ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Mystery]

Mystery,

Instead of turning off your brain and cranking your emotions to full blast, how about responding to the argument?

So you don't like it when you get accused of being emotional about something, but you have no problem falsely accusing others.

I see.

 

[Delmar]

I would not agree with that, but it's not a real point of contention for me either.

I do not think that God is righteous by His works. And I do not think that He chooses to act in our best interest. I believe that He acts in our best interest because it is His nature to do so.

Mystery
Which of these two statements do you see as closer to the truth?
A Because God is the creator what anything He does is, by definition, righteous.

B. Because God is righteous, He will never choose to do anything that is unrighteous

 

[Delmar]

... He described a god that is in submission to something outside himself...

I can not find where he did this. Please show me.

 

[Mystery]

Mystery
Which of these two statements do you see as closer to the truth?
A Because God is the creator what anything He does is, by definition, righteous.

B. Because God is righteous, He will never choose to do anything that is unrighteous

B is closer to being a sentence :chuckle:

They are both equally in error. They are both based on behavior.

A. I do not accept the idea that if God suddenly decided to change the commandment to "thou shalt commit adultery" that it would be righteous to commit adultery. God could do no such thing.

B. God cannot choose (not "will never choose") to do anything unrighteous.

 

[Mystery]

I can not find where he did this. Please show me.

God does not make up arbitrary laws because He has the power to; He submits to a law of love, right, good, based on His character/being

 

[Delmar]

I think the "law of love" that GR is referring to is part of God's nature. Not some "outside" force.

 

[Delmar]

B is closer to being a sentence :chuckle:

Grammar Nazi!

 

[Mystery]

I think the "law of love" that GR is referring to is part of God's nature. Not some "outside" force.

Coupled with his view that holiness is volitional, and that he said that God submits to them. I think he reduces God to a god.

Love is the fruit of the Spirit, not a law of the Spirit.

One is dictated by the nature, the other dictates.

That is an important distinction.

 

[godrulz]

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

There is a difference between human 'morality' and Christian righteousness in Christ. The academic debate (secular or theological) is under the heading of 'morals', not metaphysics (being/substance).

Rom. 1-3 says that our 'morals' are as filthy rags and that all men sin and fall short of the glory of God. We are universally condemned. Rom. 4-5 shows that our justification is by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ apart from self-righteous works or mere morals.

Semantics? 'Moral' can be used in a variety of ways. Back when people were literate, most believers and theologians did not have a problem with using God and moral in the same sentence. Our TV generation no longer knows the precision of words (which can evolve). In fact, as you know, if you are sozo, I believe that God is the Moral Governor of the universe. Moral Government Theory was popularized by Albert Barnes, Charles G. Finney, New England Theology, etc. This contrasts with God being a fickle, immoral despot. God is the Lawgiver. Adultery, idolatry, murder, lying, stealing, etc. is still wrong, even for a believer. We can talk about morals in this context, as opposed to whether God is matter or spirit (then we would be talking about metaphysics).

Does anyone see the issue here? I am not denying justification by grace through faith nor suggesting that morals save us or are even possible since God's standard is perfection. Only Christ is perfect. We need Christ.

 

[godrulz]

I think the "law of love" that GR is referring to is part of God's nature. Not some "outside" force.

God is love and He is loving. Love has an object and is also an action. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8 God demonstrates His love in this....cf. Jn. 3:16).

Love is also volitional. God choses the highest good of Himself and others. It is not an emotion, nor a simple state of being. We also are commanded to love God supremely and others equal with ourselves. We love our children, our parents, our God. It is more than 'being'.

Love is not divorced from His will and intellect. It is not a causative force that makes Him do things whether He wants to our not. He intelligently choses what is good, loving, best. He never lives unintelligently or selfishly in His dealings with man. Justice flows from His love. Our selfish sin is the antithesis of this. We live for self, not what is the highest good of God, others, self. We are stupid and rebellious. God is infinitely smart and is consistent with love itself.

 

[godrulz]

Coupled with his view that holiness is volitional, and that he said that God submits to them. I think he reduces God to a god.

Love is the fruit of the Spirit, not a law of the Spirit.

One is dictated by the nature, the other dictates.

That is an important distinction.

Confusing metaphysics (being/stuff/substance) with morals (volitional). I can see how you are jumping to conclusions and rejecting a straw man caricature of what I believe, but I do not think it is fair.

Your sinless perfectionism views also need tweaking (if you are sozo...welcome back...its about time).

The word law can also have a positive or negative use.

I realize I am not fully developing or explaining this, but rest assured, we are talking about the same God and do not believe that man can pull himself up by his boot straps to be right or do right before a holy God.

 

[Delmar]

Coupled with his view that holiness is volitional, and that he said that God submits to them. I think he reduces God to a god.

Love is the fruit of the Spirit, not a law of the Spirit.

One is dictated by the nature, the other dictates.

That is an important distinction.

I guess the problem I am having is that saying " God can not sin" makes it sound
like God is a prisoner to His nature. Saying it that way makes it sound as if He might choose to do evil, if He could.
I guess I see the phrase "God can not sin" as a bit of a figure of speech (there are figures of speech in the Bible) meaning " It is beyond reason to believe that God would ever choose to sin".

 

[Delmar]

God is love and He is loving. Love has an object and is also an action. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8 God demonstrates His love in this....cf. Jn. 3:16).

Love is also volitional. God choses the highest good of Himself and others. It is not an emotion, nor a simple state of being. We also are commanded to love God supremely and others equal with ourselves. We love our children, our parents, our God. It is more than 'being'.

Love is not divorced from His will and intellect. It is not a causative force that makes Him do things whether He wants to our not. He intelligently choses what is good, loving, best. He never lives unintelligently or selfishly in His dealings with man. Justice flows from His love. Our selfish sin is the antithesis of this. We live for self, not what is the highest good of God, others, self. We are stupid and rebellious. God is infinitely smart and is consistent with love itself.

So ... that would be a yes?

 

[godrulz]

So ... that would be a yes?

What was the question?

It is moot and academic. God would never sin regardless of whether is is cannot vs will not. He is perfect and lives intelligently, not stupidly or selfishly (the opposite of love...which is not hate, but selfishness), whether by causative nature or volitional, intelligent choice.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, BTW?

 

[Delmar]

What was the question?

It is moot and academic. God would never sin regardless of whether is is cannot vs will not. He is perfect and lives intelligently, not stupidly or selfishly (the opposite of love...which is not hate, but selfishness), whether by causative nature or volitional, intelligent choice.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, BTW?

I, of coarse agree, that God will never sin!

Can we all affirm that, It is beyond reason to believe that God would ever choose to sin?

 

[Mystery]

Can we all affirm that, It is beyond reason to believe that God would ever choose to sin?

It is for me.

I cannot reason that God can choose to not sin, anymore than I can reason that He can choose to deny Himself.

God cannot turn out the light.

He cannot say "I don't want to be God anymore. Let William do it, I know he wants to". :chuckle:

 

[Mystery]

God does not "submit" to anything. Your god is a devil.

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

I can see now that I worded these wrong.

I should have said...

The "god" you are describing is the devil.

and

The "god" you are describing is the serpent at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

They did come out like a personal attack, so I apologize.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don’t understand what you are saying?

There's a reason for that. And that reason is that :sozo:it is illogical and doesn't make any sense!

 

[Lighthouse]

Further, your position that righteousness has nothing to do with one's actions but rather the other way around I do not believe to be Biblical. The Bible ties one's righteousness to one's actions...

Judges 5:11 Far from the noise of the archers, among the watering places,There they shall recount the righteous acts of the LORD, The righteous acts for His villagers in Israel; Then the people of the LORD shall go down to the gates.

1 Samuel 12:7 Now therefore, stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD concerning all the righteous acts of the LORD which He did to you and your fathers:

1 Kings 8:32 then hear in heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.

2 Chronicles 6:23 then hear from heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, bringing retribution on the wicked by bringing his way on his own head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.

Psalm 7:8 The LORD shall judge the peoples;Judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, And according to my integrity within me.

Ezekiel 7:3 Now the end has come upon you, And I will send My anger against you; I will judge you according to your ways, And I will repay you for all your abominations.

Ezekiel 36:19 So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds.​

All these, prior to the cross. God had to go by actions.

Romans 5:18 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.

And the One who committed that righteous act is the One Who is Righteous. He was Righteous before the act. Right?

If one is righteous, they will commit righteous acts.​

How am I wrong?

 

[elected4ever]

There's a reason for that. And that reason is that :sozo:it is illogical and doesn't make any sense!

Can you give me a reference to what this is about?