ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

Not necessarily, because Christ had to die and be raised first and foremost.

The whole Plan A and Plan B doesn't really make a lot of sense to me...I believe
God only had one plan and it's unfolding perfectly.

I thing scriptures and Christ's own words speak for themselves.

Let me ask you, why do you believe in Plan A only? What tells you to do that?

 

[Lon]

Well, thats just it, God never cleared out the land. Some of those people are still around today.

And it is a lie to say you'd give my your bike if I can pick it up knowing I can't. And it is furthermore wrong if you slapped me after I found out I can't pick it up. You are setting me up to strive and fail and then get punished for it. There is so much wrong with the implications given to God under the Settled Theology. I wish you could see them.

That is not what happened. They began by fullfilling the covenant. It is when they 'stopped' keeping God's commands that the covenant was broken. They indeed began removing people from their land. It was not a lie.

Your cookie and my motorcycle analogies have no bearing on ability or not. The offer is genuine even if you cannot do it. Bets like this happen all the time, "That horse cannot win, this team will take the regionals. If I was uncanny in the way I chose winners/losers, you'd accuse me of insider trading or bribery. If God answers our prayers in righteousness, the accusation of Him 'cheating' does not stand. He set the groundwork. Those without Him will not be answered. God answers the prayers of a righteous man. All this to say regardless of how you see it, God does not cheat or lie in nonOV perspective. You are trying to equivocate a mistruth and/or 'cheating' from someone else's viewpoint, and it is a faulty assumption. Your view tries to redeem God from a position where He cannot be impinged, but the fault here is not God's position, but the way you are looking at His guilt association. This is the problem point. You would not be a reliable unbiased jury member in this court case because you are seeing evidence, but not able to discern the innocence. The verdict is passed too quickly "guilty." God is not impinged, there are unseen variables you are not admitting as evidence. We have tried to show them but they are not allowed in your court.

 

[patman]

No offense, Patman, but it seems to be pretty slippery slope to go back into
God's unchanging Word and say God had to change his plans on the fly.

Paul makes it clear that God had planned the dispensation of the grace of God from
before the foundation of the world. How could that have been God's Plan B when
Israel rejected their Messiah?

By the way, I'm not a Calvinist...just uncertain about some of the OV ideas.

I seem to have missed this post..

That is not the plan B I am speaking of. Plan B was when it happened, now that it would happened. 7 Years after Jesus, the kingdom was supposed to happen, this is just how it was to happen but didn't.

As for God "changing his word," God reserves the right to do that:

Jeremiah 18:7-10
7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Prophecy is to get people to change, not to reveal the settled future.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I thing scriptures and Christ's own words speak for themselves.

Let me ask you, why do you believe in Plan A only? What tells you to do that?

Well, the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matthew could not come into being
until the Kingdom of God was prepared.

In other words, how could the Twelve sit on twelve thrones forever ruling the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingom of Heaven in flesh and blood bodies without first having taken up their cross, died, and be resurrected into the Kingdom of God?

Atleast to me, it's clear that God knew the majority of Israel would reject Christ.
He would save a remnant of Jews as his kingdom of priests, they would suffer persectuion, die. Then, the dispensation of Grace planned before the foundation of the world would take place. Then, the final week of Daniel, the 2nd coming, and
the Kingdom of Heaven for 1,000 years with the resurrected priesthood ruling
the natural Israelites and natural Gentiles who inherit the kingdom prepared for
them from the foundation of the world.

 

[Lon]

When Scripture quotes itself, it's useful to find the source...

Mala 1:1 The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "[Was] not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob ; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the Lord of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and [men] will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever." 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"​

Malachai is ostensibly the LAST prophet before the intertestamental period, after the exile, and a thousand yeard after Jacob died. This is NOT speaking of the individuals Jacob and Esau, but of Israel and Edom, the nations for which these two are the fathers.

So, no, God did not specifically HATE Esau as an individual from birth. Jacob was simply the one chosen to be the one through whom the promise to Abraham (and Adam) would be fulfilled.

Can we finally put this to rest?

Muz

Thanks for jumping into this, it might help to get an approach from one more, as this is becoming a convolution of meaning, so please feel free to bring any clarity to perspective if something hits you.
But...
You are going off of what Clete said. I'm the one who originally said this. To read my first statement and not read the rest of what I said after is a contextual error. You guys have agreed with my position, but failure to read has led you both down a faulty trail of misunderstanding.

What I'm failing to see after this, however, is how qualitative vs. quantitative attributes can be prioritized. I'm still in the process of looking up the scriptures but so far I'm not seeing this as a truth in proposition. I do not believe we can place any of God's attributes over and above another. I cannot make this chart.

In Him

Lon

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not necessarily, because Christ had to die and be raised first and foremost.

The whole Plan A and Plan B doesn't really make a lot of sense to me...I believe
God only had one plan and it's unfolding perfectly.

I do not believe Christ had to be murdered.

I don't think murder is righteous.

God could have presented Christ as a sacrifice in a way other than Him being murdered. God doesn't make men sin, in fact God asks us to defend His name against folks that claim otherwise.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Now... based on the above verse do you still believe that God directed/forced men to sin by murdering Christ? Or were the tempted and drawn away by there own desires?

I believe that Christ's death was yet one more example of God using the evil actions of men to bring about good (i.e., His plan). That is in contrast to God doing evil so that good may come of it. Do you see the distinction there?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The brilliance of God is His ability to bring about His righteous plan in the midst of trillions of freewill agents.

It doesn't take much brilliance to simply pre-program every event for all of time especially if you are pre-planning heinous wickedness. If good and bad are equally God's design, goodness is arbitrary.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I do not believe Christ had to be murdered.

I don't think murder is righteous.

God could have presented Christ as a sacrifice in a way other than Him being murdered. God doesn't make men sin, in fact God asks us to defend His name against folks that claim otherwise.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Now... based on the above verse do you still believe that God directed/forced men to sin by murdering Christ? Or were the tempted and drawn away by there own desires?

I believe that Christ's death was yet one more example of God using the evil actions of men to bring about good (i.e., His plan). That is in contrast to God doing evil so that good may come of it. Do you see the distinction there?

Do you believe God delivered up his Son for us?
Delivering up a sacrifice is different than murder.

 

[patman]

That is not what happened. They began by fullfilling the covenant. It is when they 'stopped' keeping God's commands that the covenant was broken. They indeed began removing people from their land. It was not a lie.

...


We have tried to show them but they are not allowed in your court.

It is pointless to show you a analogy when you keep changing the rules instead of seeing its point. I know it is impossible to be dead on with a quick analogy, but when ever I present one to you, you pick at it or change it by throwing more into it rather than seeing a point.

That is all an analogy is, a tool to show a point. They may never match perfectly with the actual subject, but they are enough to get someone on the same page as you are.

You are still hooked on the analogy and not seeing my point which is:

If God knows the future, he knows everything that will happen. When the future is settled, there is no IF with God, there is only When. Thus, "conditional" doesn't exist for God, there is only "certainty". This means if God knows the entire future, and he says something will happen that doesn't, it is not an indication of a conditional promise, but a lie.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you believe God delivered up his Son for us?
Delivering up a sacrifice is different than murder.

Yes. God used the evil actions of men for our benefit.

The Bible says what Pilate and Judas did was sinful. (John 19:11)

Which brings us back to....

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Based on the above verse do you still believe that God directed/forced men to sin by murdering Christ? Or were the tempted and drawn away by there own desires?

NOTE: SaultoPaul, I always do my best to directly respond and or answer questions (as I have done above) please do your best to directly respond to my questions. It will make for a much better conversation.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes. God used the evil actions of men for our benefit.

The Bible says what Pilate and Judas did was sinful. (John 19:11)

Which brings us back to....

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Based on the above verse do you still believe that God directed/forced men to sin by murdering Christ? Or were the tempted and drawn away by there own desires?

NOTE: SaultoPaul, I always do my best to directly respond and or answer questions (as I have done above) please do your best to directly respond to my questions. It will make for a much better conversation.

Sorry, Knight, if I overlooked a question.

God didn't force Christ to be crucified, he foreknew that he would.
In that sense, he delivered up his Son

 

[patman]

Well, the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matthew could not come into being
until the Kingdom of God was prepared.

In other words, how could the Twelve sit on twelve thrones forever ruling the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingom of Heaven in flesh and blood bodies without first having taken up their cross, died, and be resurrected into the Kingdom of God?

Atleast to me, it's clear that God knew the majority of Israel would reject Christ.
He would save a remnant of Jews as his kingdom of priests, they would suffer persectuion, die. Then, the dispensation of Grace planned before the foundation of the world would take place. Then, the final week of Daniel, the 2nd coming, and
the Kingdom of Heaven for 1,000 years with the resurrected priesthood ruling
the natural Israelites and natural Gentiles who inherit the kingdom prepared for
them from the foundation of the world.

I agree, but the timing wasn't planned the way it happened. That is what I hope for you to see. The 70 weeks has become over 200 weeks. The generation passed away, why? Because the kingdom of God (which was to have Israel as it's capitol) was postponed due to their disobedience.

Just like the verse in Jeremiah, God proclaimed rewards to them, they sinned and he relented.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I agree, but the timing wasn't planned the way it happened. That is what I hope for you to see. The 70 weeks has become over 200 weeks. The generation passed away, why? Because the kingdom of God (which was to have Israel as it's capitol) was postponed due to their disobedience.

Just like the verse in Jeremiah, God proclaimed rewards to them, they sinned and he relented.

Let me know if you can see this, too:

According to Daniel 9, the temple had to be destroyed and apparently rebuilt before the 70th week could begin.

 

[patman]

Let me know if you can see this, too:

According to Daniel 9, the temple had to be destroyed and apparently rebuilt before the 70th week could begin.

Daniel 9
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.

The abomination of desolations is supposed to happen in the temple, it can't be destroyed when this happens. You should also remember that during Daniel's time, the temple was destroyed and needed to be rebuilt.

From his perspective, the answer is yes, it did need to be rebuilt, and it was rebuilt. But the answer in the context that you are asking is no, the destruction of the temple by Rome was supposed to happen between the 3rd the 7th year following Christ's resurrection.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Daniel 9
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.

The abomination of desolations is supposed to happen in the temple, it can't be destroyed when this happens. You should also remember that during Daniel's time, the temple was destroyed and needed to be rebuilt.

From his perspective, the answer is yes, it did need to be rebuilt, and it was rebuilt. But the answer in the context that you are asking is no, the destruction of the temple by Rome was supposed to happen between the 3rd the 7th year following Christ's resurrection.

Okay, I think I see the confusion.
You're associating the abomination of desolation with the destruction of the Temple?

The destruction of the temple takes place in Daniel 9:26. The abomination of desolation isn't destruction, it takes place in Daniel 9:27.

Between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, the Temple would have to be rebuilt.

 

[elected4ever]

Okay, I think I see the confusion.
You're associating the abomination of desolation with the destruction of the Temple?

The destruction of the temple takes place in Daniel 9:26. The abomination of desolation isn't destruction, it takes place in Daniel 9:27.

Between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, the Temple would have to be rebuilt.

It is you who are confused by darbyism. The entirety of Daniel 9 has been fulfilled.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is you who are confused by darbyism. The entirety of Daniel 9 has been fulfilled.

Sure it has. Who's Draby?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God didn't force Christ to be crucified, he foreknew that he would.
In that sense, he delivered up his Son

Did He foreknow in meticulous detail how?

Asked another way.....

Prior to creation, lets say a billion years ago, did God know in perfect detail that a man named Pilate and a man named Judas would do exactly what they would do, in every detail?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Did He foreknow in meticulous detail how?

Asked another way.....

Prior to creation, lets say a billion years ago, did God know in perfect detail that a man named Pilate and a man named Judas would do exactly what they would do, in every detail?

That, I don't know.
He knew at the time the prophets wrote several thousand BC.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That, I don't know.
He knew at the time the prophets wrote several thousand BC.

He knew in meticulous detail? Or just that His Son would be the sacrifice for fallen man?