ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
RobE said:
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.
Click to expand...


The warfare (Gospels/Jesus/Boyd) vs blueprint (Calvin) model is not a Star Wars dualism. Satan opposes the will of God, but he is not an equal (omnipotent vs impotent).
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
godrulz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Precisely!
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
Philetus said:
God doesn't fail us. We fail God.
Click to expand...
Yet even in a perfect world, God could still be wrong due to not knowing free-will decisions, and thus there could be disappointment even in heaven! Due to God's advice not turning out to be best.

They are loving precisely because there is risk involved ...
Click to expand...
No, the essence of love is not risk, otherwise the devil would be loving too. I get really weary of Open View theology sometimes.

Absolute foreknowledge precludes any real forgiveness ...
Click to expand...
??? This is what is called a non sequitur.

So when God becomes a human being you stop calling Him God?
Click to expand...
God the Son became a man, let's please read some theology before making such pronouncements. God did not become a human being, Christmas carols to the contrary!

Blessings,
Lee
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
RobE said:
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.
Click to expand...
:first:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Philetus,

Can you briefly explain to me the gospel? I want to know if you even know it before I respond to you any furthur...
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Philetus,

Can you briefly explain to me the gospel? I want to know if you even know it before I respond to you any furthur...
Click to expand...

I can't explain anything 'briefly'. :chuckle:

And I seriously doubt I could explain anything to you in a lifetime. I couldn't care any less what you think of me or my understanding of the Gospel and really don't care if you respond or not. Who made you the Gospel sheriff?

:yawn:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
By the way, Philetus, you should always be willing to share the gospel regardless
of the situation. It is the power of God unto salvation, after all.
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
SaulToPaul said:
By the way, Philetus, you should always be willing to share the gospel regardless
of the situation. It is the power of God unto salvation, after all.
Click to expand...

And you are only willing to respond to people who agree with your hermeneutics. Give me a break.

EDF :patrol:
I like that.

So, in the interest of the free exchange of ideas: is the Gospel the power of God unto salvation for those who DON'T believe. Or does God in some measure limit His power to save ONLY those who believe the Gospel?

Philetus
 
Last edited:
Philetus

Philetus

New member
Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.​

Refusing the Gospel doesn't make you equal to God; it makes you eternally stupid.

  1. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
  2. 24 Therefore God gave them over …
  3. 26 Because of this, God gave them over …
  4. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

P
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
And even in a perfect world, God could still be wrong due to not knowing free-will decisions, and thus there could be disappointment even in heaven! Due to God's advice not turning out to be best--correct? According to the Open View.
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Because preserve means preserve.
Click to expand...

But "preserved" doesn't have to mean that we have the originals. "Preserved" could mean that the original is contained in the thousands of manuscripts from various textual traditions, and the church is charged with discovering it.

Again, why does God have to meet YOUR standard of "preserved." (Especially when it is so painfully clear that the text you hold as inerrant cannot be.)

(And how Anglo-centric does one have to be to claim that the original is preserved in the English language?)

Muz
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
But "preserved" doesn't have to mean that we have the originals. "Preserved" could mean that the original is contained in the thousands of manuscripts from various textual traditions, and the church is charged with discovering it.
Muz
Click to expand...

Where do you get this idea?

I dont care about the originals. God said he would preserve his word. Where
are they? Scattered across 3 continents, among 5,000 manuscripts, in various
languages?
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Where do you get this idea?
Click to expand...

Where do I get it? From having an understanding of text and preservation, both from a pre-Christ perspective for the OT, and a fuller historical perspective for the whole of Scripture.

Editing and redaction occurred frequently in the OT by scribes.

I dont care about the originals. God said he would preserve his word. Where
are they? Scattered across 3 continents, among 5,000 manuscripts, in various
languages?
Click to expand...

Umm... The originals were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The copies are preserved in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There are no "various languages....."

(Unless you're referring to the KJV. Part of the underlying Greek text (the so-named Textus Receptus) was actually translated by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek, because Erasmus didn't have an those verses in Greek in the few manuscripts he chose. Then you'd have to call the Latin part of the original. But I'm not KJVO.)

Muz
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
Where do I get it? From having an understanding of text and preservation, both from a pre-Christ perspective for the OT, and a fuller historical perspective for the whole of Scripture.

Muz
Click to expand...

God promised to preserve his word, he didn't put the church in charge
of rounding it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top