ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

With her most recent post, Poly abundantly and embarrassingly demonstrates why one should never bring a pair of blunt lefty scissors to a sword fight.

Why is it that the all powerful God that is described by the SVer is unable to express who and what He is, and what it is that He wants and desires from us in terms we can understand?

Because Open Theists have a mental disorder. The rest of Christendumb has no trouble understanding who and what God is, what He wants and desires from us. God does indeed use terms we can all understand (unless one is a proponent of Open Deism, which is a mental disorder that precludes rational discourse and discursive reasoning).

... Why is an all powerful God so challenged in translating what it is that He wants us to know of Him, He ends up (according to the SVer) having to say the very opposite of what He means? Is this really too hard for God?

This is why Unsettled Deists should really shut up instead spouting off about stuff of which they have so little understanding. It's embarrassing. Poly, do you even have the slightest modicum of interest regarding the purpose of figures of speech in the Bible? Do you have the faintest clue?

... If He said He repented in His word, yet He didn't really meant it, is it really that hard to let us know that He really didn't mean it?

Non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood that Jesus was a human being and not a slab of wood with hinges. God knew this, too. So when Jesus said, "I am the Door," God expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

Likewise, non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood God's immutable essence and decrees. God knew this, too. So when God said He repented, He expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

God often uses figures of speech that bring rich emphasis and poignant depth of meaning to what could be otherwise stated in a less rich, less emphatic, less poignant and a less deep manner. But where would the fun be in that? Figures of speech bring a wonderful clarity, power and interest to language, which is why God designed language to work the way it does.

There is no deficit in God's ability to communicate. The deficit lies in the humanistic mind of the Opposable Thumb Theist who refuses to worship a God who isn't just like them. The deficit lies in the existentialist mind of the Sand God worshipper who refuses to revere a God who has no choice but to be good, favoring a conception of God who is fully capable of evil and has reneged on many a promise, thereby contradicting His own Word and denigrating His own name.

 

[Bob Hill]

God's character is important to us.

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie [Greek - the non lying God], promised before age times.

Jer 18:1-11 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. 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! 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, I will repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD: Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Hilston has a deductive preconceived theology.

What does the so-called figure of speech mean about God changing His mind?

If the personal God wanted to communicate that He does change His mind, how else would He express it than the way He already has? If the same context was in secular writing or about another person, you would take it at face value. Perhaps your idea of immutability is flawed?

I Sam. 15 shows that God changes His mind in some cases vs other cases (will not vs cannot). Is it reasonable, in the same context, to take one verse as figurative and the other as literal just to support a preconceived theology? The impact of the revelation is lost. Figurative language like metaphors is more obvious (Jesus and Door). When God simply states something about His thinking, why not accept it (it is also illustrated in stories like Hezekiah where God either lied or He did change His mind in response to prayer).

How can Hilston be the smart, yet so dumb? (God's character and attributes do not change, but contingencies do result in His perceptions and experiences changing moment by moment...He was delighted before the Fall, and grieved after the Fall).

 

[Bob Hill]

At one time I actually held to the view that God was outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now. I was taught that by my teachers when I was a new Christian. After studying on my own, I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that. I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from those who were stuck in their unbiblical belief.

Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does, that He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.

If you know the Hebrew, the word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God about 30 times. The one that really affected me greatly was found in Deuteronomy, but now I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Moses said to almighty God, turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word, nacham, relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion. If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God would never be wrong about predictions. I also believe that if the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know their future actions. Why? None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.

God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same it that attribute. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists. Read some of my articles on my site, biblicalanswers.com

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Godrulz,

I enjoyed your last post,

Bob

 

[Hilston]

In yet another one of his infamous drive-by copy-and-paste posts, Bob Hill writes:

God's character is important to us.

Open Deists don't know what they're talking about when they speak of God's character. To the Open Deist, God has no actual essential character; He only has behavior by which finite man judges what kind of God He is. God is not good because He is essentially so, according to the Unsettled Theist. Finite errant man decides that God is good because God does good things. That is existentialism. And it is Satanic.

What does the so-called figure of speech mean about God changing His mind?

It means He changes His actions. I've been over this. Just as foreknowledge is a figure of speech that refers to God's decrees.

If the personal God wanted to communicate that He does change His mind, how else would He express it than the way He already has?

Here is the flaw in the existentialist's mind: "If God wanted to communicate that He does change His mind." A God who changes His mind is not God. He is not personal because such a God would destroy the very definition of personality. I don't expect you people to grasp this. The damage done to your minds by your demi-theology won't allow you to process it.

... If the same context was in secular writing or about another person, you would take it at face value. Perhaps your idea of immutability is flawed?

I would only take it at face value if context demanded it. The biblical context demands that Jesus is not a non-figurative door, that God does not have non-figurative wings, that God is not non-figuratively surprised, and that God does not non-figurately repent.

I Sam. 15 shows that God changes His mind in some cases vs other cases (will not vs cannot). Is it reasonable, in the same context, to take one verse as figurative and the other as literal just to support a preconceived theology?

This famous Openness Virus prooftext proves the point exactly. Context determines what is figurative and what is non-figurative. But since Open Deists are bound and determined (by God's decrees, of course) to make God less than God, the verse is used against God to tear Him down.

... The impact of the revelation is lost. Figurative language like metaphors is more obvious (Jesus and Door).

I agree. But Open Theism poisons the mind and obstructs clear vision. It's so obvious that God's repentance is figurative; just as obvious as "I am the Door," but the mental disorder called "Open Theism" won't allow its proponents to acknowledge it.

... When God simply states something about His thinking, why not accept it ...

When God simply states that He is a door, why not accept it?

... (it is also illustrated in stories like Hezekiah where God either lied or He did change His mind in response to prayer).

Or God changed His actions in response to prayer that He decreed.

How can Hilston be the smart, yet so dumb?

I'm not just dumb, I'm CHRISTENDUMB!

 

[Bob Hill]

Open View Theology, Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I strongly believe.

This view is about our God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, as well as the ability to do anything He wants to do – even decide what the future is going to be. This theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God.

It is the biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on our site, biblicalanswers.com.

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has dramatically changed in the last 25 years.

This view of God shows how wonderful He is in all of His glory.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Open View Theology, Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I strongly believe.

This view is about our God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, as well as the ability to do anything He wants to do ...

Notice the heavy existentialism, humanism and irrational emotionalism in these words. It's all about what God is "able to do," what God is "able to feel," with no regard for who God is in His essence. It's as liberal as an Al Franken bumper sticker and as gay as pink shirt. It's no wonder that Open Deists are clueless when it comes to God's impassibility and immutability. While Bob Hill's view may very well be about a conception of a God who has the "ability to have feelings, etc.," this does not describe the God of the Bible. Sure, the Bible describes God in emotional terms, very often figurative, but the Open Deist makes it all about encumbering God with the emotional warp and woof of humanism, turning God into a psychological packmule who must simultaneously hold tens of thousands if not millions of emotions, all at once, as He personally, relationally, lovingly reacts to each and every person who happens to come into His range of experience.

... This theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God.

That's very close to what Lucifer said in the Garden.

It is the biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

And so Bob Hill thus promotes a humanistic man-must-save-himself soteriology. And despite God supposedly giving man "enough freedom to believe God," God's design of mankind was so poor and flawed that, despite this so-called freedom, the vast majority of His pinnacle creation flip God the bird and choose hell instead. God couldn't even design a free being, most of whom would choose to love Him. Instead, He did the best He could and created a free being, the vast majority of whom defy Him and reject Him. And you trust this God of yours? Why? On what grounds?

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.

Such is the emotional whirlwind that is the Opposable Thumb God. God is so distracted by feeling joy, sorrow, grief, delight, anger, regret, love, frustration, surprise and hatred simultaneously that He needs finite errant men to pray and remind Him of what needs to be done in the world.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on our site, biblicalanswers.com.

At that website, you'll find material that cites Calvinism, distorting and disregarding the context of the excerpts, quoted by all the inbred Open Deists on TOL, thus perpetuating the distortions found on that site. It has the added benefit of showing the world that Open Deists care very little for academic integrity and careful scholarship and frankly are not to be trusted to accurately represent their opponents' viewpoint (all according to God's decree, of course).

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has dramatically changed in the last 25 years.

False theology is funny that way. It's starts small, appeals to the lowest common denominator, then explodes into a disgusting theological mess, blowing debris all over the place, most of it landing in hell (all according to God's decrees, of course).

This view of God shows how wonderful He is in all of His glory.

On the contrary, the Open View shows, according to the logical conclusions of their assumptions, what a massive Loser, a psychotic emotional hurricane, and a blithering Schlub He is.

 

[Bob Hill]

Isn't it exciting to know that God loves us? I praise Him for sending His Son to die for us.

Safe in Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Mustard Seed]

It's fascinating to see the confusion born of both sides having things right in part and also sharing wrong assumptions. You are fighting theological battles that only exist as extensions of your erroneous assumptions. How sad to one day find out the time and labor lost debating things that were not ever real issues, just illusions of such born of too much trust in a finite hold on logic and ration.

 

[sentientsynth]

At one time I actually held to the view that God was outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now.

Then you held a faulty notion.

There is no "now" outside of time. The term "eternal" is also meaningless in the adimensionality of timelessness.

If you would have thought these things through, perhaps you wouldn't today be the worst form of heretic.

 

[RobE]

Planning is intention and possible/probable. One can know as possible/probable, or one can know things as certain/actual. God plan and knew possible and probable outcomes, but this does not mean He knew exhaustively every moral and mundane choice as certain for all time and eternity.

P3: If God possesses EDF, then all events are exhaustively definite before they occur. In God’s mind there is no indefiniteness to the future.​

The error occurs when you realize that 'all events are exhaustively foreknown' is far different than 'all events have occured.'

Godrulz,

Planning and intention for man is far different from God's plans and intention. God is able to make His plans and intentions with perfect precision, without flaw; and is powerful enough to carry them out without interference. We aren't that capable.

His plans were wise, but reality unfolds leading to new experiences and knowledge for God.

New experiences I would agree with because God never met you before even though He knew of you before creation and authored your existence.

This does not mean He was imperfect or limited in His knowledge. It is just that the possible objects of certain knowledge grow exponentially every day.

So God's knowledge increases according to process theology and God is effectively evolving mentally.

God correctly and exhaustively knows all that is knowable.

Such things as His plans and intentions are knowable.

The non-existent future is not a possible object of certain knowledge unless God brings it to pass by His ability (which He does for some vs all of the future).

Fortunately for God, He brought everything to pass by His ability which exists within creation. I'm glad you finally agree that God is able.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Theodicy...the problem of evil.

A Calvinist would say that God caused or had a purpose for the existence of evil.

I think this probably oversimplifies what a Calvinist would say and most free will theist's would agree that God has a purpose for the existence of evil as well(otherwise it wouldn't exist through allowance).

A free will theist would say that evil entered the universe through the misuse of God-given free will.

As would a Calvinist.

God created everything 'very good'.

Created by God.

Lucifer and Adam had the will to obey or disobey God.

Created by God.

They both misused their will,.....

Allowed by God.

....without causation back of the will (hence culpable)....

Untrue. Unless you consider the law, the tree, the devil, the way man was created, etc.; as non-causes.

...., and fell,.....

Allowed by God.

.....becoming what God never intended and introducing evil into a righteous universe. The rest is history...

:doh: I thought you said God was able to carry out His own plans.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

It seems to me that Rob and Hilston beg the question/use circular reason...assume what they try to prove. God would not be God if He changed His mind? Really? He would be static and impersonal if He could not. A parent can change their minds and be perfect. It is not just changing actions (one cannot change actions without changing mind first...they are related).

 

[Hilston]

Isn't it exciting to know that God loves us?

It is exciting for the Settled Theist, because he knows that God's love actually accomplishes his salvation and secures God loves toward him. For the Open Theist, there is no assurance, no confidence, no trust in that love because man must save himself. God's loving sacrifice was not sufficient in itself. To that sacrifice, the Open Theist says one must add faith and believe first, and only then does the sacrifice matter. But that's not a sufficient sacrifice. If Christ died for anyone in hell, then His death was not sufficient to save. Instead of excitement for the Open Theist, there should be uncertainty and horror. Open Theists don't know enough to be afraid of their own theology, all according to God's decrees.

... I praise Him for sending His Son to die for us.

See what I mean? Who is this "us" Bob refers to? If it's everyone, as Open Theists claim, then either (a) everyone without exception will be saved, or (b) Christ's loving sacrifice is not sufficient in itself. Both (a) and (b) contradict scripture.

The Open Theist cannot rationally say "Jesus saved me." The demi-theological premises of the Open View can only at best say "Jesus gave me a means by which to save myself," which reduces the supreme sacrifice of God to a mere ingredient in a salvation recipe.

Safe in Christ,
Bob Hill

This doesn't make any sense at all, given Open View premises. Taken to its logical conclusions, the Open Theist can only at best say "Self-deluded in Christ". There is no safety in a savior whose sacrifice is inherently insufficient. There is no safety in a God who may decide to become evil later this morning. There is no safety in a God who is playing a cosmological roulette wheel. There is no safety in a God who is at the mercy of a random universe populated by the Free Will Thugs He Himself designed, strangely predominated (for reasons that elude God Himself) by those who hate and reject their Creator.

Some might react to Bob's little post with "Praise the Lord for this common ground; at least we can agree on these basic truths." But truths don't float in a void. They must be rationally grounded, and the very essence of God is what grounds them. But Open Theists, regardless of whatever lipservice they pay to this concept, do not acknowledge God's essence, only in His behavior. So, taken to logical conclusions, there is no common ground between the Settled Theist and Unsettled Deist, all according to God's decrees.

The Settled Theist can have a sure footing upon the Rock, full assurance and unwavering faith and confidence in the God who never fails, never guesses and will certainly bring every single jot and tittle of His Word to full fruition. The Open Theists fight desperately to prove that God does fail, makes bad guesses and only maybe will bring some, heretofore unknown, portions of His Word to partial fruition. They have no sure footing, no assurance, no rational basis to trust their God, who is not a Rock, but made of Sand, created in their own image (complete with opposable thumbs), and all according to God's decree, of course.

 

[Philetus]

HILSTON: Non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood that Jesus was a human being and not a slab of wood with hinges. God knew this, too. So when Jesus said, "I am the Door," God expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

Likewise, non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood God's immutable essence and decrees. God knew this, too. So when God said He repented, He expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

God often uses figures of speech that bring rich emphasis and poignant depth of meaning to what could be otherwise stated in a less rich, less emphatic, less poignant and a less deep manner. But where would the fun be in that? Figures of speech bring a wonderful clarity, power and interest to language, which is why God designed language to work the way it does.

There is no deficit in God's ability to communicate. The deficit lies in the humanistic mind of the Opposable Thumb Theist who refuses to worship a God who isn't just like them. The deficit lies in the existentialist mind of the Sand God worshipper who refuses to revere a God who has no choice but to be good, favoring a conception of God who is fully capable of evil and has reneged on many a promise, thereby contradicting His own Word and denigrating His own name.

Hey Jim,

It’s been a long time but, I see you are still all ‘grown-up’ in your faith.

Thanks for clearing up several points for me Hilston. When God says ‘He repents’ it doesn’t mean that he is changing his mind like taking one brain out and substituting another any more than saying ‘Jesus is a door’ means that he is a slab of wood with hinges. Well, cut my thumbs off! Man that really clears up a lot of misunderstanding. Jesus is a door sitting at the right hand of God who has no opposable thumbs on a concrete (not sand) throne. How could I have missed all that.

Still, I’m still a little fuzzy on how your neg-rep makes you right. Since I get the above points will my rep go down? Or up?

Isn’t it wonderful to be thoroughly mixed and firmly set, just like God. :kookoo:

Philetus​

 

[Hilston]

Thanks for clearing up several points for me Hilston. ...

Is that your attempt at humor? Shouldn't you at least understand what you're ridiculing before you have go? Notice the difference: I ridicule what Open Theists actually believe and the logical conclusions that result. You, on the other, aren't even close. I enjoy being ridiculed intelligently. Your post was simply embarrassing. Please try again.

 

[Poly]

.With her most recent post, Poly abundantly and embarrassingly demonstrates why one should never bring a pair of blunt lefty scissors to a sword fight.Because Open Theists have a mental disorder. The rest of Christendumb has no trouble understanding who and what God is, what He wants and desires from us. God does indeed use terms we can all understand (unless one is a proponent of Open Deism, which is a mental disorder that precludes rational discourse and discursive reasoning).

This is why Unsettled Deists should really shut up instead spouting off about stuff of which they have so little understanding. It's embarrassing. Poly, do you even have the slightest modicum of interest regarding the purpose of figures of speech in the Bible? Do you have the faintest clue?

Non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood that Jesus was a human being and not a slab of wood with hinges. God knew this, too. So when Jesus said, "I am the Door," God expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

Likewise, non-Open Theists, like the human writers of scripture, already understood God's immutable essence and decrees. God knew this, too. So when God said He repented, He expected the astute reader to immediately catch the figure of speech and to pay special attention to the powerful figurative meaning conveyed thereby, which is quite often the opposite of what the phrase would appear to say apart from its obvious context.

God often uses figures of speech that bring rich emphasis and poignant depth of meaning to what could be otherwise stated in a less rich, less emphatic, less poignant and a less deep manner. But where would the fun be in that? Figures of speech bring a wonderful clarity, power and interest to language, which is why God designed language to work the way it does.

There is no deficit in God's ability to communicate. The deficit lies in the humanistic mind of the Opposable Thumb Theist who refuses to worship a God who isn't just like them. The deficit lies in the existentialist mind of the Sand God worshipper who refuses to revere a God who has no choice but to be good, favoring a conception of God who is fully capable of evil and has reneged on many a promise, thereby contradicting His own Word and denigrating His own name.

Ok, so.....

"I am the Door" doesn't really mean that Jesus is a piece of wood with hinges but rather this is a great way to illustrate and get the point across that the only way to be saved is to "enter through Him".

Since I have so little understanding, maybe you could help me from being embarrassed anymore. Please explain to me what point the Lord was trying to get across in the following and finish these sentences.

"The Lord was sorry He made man" doesn't really mean that the Lord was sorry that He made man but rather this was a great way to illustrate..........

"Nor did it come into my mind" doesn't really mean that there was a thought or an idea that hadn't come to the Lord's mind but rather this was a great way to illustrate......

"For this is good and acceptable in the site of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth" doesn't really mean that He desires for all men to be saved but rather this was a great way to illustrate......

 

[godrulz]

It is exciting for the Settled Theist, because he knows that God's love actually accomplishes his salvation and secures God loves toward him. For the Open Theist, there is no assurance, no confidence, no trust in that love because man must save himself. God's loving sacrifice was not sufficient in itself. To that sacrifice, the Open Theist says one must add faith and believe first, and only then does the sacrifice matter. But that's not a sufficient sacrifice. If Christ died for anyone in hell, then His death was not sufficient to save. Instead of excitement for the Open Theist, there should be uncertainty and horror. Open Theists don't know enough to be afraid of their own theology, all according to God's decrees.

Your view makes God's love limited and arbitrary. It ends with the same situation of many perishing. Instead of man being culpable for rejecting God's grace and love, you pin the blame on God's mysterious will where He saves some, but does not save many that He could save if only He wanted to. This is supposedly for His good pleasure despite it being contrary to His explicit revelation (unlimited atonement/universal, impartial love). Understanding the difference between grounds and conditions of salvation and the objective provision vs its subjective provision would save you from undermining God's character, provision, and Word.

Saying free will theists believe that we save ourselves is a straw man caricature.

See what I mean? Who is this "us" Bob refers to? If it's everyone, as Open Theists claim, then either (a) everyone without exception will be saved, or (b) Christ's loving sacrifice is not sufficient in itself. Both (a) and (b) contradict scripture.

Universalism is false, we agree. You must subscribe to Anselm's Commercial Transaction theory or 'literal payment' concept. This wrong assumption leads to a wrong conclusion.

The Open Theist cannot rationally say "Jesus saved me." The demi-theological premises of the Open View can only at best say "Jesus gave me a means by which to save myself," which reduces the supreme sacrifice of God to a mere ingredient in a salvation recipe.

Faith is not a work. It is a response to God's initiative and provision. Loving, reciprocal relationships are the biblical model, not your sock puppet robotic view.

The Settled Theist can have a sure footing upon the Rock, full assurance and unwavering faith and confidence in the God who never fails, never guesses and will certainly bring every single jot and tittle of His Word to full fruition. The Open Theists fight desperately to prove that God does fail, makes bad guesses and only maybe will bring some, heretofore unknown, portions of His Word to partial fruition. They have no sure footing, no assurance, no rational basis to trust their God, who is not a Rock, but made of Sand, created in their own image (complete with opposable thumbs), and all according to God's decree, of course.

You underestimate the greatness and goodness of God. An Open Theist has full confidence in the wisdom and character of God. You are painting a straw man view that Open Theists would object to. Do you like the sound of your own voice? God is omnicompetent, etc. Just because He created significant others with genuine freedom does not mean that His great character and attributes are compromised. In fact, they are enhanced in that He remains sovereign and brings His purposes to pass despite a non-deterministic universe that would undermine love, freedom, and relationship.

 

[Philetus]

Is that your attempt at humor? Shouldn't you at least understand what you're ridiculing before you have go? Notice the difference: I ridicule what Open Theists actually believe and the logical conclusions that result. You, on the other, aren't even close. I enjoy being ridiculed intelligently. Your post was simply embarrassing. Please try again.

No, not really. I was just trying to follow your lead. You just like to ridicule and nothing you say offers anything to address Open Theism. Nothing has changed in your approach. Your "opposable thumbs" are in your ear and up your nose and not so much in the face of Open Theists as in the face of God. You stand in the 'door' and neither enter in nor allow others who would to enter.

I sure wish God loved everybody as much as he loves you, Hilston. I guess our thumbs get in his way. :sigh: In your view how would it look for God to love everybody and send his only Son to die for everybody if someone actually refused God's offer and loving gift of life. I mean, sheesh, wouldn't that make both God and Jesus look like the two biggest dorks in the universe, like God didn't know what he was doing?

NOT!

Your thinking that if God loved everybody and Jesus died for everybody then they failed (because not everybody will be saved) is the most ridiculous distortion of the Gospel of all time. Love never fails even when that love is not returned in reciprocal fashion. The cross is not a failure even if Hilston, me, or anyone goes to Hell thinking it is. The ALL in Christ Jesus going to the cross and dying for the sins of mankind has become a stumbling block, mere foolishness, for many. But, the foolishness of God makes those who refuse God’s gift look like the dorks ... not God.

You are not God, Jim. You need to change your mind about Him and yourself. If you did It would make you more like Him.

Philetus​