ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

When I talk to the Lord about how wonderful He is, I want to feel the passion that He had when He died for our sins. I want His passion, to be my passion.

I’ve had problems at time when I’ve read Augustine and Calvin and the Westminster Confession, made in 1646. It seems to me that they took the ideas of Augustine and Calvin and put them in a doctrinal statement. I think the ideas in this statement have influenced many of us in our attitudes and beliefs.

Here is a part of the Westminster Confession that caused me to wonder about God and His love. “There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable . . . so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.” That seems to be what Hilston believes.

Based on this, Benignus wrote this about God’s love. “Love, of course, is not bound up with sensitive passion and emotion in God, as it is in us. . . . Passions, since they necessarily entail a sensitive and therefore bodily nature, are per se imperfect and limited, and consequently they cannot be predicated except metaphorically of God. . . . we must deny these accompanying passions when we attribute love and joy to God.” [Benignus, Nature, Knowledge, and God, pp. 551,552.]

When I read that they deny God has any passion or feeling, calling it impassibility, it has caused me to study the Old Testament a lot to see if it supports these ideas. It does not, and actually it is just the opposite that it supports – lots of emotion from our Wonderful God.

I was really blessed when I read Dr. James Boice’s book, The Sovereign God. He wrote, “The immutability of God as presented in Scripture, however, is not the same thing as the immutability of “god” talked about by the Greek philosophers. In Greek thought immutability meant not only unchangeability but also the inability to be affected by anything in any way. The Greek word . . . . means a total inability to feel any emotion whatever. . . . That makes good philosophy of course. It is logical. But it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures, and so we must reject it, however logical it may seem.” What a blessing that was for me. He said that he departed from his Calvinistic heritage in this area because, “it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures”.

What a blessing that was to me.

In Christ,
My beloved Savior,
Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

If God changes His mind in line with His character and changing contingencies, then it is actually a sign of intelligence.

Unless he need not change his mind, being able to make the right decision each time.

Isaiah 31:2 Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words.

That would be great intelligence, indeed!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Hi everyone,


Unless he need not change his mind, being able to make the right decision each time.

Isaiah 31:2 Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words.

That would be great intelligence, indeed!

Blessings,
Lee

A man who never changes his mind is stubborn, uncompromising, and uncooperative. Those aren't good things and neither would God be good if He never changed His mind. Jesus was none of these things while on earth and neither should we be.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A man who never changes his mind is stubborn, uncompromising, and uncooperative. Those aren't good things and neither would God be good if He never changed His mind. Jesus was none of these things while on earth and neither should we be.

Not to mention unmerciful.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Not to mention unmerciful.

or gracious.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

or gracious.

Or in this context ungracious.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Yorzhik,

Thanks for your reply.

Things are okay. The doctor says I need to take care of my liver better, but he didn't declare imminent death. How's things going with you?

Same thing, strangely enough. I have the liver of an alcoholic, apparently. No prognosis yet on how long I have to live.

Originally Posted by Hilston: Responsible to whom?

Within the sphere of the story and writer, the writer is only responsible to himself and the characters in the story.

How do characters in a story hold the writer responsible? Isn't that like the clay criticizing the potter?

Originally Posted by Hilston: Your robot scenario doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm talking about someone who authors a story that includes evil characters, not a computer program.

No, they are identical. All character actions are decreed in writing, whether prose or source code. The only difference is the sphere of the influence of their actions.

They are very different scenarios, Yorzhik. Robots are not people. They cannot be held morally culpable. Nor can an animal that is trained to kill be held morally culpable. The characters in the story can be held accountable if that is what the author wants.

Hilston continued: Should I punish my son for making up a story about evil villains who commit sins?

No. But can you explain how this anology is being used?

My position is that God is the author of all history, past, present and future. That includes every sinful action of every evil person to have ever existed. Thus, God is the author of sin, and has decreed sin for His good purposes. Some think this makes God evil. My analogy is directed at demonstrating that conceiving of evil actions and evil men does not make the author himself evil. So, if my son should not be punished for writing a story that includes evil men and their evil actions, why should God be criticized for authoring sin?

... I may have missed something in a prior post and I'm not going back to read that many pages.

I don't blame you. This thread is ridiculously long; and there is no shortage of ridiculous posts.

Always good to hear from you, Yorzhik.

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

After my earlier reply, I wanted to ask you, in light of the following ...

I have read it over about 10 times now and I just can't see how your take makes any sense.

Was the part about singular vs. plural pronouns (re: individual vs. corporate election) clear to you?

:j

 

[patman]

There is when we realize that God's knowledge that the clock would tick, God creating the clock for a good purpose, and God continuing to allow the clock to tick; does NOT make God responsible for how it ticks and whether or not if functions correctly if the clock has free will.

Your Friend,
Rob

A man throws a rock at someone's head. That person is killed. According to this logic you use, that man is not guilty of the other's death because after the rock left his hand, he wasn't in control of it.

If someone makes something for a purpose, and that purpose is achieved, the creator is responsible for achieving that purpose.

If I make a web page to earn money and make a million dollars (I can dream can't I?) and I make the money, then I am responsible for making the money.

Clockwork. God creates Satan knowing he will fall. God sends him to earth knowing he will talk to Eve. God puts the tree in the garden knowing it will cause death to all men. God makes Eve knowing she would give Adam the deadly fruit. With future knowledge, everything that happened was planned and OK'd by God. It is the great clock, each part doing its purpose. God can wind the clock forwards or backwards all he wants, yet the same thing happens over and over again.

Just as it would if you were to wind your watch backwards then forward, it will act the same every time, the hands will move together according to the gears and how they were setup by their maker.

Nothing is free, everything is all apart of the predetermined "best" creation plan in which everything in the future is set because of the past and because God liked it that way.

This is all so tragic. To believe God wanted things to turn out like this? It is God's worst nightmare Rob! He hates how things turned out, he didn't plan this at all. Hence, his sorrow for ever creating man.

 

[koban]

A man throws a rock at someone's head. That person is killed. According to this logic you use, that man is not guilty of the other's death because after the rock left his hand, he wasn't in control of it.

If someone makes something for a purpose, and that purpose is achieved, the creator is responsible for achieving that purpose.

If I make a web page to earn money and make a million dollars (I can dream can't I?) and I make the money, then I am responsible for making the money.

Clockwork. God creates Satan knowing he will fall. God sends him to earth knowing he will talk to Eve. God puts the tree in the garden knowing it will cause death to all men. God makes Eve knowing she would give Adam the deadly fruit. With future knowledge, everything that happened was planned and OK'd by God. It is the great clock, each part doing its purpose. God can wind the clock forwards or backwards all he wants, yet the same thing happens over and over again.

Just as it would if you were to wind your watch backwards then forward, it will act the same every time, the hands will move together according to the gears and how they were setup by their maker.

Nothing is free, everything is all apart of the predetermined "best" creation plan in which everything in the future is set because of the past and because God liked it that way.

This is all so tragic. To believe God wanted things to turn out like this? It is God's worst nightmare Rob! He hates how things turned out, he didn't plan this at all. Hence, his sorrow for ever creating man.

You wouldn't happen to be Canadian, would you?

 

[lee_merrill]

A man who never changes his mind is stubborn, uncompromising, and uncooperative. Those aren't good things and neither would God be good if He never changed His mind.

Unless God is not a man? This seems to be an essential problem in the Open View, thinking God is in various ways, like we are.

"God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19)

The Open View would say, yes, in fact, he does...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I believe God does respond to people in prayer, but that need not involve a change of mind, if God knows the future, and how we will pray, and includes that in his plans.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

P.S. I believe God does respond to people in prayer, but that need not involve a change of mind, if God knows the future, and how we will pray, and includes that in his plans.

You say God can "respond" but you are not not describing a "response".

I am sure you know what the word "respond" means.

If God has already mapped out the future in every detail God does not "respond" or "react" to anything. What would appear to be a response is merely part of the plan.

 

[patman]

You wouldn't happen to be Canadian, would you?

No. I am, worst. Open theist.

 

[godrulz]

Unless God is not a man? This seems to be an essential problem in the Open View, thinking God is in various ways, like we are.

"God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19)

The Open View would say, yes, in fact, he does...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I believe God does respond to people in prayer, but that need not involve a change of mind, if God knows the future, and how we will pray, and includes that in his plans.

God does not change His mind like a fickle, capricious man would change their mind. A personal being can change His mind. Will not is not the same as cannot. In some circumstances, God will not change His mind. In other cases, He does change His mind. Both motifs are found in I Sam. 15. Your view requires you to make figurative verses that say God changes His mind. This is without warrant and only defends a wrong preconceived theology.

A good parent will not change their minds about some things, but will reasonably change their minds about other things depending on changing contingencies or heart attitudes.

Context is the key. Open Theists affirm Numbers, in context (God is faithful, not fickle). You proof text this verse, but ignore other seemingly contradictory verses (would be in your view, but Open View correctly understands that one can change mind and still be perfect and faithful).

 

[Hilston]

You say God can "respond" but you are not not describing a "response".

I am sure you know what the word "respond" means.

If God has already mapped out the future in every detail God does not "respond" or "react" to anything. What would appear to be a response is merely part of the plan.

This is the difference between the Open Theist and the Settled Theist. The Open Theist sees "As it is written" and complains, "So when God responded to my prayer, it was just merely part of the plan." The Settled Theist sees "As it is written" and rejoices, "When God responded to my prayer, it was all part of His exhaustive and meticulous plan!"

All according to God's decree, but not necessarily according to God's prescriptions, of course,
Jim

 

[Delmar]

This is the difference between the Open Theist and the Settled Theist. The Open Theist sees "As it is written" and complains, "So when God responded to my prayer, it was just merely part of the plan." The Settled Theist sees "As it is written" and rejoices, "When God responded to my prayer, it was all part of His exhaustive and meticulous plan!"

All according to God's decree, but not necessarily according to God's prescriptions, of course,
Jim

Who have you seen complaining Jim? You are just flat wrong about OVer's being complainers!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"When God responded to my prayer, it was all part of His exhaustive and meticulous plan!"

Yet that isn't a "response".

 

[Hilston]

Yet that isn't a "response".

Of course. As I've written before, God's "response" or "reaction" is a figure of speech. I further explained this in my combined response to you and Poly, #3743, several pages ago.

I wrote:

God's "reaction" (in my view, a condescension and figurative way of describing the infinite God's interaction with finite man) is according to His decrees, and He will answer my prayer "yes." He hears and and answers yes because He decreed the commands in His word (His prescriptive will), He decreed the circumstances that would drive me to pray (His decretive will), He decreed the content of my prayer and He decreed the outcome of it.

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. ... I can look at each circumstance, each emotion that I experience, each thought that comes to mind, each passage of scripture that I read, hear or study, each conclusion that His Word evokes ~ even the wrong conclusions ~ and know that it's all working for good, toward answering that prayer and others. This is the confidence and assurance that ought to accompany prayer and which is exemplified and taught in scripture.​

Hope that helps.

As it is decreed, but not necessarily prescribed,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Of course. As I've written before, God's "response" or "reaction" is a figure of speech. I further explained this in my combined response to you and Poly, #3743, several pages ago.

I wrote:

God's "reaction" (in my view, a condescension and figurative way of describing the infinite God's interaction with finite man) is according to His decrees, and He will answer my prayer "yes." He hears and and answers yes because He decreed the commands in His word (His prescriptive will), He decreed the circumstances that would drive me to pray (His decretive will), He decreed the content of my prayer and He decreed the outcome of it.

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. ... I can look at each circumstance, each emotion that I experience, each thought that comes to mind, each passage of scripture that I read, hear or study, each conclusion that His Word evokes ~ even the wrong conclusions ~ and know that it's all working for good, toward answering that prayer and others. This is the confidence and assurance that ought to accompany prayer and which is exemplified and taught in scripture.​

Hope that helps.

As it is decreed, but not necessarily prescribed,
Jim

Jim, what an empty picture you paint of God.

I see God as REALLY interacting with us. Hearing in a real way our prayers and requests. Responding in a real way to our prayers and requests. Moving, shaping, shifting, working with us!

I see the things that God does in our lives as real victory! A true change in the course of events by the power of God.

I see a group of abortion protesters praying and witnessing to a lady headed in for an abortion and God's response is tugging, pulling, pushing the women's heart and working with those that are calling upon Him, giving them the right words and the boldness to say the most effective things to her. She warms her heart and changes her mind and saves her babies life! A true response, a true victory, a true change in the course of history has occurred through prayer.

You see Him as "responding" only via "linguistic accommodation". Ouch! :nono:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Unless God is not a man?

God is a man. Remember Jesus? The Word became Flesh....

However, I think it's also saying (in that verse) that God isn't like a man in that particular sense in that he doesn't change his mind like a man nor repent like a man. However, there is no clear reason to think (especially in light of the many other verses that say otherwise) that God never changes his mind or repents at all from this verse.