ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Now that is interesting. Are you saying that God would have became incarnate regardless of what Adam did?

Yes. I think so. I think God intended to experience His 'creation' and especially relate to His creatures (mankind) to the fullest. If Adam had not sinned, there would have been no suffering/ no death and both God and Adam would have enjoyed complete uninterrupted fellowship at a level that was beyond even what they experienced in the garden before the fall. That would certainly have been a different future than we now experience and I know it's speculation ... but it is reasonable and it fits.

 

[elected4ever]

Did either of us have foreknowledge of the robbers plans to rob the bank? If so that would make us co-conspirators. Did either of us have the power/ability to stop/prevent it? Did God? I think we both agree that God in fact could have stopped it. Why didn't He? He just let it happen.

No, that is not true. nether of us conspired to rob the bank even if we had known the bank would have been robed. Our foreknowledge had nothing to do with the bank robbery. Don't you think that it is more plausible that we tell the bank robbers not to do it because if you do you will go to prison?

 

[patman]

If we were sitting in a cafe across the street from a bank and the bank was robbed, did you or me permit or allow the bank to be robbed? Are we complicit in the action of the bank robbers?

I am really having a hard time believing you do not understand this.....

But anyway, I do not think that example is relevant. Neither of us has power to stop a bank robbery.

Let's try a parenting situation. A parent has a child, who sooner or later will sin. The parent has two options, allow the sin to happen and deal with it, or lock them in a room their entire life with no access to anything. That would prevent the sin from happening.

Do you understand what we mean by allow now?

 

[elected4ever]

Yes. I think so. I think God intended to experience His 'creation' and especially relate to His creatures (mankind) to the fullest. If Adam had not sinned, there would have been no suffering/ no death and both God and Adam would have enjoyed complete uninterrupted fellowship at a level that was beyond even what they experienced in the garden before the fall. That would certainly have been a different future than we now experience and I know it's speculation ... but it is reasonable and it fits.

Would that not have required Adam to be changed from mortal (created) to immortal (Having the eternal life of God)?

 

[elected4ever]

I am really having a hard time believing you do not understand this.....

But anyway, I do not think that example is relevant. Neither of us has power to stop a bank robbery.

Let's try a parenting situation. A parent has a child, who sooner or later will sin. The parent has two options, allow the sin to happen and deal with it, or lock them in a room their entire life with no access to anything. That would prevent the sin from happening.

Do you understand what we mean by allow now?

Locking a child in a room would not prevent the child from being a sinner. You see, the child has already been born into death and it is that death that must be ultimately fulfilled regardless of the actions of the child.

 

[themuzicman]

By "planned in advance" then I assume you disagree with Sander's take? Sanders writes it is an error to hold that before Creation God planned Jesus' crucifixion. In fact Sanders states that the crucifixion was not part of the plan until the very night before it happened. Sanders goes on to state that even after the crucifixion was accepted by Christ and God the Father, there was still uncertainty, "Will this gambit work?" How do you reconcile the idea that the crucifixion was uncertain with passages such as Mark 8:31ff; Mark 9:31-32; Mark 10:32ff?

I disagree with Sanders on both counts. Not only did God know that sin was possible, but also knew how He would redeem creation, it did happen. I also disagree that it was possible for Christ NOT to be crucified. I will say that it may have happened in a variety of ways, but that it would happen in some way was never in question.

By "allows sin" do you believe that while God, as Creator, is the ultimate cause of sin, yet God does not effectuate a sin? In my previous post, I noted that open theism sees some evil as simply meaningless. Do you believe that there are some evil acts are meaningless?

Most evil is meaningless. That some people are able to create some good from evil that is committed does not give evil any value in and of itself.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Would that not have required Adam to be changed from mortal (created) to immortal (Having the eternal life of God)?

:bang: :bang: :bang: Either your mind is really a mess or you simply have the gift of complicating the heck out of the simplest ideas. Can you even follow abstract concepts? :cloud9:


God becoming flesh (incarnate) before a fall wouldn't require Adam to be changed in anyway at all. Adam was already flesh and sinless. That's the way God created him. Death had not yet become a reality. It isn't hard to imagine that God could have become flesh and blood and made Himself known in an even more intimate way than just Spirit even if Adam had not sinned. But, that requires buying into the unity of father, son and spirit and the eternal, pre-existence of Christ as son and free will. :doh: I don't except you to buy into it. I don't even expect you to 'grasp' it.

 

[Philetus]

I disagree with Sanders on both counts. Not only did God know that sin was possible, but also knew how He would redeem creation, it did happen. I also disagree that it was possible for Christ NOT to be crucified. I will say that it may have happened in a variety of ways, but that it would happen in some way was never in question.



Most evil is meaningless. That some people are able to create some good from evil that is committed does not give evil any value in and of itself.

Muz

I agree, the crucification (death) of God incarnate in a fallen world is as inevitable as sinning is for mankind being born into a fallen world. SIN pays a wage (death) and God took upon Himself the weight of our sentence by BECOMING FLESH and gave us HOPE (eternal life) where there was otherwise NO HOPE by being faithful unto death, EVEN death on a cross. God new that the flesh must die. God also knew that the resurrection (which only HE was capable of making happen) was the only way to defeat the last enemy of creation. He died for all. Unlimited grace. "By faith" is the only way to extend the offer of salvation and still preserve mankind's status as 'other' which is required for genuine loving relationship. The possibility of continuing rejection is also the very real risk.

I see Jesus' struggle in Gethsemane as clear evidence that this was no 'walk in the garden' for God (not for the Father, nor the Spirit, and certainly not for the Son). It involved real suffering and real risk. "Who would believe our report ..."


I also think Sanders is saying essentially the same thing. The devil IS in the details.

_________________

Give Open Theism another 500 years and its own publishing houses and we will get it said so even E4E can understand it.

 

[elected4ever]

:bang: :bang: :bang: Either your mind is really a mess or you simply have the gift of complicating the heck out of the simplest ideas. Can you even follow abstract concepts? :cloud9:


God becoming flesh (incarnate) before a fall wouldn't require Adam to be changed in anyway at all. Adam was already flesh and sinless. That's the way God created him. Death had not yet become a reality. It isn't hard to imagine that God could have become flesh and blood and made Himself known in an even more intimate way than just Spirit even if Adam had not sinned. But, that requires buying into the unity of father, son and spirit and the eternal, pre-existence of Christ as son and free will. :doh: I don't except you to buy into it. I don't even expect you to 'grasp' it.

Being mortal does not mean dead. He became dead but remained mortal. That is a created being and not an eternal being. So for even Adam there had to be a change from mortal to immortal to be the express image of God. Adam was innocent not righteous. Adam would have to be made righteous to be the express image of God as God had planed from the beginning.

 

[Lon]

Free to go separate ways?

Koresh was free to go his separate way? I'm sure he thought he knew scripture and was pressing toward truth. Did God bring him and his followers and those children to where God desired them to be? Have they arrived? Are they right where God wants them?

Come on Lon! Quit ducking the issue. Yes! Its more than head logic. As a man thinks in his heart so is he. What does your heart tell you? You know; the place Jesus lives like when you were a kid and believed the flat-people on the flannel-graph-board had something of truth to say through their stories.

Alright, prove your point. What have you got? Why was Koresh wrong?

Prove. I'm all ears. Clete and/or Philetus.

 

[Philetus]

Locking a child in a room would not prevent the child from being a sinner. You see, the child has already been born into death and it is that death that must be ultimately fulfilled regardless of the actions of the child.

The child wasn't born a 'sinner' the child was born into a world given over to sin. I don't agree with your reasoning but I can see why you think it. (It is your position on two natures and total depravity.) Even so, you would have to put socks on his hands and keep him in total darkness without any external stimuli his entire (very short) life.

The child was born into a world (including the closet) already entirely under the sentence of death. That's different than saying the child was born 'dead'. He would die someday ... some day! But, he was born a human being created in the image of God. Something he would have to come to terms with in a fallen world. He would inevitably face the temptation to deny who he was born to be and live otherwise, (and he would) or with the help of the Spirit come to terms with his true identity in Christ and by faith live it.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by Philetus
Free to go separate ways?

Koresh was free to go his separate way? I'm sure he thought he knew scripture and was pressing toward truth. Did God bring him and his followers and those children to where God desired them to be? Have they arrived? Are they right where God wants them?

Come on Lon! Quit ducking the issue. Yes! Its more than head logic. As a man thinks in his heart so is he. What does your heart tell you? You know; the place Jesus lives like when you were a kid and believed the flat-people on the flannel-graph-board had something of truth to say through their stories.

Originally Posted by Lon
Alright, prove your point. What have you got? Why was Koresh wrong?

Prove. I'm all ears. Clete and/or Philetus.

What point did I make?

You are not all ears. I'm convinced there is a good brain between them and a good heart somewhere below them.:chuckle:
I was appealing to both.

You said we are free to go our separate ways. I agreed. I just said so was Koresh free to interpret scripture and pursue truth as he saw fit (free to go his separate way). Wasn’t that YOUR point? I asked you if you believed God had Koresh and those Kids right where he always wanted them after they went Koresh’s ‘separate’ way. In your view isn't our 'separate' way really not God's way for us anyway? (That's a question you can't agree with or disagree with. It is just a question you can answer or not.)

I don’t think Koresh was right! But, I couldn’t prove it to him or you by quoting the same scriptures he used to justify his position or actions. THAT WAS (I believe) Clete’s point and I agree with it. I was restating/making the point I understood you to make (perhaps) unintentionally.

 

[Nang]

Yes. I think so. I think God intended to experience His 'creation' and especially relate to His creatures (mankind) to the fullest. If Adam had not sinned, there would have been no suffering/ no death and both God and Adam would have enjoyed complete uninterrupted fellowship at a level that was beyond even what they experienced in the garden before the fall. That would certainly have been a different future than we now experience and I know it's speculation ... but it is reasonable and it fits.

Philetus,

I highlight what caught my interest in this reply.

Is it your belief that God would have been satisfied with an earthly relationship with His creatures, forever? Was the garden of Eden the "fullest" experience planned in the mind of God? Do OV'ers believe God has planned a heavenly Kingdom, in which He will have fellowship with His creatures?

What exactly do OV'ers believe was the purpose of Christ's resurrection?

Do OV'ers believe in a future bodily resurrection of all souls?

What exactly do you believe is the "future?"

Nang

 

[elected4ever]

The child wasn't born a 'sinner' the child was born into a world given over to sin. I don't agree with your reasoning but I can see why you think it. (It is your position on two natures and total depravity.) Even so, you would have to put socks on his hands and keep him in total darkness without any external stimuli his entire (very short) life.

The child was born into a world (including the closet) already entirely under the sentence of death. That's different than saying the child was born 'dead'. He would die someday ... some day! But, he was born a human being created in the image of God. Something he would have to come to terms with in a fallen world. He would inevitably face the temptation to deny who he was born to be and live otherwise, (and he would) or with the help of the Spirit come to terms with his true identity in Christ and by faith live it.

God told Adam that the day he ate he would surely die. Adam lived physically for 900 more years and died. That is hardly the death that God was speaking of. What death did Adam die the day he ate the fruit?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

Truly no offense intended, but it seems to me you enjoy speculation and hypothetical stuff, much more than the written words of Scripture and orthodox theology.

That was the nature of the question.

I can only give answers to the questions I am asked.

I understand this tendency, for I am of the same inclination . . .to the point that I must discipline myself to limit my thoughts and imaginations within the bounds of Holy Scripture.

In a good spirit,
Nang

There isn't anything wrong with speculating or exploring our imaginations while trying to give "best guess" answers to hypothetical questions.

 

[Philetus]

Philetus,

I highlight what caught my interest in this reply.

Is it your belief that God would have been satisfied with an earthly relationship with His creatures, forever? Was the garden of Eden the "fullest" experience planned in the mind of God? Do OV'ers believe God has planned a heavenly Kingdom, in which He will have fellowship with His creatures?

What exactly do OV'ers believe was the purpose of Christ's resurrection?

Do OV'ers believe in a future bodily resurrection of all souls?

What exactly do you believe is the "future?"

Nang

The future isn't what it was before the fall that's for sure. I think that God would have been 'satisfied' (perfectly content) if mankind had never sinned. I have as hard a time imagining what that would have looked like as I have a hard time envisioning the particular details of heaven. The imaginings of even classical theists vary greatly on the subject.

I absolutely believe in the future bodily resurrection of all souls, even as I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus! The one informs the other. The future is what God has planned and includes, among other things, a new heaven and new earth. It includes eternal life and death. Why? Because death now reigns through sin. Would we all have to die to get to heaven if we had never sinned? I don't think so. But, it is a moot point because we did sin. Where each individual will spend eternity now depends on how each responds to God's offer of salvation by grace through faith. (I know we disagree on the particulars of election and free will and don't want to bog down there.)

So ... I think God intended to experience His 'creation' and especially relate to His creatures (mankind) to the fullest even if it meant saving them from their sins through the death of His own Son. As it turned out, it did and He did. God's faithfulness and our response to it shapes the future.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

By "planned in advance" then I assume you disagree with Sander's take? Sanders writes it is an error to hold that before Creation God planned Jesus' crucifixion. In fact Sanders states that the crucifixion was not part of the plan until the very night before it happened. Sanders goes on to state that even after the crucifixion was accepted by Christ and God the Father, there was still uncertainty, "Will this gambit work?" How do you reconcile the idea that the crucifixion was uncertain with passages such as Mark 8:31ff; Mark 9:31-32; Mark 10:32ff?

I don't read Sanders so I really don't care to comment.

By "allows sin" do you believe that while God, as Creator, is the ultimate cause of sin, yet God does not effectuate a sin? In my previous post, I noted that open theism sees some evil as simply meaningless. Do you believe that there are some evil acts are meaningless?
I think this metaphor is a bit tame when speaking of evil. Why is it not appropriate to state that the evils of a Stalin or Hitler are worth God's gift of the freedom you describe?

What do you mean by "meaningless"?

Do you mean like random or for "no good reason"?

Certainly some thing just happen!

Jesus addressed this same question Himself when He was being asked if certain people were killed for some "divine" reason.

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

In other words... the tower falling and killing the 18 was nothing more than a random tragedy.

 

[Lon]

You are not all ears. I'm convinced there is a good brain between them and a good heart somewhere below them.:chuckle:
I was appealing to both.

You said we are free to go our separate ways. I agreed. I just said so was Koresh free to interpret scripture and pursue truth as he saw fit (free to go his separate way). Wasn’t that YOUR point? I asked you if you believed God had Koresh and those Kids right where he always wanted them after they went Koresh’s ‘separate’ way. In your view isn't our 'separate' way really not God's way for us anyway? (That's a question you can't agree with or disagree with. It is just a question you can answer or not.)

I don’t think Koresh was right! But, I couldn’t prove it to him or you by quoting the same scriptures he used to justify his position or actions. THAT WAS (I believe) Clete’s point and I agree with it. I was restating/making the point I understood you to make (perhaps) unintentionally.

Clete's point was more on illogical irreconcialables.
He's of the opinion that we can easily find mistruth by inconsistency.
My point is that OV isn't without those inconsistencies either. So in effect, logic is NOT the answer to this situation. I definitely plays, but I again contend that truth is God's expression and apprehending truth is also God's work. I see a lot of appeals to logic without appeals to the Holy Spirit. In my thinking, these cannot be divorced. The mark of truth is godliness. I believe the more godly one lives, the more correct their doctrine. This is not to downplay revelation, tradition, logic, etc. It is to say what Christ has always said "By their fruit you'll know."
The test of heresy is Godliness. My logic is also subject to the fall. My Calvinist doctrines are showing, but God must be sovereign or I am lost. The cross is the enactment of God's Sovereignty to save me in spite of myself. Nope, I can't 'think' 'feel' or 'move' myself out of sin. It is wholly the work of God.
I view my doctrine as the same. As I am His workmanship I come to the grace and knowledge of Him as I allow His fruit to bear in me and remain faithful to His applications in my life. As goes, my fruit, such goes my logical capacities.

 

[Philetus]

God told Adam that the day he ate he would surely die. Adam lived physically for 900 more years and died. That is hardly the death that God was speaking of. What death did Adam die the day he ate the fruit?

Food poisoning?
Just kidding. (Green apples.)

Spiritual and eventually (wow 900 years?) physical. The stay of execution was to give ample time to deal with the gravity of the sin. Still is. It’s mercy and grace in the face of judgment all the way.

Ro 8:20 - Show Context
for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

Eph 4:17 - Show Context
Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds.
​

Does God hope?

Just for good measure:

Romans 8:17-25
17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ?if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. 18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.​

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Certainly some thing just happen!

Jesus addressed this same question Himself when He was being asked if certain people were killed for some "divine" reason.

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

In other words... the tower falling and killing the 18 was nothing more than a random tragedy.

I would maintain that there was not a single meaningless act of evil recorded in the Scriptures. Given this assertion it would appear clear that there are no meaningless acts of evil. The passage above does not speak to randomness. Instead, the point made by Christ in Luke 13:1-5 was that these deaths are not to be interpreted as a special judgment for wickedness. The catastrophe should be seen as a warning to Israel that unless they repented (v. 5), a similar doom would befall them. Indeed, this doom came to fruition in a.d. 70 when Titus invaded Jerusalem.