*
ARCHIVE: Open Theism in Light of First John 3:20
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Israel is not Isaiah's "Vinyard". Israel is God's Vineyard.
Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel.
Knight,
You say:
You have your view, which you long ago ceased examining critically. You are "cured" in the open view. It's no longer your view. It is you. Any doubt about, criticism of, or argument against, your view, is a knock on you. This is why you suspect me of being unscrupulous.
This makes sense, if after I write my opinion on the parable in Isaiah 5, you counter with an insult. I offer an opinion on a text, and you berate me. I disagree with what you think the text means, and that means I think God's a liar.
I'm not naive Knight. I didn't "misread" your post. I read it very carefully, and I get you. I get what you mean. You're afraid of your view being wrong. And I don't mean totally wrong either. You're afraid of even the slightest thing being erroneously derived. Sounds to me like you've got yourself a house of cards. If it falls, is that really horrible? It is just of cards afterall.
And on a minor point, you changed the subject to Jer 32 when we were discussing Is 5. Stay the course.
You say:
Don't p*** down my back and tell me it's raining. Here is what you wrote:
This is an insulting question. It is disrespectful, undeserving of an answer. It belies your attitude towards me, someone you don't know. Ever heard of "benefit of the doubt?" Apparently that benefit lasts 3 posts with you. After only 3 posts, you're ready to ask, "Do you think that God lies?"
You have your view, which you long ago ceased examining critically. You are "cured" in the open view. It's no longer your view. It is you. Any doubt about, criticism of, or argument against, your view, is a knock on you. This is why you suspect me of being unscrupulous.
This makes sense, if after I write my opinion on the parable in Isaiah 5, you counter with an insult. I offer an opinion on a text, and you berate me. I disagree with what you think the text means, and that means I think God's a liar.
I'm not naive Knight. I didn't "misread" your post. I read it very carefully, and I get you. I get what you mean. You're afraid of your view being wrong. And I don't mean totally wrong either. You're afraid of even the slightest thing being erroneously derived. Sounds to me like you've got yourself a house of cards. If it falls, is that really horrible? It is just of cards afterall.
And on a minor point, you changed the subject to Jer 32 when we were discussing Is 5. Stay the course.
Last edited:
Knight wrote;
"Nihilo, do you think God would lie to get a point accross?"
Well we can say that at the very least he has been just a little disingenuous. He gives the Jews the Law. Tells them if they break it he will punish them. And he does. Then he says, "ha just kidding you need Jesus".
A little strange don't you think?
NuMessJew
"Nihilo, do you think God would lie to get a point accross?"
Well we can say that at the very least he has been just a little disingenuous. He gives the Jews the Law. Tells them if they break it he will punish them. And he does. Then he says, "ha just kidding you need Jesus".
A little strange don't you think?
NuMessJew
Freak
New member
Nihilo said: I'm not naive Knight. I didn't "misread" your post. I read it very carefully, and I get you. I get what you mean. You're afraid of your view being wrong. And I don't mean totally wrong either. You're afraid of even the slightest thing being erroneously derived. Sounds to me like you've got yourself a house of cards. If it falls, is that really horrible? It is just of cards afterall.
Knight is nervous about OV being wrong (as we well know it is) & he does in fact have a "house of cards"---the open view has been rejected by orthodox Christianity and largely by the Body of Christ as bordering heresy.
Knight is nervous about OV being wrong (as we well know it is) & he does in fact have a "house of cards"---the open view has been rejected by orthodox Christianity and largely by the Body of Christ as bordering heresy.
Freak
New member
If God were to "change his mind" about anything, this would mean by default that he failed to have complete knowledge (omniscience). Correct? You may ask Freak- why is this? Well, if a "change" became necessary for God, this would be a shortcoming or lack of complete knowledge. Knight, your idea that somehow God can change in unBiblical and dangerous. Prayerfully reconsider.
My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!
Knight, keep in mind that a perfect Being can't lack anything that is characteristic of his nature or he fails to be perfect. Now, how does this relate to whether or not God can change his mind? Well, if God could change his mind, this would mean that his "conclusion" or "knowledge" prior to the change was incorrect. He would, therefore, not be the perfect Being that he must be by nature. Any change in God would be a violation of his attributes.
This is fairly simple a changing God implies a incompleteness. A change for a perfect being (God) must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better-for He is perfect.
My friend, any change in a perfect God-including a "changed mind"-would mean God changed to something less than perfect since perfection implies completeness, lacking no thing. Change for a perfect Being must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better. A "changing perfect God" is, therefore, a contradiction and fails to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God. Think about it!
Knight, keep in mind that a perfect Being can't lack anything that is characteristic of his nature or he fails to be perfect. Now, how does this relate to whether or not God can change his mind? Well, if God could change his mind, this would mean that his "conclusion" or "knowledge" prior to the change was incorrect. He would, therefore, not be the perfect Being that he must be by nature. Any change in God would be a violation of his attributes.
This is fairly simple a changing God implies a incompleteness. A change for a perfect being (God) must be a change for the worst since a perfect God could not change for the better-for He is perfect.
Consider this your final warning, if you wish to participate here at TheologyOnLine you will need to avoid offensive language.
If God were a statue or an inanimate object you might have a point.
But God is NOT an inanimate object.
God is the Living God. In other words... God is alive! Things that are alive are NOT inanimate. Things that are alive are animated!
philosophizer
New member
Knight, as far as Isaiah 5...
Knight, as far as Isaiah 5...
I'll ask you, is everything that God says a prophecy?
There is a great deal of allegorical inferrence in the "Song of the Vineyard," but there is a difference between prophecy and persuasion. Nihilo had a good point when he said,
If you acknowledge that one part of the passage is rhetorical, where and why do you draw the line that separates that from the rest of the passage?
Is the job of a prophet only to prophesy future events? Can a prophet not also be a tool of God to direct His people and guide their path? You ask if God would lie to get his point across. What makes you think He is lying in this situation or any situation? Your answer must be that every time God opens His mouth, a prophecy comes out. Under that premise, God would be lying.
I assert that your premise is flawed. God can also persuade, which is different than prophesying. Your answer to this flawed premise is to dull down the definitions of both prophecy and God. You have redefined prophecy as the God-given knowledge of His best guess. And you have redefined God as one who must make these guesses. You have set up a convenient system where God is the presently most informed so His predictions will always be right, even if they are only guesses.
Freak also added,
He descibes a paradox. The response to this has been that denying God the ability to change retracts from His completeness and thereby makes Him imperfect. We have a battle of the paradoxes. Earlier in this thread, Lion presented this example which I have heard many times and wholeheartedly agree with.
Of course God cannot make a rock so big He can't move it. Is this a paradox? Yes. Does it imply God can't do something? Yes. Does it deny God something? In a way, yes.
God has a nature or a state which He is unable to violate. For example, God cannot do evil because his nature is completely good. God cannot lie because his nature is completely truthful. God could not create something He would not have the power to move because He is all-powerful and could not place Himself beneath something that He created.
The difference between your paradox and Freak's paradox is that Freak's denies God an ability for the sake of accepting His power. Yours denies God power for the sake of accepting an ability. In the paradoxes I listed above, I denied God a few abilities to accept His power. This is how we decide which way to go when confronted by these paradoxes. We must take the side that agrees with God's power.
Knight, as far as Isaiah 5...
I'll ask you, is everything that God says a prophecy?
There is a great deal of allegorical inferrence in the "Song of the Vineyard," but there is a difference between prophecy and persuasion. Nihilo had a good point when he said,
If you acknowledge that one part of the passage is rhetorical, where and why do you draw the line that separates that from the rest of the passage?
Is the job of a prophet only to prophesy future events? Can a prophet not also be a tool of God to direct His people and guide their path? You ask if God would lie to get his point across. What makes you think He is lying in this situation or any situation? Your answer must be that every time God opens His mouth, a prophecy comes out. Under that premise, God would be lying.
I assert that your premise is flawed. God can also persuade, which is different than prophesying. Your answer to this flawed premise is to dull down the definitions of both prophecy and God. You have redefined prophecy as the God-given knowledge of His best guess. And you have redefined God as one who must make these guesses. You have set up a convenient system where God is the presently most informed so His predictions will always be right, even if they are only guesses.
Freak also added,
He descibes a paradox. The response to this has been that denying God the ability to change retracts from His completeness and thereby makes Him imperfect. We have a battle of the paradoxes. Earlier in this thread, Lion presented this example which I have heard many times and wholeheartedly agree with.
Of course God cannot make a rock so big He can't move it. Is this a paradox? Yes. Does it imply God can't do something? Yes. Does it deny God something? In a way, yes.
God has a nature or a state which He is unable to violate. For example, God cannot do evil because his nature is completely good. God cannot lie because his nature is completely truthful. God could not create something He would not have the power to move because He is all-powerful and could not place Himself beneath something that He created.
The difference between your paradox and Freak's paradox is that Freak's denies God an ability for the sake of accepting His power. Yours denies God power for the sake of accepting an ability. In the paradoxes I listed above, I denied God a few abilities to accept His power. This is how we decide which way to go when confronted by these paradoxes. We must take the side that agrees with God's power.
philosophizer
New member
And to Knight's question.
And to Knight's question.
This question is still circular. It also uses terms like "exhaustive detail" which demonstrate the loaded nature of the question.
But I will answer it.
Of course not.
Please try to understand what "all-knowledge" means. It means ALL KNOWLEDGE. There could be nothing "otherwise" from this. It is knowledge of ALL. It's pretty self explanatory.
This is what I mean when I say that it is circular and that the question doesn't pertain to the situation. The basis of the situation accepts God's "exhaustive" knowledge. This renders the question moot by default. It is a meaningless question.
If you want to argue with my perspective, you've gotta pick a different field. I've already suggested one.
I said that I was "challenging the concept of change" which seems to be the center of the debate. I assert that a being who transcends time is not contained within time's restrictions and the concept of change cannot be attributed. Change is a measure dependent on time. If God exists outside of time and no effects of time can be attributed to Him, then change is something that cannot exist as one of His attributes. Not because change violates our idea of His perfection, but because change violates his eternal and transcendent nature.
And to Knight's question.
This question is still circular. It also uses terms like "exhaustive detail" which demonstrate the loaded nature of the question.
But I will answer it.
Of course not.
Please try to understand what "all-knowledge" means. It means ALL KNOWLEDGE. There could be nothing "otherwise" from this. It is knowledge of ALL. It's pretty self explanatory.
This is what I mean when I say that it is circular and that the question doesn't pertain to the situation. The basis of the situation accepts God's "exhaustive" knowledge. This renders the question moot by default. It is a meaningless question.
If you want to argue with my perspective, you've gotta pick a different field. I've already suggested one.
I said that I was "challenging the concept of change" which seems to be the center of the debate. I assert that a being who transcends time is not contained within time's restrictions and the concept of change cannot be attributed. Change is a measure dependent on time. If God exists outside of time and no effects of time can be attributed to Him, then change is something that cannot exist as one of His attributes. Not because change violates our idea of His perfection, but because change violates his eternal and transcendent nature.
Re: And to Knight's question.
Re: And to Knight's question.
You continue...
And apparently we agree.
Re: And to Knight's question.
The question isn't circular in the least.
You continue...
My question was a response to what you were saying way back on page two of this thread...
I was merely demonstrating that man cannot have a true free-will AND God have exhaustive foreknowledge all at the same time.
And apparently we agree.
philosophizer
New member
Genesis 3:9 -- But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
Genesis 3:13 -- Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Genesis 8:15-16 -- Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.
Exodus 3:12 -- And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."
Matthew 3:17 -- And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
philosophizer
New member
Re: Re: And to Knight's question.
Re: Re: And to Knight's question.
Do your interpretations of God come from the nature of man? Does man create God in man's image?
Change is something humans do. Change comes from choices. Choices are a product of free-will.
Do we agree that humans have free-will? Yes. Choice is an important part of human life.
How many times do I have to describe our base disagreement? We disagree on the nature of "time." If I were to accept your view of time as an illusionary element of perception, then I would see your point about all this "exhaustive foreknowledge" stuff.
But therein our difference lies. Time was created by God and God stands outside of time. Principles like "change" exist ONLY within the bounds of time. Choice is a linear thing. It has a preconception, an event, and an outcome. Outside of time, however, there is no linearity. A principle like choice cannot be applied.
Instead of shooting around at issues we DO agree on, let's go to the source of our disagreement. Here's the target. Shoot at it.
Re: Re: And to Knight's question.
Do your interpretations of God come from the nature of man? Does man create God in man's image?
Change is something humans do. Change comes from choices. Choices are a product of free-will.
Do we agree that humans have free-will? Yes. Choice is an important part of human life.
How many times do I have to describe our base disagreement? We disagree on the nature of "time." If I were to accept your view of time as an illusionary element of perception, then I would see your point about all this "exhaustive foreknowledge" stuff.
But therein our difference lies. Time was created by God and God stands outside of time. Principles like "change" exist ONLY within the bounds of time. Choice is a linear thing. It has a preconception, an event, and an outcome. Outside of time, however, there is no linearity. A principle like choice cannot be applied.
Instead of shooting around at issues we DO agree on, let's go to the source of our disagreement. Here's the target. Shoot at it.