ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[patman]

Patman,

I've been watching your discussion with Hilston. And at your request, I went all the way back to post #3341, 20 pages back, to look at Hilston's original response to you and to look again at your interactions.

Here's the original:

Originally Posted by patman

With respect to Hilston, his criticism to the O.V. is easily returned with criticism to the S.V. by saying it makes God out to be the Author of sin..... and he isn't.

Originally Post by Hilston

It's 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?​

I'd say that's a rather engaging reply. Lots of hooks in there. And nothing about "MUSH head" either. The discourse remained rather engaging for some time.

Then you started to moan and groan like a little girl. "I want to hit something." And you begin to fall back on responding to his posts and then complaining and complaining some more (like a little girl, still).

You keep complaining about "attitude." You don't engage the facts presented. When Hilston starts calling you maligning God, calling Him a false prophet, was when you seemed to have your ultimate meltdown.

Since then, you've just whined. Time to time, I've watched you throw your straw at him. I've see him answer your questions. And I've seen you moaning and groaning and acting like a little girl. Get a spine, man!

Darn, at least Knight has a sense of humor and will clown around. You just start pouting. Just look at your avatar! You're like a little drama queen!

Thanks for reading the 2 posts there. And for confusing the posts to someone else as one for Hilston...

There's lots of humor in there, but ahhhhhh. I don't want to get into this. You and Hilston both just jump the gun.

I simply ask for conversation without the automatic bashing. If you criticize me for this, I will gladly take the cross and bare it. If you ridicule me for preaching what is right and how we should act towards each other, it is to my advantage and to his Glory.

 

[patman]

Then you started to moan and groan like a little girl. "I want to hit something." And you begin to fall back on responding to his posts and then complaining and complaining some more (like a little girl, still).

It is getting to be a "casting pearls before swine" thing with Hilston, when he proves to me he can converse as men, I will answer him seriously.

It's typical. Pathetic. And sadly, it's exactly what I've come to expect from the self-delusional worshippers of the Opposable-Thumb Sand God.

When I rip on you people and your theology, it's a service I'm happy to render.

You Open Theists have your collective noggins so far up your own proverbial backsides that you can't connect dots to save your life.

I just don't feel like speaking seriously to him. You should re-read to see the humor in my replies. I tried to make it obvious.

BTW, you ever going to respond to those other two posts I sent you?

-Sigh-

If you don't i guess that means I win... sorry. :nono:

 

[sentientsynth]

Thanks for reading the 2 posts there. And for confusing the posts to someone else as one for Hilston...

That was Hilston's first post to you, brainiac.

If you criticize me for this, I will gladly take the cross and bare it.

See what I mean? Drama queen.

You should re-read to see the humor in my replies. I tried to make it obvious.[/quiote]
It was lost on me, dude. All I heard was little girl moaning and groaning. Just like all Im hearing now.

BTW, you ever going to respond to those other two posts I sent you?

No.

-Sigh-

If you don't i guess that means I win... sorry. :nono:

Yeah. That's right. You need the moral support.

That's right, buddy. You win. You got me. You're so smart. Forgive me if I don't respond to you any further. I find you overwhelmingly intimidating and my nerves simply can't handle this sort of deeply emotional strain.

 

[patman]

That's right, buddy. You win. You got me. You're so smart. Forgive me if I don't respond to you any further. I find you overwhelmingly intimidating and my nerves simply can't handle this sort of deeply emotional strain.

Yay me!

:first:

Wish I wasn't such a queen tho..

 

[RobE]

Godrulz,

You asked: Why does God decree a man to molest and murder an infant?

My question: Why does a loving and relational god stand by and allow the molestation and murder of an infant?

Please apply your answer(to my question) to your own question,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Uh, for sake of staying true to your own theology neither you nor Hilston did anything, you were both simply acting out God's ordination from before the foundation of the world.

The correct way to present this would be: 'You and Hilston acted out God's ordination through your own free actions'. Only open theist's claim knowledge and action are synonymous(and only when they present arguments against foreknowledge).

Notice once again how the settled viewer cannot seem to come to grips with his own theology. In practice and in his actions SS promotes the notion that he and Hilston have freewill and that Hilston was able to convince him that the settled was true. :doh:

This is quite wrong. Settled viewers cannot seem to come to grips with the imperfect god portrayed by the open view. A god who simply is trying his best, by all accounts, to overcome the powerful creatures that he has set loose upon the cosmos. Creatures who are able to defy his will in any circumstance and turn his word upon itself. His decisions are unsure because of his diminished position as servant to those which would call upon him. The o.v. presents god as a kindly old grandmother waiting for someone to call upon her for help. Willing out of love to interrupt her own life and plans for the greater good of those which she created. Unsure of the outcome and serving those she loves in hope to make things right in the out of control world which she lives in.

Knowledge and action are different,
Rob

 

[Hilston]

Uh, for sake of staying true to your own theology neither you nor Hilston did anything, you were both simply acting out God's ordination from before the foundation of the world.

According to Knight, if one's actions are planned, then one doesn't really "do" anything. By that logic, since the incarnation of Christ was ordained, He didn't really do anything. By that logic, the Open Theist relegates what they've deemed the "infinite change" of God Himself to merely "going through the motions." See the following link to see how deep that rabbit hole goes. Rabbit Hole.

Notice how Knight can't seem to get it through his head that the Settled Theist understands that everything, whether it is the presence of evil, one's own choices and actions, the construction of sentences and the number of squares left on the toilet paper roll, everything is ordained by God for good purposes. For some reason ~ I suspect it is his venomous theology ~ Knight can't seem to grasp this. Watch:

Notice once again how the settled viewer cannot seem to come to grips with his own theology. In practice and in his actions SS promotes the notion that he and Hilston have freewill and that Hilston was able to convince him that the settled was true. :doh:

See what I mean? He says this like it should be a bolt of lightning that sizzles the Settled View into oblivion. But, so far, this is the single most humorous thickheaded Open View complaint I've heard, and every time I hear it, I bust a gut. Knight's sentence could be re-written this way: "In God-ordained practice and in his God-ordained actions SS promotes, according to God's decree, the God-ordained notion that he and Hilston have God-ordained freewill and that Hilston was able, by God's ordained plan, to convince him that the settled was true, all according to God's decree."

I could just as well write every sentence with those explainers at every turn. But even then, I don't think Knight would get it. He'd still be scratching his head and posting his little "doh" icons.

Let's try it anyway: "I could just as well, according to God's decree, write every God-ordained sentence with those God-ordained explainers at every turn. But even then, I don't think Knight would get it, according to God's decree. He'd still be scratching his God-ordained head and posting his little God-ordained 'doh' icons, according to God's decree."

There is no illogic in that sentence. It is entirely consistent with the teaching of scripture. Yet Knight. Just. Can't. Seem. To get his head around it.

 

[RobE]

Here's the proof for my previous post:

Congrats Hilston (no pun intended) on having the highest neg reps count. I still think you do not deserve it.

I am surprised that you do not accept Sander's "The God who risks" and Boyd's responses to God and evil/suffering. I take no comfort in a God who decrees that infants get raped (no wonder people reject this caricature of Christianity and become atheists). I do take comfort in a God that risks giving creatures freedom to not be robots in order to enter reciprocal love relationships. Despite evil that breaks God's heart and is contrary to His will, He redeems a people and will ultimately vindicate His name. His love and goodness is not in dispute in the Open View, but it sure is in your view (making God and evil under the same umbrella). :doh:


The Open View does affirm that God works things for the good (developing the character of Christ in us= Romans context...not making heinous evil equivalent of God's good will and plan...there is nothing good or righteous about sexual deviance). He is creative, responsive, providential. In your view, you blur the distinction between good and evil and make God a meticulous control freak locked into a fatalistic blueprint.

I cringe at funerals where the guy at the front says that God took him home (guy shoots himself in the head or is killed by gangs?!) or must have wanted him up there, etc. or if a child gets run over by a bus or struck by lightning..must have been God's will? Really? If you could accept that God's will can be resisted and rejected...by His decree, of course, then you would move to a more biblical theology. Hyper-sovereignty is coming at the expense of love/holiness, a more fundamental quality of God. His rule is providential, not omnicausal. He macromanages vs micromanages because He is so great. A lesser god would have to use your method of running the universe (like a cosmic, insecure Dictator).

Rob

 

[Hilston]

I am surprised that you do not accept Sander's "The God who risks" and Boyd's responses to God and evil/suffering.

Their responses are anti-scriptural humanism and existentialism*.

I take no comfort in a God who decrees that infants get raped ...

God has good purposes for the evil He ordains. We should take comfort in that. The Open Theist who experiences such horror must work very hard to convince themselves that God loves them*, despite sitting idly by like some sick Cosmic Voyeur, unwilling to lift a finger to help. Can't the Open Deist God see the tragedy coming? Even a human being, given the purview God has, could connect the dots and realize that an evil person is about to commit an evil act against someone God supposedly loves and died for. Couldn't God stop the evil man's heart. Couldn't God cause the evil man to get a flat tire on his way to committing his crime? But no, instead, God's power sustains the very cells that make up that man's heart, even while he is committing that crime. How do you live with this conception of God?

On the Settled View, it all makes sense, because God has good reasons why He ordained whatever evil comes to pass. We can take comfort in that. We can be secure in knowing that it is all for ultimate good.

... (no wonder people reject this caricature of Christianity and become atheists).

There is no such thing as an atheist, GR. Only anti-theists, and they oppose all conceptions of God, even the Unsettled one*.

His love and goodness is not in dispute in the Open View, but it sure is in your view (making God and evil under the same umbrella).

God is the umbrella, GR. God is infinite. Nothing is outside or above Him. Good and evil are under the same Umbrella because logically in cannot be otherwise.

The Open View does affirm that God works things for the good (developing the character of Christ in us= Romans context ...

Is that the Open View talking point on Romans 8? Context shows that the jointly-working of God for the good of the Called is based in what has been ordained: God's foreknowledge, predestination, justification and glorification of each individual saint.

...not making heinous evil equivalent of God's good will and plan...there is nothing good or righteous about sexual deviance).

Please read the link below concerning the decretive and prescriptive wills of God. It will clear up this confusion you have.

... He is creative, responsive, providential. In your view, you blur the distinction between good and evil and make God a meticulous control freak locked into a fatalistic blueprint.

More humanism. If man could not be in meticulous control without being psychotic about it, then neither can God. So says Open Theism*.

I cringe at funerals where the guy at the front says that God took him home ...

That would be false if the guy was not elect.

... if a child gets run over by a bus or struck by lightning..must have been God's will? Really?

God ordained it, yes. If not, then you don't have a God at all, but a demi-god, more akin to pagan mythology*.

... If you could accept that God's will can be resisted and rejected...by His decree, of course, then you would move to a more biblical theology.

Again, read my short treatment of God's two wills at the link below. Of course God's prescriptive will can be resisted and rejected ~ probably 99% of the time. But His decretive will is inexorable.

... Hyper-sovereignty is coming at the expense of love/holiness, a more fundamental quality of God.

Only in the small cloistered thinking of the Unsettled Deist*.

... His rule is providential, not omnicausal. He macromanages vs micromanages because He is so great.

That's like saying "God isn't great because He is so great."

... A lesser god would have to use your method of running the universe (like a cosmic, insecure Dictator).

More humanism. Such power and control would surely corrupt God, just like it did Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini. On the Settled View, God doesn't choose to run the universe. If it is to exist at all, God must run the universe. Scripture and logic demand this, but Unsettled Theists resist both to their intellectual and theological demise*.

*All according to God's decrees, of course.

 

[sentientsynth]

Bob Hill,

I really was looking forward to your reply to this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill

Where does it say or show in the Bible that

"God planned but is not the immediate cause of evil."


Originally posted by Hilston

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:1-10)

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: ... for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. (Mt 26:24,31)

t is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought ... and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. Mr 9:12,13

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (Luke 18:31)

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (Lu 22:37)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ... And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Lu 24:44,46)

And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. (Ac 13:29)

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Ac 2:23)

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Ac 4:27,28)

Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ NOT authored by God. Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ optional. Only in the mind of the Open Theist does "as it is written" actually mean "as it just so happened by chance." This is the irrationality and mental Chinese acrobatics that is Open Theism.​

I hope you can find the time to address this sometime soon.



Sentientsynth

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz,

You asked: Why does God decree a man to molest and murder an infant?

My question: Why does a loving and relational god stand by and allow the molestation and murder of an infant?

Please apply your answer(to my question) to your own question,
Rob

Perhaps we need to define what we mean by decree. In both views, God allows murder. In both views, I hope, God will judge it in the end. In my view, God allows it without desiring, causing, intending it. The alternative would be to create a deterministic, robotic universe void of love, freedom, and relationships. In the decretal view, God intends, desires, maybe even causes evil for a higher purpose. His decree is active intention rather than passive allowing. He should not judge something He decrees that cannot be helped.

A hyper-sovereignty, decretal view is out of step with His self-revelation of His character and ways.

Hilt: God does 'run' and 'control' the universe. He could run it like an omnicausal Dictator, a cosmic control freak; or He can run it responsively, providentially, creatively, competently. A good teacher can maintain control of a class without controlling every student like a puppet. God is a cosmic chessmaster, not a Dictator. He values relationships more than deterministic robots. The evidence in Scripture points away from your settled view. He sovereignly chose a universe with significant others with a say-so. Why do you feel this is a threat to God's control in light of His great character and attributes?

 

[themuzicman]

Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ NOT authored by God. Only in the mind of the Open Theist was the execution of Christ optional. Only in the mind of the Open Theist does "as it is written" actually mean "as it just so happened by chance." This is the irrationality and mental Chinese acrobatics that is Open Theism.[/indent]
Sentientsynth

I think part of the problem is that you insist on using symbolic terms like "authored" rather than saying what you really mean. God obviously did not write an execution. That's simply not literally possible.

What the Open View Theist says is that when God prophesies, such as in the death of Christ, He is able to limit all possible courses of the future to include His death. Thus, it isn't "optional" in the sense that it may or may not have happened, but that knowledge of the exact path to the cross isn't necessary.

Michael

 

[Hilston]

God obviously did not write an execution.

Not just "an" execution, but "the" most important execution in the history of the universe. And, yeah, He wrote it.:

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa 53:7-12)

And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. (Ac 13:29)

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Ac 2:23)

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Ac 4:27,28)​

Whose idea was it in the first place?

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15)​

All according to God's decree, of course.

 

[themuzicman]

Of course, Hilson is unable to answer the request, instead choosing to avoid it altogether.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Perhaps we need to define what we mean by decree. In both views, God allows murder. In both views, I hope, God will judge it in the end.

Yep.

In my view, God allows it without desiring,.....

If He doesn't desire it then why does He allow it?

......causing,.....

Did He not create creation itself?

.....intending it.

Am I righteous to discipline my child through pain?

The alternative would be to create a deterministic, robotic universe void of love, freedom, and relationships.

How so?

In the decretal view, God intends, desires, maybe even causes evil for a higher purpose.

His purpose is certainly greater than suffering!

Let's examine open theism's position:

God allows the molestation and murder of infants in order for love to exist through free will. God foreknowing the molestation and murder of infants would be 'evil' if He allowed it; whereas, God watching or standing by without foreknowledge while an infant is molested and murdered would be 'ok' because God's purpose is greater than suffering.​

Don't you see that the act of creation itself; whether foreknowledge exists or not, would make God culpable for the evil according to your definition of 'responsibility'. I would ask you to consider that God, as author of creation, decided to allow evil whether it was planned or not because God's purpose is greater than suffering. So if God foresaw evil and allowed it or God didn't foresee evil and allows it then the result is the same. God is the author of creation - a creation where evil exists because God wills it(open theism) or God willed it(closed theism) so that He might achieve a purpose greater than suffering.

The constant argument that if God has foreknowledge that He is responsible for evil is ridiculous and needs to end once and for all. Authoring creation and all that is in it, including evil; is far different than committing evil personally. Just as, knowing of evil in the present and allowing it; is far different than committing evil personally. His purpose will be achieved no matter what evils men or angels do.

His decree is active intention rather than passive allowing. He should not judge something He decrees that cannot be helped.

First of all, I'm in no position to say what God 'should' or 'should not' do since this is His creation and not mine. Secondly, He decreed that everything would happen the way it is happening because of His desire to achieve a purpose which is greater than the process. Finally, the logic that there is not an ability to do otherwise is flawed based upon the fact that He decreed man to have free will.


Decreed to be created,
Rob

 

[patman]

The Open View offers a solution to the problem of sin and God's involvement with it.

There are many kinds of beliefs in the Settled View, some think God authored everything, some think there is freewill but God still knows the future. I used to be the second S.V.. After some very tragic events in my life, I could no longer ignore the questions atheist often asked me:

How can a loving God create a world like this, knowing what would happen.

And I began to ponder on the future, if God knew everything that would happen as a result of his initial creation, how could he do it? I almost lost my faith.

I couldn't get past this question : "How can a God who could create anything decide to create a world like this(especially when he had the power to cause it to go in a different way)?" In that particular time in my life, bad things were happening, but that was only a taste of what life can really do. Wars and victims of abuse and uncounted lost innocence and suffering... God voluntarily created this?

Then I took in the bigger picture. One day, all of this will be gone. Nothing I learned or went through on earth would matter because God was going to end it all anyway because of how "bad it was." What was the point of any of this? Why not just make it right the first time and make everyone be loved.

It was one thing to go through hardship. It was another to know God created it all like this, and my help was really my persecutor.

Then I heard a radio show by Bob Hill. He briefly said that God didn't have to know the future. He didn't say anymore than that, but the idea immediately fixed all my questions.

The idea, "God didn't know what his creation would become," fixes it all. But only if it were Biblical. In study, I have found:

1. God does not say he knows all of the future.
2. God is sorry for how things turned out, so he didn't plan it.
3. God is love. Love really wouldn't do(or plan) evil.
4. Sometimes the outcome of his prophecies were not as He said it(mostly because of his mercy and love).
5. God changes his mind.
6. We have freewill and it can truly be unpredictable at times.

It is my belief that at Creation, God did not know Adam would sin. Adam was free because of love and the sin that happened was not in God's plan for him.

 

[godrulz]

Creation was 'very good' and created perfect. God did not desire or intend for things to turn into a mess. When it did, He was grieved and implemented a plan of redemption.

He knew of the possibility of evil, but it was not a necessity or certainty in the beginning.

 

[Hilston]

Of course, Hilson is unable to answer the request, instead choosing to avoid it altogether.

Muz

Muz, are you on psychotropic medication? Or are you an Open Theist? The reason I ask is (a) there is no request in your post, and (b) I addressed your post directly. So either your medication is affecting your mind, or you're an Open Theist*.

The Open View offers a solution to the problem of sin and God's involvement with it.

The solution offered is completely humanistic and makes God less than God; finite; errant; fickle; ignorant; and a bad accountant.

After some very tragic events in my life, I could no longer ignore the questions atheist often asked me:

How can a loving God create a world like this, knowing what would happen.

You couldn't answer that question without making God less than God? That truly is tragic*.

And I began to ponder on the future, if God knew everything that would happen as a result of his initial creation, how could he do it? I almost lost my faith.

If that's enough to make you "lose your faith," you never had it to begin with. Faith in the true sovereign, meticulously and exhaustively omniscient and omnipotent God is a secure faith, unwavering, and fully assured. That's because we believe God is a Rock. The Open Theist has no grounds to trust God. And if you claim you moved from the Settled View to the Unsettled View, from God is a Rock to God is Sand, then you never really grasped the Settled View to begin with. And, not surprisingly, your posts here demonstrate that abundantly*.

I couldn't get past this question : "How can a God who could create anything decide to create a world like this(especially when he had the power to cause it to go in a different way)?"

The answer the Open Deist must give is: He couldn't. This is the best God could do. What a lame God. On the Settled View, everything is going exactly according to plan. We can be confident, knowing that God has good and sufficient reasons for everything He has ordained.

... In that particular time in my life, bad things were happening, but that was only a taste of what life can really do. Wars and victims of abuse and uncounted lost innocence and suffering... God voluntarily created this?

Absolutely, and everything for the sake of His elect, whom He loves exclusively. That's a God who can be trusted. That's a God who will not fail to bring to full fruition every prophecy, every promise, every blessed Hope that has been blood-secured by the deliberate sacrifice of His Son.

Then I took in the bigger picture. One day, all of this will be gone. Nothing I learned or went through on earth would matter because God was going to end it all anyway because of how "bad it was." What was the point of any of this?

If you had truly believed the Settled View, you would not have been at a loss to answer that question. Humanism infected your mind at some point; you asked Lucifer's question and gave in to the temptation, just like Adam*. "Hath God said?"

... Why not just make it right the first time and make everyone be loved.

That's just like asking "Why not just give man autonomous knowledge of good and evil in the first place?" It's a Luciferian question.

... It was one thing to go through hardship. It was another to know God created it all like this, and my help was really my persecutor.

You might have given lipservice to the Settled View, but it's clear to me that you never really understood it*.

Then I heard a radio show by Bob Hill. He briefly said that God didn't have to know the future. He didn't say anymore than that, but the idea immediately fixed all my questions.

In reality, the idea immediately appealed to your humanism, the lowest common denominator among sinful, Godless humanity*.

The idea, "God didn't know what his creation would become," fixes it all. But only if it were Biblical.

There you have the bottom line of Open Deism: Make God less than God, and man more than man, and wish: "If only it were Biblical." So what does patman do? He takes the idea, already preconceived, and runs to the Bible. He searches for anything that will support his newly preconceived notion of a Sand God. And what does he find? With sufficient twisting and irrationally ignoring the contextual force and logical demands of Scripture, patman finds that the Scripture can be twisted to support his preconceived notion. Just watch:

... In study, I have found:

1. God does not say he knows all of the future.

See what I mean? So, based on an argument from silence, patman chucks logic and the infinitude of God out the proverbial window*. God also does not say He knows when a chicken falls down dead, so maybe He doesn't know that either. Wonder why He pays more attention to sparrows than He does chickens?

... 2. God is sorry for how things turned out, so he didn't plan it.

Completely destroying one of the most obvious figures of speech in scripture in order to prove his preconceived notions about God, and making God a buffoon in the process*.

... 3. God is love. Love really wouldn't do(or plan) evil.

Hey patman, my son is a very loving individual. He's 8 years old and he's a very affectionate, sweet little boy. In his playtime, he makes up stories about bad guys and vanquishes them with the good guy. When my 8-year-old plans the evil deeds of the bad guys in his playtime, does that make him unloving?

... 4. Sometimes the outcome of his prophecies were not as He said it(mostly because of his mercy and love).

And instead of considering that he might misunderstand those allegedly failed prophecies, patman and all the Open Deists seize upon those passages, delighted to finally have the prooftexts for their preconceived notions about a God who is less than God. Thus they ascribe to Him a humanistic propensity to shoot off at the mouth and to speak too hastily, too dogmatically, when, given His ignorance of the future, He should be more provisional with His prophecies.

... 5. God changes his mind.

More deliberate distortion of obvious figures to support of his preconceived notion of an Unsettled Deity.

... 6. We have freewill and it can truly be unpredictable at times.

And thus, the Open Deist rips the texts from their contexts to form a pretext upon which to base an entire religion.

It is my belief that at Creation, God did not know Adam would sin.

Then why did God put the message of the gospel (i.e. the redemption of man) in the constellations on the fourth day of creation, two days before He even created man? Another hasty prophecy? Another rash pronouncement?

... Adam was free because of love and the sin that happened was not in God's plan for him.

Sure it was. God planned ffor Adam to sin for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect. Just as He planned for Joseph's brothers to sin for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect. Just as He planned for the torture, humiliation and execution of Christ for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect.

*All according to God's decrees, of course.

 

[patman]

God is a powerful god. Nothing can subdue him. Nothing is worth comparing to his holiness. He is a master thinker, is able to know everything in existence, and so much more.

With but a word, he created all things. And those he loved he gave freedom to love him back.

He is in no way any more human than a horse is a horsefly.

If we were to discover he didn't have future knowledge, what is it to us or him? Will he really be more of a man because he didn't foresee you eating your dinner, or even accomplishing a great task?

Many reject this for one reason. They love themselves higher than God. They would rather believe God ordained and loved them more than other sinners; enough to save them and damn others. It is comforting to them to think that their destiny is secured because God planned everything. Thus they would rather keep that belief and risk the implications it brings on God.

 

[Delmar]

Muz, are you on psychotropic medication? Or are you an Open Theist? The reason I ask is (a) there is no request in your post, and (b) I addressed your post directly. So either your medication is affecting your mind, or you're an Open Theist*.

The solution offered is completely humanistic and makes God less than God; finite; errant; fickle; ignorant; and a bad accountant.

You couldn't answer that question without making God less than God? That truly is tragic*.

If that's enough to make you "lose your faith," you never had it to begin with. Faith in the true sovereign, meticulously and exhaustively omniscient and omnipotent God is a secure faith, unwavering, and fully assured. That's because we believe God is a Rock. The Open Theist has no grounds to trust God. And if you claim you moved from the Settled View to the Unsettled View, from God is a Rock to God is Sand, then you never really grasped the Settled View to begin with. And, not surprisingly, your posts here demonstrate that abundantly*.

The answer the Open Deist must give is: He couldn't. This is the best God could do. What a lame God. On the Settled View, everything is going exactly according to plan. We can be confident, knowing that God has good and sufficient reasons for everything He has ordained.

Absolutely, and everything for the sake of His elect, whom He loves exclusively. That's a God who can be trusted. That's a God who will not fail to bring to full fruition every prophecy, every promise, every blessed Hope that has been blood-secured by the deliberate sacrifice of His Son.

If you had truly believed the Settled View, you would not have been at a loss to answer that question. Humanism infected your mind at some point; you asked Lucifer's question and gave in to the temptation, just like Adam*. "Hath God said?"

That's just like asking "Why not just give man autonomous knowledge of good and evil in the first place?" It's a Luciferian question.

You might have given lipservice to the Settled View, but it's clear to me that you never really understood it*.

In reality, the idea immediately appealed to your humanism, the lowest common denominator among sinful, Godless humanity*.

There you have the bottom line of Open Deism: Make God less than God, and man more than man, and wish: "If only it were Biblical." So what does patman do? He takes the idea, already preconceived, and runs to the Bible. He searches for anything that will support his newly preconceived notion of a Sand God. And what does he find? With sufficient twisting and irrationally ignoring the contextual force and logical demands of Scripture, patman finds that the Scripture can be twisted to support his preconceived notion. Just watch:

See what I mean? So, based on an argument from silence, patman chucks logic and the infinitude of God out the proverbial window*. God also does not say He knows when a chicken falls down dead, so maybe He doesn't know that either. Wonder why He pays more attention to sparrows than He does chickens?

Completely destroying one of the most obvious figures of speech in scripture in order to prove his preconceived notions about God, and making God a buffoon in the process*.

Hey patman, my son is a very loving individual. He's 8 years old and he's a very affectionate, sweet little boy. In his playtime, he makes up stories about bad guys and vanquishes them with the good guy. When my 8-year-old plans the evil deeds of the bad guys in his playtime, does that make him unloving?

And instead of considering that he might misunderstand those allegedly failed prophecies, patman and all the Open Deists seize upon those passages, delighted to finally have the prooftexts for their preconceived notions about a God who is less than God. Thus they ascribe to Him a humanistic propensity to shoot off at the mouth and to speak too hastily, too dogmatically, when, given His ignorance of the future, He should be more provisional with His prophecies.

More deliberate distortion of obvious figures to support of his preconceived notion of an Unsettled Deity.

And thus, the Open Deist rips the texts from their contexts to form a pretext upon which to base an entire religion.

Then why did God put the message of the gospel (i.e. the redemption of man) in the constellations on the fourth day of creation, two days before He even created man? Another hasty prophecy? Another rash pronouncement?

Sure it was. God planned ffor Adam to sin for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect. Just as He planned for Joseph's brothers to sin for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect. Just as He planned for the torture, humiliation and execution of Christ for His good purposes and for the sake of the elect.

*All according to God's decrees, of course.

Ha