ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

It was nothing personal. It was based on what he said about God. He described a god that is in submission to something outside himself. That is not the God of the bible. It was a rebuke, and it was just.


He said that we can be like God by simply being moral. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve. You can be like God by what you do.

If I am wrong about this, then I will apologize.

I think you are getting caught up in the debate and are missing what gr is saying. It is easy to think you disagree with something when you really don't. Maybe take a step back and re-read it a little.

Gr said, "We can be like God in personal and moral ways," and that is biblical. God wants us to be more like him in these ways. With Christ this is possible.

You said "God is not moral. God cannot choose to be immoral." Well God is moral, in that he is good, righteous, not a sinner. You agree with that don't you?

You said calling God wills to be "righteous, good, loving, faithful, merciful, just, holy, etc" is heresy? You surely believe God wills to be who he is don't you?

 

[Mystery]

I think you are getting caught up in the debate and are missing what gr is saying. It is easy to think you disagree with something when you really don't. Maybe take a step back and re-read it a little.

Thanks for the advice. I re-read it.

Gr said, "We can be like God in personal and moral ways," and that is biblical.

Yes, it is in the bible. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve.

Why can't you guys see that?

God wants us to be more like him in these ways.

In order for us to be like Christ, He has to first crucify us, and then raise us from the dead by giving us His life. There is NO OTHER way. Righteousness is a gift, not the result of WWJD.

You said "God is not moral. God cannot choose to be immoral." Well God is moral, in that he is good, righteous, not a sinner.

No, God is not moral. "Moral" implies being right because you do right. God is righteous, not moral. God does right, because He is right.

You said calling God wills to be "righteous, good, loving, faithful, merciful, just, holy, etc" is heresy?

That is not what I called heresy. What I called heresy was that he said that they were volitional. In other words. He says that God is righteous, because He does right. He says that God is good, only because He does good etc.

That is heresy. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just stating a fact.

 

[patman]

Thanks for the advice. I re-read it.

Yes, it is in the bible. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve.

Why can't you guys see that?

In order for us to be like Christ, He has to first crucify us, and then raise us from the dead by giving us His life. There is NO OTHER way. Righteousness is a gift, not the result of WWJD.

No, God is not moral. "Moral" implies being right because you do right. God is righteous, not moral. God does right, because He is right.

That is not what I called heresy. What I called heresy was that he said that they were volitional. In other words. He says that God is righteous, because He does right. He says that God is good, only because He does good etc.

That is heresy. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just stating a fact.

I know you are trying to point out what you see is truth, but you are really splitting hairs here. It is like you are fighting us over words. Moral to you is being right because you do right, but another person can say moral is just doing right. Period.

You keep comparing us to satan. That is a little far. And this is how you do it:

Your god is the serpent in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

and

He said that we can be like God by simply being moral. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve. You can be like God by what you do.

But God said the same thing Satan said!!

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

So by your logical reasoning, God is.... what? Preaching Satan's words?

Gen 3
4 Then the serpent[Satan] said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

To an extent, people can be like God. Granted, we need his help, but we can will to be like him in our righteousness and "morals(even by your definition of the word)".

:thumb:

 

[Mystery]

Un-be-liev-able. :sigh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It was nothing personal. It was based on what he said about God. He described a god that is in submission to something outside himself. That is not the God of the bible. It was a rebuke, and it was just.

The disagreement itself is the topic of the conversation.

If it can't be discussed and explored what's the point? Are you saying you are right and there is no discussing it? No debating it? And if anyone dares debate it they are "devils"?

Maybe you are right but how will we know if we can't discuss it and debate it? Come now, and let us reason together.

If I am wrong about this, then I will apologize.

You may very well be right about the debate, that is yet to be determined, but clearly you are wrong when you overreact in the midst of a perfectly civil and potentially interesting conversation.

 

[patman]

Un-be-liev-able. :sigh:

So you deny God was right about us being like him in our knowledge of right and wrong?

 

[Mystery]

I know you are trying to point out what you see is truth, but you are really splitting hairs here. It is like you are fighting us over words. Moral to you is being right because you do right, but another person can say moral is just doing right. Period.

:doh: Are you kidding me? Of course they can say that moral is doing right, because that is what "moral" is. It is doing right based on a standard of "right and wrong". God does not have a standard of "right and wrong" by which He does right. He knows what is right and what is wrong, but He is not subject to it. He knows what is evil, but He cannot do it. He knows what darkness is, but there is no darkness in Him.

You keep comparing us to satan.

I'm not doing it to be mean, but if you are going to put your trust in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and believe that you can be like God by doing good or being "moral" then righteousness is not a gift but the result of works. It's really that simple.

But God said the same thing Satan said!!

Yes, He did. Do you think God wanted them to know good and evil?

To an extent, people can be like God.

I don't want to be mean to you either, because I really like you, and enjoy your posts on AoS too, but you could not be more wrong. We ARE the righteousness of God in Christ. We ARE complete in Him. We ARE holy, sanctified, blameless, and perfect. This is what the bible teaches. Righteousness is a gift.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinists (and I guess Open Theists) both miss the boat when it comes to understanding "free will".

Looking forward to reading more.

God is free to do anything that is consistent with His nature, and He cannot do that which is contrary to His nature. He does not have a choice to do evil.

Agree!

I'll say more later.

Am all "ears" (eyes).

 

[Mystery]

So you deny God was right about us being like him in our knowledge of right and wrong?

No, of course not. See my response in the previous post.

 

[Mystery]

Looking forward to reading more.

I'll try and finish it tomorrow. :grave:

 

[patman]

Mystery,

Thanks for the consideration. I am not worried if you are mean to me. I am on Art of Smack after all Are you posting on there?

From reading this, I know you do not understand what point I am making at all. You are taking it really far, putting much more than I ever intended to say in it. Here is an example:

I'm not doing it to be mean, but if you are going to put your trust in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and believe that you can be like God by doing good or being "moral" then righteousness is not a gift but the result of works.

How did I put my trust in the tree? Really. Where did I say it? When did I say the tree was a good way to get to God? You have it in your mind that I think a certain way and you are reading it into my posts.

The reason I pointed out that God said we were more like him by eating the tree was because you said:

He said that we can be like God by simply being moral. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve. You can be like God by what you do.

And the truth is you can be like God in those ways. I never said that would save you. You are saved by Grace, just like you said. It is a gift, not my works that saves me. Again, I never said any of the sorts. Do you see how far you stretched this?

I agree with your opening paragraph for the most part, except for when you said, "God does not have a standard of "right and wrong" by which He does right. " God's standard for right and wrong, in part, is love. As a part of his nature, love guides him in his righteousness. Justice, in part, also is a standard God uses in his righteous actions. I could go on, but I think that should establish it.

 

[patman]

No, of course not. See my response in the previous post.

I didn't think so....:think:

 

[godrulz]

It was nothing personal. It was based on what he said about God. He described a god that is in submission to something outside himself. That is not the God of the bible. It was a rebuke, and it was just.


He said that we can be like God by simply being moral. That is exactly what the serpent said to Adam and Eve. You can be like God by what you do.

If I am wrong about this, then I will apologize.

Non Sequitur...that is neither what I said or meant. This reminds me of old sozo misunderstandings...hmmm.

There is a vast distinction between Creator and creature. We cannot be gods, despite what Mormons say. We cannot be 'moral' apart from God. Our self-righteousness is as filthy rags.

Just because God conforms to a law of love does not mean He submits to anything. He does what is loving all the time based on His will and intellect. This view does not make the Living God the devil. Open vs Closed Theism debates the nature of the character and attributes of God while worshipping the same God. We are not denying fundamental truths like the spread between the God of Judeo-Christianity and Allah/Islam.

I could word things better or give more details, but jumping to conclusions and debasing our common acceptance of the one true God is not defensible.

 

[godrulz]

This is how I see God:

God is righteous. He is nothing but righteous. WHATEVER He does, it is righteous.

God does things. He is more than a static blob. This was my point, but somehow I know worship the devil? Cmon, mystery.

Can I remind you again, as I have reminded the old sozo, that morals is not a pejorative term. Words have a semantic range of meaning. We can reduce morals to morality and then I agree with your concerns.

In academic circles, they contrast the area dealing with right and wrong as morals. The area dealing with being, ontology, stuff, substance, essence is metaphysics. The area dealing with knowledge is epistemology. There are many branches of philosophy. To talk about Christian ethics in a fallen world is not to reduce God's righteousness to mere morality. It is a descriptive term/category in contrast to other unrelated categories.

We cannot communicate if you use terms in too broad or narrow a sense or differently from others.

Holiness is under the academic heading of morals, regardless of the many nuanced understanding of it.

God as eternal spirit, triune, Creator is under the area of metaphysics, not morals.

There is a tension between being and volition. Certainly God can act and think. We are human, but this does not drive our choices. God is spirit, but this does not drive His choices. Will and intellect are the seat of these things, not mere existence (we are different than lower creation that also has being, but not moral agency). Being tends to be tainted by philosophical constructs. God is reduced to being, not personal being (which implies will, intellect, emotions).

Clete is making a point. Why not say his god is the devil since he is also not uncritically accepting your view. Chicken?

 

[Yorzhik]

I realize you are trying to be clever, but you clearly misunderstand the concepts behind your statements. Please take the time to refresh your understanding of foreordination and foreknowledge. Here is a very nice (ahem) introduction. And here (see point about Peter) is a useful practical example to make the distinctions more clear to you.

[/INDENT] The longer, more erudite version is here.

No, apparently you are having a wonderful little conversation with yourself using Hobbit speak and sarcasm. Do you always speak to yourself this way? Now I can respond at the same sarcastic level if you prefer (I am doing so right now), but, as is patently obvious to any casual observer, you have showed up to a gunfight with a butter knife and it just does not seem very fair.:nono:

But now let's be serious, for we are discussing sacred and holy topics.

Yorzhik, I hold in disdain the common TOL snare tactics of playing "twenty questions" or "wack-a-mole". So how about asking sincere questions, accompanied by some motivating rationale, that demonstrate a willingness and openness to understand different perspectives. I will be happy to respond in kind.

I've gone back and read all the links in your post. I've answered the first one twice but you demonstrate no apparent willingness or openness so far to understand a different perspective in that discussion.

I, on the other hand, have been willing to understand your perspective. I lived with a similar theology for most of my life. Also, my father and I have a great relationship and we talk about this topic frequently and he holds the SV position. Beyond that, I get to talk with some of the seminary doctoral candidates on this subject, they being SV, and these conversations have never turned into a shouting match or resulted in a moratorium on this subject. Perhaps if we would talk face to face you wouldn't have such an easy time dodging your end of the conversation and it could be more fruitful.

This has been discussed ad infinitum by me. The really, really, short versions:

open theism: the ability to choose otherwise
classical theism: choosing what one is most inclined to choose​

Okay. We can stick with your definition.

Referring to the eschaton, all the actions of everyone is caused by some previous thing. And since we are talking about the end, we are referring to the final choices by man. These choices were caused by prior things, including to a great extent choices made previously and made by other people. And by other people we can of course refer to other people in history. They made choices that affect me today and I end up choosing what I'm most inclined to choose whereas if God had decreed that they choose another way, then my inclination very well may be different by this time. Of course, those people were making choices based on their inclinations caused by events and choices even more prior to them. And what affected those even more prior choices were affected by events and choices even more more prior. And if can use a biblical construction, we can say that the more more more prior events and choices go to the beginning of time. If it had been decreed by God that Adam and Eve waited an extra couple years before sinning than my inclinations today may very well be different, and thus my choices would be different. Likewise for those people at the end of days. Right?​

 

[themuzicman]

nope.

LOL...

Persuasive argument you have there.... :doh:

Your own statements say otherwise.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Indeed.

Like Mystery stated earlier: "God does what He is, not is what he does."

In other words:
"What God is like should be used to explain what God is doing in the Scriptures."

God forbid that the Scriptures should explain what God is doing in the Scriptures. Then we'd ALL be Open Theists...

Muz

 

[Mystery]

We cannot be 'moral' apart from God.

Anyone can be moral with or without God (Romans 2).

 

[Clete]

I was not ignoring you intentionally. I had just overlooked this post. I've been really short on time.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I need clarification.

Your premise is: Through "one Man's" ("Christ," I assume) righteous act, men are justified and declared righteous.

Your conclusion is: Righteousness is "tied directly to an action," which was a decision made "within the Spirit of the Living God."

You are confused only in that the premise and the conclusion of which you speak are not two different things. What you call a conclusion is stated plainly by what you call a premise.

You have switched from accrediting the Son of God with righteousness, to a decision made by God the Holy Spirit, have you not?

The Two are One Nang, or more precisely the Three are One. And even if you wanted to quibble about my having cited the doctrine of the Trinity, what you cannot quibble about is the fact that Jesus was indwelt by the Holy Spirit and acted in accordance with His guidance.

What was the specific "righteous act" that justified sinners? When was it decided, and who performed it?

Romans 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

I should really just quote all of Romans 5. Verse 6 is awesome as is verse 11. In fact, I would respond, if I were you, as though I had just quoted the whole chapter in response to your question.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Thanks for the physics lesson or whatever mode of science that would be.

So the ice is under the control of the drink? Gotcha! Thanks.

According to you, it would be the drink that deserves the praise. I see that now.

You're right Clete, the ice represents man, and the drink represents God. I just didn't realize at first that it was actually the drink that causes the ice to glorify the drink. Okay, you can stop now. I had it backwards. God would be the drink, and I would be the ice.


On the contrary, God is glorified by His nature. God is good, not because He does good, but because He is good.

Thanks for clearing it up!

Mystery,

Instead of turning off your brain and cranking your emotions to full blast, how about responding to the argument? Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of pace around here?

The drink would deserve no more credit than would the ice! It too only warmed the ice as an unavoidable result of its nature. There is no virtue in any action unless that action was chosen. That's the point of the argument. Please respond too it without all the theatrics.

Resting in Him,
Clete