ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

God is not as concerned with the carrying out of an evil action as He is with the conceving of the evil action. When does conceiving of the evil action take place? when it is decreed, or when the decree is carried out?

You are confusing wickedness with evil. Sin produces wickedness which results in evil.

Sin comes from the heart of man.
Wicked actions manifest the sin-filled heart.
Evil is the consequence.

Man is responsible for the first two.
God judges with the last.

Sinful men who manifest wickedness and wrong actions produce evil consequences which is their deserved judgment from God. These consequences produced by the human heart are the "issues of life."


"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matthew 12 34, 35

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man." Matthew 15:18

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders." Mark 7:21

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45

God created evil to be the consequence of breaking His Law. Evil is Godly sentence and the price paid for sinful wickedness. Death is sentence imposed by God; evil consequences are part of God's Law; death is the evil consequence of sin; death is the deserved judgment of God against Law-breaking, wicked men:

"For the wages of sin is death . . ." Romans 6:23a

God is not the author of sin, but He is the Sovereign Judge who rules over sin.

God has justly and legally imposed a death sentence against every wicked sinner. Evil ("calamaties, sorrow, bad things, death, etc.) is ordained by God against all sin. (Isaiah 45:7)

God decreed before creation to save many sinners from their sinful hearts, wicked actions, their inability to obey the Law, and the evil they would produce and bring upon themselves. God decreed to give sinners new hearts, which would produce the fruits of holiness and Spirit, instead of evil:

"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh." Ezekiel 11:19

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." Ezekiel 36:26

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." I Timothy 1:5

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." II Timothy 2:22

The new heart, ordained by God and gifted by God, comes by the regeneration and conversion of the sinner by the power of the Holy Spirit. The sinful, wicked man, who produced only evil, is made a new creature, able to serve righteousness and produce holy fruit.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh (and produces evil results), and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (who produces good, Godly works)." John 3:6

"And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness . . .the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6: 18, 23b

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Cor. 5:17

So I do not attribute evil to the Person of God. Evil is a matter of Law. Evil is attributed to the persons and hard hearts of sinners, who earn the penalties that Sovereign God justly imposes against those who break His Law.

I attribute only justice, righteousness, faithfulness, goodness, love, mercy, compassion, and grace to the Person of God, who decreed (purposed) to save multitudes of sinners, and ordained (ordered remedy) through the sacrifice of His only Begotten Son on the cross.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

:backflip:

 

[lee_merrill]

I still wonder how God knows only a remnant will be saved...

 

[lee_merrill]

... and how Jesus could say "Truly, truly", knowing it might not be true.

 

[godrulz]

... and how Jesus could say "Truly, truly", knowing it might not be true.

I think that was a cultural expression. I can say the same thing. Truly, verily, I am going to eat now.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think that was a cultural expression. I can say the same thing. Truly, verily, I am going to eat now.

I would disagree. Christ uses this affirmation only in John. Literally it means "Amen, Amen" and occurs 25 times in John and always calls attention to important affirmations: 1:51, 3:3, 3:5, 3:11, 5:19, 5:24-25, 6:26, 6:32, 6:47, 6:53, 8:34, 8:51, 8:58, 10:1, 10:7, 12:24, 13:16, 13:20-21, 13:38, 14:12, 16:20, 16:23, 21:18. You don't find this used anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels.

Throughout the Gospel of John, the Lord uses the word ame[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]́n, e.g., doubled in John 1:51, "Amen, amen, I say unto you," or "Verily, verily, I say unto you," which could be rendered, "I who am the Amen [Truth itself] tell you as a most certain and infallible truth"

 

[godrulz]

I would disagree. Christ uses this affirmation only in John. Literally it means "Amen, Amen" and occurs 25 times in John and always calls attention to important affirmations: 1:51, 3:3, 3:5, 3:11, 5:19, 5:24-25, 6:26, 6:32, 6:47, 6:53, 8:34, 8:51, 8:58, 10:1, 10:7, 12:24, 13:16, 13:20-21, 13:38, 14:12, 16:20, 16:23, 21:18. You don't find this used anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels.

Throughout the Gospel of John, the Lord uses the word ame[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]́n, e.g., doubled in John 1:51, "Amen, amen, I say unto you," or "Verily, verily, I say unto you," which could be rendered, "I who am the Amen [Truth itself] tell you as a most certain and infallible truth"

I agree, but it does not prove EDF, my point. I can say that if something is knowable or if I can bring it to pass by my ability (Isaiah 46 and 48).

 

[patman]

Hi everyone.

I am back. I had a nice break. Now I am back for more punishment.

A Few Verses that support Open Theism:

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

contrast against

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt[a]was four hundred and thirty years.

If you note the prophecy was Egypt will serve and afflict Israel for 400 years. By the verse above you an see the total time they were in Egypt was 430 years.

Genesis 50:26 tells us Joseph lived 110 years. Genesis 41:46 tells us he was 30 when he told pharaoh that 17 years would see the end of the famine. Genesis 45:11 tells us there was 5 years left in the famine when Israel came to Egypt.

30 + 7 + (7-5) = 39. This means Israel went to Egypt when Joseph was 39ish. Joseph lived 110 years. 110-39 = 71.

So If Israel was in Egypt 430 years, and for 71 of those years they were not slaves, this means at the most, they could only have been slaves for (430-71) 359 years! Remember, that is at the most. It was actually much less than that.

Exodus 1:8 tells us a new Pharaoh who did not know Joseph was the one who enslaved Israel. This Pharaoh did not know Joseph. How many year would have to pass before a Pharaoh would rise who did not know Joseph if Joseph was an authority for 71 years? 1 generation after his death maybe?

The actual time Israel served egypt as slaves was more like 300 years, rather than 400. Scripture tells us this.

The same author of Genesis wrote Exodus.

Either way Gods original prophecy to Abraham changed. Instead of waiting 400 years to free Israel, he shortened that time to 300 or so years!

If the future is settled, and God knew all along they would be slaves for 300 and some years, why then did he say they would be slaves 400 years when the truth was 300 years slaves, 430 years total in Egypt? Please note 300ish is not equal to 400, and 430 is not equal to 400.

 

[godrulz]

Interesting. Apparently it was also a common practice to round numbers, so '400 years' could be + or -.

 

[Edmond_Dantes]

That seems like sound reasoning patman. In light of godrulz observation on number rounding I would look for examples of more exact temporal/numeric predictions with greater resolution (e.g. 123 years). Otherwise, if the standard of rounding numbers is established the example doesn't really support the position.

 

[patman]

Then it should have been rounded closer to 300.
:cheers:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hi everyone.

I am back. I had a nice break. Now I am back for more punishment.

Let the punishment begin then.
A chronological problem exists in Acts 7:6, where Stephen said Israel would be enslaved and mistreated 400 years. For in Galatians 3:17 Paul implied that the period of time from the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 15:13-16 to Mount Sinai was 430 years. The difference between the 400 and 430 years can easily be accounted for by understanding that Stephen used round numbers. Another explanation is that the 400 years was the actual time of bondage whereas the 430 years described the time from the confirming of the covenant in Genesis 35:9-15 to the Exodus, which occurred in 1446 b.c. The main problem, however, is the time Israel spent in bondage in Egypt. If Galatians 3:17 means it was 430 years from the promise given to Abraham (Genesis 15:1-21) to the Exodus, the time in Egypt would then be 215 years. However, if Acts 7:6 is taken at face value the bondage was 400 years. Perhaps the best solution is to say Paul was looking at periods of time. The promises were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These three patriarchs were all recipients of God’s promise. The promise was reconfirmed in Genesis 46:1-4 to Jacob at Beersheba as he was on his way to Egypt. From that point (the end of God’s giving promises to the patriarchs) to the Exodus was 400 years. (See Harold W. Hoehner, “The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage,” Bibliotheca Sacra 126. October-December 1969:306-16.)

 

[themuzicman]

Numbers that are given are frequently rounded off or used for purposes other than precision.

In Daniel, "seventy sevens" would work out to 490 years, but the prophecy pretty clearly begins with Cyrus, and the math doesn't quite work out exactly (although it's close), but the purpose of "seventy sevens" are the sabbath years missed while in exile, so even if the number isn't quite right, the purpose of "seventy sevens" is clear, and the timeframe is fairly close.

Muz

 

[RobE]

I agree, but it does not prove EDF, my point. I can say that if something is knowable or if I can bring it to pass by my ability (Isaiah 46 and 48).

1. if something is knowable(foreknowledge)

or

2. if I can bring it to pass(decree)

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

In the case of the above scripture, did God foreknow it or did He bring it to pass.

Remember, if God foreknew it then foreknowledge is compatible with free will.

Muz claims God 'brought it to pass'.

What say you?

 

[RobE]

Hi everyone.

I am back. I had a nice break. Now I am back for more punishment.

A Few Verses that support Open Theism:

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

contrast against

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt[a]was four hundred and thirty years.

If you note the prophecy was Egypt will serve and afflict Israel for 400 years. By the verse above you an see the total time they were in Egypt was 430 years.

Genesis 50:26 tells us Joseph lived 110 years. Genesis 41:46 tells us he was 30 when he told pharaoh that 17 years would see the end of the famine. Genesis 45:11 tells us there was 5 years left in the famine when Israel came to Egypt.

30 + 7 + (7-5) = 39. This means Israel went to Egypt when Joseph was 39ish. Joseph lived 110 years. 110-39 = 71.

So If Israel was in Egypt 430 years, and for 71 of those years they were not slaves, this means at the most, they could only have been slaves for (430-71) 359 years! Remember, that is at the most. It was actually much less than that.

Exodus 1:8 tells us a new Pharaoh who did not know Joseph was the one who enslaved Israel. This Pharaoh did not know Joseph. How many year would have to pass before a Pharaoh would rise who did not know Joseph if Joseph was an authority for 71 years? 1 generation after his death maybe?

The actual time Israel served egypt as slaves was more like 300 years, rather than 400. Scripture tells us this.

The same author of Genesis wrote Exodus.

Either way Gods original prophecy to Abraham changed. Instead of waiting 400 years to free Israel, he shortened that time to 300 or so years!

If the future is settled, and God knew all along they would be slaves for 300 and some years, why then did he say they would be slaves 400 years when the truth was 300 years slaves, 430 years total in Egypt? Please note 300ish is not equal to 400, and 430 is not equal to 400.

I thought we 'ground' this one out years ago, Patrick. You do realize that God said this to a free will agent Gen 15:13, the Egyptians were free will agents, the Jews were free will agents, and the Amorites were free will agents.

It occured over a 400 year period so the events actually required foreknowledge of untold free acts. It isn't very supportive of open theism.

You forgot the rest of the prophecy:

Genesis 15:14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

Your argument ignores, "they will come out with great possessions.", "will go to your fathers in peace", "will come back here", and "the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.".

Fairly specific prophecy. God, through His own power, could fulfill the parts where they come out with wealth, 'will come back here', but how about the sin of the Amorites?

Did God make the Amorites sin reach its full measure? I would say this is knowledge of a future free will act.

Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

I agree, but it does not prove EDF, my point. I can say that if something is knowable or if I can bring it to pass by my ability (Isaiah 46 and 48).

But the Open View must then hold that 1) God knew Peter would deny him or 2) God brought this to pass himself.

If 1), that is knowledge of a future free decision, if 2) then I wonder the same about Jesus' second prediction of Peter's actions. How would God forcing him to be faithful in martyrdom bring special glory to God?

"Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

"I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." (John 21:16-18)

I believe Jesus was confirming here Peter's love for himself, and this must then have been a free decision, this is Jesus saying "I know that you are indeed devoted."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

God, through His own power, could fulfill the parts where they come out with wealth, 'will come back here', but how about the sin of the Amorites?

Did God make the Amorites sin reach its full measure? I would say this is knowledge of a future free will act.

Well now...

Blessings,
Lee <- Still wondering how it could be known only a remnant would be saved

 

[themuzicman]

But the Open View must then hold that 1) God knew Peter would deny him or 2) God brought this to pass himself.

But #1 isn't necessarily exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. I can say that "within the next two months, you will eat food." I don't say this out of definite foreknowledge, but out of the fact that you need food to eat.

In a similar way, Peter's heart wasn't at the point where he'd be willing to put his life on the line (present knowledge), and all courses of Peter's future included people identifying him at least as Galilean, and questioning him.

Again, this is NOT EDF.

If 1), that is knowledge of a future free decision,

It's not a SPECIFIC DECISION

if 2) then I wonder the same about Jesus' second prediction of Peter's actions. How would God forcing him to be faithful in martyrdom bring special glory to God?

"Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

"I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." (John 21:16-18)

I believe Jesus was confirming here Peter's love for himself, and this must then have been a free decision, this is Jesus saying "I know that you are indeed devoted."

Blessings,
Lee

Once again, Jesus only gave a picture of Peter's future which could be fulfilled in a NUMBER of ways, not an exhaustive, definite view of exactly what would happen.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

But #1 isn't necessarily exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. I can say that "within the next two months, you will eat food." I don't say this out of definite foreknowledge, but out of the fact that you need food to eat.

But you can't prophesy that! I might go on a hunger strike.

Yet Jesus said "truly, truly," which was not an estimate of a probable event, even.

Once again, Jesus only gave a picture of Peter's future which could be fulfilled in a NUMBER of ways...

All of them, nonetheless, involving his free decision--or God bringing his decision about. Take your pick here! Either way, this must contradict the Open View.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

But you can't prophesy that! I might go on a hunger strike.

That's not the point. The point is that one can make prophetic statements about the future without having one very specific course of the future in mind. EDF requires that ONE SPECIFIC COURSE OF THE FUTURE occur.

(I figured you'd run to the extreme, which is why I put sixty days. Tell you what. Let me know if my prophecy comes true.)

Yet Jesus said "truly, truly," which was not an estimate of a probable event, even.

Never said anything about a probable event. This is your STRAW MAN. I said that all possible futures include this occurring, which means that fulfillment will occur, even if the exact method of fulfillment is not clear.

All of them, nonetheless, involving his free decision--or God bringing his decision about. Take your pick here! Either way, this must contradict the Open View.

Yes, these do, in this case, involve free decisions by all participants. None of them are certainly and definitely foreknown, although Peter's response, based upon a limited number of options when queried (run, admit, deny), and the known consequences (death, death, escape), and the present state of his heart, makes denial Peter's obvious choice.

Muz