ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

You're walking a fine line, SS. No matter how much Bob Hill might disagree with you, he's shown you and anybody else he's addressing nothing but respect. You owe him the same.

Hey Poly. Relax. Those posts about Bob were jokes. If I had meant to be disrespectful, it would have been markedly accentuated. At least one reference to "swine" would be in there, down-cha-noe.

I do believe that God causes sin to bring about good at times, even though the one who does the sin did not think the way God could manipulate it for good.

I also believe that God is orchestrating things, at times, even when the evil person doing it may only have his evil desire as the motivation.

I also believe God uses sin to bring about good, even though the evil person doing it is just trying to be evil.

I too agree with these things, though I wouldn't say merely "at times", but rather, "at all times." I don't think that's a very large logical step.

 

[sentientsynth]

Please contribute to the discussion at hand?

Thank you.

Hey. Why not?

Does God cause sin? Is He the author of sin? Let's focus on a question which Jehovah's prophet Isaiah asks of Him.

Isa 63:17 Why, O Jehovah, hast thou made us to err from thy ways, hast hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.
​

Why would Isaiah ask this question unless Isaiah himself believed that God made them to err? He wouldn't.

So here we find a holy man of God who ascribes the very fall of Israel to the hand of Jehovah.

There was a time when I thought that this would present some difficulties to the Open View. But, now that Bob Hill has clarified the Open Theist take on this, I no longer believe this is the case.

Furthermore, the question could be asked, "Why does God orchestrate the evil presently in the world?"

Simply because there is a scenario, which is clearly demarcated within the prophetic portions of the scriptures, unto which He is using every trite detail, every action, good or blessed, to bring the world to this point, fulfilling all His pleasure.

 

[Bob Hill]

God does not cause sin and is never the author of sin.

He does deal with His enemies and His own people, Israel, when they are very disobedient.

At times, the Lord hardened His enemies as well as Israel.

Here are some examples.

Ex 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Deu 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day.

2 Kings 17:7-20 For so it was that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and they had feared other gods, 8 and had walked in the statutes of the nations whom the Lord had cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. 9 Also the children of Israel secretly did against the Lord their God things that were not right, and they built for themselves high places in all their cities, from watchtower to fortified city. 10 They set up for themselves sacred pillars and wooden images on every high hill and under every green tree. 11 There they burned incense on all the high places, like the nations whom the Lord had carried away before them; and they did wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger, 12 for they served idols, of which the Lord had said to them, “You shall not do this thing.” 13 Yet the Lord testified against Israel and against Judah, by all of His prophets, every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by My servants the prophets.” 14 Nevertheless they would not hear, but stiffened their necks, like the necks of their fathers, who did not believe in the Lord their God. 15 And they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He had made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He had testified against them; they followed idols, became idolaters, and went after the nations who were all around them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them that they should not do like them. 16 So they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, made for themselves a molded image and two calves, made a wooden image and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17 And they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and soothsaying, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. 18 Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone. 19 Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. 20 And the Lord rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His sight.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

God punished Israel very often when they rebelled against His program for them.

That was the reason for the Isaiah 63:17 statement.

Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? Return for Your servants’ sake, the tribes of Your inheritance.

Bob Hill

 

[patman]

Hey. Why not?

Does God cause sin? Is He the author of sin? Let's focus on a question which Jehovah's prophet Isaiah asks of Him.

Isa 63:17 Why, O Jehovah, hast thou made us to err from thy ways, hast hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.
​

Why would Isaiah ask this question unless Isaiah himself believed that God made them to err? He wouldn't.

So here we find a holy man of God who ascribes the very fall of Israel to the hand of Jehovah.

There was a time when I thought that this would present some difficulties to the Open View. But, now that Bob Hill has clarified the Open Theist take on this, I no longer believe this is the case.

Furthermore, the question could be asked, "Why does God orchestrate the evil presently in the world?"

Simply because there is a scenario, which is clearly demarcated within the prophetic portions of the scriptures, unto which He is using every trite detail, every action, good or blessed, to bring the world to this point, fulfilling all His pleasure.

Do I have to answer this? has he really been banned?

 

[patman]

WOW!!

I do believe that God causes sin to bring about good at times, even though the one who does the sin did not think the way God could manipulate it for good.

I also believe that God is orchestrating things, at times, even when the evil person doing it may only have his evil desire as the motivation.

I also believe God uses sin to bring about good, even though the evil person doing it is just trying to be evil.

As I pointed out 4296 & 4298, I do not believe God authors sin!!!! :devil:

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Amen Bob

 

[patman]

Then trying to get Job to curse God was not a sin? No, "the devil has been sinning from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).


Why then did God say he would punish the Assyrians (Isa. 10:12), after he had completed his work with Judah through these Assyrians?


Then planning the cross, and bringing it about, was evil?

"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (Acts 4:28)


So then there can be victory, with nothing to overcome, a reward, even if there is nothing to reward?

Blessings,
Lee

Satan was testing Job. His motives were indeed evil and sinful. But what is important is GOD didn't sin here.

There is a principal you are missing, sin is disobeying God...

Jesus laid down his life, no one took it from him. God did not cause anyone to crucify his son. He had planned to sacrifice Him from the beginning, but not in sin! Jesus died in obedience, giving his life away. Why do you call it sin?

Lee, you gotta get this straight, God isn't watering down the world with evil so good can come of it. He only uses sins already committed to bring it about.

 

[lee_merrill]

Satan was testing Job. His motives were indeed evil and sinful. But what is important is GOD didn't sin here.

I agree that God didn't sin, and also let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.

God did not cause anyone to crucify his son.

Yet "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (Acts 4:28)

He had planned to sacrifice Him from the beginning, but not in sin! Jesus died in obedience, giving his life away. Why do you call it sin?

It would be a sin to kill the Son of God?

Why do you not call it sin? I would hold that he was innocent, and did not in any way deserve death.

God isn't watering down the world with evil so good can come of it. He only uses sins already committed to bring it about.

Then how did God wield Assyria like an axe, and predict that he would do this?

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I'm sorry if SentientSynth was banned, and if this is to be the standard, then I ask that you ban others who have made similar statements to those who have been respectful to them, including (must it be said?) Open Theists. I can think of some examples.

 

[Hilston]

Do I have to answer this? has he really been banned?

SentientSynth's banishment notwithstanding, there are others reading who would be interested in your reply.

I do believe that God causes sin to bring about good at times, even though the one who does the sin did not think the way God could manipulate it for good.

I also believe that God is orchestrating things, at times, even when the evil person doing it may only have his evil desire as the motivation.

I also believe God uses sin to bring about good, even though the evil person doing it is just trying to be evil.

Would you (or any Open Theist) agree with the following?:

I do believe that God authors sin to bring about good at times, even though the one who does the sin did not think the way God could manipulate it for good.

I also believe that God authored things, at times, even when the evil person doing it may only have his evil desire as the motivation.

I also believe God authored sin to bring about good, even though the evil person doing it is just trying to be evil.​

If not, why not?

 

[Poly]

Hey Poly. Relax. Those posts about Bob were jokes. If I had meant to be disrespectful, it would have been markedly accentuated. At least one reference to "swine" would be in there, down-cha-noe.

SS you've been banned for 3 days for being a nuisance in this thread.

 

[Hilston]

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.

The careful and contextual treatment of words and other people's statements is showing respect for the debate, regardless of whether or not one respects the other debater(s). Rather than painting myself into a corner, we see instead the persistent and malicious efforts by one debater to pervert and manipulate the words of another. If there is any "painting" going on, the brush is in Knight's hand. I've allowed him to do it and even agreed to the statement that I predicted Knight would use to smear me. In private messages, Knight made it clear that he understood my meaning, but went ahead with the distortion anyway. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see have a clear example of the lengths to which Knight will go to avoid the questions he can't answer.

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.

It is not overstated. It is deliberately resisted by Knight, but those who are willing to get it understand. If anyone with their rational faculties still intact will read what I've written, they will clearly see the careful and contextual usage of terms and how they apply.

I had a lovely 2+ hour conversation two nights ago with an Open Theist who has followed this discussion. They saw clearly what is going on. They saw exactly what I've been saying and are bothered that others don't see it. They expressed disappointment in how Knight and others have behaved here.

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

Knight is delusional.

(even though he successfully listed the correct definitions).

Which Knight dismantled and perverted.

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: .

This is the difference between the Open Theist and the biblical view. I did not pull away from atheism. I did not earn a :thumb:. I was saved from Atheism by God. I was unable to save myself. I was powerless (Ro 5:6), unable to pull myself away from false beliefs. I was spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-5), unwilling and unable to yield myself to God (Ro 8:7). It was not my effort that saved me (Jn 1:13). It was not my will that saved me (Ro 9:16). It was not my faith that secured eternally life for me, but the blood of Christ alone. At the decreed time, the Holy Spirit regenerated me, gave me the faith that I could not manufacture on my own, and by that faith, showed me the errors of atheism; and by that faith, drove me to the truth I eventually found in the Scriptures. All of God. None of me. Sounds biblical, doesn't it? But that's not what Open Theism teaches. Open Theists are co-saviors and cannot logically thank God for doing it all. They can only thank God for doing part of the work. At some point, the Open Theist should say, "OK God, thanks for doing your part, but I'll take it from here."

But on here, I think he forgets his tact and forgets to consider others.

On the contrary, it is exactly the opposite. I do consider others, which determines how I treat them. It takes a lot more energy and effort to ridicule and mock someone with accuracy and precision. It's a lot easier to play nice. But I'm biblically obligated to answer the fool according to his folly. To those who have respected the debate, engaged the discussion, and made earnest efforts to answer questions and accurately represent their opponents, I show nothing but kindness and sincerity. Search and see. Anyone who has respected the debate has gotten only kindness in return. The ones who get vitriol and vinegar from me are those who ignore questions, misrepresent their opponents (whether or not it's me), and refuse to think and follow logical arguments. Search and see. Ask Yorzhik, Death2Impiety, Vaquero45, SUTG and Chilli if I've ever treated them the way I've treated Knight and the rest of the Ostrich View proponents on this forum.

No matter how much Bob Hill might disagree with you, he's shown you and anybody else he's addressing nothing but respect.

This is false. I think you're confusing "showing niceness" and "showing respect." Sure, Bob Hill shows niceness to others, but he certainly does not show respect. Bob Hill has shown that he is either unable or unwilling to engage the terms of this discussion. He has deliberately avoided questions, misrepresented the views of his opponents and has persisted in his drive-by style of "debate", posting long cut-paste diatribes from past discussions and then refusing to answer for them*. Bob Hill disrespects the debate and has shown himself worthy of my derision.

[*I'm still waiting to find out how his prayer life as an Open Theist is more "zesty" than when he was a pseudo-Calvinist.]

You owe him the same.

Based on his performance here, I owe him nothing but scorn.

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

 

[godrulz]

If nothing else, Jim H. seems to be able to spell. I can also make claim to this fame. :king:

 

[Poly]

I had a lovely 2+ hour conversation two nights ago with an Open Theist who has followed this discussion. They saw clearly what is going on. They saw exactly what I've been saying and are bothered that others don't see it. They expressed disappointment in how Knight and others have behaved here.

I, for one, am getting tired of hearing about the mystery Open Theist/s who goes to you to talk about how awful Knight is being. If this is true, I think this person should make his concerns known to Knight as well at least via PM. You sound like a child every time you bring this up.

"Guess what Knight? One of your friends decided to come play with me on the playground and we've been talking about how mean you are."

This is false. I think you're confusing "showing niceness" and "showing respect." Sure, Bob Hill shows niceness to others, but he certainly does not show respect. Bob Hill has shown that he is either unable or unwilling to engage the terms of this discussion. He has deliberately avoided questions, misrepresented the views of his opponents and has persisted in his drive-by style of "debate", posting long cut-paste diatribes from past discussions and then refusing to answer for them*. Bob Hill disrespects the debate and has shown himself worthy of my derision.

Based on his performance here, I owe him nothing but scorn.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody voicing it even in a harsh manner. It's another to make posts for sole purpose of submitting a huge banner making false claims of another person.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I had a lovely 2+ hour conversation two nights ago with an Open Theist who has followed this discussion. They saw clearly what is going on. They saw exactly what I've been saying and are bothered that others don't see it. They expressed disappointment in how Knight and others have behaved here.

Isn't that special?

Have you ever noticed how often Jim likes to let us know that "others" agree with him behind the scenes? Hmmm.... I wonder why people don't jump to his defense right here so we can all read their defense? I wonder why that is? :think:

I am now about to do something I never do but Jim is forcing my hand....

Jim, behind the scenes lots of people tell me they think you have lost your mind! Although unlike your encounters many of the ones that agree with me have come on this thread to agree with me in public. Yet there are even more that have told me things "behind the scenes". :shocked:

Jim, Have you ever noticed I never say things like that? I never say things like... "so and so agrees with me he sent me a PM to tell me." or "I talked with a settledviewer and they said Jim is being a lunatic on that thread". etc. etc. etc. I could say those things but I don't. Those are the types of assertions I refuse to make (although I could) because they mean NOTHING!!!

It doesn't matter how many people agree with you behind the scenes! That doesn't make your statements any more legitimate.

Jim the bottom line is....
You have now told the world you think it is a sin to give God credit for your salvation.

That my friend is flat out bizarre! It's also completely in error as I have so painfully demonstrated on this thread.

 

[Hilston]

I, for one, am getting tired of hearing about the mystery Open Theist/s who goes to you to talk about how awful Knight is being.

They didn't say he was being awful. They expressed disappointment.

... If this is true, I think this person should make his concerns known to Knight as well at least via PM.

You must be crazy. Knight would rip them apart, just like he did to Philetus, as described here.

You sound like a child every time you bring this up.

Then you miss the point. Most Open Theists are delusional. Some are not that far gone. Those who aren't see what I'm saying, which is at least noteworthy and supports my point. So it gets noted here. If it's so insignificant, why does it bother you so much?

"Guess what Knight? One of your friends decided to come play with me on the playground and we've been talking about how mean you are."

They would not have said such a thing. They look up to Knight, which is probably why they're so disappointed.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody voicing it even in a harsh manner. It's another to make posts for sole purpose of submitting a huge banner making false claims of another person.

I agree, and Bob Hill is guilty of the latter.

Have you ever noticed how often Jim likes to let us know that "others" agree with him behind the scenes?

Actually I don't like to do it. I thought it over long and hard before posting that. I think it is significant because Knight and most of his cronies are so delusional.

Hmmm.... I wonder why people don't jump to his defense right here so we can all read their defense? I wonder why that is? :think:

It could be that I've made the whole thing up. It could also be that they would rather learn quietly from the substantive posts in the discussion and not get entangled in the perversions and manipulations that Knight has chosen to focus on. It could also be that they don't want to be on the receiving end of one your public reprimands, like Philetus was.

I am now about to do something I never do but Jim is forcing my hand....

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Jim, behind the scenes lots of people tell me they think you have lost your mind!

I consider that a point of honor. I don't expect most adherents to a delusion-based religion to see anything clearly.

... Although unlike your encounters many of the ones that agree with me have come on this thread to agree with me in public. Yet there are even more that have told me things "behind the scenes". :shocked:

Again, I'm honored. It indicates that I'm on the right track.

Jim, Have you ever noticed I never say things like that?

It's because, in my case, it doesn't matter. There are no loyalty issues or threats of ostracization being wielded. If another Settled Theist disagrees with me, they don't have to worry about being cast out of my club.

... I never say things like... "so and so agrees with me he sent me a PM to tell me." or "I talked with a settledviewer and they said Jim is being a lunatic on that thread". etc. etc. etc. I could say those things but I don't. Those are the types of assertions I refuse to make (although I could) because they mean NOTHING!!!

It would mean nothing in my case because none of those people agrees with my theology anyway. Settled Theists want nothing to do with my Mid-Acts views. Mid-Acts people want nothing to do with my Settled View. So it matters little if you find Settled Viewers who oppose me. It matters little if you find Mid-Acts people who oppose me. The reason why you "never say things like this" is because it wouldn't serve your agenda. It serves mine quite well, especially given your and Poly's reactions to it.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with you behind the scenes! That doesn't make your statements any more legitimate.

No, my points are legitimate on their own. Your refusal to acknowledge or process their legitimacy is your problem, supported by the fact that others of your ilk can and do acknowledge the legitimacy of my statements.

Jim the bottom line is....
You have now told the world you think it is a sin to give God credit for your salvation.

What does that statement "it is a sin to give God credit for your salvation" mean? Please unpack it for me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In private messages, Knight made it clear that he understood my meaning, but went ahead with the distortion anyway.

:rotfl:

Oh man... this is really sad. I feel for you, I do!

Jim, your defense of the assertion: it is a sin to give God credit for our salvation IS THE distoriton. For you to make the claim that I agree with you via PM makes me realize that you are probably misrepresenting the OV'er who is "championing" you in private. :chuckle:

Where do we go from here Jim? What more can be said? You have made your case, I have made mine. You think it's a sin to give God credit for our salvation, I say it's not a sin to give God credit for our salvation.

 

[Hilston]

Jim, your defense of the assertion: it is a sin to give God credit for our salvation IS THE distoriton.

A distortion of what?

For you to make the claim that I agree with you via PM ...

I didn't say you agreed; I said you understood. In public you distort. In private you express understanding. That says a lot.

... makes me realize that you are probably misrepresenting the OV'er who is "championing" you in private. :chuckle:

I can see how believing this would make you feel better. It really bothers you that someone in your camp could be so "treasonous," doesn't it? It's obvious by the way you ridiculed Philetus. The sad thing is, people who are dressed down in public like that either become resentful or even more zealous. In this case, it was the latter. Philetus has sadly become even more adamant than he was before. Your tactic really worked on him.

You think it's a sin to give God credit for our salvation.

What does that mean? Please don't skip this. I need to know if you understand what the statement means.

 

[godrulz]

This reminds me of sozo/outlaw's personal debates with me. There should be a separate 'room' out of public eye for non-content wranglings.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A distortion of what?

A distortion of the meaning of the word responsible and of the word credit.

You distort those words because you IGNORE other acceptable definitions and assert that only your selected definitions apply when we all know other definitions apply perfectly fine. In fact, the definitions that I use (from your own stated list) are far more accepted and used than the tortured narrow definition you are claiming.

I didn't say you agreed; I said you understood. In public you distort. In private you express understanding. That says a lot.

It does say a lot, and to be nice I will refrain from saying what it says.

I can see how believing this would make you feel better. It really bothers you that someone in your camp could be so "treasonous," doesn't it? It's obvious by the way you ridiculed Philetus. The sad thing is, people who are dressed down in public like that either become resentful or even more zealous. In this case, it was the latter. Philetus has sadly become even more adamant than he was before. Your tactic really worked on him.

:chuckle: Jim let me put this in perspective for you....

If EVERYONE on TOL including Bob Enyart, Bob Hill, all the OV'ers, my own relatives like Lion and Becky and even my closest friends like Poly and Turbo all agreed with you that it is a sin to give God credit, It wouldn't change my opinion one bit!

Unlike you, I think people have the right to think whatever they want. I don't mind disagreements it doesn't bother me at all. You seem to be very concerned with what other people think of you and you seem to need approval so you campaign against me like a two bit politician trying to turn this person against that person and so on. I refuse to do those things. Instead I like to stay focused on the actual assertions you make and ignore all the fluffy irrelevant stuff.

I don't live there Jim.

You might live there, but I don't.

What does that mean? Please don't skip this. I need to know if you understand what the statement means.

What does what mean?

What does it mean to believe that giving credit to God for salvation is a sin? Is that what you are asking? If so, why don't you answer the question, it's your assertion not mine.

Giving God credit for the good gifts that come from above means....

Acknowledging that God is the primary cause, the source, the explanation for their existence.

Which of course comes directly out of the definition of the word responsible which you supplied for us.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This reminds me of sozo/outlaw's personal debates with me. There should be a separate 'room' out of public eye for non-content wranglings.

If I ever had any spare time I would seperate out this entire discussion between me and Jim.

I wanted to do that over the weekend but I ran out of time.