ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

I showed you scripture, where Job was told he was doing the same thing, yet you do not wish to see how you are mistaken.

Actually, Job is not rebuked for saying God did this.

You should not rely on Job's word because he was forced to repent.

Unless God said “what he said was right,” then we have the Lord’s stamp on what he said, part of which was to speak of God’s plan, with all the past events in view, and that God’s plan cannot be thwarted, so clearly all that happened to Job was not thwarting God’s plan. And God said “That’s right.”

It is a mistake to go on an implication of a plan based on a flawed grieving humans ignorant understanding of the almighty, especially one who confesses he spoke of things to wonderful to understand.

Unless again God said “you spoke what was right about me,” then we can read what Job said, and rely on this.

It is silly to think Job had all the answers when you consider context.

I agree that Job was mistaken in what he was rebuked for, he implied that God was unjust in afflicting him.

When we know that everyone in Job was made to repent because they said "God brings judgement on the innocent" you should know they were wrong.

However, the verses state the opposite quite clearly, Job says the Lord took away, and did not sin in what he said (not “in what he meant”). So it is not a sin to say the Lord took away.

You point out: But this statement is by Scripture itself, not by a person. Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

So in light of the understanding, we can see that it is a figure of speech.

Only the context says the opposite, so here you are rewriting Scripture without warrant.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you …

Ezekiel 21:3 ... and say to her: "This is what the Lord says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked."

God also said the Sabeans did some of this, so then who took away Job's oxen and donkeys? Satan, or the Sabeans?

And you have not yet made clear to me how God had no agency in what happened to Job, when he took down the hedge around him.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pastor Bob,

The important thing is God's changing of His mind!

It's amazing how much He changed His mind because of Israel.

Yet let’s not just open more questions in our replies, let’s first discuss these verses you had mentioned:

There were a few things in the O.T. that really seemed to show that God did not know what would happen before it happened. The first eye opener for me was in Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.

But then how can God predict what people will do based on their character if he didn't even know that Abraham feared God?

But as there are different senses of the word "know", another sense than factual knowledge may be what is meant here, as is I know factually the water is cold, I jump in, now I know the water is cold.

God predicted something would happen according to Jer 3:7, ‘She will return to Me!’ But she did not return”.

Or "I said [the usual meaning of the word 'amar'] she will return, and she did not return," and she will!

Jeremiah 31:8 See, I will bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the ends of the earth. Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor; a great throng will return.

Jeremiah 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: 'You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God.

Why, may I ask, should we trust God's counsel, if he can be mistaken about people's hearts, and about what they will or will not do?

It's a bit disrespectful not to respond to people's questions, after posting such arguments, if I may say so...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Tell me the name of one Christian who says that they have never sinned. A prerequisite for being saved is that you must first be lost. If we do not believe that we were sinners then we would never have been saved. We have passed from the darkness (sin & death) into Christ (Life & peace). Sin is not what you do but who you are. Righteousness is who you are not what you do.

You missed the point E4E. Every Christian has admitted and repented of sin. That's why they are Christian.

The question I thought was: "Do Christians continue to sin?"

One person who claimed they never again sinned after being born again was my grandmother. I could name hundreds. I grew up in it.

Even as Christians who gossiped they boasted that they didn't sin; they were saints, not sinners, and in a sense they were correct. But those they gossiped about thought differently. Others who are Christian (myself among them) admit they sill do things they consider sin and continue to repent of such acts. Because of my raising, I used to think that every time I was convicted by the indwelling Holy Spirit to repent and stop doing something that I knew was sinful, I thought my salvation was in jeopardy. I now know it isn’t my salvation but fellowship and intimacy that is threatened. Through grace I’m secure in my standing (or condition) … I’m a new creature in Christ … but I haven’t yet reached perfection. So forgetting what is behind I press on to take hold of that for which Christ has taken hold of me.

Under the Law it was true that our evil deeds separated us from God. People still think of themselves as God’s enemies because of their evil deeds. But because of the Cross, it is not our evil deeds that separate us from God; it is lack of faith -- NOT believing the truth about God revealed in Jesus that keeps people from becoming new creations and growing up in Christ.

I was just making the point that over emphasis of one pole or the other is very confusing to the not-yet-believers, not to mention many Christians.

Philetus

 

[elected4ever]

You missed the point E4E. Every Christian has admitted and repented of sin. That's why they are Christian.

The question I thought was: "Do Christians continue to sin?"

One person who claimed they never again sinned after being born again was my grandmother. I could name hundreds. I grew up in it.

Even as Christians who gossiped they boasted that they didn't sin; they were saints, not sinners, and in a sense they were correct. But those they gossiped about thought differently. Others who are Christian (myself among them) admit they sill do things they consider sin and continue to repent of such acts. Because of my raising, I used to think that every time I was convicted by the indwelling Holy Spirit to repent and stop doing something that I knew was sinful, I thought my salvation was in jeopardy. I now know it isn’t my salvation but fellowship and intimacy that is threatened. Through grace I’m secure in my standing (or condition) … I’m a new creature in Christ … but I haven’t yet reached perfection. So forgetting what is behind I press on to take hold of that for which Christ has taken hold of me.

Under the Law it was true that our evil deeds separated us from God. People still think of themselves as God’s enemies because of their evil deeds. But because of the Cross, it is not our evil deeds that separate us from God; it is lack of faith -- NOT believing the truth about God revealed in Jesus that keeps people from becoming new creations and growing up in Christ.

I was just making the point that over emphasis of one pole or the other is very confusing to the not-yet-believers, not to mention many Christians.

Philetus

Most Christians think that they are still of the flesh. and if they are of the flesh then yes they can sin but nether are they righteous. The Apostle Paul and the Apostle John point out that we are not of the flesh and are born of the seed of God. It is not what I think of me or what you think of yourself that counts. It is what God says about us that is true. If our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart. We ought not accuse each other of being sinners and we certainly ought not to falsely accuse ourselves.

 

[godrulz]

Philetus is closer to the truth in my opinion.

Sinless perfectionism or entire sanctification (Wesleyan) views are heretical (half truth).

Believers should not and will not sin. This is not the same as an absolute inability to sin (cannot....unless our wills and minds are negated at conversion).

 

[patman]

Hi Patman,


Actually, Job is not rebuked for saying God did this.


Unless God said “what he said was right,” then we have the Lord’s stamp on what he said, part of which was to speak of God’s plan, with all the past events in view, and that God’s plan cannot be thwarted, so clearly all that happened to Job was not thwarting God’s plan. And God said “That’s right.”


Unless again God said “you spoke what was right about me,” then we can read what Job said, and rely on this.


I agree that Job was mistaken in what he was rebuked for, he implied that God was unjust in afflicting him.


However, the verses state the opposite quite clearly, Job says the Lord took away, and did not sin in what he said (not “in what he meant”). So it is not a sin to say the Lord took away.


Only the context says the opposite, so here you are rewriting Scripture without warrant.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you …

Ezekiel 21:3 ... and say to her: "This is what the Lord says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked."

God also said the Sabeans did some of this, so then who did took away Job's oxen and donkeys? Satan, or the Sabeans?

And you have not yet made clear to me how God had no agency in what happened to Job, when he took down the hedge around him.

Blessings,
Lee

Your bad reasoning is NOT a grounds to accuse me of adding to scripture, Lee. At least you have a backbone today tho. It is not often your style to point out could be flaws. Had you been right, I would have appreciated your rebuke.

"And you have not yet made clear to me how God had no agency in what happened to Job, when he took down the hedge around him."

If I answer this, 1, you will not understand it, 2, you will start off on a different topic. Again, let's focus on Job's story first..

If anyone else wants to know my answer, they can PM me.

Lee: I agree that Job was mistaken in what he was rebuked for, he implied that God was unjust in afflicting him.

Yet God didn't afflict him. Satan did. A Clear fact. God said he did it. So not only was Job wrong for calling him unjust, he was wrong in saying God did it. It is reasonable to say Job didn't know who was really doing what, so why run with his word on it?

You say that "he did not sin in saying this" proves Job was right. And it is very easy to see how sin and being wrong are not the same thing. It is just a bad argument.

Lee: Yet unwitting blasphemy is a sin, Paul had to be forgiven for this.

Saul murdered Christians. This was his sin. Lee. Such a bad example.

It is so simple, Lee. God said Satan did it, Job said God did it, you say Both did it because Job didn't sin? Why is saying God said Satan did it, Job said God did it, Only God is right because Job was wrong though he did not sin?

You would say, "because it is sin to misunderstand what God is or is not doing?"

Well Adam and Eve were sinners before they even saw the tree of good and evil.

Job was attacked by Satan. God said so. YOU twist the words around, not I. Job's, His wife's, His friend's mistaken saying God did it is not adequate to form your proof. THEY ARE HUMAN. God is GOD. Listen to him, not Job!

Why do you consider Job's words more than Elihu? After all, in the end of the book, Elihu was the only one who didn't need to repent. And he said:

Job 37: 23 As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him;
He is excellent in power,
In judgment and abundant justice;
He does not oppress.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.

Job 36
5 “ Behold, God is mighty, but despises no one;
He is mighty in strength of understanding.
6 He does not preserve the life of the wicked,
But gives justice to the oppressed.
7 He does not withdraw His eyes from the righteous;
But they are on the throne with kings,
For He has seated them forever,
And they are exalted.

So if Job were truly as Job 1:1 said, God does not withdraw his eyes from him... Satan however, did.

Job 2:6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”

We Know God's righteousness is unchanging. He doesn't pervert justice. Any who say he does are mistaken. So we have one verse you hold to.

It stands alone in Job. It is a figure of speech. God tell us repeatedly who did what and who didn't do.

 

[Philetus]

Most Christians think that they are still of the flesh. and if they are of the flesh then yes they can sin but nether are they righteous. The Apostle Paul and the Apostle John point out that we are not of the flesh and are born of the seed of God. It is not what I think of me or what you think of yourself that counts. It is what God says about us that is true. If our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart. We ought not accuse each other of being sinners and we certainly ought not to falsely accuse ourselves.

I agree with that, but it isn't the whole story. I’m not righteous because I never sin. That would be reducing the Gospel to a mere behavior modification program or returning to the law. I’m righteous because I’m in Christ. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses me from ALL sin[ past, present and yet-to-be committed sins. Even when our hearts condemn us, we know we have an advocate with the Father. God is greater. That is the truth about God. And that is the truth about us in Christ. Righteousness is given by God in response to faith and there is no condemnation in Christ. So when we judge others we condemn ourselves because we are equally guilty of denying that truth.

John’s “but, IF WE do sin” leaves open that part of the future (as to contingency) that even in Christ one might sin by doing something that denies the truth about God. But, in Christ we are still covered, and retain our standing before God. That part of the future is closed. It’s a done deal. NOTHING can change it. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. That too, is the truth about God and God’s truth about us. Shall we continue to intentionally commit those acts that call into question the Truth? God forbid. But, if we do? ………… That’s an open question.

 

[lee_merrill]

Job 2:6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”

... God tell us repeatedly who did what and who didn't do.

So then God had some agency here, did he not? Job being in Satan's hand, this was allowed by God's decision, is this not true?

God could have prevented this? He could have kept up the hedge?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

Philetus is closer to the truth in my opinion.

Sinless perfectionism or entire sanctification (Wesleyan) views are heretical (half truth).

Believers should not and will not sin. This is not the same as an absolute inability to sin (cannot....unless our wills and minds are negated at conversion).

: No matter how I couch the terminology, you almost always get the labels right. :up:

entire sanctification = mindless performance oriented religion :rotfl:

When you are up to your neck in it and carrying a ton of guilt because of it the opposite extreme that E4E is stressing looks good. But that has a tendency to degenerate into what Bonhoeffer called ‘cheep’ grace while those ‘Wesleyan’s’ tend to give the impression that they get and keep their salvation the old fashioned way, “They earn it.”

 

[Philetus]

So then God had some agency here, did he not? Job being in Satan's hand, this was allowed by God's decision, is this not true?

God could have prevented this? He could have kept up the hedge?

Blessings,
Lee

Could God have left the book of Job out of the Bible. Yes, and I'm begining to wish he had.

 

[godrulz]

: No matter how I couch the terminology, you almost always get the labels right. :up:

entire sanctification = mindless performance oriented religion :rotfl:

When you are up to your neck in it and carrying a ton of guilt because of it the opposite extreme that E4E is stressing looks good. But that has a tendency to degenerate into what Bonhoeffer called ‘cheep’ grace while those ‘Wesleyan’s’ tend to give the impression that they get and keep their salvation the old fashioned way, “They earn it.”

I think Wesley had more things right than his followers. He would affirm justification by grace through faith alone. His understanding of 'entire santification' is a subsequent issue to justification. It was supposedly a second work of grace where the 'sin nature' was eradicated making it impossible to sin. As you observe, it can become legalistic. When these guys sin, they call it a mistake (don't remind me of sozo/outlaw/e4e please).

I was at a fringe revival meeting by a perfectionist church of God. I struggled with the flesh as a new Christian. I went to their altar and they tried to tell me that God had zapped me and I would struggle no more. The emotional experience did nothing for my subsequent walk. There was no evidence of this supposed work of grace.

Justification/regeneration is done by God alone when we respond in repentant faith. Sanctification is a cooperative element (in specific choices vs our positional setting apart as saints, holy to God in Christ) with exhortations to obedience AND yielding to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I am reading a book on 5 sanctification views (Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, etc.). All views have similarities with theoretical differences. The bottom line is that we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. We cannot do this in ourselves, but the Spirit does not just zap us. We are energized and constrained to make right choices (i.e. no adultery, stealing, etc.).

I still find Charles Finney's Systematic Theology coherent and biblical on many points (though not easy to understand and easy to misunderstand/misrepresent).

 

[godrulz]

Could God have left the book of Job out of the Bible. Yes, and I'm begining to wish he had.

Job is a specific historical situation and is not meant to be a normative picture of Christian living. God's dealings with man are revealed and many principles on dealing with suffering are evidenced. It supports a warfare vs blueprint model of sovereignty and shows God's faithfulness and goodness despite our miserable journey in the pigpen earth (we took Paradise and turned it into Pukeville; God wanted us to have New Jerusalem; we turned it into New York?!).

 

[Philetus]

Job is a specific historical situation and is not meant to be a normative picture of Christian living. God's dealings with man are revealed and many principles on dealing with suffering are evidenced. It supports a warfare vs blueprint model of sovereignty and shows God's faithfulness and goodness despite our miserable journey in the pigpen earth (we took Paradise and turned it into Pukeville; God wanted us to have New Jerusalem; we turned it into New York?!).

I know. It was just my tacky tongue in check way of saying that Lee sounds more like Job the longer he goes on and on trying to support a blueprint model from Job's case. He keeps illustrating the opposite. He needs to give both Job and Patman a rest and come up with something else.

godrulz: I think Wesley had more things right than his followers. He would affirm justification by grace through faith alone. His understanding of 'entire santification' is a subsequent issue to justification. It was supposedly a second work of grace where the 'sin nature' was eradicated making it impossible to sin. As you observe, it can become legalistic. When these guys sin, they call it a mistake (don't remind me of sozo/outlaw/e4e please).

I was at a fringe revival meeting by a perfectionist church of God. I struggled with the flesh as a new Christian. I went to their altar and they tried to tell me that God had zapped me and I would struggle no more. The emotional experience did nothing for my subsequent walk. There was no evidence of this supposed work of grace.

Justification/regeneration is done by God alone when we respond in repentant faith. Sanctification is a cooperative element (in specific choices vs our positional setting apart as saints, holy to God in Christ) with exhortations to obedience AND yielding to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I am reading a book on 5 sanctification views (Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, etc.). All views have similarities with theoretical differences. The bottom line is that we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. We cannot do this in ourselves, but the Spirit does not just zap us. We are energized and constrained to make right choices (i.e. no adultery, stealing, etc.).

I still find Charles Finney's Systematic Theology coherent and biblical on many points (though not easy to understand and easy to misunderstand/misrepresent).
Today 11:08 AM

I am still very thankful for my Wesleyan heritage. It grounded me in the Word. But, like most things ... third and fourth generation movements need reform. Most of the extremes we see in centers that hold to a specific detail of ‘doctrine’ or human ‘founder’ are the result of reaction to other centers that challenge it at some point. Sometimes I feel that if we just loved Jesus as much as we love our labels we would experience unity and the world would recognize us by our love rather than our pet doctrines. Seems like the second and third and fourth work of anything ‘Christian’ has a tendency to divide.

I like your ‘bottom line statement’ above. Kind of like the Holy Spirit is saying, “Lets just get ‘er done.” I don't think God needs our help. I think He desires our cooperation. Did somebody say ‘relationship’?

 

[elected4ever]

Job is a specific historical situation and is not meant to be a normative picture of Christian living. God's dealings with man are revealed and many principles on dealing with suffering are evidenced. It supports a warfare vs blueprint model of sovereignty and shows God's faithfulness and goodness despite our miserable journey in the pigpen earth (we took Paradise and turned it into Pukeville; God wanted us to have New Jerusalem; we turned it into New York?!).

God does not dwell with the man. God dwell in the man The Spirit of God is birthed with in the man and in God's eyes that is who we are. Can that which is born of God Sin? The flesh is not born of God and is not subject to God. It is still as it was before salvation. Condemned in sin. If we remain subject to the deeds of the flesh then we are yet in sin because sin has been condemned in the flesh. It is our Spirit that cries, "Abba Father", not the flesh. The flesh has not lost its will to do as it desires but we have a new will (desire) to be just like our Father. We have the mind of Christ and are as he is in this world, today. The mind of the flesh is opposed to all that is Holy and Righteous. it cannot be overcome except through death. We are to consider ourselves dead to sin but alive unto God

 

[lee_merrill]

... Lee sounds more like Job the longer he goes on and on trying to support a blueprint model from Job's case. He keeps illustrating the opposite.

The question however is not whether there is a blueprint model, the question is whether God's actions at times bring affliction on innocent people.

Clearly, the book of Job shows that he does this, and also we see that faithfulness in affliction is rewarded.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

The question however is not whether there is a blueprint model, the question is whether God's actions at times bring affliction on innocent people.

Clearly, the book of Job shows that he does this, and also we see that faithfulness in affliction is rewarded.

Blessings,
Lee

God did not initiate or cause the affliction. Satan was the instigator, but God did allow it for a season.

 

[lee_merrill]

God did not initiate or cause the affliction. Satan was the instigator, but God did allow it for a season.

How was God not involved in causing this, if he removed the hedge, though?

And the Lord mentioned Job first...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. It is surprising what people will deny, because a pre-conceived theology requires it...

 

[godrulz]

How was God not involved in causing this, if he removed the hedge, though?

And the Lord mentioned Job first...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. It is surprising what people will deny, because a pre-conceived theology requires it...

Satan is on a leash. He afflicted Job. God did not flip a coin and decide to cause Job grief, he did not manipulate Satan into doing what Satan wanted to do, etc.

If I do not follow my kids all the time and protect them with a gun from all threats, does that mean I am responsible if thugs bully them? If a kid hurts my kid, that kid is responsible for his actions. Removing a hedge does not mean God caused Satan's buffeting nor does it mean God is actively doing it. God is not the only free moral agent in the universe.

 

[Philetus]

How was God not involved in causing this, if he removed the hedge, though?

And the Lord mentioned Job first...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. It is surprising what people will deny, because a pre-conceived theology requires it...

Yea, and God allows you to sin, Lee. He doesn't cause it.
Give it up. Or at least give it a rest.

God dosn't cause or will sin. But, you are about to. :bang:

 

[elected4ever]

Yea, and God allows you to sin, Lee. He doesn't cause it.
Give it up. Or at least give it a rest.

God dosn't cause or will sin. But, you are about to. :bang:

If lee is born again , sinning is not possible for him but sense you , by your testimony, are in the flesh. You can.