ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:blabla:

You seemed so much more happy when yammering on and on about rapists, the government, and homosexuals in the other threads.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures. Why else, then, would Christ have wept at the tomb of Lazarus?

Then He is not immutable. Unless you are arguing that God's feelings are only external - in which case you agree with the pagan Greek concept of Immutability you just said to reject. If Gods feelings are INTERNAL, as one would expect, then God is not immutable when He grieves at the plight of sin or death.

The scriptures do not use the word "immutable", in fact that term came from the pagan Greek concept you want to divorce from and yet that is exactly how that term made it's way into the church. The word itself is absent from the Bible, so to say that "scriptures tell us" is a bit of hyperbole.

For a moral being like ourselves to change means that it is necessary to change in one of two directions- from better to worse, or from worse to better.

That's laughable and certainly not true. If I change my hair color did I change from better to worse or vice versa? If I changed my voice - same question? If I changed my mind on what watch I was going to wear - did I go from better to worse or vice versa?

That Calvinists are still putting out the pagan Aristotle's poorly thought out position that all change must be either better or worse, shows how much the idea is dying in it's own refusal to self-examine. Of course co-equal choices exist. If you chose one way and then change for another, if the choices were co-equal, then you did not get either better or worse.

To argue that a man saving a child would be any greater deed if he were white or black; would be disgusting.

It would help if the Calvinist had the courage to abandoned the failed and trumped logic of the pagans and join the Bible and it's wisdom. (Deuteronomy 14:26 - notice the coequal choices given here.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Then He is not immutable. Unless you are arguing that God's feelings are only external - in which case you agree with the pagan Greek concept of Immutability you just said to reject. If Gods feelings are INTERNAL, as one would expect, then God is not immutable when He grieves at the plight of sin or death.

God is immutable in His attributes. They do not change. God's feelings of love, wrath, etc., are always the same. That in no way implies He does not feel love, wrath, etc. You are a careless reader.

The scriptures do not use the word "immutable"

Quick, now, find the word "trinity" in the bible. Even better, find the word, "inerrant". What kind of Jedi are you? Your force is weak.

That's laughable and certainly not true. If I change my hair color did I change from bette or worse or vice versa? If I changed my voice - same question? If I changed my mind on what watch I was going to wear - did I go from better to worse or vice versa?

Any choice you make is either better or worse. You choose to color your hair because it was your most desired motivation to do so. There is no co-equality in what you do, even when you do nothing, for the fact that you so acted is what you wanted to do. You are trying to elevate my words beyond their meaning, to some metaphysical plane.

To argue that a man saving a child would be any greater deed if he were white or black; would be disgusting.

Are you on some type of medication?

It would help if the Calvinist had the courage to abandoned the failed and trumped logic of the pagans and join the Bible and it's wisdom. (Deuteronomy 14:26 - notice the coequal choices given here.)

As above, you are a careless reader. "however you wish" is what your motivations drive you to choose. The unregenerate choose to not seek righteousness, only their own desires. The regenerated can and do seek God's good pleasure.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Here is what I don't get. When we sight an OV verse, like "God repented that He made man" AMR says it is "clearly a figure of speech", because we are finite beings and that is the only way God could explain it so we can get it. Yet when AMR explains that God is outside of time I clearly get what AMR is saying. So, if it were true, why would God not have explained it just that clearly?
I do understand that God would not have used the "hovering above time on a helicopter" example, but even the Greeks had mount Olympus!

Yes, it would make matters simple if this were the case. Why didn't Christ just speak without using parables? We cannot know for certain, other that to imagine that some things were not for us to fully comprehend. Why wasn't the Trinity explicitly stated? And so on. We must submit to God's teaching that His ways are not our ways. Yet many refuse to do so, instead spending time trying to rationalize God into their own image of some presumed notions that things should be "fair" to all. All the while ignoring the numerous lessons from the Scriptures showing that God's fairness is a vastly different thing than what some think fairness should be.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God is immutable in His attributes. They do not change.

No open theist would disagree.

God's feelings of love, wrath, etc., are always the same. That in no way implies He does not feel love, wrath, etc.

Can you expand on that?

I am not really sure what you are getting at in practical terms.

Is God always feeling the exact amount of wrath from eternity past to eternity future?
Is God always feeling the exact amount of love from eternity past to eternity future?
Is God always feeling the exact amount of [insert any emotion here] from eternity past to eternity future?

 

[Clete]

Yes, it would make matters simple if this were the case. Why didn't Christ just speak without using parables? We cannot know for certain, other that to imagine that some things were not for us to fully comprehend. Why wasn't the Trinity explicitly stated? And so on. We must submit to God's teaching that His ways are not our ways. Yet many refuse to do so, instead spending time trying to rationalize God into their own image of some presumed notions that things should be "fair" to all. All the while ignoring the numerous lessons from the Scriptures showing that God's fairness is a vastly different thing than what some think fairness should be.

AMR,

The above post actually makes an important point which I've highlighted in bold letters but which you seemed to have made almost in passing. It is a point which gets almost no substantive attention which in turn results in the almost complete fruitless discourse typified by the last several pages of this thread.

You understand of course that while you make the above accusation against the Open Theist, that the Open Theist can turn right around and just as easily make the same accusation against you. You say that we are rationalizing God into some preconcieved notion and we say the exact same thing about you. The question is who is right and why.

I would like for you to answer that question.

Why is your accusation accurate and ours not? How would you propose that some independent third party make a determination as to which of us is correct about the other rationalizing God into their own preconceived notion of what God should be?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Then He is not immutable. Unless you are arguing that God's feelings are only external - in which case you agree with the pagan Greek concept of Immutability you just said to reject. If Gods feelings are INTERNAL, as one would expect, then God is not immutable when He grieves at the plight of sin or death.

The scriptures do not use the word "immutable"...

POTD :BRAVO: :first:

 

[Daniel50]

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed.

Not only does God's righteous character not change but God is also sovereign and therefore He is also capable of standing by His judgments and not changing those judgements. (i.e., Mal 3:6)

Yet because God is sovereign He has the ability to relent if He so chooses.

Let's look at an example from God's word that demonstrates this concept perfectly (i.e., God can repent/relent but that doesn't mean He will in every circumstance)

God repented that He made Saul King....

1Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Saul begs Samuel and asks that God pardon him.

1Samuel 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.

But Samuel says... "nope!" God is not going to repent and pardon you.

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Then God affirms that He repented that He made Saul King.

1Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. ​

God can and does change/repent/relent, but that doesn't mean He will in every circumstance.

 

[Lon]

Muz. AMR addressed your questions here, so at risk of repeating I defere: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1479727#post1479727

 

[Stripe]

AMR: Do you trust God?

 

[Evoken]

AMR: Do you trust God?

I am not AMR, but yes I do.

Your turn now: Is God infinite?


Evo

 

[Delmar]

"Hovered over the waters of the deep" but it is clear enough that God created all, therefore all our references for measuring the progressions and intervals we call 'time,' but without movements and progressions, time is an irrelevant concept for our discussions. It is only when we are trying to rate a duration that it becomes important, like school getting out in 3 minutes, or being to work on 'time' or when this show comes on. But God's time isn't like ours. He does say things that are simple, but we see them as too simple perhaps: 'A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day,' is fairly clear that in His perspective, time perception is very different than ours.

The way we read and interpret scripture is an important point. Figurative and literal interpretations are almost reverse between us.

That is one of my favorite verses and I believe it is very easy to understand when taken at face value.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1464601&postcount=47

 

[Stripe]

I am not AMR, but yes I do. Your turn now: Is God infinite? Evo

That's not a simple question. This is a simple question competition.

 

[Delmar]

Perhaps the reason is that some of us understand why it took 726,109 words (NIV) for God to reveal Himself to us. You apparently would reduce His revelation to a fortune cookie insert.

And that's supposed to be an insult??? :idunno:

:chuckle:

Next thing you know, coming to Jesus "as a child" will be considered an insult"

 

[Evoken]

That's not a simple question. This is a simple question competition.

Why not? My simple answer to my simple question is: "Yes, God is infinite".


Evo

 

[Stripe]

Why not? My simple answer to my simple question is: "Yes, God is infinite". Evo

What does that even mean? God is infinite. Great. It doesn't mean anything. It's like asking is God a rational number.

You say you trust God. Why?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am not AMR, but yes I do.

Your turn now: Is God infinite?


Evo

Did I miss something? When did you become a Christian? Or are you referring to some other god?

 

[Lon]

hmm, so MUCH meaning in one-liners....I'll have to rethink the fortune-cookie deal.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by stipe
AMR: Do you trust God?

I am not AMR, but yes I do.

Your turn now: Is God infinite?

Evo

Stipe is on my ignore list, so I did not see this. I note that later he demurs to answer you since he is having a simple question contest. That figures. I don't think he has ever strung together more than one or two complete sentences in any post.