ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

Isn't beerf what happens when one indulges oneself too much in the keg and barbeque?

Usually, the beerf is over there...behind the tree.

:chuckle:

Actually.... in this case....

My mom still teases me to this day because when I was about 2 or 3 years old (in a room crowded with visiting relatives) I opened up the fridge door and asked loudly... "Where is the beerf?" :cheers:

 

[Delmar]

NO! Sufficient Grace is the key! And Grace is always sufficient! God doesn’t have to measure out Grace in pints and quarts anymore than the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on ALL flesh had to be rationed. DUH? Oh, God, don’t give me more grace than I can handle! :nono: Where sin increases … ‘pour on the grace Lord’. Foreknowledge of one’s future response doesn’t exist. It is an unknown contingency. That is the Open View. There is nothing to know in advance except that IF the response is affirming of the Truth about God, the outcome will be favorable. IF not then it is curtains and no resurrection to life eternal. Everything else just, well, complicates the heck out of the gospel.

Amen

 

[Philetus]

:chuckle:

Actually.... in this case....

My mom still teases me to this day because when I was about 2 or 3 years old (in a room crowded with visiting relatives) I opened up the fridge door and asked loudly... "Where is the beerf?" :cheers:

:jazz: :rotfl: ​

 

[Philetus]

Hey, I knew a girl named Grace once - and she was irresistable!

But when it comes to theology, "grace" is a word that has been ruined by misuse and should be stricken from people's bibles, like the words "heaven" and "spirit" and "Hell" and "testament" and a host of others.

The underlying word just means "favor" or "approval" or perhaps sometimes "as a favor" or "in undeserved kindness." Grace is not a force, let alone an irresistable force.

y This position of favor is the corrolary of faith:

Romans 5:
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

If we quit using all the words that have been misused, it would be a lot quieter and maybe a lot easier to witness, too.

"Hey John, God did you a favor that you don't deserve. All you got to come up with is the corollary and you can be salvaged."

I agree in spirit. But, the problem isn't the wording. If the Bible contained only two words: "you're saved!" (technically that's three words) we would still find a way to argue about it.

I knew Grace and she wasn’t all that. :kiss: :crackup:
Philetus

I shouldn't talk about Grace that way.​

 

[Philetus]

If I were to guess why, I would say "freewill"

If God prepared the land it would all be forced to take the seed wether it wanted to or not. God offers the seed to all, but doesn't foreordain any to be saved, but only those who choose to be the good ground.

:thumb:
Long time, patman.


Here is a prayer I heard a long time ago.

Plow my hard ground, Lord.
Bust up the clods in my heart
and get the rocks out of my head.
Kill the weeds in my spirit.
Keep the birds away
and don't over do it with sunshine.
Water me so I don't dry out.
And above all, be generous with the good seed
so only what you desire grows here.

​

 

[Bacon]

Something I can agree with!

Something I can agree with!

Delmar, I don't find many things on these lists that I agree with so I thought I would take a second to tell you that I do agree with your tag:

*****
The phrase "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years" is not about "time travel" it's about perspective.
A two hour car ride is an eternity to a 4 year old, but to someone over 40 it's nothing.
*****

 

[ApologeticJedi]

and second if your brain got any warmer it would melt.

= :rotfl:

 

[RobE]

If I were to guess why, I would say "freewill"

If God prepared the land it would all be forced to take the seed wether it wanted to or not. God offers the seed to all, but doesn't foreordain any to be saved, but only those who choose to be the good ground.

And I would agree!

How have you been?

Rob

 

[patman]

And I would agree!

How have you been?

Rob

Doing well Rob, thanks. And you?

I am glad you agree. If the road ahead had been paved for us before hand, love would never be truly real. God was wise not to force us in to loving him.

But the road is unpaved, we make or own path as we see fit, not necessarily as God does. I think this is a centerpiece to Openness that the Settled cannot claim as strongly.

There is just a tendency to think that if there is a future to know there is also a pre-paved road by which the future is known. After all, it is easy to reason that if it is known already, it must also exist. It is easy to see that the reality is otherwise based on the scripture because we have freewill.

So how else can he know?

A s.v. must then say that the future doesn't already exist, yet God fully knows something that isn't in existence that just happens to be coming into existence exactly as seen.

Then the argument must be *ahem* this may be a tough one to follow......

God knows everything about something that is really nothing, but will be something. It is currently nothing tho, so he knows everything about nothing? There is a verse that says God knows all thing, SV thinks he knows all nothings too.... that... will be..come... somethings.... too, someday.... in the future that doesn't exist yet. After all the future is one big domino effect, God knows how all things will fall.

But if it is dominos, the future was already laid out just like the dominos.... which makes the logic perfectly circular

I just cant get get how the s.v. can truly fit freewill into their theology logically.

 

[RobE]

Doing well Rob, thanks. And you?

I just cant get get how the s.v. can truly fit freewill into their theology logically.

No one who adopts the o.v. position does. They accept their position based upon that one assumption and require no others.

Anyway, I should probably ask where have you been?

I have been discussing something which I would like your input on......
Moral Responsiblity Requires Causality

Unlike HP, I know that even though you get frustrated with discussing certain things, you still discuss them with an open mind. I hope all has been well with you.

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

 

[patman]

No one who adopts the o.v. position does. They accept their position based upon that one assumption and require no others.

Anyway, I should probably ask where have you been?

I have missed being on here, due to recent health struggles, sitting at a computer was difficult. Now with a new laptop, I again can get back to the swing of things

It may seem that we o.v.ers rely on this concept, but for me it goes way beyond that. But that seems to be such a strong starting point for us, it is the first thing that sticks out.

I can say this to the S.V. Credit, it takes more faith to believe your way than does ours. You do not require to have to know why he can see the future, because he just does. After all, I imagine you think God can do the impossible anyway, why not know the future and allow freewill?

I guess we stick to the idea that, yes he can do the impossible, he cannot make a round square or orange, blue. God set rules that he will not defy, he cannot sin. With reason he choose not to do these things. Could God see the future if wanted, yes, and the way he would do such is by foreordination of all things, which is not our reality.

I guess this one point we keep bringing up seems like a corner stone, but there is much more. It is more than a problem in understanding to us, it is our way of trying to get you to think outside of your faith.

Faith is good, but only when it is solid with what God says we should believe. When faith is questioned, it is good to at least look into the answer. That is the hope of the question we always pose. That you might reconsider something based on the logic God planed in our minds.

Thanks Rob, It is good to discuss things with you again.

 

[Bacon]

How much does the god know?

How much does the god know?

ISTM that this issue becomes clearer when we look exclusively at the assertions of the text rather than pondering a philosophy about the god. The first assumption about the god that we should toss is that he is omniscient. The god of the scriptures is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or any of the other omni- attributes that systematic theologies are so fond of. The god of scripture is essentially a man like king who lives in the sky. He has magic powers but nothing like the stuff of the Systematic Theologies.

The god is about as aware of you and your actions and decisions as President Bush is. He lives in the sky so when he looks down to the land we appear like grasshoppers. He is kept abreast of the significant issues, particularly of the ones he is currently the god of (formerly Israel, now mostly gentile believers) by his many sons, or "messengers" as they are called these days.

In the past he was known to come down from the sky personally to investigate reports but those days seem past. Then he would come as far as the mountain top to meet with Moses. But that is history as well. Nowadays you will want to gather in an assembly of believers if you have some issue that you would like to bring to the god's attention. There are messengers assigned to each assembly. These do not include trinitarian or denominational assemblies, though.

The god cannot read minds.

One day, though, his kingdom will come down and he will rule from Jerusalem personally. Jesus will be among his subjects. The devestated, demoralized nations will not have access to the city, though they will be taxed forever - ugh!

This is how the scriptures portray the god and his relations to men. All of the musings about him micro-managing every little detail of history are based on philosophy not scripture.

 

[godrulz]

Bacon:

Are you reading the Satanic Bible or Jehovah's Witness Watchtower? Are you reading Deist writings? Your ideas resonate more with them than any Bible translation (I own many and have read several cover to cover over the last 25 years). Your ideas are NOT biblical, historical, Christianity. We could refute your erroneous assumptions one by one with Bible verses in context.

 

[Bacon]

What the bibles say

What the bibles say

Bacon:

Are you reading the Satanic Bible or Jehovah's Witness Watchtower? Are you reading Deist writings? Your ideas resonate more with them than any Bible translation (I own many and have read several cover to cover over the last 25 years). Your ideas are NOT biblical, historical, Christianity. We could refute your erroneous assumptions one by one with Bible verses in context.

I favor:

* the Septuagint [LXX, LXXe]
* Westcott-Hort [Greek NT]

And I have spent most of my time in the KJV. I find Young's and the Diaglot useful. The NWT has many features that set it apart from the pack, but I have not had much occaission to read more than a passage or two. The Satanic Bible I have not read at all, but as I understand, it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Do the translations you have read include these words:

"God knows everything because he dictates everything." ?

Does the following passage appear in any of the various translations you have read cover to cover?

LXXe
Ge 18:21 I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know.

I don't think that appears in the Satanic Bible.

What does it mean to you? From whence does the god come down? Where is the god? When he comes down, what does he look like? Why did he come down?

If you can answer these questions honestly and biblically you are head and shoulders above your peers.

 

[godrulz]

I favor:

* the Septuagint [LXX, LXXe]
* Westcott-Hort [Greek NT]

And I have spent most of my time in the KJV. I find Young's and the Diaglot useful. The NWT has many features that set it apart from the pack, but I have not had much occaission to read more than a passage or two. The Satanic Bible I have not read at all, but as I understand, it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Do the translations you have read include these words:

"God knows everything because he dictates everything." ?

Does the following passage appear in any of the various translations you have read cover to cover?

LXXe
Ge 18:21 I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know.

I don't think that appears in the Satanic Bible.

What does it mean to you? From whence does the god come down? Where is the god? When he comes down, what does he look like? Why did he come down?

If you can answer these questions honestly and biblically you are head and shoulders above your peers.

The New World Translation and Emphatic Diaglott are biased, cultic translations (JW and Christadelphian).

Gen. 18 could be figurative or accommodation (expression of speech) or a reference to the preincarnate Christ ('angel of the Lord') who could and would go down to see what is going on. Open Theism also believes that God does not know or see the future as actual before it happens. God knows the past and present perfectly, but would become aware of unfolding evil as it happens.

 

[Bacon]

Questions for godrulz

Questions for godrulz

The New World Translation and Emphatic Diaglott are biased, cultic translations (JW and Christadelphian).

Gen. 18 could be figurative or accommodation (expression of speech) or a reference to the preincarnate Christ ('angel of the Lord') who could and would go down to see what is going on. Open Theism also believes that God does not know or see the future as actual before it happens. God knows the past and present perfectly, but would become aware of unfolding evil as it happens.

"Diaglot" actually just means "two languages side by side" or something. It contains a gloss of the Greek text in English. I got it free from:

http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles2.html

I have not found any obvious signs of bias.

Perhaps the "Emphatic" is biased, but I know nothing whatsoever about it.

The NWT is bad mouthed but again, with the little I have read of it, it has much to recommend it. But I am not a "fan" of it so that is not my battle. I do not agree with many of the passages I read, but that is to be expected. It appears that the translators were, like many translators, falling into the same ditches as the KJV, which I think they were overly influenced by.

At any rate, all translations are a poor substitute for reading the Greek texts.

As to Gen 18, you offer that this might be figurative. What does that mean exactly? That this is not to be taken as actually having occured? Do you insist that Eve was made from a rib of Adams? Did Eve talk to a snake? Jonah? Resurrection? Which are figurative? Who gets to decide?

WHY NOT just accept that this is the biblical record?

You also offered "an accommodation" or "an expression of speech" as a possible "solution" to your "problem" that the scriptures portray the god NOT TO YOUR LIKING.

Perhaps the god really did come down. Jesus went UP to get to the god, yes? What does "which art in heaven" mean? Hint: "heaven" just means "sky."

Lu 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

You also offer:

"or a reference to the preincarnate Christ ('angel of the Lord') who could and would go down to see what is going on."

Was Jesus a reincarnation? I say no. He was made by the god from the seed of David. He was a man, born of a virgin named Miriam. He did not "pre-exist."

Many messengers did descend from the sky to the land. Some defected. They wanted what we have - like in the Hunt For Red October. They came down to get laid and to experience all of the stuff we take for granted.

godrulz, you referred to "historic, biblical christianity." Is historic christianity really biblical? I say "decidedly not!"

 

[godrulz]

Jesus is an incarnation, not a pagan reincarnation (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2). He is the eternal Word/Logos made flesh, one person with two natures (deity/humanity).

 

[Bacon]

What the bibles say

What the bibles say

Jesus is an incarnation, not a pagan reincarnation (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2). He is the eternal Word/Logos made flesh, one person with two natures (deity/humanity).

I know what Augustine says, but what do the scriptures say?

John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus. Jesus does not appear in John chapter one until verse 4, which I translate as:

Joh 1:4 it [the god's word] generated a life and the life was people's light

The Diaglot does a pretty darn good job with Phil 2, showing that Jesus is CURRENTLY in the form of a god, but he did not get there by agression, but rather by obedience:

5 This for be desired by you which also in Anointed Jesus,
6 who in a form of [a] God [currently] being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God,
7 but himself emptied, a form of a slave having taken, in a likeness of men having been formed,
8 and in condition being found as a man; humbled himself, having become obedient till death, of a death even of a cross.
9 Therefore also the God him supremely exalted, and freely granted to him a name that above every name;
10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of heavenlies and of earthlies and of underground ones,
11 and every tongue should confess, that a Lord Jesus Anointed, for glory of God a Father.

Now, isn't that more sensible than re-inventing the one true god as being three people???

 

[godrulz]

John 1:1, 14 identifies the Word (v. 1) as Jesus (v. 14). He is the one who became flesh and tabernacled among us. The whole context of 1:1-14 is the eternal Word/Jesus. Few dispute that the Word is not Jesus. Some, like JWs, try to say that the Word is not God, contrary to the grammar of 1:1 (NWT 'a god' is grammatically and theologically impossible...anti-trinitarian bias).

Christadelphians also deny the Deity of Christ and Trinity. Go to the original Greek and credible translations, not biased English versions. Phil. 2 shows that Jesus was in the form of God (Deity) and took on the form of a servant (man). If He was not God, then He also is not man! When He became a man, He did not cease to be God. His remained equal with the Father by nature/essence, but positionally lower as a man on earth for a time (until He returned to His former glory and preincarnate position).

Who do you say Jesus Christ is? Do you associate with a group or teachings of a man?

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-translations.htm

Is your Diaglott the Benjamin Wilson Christadelphian one? If so, it is not credible nor accurate.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

I know what Augustine says, but what do the scriptures say?

John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus. Jesus does not appear in John chapter one until verse 4, which I translate as:

Joh 1:4 it [the god's word] generated a life and the life was people's light

The Diaglot does a pretty darn good job with Phil 2, showing that Jesus is CURRENTLY in the form of a god, but he did not get there by agression, but rather by obedience:

5 This for be desired by you which also in Anointed Jesus,
6 who in a form of [a] God [currently] being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God,
7 but himself emptied, a form of a slave having taken, in a likeness of men having been formed,
8 and in condition being found as a man; humbled himself, having become obedient till death, of a death even of a cross.
9 Therefore also the God him supremely exalted, and freely granted to him a name that above every name;
10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of heavenlies and of earthlies and of underground ones,
11 and every tongue should confess, that a Lord Jesus Anointed, for glory of God a Father.

Now, isn't that more sensible than re-inventing the one true god as being three people???

Are you a Jehovah's witness. Because that would explain your "lingo", and why you don't sound like an agnostic. Also, how much and where did you get your Greek education? Just curious, b/c the NWT is almost universally considered the worst translation. Not, attempting to be mean here. Just trying to see where you are coming from. Have a great day!


Soli Deo Gloria