ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

You see! Now that's a Biblical argument I can get behind! This one-liner "I believe my Bible." stuff is just beneath us all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yet, that's the problem. People don't believe exactly what the Bible says.

They don't believe Gen 12:1-3 KJV
They don't believe Jesus when he said he was ONLY sent to Israel.
They don't believe Paul when he said he was given the dispensation of Grace.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Only the original Hebrew and Greek autographs are inspired. Any translation based on extant MSS will be imperfect, but still reliable.

Then God lied about preserving his Word. There are no originals left.

 

[Delmar]

So, since the prophecy about no broken bones existed, did the Roman soldiers have the free will to break a bone? How about during his scourging? What prevented them from breaking his pinkie finger at some point? Or a fractured
jawbone when they smote him on the face?

I'm not trying to disprove OV, I just have some questions.

It is not hard for me to believe that God can, subtly or powerfully, take control of any situation, if He chooses to.

 

[patman]

No, "God" is not a title we give to someone with less than divine attributes in one or more aspects, even if they had complete divine attributes before.


Not if he puts off omnipotence, or omniscience, there will be words he is not able to fulfill. This brings a certain theology to mind.

Blessings,
Lee

Hmmm.....

So God could create the universe, die for our sins, give us eternal life, etc., and you would stop worshiping him if he "gave up" any of those omni's?

 

[Delmar]

Is God able to provide an English Bible that says exactly what he wants it to say?

Or, did he intend that only those fluent in Hebrew and Greek would have any chance of understanding his revelation to mankind?

If we don't have the Word of God in our hands, aren't we all wasting our time discussing it?

My guess is (and I do admit this to be a guess) is that the Issiah prophecy may have been intentionally subtle.

 

[themuzicman]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699532&postcount=15

Was Jesus Christ born of a virgin?

He was. No question there. However, the original prophecy wasn't about Christ, and wasn't about a virgin.

By the way, I am a super athlete. I had a fastball in the mid 90's when I pitched
for my college baseball team

Too bad you don't invest in your theology like you did in baseball.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Yes it would. The liberal RSV takes this approach. I think we can find credible conservative scholarship to support a virgin conception from the Messianic prophecy. Have you checked Keil and Delitzsch? A sign is not a young woman, but a supernatural conception. The one born is also Immanuel (deity), not some Spanish guy in Isaiah's day named Yay soos.

No question that Jesus WAS born of a virgin as a sign.

However, if you read the original text (and, yes, this is the theology of a Dallas Seminary Grad who teaches at a conservative Baptist Seminary), it says "this woman is bearing a child, and she will have a son", and that was the sign to the king at that time that things were going to work out just fine.

Again, the NT use of this prophecy is still powerful because the same kind of sign, but even more miraculous occurred, and that was significant to the people of that day. (As it should be to us.)


Muz

 

[Clete]

Did God promise to preserve his Word forever?
Where would you go if you really need to get your hands on the word of God?

Your logic is faulty here STP. It is not necessary to have a perfect translation or even a perfectly preserved transmission of the original text in order to have a preserved word of God.

Did you understand the point I made earlier about how the message of the Bible is preserved because of the very nature of the Bible itself?

Let me illustrate the point by asking you the following question....

When Adam was created I think we can presume that his DNA was without genetic mutation and thus from a genetic perspective was purely human. We, all of us, on the other hand, have dozens and dozens of genetic mutations within our DNA and yet the human race is preserved in spite of these numerous errors within that which, in a biological sense, defines us as human beings. This is true because the errors are not of a nature or an extent that they would serve to destroy the information that our DNA carries. There are numerous redundancies and other error correcting mechanisms contained within our DNA that serve to overcome slight errors that inevitably creep in. It simply isn't necessary to have a perfectly preserved DNA molecule in order to make a human being because of its inherent complexity.

It is the same with God's word.

I'd say more but I'm smooth out of time for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

So God could create the universe, die for our sins, give us eternal life, etc., and you would stop worshiping him if he "gave up" any of those omni's?

Yes, we only call a being "God" if they have the attributes of God.

So you would stop calling me a person if I changed into an angel? Yes, you should, even if I have some breakfast with you and talk about various matters of interest.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Did you understand the point I made earlier about how the message of the Bible is preserved because of the very nature of the Bible itself?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Luke 21:33 KJV.
Psalms 12:6-7 KJV.

God promised to preserve his words. Where are his words? There are no originals.
If God's words are not being used, the message in the Bible may or may not be accurate.

 

[lee_merrill]

... it says "this woman is bearing a child, and she will have a son", and that was the sign to the king at that time that things were going to work out just fine.

Well, "the young woman" here, and future tense as you must know may well be indicated, if you want to put a present tense in here, how about "she is having a son", since it's a participle. But let's not get too extravagant when giving literal translations. And yes, there can be multiple meanings.

But how do you know there was no virgin birth here, even? I don't mean a sinless child, but a child born by an egg only--this has been observed in nature, by the way, though not with humans that I know of. Now that would be a sign, but having a boy child would not seem very remarkable.

Then "virgin" is the primary meaning in both instances, which seems an arguable conclusion.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

No question that Jesus WAS born of a virgin as a sign.

However, if you read the original text (and, yes, this is the theology of a Dallas Seminary Grad who teaches at a conservative Baptist Seminary), it says "this woman is bearing a child, and she will have a son", and that was the sign to the king at that time that things were going to work out just fine.

Again, the NT use of this prophecy is still powerful because the same kind of sign, but even more miraculous occurred, and that was significant to the people of that day. (As it should be to us.)


Muz

:up:

OK, I changed my mind; I believe Muz's bible now.

Well said Muz!




Some are really on a high-horse now.

 

[RobE]

You are so mind-blowingly stupid that the fact that you are even able to type your posts (never mind read everyone else's) defies explanation.

God, who is Lord of All, has enabled me to function by providing me with arms, legs, mind, and a computer. Do you claim His work is less than perfect?

I kid you not when I say my four year old daughter is a more skillful thinker than you are! I mean we're talking preschool level thinking skills here that are simply over your head! Unbelievable!

You must be proud indeed! It isn't often a four year old surpasses the understanding of their parent!

It has been and will continue to be my prayer that you will either choose to find a different hobby or will, by some means, be made unable to continue posting here. You're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Thanks for your prayers. As you have discerned, I'm in need of all that I receive.

Clete on God's control.

God, it seems to me, was very clearly controlling the extent of His injuries as well as the exact manner and timing of His death. None of which requires exhaustive knowledge of the future nor the suspension of anyone's free will. Indeed, all it took was a knowledge of prophesy and the ability to manipulate the situation to whatever end He desired, which, of course, God has the ability to do.

My view would state God simply knew what the free agents would do beforehand and related that knowledge to the prophets. The view above, alas, would be God using His own power to bring the events about. Is it your point here that God 'orchestrated' the death of Our, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

Now, if God was controlling the most evil act in history without interfering with the free will of the individuals involved; what would preclude God from controlling every free act which ever occured?

Is there anything in existence which is outside of God's domain, control, or providence?

I told you! Ask Jesus or Jeremiah (or any number of the other prophets, for that matter)!

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" - Jesus

Jeremiah 19:5 "they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" - Jeremiah

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." - Stephen

Free agents killed Jesus. Every foretold action was brought about by them. I think this would be impossible according to open theism. If not, then God might control, through manipulation, all of creation; and yet creation would remain free.

My concern would be: If God manipulates free agents to perform evil acts, are those agents responsible for their actions?

My preference would be to say that God simply foreknew the acts those free agents would commit. It seems this idea would remove God from being the primary causative force of evil.

 

[Philetus]

Yes, we only call a being "God" if they have the attributes of God.

So you would stop calling me a person if I changed into an angel? Yes, you should, even if I have some breakfast with you and talk about various matters of interest.

Blessings,
Lee

So when God becomes a human being you stop calling Him God? After all isn't that the real issue in the virgin birth and incarnation? So when Paul says Jesus took the form of a servant and became human, He stopped being God? ... interesting. You will never be an angel (in the sense you suggest:cloud9 so it isn't even applicable. In Christ you have become a 'saint' but no less a person. Don't you share in the divine being through the Spirit? That doesn't make you God.

All that goes to the heart of the Open Theism position that God is Person in dynamic reciprocal relationships with His creation and creatures in particular. Can you not see, Lee, (whether you agree or not) that overstating the attributes of God, or exaggerating the way God uses his power and knowledge for instance, is the problem. Yes God is omnipotent AND God is love. The way in which God uses his power (limits the use of power) is governed by Love.

P

 

[RobE]

I guess it is a debate tactic??

But I do not see how it proves anything. If God could shed any power he would still be God... just look at Jesus.

Several on TOL said they would stop following God if he didn't know the entire future. Does that mean they will stop following Jesus? He said didn't know the last hour for the end...(paraphrasing) That shows God can shed that exaustive future knowledge ability (assuming he has it off course)

Was he not still powerful and able to fulfill the word?

Hi Patrick,

I would say that the issue isn't over God giving up one of the 'omnis' as you call them. The issue would be if things could occur outside of God's providence or domain like Adam sinning without God being aware of the possibility or occurrance. This would mean that God might not be able to carry out His purposes where free agents were involved. Scripturally this isn't the God we know.

One structure would be founded on the shifting sands, the other on the rock. If you prefer 'warfare' model(Godrulz) over 'shifting sands'; then you would need to convince me that there is an entity in existence who might successfully wage 'war' on our Lord. An equal.

 

[RobE]

The way in which God uses his power (limits the use of power) is governed by Love.

P

And that loving government, limiting the use of power or using power, is run through knowledgeable decrees. God does not hope for the best, try for the best, or attempt to bring about the best as He fumbles around towards the unknown outcomes of His acts.

God knows that all of His actions are loving, because He foreknows the outcomes of them. In that way, God might truthfully reveal to you that a greater, loving purpose will come from the intermittent evil acts(which He allows) within creation.

Accidental evil outcomes brought about by a loving person are still evil.

To say that God is lovingly hoping for the best, is(out of love)trying His best and fails, or has mistakenly(through love) allowed evil for no purpose whatsoever; diminishes the God of scripture.

 

[Philetus]

What part of 'self-destruct' makes you equal to God?
:bang: :hammer:= :dead:

 

[godrulz]

Then God lied about preserving his Word. There are no originals left.

Jesus used the Septuagint (LXX), an imperfect translation. He called it the Word of God.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, we only call a being "God" if they have the attributes of God.

So you would stop calling me a person if I changed into an angel? Yes, you should, even if I have some breakfast with you and talk about various matters of interest.

Blessings,
Lee

The problem is a wrong understanding of these attributes, not the attributes themselves (which we all affirm)...i.e. God is still omniscient if He correctly knows the future as possible, not actual, if that is the way it is in reality.

 

[Philetus]

And that loving government, limiting the use of power or using power, is run through knowledgeable decrees. God does not hope for the best, try for the best, or attempt to bring about the best as He fumbles around towards the unknown outcomes of His acts.

God knows that all of His actions are loving, because He foreknows the outcomes of them. In that way, God might truthfully reveal to you that a greater, loving purpose will come from the intermittent evil acts(which He allows) within creation.

Accidental evil outcomes brought about by a loving person are still evil.

To say that God is lovingly hoping for the best, is(out of love)trying His best and fails, or has mistakenly(through love) allowed evil for no purpose whatsoever; diminishes the God of scripture.

God doesn't fail us. We fail God. If sin isn't frustrating the will of God then what is it? God's actions are loving because He doesn't know the outcomes. They are self-giving without guarantee. They are loving precisely because there is risk involved -- risk of rejection to the end that sin pays a wage and the wage is death, not something that God hopes for anyone. Absolute foreknowledge precludes any real forgiveness and forgiveness is a selfless/self-giving act of God that is made possible because God limits his knowledge of the future actions of men.

Again: What part of 'self-destruction' makes you equal to God?

P