ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

Next Rob will tell us that an argument from definition is invalid.

Or maybe everything doesn't really mean everything! :chuckle:

 

[atdcross]

Making Evil Good?

Making Evil Good?

...Calvinism doesn't remedy evil. It just tries to make it good.

Which, from the way it is explained to me, is a gross error in Calvinistic method of thinking. Evil (meant within the context of sin itself and it's consequences) is not good, cannot be made good, and never will be made good. Even Paul the apostle was against such an idea of which he was accused to acquiesce (Rom 3:8). God does not make sin good but, in spite of it, maneuvers events so good may come out of it. If God were not working things for the good, sin and its consequences, as far as I can see, would never result in a good.

 

[themuzicman]

Man, are you sloppy! The descendants of those who received the covenant of Sinai, are the lost children of flesh who perished in the wilderness. These are typical of all the UNELECT!

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." Galatians 4:24

Go read Deuteronomy 5.

Deut 5:5:1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. 2 "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers , but with us, [with] all those of us alive here today.​

This was the generation that entered the land.

All the spiritual offspring of Abraham are the true ELECT son of promise, whether O.T. or N.T.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Galatians 4:28

I agree with that. But they aren't individually elected.

This is a product of your imagination. All the elect of God are named individuals, written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Are being written. That verb is in the perfect tense, and ongoing action in the past from the perspective of the future.

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20

They believed, their names were written.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Go read Deuteronomy 5.

Deut 5:5:1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. 2 "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers , but with us, [with] all those of us alive here today.​

This was the generation that entered the land.

But these are not the spiritual elect of God.

This generation received the earthly, temporal blessings of the promised land, but only a small remnant within the nation of Israelites were saved from their sins to inherit the spiritual blessing of everlasting life.

You are confusing children of flesh with the elect, spiritual children of promise, as so clearly taught by Paul in Galatians 4:22-31.

But they aren't individually elected.

There is NO SCRIPTURE that teaches God ever saved an entire nation or an entire race or even an entire family. God elects particular people out of nations, races, families and religious groups for salvation. The elect, in any era, always consists of a small remnant of particular individuals, chosen by name to be saved and "accepted in the Beloved" Son of God.

They believed, their names were written.

Wrong.


" According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." Eph. 1:4

 

[lee_merrill]

By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act. ... Either God did everything or He didn't.

Well, if God is not in control of every evil event, accomplishing exactly his own good purposes, then he is not omnipotent--if evil can thwart the will of God, and bring about in some sense, second best.

There is no way to in each instance "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21) if God is not in control of sinful actions, if evil can really win to some degree, at times. How is it better if there is irremediable evil, outside the bounds of what God would rather have happened?

1 Jn. 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

But if the devil really does accomplish some of his purpose, to "steal, kill and destroy," and if there is sometimes no remedy, then the devil's work is not destroyed.

Rom. 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, if God is not in control of every evil event, accomplishing exactly his own good purposes, then he is not omnipotent--if evil can thwart the will of God, and bring about in some sense, second best.

There is no way to in each instance "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21) if God is not in control of sinful actions, if evil can really win to some degree, at times. How is it better if there is irremediable evil, outside the bounds of what God would rather have happened?

1 Jn. 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

But if the devil really does accomplish some of his purpose, to "steal, kill and destroy," and if there is sometimes no remedy, then the devil's work is not destroyed.

Rom. 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Blessings,
Lee

Then based on all the news from around the world, I would be forced to conclude that God's choosen method of bringing about good is doing evil, lots and lots of evil.

 

[lee_merrill]

Then based on all the news from around the world, I would be forced to conclude that God's choosen method of bringing about good is doing evil, lots and lots of evil.

Note that the cross was the worst evil deed ever done, with which all other evil deeds together do not compare.

Do you also here underestimate the power of God? And you have ignored my points in my post.

 

[Philetus]

Next Rob will tell us that an argument from definition is invalid.

Or maybe everything doesn't really mean everything! :chuckle:

:crackup:
Been there; undone that.

 

[Philetus]

Note that the cross was the worst evil deed ever done, with which all other evil deeds together do not compare.

Do you also here underestimate the power of God? And you have ignored my points in my post.

Underestimating God is what OV does best, Lee. :burnlib:
You made points in what post?

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
God can do anything. God chooses not to. The alternate view, the settled view, is that God has done everything and there is no choice period. (By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act.)

Originally Posted by RobE
Using what logic is the above statement substantiated. Do you have proof that this is true or are you just making it up?

First of all my retort was directed at your statement "By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act." I made the font bold so you would know what I was speaking of, but I'll reply to your answer anyway.

By the definition of everything. Either God did everything or He didn't.

God created everything, but God didn't do everything. God designed us with the ability to sin, but God didn't make us sin and God didn't commit sin. Do you commit sin if the children you produce commit sin? Furthermore, as a parent, do you know that your children will sin and decide to have them anyway? Do you love them even though you know they sin?

I'll ask my question again and try to be more specific.....By what logic do you assume that God sinned or caused anyone to sin if He's capable of knowing they will sin?

You know those who are not born yet will sin. Are you responsible for their sins because of your knowledge?

:think:

 

[RobE]

Next Rob will tell us that an argument from definition is invalid.

Or maybe everything doesn't really mean everything! :chuckle:

CabinetMaker seems to only have been recently infected with the o.v.irus and isn't quite in the advanced stages of the disease yet. He is probably still able to differentiate between tricky terms like 'will' and 'can', etc..

I'm sure as things progress he'll lose this ability.:angel:

 

[Nang]

CabinetMaker seems to only have been recently infected with the o.v.irus and isn't quite in the advanced stages of the disease yet. He is probably still able to differentiate between tricky terms like 'will' and 'can', etc..

I'm sure as things progress he'll lose this ability.:angel:

I was really surprised to see CabinetMaker take the OV. I thought he was an atheist, from my earlier readings of his posts.

:wazzup:

 

[Clete]

You know those who are not born yet will sin. Are you responsible for their sins because of your knowledge?

:think:

I wish you would actually do some thinking of your own before posting that smillie!

Is this the sort of knowledge that you believe God has? Just a general knowledge that people will rebel against Him? It isn't is it? Do you not believe that God not only knows that we will sin but precisely what that sin will be and when we will do it and for what reason? Do you not further believe that God predestined all those things or at the very least knew that they would happen before creation?

It has become obvious to me that you make these idiotic errors of category on purpose. They are debate tactics and poor ones at that. If you cannot refute the Open View honestly then why not accept it as truth or just drop it? Why waste everyone's time, including your own with such stupidity? Wouldn't it be more fun for everyone involved if you were to make real argument based on real difficulties rather than attempting to score all the cheap, meaningless, semantic points that you can figure out how to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

I was really surprised to see CabinetMaker take the OV. I thought he was an atheist, from my earlier readings of his posts.

:wazzup:

Ouch! You wound me deeply!







Not.

 

[CabinetMaker]

First of all my retort was directed at your statement "By the way, the settled view means that God designed and directed every evil act." I made the font bold so you would know what I was speaking of, but I'll reply to your answer anyway.



God created everything, but God didn't do everything. God designed us with the ability to sin, but God didn't make us sin and God didn't commit sin. Do you commit sin if the children you produce commit sin? Furthermore, as a parent, do you know that your children will sin and decide to have them anyway? Do you love them even though you know they sin?

I'll ask my question again and try to be more specific.....By what logic do you assume that God sinned or caused anyone to sin if He's capable of knowing they will sin?

You know those who are not born yet will sin. Are you responsible for their sins because of your knowledge?

:think:

Read chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession.

 

[RobE]

I wish you would actually do some thinking of your own before posting that smillie!

Is this the sort of knowledge that you believe God has? Just a general knowledge that people will rebel against Him? It isn't is it? Do you not believe that God not only knows that we will sin but precisely what that sin will be and when we will do it and for what reason? Do you not further believe that God predestined all those things or at the very least knew that they would happen before creation?

It has become obvious to me that you make these idiotic errors of category on purpose. They are debate tactics and poor ones at that. If you cannot refute the Open View honestly then why not accept it as truth or just drop it? Why waste everyone's time, including your own with such stupidity? Wouldn't it be more fun for everyone involved if you were to make real argument based on real difficulties rather than attempting to score all the cheap, meaningless, semantic points that you can figure out how to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, as you may have surmised, at some point(probably within 350 posts over the difference between 'can' and 'will') I found the o.v. to be quite silly. If a theology is unable to make these types of simple distinctions it becomes quite obvious it isn't me being stupid. You're right, at times I have baited and 'had fun with' (not the hurtful, humiliating type that some here seem to cherish) certain individuals.

To answer your question(s): I do believe that God foreknows the specific sins we will commit through (1)perfect deduction or (2)a supernatural ability to exist outside of time. Through the creative act God foreordained/predestined/decreed a 'greater purpose' which is only partly known to us. To achieve this end free will(and thus the ability to sin) was introduced into creation.

You state that God did this so that love would exist and you have written proofs of that here on TOL(I believe). I haven't read them, but shouldn't have to since I'm convinced of them being true sight unseen.

The proofs that use God knowing what you 'will' do restricting what you 'can' do relies on a modal fallacy which confuses the terms that we so often like discussing. When o.t.s are safely able to understand the difference between these words, we might be able to proceed.

I will now submit this post even though I can do otherwise. I'm sure God foresaw what I would do.

 

[CabinetMaker]

CabinetMaker seems to only have been recently infected with the o.v.irus and isn't quite in the advanced stages of the disease yet. He is probably still able to differentiate between tricky terms like 'will' and 'can', etc..

I'm sure as things progress he'll lose this ability.:angel:

Its not recent. Its been a life long deal. God created us with the ability to respond to Him. He intended that we would be with Him. When Adam blew that, God set about redeeming us to Himself because He loves us that much.

Try reading the parable of the Prodigal Son sometime with a truly open heart. That is a tale Jesus gave us to describe His Fathers love for us. Do you see the joy God experiences when one of His children returns to Him? There is nothing that supports a settled view in this parable. It is open.

 

[Nang]

Its not recent. Its been a life long deal. God created us with the ability to respond to Him. He intended that we would be with Him. When Adam blew that, God set about redeeming us to Himself because He loves us that much.

Try reading the parable of the Prodigal Son sometime with a truly open heart. That is a tale Jesus gave us to describe His Fathers love for us. Do you see the joy God experiences when one of His children returns to Him? There is nothing that supports a settled view in this parable. It is open.

It is a parable . . .

 

[RobE]

Read chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession.

Thanks for the answers. Oh I just saw the next post....

Its not recent. Its been a life long deal. God created us with the ability to respond to Him. He intended that we would be with Him. When Adam blew that, God set about redeeming us to Himself because He loves us that much.

Try reading the parable of the Prodigal Son sometime with a truly open heart. That is a tale Jesus gave us to describe His Fathers love for us. Do you see the joy God experiences when one of His children returns to Him? There is nothing that supports a settled view in this parable. It is open.

Sure. All views of Christianity hold that God has a personal relationship with men(except deists?). How would foreknowledge change that?

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is a parable . . .

Yes, they are short stories Jesus used to teach about God. There is great wisdom in the parables, don't you agree?