ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Rape and murder are not parallel. They are not consistent with God's love, mercy, and justice, but are contrary to His holiness.

Certainly, yet was Jesus not arguably raped, and murdered? He was.

God ... did change his mind about Hezekiah's death, in response to prayer, and added 15 years to His life (unless it was a change, God lied).

Unless there was an implied condition, Hezekiah thought there was, and was correct. See here for more on this, as in this verse I have never seen answered by an Open Theist:

Num. 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

If God can really change his mind, then the answer is yes, he does speak, and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Certainly, yet was Jesus not arguably raped, and murdered? He was.

Raped?

Unless there was an implied condition, Hezekiah thought there was, and was correct. See here for more on this, as in this verse I have never seen answered by an Open Theist:

Num. 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

If God can really change his mind, then the answer is yes, he does speak, and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

Blessings,
Lee

This is simply false. Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.

(What a shock, another logical error...)

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Could somebody help Ask Mr. Religious find his way back to the home for real-tired Calvinists, check the batteries in his ankle bracelet and see that he takes his medication?

 

[Philetus]

Lee: I agree, and this sinful deed (the people crucifying Jesus, not Jesus sacrificing himself) was planned by God, for good.

All Jesus had to do was be born into a fallen world and restrain His divine power to prevent His death (which didn't keep him from walking on water, changing water to wine or calming the waves; healing the sick, raising the dead, commanding demons, shucking corn on the sabbath or forgiving sins). It just kept Him from avoiding the cross! Just as the holy law of God made sin a universal inevitability for all human beings, the sinlessness of Christ Jesus in the flesh made His death at the hands of sinful men inevitable/certain. The remarkable thing is that God acted in the fullness of time; at the right moment for all time and eternity. His sinlessness did not prevent Him from conflict with the self righteous-religious-right. It made it certian!

 

[lee_merrill]

Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.

And the Open View says that he does, God does speak and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

 

[Philetus]

Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! ​

 

[themuzicman]

And the Open View says that he does, God does speak and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

But not in the context in which Numbers 23 is speaking. There, it's speaking of covenants.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

And the Open View says that he does, God does speak and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

Wake up, lee. And you post without thinking? You know better ... don't you? I expect this kind of garbage from AMR, but not you!

God never makes an unconditional statement that He doesn't follow through on. God never makes an unconditional promise He doesn't fulfill. You need to add another big word to your vocabulary ... "IF".

 

[lee_merrill]

But not in the context in which Numbers 23 is speaking. There, it's speaking of covenants.

So then God will not change his mind about unconditional promises? But then what about Nineveh? What about Jehoiakim and the covenant that there would always be a descendant of David on the throne of David?

God never makes an unconditional statement that He doesn't follow through on.

Certainly, yet the Open View says he does change his mind, thus he does sometimes speak and then not act, and promise, and not fulfill, even in regard to unconditional promises, see the examples Open Theists give to show God changing his mind, what about Jeremiah 18, the universal solvent of the Open Theists?

I'm about to start a thread with a eulogy to Open Theism, it seems it has run its course.

 

[Philetus]

I'm about to start a thread with a eulogy to Open Theism, it seems it has run its course.

Go and do what you must do and do it quickly. And please, take AMR with you.

God's speed
Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

Go and do what you must do and do it quickly.

I note, alas, a lack of answer to my point. I also have heard that such statements mean "He does not speak and then not act in this instance, he does not promise and not fulfill in this case," as in the case of Saul, another bit of such silliness as saying this statement only refers to covenants.

Where, Muz, is this in a commentary? This is simply bad exegesis.

 

[godrulz]

Agreed. There is a time and place for it. You seem unwilling to accede to this point.

Well I thought it must have been some Reformed school and you were just rebelling. But I see it was one of those schools holding to unbiblical notions of non-cessationalism.


Notice how that last statement made you feel? What was your initial reaction? Oh, the nerve of this guy! I merely posted it to demonstrate how a wholesale assertion comes across. Think about it.

It is a Pentecostal College, like the early church. There is no exegetical reason for cessationism. This is my counter assertion. I think the onus is on you to explain why you rationalize or dispensationalize Scripture. A simple reading of Scripture makes my point self-evident. If you want to attack the obvious, then you need to do more than assert simple truth.

God is love. Do I have to defend this or will you accept it at face value?

Let's play psychologist. I think you want this to be an in-depth academic forum because that is the ivory tower you reside in. However, it is not, so you are frustrated. I think TOL is more fun for the average Joe who does not float in your rarified circles. We want to be simpler without being simplistic. We want to chat with the common man and learn together, not have an egg-head platform divorced from practical Christian living.

Perhaps you are also miffed that this is a growing, successful, impactful forum and your email one is not so much. There is a place for both, but don't make this one in your image unless we voluntarily want to engage at your level.

 

[godrulz]

And the Open View says that he does, God does speak and then not act, he does promise, and not fulfill.

Based on I Sam. 15, God changes His mind in some situations, but will not change it in other cases. Conditional prophecy may or may not happen: if they repent, God will relent; if they do not, God will judge. Any change of mind is consistent with His character. Malachi shows that God does not change His mind in a fickle or capricious way like humans do. Since He is personal, He can and does change His mind. If He could not, He would not remain faithful or holy in certain cases, and He would be impersonal or less free than man.

After the Fall, God was grieved and regretted making man and was going to wipe them out (But Noah...! whew). This is a change in God's disposition based on changing contingencies.

God is dynamic and responsive (Living God), not static and stoic (Unmoved Mover).

 

[Servo]

It is a Pentecostal College, like the early church. There is no exegetical reason for cessationism. This is my counter assertion. I think the onus is on you to explain why you rationalize or dispensationalize Scripture. A simple reading of Scripture makes my point self-evident. If you want to attack the obvious, then you need to do more than assert simple truth.

God is love. Do I have to defend this or will you accept it at face value?

Let's play psychologist. I think you want this to be an in-depth academic forum because that is the ivory tower you reside in. However, it is not, so you are frustrated. I think TOL is more fun for the average Joe who does not float in your rarified circles. We want to be simpler without being simplistic. We want to chat with the common man and learn together, not have an egg-head platform divorced from practical Christian living.

Perhaps you are also miffed that this is a growing, successful, impactful forum and your email one is not so much. There is a place for both, but don't make this one in your image unless we voluntarily want to engage at your level.

AMR probably doesn't like it when a few simple sentences completely destroy his long and insubstantial arguments. :chuckle:

 

[themuzicman]

So then God will not change his mind about unconditional promises?

COVENANTS. God doesn't break Covenants. (Why am I constantly having to read Scripture to Calvinists who can't seem to do it for themselves?

This is Balaam speaking to Barak about cursing Israel.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? 20 "Behold, I have received [a command] to bless; When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it. 21 "He has not observed misfortune in Jacob; Nor has He seen trouble in Israel; The Lord his God is with him, And the shout of a king is among them. 22 "God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox. 23 "For there is no omen against Jacob, Nor is there any divination against Israel; At the proper time it shall be said to Jacob And to Israel, what God has done! 24 "Behold, a people rises like a lioness, And as a lion it lifts itself; It will not lie down until it devours the prey, And drinks the blood of the slain."​

Israel are living by the Covenant they have with God, and God is honoring that Covenant. Why is this hard to see?

But then what about Nineveh?

Surely you can read the text and understand the purpose of the prophet from what JONAH HIMSELF SAYS, can you not?

John 4:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do [it]. 4:1 But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, "Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my [own] country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity​

Jonah, before giving the prophecy, knew that this declaration was conditional, and declares as such right here.

(Again, I am left to wonder why I have to read Scripture for the Calvinist. Are their minds so narrow and set on their systematic theology that Scripture no longer matters?)

What about Jehoiakim and the covenant that there would always be a descendant of David on the throne of David?

Is there a descendant of David on David's throne?

Certainly, yet the Open View says he does change his mind, thus he does sometimes speak and then not act, and promise, and not fulfill, even in regard to unconditional promises, see the examples Open Theists give to show God changing his mind, what about Jeremiah 18, the universal solvent of the Open Theists?

As usual, we have no exegesis, or even a cite of Scripture. Just a vague reference.

I'm about to start a thread with a eulogy to Open Theism, it seems it has run its course.

LOL... said the man who can't even read the bible for himself..

The Eulogy should be for Calvinism, for whom there are no defenders who are anything more than parrots of a defeated systematic theology.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Paraphrase of Boyd in 'Satan and the problem of evil' (for Robe who has his shirt in a knot about evil and God, but dedicated to Philetus who will 'get it'; there are practical, pastoral implications to the extremes of our views)

Revolt rather than resignation (p. 162):

blah blah blah blah....for those who think we can't trust God to protect us if He does not have foreknowledge and meticulous control, but insist that everything has a divine purpose and good reason including rape/murder and Keith Green's premature death (see my conversation with thelaq on the Keith Green link in my signature...did God take Keith home for a higher purpose or did the pilot make a dumb mistake by overloading the plane?)

...God does comfort us and give us hope "but I do not believe that Scripture teaches us to find consolation in trusting that everything that ever occurs has a divine reason behind it."

That belief goes beyond Scripture and fosters a mentality contrary to it. If one holds that there is a divine reason behind all suffering, one is more likely to resign oneself to things that Scripture encourages us to revolt against (warfare vs blueprint). We are to revolt against somethings rather than try to find security in that God must have a secret purpose behind it (hence we will continue to overload planes presumptiously and kill families as part of God's will?!). We are not to accept evil, but overthrow it. There is also a difference between heinous evil and Hitler killing Jews and the plan of redemption on the cross from a holy God.

"We are not to trust that God meticulously controls these things. We are rather to trust that God is against them, that He has empowered us to work with Him in battling evils and that God will ultimately overthrow all his foes and rid his creation of all forms of evil.

If we adopt a warfare worldview rather than a blueprint worldview, we are encouraged to trust God for everything God Himself tells us to trust Him for and to fight against everything God himself fights against. God's character is not tarnished by being entwined with the evil in the world, and the church's mission is not compromised by accepting things it ought to revolt against."

i.e. Jesus came to resist evil, not affirm it as part of God's secret will for a higher good. God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. This is the real reason we can trust Him with the future.


AMR. Mere assertions? Read the Gospels to support one preconceived idea over the other. I have done my homework. I will not do yours. Does it teach a warfare or a blueprint model of sovereignty? Does it teach meticulous or providential control?

 

[godrulz]

AMR probably doesn't like it when a few simple sentences completely destroy his long and insubstantial arguments. :chuckle:

Not in his mind, of course. My simple sentences are based on decades of thought. I simply cannot or will not regurgitate the years leading up to these assertions in a post or two.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not in his mind, of course. My simple sentences are based on decades of thought.

If it takes you decades to come up with a simple sentence, and a false statement at that, then you must be really dumb.

 

[godrulz]

If it takes you decades to come up with a simple sentence, and a false statement at that, then you must be really dumb.

What is the false statement? I thought you agreed with Open Theism and free will and rejected deterministic Calvinism (or are you talking about a statement from months ago).

You miss my point, as usual.

I consider myself an idiot savant (which is better than a run-of-the-mill idiot like some others here). We are all dumb and smart in various ways.

Actually, many of my ideas were grasped intuitively, quickly, decades ago. All these years of continued thought as not given me a good reason to change things. e.g. I knew that God is love years ago. I continue to think about it, but have not changed my convictions. I have been an Open Theist for most of my Christian walk. Despite continued thinking about it for decades (makes me smart, not dumb), I see no reason to embrace Calvinism instead (I would if it was more biblical). Get it?

 

[godrulz]

If it takes you decades to come up with a simple sentence, and a false statement at that, then you must be really dumb.

Why not make a positive contribution like I am trying to do with my recent long posts instead of juvenile ad hominem attacks? Who is the dumb one? Better to remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt, fool.lain: