ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[patman]

Lee...

Lee...

I was just not going to say anything else about paul, because in my eyes it is not even a good point. But I should point this out to you:

You said, "So then the devil gave this messenger so that Paul could be humble? No, humility is not the devil's purpose, so the giver here must be God. "

Doesn't that strike you as odd? You say God can do wickedness, but Satan can't? Well, in so many words. Satan doesn't delight in his actions when they turn out to be good in the end, but it does happen. That doesn't mean he can't do it.

But who cares. God doesn't do evil, ever.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, you say...

No one sits in judgement of God to 'credit' him and to deem him 'deserving' of credit.

Yet then you say...

The saints herald God's greatness, goodness, power and wisdom. The saints proclaim God's worth, love, trustworthiness, righteousness, and grace. The saints declare God's salvation. They don't 'credit' Him. It is insolence. It is presumption. It is the sin of Adam.

When the Saints herald God's greatness, goodness, power and wisdom they are giving credit where credit is due.

When the saints proclaim God's worth, love, trustworthiness, righteousness, and grace they are acknowledging that God is responsible for those things.

When the saints declare God's salvation they are declaring that God is the source, the cause for salvation and by doing so, they are giving credit where credit is due!

Nothing about giving credit to God is sinful.

Let's review, according to Jim....
Celebrating Christmas is worse than abortion and now giving credit to God for the good gifts that come from above is the "sin of Adam". :shocked: I wonder what those looking in from the outside that are curious about Christianity would think if they heard Christians make those types of assertions??? :think:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

Job, at first, didn't curse God. Then Satan hurt him again, and he still didn't curse God. Then his friends came to help out, and THEN he went off. He said the things you call "True" and right.

No, actually, I have pointed to what Job said before his friends came, which is called "not sinning to say that":

"The Lord gave and the Lord took away"
"Shall we receive good from God, and not trouble?"

Now your view is saying this would be a sin to say this, Scripture says Job did not sin in what he said here.

Even God told Job he had done wickedly

I agree, some of what Job said was wrong, notably, to say he had been wronged by God, because he had been innocent.

6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

It was there, at that point that Job finally spoke rightly after chapters and chapters of misunderstood sayings.

Now some of what he said before this was right, even when his friends were there ("I know that my Redeemer lives"...).

But at the end he does indeed say what is right!

"I know you can do all things, and no plan of yours can be thwarted."

This also would be a problem for the Open View, which says God's plans indeed may have to be abandoned, and God may need to change his mind.

But Elihu was not required to repent because he spoke no wrong.

So he really was perfect in wisdom?

You said, "So then the devil gave this messenger so that Paul could be humble? No, humility is not the devil's purpose, so the giver here must be God. "

Doesn't that strike you as odd? You say God can do wickedness, but Satan can't? Well, in so many words. Satan doesn't delight in his actions when they turn out to be good in the end, but it does happen. That doesn't mean he can't do it.

No, God used the devil to accomplish his good purpose in Paul's life. Again I must note that someone gave Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble, who was the one giving, here?

It must be God...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. And there are many other examples...


Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

Now this was including the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, who sinned indeed in doing this.

Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.

Similarly here, this must reference another taking of the city. And then in Amos:

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

This includes all disasters that befall any city, which would include disasters due to sinful actions by sinful human beings.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Let's review, according to Jim....
Celebrating Christmas is worse than abortion .....

You're joking! That's hilarious. :rotfl:

 

[patman]

Hi Patman,


No, actually, I have pointed to what Job said before his friends came, which is called "not sinning to say that":

"The Lord gave and the Lord took away"
"Shall we receive good from God, and not trouble?"

Now your view is saying this would be a sin to say this, Scripture says Job did not sin in what he said here.

Lee, one of the biggest problems you have with the OV is that you don't understand it. There is no problem with what Job said for my view...

I have said a way back that God does cause "bad" things to happen to those who deserve it.

GOD DOES give and take away. The difference is you accredit the CLEAR actions of SATAN to God, lee! The Book of Job makes it clear that Satan did all this to him. He was clearly mistaken to think God did that. But he didn't sin. What problem exists here?

You are the one who want's God to be the one smiting Job for no just reason.

I agree, some of what Job said was wrong, notably, to say he had been wronged by God, because he had been innocent.


Now some of what he said before this was right, even when his friends were there ("I know that my Redeemer lives"...).

But at the end he does indeed say what is right!

"I know you can do all things, and no plan of yours can be thwarted."

This also would be a problem for the Open View, which says God's plans indeed may have to be abandoned, and God may need to change his mind.


So he really was perfect in wisdom?


No, God used the devil to accomplish his good purpose in Paul's life. Again I must note that someone gave Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble, who was the one giving, here?

It must be God...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. And there are many other examples...


Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

Now this was including the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, who sinned indeed in doing this.

Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.

Similarly here, this must reference another taking of the city. And then in Amos:

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

This includes all disasters that befall any city, which would include disasters due to sinful actions by sinful human beings.

I am glad we can agree that God can bring good out of Evil, but he doesn't cause evil, he doesn't tempt evil, he doesn't proclaim it or plan it.

The verses you present, again, simply show God executing righteous judgement.

And you are still wrong to say " Again I must note that someone gave Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble, who was the one giving, here? It must be God..." You are contradicting your words with scripture.

It clearly says the thorn is a messenger of Satan.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You're joking! That's hilarious. :rotfl:

I wish I were joking.

Jim boldy proclaims celebrating Christmas is worse than abortion here, you can read for yourself and see if Jim's argument is compelling. In that same thread Jim explains that there are "laws of Grace" or "Pauline Law".

I am sure Jim will accuse me of being mean for bringing that up, although if he really believes all this stuff he should thank me for pointing it out.

 

[patman]

I wish I were joking.

Jim boldy proclaims celebrating Christmas is worse than abortion here, you can read for yourself and see if Jim's argument is compelling. In that same thread Jim explains that there are "laws of Grace" or "Pauline Law".

I am sure Jim will accuse me of being mean for bringing that up, although if he really believes all this stuff he should thank me for pointing it out.

Ya Know. I decided to read that post, just for the heck of it. Not that I doubted it, I just wanted to see for myself. I wasn't too surprised, after all, it's Jim.

But then I read where he said "shut your Christmas cake-hole."

:chuckle:

Oh man....

Here's to you Jim.

:first:

I never read anything so........ amusing from you before.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I can't believe I wasted 45 minutes going back and reading all the posts to find out what this argument was about. This is why people who make purely semantical arguments shoudl be taken out and horse-whipped. :Clete:

The end result was that I learned that the dictionary is, evidently, a tool that Hilston is severely lacking proficiency in. He wields it like a child with a hammer to big for him. I’d suggest he invest in some picture dictionaries and build his way up to the real thing. (Just giving you a hard time Hilston!)

The definitions of 'responsible'*
responsible adjective [ predic. ].
1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role : the department responsible for education.
2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.
3. [ attrib. ] (of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.
4. [ predic. ] ( responsible to) having to report to (a superior or someone in authority) and be answerable to them for one's actions : the team manager is responsible to the league president.
5. capable of being trusted : a responsible adult.
6. morally accountable for one's behavior : the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being.
With the exception of number 5, none of the definitions apply to God. Note that each of the entries with bold portions cannot apply to God, because God does not answer to anyone, is not held accountable by anyone, and submits to no authority that could rightly or even logically blame Him for anything. Furthermore, the lone exception, entry number 5, is NOT what Open Theists mean when they complain that the Settled View would make God responsible for evil. Moreover, on the Open View, even number 5 cannot be applied to God, which will be demonstrated below.

Jim,

I quoted the whole thing to show how juvenile it is. Is God responsible for our salvation? Of course he is. Jim argues that this isn’t true because other than number 5, none of the other apply to God because of the bolded parts. That argument doesn't hold up and I agree with Knight when he goes on for two or three posts pointing out the "or" definition #2.

I realize you may not have the integrity to admit when you are wrong, (and I can understand your reluctance when Knight has been beating you over the head with this) but obviously #2 fits with God. I think you should have been able to admit this before now.

God is able to be credited as the primary cause of our salvation. I realize that you bolded the phrase “so able to be blamed”, however this is conditional to show other uses.

Observe the sentence; Joe was ‘responsible’ for opening an unexpected account.
This indicates that Joe was the primary source to be credited. He could not have been blamed (unless there was an unsaid agreement that it was part of his duty to do so – in which case it would fall under definition #3, not #2.) in this case. That is why the “or” is used.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Ya Know. I decided to read that post, just for the heck of it. Not that I doubted it, I just wanted to see for myself. I wasn't too surprised, after all, it's Jim.

But then I read where he said "shut your Christmas cake-hole."

:chuckle:

I appreciate Jim's style ... the more obviously whacked out his position, the more forcefully he proclaims it. That reminds me of when public schools give boys that assault girls a free pass, but will expel children for chewing gum, and then get boisterously defiant about it. Or when the Roman Catholic Church tolerates disagreements about homosexuality within the ranks, but excommunicates a priest who doubts the eternal virginity of Mary. Apparently the weaker the position, the more you must scream and shout. :think:

 

[patman]

I appreciate Jim's style ... the more obviously whacked out his position, the more forcefully he proclaims it. That reminds me of when public schools give boys that assault girls a free pass, but will expel children for chewing gum, and then get boisterously defiant about it. Or when the Roman Catholic Church tolerates disagreements about homosexuality within the ranks, but excommunicates a priest who doubts the eternal virginity of Mary. Apparently the weaker the position, the more you must scream and shout. :think:

I concur.

I just never thought a christmas cake hole would be used as a bad thing before. What better cake hole is there? Christmas is awesome! That and a "cake-hole" aka mouth and you get christmas carols and christmas cookies and snow cream! MMMMMMM.

Who would close their christmas cake hole?

You'd have to :shut: mine

 

[Bob Hill]

At one time I actually held to the view that God never changed until I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that. I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was not anywhere I could find it in the Bible.

Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But when He does that, the Bible shows us what He does. He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.

Many of you know, the Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God over 30 times. The one that really affected me greatly was found in Deuteronomy, but Ex 32:14 is enough. So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

I have drawn this conclusion. If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe that if the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them.

None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.

In the Bible, it shows God as always existing in time. With God, time is no burden. Time seems to be the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

GOD DOES give and take away. The difference is you accredit the CLEAR actions of SATAN to God, lee!

Yet we read, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away...", and "shall we receive good from the Lord, and not trouble?", and Job did not sin when he said this. Yet you say I sin when I say this.

The verses you present, again, simply show God executing righteous judgement.

Involving sinful actions by sinful men, by God's decision, and God even wielding them like an ax, that is the point here.

It clearly says the thorn is a messenger of Satan.

Yes, and given to him, and given by whom? For a purpose of keeping Paul humble...

You are actually contradicting clear Scripture here, I must say, and there are many more examples, and also general statements:

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

And this includes attacks by armies such as Assyria, again, sinful men who are sinning when they carry out their attack.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ya Know. I decided to read that post, just for the heck of it. Not that I doubted it, I just wanted to see for myself. I wasn't too surprised, after all, it's Jim.

For the record....

I like Jim. Jim is a homeschool parent and a loving father and husband.

Yet I think Jim needs to be able to recognize when maybe he has slipped out of reality and is painting himself into a corner. You would hope that he would be humble enough to admit maybe he overstated his case just a bit, and if he did that I would have no problem just moving on. In the end... Jim creates his own problems by making outlandish claims that he cannot support other than twisting the meanings of words and ignoring the actual definitions of words (even though he successfully listed the correct definitions).

 

[patman]

For the record....

I like Jim. Jim is a homeschool parent and a loving father and husband.

Yet I think Jim needs to be able to recognize when maybe he has slipped out of reality and is painting himself into a corner. You would hope that he would be humble enough to admit maybe he overstated his case just a bit, and if he did that I would have no problem just moving on. In the end... Jim creates his own problems by making outlandish claims that he cannot support other than twisting the meanings of words and ignoring the actual definitions of words (even though he successfully listed the correct definitions).

I Remember listening to Jim on KGOV , I was astonished at how nice he sounded and cool headed he was on the show. He even pulled away from the trap of Atheism and to me earns a huge :thumb: . In life away from TOL, I can see him being a cool guy. I even told him how beautiful he was a ways back (at the risk of sounding gay even).

But on here, I think he forgets his tact and forgets to consider others. But he has a creative way of expressing the lack of tact, (i.e. "christmas cake hole"). Still, yet, he doesn't concede his points if he is found wrong.

But if he can dish it, he can take it. So...

 

[patman]

Yet we read, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away...", and "shall we receive good from the Lord, and not trouble?", and Job did not sin when he said this. Yet you say I sin when I say this.

Lee, I accuse you of something different. In the past, I always worried about communicating with you because you seem to miss what I am saying.

So let us set the record straight.

God ______________ sin to bring about good.

Fill in the blank with:

A. causes
B. is orchestrating
C. authors
D. uses

Now, for all the letters you didn't use, tell us why.

 

[lee_merrill]

God ______________ sin to bring about good.

Fill in the blank with:

A. causes
B. is orchestrating
C. authors
D. uses

Now, for all the letters you didn't use, tell us why.

I hold to all but C, in the sense that God is not the source of evil, though he does wield sinful Assyria like an ax, and he does take away when the Sabeans took away, and he did plan even the cross, and orchestrate, and cause, and use it...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I like Jim. Jim is a homeschool parent and a loving father and husband.

I'm sure he is a better person IRL than he makes himself to be on here. On here people have tendancy to sling insults and be a jerk, even at fellow Christians whowould otherwise just want to discuss the differences. People who fear their arguments are not too good often have a tendancy to leap to this behavior.

 

[Bob Hill]

Lee,

I'm really glad that I can agree with your choices.

Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

I'm really glad that I can agree with your choices.

Me too!

Blessings in your ministry,
Lee

 

[Bob Hill]

Thank you Lee,

Bob Hill