ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

..when they know them to be spreading ill-formed doctrine.

AMR, either put up or shut up.

If it's an "ill formed doctrine" prove it!

All you ever do is make unsupported claims. If you are going to assert something, back it up! Or... please stay out of the debate so we can have a discussion with people who are willing to support their claims. Furthermore, earlier you told us that no man can comprehend God, yet you are more than willing to tell us that we are wrong and you are right. :doh:

Your credibility has dropped to an all-time low and until you can start supporting the assertions you make I will just ignore you.

 

[Clete]

As with Knight's statement that this should be a red flag, I agree, but not for me, but OV. I have not stated my position a thousand times, but I again say I see your thousandth as incorrect and finitely/logically bound so tight, there is no room for the infinite.

Your assumption is your logic, reasoning capacity, isn't: finite, limited or incapable of conceiving the limitless, infinite, eternal being of God. But it is.

I on the otherhand am saying that finite cannot comprehend infinite. It is like trying to gather the ocean in a jar. It cannot be done. Our logic containers and brain mass are not elevated. We are the product of a vast Creator.

My dog is logical, but she can never attain to understand me fully because she is incapable. She'll never understand why I shave, take out the trash, or wear clothes. There is no escaping this for her. In comparison, I'm finite, but there is a huge chasm between our finite differences she can never bridge.

To say God is limited by our understanding and vocabulary is like saying that I'm just a dog in my dog's eyes. Of course I'm not a dog, and my dog would be wrong to believe such. This is what I believe your scenario points to. It is outside of your logical parameters so you assume you are correct when in fact, God is uncontainable by our comprehension. The ONLY things we know about Him are those things He's expressed.

I recognize God's working in our time constraints, for us, in a relational way. That He is unconstrained by those Himself is evident and clear from my scripture reading. I wish to put this problematic extrapolation to rest. God is relational to us, but transcendant (above us, out or our reach. Incapable of being grasped by finite creatures):



Omnipotence:

Job 42:2 I know that You can do all, and not any purpose is withheld from You.

Ominscience:

Lon,

If we can live with truth claims being contradictory, how in the world could we ever prove anything false?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God is everywhere He wants to be whenever He wants to be there because God is free. He doesn't HAVE to be an unwilling witness to every single wicked rape and murder that occurs if He doesn't want to!

Appealing to emotion. God is an infinite spirit. He is not limited by the universe, by this time-space world, or confined to the universe. The infinity of God is intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused, as you do with your claims of pantheism (which you define incorrectly, too), with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part being here and another there, for God has no body and therefore no extension. God's immensity is that perfection of God by which He transcends all spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with His whole Being.

Omnipresence does not mean, however, that God is equally present and present in the same sense in all His creatures. The nature of God's indwelling is harmonious with that of His creation. God does not dwell on earth as He does in heaven, in animals as He does in man, in the inorganic as He does in the organic creation, in the wicked as He does in the pious, nor in the Church as He does in Christ. There is an endless variety in the manner in which God is immanent in His creatures, and in the measure in which they reveal God to those who have eyes to see. The omnipresence of God is clearly revealed in Scripture. Heaven and earth cannot contain Him, I Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:48,49; and at the same time He fills both and is a God at hand, Ps. 139:7-10; Jer. 23:23,24; Acts 17:27,28.

Genesis 18:20-21

And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

These verses destroy omnipresence and omniscience by themselves!

No wonder no one from the open theist camp that disagrees with you will respond. This interpretation, and your claims of "destruction" of omnipresence and omniscience, is embarrassing. By the same logic, your wooden literalism applied to other representations of God in the Scriptures would have us believing God has arms and hands.

The verse is rendered after the manner of men ("go down now"). To "go down now" is a strong anthropomorphism, that stresses the prudent judgment of God. God certainly saw all their wickedness, knowing full well the situation. To claim as you have claimed contradicts so many other verses of the Scriptures about what God knows, that you must accept your interpretation to be in error. The knowledge of God is clearly taught in many passages of Scripture. God is perfect in knowledge, Job 37:16, "looketh not on outward appearance but on the heart", I Sam. 16:7; I Chron. 28:9,17; Ps. 139:1-4; Jer. 17:10, "observes the ways of men", Deut. 2:7; Job 23:10; 24:23; 31:4; Ps. 1:6; 119:168, "knows the place of their habitation", Ps. 33:13, "and the days of their life", Ps. 37:18.

The verse is rendered to show God's justice in His proceedings, to set an example and instruct judges to thoroughly review a cause before them.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Lon, Omni is a Latin term that means "All". Omnipresence means ALL present. That is pantheism whether you realize it or not. You are not willing to admit this because you have been taught as I was taught to NEVER compromise on the omnis. The problem is that the Latin term "Omni" is not found anywhere in the original Scriptures! You say, how do I know that? Because the original Scriptures are written in Greek and Hebrew, NOT Latin.

I hope you will consider this evidence.

"evidence"? That a word is not used in the Greek or Hebrew means the word is not applicable to doctrine? Again, you are embarrassing yourself with these superficialities. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew, yet I hope you do not deny the doctrine. Omni-benevolence does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew, and again I hope you do not deny God is an all-good and all-loving God. Your justification above for "evidence" is in error.

 

[Clete]

No wonder no one from the open theist camp that disagrees with you will respond.

As though PK makes decisions about what the Bible teaches based on how many people are going to agree with him. Heaven forbid anyone have the courage of their own convictions!

Which Open Theists would those be, anyway? The unbiblical nature of all of the omni-doctrines, as traditionally understood, has been hashed and rehashed dozens of times on this forum and in Part 1 of this very thread. I'm trying to recall the last time you made a post where you didn't make a totally superfluous and unsupported claim such as this one. Why are you so scared to argue your theology on its merits? If Open Theism is so obviously false, why must you resort to such dishonest tactics?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If not, do you deny that Jesus clearly articulated this when He said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me"?

The Psalmist further gives us a glimpse of this prophetically by rendering it thus:

1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
...
I am all ears!

I hope you hear with those ears. God is pouring out His divine wrath, and clearly must be present, upon Christ as our sinbearer in this verse. Christ was experiencing the despair of this outpouring, quoting Ps. 22:1. You are straining the interpretation to fit your assumptions, in effect, you are performing eisegeses.

 

[Clete]

Oh, here we go again with the dozen one liner posts from AMR, who seems incapable of hitting the "edit" button and adding these post scripts to his previous post. :freak:

 

[Philetus]

108?
Just guessing. :chuckle:
QUOTE]


:rotfl:

Not quite . . .have a nice Lord's day.

Nang

Thanks. We had a great morning. God is good and faithful even when we don't have all our theology worked out.
Now I feel 108. It's nap time.

Good day to you.
Philetus

 

[elected4ever]

(not to mention that fact that God died!).

GOD DID NOT DIE. GOD IS NOT DEAD. WHAT KIND OF LAME BRAINED STATEMENT IS THAT.

 

[Delmar]

"evidence"? That a word is not used in the Greek or Hebrew means the word is not applicable to doctrine? Again, you are embarrassing yourself with these superficialities. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew, yet I hope you do not deny the doctrine. Omni-benevolence does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew, and again I hope you do not deny God is an all-good and all-loving God. Your justification above for "evidence" is in error.

Can an all-loving God be a God of wrath as well? If not, I do deny God is all-loving.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can an all-loving God be a God of wrath as well? If not, I do deny God is all-loving.

I don't what to go down yet another path while focused upon the incorrect interpretations of PK. The short answer is that God is "all" of all His characteristics. He is not less wrathful than He is loving. He is not less loving than He is wrathful. One characteristic does not cancel or mitigate the other. One is not held to abrogate the other. God is perfect in all things.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't what to go down yet another path while focused upon the incorrect interpretations of PK. The short answer is that God is "all" of all His characteristics. He is not less wrathful than He is loving. He is not less loving than He is wrathful. One characteristic does not cancel or mitigate the other. One is not held to abrogate the other. God is perfect in all things.

He's wrathful, because He's loving.

 

[Lon]

How so?

You said....To which I said....

That should be a giant red flag for you.

And then you said....

I don't have a hard time discussing time because I don't believe "timelessness" means "no time" but instead means an infinite amount of time (i.e., a period of time that cannot be "timed" or measured).

Therefore... why would this be a red flag for me? Please explain.

Because you have to see that that is precisely the difference where our respective premises diverge. It is a red flag for sure. One of us is wrong.

Here is the point:
We know God is timeless 1) because time is a measure of only that which is finite (not infinites). 2) because God never had a beginning.

Go read some on this from a philosophical perspective and from scriptural theological presentations on the same if this isn't making sense or leading to logical problems, it would signify, most likely, that you aren't thinking about this dilemma deep enough. Everyone who ponders a being who has no beginning, must necessarily wrestle with huge time considerations, precisely because it is not a time conception nor able to be discussed with time constrained verbosity. You don't have to be a philosopher or a scientist to understand with me, that if you believe God experiences time as we, and only time as we, that you have to forget about a 'beginning' which never happened.

God never had a beginning. There is absolutely no 'time consideration' 'duration' or 'temporality' you can apply to this to explain it. If you accept He never began, you already, by default, accept a 'timeless' truth.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

If we can live with truth claims being contradictory, how in the world could we ever prove anything false?

Some things are very basic. In those we understand the truth, which is why AMR was upset about a discussion with MD where we are supposed to be essentially in agreement.

There are also some truths that we must take on faith and trust God for. I believe in our immutable discussion, such is the case. God says of Himself he does not repent, and about four verses later we see "God sighed deeply over having made Saul king." We must recognize both truthes as given and 'if' we cannot reconcile the difference as a truth from God directly, we may definitely lean more one way than the other (difference between OV and nonOV), but if it is derivative piecing together rather than imperically given, we should be both hesitant in incorporating it into our solid systematic theology, and also careful and truthful to recognize the dichotomy. I live with these dichotomies specifically because I don't want my theology a creation of my own mind and/or delusion. For me, a theology that accounts for dichotomy is the most honest and keeps us humbly in a place that says "I'm wholly dependent upon God."

We absolutely know there is only one way: Jesus. We absolutely know we should be producing fruit of righteousness. We absolutely know we should love all mankind, even our enemies. One may picket an inappropriate act and another may try to befriend the perpetrator in hopes of bringing that one to Jesus, but that is simply the how, the heart issues for us both are the same. We are in essential agreement and devotion.

The theological issues that divide us take a much more careful tread, and it is these where I also agree, it becomes difficult, but I didn't want the blanket statement to carry over to essential agreements. We know much and share those truths in common. We are talking about transcendant things, and that assessment is exactly right, we need to recognize that some of our discussion is hitting a ceiling in our capacity (like God having no beginning).

In Him

Lon

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because you have to see that that is precisely the difference where our respective premises diverge. It is a red flag for sure. One of us is wrong.

One of us admitted he had a hard time even making a statement about time not existing without using words that describe time.

One of us doesn't have that problem.

Therefore, one of us should see a giant red flag and it isn't me.

Here is the point:
We know God is timeless 1) because time is a measure of only that which is finite (not infinites). 2) because God never had a beginning.

Let me ask you a question.....

Assuming we both agree that God has existed forever into the past, which of the following statements is most accurate....?

A. God has existed a infinite amount of time into the past.
B. God has existed a finite amount of time into the past.

 

[PKevman]

We know God is timeless 1) because time is a measure of only that which is finite (not infinites). 2) because God never had a beginning.


God never had a beginning. There is absolutely no 'time consideration' 'duration' or 'temporality' you can apply to this to explain it. If you accept He never began, you already, by default, accept a 'timeless' truth.

Now if you can just produce the Scriptures that articulate when God created time, then you would have made your case sufficiently..........

 

[PKevman]

I don't what to go down yet another path while focused upon the incorrect interpretations of PK.

The feeling is entirely mutual AMR. :up:

 

[PKevman]

God says of Himself he does not repent, and about four verses later we see "God sighed deeply over having made Saul king

God does not repent as a man repents in that He needs to repent of sin. God is sinless, and so He doesn't repent in that respect. But REPEATEDLY in Scriptures we see that God repents. Repent is to have a change of mind. God can and does frequently change His mind in Scripture.

 

[PKevman]

This is indeed an interesting word study:

1 Samuel 15:35 in several translations:

And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (NKJV)

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (NASB)

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (KJV)

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death, though Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel. (Amp)

Samuel never went to meet with Saul again, but he mourned constantly for him. And the Lord was sorry he had ever made Saul king of Israel. (NLT)

The word in question is the Hebrew word "Naham" which has at its base meaning to change one's mind, or to be grieved as it relates to a previous decision or situation.

To get an idea of the word's usage in other places, here are some other verses the same word is used in Scriptures ( I will quote from the KJV on this because they have done the best job in translating it)

Genesis 6:6

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14

14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

WOW God CAN change His thoughts!! Bye bye utter immutability, you are destroyed in the light of God's Word!!!!

Amos 7:3

3The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

Amos 7:6

6The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Jonah 3:10

10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

God said it would come to pass and it did not! Why? Because He is free to change His mind! Good night Calvinism, parting is NOT with sweet sorrow!

 

[PKevman]

I don't what to go down yet another path while focused upon the incorrect interpretations of PK.

Oh and AMR, as Knight has so aptly pointed out, why not show how my interpretations are incorrect. You have never done so. Instead you drop these little lines and offer not rebuttal of any substance. You think that 5000 word responses are substantial, but they aren't. Anyone can type a bunch of words and that does not make their rebuttal contain any substance.