Intervention on God's part could only rightly be refered to as control if that intervention was imposed on me. Why would it need to envolve "meticulous control" for God to intervene in my life when I ask him to? I ask for wisdom in a particular situation, God responds and it seems that I have wisdom beyond my own abilities. Is that not the way it works for determinists? Why do you think it would it would work different for OV'ers?Hilston said:
You're right about God decreeing it. God decreed the existence and effects of evil and heresy. It serves a terrific purpose among the elect. Paul wrote: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."an Open Theist said:
I control people all the time without imposing anything on them. If I can do it, God certainly can.another Open Theist said:
It's the wrong question. Divine Intervention is not biblical, because that implies periods of non-intervention, which is impossible. God never relinquishes control. It's not possible because He is infinite. All existence depends upon Him. If anything were self-sustaining, He would no longer be infinite.an Open Theist said:
How does He give you wisdom? Does it get downloaded from the Spirit into your brain? Does He plant thoughts in your head, handing ideas to you like mental cue cards? If that it how God does it, then why ever bother studying His word? He can just give you mental cues whenever you need them. And how do you know the wisdom is beyond your abilities? How do you know it was God, and not the result of just eating right, getting enough sleep, and being in the zone? Would you ever ask God to cue you with the ability to speak another language so that you can communicate the gospel to a foreigner?an Open Theist said:
No, it doesn't work that way.an Open Theist said:
Because the OV conception of God is of One Who cannot really do anything. Look around. What is God doing right now? Is He lifting a finger to stop the atrocities in the world? What is He doing to prevent scores of souls from plunging into hell? The muzicman says that someone's noise-making has to be significant enough to get God's attention. Do you believe anyone prayed for their husband or wife or child on Sept. 11? Were those prayers significant to God? Where is the relational, personal, living, good and loving God that the Open Theists speciously declare?an Open Theist said:
It's been a very good day. I've learned more about how desperately irrational Open Theists can be and the inanities they are capable of. The entertainment never stops. From Philetus' mindless mystical drivel, to Clete's predictable "unfalsifiable" tripe and relentless anti-Hilston Jihad, from the muzicman's "I'm not significant enough to get God's attention" to Knight's sophomoric intransigence. I've added more Open Theist quotes to my arsenal today than I have in recent memory. Rough day? Naw, this has been a very, very good day.Knight said:
- irrationalHilston said:
Now who's having a rough day? Tell us something, anything, that the Open View's "living, personal, relational, good and loving God" has actively done specifically in your life today.deardelmar said:
When the Bible says God repents, it is a figure of speech designed to give special emphasis to a change in God's actions. When God changes His actions, it is always according to His predetermined counsel.Bob Hill said:
Did God respond to you today, Bob? Or are you currently set aside?Bob Hill said:
All according to meticulous, micro-management of the cosmos.Bob Hill said:
God's foreknowledge is a figurative way of describing God's predetermined plan. When God says He will do something and doesn't, it is always in a covenant context, meaning the action depended on a contingency. When God does not do an action that He said He would do, that means the contingency was not met. Open Theists love to take passages about contingency/covenantal arrangements and pervert them to support their notion of a God of Divine Ignorance. It is amazing the extent that Open Theists will go to denigrate the God of the Bible, Whom they find too embarrassing, unfair and evil, and humanize Him into something more palatable, and less God-like. Every one of Bob Hill's posts is directed toward this shameful end.Bob Hill said:
Whatever. Lots of people reading this who are wondering about Open Theism would probably love to see how the Open Theist answers this question. Nevermind who is asking. Think about who is reading, and try not to feel too embarrassed.deardelmar said:
