ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

I think you miss the point.

No. I get it very plainly. You'd love for this verse to mean that God doesn't know something, even though what this verse entails is far from that.

When we see God, in any form, not knowing the future, we see the possibility that God can not know the future plainly stated. If God the father knew and the son didn't, it doesn't matter, the point still stands.

How many Gods are there, patman?

From what you've written above, it seems you think that God the Son is not the same God as God the Father.

You're driving a (heretical) wedge between the Father and the Son.

I had a pretty long post. It asks the question "Why is future knowledge so important? Why is it required for God to be God, and without it he is nothing?"

If God didn't know the future and could still create the human existence.... then why is he lesser of a God? Just take a second and look at your hand. Look at what an impressive tool it is. how it bends and wraps, it has the bones and mussels confirm it to do a huge variety of things!

This brings new meaning to the Hilstonian phrase "opposable thumb theology"!!

:rotfl:

So since it doesn't make him lesser of a God, and because the Bible doesn't say he has utter 100% future knowledge, why not consider that he doesn't?

I already have.


Signed,

the (no longer sentient) synthesizer

 

[Clete]

I've read nowhere that Adam was created with spirit. Rather, it says he was created a living soul.

• Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
  
• 1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

So, from whence does this "Adam possessed spirit" doctrine come? I find it nowhere in the scriptures.


Synth (no longer sentient)

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.​

The parallel here is obvious but in addition to this the idea of a living spirit and the breath of God is clearly connected. The very word for spirit means breath. In fact the very first time the word spirit is used in the Bible is in Genesis 1:2...

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit (ruwach) of God was hovering over the face of the waters.​

RUWACH Strong's #7307

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit

a) breath

b) wind

1) of heaven

2) quarter (of wind), side

3) breath of air

4) air, gas

5) vain, empty thing​

c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)

1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour

2) courage

3) temper, anger

4) impatience, patience

5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)

6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse

7) prophetic spirit​

d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)

1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being​

e) spirit (as seat of emotion)

1) desire

2) sorrow, trouble​

f) spirit

1) as seat or organ of mental acts

2) rarely of the will

3) as seat especially of moral character​

g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy

2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning

3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power

4) as endowing men with various gifts

5) as energy of life

6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory

7) never referred to as a depersonalised force​

Further Paul contrasts the life we have in Christ with death in Adam...

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.​

Is this verse speaking about physical death? NO! Of course not! This is talking about spiritual life and death not physical!

There is simply no reason at all to doubt that Adam was alive spiritually before the fall. He was created to have a relationship with God, for crying out loud! A spiritually dead creature would have no hope of having such a relationship.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

There is no 7 year tribulation Bob. The next event is the second coming of Christ. His return and our resurrection and transformation. Once I read the first sentence then I knew there was no need to read the rest. The scripture says 1000 years not 1007.

The 1000 years starts after the Tribulation. 1007 is like saying there is 1000 years, but not the centuries of the Church Age. It is Tribulation and Millennium. Just because one verse talks about 1000 years after the Second Coming does not mean other verses do not infer a 7 year (Daniel's weeks) before the Second Coming.

When do you think Revelation 4-19 takes place (before 1000 years mentioned AFTER these chronological judgments)?

 

[sentientsynth]

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.​

The parallel here is obvious...

This seems to me to be highly problematic.

If we do as you say and assume that God breathing life into Adam is synonymous with Him breathing holy spirit into him, we must ask, then, how Adam and Eve, who did not yet possess fallen flesh or sin nature by which to be tempted, were beguiled by the Devil. On the contrary, to possess both holy spirit and no sin nature would, to my mind, necessitate that neither Adam nor Eve were able to be deceived, unless, of course, we are prepared to maintain that once we receive our restored bodies we too will be able to be deceived by some means. A frightening prospect.

Furthermore, you have violated the contexts of these passages. The term ruwach, as you have already shown, is very broad. And the ruwach "of life" absolutely cannot be said to be spirit as in the spirit of God. Notice that even base animals possess the breath of life.

• Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
• Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
• Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

As of yet, I am not prepared to say that zebras and monkeys possess the spirit of God.

In summary, clearly all that is shown by "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is that Adam was made alive. And the fact that his creation as a "living soul" is contrasted to the Lord being a "quickening spirit" is further evidence that Adam possessed no spirit.

I asked whence this doctrine of Adam possessing spirit comes. It does not come from scripture. It is a tradition of mere men. To support this doctrine, one must violate the context of passages and utterly deny what the terms involved mean. It's time to cast this demonic doctrine aside. It is clearly fallacious.

There is simply no reason at all to doubt that Adam was alive spiritually before the fall. He was created to have a relationship with God, for crying out loud! A spiritually dead creature would have no hope of having such a relationship.

Circular reasoning.

S

 

[sentientsynth]

He was created to have a relationship with God, for crying out loud!

Where is this written. All I have read is that Adam was made to keep the garden of God.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Once again we see those who have an all too high estimation of man. The error is systematic.

 

[Bob Hill]

God inspired Paul to write just the opposite in Rom 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

He also wrote in Gal 2:16: knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith of Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

What is the solution to these contradictions? In the NT, God has two main gospels. One was given to Paul and one to Peter. It tells us in Gal 2:2,7-9: And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 7 . . . when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcision also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The circumcision gospel had conditions. The gospel of the uncircumcision had no conditions, just belief.

Paul’s message also had some secret elements that had never been revealed before. He wrote in Eph 3:1-9: For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

Therefore, we are not under the circumcision gospel, and the Circumcision Epistles do not apply to us for salvation or security.

Therefore, once we trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. After that, we don’t have to be sealed because we are in heaven with God.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Preface to this post: This post cites a statement by Clete, but it is not directed at Clete. Thus, anyone named Clete should at this very moment cease from reading this post. In fact, anyone named Clete who wants me to regard him or her as dead, should have blocked my posts at least five months ago.

If anyone is a friend of anyone named Clete, please advise him or her to block my posts, if he or she has not yet done so, in order that he or she does not misconstrue a citation as my effort to communicate with him or her.

That said, the question that follows is directed at anyone not named Clete who agrees with Clete's statement (cited below). If your name is not Clete, you are then welcome, encouraged even, to proceed:

Rob asked: "Clete, what is the exact probability man would remain perfect of his own accord?"

Clete replied: "No less than 50%."

I have a question for the Open Theists who agree with Clete's statement: If Adam's supralapsarian* odds were at least 50-50, what are the infralapsarian** odds for his progeny***? In other words, did the Fall change man's propensity to sin, or does man stand equipoised between choosing right and wrong in every case?
_____
*Supralapsarian = before the Fall
**Infralapsarian = after the Fall
***Progeny = descendents

 

[Bob Hill]

It is amazing that God sent His Son to die for us human beings. but He did.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Praise God for sending His Son to go to the cross to suffer for us.

Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

I would like to thank Bob Hill for providing the following conclusive proof that Open Theism is a mental disorder:

If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions.

For those who do not see the flaw in this statement, no explanation will suffice. For those who do, no explanation is necessary.

 

[Hilston]

It is amazing that God sent His Son to die for us human beings. but He did.

On the Open View, regardless of the lipservice they pay to the doctrine, there is no security in Christ's death, because His death doesn't really accomplish anything. Christ does not save, according to the Open View. Rather, man must save himself. For those who go to hell, Christ's death accomplished nothing. So what is effective component of our salvation according to the Open View? Man's work of believing. It is a salvation by works, anyway you cut it.

Praise God for sending His Son to go to the cross to suffer for us.

For what purpose? According to Bob Hill and his Open View cohorts, Christ's suffering was mostly a waste, since most people end up in hell. His suffering didn't accomplish anything, because by itself, His suffering and death were insufficient to save. Salvation depends upon man, according to the Open View, not Jesus. The Open Theist cannot say "Jesus saved me." They can only say, "Jesus gave me the opportunity to save myself." This is in keeping with the Open View raison d'etre: To bring God down and to raise man up. (All according to God's decree, of course)

 

[Hilston]

I would like to thank Bob Hill again for proving that Open Theism diseases the mind.

The circumcision gospel had conditions. The gospel of the uncircumcision had no conditions, just belief. [Emphasis added]

For those who do not see the flawed reasoning of that statement, no explanation will suffice. For those who do, no explanation is necessary.

With apologists like Bob Hill, who needs opponents?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Hilston,

Out of curiosity, why does your description say "pagan" rather than "christian" ?

 

[godrulz]

I would like to thank Bob Hill again for proving that Open Theism diseases the mind.

For those who do not see the flawed reasoning of that statement, no explanation will suffice. For those who do, no explanation is necessary.

With apologists like Bob Hill, who needs opponents?

Most Open Theists are not Mid-Acts dispensationalists.

 

[godrulz]

On the Open View, regardless of the lipservice they pay to the doctrine, there is no security in Christ's death, because His death doesn't really accomplish anything. Christ does not save, according to the Open View. Rather, man must save himself. For those who go to hell, Christ's death accomplished nothing. So what is effective component of our salvation according to the Open View? Man's work of believing. It is a salvation by works, anyway you cut it.

For what purpose? According to Bob Hill and his Open View cohorts, Christ's suffering was mostly a waste, since most people end up in hell. His suffering didn't accomplish anything, because by itself, His suffering and death were insufficient to save. Salvation depends upon man, according to the Open View, not Jesus. The Open Theist cannot say "Jesus saved me." They can only say, "Jesus gave me the opportunity to save myself." This is in keeping with the Open View raison d'etre: To bring God down and to raise man up. (All according to God's decree, of course)

You accuse us of not understanding Calvinism. It appears that you do not understand Arminianism. You also wrongly assume that Open Theism is the equivalent of Arminianism. Your beef seems to be with both, but do not lump the two together as if they are identical. Open Theism is not primarily a soteriological issue. It is a free will theism so it has that in common with Arminianism.

You are misrepresenting the views and confuse grounds vs conditions, faith vs works.

In your view, the masses also go to hell. Are you playing semantical games to make your explanation less offensive despite the same end result?

I am still perplexed that you seem so smart on one hand, yet so ignorant/arrogant on the other hand. Perhaps you are an idiot savant ('unlearned/skill')?

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally Posted by Clete
He was created to have a relationship with God, for crying out loud!

Where is this written. All I have read is that Adam was made to keep the garden of God.

Once again we see those who have an all too high estimation of man. The error is systematic.

God created man to have fellowship.

Revelation 4:11
11 "You are worthy, O Lord and our God, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And because of Your will they existed and were created."

God's desire was to have fellowship with man. God gave Adam the gift of contrary choice and commanded Adam to not eat of the tree. Adam freely disobeyed, ate of the tree, and was sent out of the garden.

Since you quit on me in our other discussion, I'll ask again...

Did God decree Adam to disobey and eat of the tree?

Do you agree with Hilston and say that "God is the author of sin"? At least Jim is consistent...

--Jeremy

 

[sentientsynth]

God created man to have fellowship.

Revelation 4:11
11 "You are worthy, O Lord and our God, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And because of Your will they existed and were created."

Frankly, I don't see anything having to do at all with "fellowship" in Rev. 4:11, the verse you posted in support of God creating man for the purpose of fellowship.

Man does fit into the category of all thing. Yes. And so do planets and stars and fish and monkeys and donkeys and squirrels and rivers and trees and grass and flowers and particles of dirt and grime and dust and muons and electrons and ...

Were all they also created for "fellowship"?

It is written that even creation fell with Adam. Was this fall, too, a spiritual fall? Apparently, there is more than one way to fall besides spiritual.

 

[Delmar]

On the Open View, regardless of the lipservice they pay to the doctrine, there is no security in Christ's death, because His death doesn't really accomplish anything. Christ does not save, according to the Open View. Rather, man must save himself. For those who go to hell, Christ's death accomplished nothing. So what is effective component of our salvation according to the Open View? Man's work of believing. It is a salvation by works, anyway you cut it.

I don't know why you keep claiming that "believing" is a work? Paul says that we are saved by faith rather than works, but then, why take his word for it?

For what purpose? According to Bob Hill and his Open View cohorts, Christ's suffering was mostly a waste, since most people end up in hell. His suffering didn't accomplish anything, because by itself, His suffering and death were insufficient to save. Salvation depends upon man, according to the Open View, not Jesus. The Open Theist cannot say "Jesus saved me." They can only say, "Jesus gave me the opportunity to save myself." This is in keeping with the Open View raison d'etre: To bring God down and to raise man up. (All according to God's decree, of course)

 

[Clete]

This seems to me to be highly problematic.

Who cares what seems highly problematic to you?

If we do as you say and assume that God breathing life into Adam is synonymous with Him breathing holy spirit into him,

I didn't say that. The parallel has to do with the word for spirit (not necessarily THE Spirit although that too is referred to with the same Hebrew word) having "breath" as a secondary (if not a primary) meaning. The concepts of breath and spirit are connected is the point.

we must ask, then, how Adam and Eve, who did not yet possess fallen flesh or sin nature by which to be tempted, were beguiled by the Devil.

They were beguiled by Lucifer (not yet Satan). One does not have to have a "fallen flesh or sin nature" in order to sin. Lucifer and a third of the angelic hosts of heaven had neither and yet rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven as a result. Likewise Adam and Eve rebelled and were thus cast out of the Eden and where separated from God, which is spiritual death.

On the contrary, to possess both holy spirit and no sin nature would, to my mind, necessitate that neither Adam nor Eve were able to be deceived, unless, of course, we are prepared to maintain that once we receive our restored bodies we too will be able to be deceived by some means. A frightening prospect.

I just reread my post and I think it is quite clear that I never meant to suggest that they were given THE Holy Spirit but were simply given a spirit. And once again, I couldn't care less what is necessary "to your mind".

Furthermore, you have violated the contexts of these passages. The term ruwach, as you have already shown, is very broad. And the ruwach "of life" absolutely cannot be said to be spirit as in the spirit of God. Notice that even base animals possess the breath of life.

Read the post again, if you read it in the first place. To deny that the concepts of spirit and breath are connected in the Hebrew language is simply to deny the obvious.

• Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
• Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
• Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

And yet this exact same word is translated "Spirit" or "spirit" 232 times in the KJV including the very first time it is used in Genesis 1:2.

Thank you for proving my point.

As of yet, I am not prepared to say that zebras and monkeys possess the spirit of God.

Nor am I and I think you know that it was never my intention to suggest any such thing. I'm not stupid, are you?

In summary, clearly all that is shown by "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is that Adam was made alive.

Spiritually alive. That is, he was alive to God and could fellowship with Him. Can mere animals do that?

And the fact that his creation as a "living soul" is contrasted to the Lord being a "quickening spirit" is further evidence that Adam possessed no spirit.

You ignore the context of 1 Corinthians 15! Look just a few verses earlier...

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.​

How could Adam have died spiritually if he never had a spirit to begin with?

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.​

Adam didn't die physically for another 930 years and his soul didn't die nor can it, but on the day he ate of that Tree, he died spiritually.

I asked whence this doctrine of Adam possessing spirit comes. It does not come from scripture.

I have used nothing but Scripture to substantiate the doctrine.

It is a tradition of mere men.

This is funny coming from you, Augustine boy!

To support this doctrine, one must violate the context of passages and utterly deny what the terms involved mean. It's time to cast this demonic doctrine aside. It is clearly fallacious.

I count this as an intentional lie.

Circular reasoning.

How so?

Premise one: Non spiritual or spiritually dead creatures cannot have a love relationship with God.

Premise two: Adam was created to have a love relationship with God.

Therefore Adam was spiritually alive.

In what way is that circular?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Where is this written. All I have read is that Adam was made to keep the garden of God.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Once again we see those who have an all too high estimation of man. The error is systematic.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​

Can a non-spiritual being be in any sense "in the image of God"? Is God an animal? Is God flesh (or was He at the time)? God is Spirit as was Adam when He created him.

Further, God could have made a mere animal for the purpose of keeping the garden. There was no need to have a creature made in His own image for such a task.

Resting in Him,
Clete