ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
RobE said:
If He stopped things like you think He should have, then there would be no creation, no godly believers, no love relationship, etc. God would have failed miserably in His project. He could create robotic, deterministic creatures, but this is not what He desired. Creating agents capable of loving, reciprocal relationships necessitated the means of genuine freedom to love or rebel. In response to man's selfish stupidity, God's project adjusted to redeem man. If we do not get on board with His plan, then we will perish.
Apart from no creation or robots, God's sovereign choice of creation involved inherent risk. This does not mean that He is thwarted. He will bring His purposes to pass whether He has His way in every detail or individual life or not (He does not).
RobE said:
This would preclude choice and loving obedience. There would be no test or freedom. I affirm, because the Bible teaches it, that God had the plan of redemption in mind as a wise contingency even BEFORE creation (from the foundations of the world). A formulated, potential plan is not the same as a certain, implemented plan.
The Hebrew in Genesis 3 for God's grief after the Fall is a very strong word. Though God knew of the inherent possibility of the Fall, it was not a foregone conclusion or certain expectation from eternity past. This risk vs no-risk model is inherent to a non-deterministic creation. God said things were 'very good'. Only after the horrific Fall did His disposition and plans change (He was grieved to the core, changed His mind about things, intended to wipe us out, But Noah..., God changed His mind again).
RobE said:
Who is this father? Pinnock, Whitehead, Satan, Boyd, Sanders???
Open Theism's strength is that it takes both motifs in Scripture (some of the future is open; some is settled) literally, while Calvinism only takes one set of 'proof texts' literally while wrongly dismissing the other ones as figurative.
Godrulz, you'll should quit talking about God's decrees making Him responsible for heinous evil. Really, friend. The fact that God uses human instrumentalities to execute His decrees at times does not at all mean God is responsible for the evil intents of their hearts as they do with evil intent that which God decreed for His own just purpose. God is no more guilty of the motivation of the wicked and no more shares in that motivation than the unjust man can be credited with God's just motive.godrulz said:
You must acknowledge that what God decreed for holy and just purposes, men may be used as instruments whose own motives are wicked. In the same event, the very same event, the motive of man can be heinously evil but God's motive holy, just and pure. If you don't agree with that, what response can you make to Joseph's remark to his brothers that they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good??
I believe the Bible
I believe the Bible
I believe the Bible does not say that I do not have a HEART.
It does not say that I do not have a MIND.
It does not say that I cannot THINK.
It does not say I cannot make CHOICES.
It does not say I do not have a WILL.
It does not say I cannot carry out my will through my thoughts, choices, planning, action, and deeds.
Nevertheless,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
THAT’S what I believe the Bible really says!
In Isa. 10 God tells me that the Assyrian did only what He Himself intended for him to do. Paul, likewise, assures me that no one ever has or can go against God’s “intention or purpose.”*How then is God justified in punishing the King of Assyria or anyone else for doing what God “intended” for them to do? The answer lies in the HEART of mankind. God said that He would punish “the fruit of his ARROGANT HEART”
The King of Assyria is being punished because he is claiming to possess FREEDOM OF HIS OWN WILL. He claimed that he came up with the ideas, he made the plans, he carried them out, he reaped the rewards, he took credit for being someone great, etc., etc., when in reality God tells me it was all of Him, and that the king was merely a club in God’s hand.
:loser:
I believe the Bible
I believe the Bible does not say that I do not have a HEART.
It does not say that I do not have a MIND.
It does not say that I cannot THINK.
It does not say I cannot make CHOICES.
It does not say I do not have a WILL.
It does not say I cannot carry out my will through my thoughts, choices, planning, action, and deeds.
Nevertheless,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
THAT’S what I believe the Bible really says!
In Isa. 10 God tells me that the Assyrian did only what He Himself intended for him to do. Paul, likewise, assures me that no one ever has or can go against God’s “intention or purpose.”*How then is God justified in punishing the King of Assyria or anyone else for doing what God “intended” for them to do? The answer lies in the HEART of mankind. God said that He would punish “the fruit of his ARROGANT HEART”
The King of Assyria is being punished because he is claiming to possess FREEDOM OF HIS OWN WILL. He claimed that he came up with the ideas, he made the plans, he carried them out, he reaped the rewards, he took credit for being someone great, etc., etc., when in reality God tells me it was all of Him, and that the king was merely a club in God’s hand.
:loser:
hermes said:
God is able to redeem situations after the fact. Though Joseph's brothers intended harm, God was able to responsively and creatively bring good out of this situation. This does not mean that God decreed these things from eternity past, but that He was active and redeeming as history unfolded.
That does not mean that God decreed Hitler's deeds and that more good came out of the slaughter of Jews than if they were not slaughtered. This unmitigated evil was not God's plan, intention, or purposes.
Okay, then what do you do with those portions of Scripture where God, in judgment, makes known in advance the evil that He is going to bring to pass as a judgment against His enemies? There are many places in Scripture that do not give you the wiggle room you claim to have. Example: concerning his brothers selling Joesph into Egypt: you don't have the wiggle room you claim there because the Bible states clearly that God himself purposed it to save many alive: "...God meant it unto good to bring to pass..."Gen.50:20 Are you going to say that according to this verse that God was not the prime mover? And what are you going to say then---That AFTER THIS HAD HAPPENED GOD DECIDED, OKAY, THEN, I WILL MAKE IT MY MEANING TO SAVE MANY ALIVE BY THIS WICKEDNESS THEY DID?? Not so. God purposed it to save many alive. It was according to the counsel of His own will, just as the Bible says.godrulz said:
Where can you find wiggle room for this? "Because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to by thy wife, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of tine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun." 2Sam.12:11,12 The execution of God's judgment against David is seen in 16:22: "So they spread Absolom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absolom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel."
Where is wiggle room for this? "Therefore this saith the Lord GOD: behold I , even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations. And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do anymore the like, because of all thine abominations. THEREFORE the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into the winds" Ezek. 5:8-10
.
Interpret each passage in context on its own merits. No need to wiggle or rationalize away the plain sense of the passage. God certainly can declare judgment and swiftly bring it to pass. This is based on perfect past and present knowledge. It is not something known or decreed trillions of years ago before these contingencies existed.
God does know and bring some things to pass by His ability (not foreknowledge...see Is. 46 and 48). It is wrong to extrapolate this to mean micromanaging every detail of history including what I will eat or wear in the future. Other agents are a factor in what goes on. There is an openness in Moses' interactions with God in Exodus, Hezekiah, Jonah, etc.
God does know and bring some things to pass by His ability (not foreknowledge...see Is. 46 and 48). It is wrong to extrapolate this to mean micromanaging every detail of history including what I will eat or wear in the future. Other agents are a factor in what goes on. There is an openness in Moses' interactions with God in Exodus, Hezekiah, Jonah, etc.
"For OF Him and THROUGH Him and TO Him are ALL things, to whom be glory forever, amen." Ro.11:36
"...of Him..." All things issue from God's decree
"...through Him..." God executes His decree.
"...to Him..." He has purposed all things for His own glory
"The LORD has made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. 16:4
"...of Him..." All things issue from God's decree
"...through Him..." God executes His decree.
"...to Him..." He has purposed all things for His own glory
"The LORD has made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. 16:4
"For HIS ACHIEVEMENT are we, being created in Christ Jesus ..." (Eph. 2:10).
"Now what have you which you did not OBTAIN? Now if you OBTAINED it also [from GOD] why are you boasting as though [you are] not obtaining [it from God]?" (I Cor. 4:7 Concordant Literal New Testament).
"All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18).
"The One Who is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of HIS will" (Eph. 1:11).
Etc. :wave2:
. . . note previous post this thread
"Now what have you which you did not OBTAIN? Now if you OBTAINED it also [from GOD] why are you boasting as though [you are] not obtaining [it from God]?" (I Cor. 4:7 Concordant Literal New Testament).
"All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18).
"The One Who is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of HIS will" (Eph. 1:11).
Etc. :wave2:
. . . note previous post this thread
hermes said:
You are reading a decreetal, deductive system into proof texts.
Prov. 16:4 affirms that God will judge the wicked. They will reap what they sow. There is a day of disaster for those who mock God. This is God's response to evil and has nothing to do with God ordaining, decreeing, causing evil. He does decree and ordain that He will judge evil if and when it comes into existence. It was never a foregone conclusion that any evil choice was a necessity/certainty from ages past.
If I abide by the law, I will not be criminally judged. If and when I murder someone, only then does the possible judgment for wrong doing becoming actual for me. There is nothing saying I will ever murder, but there is governmental provision IF I do so. This is not predictable from trillions of years ago and certainly a holy God does not decree that some will murder and some will be victims. These are volitional issues that have their roots in man's mind and heart and contingent circumstances apart from God's specific control. His sovereignty is general, not specific.
Just because He decrees some things does not mean He decrees all things. What He does decree is consistent with His character and ways and is not always at the exclusion of the significant freedom that He has given other agents (angels, man).
mtims540 said:
Nice proof texting...2 Cor. 5:18 is saying that the ministry of reconciliation is from and of God, not man's ability or idea. This does not mean that every second of my life is part of a meticulous, fatalistic blueprint.
Eph. 1 This is about corporate vs individual election. God's plan and project was to redeem and reconcile a fallen people. He draws us to Himself and those who receive vs reject Christ, become part of His plan and project to raise up a Church for His glory. Those who are stiff-necked undermine God's intentions for them (He is not willing that any perish, not just the so-called elect).
Eph. 2:10 shows that those who receive the grace of God through faith, apart from works are saved. Those who are saved are then to glorify God and bear the fruit of good works. He generally declared that those who believe are to be conformed to Christ's image (fruit of the Spirit) and do good works. This does not mean there is a meticulous blueprint of good works decreed by God before we were born or born again. He does not decree that I give $x to one organization and help an old lady across the street on y day and hour. We are exhorted to give and serve others to fulfill God's intention in this verse, but none of it is certain nor coerced. We are responsible for our stewardship and should give and serve from a cheerful heart as we have opportunity.
I Cor. 4:7 Paul is reminding the proud, divisive Corinthians that God entrusted ministries to men. They should not boast that one guy is better than the other and follow one to the exclusion of others. Paul recognized a trust/stewardship from God. He could have rejected God's plans for his life, but recognizes that things are from the hand of God (Lk. 7:30 God's will is thwartable). This cannot be extrapolated to mean that evil or what I wear today is received from God. He has given us significant freedom within His moral will. He does not have to dictate whether I eat an apple or an orange. We are personal beings in His image. Our choices are our own (hence the praiseworthy or blameworthy nature of any given choice).
"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire and that bringeth forthgodrulz said:
an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Isa. 54:16 Notice the immediate context between the smith who "brings forth an instrument for his work" and God's statement that He "created the waster to destroy." Has there been a greater act of wickedness than that spoken of in Acts 2:23? "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." and in Acts 4:27,28: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both herod and Pontius Piate, with the gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
"Who is he who says and it comes to pass when the LORD commandeth it not?" Lam. 3:37Godrulz said:
Philetus
New member
SEEKINGANSWERS,
Sorry for the delay.
Love yes, wisdom, I don’t know. This kind of exchange does require effort and attention, but it is rewarding. Let others do as they choose or as God has chosen for them. I am looking for the common ground and trying to identify what really is essential to the understanding of both our views. It is difficult to get past pre-assumptions! I had to laugh: my double-predestination comment should have been followed with a smiley. I really didn’t think you were on that track but had trouble following you at that point. I should have been more clear and less sarcastic, so, I’ll flag my wit from now on.
I can see how you may have thought I was pushing the process theology position. There are similarities, though I am no expert on process theology. I think I read about a dozen pages of Cobb back when the ecumenical movement was hot before dismissing it all together. Unity at the expense of a God ‘who can’ is not the answer. A God who is ontologically needy is a god who is unable to take risks because he is not responsible for creating the world or establishing its conditions. He does not have the ability to make things other than they are.
This dialogue for me is about finding the center, not the polls. I much appreciated your comments to that point. Even the little icons that accompany our post names have all sorts of polarizing features. I guess they are necessary, but I remember stuttering before selecting, thinking more about how I didn’t want to be identified than who I was, thus more left than wrong.
I grew up in the Wesley/Arminian camp where a lot of energy was spent raiding the Calvinists and defending against charismatics. I’m thankful for Christian parents who taught me how to think and not what to think. (They may not be as thankful sometimes.) There have always remained elements of the position that gave me much trouble. Transcendence not being one of them. However, I have always at least intuitively questioned the whole notion of foreknowledge. Strict predestination never offered an alternative. I guess I’m too much of an existentialist for that. I just cannot get away from the importance of freedom to choose as one created in the image of God and whether or not my choice affects God.
The degree to which one refers to God as mystery is flux. To say that God is more or less of a mystery to us is to admit, in part at least, that we don’t know what or who we are talking about. Something we all may need to more readily acknowledge. The question of mystery must center and start in what God has disclosed. To start with the notion that God exists apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe which he has created and placed us in is to guess. To start with the evidence in scripture and Jesus is to begin with God’s self revelation and what we most surely know and believe about God. That leaves a great amount of mystery indeed. But, the mystery that is beyond us is consistent with what we know about God in the person and work of Jesus Christ as reveled in the Gospels, elaborated on in the balance of the NT, supported by the OT and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. God in the flesh is the starting point. That does not eliminate the transcendent qualities of God but helps to explain their nature. The God we know is consistent with the God we don’t know. To force the God we know into a form consistent with what we think we know or are just guessing at, can distort the image of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells embodied. The fully human/fully God man hast to inform us as to what an omniGod did in order to become flesh and dwell among us in his creation.
This is where I think process theology failed. They left no room for transcendence. They tried to dismiss the mystery of what cannot be known of God. That God became flesh is a fact. How God became flesh is a mystery. God in the flesh is a change from God not in the flesh. God on the cross is a change from God on a throne somewhere in transcendent space. God welcoming sinners saved by grace through faith in Christ is a change from God on the cross turning away because he couldn’t look upon sin. (Not a change in the way God has chosen to save or a change in his nature, but a change in circumstances.) Why and essencially how God chose to give me free will and to adjust to the conditions created by the exercise of that will is a mystery, but the fact remains. My decisions do not change the nature of God ... they change me ... and that changes my relationship to God. That does not in any way make me the author of salvation. But it makes me responsible for reading the book, and doing my homework.
This is not a God created in my own image. This is the story of God giving me the capacity for reciprocal love and allowing me to decide and making every effort at his own expense to prove to me that love (not raw power) wins. The God other than us is the God who desires more than anything to have an I-thou relationship, on his terms. And the first rule is that it will be a mutually respectful relationship with out compromise to either party or it will be no relationship. What might appear to be compromise on God’s part is not. God remains faithful and consistent. What might appear to be compromise on our part is in our inconsistency and unfaithfulness to the image in which we were created. To yield to the very relationship for which we were created on the terms of the creator is not compromise of our being. Sin is compromise. God does not sin. Repentance is returning to the consistency of the terms of our existence which God has so clearly spelled out in his Son.
God does not change. Circumstances do. God responds to sin on his own terms.God does not fudge. We sin we die. We repent we live. How God will respond is consistent. What will we do? The future is open.
This is just not accurate. God makes the rules. God offers salvation. We respond. God does not become more or less relational; we more or less relate. We cannot change the rules. Sin does not have the power to change God, only his creation. God did not say, if you eat I will kill you. He said, if you eat you will die. One sin had the power to destroy creation on God's terms. But, God in love, mercy and grace continued to allow man the sinner to live (at least temporarily) and we know that his patience is meant to lead us to a CHANG of heart. With out that change of heart we die in our sins and after that the judgement. With a change of heart, by grace through faith we live. It is all the gift of God which requires a response. That does not make us equal to God. Not even Jesus saw equality with God something to be grasped at. Jesus, (God in the flesh) emptied himself and became human, taking the form of a servant. That didn’t compromise his relationship with the father or the Spirit, it fulfilled it! Returning to God in Christ does not compromise the nature of God. Being in Christ is fulfillment of my nature as one created in the image of God. The mystery revealed is this: “Christ in you the hope of Glory.”
Be careful not to limit your transcendent God. Sin destroys the hope of that Glory in us. He who creates can determine the limits of His creation even in terms of its being uncreated or destroyed. We accept that sin has the power to destroy individuals both in life and in death. (God’s terms.) Be careful not to understate the nature of something so diabolically opposed to the terms God has spelled out. By starting with your definition of a transcendent God, you have imposed a limit on just how destructive it can be to go against the God who has said, you sin you die.
Much of creation is under the control of humanity (for example: asphalt.) Human dominion over creation is a fact. But, not with out limitations. Not one human being has ever chosen to participate in creation, though many choose to opt out. God does the choosing. How? I don’t know. And he continues to choose and call all throughout life. Why? For his purposes; life. We respond or we do not. The final call ... he who has the son has life and he who does not have the son does not have that life. Choose this day.
Precisely! And if we do not respond? What then? We had better relate.
Yes! Grounded in God! God gives us the choice. But, do we really choose? Has God really given us a choice and does that choice affect the future. I believe it does to the extent that my choice will be the soul determinant for whether or not I spend eternity in the presence of God or apart from him. I also accept that the latter is no relationship at all. If you choose to define “relationship” in such a way that includes hell, OK. But all through out your post you have made being in Christ, conditional on our response to God.
We are together on so much. Whether or not God retains in some transcendent state the ability to pre-know the future remains a mystery. I find no such evidence except in the things that God has determined will happen irregardless of the choices we make. I simply fail to see how it would be advantages to God or his creatures to do so and must, from my limited perspective as creature, conclude that if he has given me the power to choose, he has also in some aspect limited his power to know which I will in fact choose.
Grace and Peace,
Philetus
Sorry for the delay.
Love yes, wisdom, I don’t know. This kind of exchange does require effort and attention, but it is rewarding. Let others do as they choose or as God has chosen for them. I am looking for the common ground and trying to identify what really is essential to the understanding of both our views. It is difficult to get past pre-assumptions! I had to laugh: my double-predestination comment should have been followed with a smiley. I really didn’t think you were on that track but had trouble following you at that point. I should have been more clear and less sarcastic, so, I’ll flag my wit from now on.
I can see how you may have thought I was pushing the process theology position. There are similarities, though I am no expert on process theology. I think I read about a dozen pages of Cobb back when the ecumenical movement was hot before dismissing it all together. Unity at the expense of a God ‘who can’ is not the answer. A God who is ontologically needy is a god who is unable to take risks because he is not responsible for creating the world or establishing its conditions. He does not have the ability to make things other than they are.
This dialogue for me is about finding the center, not the polls. I much appreciated your comments to that point. Even the little icons that accompany our post names have all sorts of polarizing features. I guess they are necessary, but I remember stuttering before selecting, thinking more about how I didn’t want to be identified than who I was, thus more left than wrong.
I grew up in the Wesley/Arminian camp where a lot of energy was spent raiding the Calvinists and defending against charismatics. I’m thankful for Christian parents who taught me how to think and not what to think. (They may not be as thankful sometimes.) There have always remained elements of the position that gave me much trouble. Transcendence not being one of them. However, I have always at least intuitively questioned the whole notion of foreknowledge. Strict predestination never offered an alternative. I guess I’m too much of an existentialist for that. I just cannot get away from the importance of freedom to choose as one created in the image of God and whether or not my choice affects God.
The degree to which one refers to God as mystery is flux. To say that God is more or less of a mystery to us is to admit, in part at least, that we don’t know what or who we are talking about. Something we all may need to more readily acknowledge. The question of mystery must center and start in what God has disclosed. To start with the notion that God exists apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe which he has created and placed us in is to guess. To start with the evidence in scripture and Jesus is to begin with God’s self revelation and what we most surely know and believe about God. That leaves a great amount of mystery indeed. But, the mystery that is beyond us is consistent with what we know about God in the person and work of Jesus Christ as reveled in the Gospels, elaborated on in the balance of the NT, supported by the OT and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. God in the flesh is the starting point. That does not eliminate the transcendent qualities of God but helps to explain their nature. The God we know is consistent with the God we don’t know. To force the God we know into a form consistent with what we think we know or are just guessing at, can distort the image of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells embodied. The fully human/fully God man hast to inform us as to what an omniGod did in order to become flesh and dwell among us in his creation.
This is where I think process theology failed. They left no room for transcendence. They tried to dismiss the mystery of what cannot be known of God. That God became flesh is a fact. How God became flesh is a mystery. God in the flesh is a change from God not in the flesh. God on the cross is a change from God on a throne somewhere in transcendent space. God welcoming sinners saved by grace through faith in Christ is a change from God on the cross turning away because he couldn’t look upon sin. (Not a change in the way God has chosen to save or a change in his nature, but a change in circumstances.) Why and essencially how God chose to give me free will and to adjust to the conditions created by the exercise of that will is a mystery, but the fact remains. My decisions do not change the nature of God ... they change me ... and that changes my relationship to God. That does not in any way make me the author of salvation. But it makes me responsible for reading the book, and doing my homework.
This is not a God created in my own image. This is the story of God giving me the capacity for reciprocal love and allowing me to decide and making every effort at his own expense to prove to me that love (not raw power) wins. The God other than us is the God who desires more than anything to have an I-thou relationship, on his terms. And the first rule is that it will be a mutually respectful relationship with out compromise to either party or it will be no relationship. What might appear to be compromise on God’s part is not. God remains faithful and consistent. What might appear to be compromise on our part is in our inconsistency and unfaithfulness to the image in which we were created. To yield to the very relationship for which we were created on the terms of the creator is not compromise of our being. Sin is compromise. God does not sin. Repentance is returning to the consistency of the terms of our existence which God has so clearly spelled out in his Son.
God does not change. Circumstances do. God responds to sin on his own terms.God does not fudge. We sin we die. We repent we live. How God will respond is consistent. What will we do? The future is open.
This is just not accurate. God makes the rules. God offers salvation. We respond. God does not become more or less relational; we more or less relate. We cannot change the rules. Sin does not have the power to change God, only his creation. God did not say, if you eat I will kill you. He said, if you eat you will die. One sin had the power to destroy creation on God's terms. But, God in love, mercy and grace continued to allow man the sinner to live (at least temporarily) and we know that his patience is meant to lead us to a CHANG of heart. With out that change of heart we die in our sins and after that the judgement. With a change of heart, by grace through faith we live. It is all the gift of God which requires a response. That does not make us equal to God. Not even Jesus saw equality with God something to be grasped at. Jesus, (God in the flesh) emptied himself and became human, taking the form of a servant. That didn’t compromise his relationship with the father or the Spirit, it fulfilled it! Returning to God in Christ does not compromise the nature of God. Being in Christ is fulfillment of my nature as one created in the image of God. The mystery revealed is this: “Christ in you the hope of Glory.”
Be careful not to limit your transcendent God. Sin destroys the hope of that Glory in us. He who creates can determine the limits of His creation even in terms of its being uncreated or destroyed. We accept that sin has the power to destroy individuals both in life and in death. (God’s terms.) Be careful not to understate the nature of something so diabolically opposed to the terms God has spelled out. By starting with your definition of a transcendent God, you have imposed a limit on just how destructive it can be to go against the God who has said, you sin you die.
Much of creation is under the control of humanity (for example: asphalt.) Human dominion over creation is a fact. But, not with out limitations. Not one human being has ever chosen to participate in creation, though many choose to opt out. God does the choosing. How? I don’t know. And he continues to choose and call all throughout life. Why? For his purposes; life. We respond or we do not. The final call ... he who has the son has life and he who does not have the son does not have that life. Choose this day.
Precisely! And if we do not respond? What then? We had better relate.
Yes! Grounded in God! God gives us the choice. But, do we really choose? Has God really given us a choice and does that choice affect the future. I believe it does to the extent that my choice will be the soul determinant for whether or not I spend eternity in the presence of God or apart from him. I also accept that the latter is no relationship at all. If you choose to define “relationship” in such a way that includes hell, OK. But all through out your post you have made being in Christ, conditional on our response to God.
We are together on so much. Whether or not God retains in some transcendent state the ability to pre-know the future remains a mystery. I find no such evidence except in the things that God has determined will happen irregardless of the choices we make. I simply fail to see how it would be advantages to God or his creatures to do so and must, from my limited perspective as creature, conclude that if he has given me the power to choose, he has also in some aspect limited his power to know which I will in fact choose.
Grace and Peace,
Philetus
Tryeth otherith versionsuth or thee originaleth hither thither languageses.
Lamentations is a lament, not a doctrinal dissertation on the nature of God's providence and sovereignty (cf. wisdom literature like Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs).
God can use wicked nations to judge wayward Israel, but they will also be judged in the end by God.
God determined that the Messiah would come and die. This does not mean that He determines each word that I am not typing
Lamentations is a lament, not a doctrinal dissertation on the nature of God's providence and sovereignty (cf. wisdom literature like Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs).
God can use wicked nations to judge wayward Israel, but they will also be judged in the end by God.
God determined that the Messiah would come and die. This does not mean that He determines each word that I am not typing
It is not either transcendance or immanence, but both/and (Is. 57:15; Acts 17:24, 28). We cannot pit them against each other, but we can pit a wrong understanding of these concepts against a right understanding of what they mean (e.g. transcendence cannot be divorced from God's relational nature; sovereignty does not have to mean exhaustive control).
- Status