An open challenge to all closed theists

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

God was thinking "a". "a" did not happen. why did "a" not happen if God was thinking of it? the answer:something had to change the mind of God (circumstances) so that "a" did not come about.

"a" was clearly "in the mind of God". but since "a" did not come about, "a" must have left the mind of God. and what do we call it when something is thought of and then thought against? a change of mind.

 

[1Way]

Berean Todd

I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life.

What I said was in full conformity to God’s word as mentioned in my post on this issue. It is not screwy, it is according to God’s word. If you disagree with this understanding of God’s word that plainly teaches that you can never void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing, then deal with the passages I already gave you for that instead of pretending like I did not already inform you of God’s word on this issue.

I’m seeing a pattern here where you folks who simply do not appreciate my beliefs actually treat my beliefs with hostility. Here’s my suggestion to help you overcome your repulsions from dealing with these things.

Take a deep breath,

exhale fully,

and then

just,,, deal with it.

It’s not that hard to do.

Please read my 3rd post, the second part, where God condemns folks for doing violence to His word as mentioned. You said

What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear.

You misunderstand the issue. When you suggest that the literal or natural reading of a portion of scripture is not true, it means something else, then that is fine if you would rightly establish what the alternative meaning is. If you do not or can not do that, then you have no basis for saying that the literal/natural meaning does not mean what it says.

It’s the same with any figure of speech. This is not rocket science, this is common sense 101. If anyone ever says that something should be taken figuratively instead of literally, then it is incumbent upon them to reasonably establish why and thus what the figure actually means.

Try this on for consistency’s sake
However, if you want to maintain that it’s ok to void any communication of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you can not refuse. Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

and oh what a cool exception this is,

when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will entreat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is.

 

[smaller]

An example of 1way interpretation.

He cites hating father and mother and self etc. to be a disciple and concludes that it is a comparative hate.

In doing so 1way slices LOVE into PIECES. A lesser love for his family and a greater love for Jesus.

He would disregard scriptures that say people have satan as a father, or that Mystery Babylon is the mother of harlotry, or that our old selves were the slaves of sin. These would appear the obvious winners of HATE over our own families.

In this understanding 1way's FIRMLY FIXED UNMOVING example(s) quickly evaporate.

The fun part is watching the marbles roll out of the container when the sticks are removed from 1way's positions.

 

[Swordsman]

Re: THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

Re: THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

Originally posted by 1Way
[size=3.5]Question 1’s bible example[/size]

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)

Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it.

If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think:

I'm gonna take this verse into context to avoid any misinterpretations.

Jonah 3:1-5
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you." So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

So, Jonah obeyed God and gave His message to the people and they believed. The Ninevites had a change of heart here. We go on......

Jonah 3:6-9
Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

Even the king was moved by Jonah's message from God. He even questioned 'Who knows what God will do with us.'

Jonah 3:10
Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.


Now here is the crux of the matter. God pronounced judgement on the people of Ninevah had they not changed their evil ways. God simply let them know the direction they were heading - destruction. Since they obviously changed and believed, He did not destroy them. THEY changed, not God. He wasn't ignorant of the future at all.

I'm sure I didn't answer your question like the way you wanted me to. But then again, I'm not of your Open View either.

Originally posted by 1Way
[size=3.5]Question 2’s bible example[/size]

(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)

The Potter and the clay


The Vision, figurative speech

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.


God’s explanation of the vision, literal application

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!


The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism

7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.

9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.



* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent

“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
[size=3.5]Question 2[/size]

Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think:

We all know that God abhors evil. God condemns evil. If a nation against whom He had spoken turned from their evil ways, God would spare it. God's covenant with the Israelites stood the test yet again. Had He not used threats to His people to turn them from their evil ways, they would have continued in sin.

Since God is in eternity and we are in a time frame, He has to deal with us in time, since that is all we can understand. The outcome has already been decided. But we don't see it. Therefore, He has to deal with us showing us the result of evil. If we turn and believe, he will save us. This story still applies for us today. God DOES NOT change, WE do.

Originally posted by 1Way
Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:

Again, I'm sure you're not satisfied with my answers. But I don't know how to please you with an answer, other than me lying to you saying that I believe God doesn't know everything and that He changes His mind based on our actions. I do not believe this since He has not revealed it to me. Also, by the wording of your questions and prerequisites, it seems that you're trying to trap those of us not of your belief.

Forget Boyd, Enyart, Spurgeon, Calvin, Arminius, etc...... Get into the Word for yourself. Ask God to show you the truth. He will. He always does. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is.

 

[smaller]

2 Corinthians 5
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God

 

[Rolf Ernst]

A question for those who weary themselves to read 1Way's rants: How many of you think 1Way understands the not uncommon use of hyperbole by the people among whom Jesus ministered?? This may be a good question for a poll--how many of you believe 1Way understands (1) what hyperbole is and (2) how common it was among the people to whom Jesus ministered?
Another interesting question--What was it which 1Way recently posted that makes me wonder this about him?
My answer to such a poll would be that 1Way neither understands what hyperbole is, nor how common its use was at that time.

P.S. I would be happy if 1Way would correct me by showing that he both knows what it is, and how common its use was. Go ahead, 1Way.

 

[1Way]

Here is the location for all off topic discussions, either post there, or call my attention to wherever else you request my response. The new thread in this same forum is called


An open challenge to all closed theists Part 2 “Off_topic_issues”

And here is the link

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=485674#post485674



smaller you are offtopic.

Rolf I expect you to answer post 10. This thread has a specific topic and focus, and like I said, I will be glad to engage your questions and challenges wherever else you decide.

 

[smaller]

only in your onesided view 1way....

typical

 

[1Way]

The problem

The problem

This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said.

• I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for
• I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
• I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word

And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

 

[1Way]

Constructive assistance

Constructive assistance

Here is the simplified and focused issue at hand.

The following is the portion of text that the closed view says should be taken figuratively and not literally. Ok, if that is true. ...

What does this figurative text mean?

_____________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.


The form of the answer
Your task is to specifically state the figurative meaning. We should be able to return to the literal words armed with the suggested non-literal meaning, such that when we read the text, we can understand what it means according to this non-literal meaning, i.e. it makes sense, it does not contradict the context, etc.

If you would do just that much, then half of the challenge would be answered. The other half is simply doing a reasonable demonstration establishing the meaning from scripture (so as to not void the meaning with a manmade tradition).

 

[smaller]

ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD.

What is not of God?

Can 1way name ONE THING that is NOT of GOD?

 

[Swordsman]

Re: The problem

Re: The problem

Originally posted by 1Way

This is not about me not “liking” or “agreeing” with your response, nor about me forcing you to become an open theist. This is about providing sufficient reasonable evidence that the text should be understood figuratively instead of literally. Until you do that, God’s word wins, He literally meant what He literally said.

• I ask a simple bible conformity question and go to great lengths to make sure you understand exactly what I am looking for

• 
  
  See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me. I know that you probably do not care about my experience, but that aside, I understand what point you're trying to make. I think you have done well making it with the text you're using.
  
  Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.
  
  

  Originally posted by 1Way
  [*]I warn against meaningfully voiding God’s word by man’s tradition (quoting God as my source)
  [*]I demonstrated an appropriate example of how to establish a non-literal meaning as provided by God’s word

And yet no one has come close to complying with this bible conformity challenge, not one attempt at offering a replacement figurative meaning.

I'll admit I don't know all the truth, and probably never will. But I do know one thing: the view that God doesn't know everything, or chooses not to know, or can even change His mind is not the God I serve.

If you would like to start another thread on the sovereignty of God making points of what the word "sovereignty" means, please do so. But then again, the OVers say they believe God is sovereign but come back and say He takes risks and can even make mistakes.

So claim victory again over the "closed theists". Maybe one of your cronies will "high-five" ya or give you a POTD. Whatever does it for ya. :thumb:

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: The problem

Re: Re: The problem

Originally posted by Swordsman

See, I think the difference between you, 1Way, and me is that you're looking to push your agenda upon the rest of us, and I merely believe what I believe because it is God, and God alone who has revealed it to me.

Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.

Figuratively, the text does not mean God changed His mind. I answered your question in my previous post. The key concept to remember at all times is that God is not caught up in our time line, but eternity. Knowing that, you can't possibly believe he doesn't know choices His people were going to make. But since you do not believe this, then there really is no argument and you shouldn't expect others to come to grips with your belief.

Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?

But then again, the OVers say [God] can even make mistakes.

I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

 

[Swordsman]

Re: Re: Re: The problem

Re: Re: Re: The problem

Originally posted by Turbo

Well, this is a debate forum. :doh: And if you didn't want to convince others that Open Theists are in error, you wouldn't be participating in these debates. You've even started threads to debate the topic. This business of "1Way has an agenda and I don't" smells like a cop out.

It isn't I that will convince you or anyone else that Open Theism is not of the Spirit. I merely asked on another thread "Does Open Theism Limit God?" Whether I got a debate or not, it was a question that I was curious about. I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth.

Originally posted by Turbo
Why not make an effort to prove scripturally that God exists/operates outside of time? What brings you to that conclusion?

Please tell me you believe in the One and Only Eternal God.....

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

and on and on and on..............

Originally posted by Turbo
I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.

OK. Here is a quote from an OVer John Sanders.

John Sanders in this book The God Who Risks
God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).

 

[smaller]

Open View Newsflash!

God makes mankind and crosses his fingers in hopes that they will turn out right...

...but alas He fails not only miserably but nearly completely...

ONLY a few seeds that God Planted actually took root and bore FRUIT...pathetic fruit as it is....a few small bitter figs...

THEN GOD IS forced to burn the majority and balance of them forever in writhing torture

Hopefully the few little bitter figs who actually made it will satisfy you going forward and ripen in your LIGHT, BUT, but, but, you really do not know if even these can sustain themselves FOREVER....

Better Luck next time God.

You will get it right someday....after all, You do have an eternity to work on things...

God, you just NEVER KNOW....

 

[Rolf Ernst]

I have answered all your objections. You have just not read them or else you have willingly refused to understand.
Question for you, 1Way: your views of scripture and your interpretations are so far off base, I doubt that you can find a systematic theology by anyone who agrees with you. People who believe like that don't have the grasp of scripture necessary to write a book about it. QUESTION: Can you refer me to such a work? Who wrote it, and who published it?
Yet you demand everyone's time and space on this forum to endlessly mistreat the same scriptures over and over; and even though people properly exegete those texts you persist in saying that they have not answered your challenge.
I think you need to find a good systematic theology like Berkhof's
or Robert Reymond's, spend a year in study, and then come back and talk to us. Your continued haranging people about texts which they have already given good responses to is beginning to qualify as harrassment.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Smaller--your post above, the 31st on this thread--I don't know if you were deliberately trying to do so, but you can be humorous with a touch of hilarity

 

[smaller]

Thanks Rolf

Personally I like #35 better as it is a summation of OV beliefs

I will not say 1Way is the 1thing that is not of God...

 

[1Way]

Swordsman – You said the following in response to Turbo

I don't like "battling" or "debating" as you so eloquently put it. The Bible is "God-breathed". I don't debate anything about what God speaks to me. If so, I would be questioning His truth.

I realize that you didn’t mean “questioning His truth” as though “seeking answers to sincere questions”, you meant you do not “question His truth” in terms of “doubting it’s righteousness or authority”. And I’m glad to hear you “say” such an honorable thing.

But, I think that you go well beyond “doubting God’s word” by rejecting the dozens of literal scripture teachings and demonstrations of divine repentance and doing so without violating scripture. You seem unwilling to face the fact that you do the following “three step stomp” on God’s word.

____ Presenting Closed Theism’s :freak:
______ very own “time-tested”

. Three . . Step . . Stomp!

Choreographically illustrated “step by step”
from authentic closed theism’s treatment
of God’s word

1
Void scripture’s authoritative teaching
Divine repentance does not mean what it (literally) says, it
is not literal, it is figurative.

2
Violate scripture by not discovering the
voided meaning from God’s revealed word

No one actually “knows” what the figure means, but we
(somehow) “know” it does NOT mean that God did
not do what He previously thought He would do. :freak:

So, “God repenting and DID NOT DO what He said He
WOULD DO”,

actually means that

He did NOT repent, He DID DO what He previously
thought He would do.

3
On top of all that violence, you hold in
higher esteem “closed theism’s” manmade
tradition than you do the literal message
from scripture, conveniently claiming
“no-fault” ignorance over what the figure
actually means

So as a closed theist, although I claim to honor and trust
God’s word, I have a longstanding habit of doing violence
to it because of very important manmade traditions.

And if anyone dare charge us with not conforming our faith
to God’s word, we just appeal to the great men of old,
saying obviously our glorious tradition has dealt with all
that long ago. ------- The proverbial Closed Theist


That is going well beyond just “questioning God’s word”, you actually purposefully reject it, and suppose that you have the standing to overturn what scripture literally says in dozens of places, specifically “knowing” what it can not mean, yet having no idea of what it does mean.
:dunce: :freak: :doh:

So ultimately Swordsman, as you fundamentally follow this pattern, you do violence to God’s word because of your manmade tradition, and when called to task for so doing, your case rests firmly on no-fault ignorance that is richly provided by the manmade tradition of closed theism.

A proposition (for non-hypocrites) that you “just can’t refuse”
Here is my treatment for folks like you who wish to suggest a figurative meaning while not providing a reasonable “context conforming” figurative alternative.

If you want to maintain that it’s ok to void communications of it’s literal meaning without replacing that meaning with a reasonable and verifiable alternative, then I have a proposition for you that you “can not refuse”. Come and work for me and I will pay you $50 dollars an hour, but no more than $100 per hour (not including other perks and bonuses). And we’ll have a great time. Really!

But...

(and oh what a cool (closed theist) exception this is,)

... when it comes time for "me" to pay "you", I will treat you with the same sort of violence you suggest is fine to do against God’s word by saying that I should no be taken literally when I said how much I would pay you, somehow it was just a figure of speech so I don’t have to pay you anything, but didn’t we have fun though?

See, there is no way that you would go for such dishonesty and perversion from any employer, which is good and right for you to object because it is wrong to violate your own (literal) word. Of course the same thing goes with not violating other people’s word as well. And of course, the same thing goes with God and His word, He is no more worthy of such violent treatment than you or anyone else is.

So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you!

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 1Way
So what gives? Will you, or will you not remain consistent with your “literal to figurative” violation process? If you work for me full time for a month straight before I pay you, I’ll give you the full $100/hour! But if have to pay you weekly, then I will only give you $50/hour. :thumb: Sounds like a great deal, DOESN’T IT? Surely your not a hypocrite, if it is godly to do what you do to scripture, then you’ll be happy to demonstrate consistency of your faith in your life when the rubber meets the roads. How about it? I’d even go for giving you $75/hour for a two week plan, just since it is you!

Proof of my faith and trust in God isn't for sale.

I respect your view 1Way, i just do not feel led to believe the way you do. Its only through experiences and seeking His Word has made me what I am today. Nothing else. Not John Calvin, or any church.

Its really pointless to argue about it. There is nothing I can do to try to make you or anyone else believe what or how the truth has been revealed to me. Everytime me or Zman or Rolf or Helmet84 speak of His sovereignty, they get shot down as "taking the Scripture out of context." Believe me, I'm not backing down, but I'm not gonna participate in any "battle" or "debate" with OVers or Arminians or Evangelicals.

I respect your view and what you have to say about it. I really do. You seem to be a man who stands up for what he believes in. And I recognize that.

The mysterious thing about all the different doctrines of the Bible is that we all "think" we have God figured out. I used to be this way back in my semi-Arminian days.

It isn't my agenda to push my belief upon anyone else. Only God can show one the truth. Not me or Greg Boyd or John MacArthur or anyone else. I pray that you seek out his truth daily. I do myself. More and more He opens my eyes and gives me a biblical world view.

In Christ,
swordsman