ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Hilston wrote: Is this the kind of God you imagine? One who is subject to whims of thousands of people, all at the same time, and Who can be externally moved by these thousands of creatures into thousands of conflicting emotions concurrently?
Seriously, what has God contributed lately to your "relationship"?
To answer your question: We all have errors in our belief systems, and those errors are decreed by God. The Holy Spirit guides the elect according to God decrees, preserving and improving their understanding and mastery of God's word as they progress through life. Those who do not progress over the course of their lives were never elect to begin with. All according to God's decrees.
It doesn't fit your humanist conception of God and His "supreme" attributes of being "personal" and "relational." How can you have a "relationship" with someone who is so emotionally distracted and unstable? What does such a "person" contribute to that kind of "relationship"? Is that why you people pray? To battle for His attention? How many personalities does God have that He is able to personally have so many conflicting emotions and "relationships" at once? Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who is watching television? Your God is reacting to billions of televisions while you're trying to cuddle, and you're too self-deluded to recognize a problem in that.God_is_truth said:
I'm not the one who believes in a God with multiple personality disorder. So it's not my problem. I believe God is impassible, He is The Rock, and there is ultimate security and assurance based upon that attribute. I've yet to encounter an Open Theist that has a modicum of understanding what that means, which is why they opt for the warm and fuzzy psychological packmule they've created in their own minds.Patman said:
And while He's busy pitying Nineveh, He's also happy with person A, grieved over person B, angry at person C, surprised by person D, startled by person E, delighted by person F, annoyed by person G, etc. etc. ad nauseum. That's the Supreme Sybil God of Open Theism.Patman said:
How long will He be close to you if He's got all these other things to be simultaneously emotional about? If Open Theists took their espoused notions of "personal relationship" to their logical conclusions, they'd be constantly saying, "No, no ~ look at ME, God! MEEEEEEE! MEEEEEEEEEEE!" They'd be honestly asking themselves what God has contributed to the relationship lately.patman said:
Seriously, what has God contributed lately to your "relationship"?
Whoever said that? I don't believe anyone can be a "real Christian" today. It's not possible. The last Christian probably died sometime in the early second century.Patman said:
That's what Mormons and JWs say, too. (All according to God's decrees, of course).Patman said:
No, rather the teachings and assumptions of Lucifer and Adam and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart. (All according to God's decrees, of course).Patman said:
I don't hate all of you. I don't hate any of you. I would have to know you in order to genuinely hate you, and I don't know any of you. For me to say "I hate you" when I don't even know you would be to cheapen and diminish genuine hate. Consider a parallel: You people talk about how difficult it is to love me. How can you love someone you don't even know, except by cheapening love? But then again, you people believe God loves everyone, which is entirely fitting, given the kind of wuss-bag God you believe in.Patman said:
No, you truly love a caricature of God created in your own humanistic existential image. The true God of scripture is repugnant to you, abundantly demonstrated in just about every post I see from you people. (All according to God's decrees, of course).Patman said:
Good one. :kookoo:godrulz said:
The same reason why He decrees all manner of evil in the world: For His good purposes and for the sake of the elect.godrulz said:
The verse to which you allude has nothing to do with believers today. And I thought you would have cut it out of your Bible by now.godrulz said:
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
How could that verse have anything to do with the God of Open Theism? The God of Open Theism doesn't know what is to come. And how can He "show" them "things to come" when the future doesn't even exist yet? You can't show someone something that doesn't exist.To answer your question: We all have errors in our belief systems, and those errors are decreed by God. The Holy Spirit guides the elect according to God decrees, preserving and improving their understanding and mastery of God's word as they progress through life. Those who do not progress over the course of their lives were never elect to begin with. All according to God's decrees.
Yes, very true. All according to God's decrees, of course.godrulz said:
Explain what you mean. I don't apply these humanistic psychobabble concepts to my relationship to God, so you're going to have to be more specific. Or do you have a Scripture reference that I can look at in this regard?Vaquero45 said:
There's where you're wrong, V. God decreed the beating, torture, humiliation and murder of His own Son, and that mattered greatly.Vaquero45 said:
Where are you getting this stuff, V? The question is typical evangelical gobbledly gook. Where does the Bible ever instruct us to be concerned about whether we "feel really close to God" or not? My relationship with God is based upon His sacrifice for me and the rest of the elect, not my feelings. The humanism that comes through the posts of Open Theism is remarkable.Vaquero45 said:
Whaaaaat? V? Is this really you?Vaquero45 said:
I can't believe what I'm reading. Is this really V?Vaquero45 said:
Of course. But it's not a game. He has good purposes behind all of it.Vaquero45 said:
Why would you ask such a question, V, even rhetorically?Vaquero45 said:
Then you haven't been paying attention. Even worse: You've regressed. I'm really disappointed in you, V. I expected much better thinking from you.Vaquero45 said:
Amazing. You know, you and I have had some really good discussions. I actually thought you were one of the exceptional thinkers among Open Theists. With what you just wrote, if you're not just having a glitch, your head must be as far up your proverbial backside as the rest of your cohorts. Please tell me that as you typed this, you knew something was wrong; that something was nagging you in your mind telling you that it has nothing to do with my position on the verity of the Bible and the existence of the True God. Because if there wasn't some pang of non sequitur in your mind when you typed it, then I have been wrong about you all along.Vaquero45 said:
If you knew what "decree" means, you would realize that a phrase like "the effect [of truth] on your God's decrees" is like saying "the effect of blue on the air pressure in my tires." You're spouting drivel, V. And it's embarrassing.Vaquero45 said:
That's my point, V. Open Theists deny the omnis. So it doesn't line up with the Openness view of God as "personal" and "relational." Unless He's the Sybil God.Vaquero45 said:
He decrees it, and then He laughs them to scorn. All according to His decrees, all according to His good purposes.Vaquero45 said:
Because He is the Rock, and has promised to work all things together with the elect for their good. The Open Theist has no rational basis on which to trust their God, because He is not the Rock, but rather a warm and squishy Sand God who breaks His promises and is fully capable of lying and being evil if He so chooses.Vaquero45 said:
Again, these types of questions betray a huge flaw in your reasoning, V. Enough to make me want to go back and read our previous discussions. You're either playing a major disingenuous game here, or I've had you pegged very very wrong all along. I hope it's the former.Vaquero45 said:
It's not a game, V. I have proven my case over and over again.Vaquero45 said:
My goodness, V. It appears you're a goner. I don't deny any of those statements, and you seem to have no idea what you've just done.Vaquero45 said:
It's not your desire to glorify God that I question, but rather which God it is you desire to glorify.Vaquero45 said:
V, usually I don't get very emotional about people in this forum. They're just names on the screen and I care very little about them or what they think of my posts. You have always been an exception. I've gone out of my way to treat you with kindness, respect and dignity. Read our past exchanges. You won't find any of this kind of bashing and insult in my posts to you. Our discussions in the past have been very fruitful and enjoyable, not to mention rational and intelligent, and I thought you were at least capable of grasping my view, regardless of whether or not you agreed with it. I must admit that I feel very sad right now, having read this post of yours. I sincerely hope it was merely a hasty lapse of judgment and reasoning on your part. I expect much better from you.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hilston said:
Oh please! Somebody get me a barf bag!
"V" spanked you good and now your're trying to get back at him by making him feel bad for doing so. He was sarcastic in much of what he said in order to make a point. I didn't get the sense that he was really out to attack you personally.
Give me a break.
This is the kind of thing my friends and I almost pee ourselves laughing about. You people are so inbred that you can't tell the difference between a real spanking and wild flailing, let alone what constitutes actual sarcasm. Good and effective sarcasm at least demonstrates an understanding of the opponent's position. But people like you, Poly, whose minds are so septic from the ravages of Sybil-God theology, don't know the difference, or enough to even be embarrassed. It's like someone saying, "Hilston is dumb because he believes God pooped His pants," and then Clete* chimes in and gives it a post of the day. It's puerile middle school lunch room behavior.Poly said:
(*You know, that guy who is supposed to be dead to me, but somehow resurrects himself and continues dropping negative rep points, complete with comments, in my rubbish bin, who insists that I don't comment on his posts but keeps commenting on people who comment on my posts.)
The content of V's post is nothing to "get back at him" about. It was embarrassing. If I know V, he's regretting its content as we speak.Poly said:
Really? Maybe I missed it. I seriously want to know, Poly: What point was V making?Poly said:
I took none of it personally, Poly. I'm not sad over anything personal, just the sloppy thinking, which surprises me coming from V. But even if V were to possibly consider taking my concerns to heart, I suspect there's little chance of him doing it now, since you've decided to intervene. I don't expect you to understand, and your obvious insensitivity gives ample evidence to what kind of feckless and loathsome human being you must be.Poly said:... I didn't get the sense that he was really out to attack you personally. Give me a break.
Hey Jim, that post was to show that the OV can refuse to take your view seriously and simply mock it, like you have been doing to the OV lately. You have been getting a little too happy with the insults in my view, and that was me venting. I have also enjoyed our serious discussions, and have defended you before. I do respect your view to a degree, and have tried to figure it out for myself as you know. Your latest posts have been rubbing me the wrong way. That's what brought this about.
RobE
New member
Clete said:
I'm saying that Adam was spiritually alive but not spiritually mature or capable. I'm saying that Adam could not achieve spiritual perfection on his own accord, but needed to be grafted into the Vine to achieve spiritual perfection.
Pelagianism said the same thing and was wrong. I'm not saying that the O.V. is pelagianism, just that Pelagius was wrong to believe that man might acquire perfection on his own accord.
The were at least 50% or better per occurance, but not 50% or better for an eternity of occurances. He was bound to fall because of his functionality. His structure was 'good', but was unable to function as God was. When I say function I'm speaking of the percent chance of NOT doing good once through all of eternity.
I'm saying that God made us with a chance of doing 'evil' before the fall; otherwise, Adam wouldn't have been able to fall. When the probability that Adam would fall is calculated then it was a foregone conclusion. God isn't naive nor unloving. God created man with Jesus Christ in mind as the savior which would nullify the death which would occur.
Then the scriptures which tell of how God punishes for a purpose are written by man and not God. Genesis 3:22 which points to man gaining the 'knowledge' of good and evil shouldn't have had to be written since a loving, omnipresent God could have stopped it. The fall is meaningless when Jesus Christ is considered.
Conversely.
You're right! I left out a phrase. Here's the re-write.....
If Adam had not given into the flesh at any point then he would indeed have been equal with God in ability to achieve perfection independently.
Agreed, but the probability Adam would achieve perfection was non-existent(not because of flaws in his 'good' structure, but because of his designed functionality).
Well, my belief is different obviously. Your's is appealing, but it is mathematically unsound. I believe that Lucifer's action made his fall a certainty in the garden, but am unsure when he first entertained evil within himself.
Thanks,
Rob
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
Hilston said:
It seemed to me that the point Vaq made was that since you believe God has ordained people to rigorously accept and follow fallicious religions, it's possible that He has done the same to you.
Some who put every ounce of faith into Allah or Buddha (or whomever) believe what they do with as much furvor as you and I do, and you believe that God put those evil lies in their hearts. Vaq is saying that maybe the God you speak of has confused you into believing what you believe. Perhaps Allah has made the Bible seem like the truth to you, but it is really just an illusion. Is that right V?
In opposition to your doctrine, it seems like an interesting argument.
But you're wrong on both counts, V. I do take the OV seriously, which is why I invest the time to expose its irrationality and error. And I don't simply mock it. There is much complexity and thought that goes into my mocking and ridicule. I don't take any of this lightly, except maybe the personal attacks. But what else would you expect from such a despicable person as I?V45 said:
There's nothing happy about it, V. It's tragic (all according to God's decrees, of course).V45 said:
Yes, I do know, and I'm grateful for our relationship and for your presence here. Of course, Poly will chalk all this up to my efforts to "make you feel bad" because you gave me a spanking (all according to God's decrees, of course).V45 said:
I understand; And I am truly sorry that it has to be this way. Part of me wishes you didn't have to see my posts that take this tack. But a bigger part of me wants you to see the insanity of the Open View and to repudiate it.V45 said:
But Vaq should know better, especially since he's well acquainted with my arguments against anti-theists on this very issue. That's what I found so disappointing (all according to God's decrees, of course).D2I said:
Of course. But fervor has nothing to do with what is rational and coherent. So it's irrelevant. What matters is what the scriptures teach and logic demands. The Open View fails on both fronts (all according to God's decrees, of course).D2I said:
To even suggest this only shows how poorly the argument is understood. I thought Vaq understood better than to make such a point, even in sarcasm.D2I said:
I really hope that wasn't his point, because that's a first-week Apologetics 101 textbook question that shouldn't even be in the same room with this discussion.D2I said:
No, it's not. Trust me on this one.D2I said:
Please don't. It would be a waste of your time.V45 said:
I'm relieved that's all it was. It just didn't sound like you. And I don't think it's your forte, V. You're too good of a guy to stoop to my level. I'm keenly aware that OV'ers can mock too, however poorly and unintelligently they do so. Please don't add yourself to the list of embarrassing "champions" that includes Kobrain, Doogie-Duh, Gods-Free-Will, et al, ad nauseum.V45 said:
There's lots more crying and whining where that came from. I'll even throw in a few temper tantrums for good measure. And now that it's obvious that you had no idea what you were talking about, and that it was the furthest thing imaginable from a "spanking" from V, why don't you go spew your blather elsewhere. Just get off the porch, Poly. The big dawgs want to mock each other, and we'd hate for you to get anything on you. Go on now, skeedaddle.Poly said:
All according to God's decree,
Jim
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hilston said:
Scripture teaches "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone". - James 1:13
Logic demands that because God is righteous, true and holy, it is blasphemy to declare that He is the cause of any evil.
Logic demands that we should believe God and take Him at His word and if it says He tempts no one it means He tempts no one.
Logic demands that God would not put something in the bible when He really didn't mean it and actually means the very opposite of what He says because....
Scripture teaches "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace," -- Corinthians 14:33
Who here is claiming that God tempts anyone? How is this relevant to this discussion?Poly said:
Right on. Who here is claiming that God is the cause of any evil? Are you even reading this discussion? Do you have any clue whatsoever what your opponents believe?Poly said:
That is correct. The sky is also blue and bears do in fact poop in the woods. Are there any other obvious facts you'd like to proclaim?Poly said:
Riiiiight. Figures of speech don't exist in the Bible. Everything should be understood non-figuratively, right? :kookoo:Poly said:
Continuing to avoid logic and the contextual teaching of Scripture, the Open Theist once again twists God's word and does violence to logic in order to prove yet another inane and irrational Open View talking point. The word "author" is not in the Greek text of the passage you cited, Poly. The word for "confusion" is the 17th century word for "disorder," and is used in the context of how the prophets are to speak in an orderly manner, making the point that God would not inspire the prophets to speak in a disorderly manner.Poly said:
Once again, the teaching of scripture and the demands of logic go out the window.
All according to God's decree, of course.
Jim
patman
Active member
He fills me with wisdom whenever I ask of it.Hilston said:
Also, I cannot help but to be thankful not to be like you. To you, God is a rock and treats everyone like dust he sits on no matter what or where they are in the ground of life.
I also find it amazing you limit God by saying he cannot cater or handle all of us in our different walks of life. Is he not strong enough to react and treat us each as we deserve?
Hilston asked: Who here is claiming that God tempts anyone?
Who here is claiming that God is the cause of any evil?
Hilston asked: Seriously, what has God contributed lately to your "relationship"?
The Rock Of Supreme Authority
The Open Theist sits in judgment of God to decides whether or not God is worthy to wield any authority in their lives. This why Open Theists keep saying that the God of the Settled View could be held culpable (by whom? Who knows). Whereas scripture declares God's supreme authority because Christ is "the Rock that is higher than I," which means that David, even though he is the king, answered to a higher authority (Ps 61:2).
The Immovable Rock
The Open Theist irrational clings to a conception of a God who changes His mind, uses trial and error, is prone to mood swings and does not know the future. Whereas the scripture declares that "He is my rock and my salvation," because by clinging to the immovable Rock, the Psalmist says, "I shall not be moved" (Ps 62:2,6).
My Rock and My Fortress
The Open Theist sees evil in the world and has no recourse but to think that God somehow has His hands tied out of fear of being capricious or arbitrary if He were to intervene and to stop some evil from occurring. They have no refuge and are vulnerable to evil because things happen that are outside of God's control and plan. Whereas the scripture teaches that the Psalmist's protection and deliverance were secured because God was his salvation and glory; "the rock of my strength and my refuge (Ps 62:7) ... my strong habitation, whereunto I continually resort ... for thou art my Rock and my fortress (Ps 71:3)."
God is the Rock of My Heart
Unlike the Open Theist who goes to great lengths to make God out to be like frail and ignorant men, the Psalmist sees the difference: "My flesh and my heart fails, but God is the Rock of my heart, ... (Ps 73:26).
The Father is the Rock of Salvation
The Open Theist says, "He is my Father. I love Him and He loves me," but on what basis? Upon careful investigation, it is seen that humanism and existentialist reasoning are the basis of such claims. Not so for the Psalmist, who says: "Thou art my father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation." (Ps 89:26).
The Righteous Rock
The Open Theist says that God is righteous, not because of what He declares Himself to be in His essence, but because they've looked at His track record and judged His behavior according to their humanistic assessment: "So far so good," is what is implied. This again is existentialism at work, which, instead of taking God at His word, sits in judgment of Him and decides whether or not He is really righteous. Whereas the scripture says the "Lord is upright: he is my Rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. (Ps 92:15)" Which is to say that God cannot be unrighteous; it is impossible. He cannot choose to do evil because he is the Rock and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Singing Unto The Rock of Salvation
When the Open Theist worships and sings to God, what does He sing about? That God seems to be righteous and loving so far? The Psalmist sung about God being an immovable, high and protective Rock. "God is the Rock of my refuge (Ps 94:22) ... let us sing unto the Lord: let us make a joyful noise to the Rock of our salvation" (Ps 95:1). Isaiah describes the song of Israel as "in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a pipe to come into the mountain of the Lord, to the might Rock of Israel" (Isa 30:29).
The God of Salvation = The Rock of Thy Strength
Salvation for the Open Theist is based on a personal choice to believe in Jesus. Whereas scripture teaches that salvation is based on the rock-solid decrees of God. The prophet Isaiah reprimands Israel for forgetting "the God of thy salvation" and for not being mindful of "the rock off thy strength." (Isa 17:0).
The Trustworthy Rock of Ages
When I ask Open Theists why they trust God, I get the "so far so good" answer. But the prophet Isaiah says that God is to be trusted "forever ... for the Lord Jehovah is the Rock of Ages." (Isa 26:4).
So, yes, to me God is Rock.
Who here is claiming that God is the cause of any evil?
God is the author, but not the doer, of sin. God planned but is not the immediate cause of evil. God has decreed good purposes for temptations, but He does not tempt anyone. As I wrote in the post that you cited, the fact that God planned sin and evil for good purposes is not a criticism. It's a feature. God is the author of sin. Nothing happens apart from God's plans. He planned for sin to happen. He plans evil for His good purposes and reasons. The scriptures affirm that this fact is a source of comfort and assurance. The OT (Opposable Thumb) God can offer neither. According to the Unsettled Deist, most things happen for no good reason or purpose. Why do you trust this God you've conceived?Poly said:
Hilston asked: Seriously, what has God contributed lately to your "relationship"?
Really? How? Please describe the process and the means by which you know it was God who was actually filling you with wisdom.patman said:
Be your own man, patman. There's only one me, and it's me. If you try to be like me, everyone will know that you're faking, and you'll be all embarrassed and stuff.patman said:
You're absolutely right. And not just to me, patman. Plenty of others viewed God as a Rock:patman said:
The Rock Of Supreme Authority
The Open Theist sits in judgment of God to decides whether or not God is worthy to wield any authority in their lives. This why Open Theists keep saying that the God of the Settled View could be held culpable (by whom? Who knows). Whereas scripture declares God's supreme authority because Christ is "the Rock that is higher than I," which means that David, even though he is the king, answered to a higher authority (Ps 61:2).
The Immovable Rock
The Open Theist irrational clings to a conception of a God who changes His mind, uses trial and error, is prone to mood swings and does not know the future. Whereas the scripture declares that "He is my rock and my salvation," because by clinging to the immovable Rock, the Psalmist says, "I shall not be moved" (Ps 62:2,6).
My Rock and My Fortress
The Open Theist sees evil in the world and has no recourse but to think that God somehow has His hands tied out of fear of being capricious or arbitrary if He were to intervene and to stop some evil from occurring. They have no refuge and are vulnerable to evil because things happen that are outside of God's control and plan. Whereas the scripture teaches that the Psalmist's protection and deliverance were secured because God was his salvation and glory; "the rock of my strength and my refuge (Ps 62:7) ... my strong habitation, whereunto I continually resort ... for thou art my Rock and my fortress (Ps 71:3)."
God is the Rock of My Heart
Unlike the Open Theist who goes to great lengths to make God out to be like frail and ignorant men, the Psalmist sees the difference: "My flesh and my heart fails, but God is the Rock of my heart, ... (Ps 73:26).
The Father is the Rock of Salvation
The Open Theist says, "He is my Father. I love Him and He loves me," but on what basis? Upon careful investigation, it is seen that humanism and existentialist reasoning are the basis of such claims. Not so for the Psalmist, who says: "Thou art my father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation." (Ps 89:26).
The Righteous Rock
The Open Theist says that God is righteous, not because of what He declares Himself to be in His essence, but because they've looked at His track record and judged His behavior according to their humanistic assessment: "So far so good," is what is implied. This again is existentialism at work, which, instead of taking God at His word, sits in judgment of Him and decides whether or not He is really righteous. Whereas the scripture says the "Lord is upright: he is my Rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. (Ps 92:15)" Which is to say that God cannot be unrighteous; it is impossible. He cannot choose to do evil because he is the Rock and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Singing Unto The Rock of Salvation
When the Open Theist worships and sings to God, what does He sing about? That God seems to be righteous and loving so far? The Psalmist sung about God being an immovable, high and protective Rock. "God is the Rock of my refuge (Ps 94:22) ... let us sing unto the Lord: let us make a joyful noise to the Rock of our salvation" (Ps 95:1). Isaiah describes the song of Israel as "in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a pipe to come into the mountain of the Lord, to the might Rock of Israel" (Isa 30:29).
The God of Salvation = The Rock of Thy Strength
Salvation for the Open Theist is based on a personal choice to believe in Jesus. Whereas scripture teaches that salvation is based on the rock-solid decrees of God. The prophet Isaiah reprimands Israel for forgetting "the God of thy salvation" and for not being mindful of "the rock off thy strength." (Isa 17:0).
The Trustworthy Rock of Ages
When I ask Open Theists why they trust God, I get the "so far so good" answer. But the prophet Isaiah says that God is to be trusted "forever ... for the Lord Jehovah is the Rock of Ages." (Isa 26:4).
So, yes, to me God is Rock.
You need to think a little bit about the argument, patman. On my view, God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable and impassible. So God is fully capable of being in all places at once, controlling all things in His creation simultaneously, and multitasking beyond the comprehension of man. He is also in full control of His own mind and emotions and is not a victim of the warp and woof of human feelings and behavior. My criticism is of the Open View, remember? The Open View sees God as a big super human who has genuine relationships and genuine love and genuine personality and genuine everything, as if the humanistic reasoning of the Open Theist has any rational grounds upon which to define such things. On Open View premises, God is more personal than He is omniscient. His so-called "qualitative attributes" supposedly trump His so-called "quantitative attributes." So on Open View premises, how can you have a genuinely personal and loving relationship with your distracted Sybil-God whose is experiencing billions of emotions simultaneously?patman said:
On your view? No, not if His relationship with you is going to be "genuine" on Open View terms. Your relationship is with the Supreme Sybil. On my view, God is not a "reactor"; He is impassible. When God expresses and manifests His emotion, it is all according to His plan and for His decreed purposes.patman said:
God_Is_Truth
New member
Hilston said:
If God were finite, it'd be a problem. But as I see it, God through His infinitude can give all of himself to everybody individually at the same time. He doesn't give part of his attention to one person and part to another, but all to one and all to another. He does the same thing with his love. He loves me with all the love he has and he loves you with all the love he has.
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Open View Theology, Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I have believed for about 45 years.
This view is about the God of the Bible, and according to the Bible, His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc.
This theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our magnificent 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 Christ died for him.
Open Theists also believe 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 for man, but because man sinned, He changed His mind and says He will not do it.
It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view, like Hilston seems to believe, 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 significantly changed in the last 20 years.
It sure is great having others who believe strongly in the Open View of God.
In Christ my Savior,
Bob Hill
This view is about the God of the Bible, and according to the Bible, His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc.
This theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our magnificent 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 Christ died for him.
Open Theists also believe 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 for man, but because man sinned, He changed His mind and says He will not do it.
It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view, like Hilston seems to believe, 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 significantly changed in the last 20 years.
It sure is great having others who believe strongly in the Open View of God.
In Christ my Savior,
Bob Hill
patman
Active member
Hilston, It is not hard to have different feelings towards different people and still be the same person.Hilston said:
Example, I can be annoyed by you and pleased by my wife. At the same time. With my one personality even. Why can't God do unto each of us our due justice? If God can be angry at Israel but still pleased with his Son, why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Is he eternally mad at Israel because of his extreme impassability?
God is a rock in someways. he is father too. This isn't a concept that I make up, the Bible is full of examples. He even tells Israel he will not be angry with them forever, how can you not take that as change?
I would like to go into a little more detail with you, but I feel it would be a waste of time because you do not address any of my questions from the Bible. If I were to quote you scripture you'd just call me "stupid" and not tell me why you disagreed.
It seems all I can give to you is milk,, when you should be ready for the meat.
- Status