ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Yes, we love because He first loved us ... We are not passive in the process.

Not once we have the love of God in our hearts, agreed.

However, let us note that all the analogies of salvation are passive:

• Birth (John 3:3)
• Creation (2 Cor. 4:6)
• Resurrection (Col. 2:13)
• Betrothal (2 Cor. 11:2) - passive in those days for brides

We are commanded to love. He does not give commands that are impossible.

Such as "be perfect"?

Love is not caused or coerced. If you cannot see this, we are mere robots in a matrix with no good explanation why some love and some do not (God's love is not limited or arbitrary).

I don't believe atheists love with the love of God, otherwise, they could fulfill the law, and righteousness could have come through the law, and Christ died needlessly.

And "we love because he loved us" means love indeed is caused.

"This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us..."

 

[themuzicman]

Then is God just if he lets evil happen? You should perhaps discuss with Patman if you say "yes."

God may be unjust if He lets evil happen to the innocent. Problem is that none are innocent, and all are under wrath. Only by the propitiation of Christ are ANY justified, and then they are only justified through Christ.

So, God is not obligated to prevent evil from those who cause evil, which would be all of us.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

The gospels show that God did not desire nor intend sin, sickness, evil, Satan. Jesus opposes these things and does not affirm them as God's will.

What then did he mean in praying "Your will be done" in the garden, when he was facing the cross?

"Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11)

Matthew 16:21-23 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Jesus accepted the cross, he intended it.

 

[lee_merrill]

God may be unjust if He lets evil happen to the innocent.

As in the cross?

Problem is that none are innocent, and all are under wrath.

Yet there is injustice towards fellow men, and also God acts towards us with justice.

Zephaniah 3:5 The Lord within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail...

And yet even in his justice, he does not punish every sin.

Romans 3:25-26 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

But the most difficult question remains, how can God know a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, from Israel? How can this even be his sentence on earth, isn't that unjust, to decide that only a remnant will be saved, and carry it out?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

God may be unjust if He lets evil happen to the innocent. Problem is that none are innocent, and all are under wrath. Only by the propitiation of Christ are ANY justified, and then they are only justified through Christ.

So, God is not obligated to prevent evil from those who cause evil, which would be all of us.

Muz

He would be unjust if he did not judge evil. Babies do not deserve rape and murder. The reason evil exists is because love, freedom, relationship exist. Without the possibility of evil and selfishness there would be no equal possibility of great good and love.

God does not desire or allow evil for a greater good. It is the risk of a contingent vs deterministic universe. God is able to mitigate evil in the end, but it was an unnecessary intrusion on His 'very good' creation.

 

[godrulz]

What then did he mean in praying "Your will be done" in the garden, when he was facing the cross?

"Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11)

Matthew 16:21-23 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Jesus accepted the cross, he intended it.

The cross was His plan of redemption to deal with evil. It was not evil itself in the same category as Hitler killing Jews. Evil made it necessary, but an act of love for man is good, not evil (evildoers killed him, so they are culpable, but God's provision is not evil).

 

[godrulz]

But the most difficult question remains, how can God know a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, from Israel? How can this even be his sentence on earth, isn't that unjust, to decide that only a remnant will be saved, and carry it out?

Blessings,
Lee

This is not elect vs non-elect Calvinism. It is based on 1000s of years of human history that gives God predictable insight into man.

Will someone please answer this broken record once and for all (I thought we did)?

 

[themuzicman]

Your answer ignores that He sees it happening now and refuses to intervene. My view simply states that He saw it happening beforehand and refused to intervene.

Same answer, different time frame.

What obligation does God have to intervene for the guilty?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

The cross was His plan of redemption to deal with evil.

It was therefore God's will...

It was not evil itself in the same category as Hitler killing Jews.

It was evil in itself, that is why Jesus prayed "Father, forgive them."

Evil made it necessary, but an act of love for man is good, not evil (evildoers killed him, so they are culpable, but God's provision is not evil).

Yes, from the worst evil deed, God brought redemption.

This was his intent, the cross was intended for good...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: How can God know a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, from Israel? How can this even be his sentence on earth, isn't that unjust, to decide that only a remnant will be saved, and carry it out?

Godrulz: This is not elect vs non-elect Calvinism. It is based on 1000s of years of human history that gives God predictable insight into man.

Yet it is sure, is the problem.

God cannot say he "will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality" if he is estimating, here.

And isn't this unjust, to decide that only a remnant will be saved, and carry it out?

This also cannot be just a noting of a general trend, for later, "all Israel will be saved."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

It was therefore God's will...


It was evil in itself, that is why Jesus prayed "Father, forgive them."


Yes, from the worst evil deed, God brought redemption.

This was his intent, the cross was intended for good...

Blessings,
Lee

The plan of redemption was one specific good thing showing the love and holiness of God. It became necessary after evil existed, not before. It was a response to evil and was His will. To extrapolate this to a general principle that God wills heinous evil impugns the character and ways of God (if you are talking hyper-Calvinism).

 

[godrulz]

Yet it is sure, is the problem.

God cannot say he "will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality" if he is estimating, here.

And isn't this unjust, to decide that only a remnant will be saved, and carry it out?

This also cannot be just a noting of a general trend, for later, "all Israel will be saved."

Blessings,
Lee

It does not literally mean all individuals in Israel will be saved, nor is it that God is saving some, but not saving others that He could save if only he wanted to.

Find a credible commentary for your proof texts. There are good answers, even without OT assumptions.

 

[RobE]

What obligation does God have to intervene for the guilty?

Muz

Finally, a fair and just question. :think:

Our Lord is under no obligation to intervene for the guilty in any way.

He has, however, decided to offer a grace of atonement on behalf of the guilty out of His great lovingness.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.​

Now some will say that God refuses to give this grace to some(such as Judas Iscariot) which results in a man's natural and just outcome of reprobation. They would further say this gift of atonement is limited in its scope and only provided to those who God chooses(i.e. Calvinists).

I claim that God offers this sufficient gift to all which meets His desire for all to be saved. But, He does not coerce any to accept His gift which will become effecacious towards their salvation. In other words, unlimited atonement when Christ's death was sufficient to atone for every sin which was, is, or could be committed; but salvation is conditionally applied to those who believe. Judas Iscariot, according to my ideas, was offered this grace and would reject it out of rebellion.

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.​

LISTEN and Learn.

Who does the gospel call to?

 

[lee_merrill]

The plan of redemption was one specific good thing showing the love and holiness of God. It became necessary after evil existed, not before. It was a response to evil and was His will. To extrapolate this to a general principle that God wills heinous evil ...

The cross then was not heinous evil, in itself? Why then did Jesus pray "Father, forgive them"?

[Rom. 11:26] does not literally mean all individuals in Israel will be saved...

Whatever it may mean, it must mean many individuals coming to the Lord, as opposed to only a few. But how could this be known, first only a few, then many?

.... nor is it that God is saving some, but not saving others that He could save if only he wanted to.

How then is "only a remnant will be saved" his sentence on earth? which he will carry out?

Romans 9:29 "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."

And as far as keeping some from being saved, note here:

Isaiah 6:10 "Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

Find a credible commentary for your proof texts. There are good answers, even without OT assumptions.

I would hope you would give me these good answers, why should I seek to defend your view here?

But JFB has: "Make . . . fat--(Psalms 119:17). 'Render them the more hardened by thy warnings' [MAURER]. This effect is the fruit, not of the truth in itself, but of the corrupt state of their hearts, to which God here judicially gives them over (Isaiah 63:17). GESENIUS takes the imperatives as futures. 'Proclaim truths, the result of which proclamation will be their becoming the more hardened' (Romans 1:28, Ephesians 4:18); but this does not so well as the former set forth God as designedly giving up sinners to judicial hardening (Romans 11:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:11). In the first member of the sentence, the order is, the heart, ears, eyes; in the latter, the reverse order, the eyes, ears, heart. It is from the heart that corruption flows into the ears and eyes (Mark 7:21,22); but through the eyes and ears healing reaches the heart (Romans 10:17), [BENGEL]. (Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2, Zechariah 7:11, Acts 7:57, 2 Timothy 4:4). In Matthew 13:15, the words are quoted in the indicative, 'is waxed gross' (so the Septuagint), not the imperative, 'make fat'; God's word as to the future is as certain as if it were already fulfilled. To see with one's eyes will not convince a will that is opposed to the truth (compare John 11:45,46, 12:10,11). 'One must love divine things in order to understand them'" [PASCAL]."

This discussion is reminiscent of the following verse:

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.

And then the intended good result from the intended increase of sinning: "but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more..."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

How are you able to reject that which you continually misunderstand?

It is Christian theology which presents God as all powerful.

If God doesn't approve of the current situation then why does it exist? God must endorse the evil for a reason; otherwise, He would not stand by and allow it to continue. We agree on this, yet your mind blindly draw a distinction between our positions.



I didn't say that God desired evil, He just allows evil for a greater purpose. He approved of its existence or it would not exist. It's easy to see why Patrick and you like to draw the distinction here where none exists. Is God unable to intervene and stop evil? If so, then His refusal to do so means that He approves of it occurring for one reason or another.

Why does it matter so much to Patrick as to when God allowed it?

Rob, why the talk of me creating distractions? I do not feel as though I am on a stage doing a magic trick. If someone were to read between you and me, my small little posts most likely won't make or break it. Neither will yours.

It matters because, again, God is the one causing the evil if he foresaw what he created doing evil because of how he made it.

If Joe creates a bomb and put it in a box then send it to someone, knowing the bomb will explode and kill someone, Joe is guilty of (to say it lightly) evil.

If Joe takes a can of Coke, puts it in a box and sends it to someone, and oops, it explodes and kills someone (just work with me) he is not guilty of evil because he didn't intend for his gift to explode and kill.

Anyway... you plainly depict God as approving of sin for higher purposes. I never agreed this was the case. He lets it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill), but that is free of the guilt that he created us to sin.

 

[themuzicman]

Finally, a fair and just question. :think:

Our Lord is under no obligation to intervene for the guilty in any way.

He has, however, decided to offer a grace of atonement on behalf of the guilty out of His great lovingness.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.​

Now some will say that God refuses to give this grace to some(such as Judas Iscariot) which results in a man's natural and just outcome of reprobation. They would further say this gift of atonement is limited in its scope and only provided to those who God chooses(i.e. Calvinists).

Or, more accurately, that God fulfills His own prophecy, satisfies both his just AND loving nature, and within that context seeks to draw as many as possible to Himself, so that those who believe are saved.

You see, you're equivocating on "limited" again. "Limited" atonement, to the Calvinist, means that the atonement was ONLY made for the elect, not anyone else. But that's not what you've said, here.

I claim that God offers this sufficient gift to all which meets His desire for all to be saved. But, He does not coerce any to accept His gift which will become effecacious towards their salvation. In other words, unlimited atonement when Christ's death was sufficient to atone for every sin which was, is, or could be committed; but salvation is conditionally applied to those who believe. Judas Iscariot, according to my ideas, was offered this grace and would reject it out of rebellion.

No issue with unlimited atonement, per se. However, John 6:44 clearly states that God must enable someone to come, before they are able to come. We also see clearly in John 12, that most of Israel was NOT enabled to come, but was blinded, and Paul restates this fact in Romans 11.

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.​

LISTEN and Learn.

Who does the gospel call to?

:dunce:

Why did you exclude John 6:44? Does it mess with your point? (You know it does.)

And back to the point at hand, since God is not obligated to do ANYTHING for sinners, and God has a just nature that must be satisfied, I would posit that the natural consequences of sin are generally visited upon sinners, allowing mankind to corporately suffer the just and natural consequence of their sins, even as God works to save them from the eternal consequences.

Muz

Muz

 

[RobE]

Or, more accurately, that God fulfills His own prophecy, satisfies both his just AND loving nature, and within that context seeks to draw as many as possible to Himself, so that those who believe are saved.

You see, you're equivocating on "limited" again. "Limited" atonement, to the Calvinist, means that the atonement was ONLY made for the elect, not anyone else. But that's not what you've said, here.

Rob: Now some will say that God refuses to give this grace to some(such as Judas Iscariot) which results in a man's natural and just outcome of reprobation. They would further say this gift of atonement is limited in its scope and only provided to those who God chooses(i.e. Calvinists).​

I was meaning to speak of the 'drawing' in John 6:44 here, not the gift of salvation per se. As written, I understand your confusion. Since the two are intimately linked within your worldview there shouldn't have been a problem. Drawing = Saving in your view.

No issue with unlimited atonement, per se. However, John 6:44 clearly states that God must enable someone to come, before they are able to come. We also see clearly in John 12, that most of Israel was NOT enabled to come, but was blinded, and Paul restates this fact in Romans 11.

This certainly looks as if there is an issue with unlimited atonement. If one isn't drawn according to this idea, then one is a victim of positive reprobation.

Why did you exclude John 6:44? Does it mess with your point? (You know it does.)

I excluded it since we both are aware of its presence. I specifically chose John 6:45 as the response since John 6:44 is illuminated by John 6:45.

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.​

Christ clarifies 6:44 with His following statement, "Everyone who listens and learns.....". Does this challenge your interpretation of John 6:44? I also included a link in the previous post about listening. If you review the scriptures dealing with 'listening to God' you will see they suggest a choice is presented. Your ideas must be based on the idea of irresistable Grace. Another peg in the acronym tuLIp. Perhaps you also believe in perseverance of the saints and total depravity; in which case it should be TuLIP.

Now, I will tell you that you will make a fine Calvinist if you believe and adhere to the idea that God only calls the elect and not all mankind. You will be able to find abundant scriptural support for your ideas. You have found the only method which would support open theism's precept of foreknowledge(of man's free acts) being obtained through God's own acts. However, you must adopt positive reprobation to support your ideas since: If God doesn't call any but the elect then those not called are damned. Open Theism will find itself as another division within the body of Calvin's ideas. This also destroys your idea of our will being free in the most significant decision our will ever makes --- salvation.

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

I added this scripture which is easily supported by your idea of God not drawing some(non-elect), and knowing which would believe because of His own action(drawing, electing). The only other option is that compatibility between foreknowledge and freedom exists destroying the idea that they are unable to co-exist.

And back to the point at hand, since God is not obligated to do ANYTHING for sinners, and God has a just nature that must be satisfied, I would posit that the natural consequences of sin are generally visited upon sinners, allowing mankind to corporately suffer the just and natural consequence of their sins, even as God works to save them from the eternal consequences.

But God does not work to save them all according to your interpretation of John 6:44. He works to save only those who He selects or elects if you prefer.

 

[RobE]

Anyway... you plainly depict God as approving of sin for higher purposes. I never agreed this was the case. He lets it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill), but that is free of the guilt that he created us to sin.

I'm not saying He created us to sin. I'm saying He created us knowing we would sin in an effort to achieve the greater purpose of love.

He lets it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill), ​

Isn't this the higher purpose which you claim God allows sin for?

I claim that it is. We only differ on when we believe God made the decision. For some reason, you think He decides each and every time sin is committed. I believe that God decreed to allow it for the greater purpose before creating free will entities. There is no difference other than 'WHEN'.

 

[lee_merrill]

We only differ on when we believe God made the decision. For some reason, you think He decides each and every time sin is committed. I believe that God decreed to allow it for the greater purpose before creating free will entities. There is no difference other than 'WHEN'.

Kudos...

Blessings,
Lee <- 34 kudos! It's all I've got right now...

 

[patman]

I'm not saying He created us to sin. I'm saying He created us knowing we would sin in an effort to achieve the greater purpose of love.

He lets it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill), ​

Isn't this the higher purpose which you claim God allows sin for?

I claim that it is. We only differ on when we believe God made the decision. For some reason, you think He decides each and every time sin is committed. I believe that God decreed to allow it for the greater purpose before creating free will entities. There is no difference other than 'WHEN'.

The only reason you can "say" that is because you ignore the rest of the arguments I've made...

You guys say God actively steps in. Agree?

You guys also say he steps in by foretelling warnings, to keep some bad thing from happening? Right?

I agree with those two things. I just think he does it on intelligence, and not exhaustive foreknowledge...

Anyway

If God sees some things as worthy of preventing and stepping in using exhaustive foreknowledge, why not use this power to step in with the fall of man?

Preventing the fall of man would save the entire world! Scripture makes it clear that God's will is that none should perish... what better way than use his exhaustive future knowledge and prevent a few key elements from happening that lead to the fall of man?

That said, we can deduct a few things. If God made the tree a little taller, or didn't make snakes, or didn't make woman until a week later.. or whatever, in order to change the future, we MUST assume that the way he made things was to lead to the fall of man.

God made the woman when he did, he made the tree where he did, he put snakes on earth, all for the purpose of getting man to fall. So freewill is meaningless. We are really cogs in a huge complex system that is destroying itself.

Your theology, when thought to its end, makes God responsible for sin, removes freewill, and depicts God as unloving- dooming millions to hell.