ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

No, not really. I was just trying to follow your lead.

Please try again. Wherever you're going, it's not where I'm leading.

You just like to ridicule and nothing you say offers anything to address Open Theism.

On the contrary, Philetus. My ridicule of Open Theism is quite successful. Just look at my negative rep points. Boo yeah!

... Nothing has changed in your approach.

Why should it? If it ain't broke, why fix it?

... 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.

Wrong again. Open Theists are the ones tearing God down and exalting man. It's classic Luciferian thinking. All according to God's decrees.

... You stand in the 'door' and neither enter in nor allow others who would to enter.

How am I not allowing others to enter? By exposing the demi-God that Open Deists worship? By demonstrating the insanity and psychotic irrationality of Open View proponents? By showing the illogic and emotional psychobabble of the Unsettled Deism? The Open View Road is very very broad. It's much more inviting and appeals to the innate rebellion and humanism of fallen man. All according to God's decrees. The Narrow Road is one that humbles man and exalts God as God.

I sure wish God loved everybody as much as he loves you, Hilston.

I don't wish God loved everybody as much as He loves me. Because then it would cheapen His love for me. I don't want a cheap generic love that is but a mere ingredient in the salvation recipe. I want an invaluable and special love that is only for those God has chosen to die for.

... 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.

In my view God doesn't love everybody. So what are you talking about? Think, Philetus.

... 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!

What are you talking about? Christ didn't die for everyone.

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.

No, it's logic, Philetus. Jesus said He would not lose a single one. Open Deist theology says that He loses millions, and every day hell gets a little more full. All according to God's decrees.

... 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.

Open Theists, by their theology, proclaim Christ's sacrifice a failure everyday. On the Settled View, Christ's sacrifice doesn't lose a single soul. Everyone for whom He died will be inexorably saved. All according to God's decrees.

... 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.

No, Open Deists do a fair share of making God look like a dork. All according to God's decrees.

You are not God, Jim.

Sticks and stone, Philetus.

You need to change your mind about Him and yourself. If you did It would make you more like Him.

Change my mind to what? The Open View? That would actually make God more like me. And I certainly do NOT want that. That's the Open View's agenda, remember?

 

[Hilston]

... 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 ...

It is a figurative way of describing God's change of actions toward the human race and what it had become.

"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......

It is a figurative way of describing God's essential holiness. God often describes His essence as being far removed from the sinfulness of man, even though He decreed it for His good purposes.

"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 ...

The meaning of "all" is rarely "all without exception." The word "all" is not figurative here, but refers specifically to the elect as "all manner of men." Compare the same word as it occurs here: Mt 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; 12:31; Lu 11:42; Ac 10:12; Ro 7:8; 1Pe 1:15; Re 18:12; 21:19. In each case, pas is translated "all manner of," that is, "all without distinction," not "all without exception," as Open Deists allege.

Faith is not a work.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe (verb form of "faith") on him whom he hath sent.

Also, godrulz, look up the word "arbitrary." It's not a bad word except when applied to humans. God can be completely arbitrary and righteous. It's His prerogative. Of course, the Open Theist cannot abide such a concept, so they end up irrationally trusting in their caricature of God, the incompetent Sand God. No "omnicompetent" God would sit idly by and watch thousands of people He loves and wants to save plunge into hell and not lift a finger to stop it. The God of the Open View is not even normatively competent. He's the biggest Loser of all history combined. Why do you trust this Loser?

 

[Philetus]

HILSTON: I don't wish God loved everybody as much as He loves me. Because then it would cheapen His love for me. I don't want a cheap generic love that is but a mere ingredient in the salvation recipe. I want an invaluable and special love that is only for those God has chosen to die for.

That is really it in a nutshell, isn't it Jim. God loves Jim ... not everybody. Just special, elected Jim. Because if God loved everybody there would be nothing special about Jim. And God loves Jim so much that Jim doesn’t have to repent or respond or behave in anyway different from anyone else.

I was wrong about you. You are a little child; a spoiled brat that thinks he is an only child. Your view isn't about God's immutability or love no matter how much you harp on it. The only thing your view preservers is your own imagined specialness and pretentious immutability. You think you can't change ... only God can change you. Your view isn't to preserve God's holiness and righteousness. It's all about Jim and how special Jim is compared to everybody else.



Did you really mean to say that "The Lord was sorry He made man" :

... is a figurative way of describing God's change of actions toward the human race and what it had become. ....

Why would God need to change his actions if He decreed what the human race had become?

You are slipping.

Philetus​

 

[patman]

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.

I am still bugged at your ridicule of your brothers and sisters...

For someone who calls God the author of sin, I'd expect you pluck the plank of wood from your own eye before you go digging specks of dust in others eyes.

You are just poking eyes out.... You are a good object lesson for this.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

It's not a bad word except when applied to humans.

It’s a bad word when it pertains to those that make decisions. It shows an instability and unreliability in their mental state. Sure, it's not a bad word for the animals ... but as we get into free will creatures it is a wicked and perverse thing to be arbitrary as far as we know.

Even you admit that being arbitrary for humans has a bad connotation, yet you affirm that it's okay for deities? Since we all know that you have no frame of reference for deity other than relatable concepts you see through your humanity, we all realize you are just blowing hot air here.

God can be completely arbitrary and righteous. It's His prerogative.

Oh really?
So if God decided to love Satan that would be righteous? (because it would certainly be arbitrary!) Perhaps since counter-examples are so easy to come up with, you should try to establish why one can be both arbitrary and righteous since most of the evidence points against it.

No "omnicompetent" God would sit idly by and watch thousands of people He loves and wants to save plunge into hell and not lift a finger to stop it.

That assumes:
1) That God's desire to "win" souls stems from a mere competitive measure, rather than a desire for a synergistic relationship, which would take precedence.
2) That God isn't working today, and hasn't worked in the past to try to persuade people.
3) That a forced worship is the kind of worship God would cherish over an un-coerced worship.

 

[RobE]

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).

Godrulz no one says God is unable to change His mind. Just that He isn't required to.

The system of St. Augustine in opposition to this(Pelagius) rests on three fundamental principles:

1) God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;

2) man remains free, even under the action of grace;

3) the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.

From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79:

For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ... [Emphases added]

From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950

... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature. [Emphases added]​

Between these two extreme opinions Augustine formulated (not invented) the Catholic dogma, which affirms these two truths at the same time:

1) the eternal choice of the elect by God is very real, very gratuitous, and constitutes the grace of graces;

2)but this decree does not destroy the Divine will to save all men, which, moreover, is not realized except by the human liberty that leaves to the elect full power to fall and to the non-elect full power to rise.

Here is how the theory of St. Augustine, already explained, forces us to conceive of the Divine decree: Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions and millions of possible combinations. Thus He sees that if Peter had received such another grace, he would not have been converted; and if on the contrary such another Divine appeal had been heard in the heart of Judas, he would have done penance and been saved. Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when, among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, He decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it.

Now in the Divine decree, according to Augustine, and according to the Catholic Faith on this point, which has been formulated by him, the two elements pointed out above appear:

The certain and gratuitous choice of the elect -- God decreeing, indeed, to create the world and to give it such a series of graces with such a concatenation of circumstances as should bring about freely, but infallibly, such and such results (for example, the despair of Judas and the repentance of Peter), decides, at the same time, the name, the place, the number of the citizens of the future heavenly Jerusalem. The choice is immutable; the list closed. It is evident, indeed, that only those of whom God knows beforehand that they will wish to co-operate with the grace decreed by Him will be saved. It is a gratuitous choice, the gift of gifts, in virtue of which even our merits are a gratuitous benefit, a gift which precedes all our merits. No one, in fact, is able to merit this election. God could, among other possible worlds, have chosen one in which other series of graces would have brought about other results. He saw combinations in which Peter would have been impenitent and Judas converted. It is therefore prior to any merit of Peter, or any fault of Judas, that God decided to give them the graces which saved Peter and not Judas. God does not wish to give paradise gratuitously to any one; but He gives very gratuitously to Peter the graces with which He knows Peter will be saved. -- Mysterious choice! Not that it interferes with liberty, but because to this question: Why did not God, seeing that another grace would have saved Judas, give it to him? Faith can only answer, with Augustine: O Mystery! O Altitudo! (De Spiritu et litterâ, xxxiv, n. 60).

But this decree includes also the second element of the Catholic dogma: the very sincere will of God to give to all men the power of saving themselves and the power of damning themselves. According to Augustine, God, in his creative decree, has expressly excluded every order of things in which grace would deprive man of his liberty, every situation in which man would not have the power to resist sin, and thus Augustine brushes aside that predestinationism which has been attributed to him. Listen to him speaking to the Manichæans: "All can be saved if they wish"; and in his "Retractations" (I, x), far from correcting this assertion, he confirms it emphatically: "It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they wish." But he always goes back to the providential preparation. In his sermons he says to all: "It depends on you to be elect" (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); "Who are the elect? You, if you wish it" (In Ps. Lxxiii, n. 5). But, you will say, according to Augustine, the lists of the elect and reprobate are closed. Now if the non-elect can gain heaven, if all the elect can be lost, why should not some pass from one list to the other? You forget the celebrated explanation of Augustine: When God made His plan, He knew infallibly, before His choice, what would be the response of the wills of men to His graces. If, then, the lists are definitive, if no one will pass from one series to the other, it is not because anyone cannot (on the contrary, all can), it is because God knew with infallible knowledge that no one would wish to. Thus I cannot effect that God should destine me to another series of graces than that which He has fixed, but, with this grace, if I do not save myself it will not be because I am not able, but because I do not wish to.

Open Theists require God to 'evolve' through process. God is getting more godlike everyday through experience with His own creation. Open Theism has God learning. It makes man the 'potter' in effect while putting God in the position of the 'clay'. God doesn't mold man, man molds God. Open Theism makes God fallable through ignorance. It makes Him less holy, righteous, loving, caring, and unstable through His limitations. In today's world where 'freedom of choice' has become the focus of worship for modernists this theology is very appealing; even though denigrating to Our Lord.

The thinking is not circular. It holds God as God and man as less than God. It acknowledges that God alone is holy, righteous, truly loving, and perfect; and maintains that the creation is never equal with or greater than the creator. Are we able to love with the completeness that God does in our imperfection?

Rob

 

[RobE]

I am still bugged at your ridicule of your brothers and sisters...

For someone who calls God the author of sin, I'd expect you pluck the plank of wood from your own eye before you go digging specks of dust in others eyes.

You are just poking eyes out.... You are a good object lesson for this.

Patrick,

Philetus never provides anything to the conversation. He simply ridicules to no profitable point. Hilston on the other hand at least has a point to his ridicule. God has authorized the existence of sin; otherwise, it wouldn't be in the world.

Rob

 

[Hilston]

Unsettled Deism is a disease of the mind, proven by the likes of Philetus, patman, Apologetic Jedi and other who are unable to connect the dots, jump to erroneous conclusions, and embarrass themselves in the process. Debunking and discrediting their non sequitur criticisms like shooting fish in a barrel with an RPG.

To Philetus

That is really it in a nutshell, isn't it Jim. God loves Jim ... not everybody.

No, in a nutshell it's this: God's love really accomplishes the salvation of the elect. It really does. Those who have been chosen, regenerated, given the gift of faith and changed by God can experience the assurance and confidence of trusting in a God whose love actually does something. Open Deists want the whole world to be saved, contrary to God's word. Jesus' sacrifice only saves those given to Him by the Father, and He will not lose a single one. Each and every person God loves will be inexorably saved. This is a God worthy of trust. Not the Sand God of Unsettled Deism who loves everyone and loses the vast majority of them.

Just special, elected Jim. Because if God loved everybody there would be nothing special about Jim.

Are you even trying, Philetus? How old are you? Nothing is special about the elect in and of themselves. What's special is not us, but God's love. If God's sacrificial love applies to anyone in hell, then His love is cheap, useless, and purposeless. It's no wonder that you people have yet to offer a rational basis for trusting Him.

... And God loves Jim so much that Jim doesn’t have to repent or respond or behave in anyway different from anyone else.

What are you talking about? :kookoo:

I was wrong about you. You are a little child; a spoiled brat that thinks he is an only child.

No I'm not! No I'm not! I'm going to tell my mom on you, you big meanie. Mommyyyyyyyy!

... Your view isn't about God's immutability or love no matter how much you harp on it.

You're right. It's really about guacamole. I am crazy about guacamole, especially with those really big tortilla chips. Have you tried this? It's to die for.

The only thing your view preservers is your own imagined specialness and pretentious immutability.

Pretentious immutability? What the heck is that? Dude, have a dictionary handy if you're going to try to use big-people words.

... Your view isn't to preserve God's holiness and righteousness. It's all about Jim and how special Jim is compared to everybody else.

That part is true. I have such a low self-esteem that I've chosen a theology that makes me look better than everyone else. But if I'm so special, why do I have negative reputation points in the tens of thousands? Something's not working.

Why would God need to change his actions if He decreed what the human race had become?

You just don't get it, Philetus. You apparently refuse to get it, because it's not rocket science. I'll explain it again. Try to keep up this time. Maybe take some notes. Here goes: If God decreed the future (are you still with me?), then whatever actions or change of actions God takes in that decreed future (are you following so far?) are decreed as well. Did you get that, Philetus. Let me say it again: If God decreed the future, then whatever actions or change of actions God takes in that decreed future are decreed as well. Do you understand? You don't have to agree of accept, just try to understand it so you don't look like such a bone-headed dolt when you comment on it. Please keep in mind, Philetus, that it won't cause your brain to explode and it won't send you to hell just to acknowledge the opposing view. To understand my view doesn't mean you accept it. I'm not asking you to accept it. But can you at least acknowledge and process the explanation? Maybe, just maybe, if you shut your maggot-infested pie-hole long enough and put to good use what little is left of your Openness-tumor-ridden brain, you might actually form a coherent thought that has a modicum of relevance to the conversation.

You are slipping.

If I thought for one second that you had any idea what you were talking about, I might take a statement like that to heart. But you're so clueless, it is obviously only an expression of typical Open-View desperation.

To Patman

I am still bugged at your ridicule of your brothers and sisters...

I don't ridicule my brothers and sisters.

For someone who calls God the author of sin, I'd expect you pluck the plank of wood from your own eye before you go digging specks of dust in others eyes.

Has anyone ever wondered why it is that every post by an Open Deist is riddled with this kind of sloppy thinking? It's because Open Deism affects the function of the mind. Open Deists are so mentally diseased that they can't even follow a simple line of reasoning. Check this out: According to patman, calling God the author of sin is the same as having a plank in one's eye, and then he expects me to agree with that and to remove the plank. Hellooooo. Calling God the author of sin is not sinful. Knowing that God works all things, even the sin and evil, for His good purposes, affirms that the sin and evil He authored is for good. It is saying that God decrees evil for good, just as Job believed, just as Joseph believed, just as Paul believed. So why should I remove that "plank" from my beliefs before I go "digging specks of dust in other's eyes"? Clue. Less.

You are just poking eyes out.... You are a good object lesson for this.

What patman calls an object lesson for planks and specks has actually turned out to be yet another example of the theological Mad Cow Disease that is Open Deism.

To Apologetic Padawan

arbitrary adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system : • (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.​

['Arbitrary' is] a bad word when it pertains to those that make decisions.

Not for God. His arbitrary decisions reflect His essential character, and therefore we can trust that God only decreed that which works toward the ultimate good of those He loves.

... It shows an instability and unreliability in their mental state.

Note how consistently the existentialism pervades the Open View mind. The Open Deist has no concept of God's essence, only His behavior, which they judge according to their humanistic "Man-Is-The-Measure-Of-All-Things" standards. That is why they call God's meticulous control of the universe being a "control freak." They take the hangups and perversions of man and apply them to God. It's the same with arbitrariness. The Open Deist will not allow God to be arbitrary and to have unrestrained prerogative because they themselves cannot be that way without abusing or perverting that prerogative. The bottom line is that they want to control God, to bring Him down and raise man up.

Sure, it's not a bad word for the animals ... but as we get into free will creatures it is a wicked and perverse thing to be arbitrary as far as we know.

See what I mean? We should take comfort in God's total unrestrained authority. Open Deists are afraid of the idea, and for good reason: Their God cannot be trusted.

Even you admit that being arbitrary for humans has a bad connotation, yet you affirm that it's okay for deities?

Amazing. I doubt that Apologetic Jedi sees the admission he just made. I've been saying all along that Open Deists want to bring God down and raise man up. They want there to be as little difference between man and God as possible. So what does AJ do? He tacitly admits this by asking the above question, betraying the assumption that God and man are not all that different. Since man is wont to abuse authority and cannot be trusted to be arbitrary, neither can God. If AJ understood God's essential nature and character, he could take comfort in God's arbitrary decrees, and realize that it's not only OK for God to be arbitrary, it is necessary.

Since we all know that you have no frame of reference for deity other than relatable concepts you see through your humanity, we all realize you are just blowing hot air here.

Um ... what?

Hilston wrote previously: God can be completely arbitrary and righteous. It's His prerogative.

Oh really?
So if God decided to love Satan that would be righteous? (because it would certainly be arbitrary!)

This is the cruelty of the Open Deism disease. The one with the diseased mind is oblivious to it. Others, the ones not afflicted, get to watch the deterioration and can do very little to stop it. AJ's question is so puerile, but he fails to see that it is simply the "rock too big to lift" bunkum that atheists love to spout, but dressed up in a Wookie costume. If you look you can see the zipper running up the back. God is righteously arbitrary, but He cannot oppose the reality that is defined by His own character. He cannot arbitrarily create a rock too big to lift. He cannot make a contradiction true. He cannot be evil. He cannot lie. He cannot renege on His promises, no matter how much Open Deists want to believe He can. And He cannot arbitrarily choose to love Satan.

Originally Posted by Hilston: No "omnicompetent" God would sit idly by and watch thousands of people He loves and wants to save plunge into hell and not lift a finger to stop it.

That assumes:
1) That God's desire to "win" souls stems from a mere competitive measure, rather than a desire for a synergistic relationship, which would take precedence.

I see, so God doesn't mind the fact that the number of lost relationships outpaces the number of saved ones every day this world continues to exist?

2) That God isn't working today, and hasn't worked in the past to try to persuade people.

What is God doing today to try to persuade people?

3) That a forced worship is the kind of worship God would cherish over an un-coerced worship.

No one is forced to worship God. God changes the rebellious God-hating heart to a God-loving heart. The worship comes uncoerced from a heart that loves God.

 

[Philetus]

HILSTON: That part is true. I have such a low self-esteem that I've chosen a theology that makes me look better than everyone else. But if I'm so special, why do I have negative reputation points in the tens of thousands? Something's not working.

Could it be your attitude? It’s clear by now your ego won’t get you any positive rep. Try being civil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus

Why would God need to change his actions if He decreed what the human race had become?

HILSTON: You just don't get it, Philetus. You apparently refuse to get it, because it's not rocket science. I'll explain it again. Try to keep up this time. Maybe take some notes. Here goes: If God decreed the future (are you still with me?), then whatever actions or change of actions God takes in that decreed future (are you following so far?) are decreed as well. Did you get that, Philetus. Let me say it again: If God decreed the future, then whatever actions or change of actions God takes in that decreed future are decreed as well. Do you understand? You don't have to agree of accept, just try to understand it so you don't look like such a bone-headed dolt when you comment on it. Please keep in mind, Philetus, that it won't cause your brain to explode and it won't send you to hell just to acknowledge the opposing view. To understand my view doesn't mean you accept it. I'm not asking you to accept it. But can you at least acknowledge and process the explanation? Maybe, just maybe, if you shut your maggot-infested pie-hole long enough and put to good use what little is left of your Openness-tumor-ridden brain, you might actually form a coherent thought that has a modicum of relevance to the conversation.

I can and I have.

Really, you don’t have to explain it in minute detail, Jim ... we all get it. We understand your view. "God is in absolute meticulous CONTROL and EVERYTHING has been predestined by Him!" I get it, I just reject it ... flat out. Can you articulate the Open View and convince anyone other than yourself that you understand it without all the ridicule and strawdogs.

HILSTON: I don't ridicule my brothers and sisters........... maggot-infested pie-hole long enough and put to good use what little is left of your Openness-tumor-ridden brain, you might actually form a coherent thought that has a modicum of relevance to the conversation.

The only possable comment anyone coud make that you would accept is that "Jim Hilston has been decreed by God to set forth the only truth in the universe."

Philetus​

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Not for God. His arbitrary decisions reflect His essential character,

That’s called begging the question.

We should take comfort in God's total unrestrained authority.

Nonsense. We view that authority differently. We believe the Bible when God says that men control their own eternal destiny, whereas the Calvinist refuses to believe the Bible in this. Calvinists talk about God’s authority, but in reality they don’t think God has the authority to delegate.

They want there to be as little difference between man and God as possible. So what does AJ do? He tacitly admits this by asking the above question, betraying the assumption that God and man are not all that different.

I did not assume or state that men and God are not all that different. I asked you to show me how they are different in this manner – which you could not do.

Undoubtedly God is vastly different than men. We have no way of knowing exactly how because we are just men and only understand things in the manner of men. That’s true of all men, for there is no other frame of reference that exists for mortals. However to imply as you do, that anything true of man cannot also be true of God – particularly in areas of truth, reason, and logic are unfounded.

Men often exhibit love …. Shall we then say God cannot love because men sometimes do? Of course not – that’s the idiocy that you get from your reasoning.

Men often know truth … Shall we then say that God cannot know truth? Absurd – yet it is in line with the flow of your “God is not like us” argument.

Men are sometimes creative … Shall we then say God has no creativity? Only a Calvinist would believe something so dumb.

And He cannot arbitrarily choose to love Satan.

So then we agree that doing so would be contradictory… to love Satan would be wrong, even for God!! YES!!! Hilston had unwittingly made the argument that God cannot act in a truly arbitrary manner, but must consider to whom He is showing His love to….. and ta da … in two posts, his entire position has unraveled.

God cannot arbitrarily decide who he can or cannot love because that would contradict his character … we both agree. Now why on earth, would that be true of Satan, but not true of men in any way? Of course that’s equally absurd (oh yes, I suppose it’s also wrong to compare angels and men … it is unfair of us to use reason against poor Hilston).

I see, so God doesn't mind the fact that the number of lost relationships outpaces the number of saved ones every day this world continues to exist?

Doesn’t mind and not being the top priority are not the same thing. Bad argument.

 

[RobE]

Clete,

From my understanding He did, otherwise it wouldn't exist!

Main Entry: 1per·mit
Pronunciation: p&r-'mit
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): per·mit·ted; per·mit·ting
Etymology: Middle English permitten, from Latin permittere to let through, permit, from per- through + mittere to let go, send
transitive senses
1 : to consent to expressly or formally
2 : to give leave : AUTHORIZE
3 : to make possible
intransitive senses : to give an opportunity : ALLOW

God did NOT authorize sin; expressly forbid it! Don't take sides with blasphemers Rob; it makes you one as well!

Does God permit sin or not?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

Clete,

From my understanding He did, otherwise it wouldn't exist!





Does God permit sin or not?

Rob

We must define what we mean and do not mean by God permitting sin. The fact that sin exists means that He did allow for its possibility and had a redemptive plan in the event of sin. The key is that God did not plan, will, desire, or intend sin to come into existence. It is a possible risk of creating significant others instead of a deterministic or robotic universe. God could have not created or created robots/machines that are programmed rather than having a free will. This is not the type of universe He actualized in His love and wisdom. Sin is contrary to God's will, not an outcome of it. Hyper-sovereignty is simply a wrong understanding of God's providential rule, by His sovereign choice.

 

[Hilston]

... whereas the Calvinist refuses to believe ... Calvinists talk about God’s authority ... Only a Calvinist would believe ... Hilston (a Calvinist)

I'm not a Calvinist.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not a Calvinist.

You quack like one. There are a variety of views within the spectrum of 'Calvinism'. You are not an Arminian or Open Theist (free will, relational theism); you are closer to Calvinism than other major theological camps. You may not like labels, but if the shoe fits, you will have to wear it. You may not agree with everything about Calvinism, but either did John Calvin himself (TULIP came later, I believe).

 

[Hilston]

You quack like one.

Open Theists don't understand Calvinism .You're not qualified to discern the difference between a Calvinistic quack and a non-Calvinistic quack.

There are a variety of views within the spectrum of 'Calvinism'. You are not an Arminian or Open Theist (free will, relational theism); ...

I affirm free will and relational theism. See what I mean? You don't even know what you're dealing with. You're not qualified to make the assessment until you know what the opposing view believes. But since Open Theism affects the way your mind functions, there is little hope that you'll ever get it. I haven't met a single Open Theist who does.

... you are closer to Calvinism than other major theological camps.

You've disqualified yourself from making a rational judgment.

... You may not like labels, but if the shoe fits, you will have to wear it.

I love labels. I use them all the time. Haven't you noticed? See folks, this is the insanity and disconnect from reality that you get from those who suffer from the psychosis of Open Theism. It doesn't matter to them what their opponent says. It doesn't matter to them what reality actually shows. The Open Theist views the world and their opponents through thick lenses cemented to their collective face.

... You may not agree with everything about Calvinism, but either did John Calvin himself (TULIP came later, I believe).

Good grief. Get a clue, Watson. I know reading is hard, but you should try it. On second thought. Nevermind; if your mind is as diseased as Bob Hill's, reading Calvin for yourself will do little good.

 

[godrulz]

Maybe you are modifying traditional views or are syncretistic. Maybe you think compatibilism gets you out of the bind. Semantical games do not change underlying reality. Your omnicausal concept of God is inferior to His self-revelation as the omnicompetent One.

The fact that you think God is responsible for evil and every issue in the universe is contrary to His revelation leading to a loss of credibility of your views. Assigning evil to God makes most cringe, yet you think I am the one with brain issues.

 

[the_seeker]

I totally agree with you, God is omniscience and He don't make mistake. If He did He would have quit being God and the whole universe will be in chaos

 

[RobE]

The fact that sin exists means that He did allow for its possibility and had a redemptive plan in the event of sin.

The key is that God did not plan, will, desire, or intend sin to come into existence.

These two statements oppose each other.

It is a possible risk of creating significant others instead of a deterministic or robotic universe

In creating a world where humans have a choice to reject you or not; it is more than a risk - It is a foregone conclusion!

God could have not created or created robots/machines that are programmed rather than having a free will.

At least we agree on this.

This is not the type of universe He actualized in His love and wisdom.

I agree.

Sin is contrary to God's will, not an outcome of it.

"God's purpose is greater than suffering!", God_Is_Truth.

Hyper-sovereignty is simply a wrong understanding of God's providential rule, by His sovereign choice.

God is able to see the big picture, while we are barely able to see past our own noses.

Godrulz, are you able to understand the relationship between structure and functionality?

Patiently Waiting,
Rob

 

[godrulz]

Structure? Function? In terms of anatomy and physiology? What is your point?

The first two statements in the post do not contradict. I can buy disability insurance and plan in the event I get sick or injured, but this does not mean I will necessarily need to use it. I may need life insurance if I die, or my policies may lapse. A plan of redemption if man Fell is not a foregone conclusion, it is a contingency (may or may not happen). There is also not a necessary link. Just because God anticipated the possibility or probability of the Fall still does not mean He desired or intended it or even knew it as a certainty. There is strong language for God's broken heart when His very good creation became marred by rebellion. There was no good reason for man to Fall given His intimate walk with God and His perfect environment.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

"God's purpose is greater than suffering!", God_Is_Truth.

To be accurate, that's actually a paraphrase of what I said, not a direct quote.