ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Well, sir Clete, you left out

• Righteous
• Just
• Merciful
• Truthful

It wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list of God's attributes but "loving" would cover all of these you've listed and more.

And also "strong" does not seem to be stated to be somehow dependent on these, nor does it seem to be a secondary attribute somehow.

The Bible explicitly states that God authority is founded upon His righteousness.

You see, to be loving without being strong would mean God cannot always help us (this the Open View it seems would affirm in the warfare worldview), to be strong without being loving would mean God may be unwilling to help when he could, to be both loving and strong without being holy would mean that God would resort to means that he should not, and if God is loving and strong and holy and not merciful, why then, there is no hope for us.

All these attributes are therefore essential.

I never suggested otherwise Lee. I didn't say that God wasn't powerful. All power ultimately belongs to God. The point is that the Bible places greater emphasis on God's righteousness than it does His ability to do whatever He wants. The Calvinist ignores this Biblical fact and by doing so end up having to create nifty theological terms such as "antinomy" to cover their collective theological backsides.

Psalm 62:11-12 One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done.

Amen!

That last sentence though makes no sense in a Calvinistic worldview. If Jim's theology is right it should read, "Surely you will arbitrarily reward or punish people for reasons totally unrelated to anything they have or have not done."

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ApologeticJedi]

OV people believe differently because they want to tear God down (i.e. denigrate His essence) and to raise themselves up (i.e. elevate themselves to demigods).

"elevate themselves to demigods"? Of course that's not remotely true or even substantiated.

You complain that you have no "clout" around here, well this lack of objectivity is precisely why no one around here takes you seriously.

 

[godrulz]

"elevate themselves to demigods"? Of course that's not remotely true or even substantiated.

You complain that you have no "clout" around here, well this lack of objectivity is precisely why no one around here takes you seriously.

That accusation may apply to Mormons, but it certainly does not apply to Open Theists who affirm God's transcendent attributes and standard anthropology/harmartiology (nature of man; study of sin).

 

[patman]

Yes. God knew how to make creation where person x would be saved while person y was lost; and he knew how to make creation where person x would be lost while person y was saved. All caused by free will of course. What He logically couldn't create was a world where free will wouldn't cause some to be doomed. As a just God I believe that God created the first world which His perfect intellect devised so that those He saw as being saved- would be; despite the reprobate. For if He changed His mind in that moment those which 'would be' His 'would be' no more. As for those imperfect vessels who reject Him, they won't even be remembered even though at one time He loved them sufficiently to create them. They rejected God who made them and destroyed themselves

Very Interesting. Do you have scripture to back this?

And let me get this right. He CAN see the future, but he CAN'T make a world where all would by freewill choose him?

We O.V. get accused of limiting God's power all of the time, and you say he can't do something, outright and bluntly? It just isn't fair. No S.V.'er will rebuke you over this too. amazing.

If you are going to say he can't do something, why not just say he Can't see all of the future? I mean he could create a world where all were saved... only realize they will not have freewill.

In your quote above, I don't guess you realize, but none of that is freewill. It is only the appearance of freewill. The S.V. has a hard time avoiding it. That theology undermines freewill totally. And if you aren't careful, you end up like Hilston, saying God planned evil.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Well... I asked my question first.

And I gave my answer first! My question was intended as an answer, if God binds all men over to disobedience so he may have mercy on them, that would be a reason for Adam’s rebellion.

Now it would be your turn.

It wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list of God's attributes but "loving" would cover all of these you've listed and more.

They were said to be his essential attributes, though, which then motivated me to list other attributes as essential. Yet what you say is true, perfect love would mean perfect holiness, and perfect truthfulness and righteousness, and even strength ("love is the strongest force in the world", Corrie ten Boom's father).

But if love is not perfect, it does not always mean strong, nor need a person who is caring necessarily be righteous, either, nor need love mean perfect truthfulness, and so on.

But the point is that we cannot say that strength is not an essential attribute of God, it is not inessential, though it may be derived from another attribute.

I believe indeed they are all bound up together, some theological people have argued that God's holiness is his primary attribute, or his glory, or (as it seems you do here) his love. I would expect a case can be made for all of these, and no attribute is really independent, and each one may in a way be the source of all the others.

The Bible explicitly states that God authority is founded upon His righteousness.

Well, maybe, which verse do you mean?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to ApologeticJedi and godrulz​

"elevate themselves to demigods"? Of course that's not remotely true or even substantiated.

It is entirely true and has been abundantly substantiated. The denial of total depravity elevates man. Libertarian free will elevates man. Both of these things are enthusiastically affirmed by Open Theists (and Satan, by the way), and both of these things make man more than man, hence, demigods. It was the original temptation, and it is exactly what Open Theism offers: "You will not surely die, for God knows that in the day you of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then your eyes shall be opened, and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil." The immediate context of that passage, as well as the larger context of the entirety of scripture, shows that it is not merely knowing good and evil that is the problem, but presuming to know good and evil autonomously, apart from God, proclaiming oneself to be more than man, hence, a demigod. "You will be as gods."

You complain that you have no "clout" around here, ...

"Complain"? Hardly. I wear it as a badge of honor that I have no clout around here. It really bugs me that I have a positive rep points score. I like the red squares much better than the green ones.

... well this lack of objectivity is precisely why no one around here takes you seriously.

Do you read my posts, AJ? Do you read the responses? I'm taken more seriously here than even I am comfortable with.

That accusation may apply to Mormons, but it certainly does not apply to Open Theists who affirm God's transcendent attributes and standard anthropology/harmartiology (nature of man; study of sin).

When Open Theists claim that God is righteous by choice and not by necessity, they undermine any notion of transcendence in God. When Open Theists refuse to grasp how God can be the author of sin and not be sinful Himself, they undermine God's transcendence. When Open Theists resist the understanding God's essential immutability and His non-essential mutability, regardless of whether or not Calvinists call it antinomy, they resist the transcendent essentials of God's being. Questioning God's transcendence is the root of all Open-View error, and is (almost) as old as time itself. It is exactly what Lucifer and Adam did in the Garden of Eden, using Eve as the guinea pig.

Thanks for your comments. Let me know if you have any questions.

All according to God's decrees, of course,
Jim

 

[godrulz]

You have bones to pick with Open Theism, but this does not mean we are deifying man and humanizing God just because we reject Calvinism's assumptions. We are not gods. We are strict monotheists. Your hyper-criticism is going to far creating a straw man of the Open View.

 

[RobE]

Very Interesting. Do you have scripture to back this?

Do you believe God will remember every evil man has done for an eternity? Look into forgiveness of sin and get back to me.

And let me get this right. He CAN see the future, but he CAN'T make a world where all would by freewill choose him?

Sure, He could reveal Himself in power to make them or coerce them to believe; but that would exlude freely.

We O.V. get accused of limiting God's power all of the time, and you say he can't do something, outright and bluntly? It just isn't fair. No S.V.'er will rebuke you over this too. amazing.

I wish they would since the o.v. has a problem explaining to me how man might save himself. It would be an interesting turn of events.

If you are going to say he can't do something, why not just say he Can't see all of the future? I mean he could create a world where all were saved... only realize they will not have freewill.

Ok. God can't make a round square. He is unable to do the impossible. Knowing the future isn't impossible.

In your quote above, I don't guess you realize, but none of that is freewill. It is only the appearance of freewill.

How so?

The S.V. has a hard time avoiding it. That theology undermines freewill totally. And if you aren't careful, you end up like Hilston, saying God planned evil.

Does ordained and planned mean the same thing? God planned a world which would contain the evil which He foresaw.

Ephesians 3:8Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Rob

 

[RobE]

"elevate themselves to demigods"? Of course that's not remotely true or even substantiated.

You complain that you have no "clout" around here, well this lack of objectivity is precisely why no one around here takes you seriously.

Has man ever been able to save himself?

 

[RobE]

Each man is responsible for his own actions. By "responsible" is meant "held accountable." Not merely being the one who performs the action, but being held culpable for said action.

Is each man responsible because of free will even though God ordained the men and their free will to exist?

Notice two things.

1. Jim believes we are too stupid to know what the word "responsible" means.

2. According to Jim's theology man's actions are not originated in himself but in God. Remember what he said earlier.... "God is the author of sin."

Clete sees God planning the men and their resultant actions as the same thing if foreknowledge exists. Why is/isn't He right?

God's actions are not essential and cannot be equated with His eternal essence. God's actions are therefore different from His essence. I don't know Eckhardt or his position on divine immutability.

Eckhardt posited that action was identical to essence.....the outcome of a just essence is justice which is just. My earlier post had a link to His writing. Anyway, Clete was right in knowing that Eckhardt would reject the idea that God was mutable in essence.

OV people believe differently because they want to tear God down (i.e. denigrate His essence) and to raise themselves up (i.e. elevate themselves to demigods). In order to facilitate this strategem, the have become existentialists. They either assail or dismiss God's essential attributes. Some refuse to even acknowledge the concept for the sake of discussion, as we've seen here many times.

Good intentions make great pavers. I think that the o.v. people have good intentions in wanting to emphasis the lovingness of God. It just appears that for the most part their theology is very similar to traditional Christianity. What other differences are there except their belief that God is responsible for sin if He knows the future and that man might save himself? I guess the logical conclusions drawn from either of these have dire consequences; but is there more?

Rob

 

[patman]

Do you believe God will remember every evil man has done for an eternity? Look into forgiveness of sin and get back to me.

......

Does ordained and planned mean the same thing? God planned a world which would contain the evil which He foresaw.

Ephesians 3:8Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Rob

Rob, you say God can't make a round square, because it is impossible. And then you say our good loving God can plan evil(in so many words). That IS possible by you. And factual according to you too.

Do you see where your theology has lead you? Doesn't it worry you that you have a tendency to preach of God's ability to create, and plan that we live in, an evil world? Doesn't the very basics of knowing God, your very conscience, and basic wisdom tell you not to say this?

It causes you to look at a verse such as the one above and see God planning evil. Why is it easier to say God planned evil for you? Because this theology you yield to leads you to that direction, just as we O.V.ers have been telling it would.

Why not just say God planned to save any who would fall with grace and stop there? Why take it to the level you do? To you, it is the only logical conclusion because you think the future is settled. But if the future were open, cannot you at least see the conclusion would be different? You do not have to agree, just entertain me here. Your settled mindset has guided you to this conclusion.

P.S.

On the forgiveness thing.

Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

I got back to you.

 

[Hilston]

Hi RobE,

My answers to your questions are below.

Is each man responsible because of free will even though God ordained the men and their free will to exist?

Each man is responsible for violations of whichever righteous Law is legislating at the time of his existence. So, for this present dispensation, the Law that legislates is Paul's gospel. All men will be judged according to Paul's gospel (Ro 2:16), i.e. the righteous standard of this dispensation. The reason each man is responsible is not because of free will, but because God has commanded all men everywhere to submit to Him and to yield all of their knowledge to His governance. Those who rebel will be held accountable for that rebellion. In other words, rather than eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, each man living in the time of this dispensation is to go to God and His Word for the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. in particular, the righteous standard of this dispensation.

Clete sees God planning the men and their resultant actions as the same thing if foreknowledge exists. Why is/isn't He right?

He is right. The Bible's reference to "foreknowledge" is a figure of speech that describes God's decrees (i.e. His plans regarding men and their actions).

Eckhardt posited that action was identical to essence.....the outcome of a just essence is justice which is just.

Perhaps he was using hyperbole, or maybe he is Kantian in his thinking (moral imperatives and all that rot). It is patently false to equate action with essence if one is going to claim God is immutable in His essence. Obviously, God's actions change, therefore actions and essence cannot be identical.

My earlier post had a link to His writing. Anyway, Clete was right in knowing that Eckhardt would reject the idea that God was mutable in essence.

Does Eckhardt believe that God's actions are immutable?

Good intentions make great pavers. I think that the o.v. people have good intentions in wanting to emphasis the lovingness of God.

And Adam probably thought he had good intentions when he sought knowledge apart from God. Why do I say this? Because Open Theists want to emphasize a humanistic (i.e. Adamic) concept of love and to erroneously limit God by it. Rather than getting their understanding of love and the Originator of it from God Himself, they do an end-around and attempt to do so by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They say, for truthfulness to be genuine, one must be capable of lying. This is a humanistic dualism that is imposed by Open Theists upon God Himself, contrary to scripture, which says God cannot lie.

It just appears that for the most part their theology is very similar to traditional Christianity.

Yes, it's a bait-and-switch modus operandi. But once someone is lured in, the specious arguments are unleashed, leaving the uninitiated bewildered and confused, and primed for the appeal of humanism to their Adamic sensibilities.

... What other differences are there except their belief that God is responsible for sin if He knows the future and that man might save himself? I guess the logical conclusions drawn from either of these have dire consequences; but is there more?

The differences may appear small, but that's only because of a shared nomenclature, to which, of course, the Open Theists do great violence. For example, the Open Theist will use terms like "trust" and "faith" and "salvation" and "essence" and "omniscience" and "love" and "hope" and "future", but they re-define these terms to fit their humanism and existentialist theology. When it is stripped of its Christian-ese, its religious jargon and its veneer of soi-disant orthodoxy, Open Theism is exposed as being as far from biblical Christianity as the Sartrean notion of hell.

Thanks for your questions. Let me know if any further clarification is needed.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And I gave my answer first! My question was intended as an answer, if God binds all men over to disobedience so he may have mercy on them, that would be a reason for Adam’s rebellion.

Now it would be your turn.

Romans 11 is about God setting aside Israel.

It has nothing at all to do with God predestining all men to disobedience (which it doesn't even say).

Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

And who is the "them"?

Go back and read the chapter from the beginning and it will become painfully obvious.

Let me give you a hint...

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

God is saying (through Paul) that because Israel was disobedient He has turned to the Gentiles and now He can have mecry on all. I am sure even Jim Hilston would agree with me that Romans 11 isn't a good proof text for you to argue the general concept that God predestined ALL men to be disobedient so that He might have mercy on His elect.

 

[Hilston]

Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

And who is the "them"?

The word "them" is not in the Greek text. The Greek literally says "the all," and the "all" means "all without distinction." It refers specifically to the elect of the Body of Christ.

... I am sure even Jim Hilston would agree with me that Romans 11 isn't a good proof text for you to argue the general concept that God predestined ALL men to be disobedient so that He might have mercy on His elect.

Actually, I would say that it is an excellent proof text to argue for the specific concept that God specifically decreed the joint-enclosing of each of the "all-without-distinction" into disobedience for the specific purpose of showing mercy specifically to those elect individuals in the Body of Christ.

For thorough treatment of Romans 11, see the following links:
Romans 11 translation and index
Romans 11 exegesis, part A
Romans 11 exegesis, part B
Romans 11 exegesis, part C

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The word "them" is not in the Greek text. The Greek literally says "the all," and the "all" means "all without distinction." It refers specifically to the elect of the Body of Christ.

Hmmm, I just don't see that. However, I am not sure if my original thought on this was correct either.

Personally, I don't think any of this supports Lee's stretched point however this is the way it reads to me....

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
Romans 11:27 For this is My covenant with them (Israel), When I take away their (Israel) sins.”
Romans 11:28 Concerning the gospel they (Israel) are enemies for your (The Body)sake, but concerning the election they (Israel) are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:30 For as you (The Body) were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (Israel) disobedience,
Romans 11:31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you (The Body) they (Israel) also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all (The Body and Israel?)to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all (The Body and Israel?).

It seems to me that entire segment of scripture can be summarized like this....

Romans 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always.” 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their (Israel) fall, to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. ​

Yet more importantly none of this is pertaining to individuals as Lee is trying to demonstrate. After-all not ALL Jews will be saved (Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved) clearly this all pertains to corporate Israel in that God will fulfill His promise to them.

Jim, you don't really see Romans 11 as an individual (not corporate) thing do you?

 

[lee_merrill]

The word "them" is not in the Greek text.

Yes, and this cannot mean only Israel, since Paul has just been talking about Gentile being disobedient, and then Jews, and summing up with "all."

The Greek literally says "the all," and the "all" means "all without distinction." It refers specifically to the elect of the Body of Christ.

Jim, we have to talk...

Maybe all-without-distinction can be bound over to disobedience so that all-without-distinction may be shown mercy. Would we then read "all Israel without distinction will be saved" back in verse 26?

And "to him are all without distinction" in verse 36?

Actually, I would say that it is an excellent proof text to argue for the specific concept that God specifically decreed the joint-enclosing of each of the "all-without-distinction" into disobedience for the specific purpose of showing mercy specifically to those elect individuals in the Body of Christ.

But then "all" doesn't refer to the same concept in these two phrases, unless I'm misunderstanding you. But if not, I don't think that will do...

For thorough treatment of Romans 11, see the following links ...

This is a little exotic, sir Jim! And I think they could have done some detail in "all" meaning all-without-distinction, though I can also look up John Owen (but that's a large book).

After-all not ALL Jews will be saved...

Lee actually hopes they will be, but this would be quite (yet) another topic.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, and this cannot mean only Israel, since Paul has just been talking about Gentile being disobedient, and then Jews, and summing up with "all."

Yeah, I think I agree with that as well, although all of this is in reference to "corporate" Israel and The Body therefore I really don't think it helps your point very much.

After-all... if all of history is settled (in advance by God) there is no such thing as disobedience.

Anyway... good posts! This stuff is fun to discuss.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

Personally, I don't think any of this supports Lee's stretched point ...

I do agree with you that it is not a good proof text for showing "the general concept that God predestined ALL men to be disobedient so that He might have mercy on His elect."

... however this is the way it reads to me ...

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
Romans 11:27 For this is My covenant with them (Israel), When I take away their (Israel) sins.”
Romans 11:28 Concerning the gospel they (Israel) are enemies for your (The Body)sake, but concerning the election they (Israel) are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:30 For as you (The Body) were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (Israel) disobedience,
Romans 11:31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you (The Body) they (Israel) also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all (The Body and Israel?)to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all (The Body and Israel?).

I agree with your annotations up until verse 32.

Yet more importantly none of this is pertaining to individuals as Lee is trying to demonstrate.

But it is. "They" is a plural pronoun. Corporate entities take singular pronouns. For example, in Ro 11:7, Israel is regarded corporately:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.​

Note the singular masculine pronoun "he." Paul did not say, Israel hath not obtained that which THEY seek for ..." Instead, he spoke of Israel corporately and used a singular pronoun, "he." But throughout the chapter, Paul repeatedly uses the plural pronouns "they" and "them" when he is referring to individuals, in particular, the individual elect of Israel (i.e. they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, Ro 9:6).

After-all not ALL Jews will be saved (Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved) clearly this all pertains to corporate Israel in that God will fulfill His promise to them.

But recall Ro 9:6, which I cited above. "THEY are not all Israel, which are of Israel." This is not corporate, but individuals that are elected as individual members of a subset of corporate Israel.

Yes, and this cannot mean only Israel, since Paul has just been talking about Gentile being disobedient, and then Jews, and summing up with "all."

Neither the grammar nor the text allows such a view. Whether or not it seems exotic is beside the point. The text is clear; there is no ambiguity in what Paul writes.

After-all... if all of history is settled (in advance by God) there is no such thing as disobedience.

Disobedience to God's prescriptive will is true disobedience. There's no such thing as "obeying" or "disobeying" God's decretive will. It is inexorable.

TITR,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Poly,

This is in reply to your post #3782

But I wonder why it is that if God can motivate you to a heart of repentance, why wouldn't He motivate you to a heart of patience and kindness toward your wife and kids?

I didn't say He wouldn't motivate me to heart of patience and kindness toward my wife and kids. I believe He does exactly that. Is it your belief that God does NOT motivate a person's heart toward repentance?

If for His glory, could He not recieve the same glory by giving you a soft heart towards them to begin with?

It's not about God receiving glory. He doesn't need glory. It's about what God desires and plans. His plan was that I would need to cry out to Him to be a better father and husband, for the sake of my own personal growth, for the growth of my wife and kids, for my ability to minister to others, etc.

I guess what I'm asking is, since the end result of your exampe is that you now have a tender heart towards God and your family, why was the circumstance that brought it about needed for God to change your heart?

Because God planned it that way for His own good reasons, many of which are only understood by us through hindsight.

If God is sovereign as you view Him, He could have softened your heart to kindness toward your family with no negative circumstances and received the exact same glory but instead He decreed that it would involve having your temper flare and you speaking harsh words.

Again, this has nothing to do with God receiving a certain amount of glory. It has to do with His plans and the good He decrees. He planned the negative circumstances for good, all according to His decrees.

I wrote:

What God does in "response" (again, I view that as a linguistic accommodation) is work in my life, bringing about, according to His decrees, the circumstances that will bring that prayer to fruition. It might even involve yet another temper flare, but it will be different, because He is using it to change me.​

Could He not change you without the temper flare?

Sure, if that were what He had planned.

... If not, why?

Whatever He planned is exactly what would happen. He wouldn't change His plans.

... And if so, why then would He choose to go about negatively?

Only God knows with foresight, because He decreed it. We know only in hindsight, because we experienced it.

Poly wrote: I can ask Him to teach me so that I can learn.
I replied: How would He actually teach you? What would He do that you couldn't do yourself?

Poly wrote: ... And I can know that this is a real possibility because He says He desires to do so and He delights in us learning from Him.
I replied: I agree completely. On my view it makes sense. I'm interested to know how it make sense on your view. What would God actually do that would not be confused with mere human effort?

Poly wrote: ... And knowing that when I thank Him, it's real out of what I have learned of Him in His word concerning His righteousness and His goodness.
I replied: Why thank Him for what you've learned in His Word? Can't you do that without Him? What does He actually DO to help you learn His Word?

My biggest appreciation is that He's made it available to me to study, giving me a chance to understand who He is, what His desires are, what He expects from us and be encouraged while I'm in this world.

So, in actuality, He isn't teaching you, but merely giving you the opportunity to teach yourself. So I ask again, what are you asking Him to actually DO that He hasn't already done? What constitutes the "zesty prayer life" you and Bob Hill are talking about?

And I'm thankful that He's given me the human effort and faculties I need to study and learn.

Is that in answer to prayer? Did you ask Him for the human effort and faculties? How exactly did He give them to you? Does He give them only to people who pray for them? How is this the "zesty prayer life" you're talking about?

But there's no reason why He wouldn't also guide me, possibly bringing a passage to mind or a thought that might help in remembering certain passages either for myself or for somebody else who would profit from hearing it in a given circumstance.

How does He bring it to mind? How do you know it wasn't just you and not God bringing it to mind? What does this have to do with the "zesty prayer life" that Calvinism couldn't give you?

A group might get together to have a bible study and pray that God would help them understand and know Him better and He might do the same for them, bringing passages or thoughts to mind and the Holy Spirit could bring about comfort to their hearts so that they could reason together and be more receptive to the word and each other.

How exactly does He bring comfort to their hearts? And how do they know it isn't just they themselves working it up apart from God's intervention?

There is no doubt that He is capable of doing whatever I ask if it's "doable" ...

Do you ever pray for someone's salvation?

... And we now have the Holy Spirit which plays a huge role in prayer when we ask for comfort or peace.

How exactly does He give you comfort and peace?

... And when we have those things we are more able to focus on Him, having clearer minds to learn and respond in the right manner to Him and others.

But again, how is any of this part of a "zesty prayer life"?

Thanks in advance for considering my questions,

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[RobE]

Rob, you say God can't make a round square, because it is impossible. And then you say our good loving God can plan evil(in so many words). That IS possible by you. And factual according to you too.

Yes, God is able to do anything which is possible.

Do you see where your theology has lead you?

Yes, I believe that God is God.

Doesn't it worry you that you have a tendency to preach of God's ability to create, and plan that we live in, an evil world?

This is where we disagree. I know that the world isn't evil. Evil exists within it, but the world is good.

It causes you to look at a verse such as the one above and see God planning evil. Why is it easier to say God planned evil for you?

Because I relish truth over folly.

Why not just say God planned to save any who would fall with grace and stop there? Why take it to the level you do? To you, it is the only logical conclusion because you think the future is settled. But if the future were open, cannot you at least see the conclusion would be different?

No. The conclusion is the same for different reasons. God's grace is sufficient for all according to my belief. What is yours?

Rob