will repent of the evil He promised for the man / nation.

First of all, where have you gotten the warrant to conflate "man" and "nation" like that, let alone applying the principle to this dispensation? God does not deal with men as nations any longer. There is neither Jew nor Gentile before God today. Second, all through the scriptures are examples of how the wicked prosper, how the fools win while the righteous lose; the saints and prophets asked God about this; Paul recognized the suffering that would befall those who lived godly lives and he took comfort in knowing what was promised in the afterlife.

Please explain why God would cause / predestine and evil act "by chance" (which in reality means part of His eternal plan anyway, right?) for a 5 year old to be hanged from a rope in his garage?

I answered this. I don't know why specifically; it wasn't revealed in scripture (Deu 29:29). I only know why ultimately, according to what has been revealed in scripture: It was for God's immutable purposes and good pleasure. Yes, "by chance" does refer to what God has already decreed. It is similar to the concept of probability. It is a useful vocabulary by which man can manage his own ignorance of God's decrees.

Hilston wrote: Do you see that the God you describe is One who continually lets people down. He doesn't know what's going to happen, and He refuses to intervene. On the Settled View, God knows exactly what He is doing, down to every minscule detail, and He can be wholly trusted in every regard, exhaustively.

Do you see that the God you describe is a psychopath?

Not at all. If He were a human being, finite and encumbered by innumerable reams of information, confined by time and space, that would certainly be the case. False conclusions ("God is a psychopath") are inevitable when one comes to the scriptures as a humanist/existentialist. Man is created in God's image, not the other way around. With these kinds of assessments ("God is a psychopath"), you betray this backward reasoning that is so pervasive among Open Theists. Man is the measure of all things. God is thus created and assessed in man's image.

One who predestined thousands of years of horrible acts so that He might somehow be glorified by them?

"Might somehow"? See what I mean? Finite man views things in terms of "might somehow." God's word tells us that there is no "probability" with God. His will (BOULE, Heb 6:17,18) is immutable, and everything concerning His elect has been "predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (BOULE, Eph 1:11).

In the Open View, we can love and truly be loved by a God who is in time with us, responding to our prayer, suffering with us through our tribulations (not causing them), and is still soverign, in complete control of His creation.

This is contradictory. God cannot be subject to time and space and still be sovereign and in complete control. The Open View claims to be able to love God, but for what reason? On what basis? You can't really trust Him, because He can turn evil at any moment. The Open Theist can't really rely on Him for good things, because we see good people all around us suffering disease, calamity, tragedy and death, because 5-year-old boys accidentally hang themselves and die. The Settled View can rely upon God in full view of these things; the Open View cannot. You say you can have a real relationship with a good, loving, personal, relational and living God. Please give me an example of this "real relationship" as it has manifested in your life today.

Hilston wrote: Note the reasoning that is going on here. It seems you're suggesting that God could not have planned any good to come from this tragedy. Why do you assume this? It is a very humanistic and unbiblical way of looking at life that you're intimating here, Jeremy.

I'll ask again... "What good can come from a 5 year old being hanged in his garage?"

I'll answer again: You sound like Job's friends. What good could come from Job's servants being killed by marauders? What good could come from Job's possessions being destroyed and his livestock being killed? What good could come from Job's sons and daughters being killed in a tornado? What good could come from Joseph's jealous brothers selling him into slavery? What good could come from the pharaoh's butler forgetting about Joseph saving his skin and leaving him in prison? What good can come from a man becoming possessed by Satan and betraying his Friend with a kiss? What good can come from being imprisoned for one's faith? Your thinking is unbiblical and humanistic, Jeremy.

Jeremy previously wrote: If I were a calvinist, I would hate God Jim.

Hilston asked: Why?

Because that would mean God is evil and can not be trusted.

What makes you say that? God is intrinsically trustworthy. He defines trust, thus God can be trusted. Furthermore, He is in complete, exhaustive and meticulous control. That's Someone who not only declares His trustworthiness, but manifests Himself as worthy of trust; not someone who is playing a massive chess game, trying to anticipate the next move, powerless (or will-less) to stop wicked things from happening to innocent people, and completely capable, according to Open Theists, of becoming evil Himself if He wanted to. Why do you trust such a God? On what basis do you rely on Him?

Think about it Jim... If an artist, in complete control of his canvas, paints a disgusting and evil painting, what can that tell us about the artist?

According to scripture, God's "painting" is glorious, His plan is immutably good. The evil He has decreed as part of that "painting" bring contrast to the overall composition, every brushstroke worked together to present a glorious and beautiful masterpiece.

If we equate God's creation to a blank canvas, what type of picture had God painted over the last 6,000 years Jim?

You still sound like Job's friends. Job answered this way:
Job 19:25-27 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Paul also answers your question:
Ro 8:17-18 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

In other words, the Final Big Picture is more than the sum of its parts.

God is a psychopath artist, who paints horrible and disgusting images on His canvas.

It's only horrible and disgusting to the humanist who can't see past his own experience. Believers in the infinite, immutable, impassible, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God can see the Big Picture and rejoice, fully comforted and confident that their God will truly work all things for their good.

Last week, He painted a 5 year old being hanged "by chance" from a rope in his garage. The image an artist paints speaks volumes about the true nature of the artist Jim.

The beauty of any painting is lost when its brushstrokes are viewed under a microscope, Jeremy.

Hilston wrote: Jeremy, you ask how the Settled View reconciles evil things happening to innocent children according to God's plan, and the biblical answer is that there is no reconciliation needed. God knows what He is doing. His immutable counsel is for His good purposes and good pleasure. I can trust that every tragedy and evil thing that has happened or will happen, whether to innocent or guilty people, all work together toward fulfilling every meticulous detail of God's decreed purposes, for the sake of the Elect, for the sake of His own good pleasure.

See artist comments above ...

See brushstroke comments below artist comments above.

Jim, I think you missed my point. In your translation, you passed over the "sunergei." Here's how I think Romans 8:28 should be translated:

Quote:
“And we know that He [God] works with those loving God, with those called according to [His] purpose all things for good.”

There are at least two ways to translate Romans 8:28 which are consistent with the original syntax. The question is which way is most suitable to the immediate context of the verse and to the overall NT usage of the words used in the verse. (Of course, which way conforms best to the overall theology of the NT is also a consideration.)

I have no problem with that translation.

Here’s the text in transliteration that Jim has already offered:

Quote:
Oidamen de hoti tois agaposi ton theon panta sunergei eis agathon tois kata prothesin kletois ousin.

The main bone of contention is the subject of the verb sunergei. Jim, you did not address sunergei. This verb is in the singular, which would normally indicate a singular subject. However, it’s standard in Koine Greek to use a singular verb with a neuter plural subject. Thus, the noun panta, ‘all’ or ‘all things’, is eligible as well. That’s how Jim and the KJV took it: “all things work together for good.” This is a reasonable rendering for the verse in isolation.

I was merely quoting the KJV, Jeremy. The point I was making stands whether I use the KJV or your translation above.

Alternatively, one may take panta as the object of sunergei and then find a singular subject for the verb.

I don't take panta as the subject of sunergei. Context demands that we view the subject as the Holy Spirit, jointly working with those who love Him, those who are"The Called" according to His pre-placement.

My translation takes God as that subject. While”God” does not occur in the nominative (subject) case in the verse, it’s an entirely reasonable proposal. In fact, numerous NT manuscripts do just that, supplying the nominative ho theos immediately after the verb; I have no doubt the scribes who did this actually believed that “God” is the subject and inserted it for clarity rather than introducing it as a deliberate alteration of the sense. And it’s hardly unusual for Scripture to read simply “he” (usually, as here, implicit in the verb form) when predicating an action of God or of Jesus.

Especially in light of Paul’s teaching that we are God’s co-workers (sunergoi, 1 Corinthians 3:9), it fits that God and we would be co-workers in Romans 8:28.

I agree. In fact, the sun-, sug-, sum- cognates appear to be one of Paul's favorite linguistic devices and one that has a distinctive meaning for the Body of Christ.

Further, in the immediately preceding context, Paul is teaching about how the Holy Spirit “helps us [sunantilambanomai, another sun compound verb] in our weaknesses... intercedes for us... intercedes for the saints.” The whole context is about divine-human synergy, about God working with us on behalf of His good purpose. It isn’t about how “things” just happen to come together for us; it is about God working with us.

That's my point exactly. This makes sense on the Settled View. It does not make sense on the Open View. What is God doing right now for you and with you, according to the Open View? How is the Holy Spirit working with you? Was the Holy Spirit working with that 5-year-old boy who accidentally hanged himself? Or did the 5-year-old not love God enough?

Therefore Jim, I believe God (Holy Spirit) "works together with" those who love Him...

I agree with you, but I don't see how it makes any sense in the Open View. Exactly how is the Holy Spirit working all things together with The Called who love Him?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Poly]

Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world,

No he didn't. You're not paying attention.

Yeah, it's seems as though somebody isn't paying attention.

Please provide Scripture that Christ's death was decreed from the foundation of the world.

That doogieduff. How he could he say that Jeremy was asking you to provide scripture that Christs death was decread from the foundation of the world?

It's obvious that what Jeremy was actually asking was for you to provide scripture that Christ's death was decread from the foundation of the world.

:freak:

 

[Hilston]

There is little doubt in my mind that Open Theism truly affects one's ability to think or read, and posts like Poly's confirm this observation. I don't say this lightly or as a mere insult. It has been shown time and again. It is proven to me over and over. Am I above thinking sloppily or reading hastily? Of course not. I screw up all the time. But in important discussions such as this and others that happen on TOL, it is remarkable how often Open Theists seem unable to connect the big black dots.

Poly correctly quotes DoogieDuh:

Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world, ... [Emphasis added]

Then she correctly quotes Jeremy Finkenbinder:

Please provide Scripture that Christ's death was decreed from the foundation of the world. [Emphasis added]

Poly then alleges:

Yeah, it's seems as though somebody isn't paying attention.

Then, as if to point out something obvious, she misses what is glaring, an important distinction that any careful Bible student should be keen to notice. Poly writes:

That doogieduff. How he could he say that Jeremy was asking you to provide scripture that Christs death was decread from the foundation of the world? [Emphasis added]

It's obvious that what Jeremy was actually asking was for you to provide scripture that Christ's death was decread from the foundation of the world. [Emphasis added]

:freak:

Allow me to offer a clue (the size of a '57 Buick):

From the Oxford Dictionary:

before preposition, conjunction, & adverb

1 during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time) : [as prep. ]
she had to rest before dinner | the day before yesterday | before the war | [as conj. ] they lived rough for four days before they were arrested | it wasn't long before I had my first bite | [as adv. ] his playing days had ended six years before | it's never happened to me before.​

Please compare the above definition to the following:

from preposition

1 indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts :
she began to walk away from him | I leapt from my bed | figurative he was turning the committee away from appeasement. • indicating the distance between a particular place and another place used as a point of reference : the ambush occurred 50 yards from a checkpoint.
2 indicating the point in time at which a particular process, event, or activity starts : the show will run from 10 to 2.​

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[koban]

There is little doubt in my mind that Open Theism truly affects one's ability to think or read, and posts like Poly's confirm this observation. I don't say this lightly or as a mere insult. It has been shown time and again. It is proven to me over and over. Am I above thinking sloppily or reading hastily? Of course not. I screw up all the time. But in important discussions such as this and others that happen on TOL, it is remarkable how often Open Theists seem unable to connect the big black dots.

Poly correctly quotes DoogieDuh:

Jeremy asked you for scripture that Christ's death was decreed before the foundation of the world, ... [Emphasis added]

Then she correctly quotes Jeremy Finkenbinder:

Please provide Scripture that Christ's death was decreed from the foundation of the world. [Emphasis added]

Poly then alleges:Then, as if to point out something obvious, she misses what is glaring, an important distinction that any careful Bible student should be keen to notice. Poly writes:

Allow me to offer a clue (the size of a '57 Buick):

From the Oxford Dictionary:

before preposition, conjunction, & adverb

1 during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time) : [as prep. ]
she had to rest before dinner | the day before yesterday | before the war | [as conj. ] they lived rough for four days before they were arrested | it wasn't long before I had my first bite | [as adv. ] his playing days had ended six years before | it's never happened to me before.​

Please compare the above definition to the following:

from preposition

1 indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts :
she began to walk away from him | I leapt from my bed | figurative he was turning the committee away from appeasement. • indicating the distance between a particular place and another place used as a point of reference : the ambush occurred 50 yards from a checkpoint.
2 indicating the point in time at which a particular process, event, or activity starts : the show will run from 10 to 2.​

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

Still playing your twisted little game again, Jimmy? :sigh: