ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

I will never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the holocaust, 9-11 or any other terrible event that happens.

Exactly, and this is why the Open Theist has no grounds upon which to trust God. If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil. You'll never be able to rejoice as Joseph and Job and David and Paul did, whom all knew that the evil and afflictions that happened to them were masterminded by the Rock, whom they could trust when He says that the glory that awaits the elect far outweighs the temporary pain, suffering and evil that is in our lives and in the world. You will never be able to worship in awe of the precision of His meticulous decrees, the glorious fulfillment and fruition of every detail of His wondrous plan, orchestrated and executed precisely for the sake of His beloved through the ages.

I believe God is righteous and not evil, I DO NOT believe God planned or even wanted those events to take place.

You mistakenly assume that a God who plans evil for good is an evil God. Where you get this idea is from humanism. Even logic should tell you that this is not the case. If my 8-year-old son invents a scenario in which the good Bionicle destroys the evil Bionicles, is he unrighteous for conceiving of the evil acts the evil Bionicles do? On your logic, I should punish my son for being unrighteous just because he conceived of a story with unrighteous beings (i.e. decreed the evil that evil characters do).

... I believe God truly grieves when we hurt one another. I believe God truly responds to us when we ask Him.

By "truly grieves," you mean "grieves like a human." Instead of making God the measure of what is true, you've man your own experience the measure of what is true. That is humanism, the lens through which you judge God. And therefore your God is a demi-god, created in your own image.

Psalms 107:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever.

Yet, only two psalms prior, David writes that God authored the famine upon the land:
Ps 105:16 Moreover he [God] called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread.

David says that God sent Joseph into slavery:

Ps 105:17 He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:

David writes that it was alll according to God's master plan, the timing, the circumstances, everything:

Ps 105:18 Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: 19 Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.

David writes that God even turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate Israel:

Ps 105:23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. 24 And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies. 25 He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.

So when the thoughtful, rational reader of the Psalm 105 gets to Psalm 107, he already understands that God's goodness and mercy include the fact that He masterminds and orchestrates evil for good and merciful purposes. That is a God who can be trusted. That is the Rock God of the Settled View, not the Sand God of Open Theism.

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Open Theist: "God shifts (like sand)."
Settled Theist: "God Rocks!"

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

The settled viewer must view the above verses as God's will being thwarted intentionally by God's will.

Did God want the deadly famine to happen upon the land? Did God want Joseph's brothers to conspire against him and to sell him into slavery? Did God want Job to suffer the loss of his children, murdered at the hands of Satan? My view can answer yes, that God masterminded those things for good. His decretive will (i.e. the events above) are inexorable and unthwartable. His prescriptive will comprises all the laws that are contrary to those events. The Settled view makes logical and biblical sense of these matters. The Open Theists must pretend there is only one will of God, and proceed to shove their proverbial heads into the proverbial sand, where, incidentally, they actually find their Sand God.

 

[Delmar]

Exactly, and this is why the Open Theist has no grounds upon which to trust God. If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil. You'll never be able to rejoice as Joseph and Job and David and Paul did, whom all knew that the evil and afflictions that happened to them were masterminded by the Rock, whom they could trust when He says that the glory that awaits the elect far outweighs the temporary pain, suffering and evil that is in our lives and in the world. You will never be able to worship in awe of the precision of His meticulous decrees, the glorious fulfillment and fruition of every detail of His wondrous plan, orchestrated and executed precisely for the sake of His beloved through the ages.

You mistakenly assume that a God who plans evil for good is an evil God. Where you get this idea is from humanism. Even logic should tell you that this is not the case. If my 8-year-old son invents a scenario in which the good Bionicle destroys the evil Bionicles, is he unrighteous for conceiving of the evil acts the evil Bionicles do? On your logic, I should punish my son for being unrighteous just because he conceived of a story with unrighteous beings (i.e. decreed the evil that evil characters do).

By "truly grieves," you mean "grieves like a human." Instead of making God the measure of what is true, you've man your own experience the measure of what is true. That is humanism, the lens through which you judge God. And therefore your God is a demi-god, created in your own image.

Yet, only two psalms prior, David writes that God authored the famine upon the land:
Ps 105:16 Moreover he [God] called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread.

David says that God sent Joseph into slavery:

Ps 105:17 He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:

David writes that it was alll according to God's master plan, the timing, the circumstances, everything:

Ps 105:18 Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: 19 Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.

David writes that God even turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate Israel:

Ps 105:23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. 24 And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies. 25 He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.

So when the thoughtful, rational reader of the Psalm 105 gets to Psalm 107, he already understands that God's goodness and mercy include the fact that He masterminds and orchestrates evil for good and merciful purposes. That is a God who can be trusted. That is the Rock God of the Settled View, not the Sand God of Open Theism.

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Open Theist: "God shifts (like sand)."
Settled Theist: "God Rocks!"

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

God as a rock is a figure of speech Jim. The God of Abraham is not a stone idle!

 

[godrulz]

Both views affirm that God is the Rock. He is righteous and faithful. God's character and omnicompetence are reasons to trust Him. It takes more competence to allow free will than to control everything. A competent chessmaster or doctor are able to respond to contingencies without knowing or controlling/micromanaging everything in advance. Your view is ironicaly a lesser god view.

God is holy. Why is it so hard to imagine that the opposite exists, by His decree (possible vs certain), without an omnicausal view? Satan is the antithesis of God, not a dualistic equal or something spawned by God. God created Lucifer. Lucifer created Satan, contrary to God's will and intentions. He was judged and will be thrown in the lake of fire in the end. Lucifer was not created for evil anymore than Judas was predestined to be a son of perdition.

 

[patman]

The analogy is wrong because the rock didn't decide to leave the man's hand of its own accord and kill a person.

Do you see? You said the rock was responsible, not the man throwing it. This is wrong. The man who threw the rock killed the man, not the rock.

Lets say it wasn't a rock lets say it was a piranha. The fish bit the guy and he bleed to death. Do you STILL say the guy who threw it is innocent?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Did God want the deadly famine to happen upon the land? Did God want Joseph's brothers to conspire against him and to sell him into slavery? Did God want Job to suffer the loss of his children, murdered at the hands of Satan? My view can answer yes, that God masterminded those things for good. His decretive will (i.e. the events above) are inexorable and unthwartable. His prescriptive will comprises all the laws that are contrary to those events. The Settled view makes logical and biblical sense of these matters. The Open Theists must pretend there is only one will of God, and proceed to shove their proverbial heads into the proverbial sand, where, incidentally, they actually find their Sand God.

You tell me which of the following two options is true according to the Bible...

1. The potter takes the vessel that is marred in his hand and makes it again into something good.

or...

2. The potter mares the vessel intentionally and then makes it again claiming that both the marred and the remade vessels were equally good.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Exactly, and this is why the Open Theist has no grounds upon which to trust God. If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil.

:shocked: Wow.... how can anyone respond to a comment like that?

A statement like that just blows my mind!!!

It reminds of a child that is horribly abused by his parents but defends them because after each beating the parent takes him out for ice cream to make it up to him. :nono:

I had a good friend that treated his kids that way and it made me sick. He would yell at them, sometimes harshly belittle them, embarrass them in public, make them cry, and then buy them a toy to make it "all better". :vomit:

Jim, God is not the abusive parent you make him out to be. God doesn't need to be evil just so that He can be good to us. God is a good parent, a loving parent, that would never intentionally hurt us just so He could look like "the hero" when He later buys us a toy.

 

[godrulz]

Do you see? You said the rock was responsible, not the man throwing it. This is wrong. The man who threw the rock killed the man, not the rock.

Lets say it wasn't a rock lets say it was a piranha. The fish bit the guy and he bleed to death. Do you STILL say the guy who threw it is innocent?

The man AND the rock killed the person, but only the man is culpable having a moral, free will. Rocks are cause-effect and morally neutral.

 

[Delmar]

:shocked: Wow.... how can anyone respond to a comment like that?

A statement like that just blows my mind!!!

It reminds of a child that is horribly abused by his parents but defends them because after each beating the parent takes him out for ice cream to make it up to him. :nono:

I had a good friend that treated his kids that way and it made me sick. He would yell at them, sometimes harshly belittle them, embarrass them in public, make them cry, and then buy them a toy to make it "all better". :vomit:

Jim, God is not the abusive parent you make him out to be. God doesn't need to be evil just so that He can be good to us. God is a good parent, a loving parent, that would never intentionally hurt us just so He could look like "the hero" when He later buys us a toy.

:first: POD

 

[Bob Hill]

Originally Posted by Hilston

Exactly, and this is why the Open Theist has no grounds upon which to trust God. If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil. You'll never be able to rejoice as Joseph and Job and David and Paul did, whom all knew that the evil and afflictions that happened to them were masterminded by the Rock, whom they could trust when He says that the glory that awaits the elect far outweighs the temporary pain, suffering and evil that is in our lives and in the world. You will never be able to worship in awe of the precision of His meticulous decrees, the glorious fulfillment and fruition of every detail of His wondrous plan, orchestrated and executed precisely for the sake of His beloved through the ages.

You mistakenly assume that a God who plans evil for good is an evil God. Where you get this idea is from humanism. Even logic should tell you that this is not the case. If my 8-year-old son invents a scenario in which the good Bionicle destroys the evil Bionicles, is he unrighteous for conceiving of the evil acts the evil Bionicles do? On your logic, I should punish my son for being unrighteous just because he conceived of a story with unrighteous beings (i.e. decreed the evil that evil characters do).

Does God ever do evil? Can He be “the Mastermind behind [some] evil” as Hilston says?

The Bible says that evil shall not dwell with You.

Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You.

Would it be temptation for God to do evil that some kind of good would come? Does God even tempt anyone to do evil?

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

God doesn’t work that way. He’s too wonderful to do evil so good would come.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[patman]

:shocked: Wow.... how can anyone respond to a comment like that?

A statement like that just blows my mind!!!

It reminds of a child that is horribly abused by his parents but defends them because after each beating the parent takes him out for ice cream to make it up to him. :nono:

I had a good friend that treated his kids that way and it made me sick. He would yell at them, sometimes harshly belittle them, embarrass them in public, make them cry, and then buy them a toy to make it "all better". :vomit:

Jim, God is not the abusive parent you make him out to be. God doesn't need to be evil just so that He can be good to us. God is a good parent, a loving parent, that would never intentionally hurt us just so He could look like "the hero" when He later buys us a toy.

AMEN Knight

 

[patman]

The man AND the rock killed the person, but only the man is culpable having a moral, free will. Rocks are cause-effect and morally neutral.

good point

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

So are you saying the future is at least partially open?

In the sense that believers can make real choices, yes, though also God knows these future choices, so open, yes, for believers, and also known, and without God making each and every decision.

Lee: Actually, I simply choose another meaning of the word “nacham”, as the NIV does…

Knight: Repent, relent, grieve, sorry, are all acceptable meanings and all present the same equal problem for the settled view.

Yes grieving is not a contradiction, unless you hold that God shuns pain, and that pain cannot be totally transformed.

Revelation 5:12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb…”

… who was slain.

That when it was said God wasn't a man. Today it only means that God doesn't repent or change His mind like a man.

But the Triune God is still not a man, and the point here is that God does not change his mind because he is not a man. Now how would the incarnation change this, so that after Jesus became flesh, God could then change his mind?

He is not mistaken like we are. But He can genuinely be mistaken when He expects one outcome and another comes to pass…

But that is just how we are mistaken, where is there any difference, essentially, here?

Isaiah 31:2 … he does not take back his words.

God_Is_Truth: That interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture (Jeremiah 18). My view is that God is faithful regarding His word up to the point where circumstances require it to change due to His character.

Then God does not take back his words unless he needs to take back his words?!

How long has God had the plan? Was there ever a time God didn't have the plan, and then came up with it - or did God always have the plan and never came up with it Himself?

Well, as Hilston said, if God is not in time, then we don’t have a point at which God is deciding, and before this he had no plan. This by the way is a difficulty for the Open View. When did God decide to create the world?

Does God know how he would chose in any completely defined situation? If so, then how are his decisions free? If not, then how is God omniscient? It would seem God does not then know all there is to know about God…

Hilston: If Grace is truly sufficient, and if anyone ends up in hell, then that grace cannot apply to all men. What is "acceptance of Grace" contingent upon?

RobE: It is when you consider that Grace is only dispensed by Christ who alone has authority to dispense it. What did Jesus say it was contingent upon in the scriptures?

Upon the Lord alone, for saving grace, is my view (the ‘U’ in TULIP), And then I also hope that all may be saved, since we are given reason to believe that God desires all men to be saved, and to come to know the truth.

Hilston: If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil.

Knight: It reminds of a child that is horribly abused by his parents but defends them because after each beating the parent takes him out for ice cream to make it up to him.

That is of course not the Calvinist view. God doesn’t “make it up to people,” instead God turns what was meant for evil, to good, and this good is just his plan, and so God’s intent is not abuse, but good.

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

But the Triune God is still not a man,

Do you deny that Jesus, a man, is God? (John 1:1,14)

and the point here is that God does not change his mind because he is not a man. Now how would the incarnation change this, so that after Jesus became flesh, God could then change his mind?

I explained that. The point was never that God couldn't change His mind but that he never changes his mind like a man does.

But that is just how we are mistaken, where is there any difference, essentially, here?

No, sin is a mistake. And God never sins.

Then God does not take back his words unless he needs to take back his words?!

It means that God never speaks without meaning or without purpose, so as to be in vain. He never has to take back what he said as if he didn't mean it. It doesn't mean he can't change his mind if circumstances warrant it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In the sense that believers can make real choices, yes, though also God knows these future choices, so open, yes, for believers, and also known, and without God making each and every decision.

Thanks for you response Lee.

If what you say (above) is true, the future is settled in advance through God's foreknowledge.

If God knows all of the future exhaustively, how could anything still be unsettled?

 

[Hilston]

God as a rock is a figure of speech Jim.

Really? Then please tell me the meaning of the figure of speech. Does it mean that God is not a good swimmer? Does it mean that God should be used to hold papers down on a windy day?

Both views affirm that God is the Rock. He is righteous and faithful. God's character and omnicompetence are reasons to trust Him.

The reason to trust God is that He works all things for the good of the Elect. We can trust that evil is intended for God's good purposes. The Open Theist cannot say that, and therefore cannot trust God amid evil circumstances. Open Theists don't think God has anything to do with evil, so you're left high and dry when evil befalls you. That's no God worthy of trust.

It takes more competence to allow free will than to control everything.

More existentialism. God is not in control of everything by choice. He can't NOT be in control. If God relinquished control, the atomic structure of all matter would obliterate.

... A competent chessmaster or doctor are able to respond to contingencies without knowing or controlling/micromanaging everything in advance.

Intransigent humanism. No humans are to be trusted. Why? Because humans do not know the future; nor do they have exhaustive knowledge, therefore humans are unable to account for all factors when determining their choices and actions. Anyone who does not have full comprehensive knowledge of all things cannot be fully trusted. Whereas God is the Rock, and can be fully trusted.

... Your view is ironicaly a lesser god view.

Only when viewed through humanist lenses.

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

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Exactly, and this is why the Open Theist has no grounds upon which to trust God. If you can so dogmatically declare that you will never be able to view God as the Mastermind behind evil, then you'll never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the amazing and wonderful goodness that results from the evil.

:shocked: Wow.... how can anyone respond to a comment like that?

A statement like that just blows my mind!!!

It reminds of a child that is horribly abused by his parents but defends them because after each beating the parent takes him out for ice cream to make it up to him. :nono:

This is the kind of emotion-driven, irrational and non sequitur comparison that Open Theists and Satan make whenever they attempt to denigrate God's sovereignty. Job, Joseph, David and Paul all acknowledged that God plans evil for good.

I had a good friend that treated his kids that way and it made me sick. He would yell at them, sometimes harshly belittle them, embarrass them in public, make them cry, and then buy them a toy to make it "all better". :vomit:

If you could be there listening to Joseph's speech in Genesis 50:20, would you tell Joseph this story? When all that evil happened to Job, would you have told him that God does not use evil for good and to just curse God and die?

Jim, God is not the abusive parent you make him out to be.

Why do you resort to these mischaracterizations? David praised God for afflicting him. Job acknowledged that the evil that befell him came from God, and did not sin with his lips by saying so.

God doesn't need to be evil just so that He can be good to us.

Who is saying God needs to be evil? Where are you getting this stuff, Eric?

God is a good parent, a loving parent, that would never intentionally hurt us just so He could look like "the hero" when He later buys us a toy.

This is how Job's, Joseph's, David's and Paul's God-orchestrated circumstances appear to those afflicted with the Open View cataract. You can distort and misrepresent all you want, but you'll eventually have to deal with what God's Word actually says, and it says that men are afflicted according to God's plan, in which God uses evil for His good purposes. It is clear, logical and biblical.

In full concordance with God's decreed will,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Job, Joseph, David and Paul all acknowledged that God plans evil for good.

Jim, that simply isn't true.

God takes an already bad situation and brings about good.

Paul affirms your principle is in error...

Romans 3:6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say.

In other words... doing evil so that good may come of it is a bad thing.

If you could be there listening to Joseph's speech in Genesis 50:20, would you tell Joseph this story? When all that evil happened to Job, would you have told him that God does not use evil for good and to just curse God and die?

Again God is not responsible for evil.

It is your twisted theology that makes you think the devils actions and Joseph's brothers actions are pleasing to God. Instead God takes an already marred vessel and remakes it to fit His purposes.

Jim, does the Bible say God purposely mares vessels so He can later make good? Or does it say God takes an already marred vessel and turns it into something good?

Jim what are you still doing up? Isn't it the middle of the night where you live?

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston wrote:

The reason to trust God is that He works all things for the good of the Elect. We can trust that evil is intended for God's good purposes. The Open Theist cannot say that, and therefore cannot trust God amid evil circumstances. Open Theists don't think God has anything to do with evil, so you're left high and dry when evil befalls you. That's no God worthy of trust.

We can and do say that God loves us and "works all things after the counsel of His will", but that doesn't mean that God causes evil things to happen. I searched the whole Bible and could not find one time where God did something evil. I am safe in Jesus Christ, my redeemer. If I died tonight, I would be with God in heaven. If I had a horrible accident and lived, so what, I'm still, eventually , on my way to heaven.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow, or is that Praise God from Whom all problems come?????

Nah!!

Bob