ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)
- Thread starter geoff
- Start date
Edgar Caiña
New member
Surly-DwarF
Surly-DwarF
Hi Surly,
You said,
One of the problems I have with that view is that it posts a question on the GENUINENESS of God’s interaction with man. If it is true that He predestined everything (and I took it to mean all things, as in everything without exceptions) that comes to pass, then how could He be genuinely serious with the following accounts?
Would you help me reconcile these things please in the light of the view that everything that comes to pass is predestined by God?
Grace and peace be yours,
Edgar
Surly-DwarF
Hi Surly,
You said,
One of the problems I have with that view is that it posts a question on the GENUINENESS of God’s interaction with man. If it is true that He predestined everything (and I took it to mean all things, as in everything without exceptions) that comes to pass, then how could He be genuinely serious with the following accounts?
How could He genuinely say that He was grieved by man’s sin if He Himself predestined them to turn out like this?
How could He genuinely get angry with these people if He was the one who predestined them to be such stiff-necked people?
Did He predestine king Saul’s dethronement only to predestine again king David to the throne? How could He be genuinely serious grieving over Saul’s failure if Himself predestined Saul’s failure?
How could He genuinely feel sorrow over Jerusalem’s UNWILLINGNESS to let God gather her children together if He’s in the first place who predestined Jerusalem’s unwillingness?
Did He predestine His own purpose to be rejected by these men?
Would you help me reconcile these things please in the light of the view that everything that comes to pass is predestined by God?
Grace and peace be yours,
Edgar
Last edited:
geoff
New member
Edgar,
How on earth does predestining anything PREVENT geniune feelings?
ALL the examples you have given are to do with FOREKNOWLEDGE and not predestining. So, you will also have to explain how foreknowing prevents genuine emotion.
Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it?
No.
So please demonstrate to us how this differs for God. And why it should be different for God. Then please demonstrate why we should believe that foreknowledge should have these radical properties, which seemingly have only come into existence with the advent of the OV.
How on earth does predestining anything PREVENT geniune feelings?
ALL the examples you have given are to do with FOREKNOWLEDGE and not predestining. So, you will also have to explain how foreknowing prevents genuine emotion.
Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it?
No.
So please demonstrate to us how this differs for God. And why it should be different for God. Then please demonstrate why we should believe that foreknowledge should have these radical properties, which seemingly have only come into existence with the advent of the OV.
Originally posted by geoff
ah well..
I really do dispise speaking metaphorically anyway
The use of the earthly principles to shed light on heavenly ones is a sound one.and used by the Lord.
So we can also use them if they harmonise with scripture.
We should be happy for any means to helpus understand things .
But ist ok if you dont like using such examples you dont have to.
But youl forgive me I hope if I continue to do so
)
Edgar Caiña
New member
There you go again geoff. I'm asking Surly with his view of predestination, so please, dont confuse the issue with your FOREKNOWLEDGE stuff!
But I'll bite. OK.
But I'll bite. OK.
You see, you're missing the point. If the issue Surly and I are in is foreknowledge, there could have been "no" problem as you supposed. But Surly and I are in PREDESTINATION issue. If YOU predestined your child to hurt by a certain thing or event before he/she is even born then how could you say you'll have genuine feeling of grief when he/she is hurt? You're the one who set the whole thing up in the first place. In fact, you dont only know that he/she is going to do something that might hurt him/her, you also predestined him/her to do that, how then can you say you're genuinely grieved if in the first place you set the whole thing up?
Edgar Caiña
New member
Thanks, 1013... well Im starting to KNOW geoff... He always makes me think... he always makes me think what kind of guy he is...
you're right, 1013... you're INDEED right, man (remember my first encounter with geoff?)! Salamat at Mabuhay!!
geoff, may i know from what planet are you from?? Your avatar seems to reveal something huh... you're strange man... very strange... at least to me...
you're right, 1013... you're INDEED right, man (remember my first encounter with geoff?)! Salamat at Mabuhay!!
geoff, may i know from what planet are you from?? Your avatar seems to reveal something huh... you're strange man... very strange... at least to me...
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
For the sake of arguement Edgar, I'm going to say that its reasonable that one should plan something and still feel grief or anxiouty about it. Suppose a devout Jewish mother is married to a goy who isn't relgious and they are not in a country where all the children are routinely circumsised for health reasons (like in the US). The mother may insist on a bris, but in the act as the rabbi is performing the ritual, she's going to feel a little intense while the baby screams as many women, specifically mothers, do at brises.
However, I still don't see that one can plan to "regret" (a specific type of grief) an action that they planned unless they feel that what they planned was a mistake and they change there mind about the judgement that went into the plan.
BTW, as moderator, I'd ask that you not goad on geoff... even if he deserves it
However, I still don't see that one can plan to "regret" (a specific type of grief) an action that they planned unless they feel that what they planned was a mistake and they change there mind about the judgement that went into the plan.
BTW, as moderator, I'd ask that you not goad on geoff... even if he deserves it
Surly-DwarF
New member
Hi Edgar,
Let me commend you on your grasp of English. It's quite good for a non-native speaker. I don't have time to get in-depth with your questions right now, but I would suggest that Geoff is not wrong to bring foreknowledge into the discussion because you can't talk about predestination without foreknowledge, and vice-versa. I think
Mike
Let me commend you on your grasp of English. It's quite good for a non-native speaker. I don't have time to get in-depth with your questions right now, but I would suggest that Geoff is not wrong to bring foreknowledge into the discussion because you can't talk about predestination without foreknowledge, and vice-versa. I think
Mike
Edgar Caiña
New member
Hi Surly,
Thanks for the commendation. Actually, that's what I believe, that you cannot separate the two. But my experience with geoff made me more cautious in using these terms, because to him, you can have one without the other.
Hey geoff,
Cmon man, we're just having fun. Nothing personal folk. We're all friends here though our beliefs and views aren't. Peniel use to have fun with my name. He calls me Edgar Cayce, Edgar the Canaanite and that's fine, because I know he's just having fun with my name, but normally Filipinos don't like that (maybe Peniel knows that that's why he does that to my name). You better call a Filipino by his name if you dont want any trouble. So geoff, peace, man, peace! Im very sorry for crossing the boundary, my apology, please....
Thanks for the commendation. Actually, that's what I believe, that you cannot separate the two. But my experience with geoff made me more cautious in using these terms, because to him, you can have one without the other.
Hey geoff,
Cmon man, we're just having fun. Nothing personal folk. We're all friends here though our beliefs and views aren't. Peniel use to have fun with my name. He calls me Edgar Cayce, Edgar the Canaanite and that's fine, because I know he's just having fun with my name, but normally Filipinos don't like that (maybe Peniel knows that that's why he does that to my name). You better call a Filipino by his name if you dont want any trouble. So geoff, peace, man, peace! Im very sorry for crossing the boundary, my apology, please....
Last edited:
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
I've read the entire thread.
I can only assume this doesn't include you, right?
If I may, I'd like to get back to Jeremiah 15:2 .
The word "destine" is not included in the Hebrew. You obviously know this.
The Interlinear NIV translates it thus:
The Septuagint translation by Lancelot Brenton renders it this way:
The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.
I just have one question for you, Geoff. You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim, but you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View. First of all, that's not a very strong argument. Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.
Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent so that He could repent (ch. 18).
Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?
Dr. Deutsch
I've read the entire thread.
I can only assume this doesn't include you, right?
If I may, I'd like to get back to Jeremiah 15:2 .
The word "destine" is not included in the Hebrew. You obviously know this.
The Interlinear NIV translates it thus:
The Septuagint translation by Lancelot Brenton renders it this way:
The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.
I just have one question for you, Geoff. You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim, but you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View. First of all, that's not a very strong argument. Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.
Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent so that He could repent (ch. 18).
Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?
Dr. Deutsch
Last edited:
geoff
New member
drd,
regardless of whether the word actually exists, the passage certainly indicates a certain destination for certain people. Many modern translations add the word because it fits contextually, and conveys the correct meaning of the passage. If it didnt, it wouldnt be there.
Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.
I think you'll find it was others claiming that *I* never use scripture to back up my claims. However, I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum. I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated, so I really dont care any more.
Its one of many. The 66 books of the Bible destroy the open View, because it isnt found in it.
Any scripture that indicates a destiny for individuals, groups of individuals, and for humanity defeats the open view. Simple.
Think about it. God says that he has send some to death, some to starvation, some to captivity... and He has... and He did.
He didnt. All are doomed to destruction because of Sin, thats why they need to hear the word of God and repent in the first place. You have made a false association of verses here. They are from different contexts and its a fallacy to combine them as if they are talking about the same thing.
See above.
BTW, you havent PROVED God didnt destine people for destruction, just pointed out the word doesnt exist in the passage. You will have to find an alternate meaning for the passage other than what you seem to agree it means... in order to do this. The passage context certainly indicates appointing or destining regardless of whether the word is there or not.
regardless of whether the word actually exists, the passage certainly indicates a certain destination for certain people. Many modern translations add the word because it fits contextually, and conveys the correct meaning of the passage. If it didnt, it wouldnt be there.
Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.
Any verse that indicates God predestining anyone defeats the open view, because the open view claims, by default, that God does not generally predestine people (even though some might concede that he predestines the odd person/thing from time to time).
I think you'll find it was others claiming that *I* never use scripture to back up my claims. However, I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum. I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated, so I really dont care any more.
Its one of many. The 66 books of the Bible destroy the open View, because it isnt found in it.
Any scripture that indicates a destiny for individuals, groups of individuals, and for humanity defeats the open view. Simple.
Think about it. God says that he has send some to death, some to starvation, some to captivity... and He has... and He did.
He didnt. All are doomed to destruction because of Sin, thats why they need to hear the word of God and repent in the first place. You have made a false association of verses here. They are from different contexts and its a fallacy to combine them as if they are talking about the same thing.
See above.
BTW, you havent PROVED God didnt destine people for destruction, just pointed out the word doesnt exist in the passage. You will have to find an alternate meaning for the passage other than what you seem to agree it means... in order to do this. The passage context certainly indicates appointing or destining regardless of whether the word is there or not.
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
It wasn't my purpose to prove that God didn't predestine those people for death. I just wanted to hear your explanation.
Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.
As for Strong's giving me a meaning, I agree. However, you can search all of the OT. You won't find a Hebrew word for "predestine." At least I didn't. Only the NT has the word for "predestine," proorizo, and it occurs in only 6 places.
(1) Acts 4:28
(2) Romans 8:29, 30
(3) 1 Corinthians 2:7
(4) Ephesians 1:5
(5) Ephesians 1:11
Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.
You cannot simply say that the people of Israel did die by death, sword, and famine, because there is no historical or scriptural proof that I know of to back it up. God said He would do it, and He didn't, as far as I know. Maybe He didn't do it yet. Is there any Scriptural proof that tells us this punishment by four kinds of death is still coming? Is the verse speaking of the tribulation? If it is, then it presents no problem to the Open View. Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.
Dr. Deutsch
It wasn't my purpose to prove that God didn't predestine those people for death. I just wanted to hear your explanation.
Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.
As for Strong's giving me a meaning, I agree. However, you can search all of the OT. You won't find a Hebrew word for "predestine." At least I didn't. Only the NT has the word for "predestine," proorizo, and it occurs in only 6 places.
(1) Acts 4:28
(2) Romans 8:29, 30
(3) 1 Corinthians 2:7
(4) Ephesians 1:5
(5) Ephesians 1:11
Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.
You cannot simply say that the people of Israel did die by death, sword, and famine, because there is no historical or scriptural proof that I know of to back it up. God said He would do it, and He didn't, as far as I know. Maybe He didn't do it yet. Is there any Scriptural proof that tells us this punishment by four kinds of death is still coming? Is the verse speaking of the tribulation? If it is, then it presents no problem to the Open View. Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.
Dr. Deutsch
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.
That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.
well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.
I can't believe you said this. Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God? Your theology, however it is viewed by others, is still your theology. If you believe in it, that is what is important. I may not agree, but (and I may be stretching it here) I see it as a sort of "Christian duty" to help spread the word and bring others to Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.
Geoff, the problem I see with many Calvinists (and I'm not singling you out here, just stating an observation) is that they are afraid, as Christ might say, to "get a new wineskin, and fill it with new wine (a la Matt 9:17)." I was raised Catholic. I never really liked going to mass, and I didn't pay much attention. About a year ago, I met a Calvinist. She showed me some scripture and I was a Calvinist. I really got into theology. But, I thought I had better read some opposition to the view. Since then, I've been reading message boards, forums, articles, from Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I finally became an Open Theist because their arguments were more Scriptural, more solid, in my opinion.
The point is, Geoff, is that I am hungry for knowledge, and I always open the bible ready for "new wine." If you would use more scripture to support it, to guide me and teach me, I would sincerely look into it and contrast your arguments with Scripture. However, you are not doing that. You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.
You should be ashamed that you don't "care anymore." What would the members of your church think about that?
Dr. Deutsch
So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.
That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.
well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.
I can't believe you said this. Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God? Your theology, however it is viewed by others, is still your theology. If you believe in it, that is what is important. I may not agree, but (and I may be stretching it here) I see it as a sort of "Christian duty" to help spread the word and bring others to Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.
Geoff, the problem I see with many Calvinists (and I'm not singling you out here, just stating an observation) is that they are afraid, as Christ might say, to "get a new wineskin, and fill it with new wine (a la Matt 9:17)." I was raised Catholic. I never really liked going to mass, and I didn't pay much attention. About a year ago, I met a Calvinist. She showed me some scripture and I was a Calvinist. I really got into theology. But, I thought I had better read some opposition to the view. Since then, I've been reading message boards, forums, articles, from Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I finally became an Open Theist because their arguments were more Scriptural, more solid, in my opinion.
The point is, Geoff, is that I am hungry for knowledge, and I always open the bible ready for "new wine." If you would use more scripture to support it, to guide me and teach me, I would sincerely look into it and contrast your arguments with Scripture. However, you are not doing that. You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.
You should be ashamed that you don't "care anymore." What would the members of your church think about that?
Dr. Deutsch
Last edited:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
Hello Dr. Deutch.
It's good to have yet another ov'er on the board.
I'd like to point out that it is worth while to discuss one scripture in a thread. You say that it can be taken out of context, but then it is perfectly relevent to the topic to show that it has been taken out of the context, and what you have done to that effect I would say is pretty worthwhile. You could also bring up other scriptures that indicate the opposite of what is claimed specifically about the scripture that was brought up, but it is still beneficial then even if the person who starts the topic wants to say "well let's say for the sake of argument that those scriputures may be wrong or scripture may be inconsistent because for the moment, I don't care to deal with them. If you can't provide a decent alternative understanding to the issue, then as far as this thread is concerned, you have a problem."
also Geoff isn't a calvinist. He isn't arminian either. At most we could say that he is anti-ov.
It's good to have yet another ov'er on the board.
I'd like to point out that it is worth while to discuss one scripture in a thread. You say that it can be taken out of context, but then it is perfectly relevent to the topic to show that it has been taken out of the context, and what you have done to that effect I would say is pretty worthwhile. You could also bring up other scriptures that indicate the opposite of what is claimed specifically about the scripture that was brought up, but it is still beneficial then even if the person who starts the topic wants to say "well let's say for the sake of argument that those scriputures may be wrong or scripture may be inconsistent because for the moment, I don't care to deal with them. If you can't provide a decent alternative understanding to the issue, then as far as this thread is concerned, you have a problem."
also Geoff isn't a calvinist. He isn't arminian either. At most we could say that he is anti-ov.
Last edited:
geoff
New member
DRD
All I did was state a fact regarding Strongs. In typical OV style you have read into it meaning that isnt there.
Demonstrate how I have taken it out of context.
I'm not a Calvinist.
Rule #1. It is irrational and false to lump people into general groups. OV'ers tend to call everyone who isnt an OV'er, or demonstrates any sort of leaning to traditionalism a Calvinist. Every argument that begins with this presupposition, as this one has (and in fact virtually all OV arguments do), is false.
Rule #2. Dont call me a Calvinist unless you can prove I am one.
Of course you can. Pelagianism, and a changable God has NEVER been accepted as true. Its a same old untruth regurgitated in a slightly different format.
I never said it didnt. The OV isnt the word of God, its the philsophical musings of a bunch of humanistic theologians.
I dont care about the Open View. That does not mean I dont care about people. As Jesus said, I am here for the ones who need help, not the ones who claim to already have the answers. I'm here because I love to see what outlandish idea the OV mind will come up with next. Its helpful for sermons, and it helps me to keep the truth clear in my own mind and hone my own argument..
Quoting one verse is not taking a verse out of context, especially if it is used to make a point in context, which it was.
There was no indication that it was supposed to come in between those 2 chapters.
This 'group', corporately destined is made up of who? People, individuals, known by name, by the hairs on their head, and called by name (see the example of the calling of the disciples) by God. So we are told in Scripture. Claiming it is a 'body' of people does not negate anything.
Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.
All I did was state a fact regarding Strongs. In typical OV style you have read into it meaning that isnt there.
Demonstrate how I have taken it out of context.
I'm not a Calvinist.
Rule #1. It is irrational and false to lump people into general groups. OV'ers tend to call everyone who isnt an OV'er, or demonstrates any sort of leaning to traditionalism a Calvinist. Every argument that begins with this presupposition, as this one has (and in fact virtually all OV arguments do), is false.
Rule #2. Dont call me a Calvinist unless you can prove I am one.
Of course you can. Pelagianism, and a changable God has NEVER been accepted as true. Its a same old untruth regurgitated in a slightly different format.
I never said it didnt. The OV isnt the word of God, its the philsophical musings of a bunch of humanistic theologians.
I dont care about the Open View. That does not mean I dont care about people. As Jesus said, I am here for the ones who need help, not the ones who claim to already have the answers. I'm here because I love to see what outlandish idea the OV mind will come up with next. Its helpful for sermons, and it helps me to keep the truth clear in my own mind and hone my own argument..
Quoting one verse is not taking a verse out of context, especially if it is used to make a point in context, which it was.
There was no indication that it was supposed to come in between those 2 chapters.
This 'group', corporately destined is made up of who? People, individuals, known by name, by the hairs on their head, and called by name (see the example of the calling of the disciples) by God. So we are told in Scripture. Claiming it is a 'body' of people does not negate anything.
Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.