ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

Ability does not equate with freedom.

Err.... yes it does.

Is God able to do all things? Does God sin or violate His natural and moral laws?

You've asked two unrelated questions. Just because one is able to do something doesn't mean that they automatically do it. God is able to wipe out the entire universe, and is free to do so, but does not.

False premises.

God did not "program" Adam to sin.
Adam was given no free choices.

Whatever word you want to use, in your theology God causes Adam to sin.

God made Adam in His image, under the law, possessing ability to obey natural law and Godly commands, and make right moral choices.

Did Adam have the ability to disobey natural law and Godly commands?

Adam, being finite and therefore subject to mutability and sin, listened to a lie and acted on it, in direct opposition to God's commands. Adam caused death for himself and the entire human race.

I guess he did. Welcome to LFW.

Committing sin is not a definition of freedom at all.

That's correct. The definition of freedom is the ability to sin or not to sin in a given circumstance.

Only if you define committing suicide to be "freedom," was Adam "free."

The ability to commit suicide with the ability to not commit suicide is freedom.

But that is what the devil told Adam. Adam believed the lie that he could sin freely and thereby be like God, while opposing God's commands.

Unrepentant, unregenerated sinners still believe this lie; thinking they can oppose God, but freely choose to get right with Him any time they want, thereby reversing their death sentence according to an existing freedom of will, alone.

Not sure who those people are. Are there pelagians about?

But it is not true. The devil is still lying to them. They remain dead in their sins, because dead men cannot "choose" anything other than to physically and spiritually rot away.

I don't think they choose to do this. It just happens.

Umm. . . maybe that is because LFW does not exist. It certainly does not describe the moral agency and conscience that exists in every man, to know right from wrong.

It doesn't. It describes the ability of an individual to choose and not choose a particular decision.

Of course God controlled Adam when Adam sinned. God controls you and I when we sin.

Thus, God is the cause of sin. Thanks for that admission.

Spiritual principle:

"But as for you (and as for Adam too), you meant it for evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people." Genesis 50:20

The sin of the first Adam was necessary in God's purposes to reveal the grace provided by the last "Adam," Jesus Christ.

So, God causes every person to be subject to death, so that He can pick out a few to save, and demand that they love Him.

That's not justice.

It is a BIG picture, Michael . . . try to wrap your brain around God's purposes, rather than getting stuck in the beginnings with Adam and the devil. The fall of mankind only reveals sin and death.

Unfortunately, your "big" picture isn't very pretty. You have a creator who builds a creation with creatures that He commands to obey Him, but then causes them to disobey Him, and under the guise of "justice", He condemns them all for what He caused them to do, and then arbitrarily picks out a few of all those He condemned to save, and expects them to adore Him for saving them from that He caused them to do and be in the first place.

Not exactly noble or glorious.

Look to the last Adam, the Lord from heaven; Jesus Christ, and His grace for answers providing forgiveness and everlasting life.

Do you need forgiveness for something someone else caused you to do, for which you could not choose otherwise?

See, this is the opposing spectrum. You claim that men are responsible for their sins, and yet you say that God causes them to sin.

It's nothing more than me creating a robot to set forest fires, and then me condemning the robot for doing what I caused it to do, except on a far more complex scale.

Muz

 

[Nang]

So, God causes every person to be subject to death, so that He can pick out a few to save, and demand that they love Him.

That's not justice.

Since you are insisting on telling me what I believe and teach, despite my dialogue with you, and you are getting nasty as usual, I will be brief in this response.

God did not cause humanity to suffer death. Death entered the world through Adam. Romans 5:12

God in His grace, instead of seeing all men perish in their sins, chose to spare many.

There is something wrong with your heart if you find fault with a God who saves undeserving sinners, no matter the cause or the numbers.

Unfortunately, your "big" picture isn't very pretty. You have a creator who builds a creation with creatures that He commands to obey Him, but then causes them to disobey Him,

You totally ignore what I say, and then repaint the Scriptural picture that is there for you to discover.

God did not cause Adam to disobey Him.

God created Adam, and if you insist on making God's creative acts the cause of sin and death, you commit the sin of talking back to God (Romans 9:20), and thereby denigrating your own existence, and yourself blame God for your own sins.

Can't you see . . .YOU are calling God the author of sin . . .not me.

and under the guise of "justice", He condemns them all for what He caused them to do, and then arbitrarily picks out a few of all those He condemned to save, and expects them to adore Him for saving them from that He caused them to do and be in the first place.

Not exactly noble or glorious.

You are thumbing your nose at God, Muz. Not wise on your part . . .

As long as you insist on saying God is the cause of Adam's sin, you will never, ever, comprehend the loving grace of God that saves undeserving sinners.

Do you need forgiveness for something someone else caused you to do, for which you could not choose otherwise?

Are you now denying the doctrine of "Original Sin" like godrulz?

See, this is the opposing spectrum. You claim that men are responsible for their sins, and yet you say that God causes them to sin.

:nono:

Please provide a post and a quote from Nang where she says God causes men to sin.

You are not discussing, Muz . . . you are projecting.

I refuse to let you pull that stuff on me.

Conversation over. :wave:

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Since you are insisting on telling me what I believe and teach, despite my dialogue with you, and you are getting nasty as usual, I will be brief in this response.

God did not cause humanity to suffer death. Death entered the world through Adam. Romans 5:12

God in His grace, instead of seeing all men perish in their sins, chose to spare many.

There is something wrong with your heart if you find fault with a God who saves undeserving sinners, no matter the cause or the numbers.

Um... you're providing Scripture and logic that refutes your own theological position. First God is the cause of sin, then man, then God, then man.. you need to make up your mind.

You totally ignore what I say, and then repaint the Scriptural picture that is there for you to discover.

I'm responding to ALL of what you have said.

God did not cause Adam to disobey Him.

Make up your mind. Either He did or He didn't. You already said, "God controls all things; even the sins of men and angels"

And now you refute that.

God created Adam, and if you insist on making God's creative acts the cause of sin and death, you commit the sin of talking back to God (Romans 9:20), and thereby denigrating your own existence, and yourself blame God for your own sins.

Actually, I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm pointing out where you are contradicting Scripture.

Can't you see . . .YOU are calling God the author of sin . . .not me.

Actually, you are. You already said, 'God controls all things; even the sins of men and angels." I'm just holding you to it.

You are thumbing your nose at God, Muz. Not wise on your part . . .

I'm thumbing my nose at your preception of God.

As long as you insist on saying God is the cause of Adam's sin, you will never, ever, comprehend the loving grace of God that saves undeserving sinners.

This is your theology, not mine. I don't embrace Calvinism, so I don't have these problems.

Are you now denying the doctrine of "Original Sin" like godrulz?

Nope. Just placing responsibiility for it where it belongs.

Please provide a post and a quote from Nang where she says God causes men to sin.

"God controls all things; even the sins of men and angels"

You are not discussing, Muz . . . you are projecting.

And quoting.

I refuse to let you pull that stuff on me.

You put it on you.

Muz

 

[penofareadywriter]

No reply was requested or required.

OK...I never implied one was.

This doesn't make sense. If you are big on being teachable, then be teachable.

I plan on it.

Whether or not others are teachable is irrelevant.

I agree.

I learn lots of things from intransigent people. Do you insist on only learning from teachable people? It's irrational.

If this was the case I would have left TOL a long time ago. Most people here are NOT teachable. I found that out real quick. The ONLY reason I am still hear is to be sharpened by others. All I am saying is this; I just got done reading a debate you were in and saw the fruit of that debate...which was that nether one of you changed your minds. Most of what I was going to say...Knight had already said to you, which you vehemently rejected. I am open to debate Open Theism on IT'S terms but I am NOT interested in hearing THIS in response to OT.....SETTLED VIEW!!!! SETTELED VIEW!!!!K: SETTLED VIEW!!!! Do you get what I am saying?

You're apparently a better predictor of the future than the Open View's God.

Not in a billion years!

If you rationally process the arguments in my dialog with Knight, there's a lot to be learned there about the irrationality of Open Theism and the soundness and clarity of the determinism view.

For YOU... obviously it is not that clear for EVERYONE. If it was, this thread would not have over 2000 posts and we would all live happily ever after!

It has been shown time and again how the very best the Open View can offer is unable to bear the scrutiny of sound logic and clear exegesis.

Again....this is obviously a true statement from your perspective.

 

[Hilston]

Response to AMR and Nang

AMR's quote is excellent, and eloquently states the thesis I've been trying to explain these several posts.

"The usual way they are distinguished without introducing contrariety into the will of God is to acknowledge the simple point that the word "will" is used in two different ways.In one sense He is said to will something volitionally. This is God's will properly speaking. "God works all things after the counsel of His own will." There is also the extended use of the word "will" when a certain course of action is said to be the will of God.

The above use of "will" refers precisely to the decretive will of God.

"This is the will of God concerning you, even your sanctification." In this latter sense the word "will" is being used morally, not volitionally.

This refers precisely to the prescriptive will of God. Wherever the quote comes from, it's an excellent and concise statement of what I've been trying to convey all along. Thank you AMR for posting it.

Now the troubling part. Nang agrees (!?!?)

Yes indeed.

" . . . the simple point that the word "will" is used in two different ways."

Those two different ways are "decretively" and "prescriptively," what the writer calls "volitional will" and "moral will," respectively.

I quote John Owen who confirms this view:

"A master requires of His servant to do what He commands; not to accomplish what He intends…"

This is what I've been saying all along. Nang, you should not be quoting this, because in several posts you have said there is no difference between God's commands with God's purposes and intentions, contrary to Owen, who distinguishes between them. The former (what God commands) refers to God's prescriptive will, what AMR's writer calls "moral." The latter (what God purposes and intends) refers to God's decretive will, what AMR's writer calls "volitional."

"… For instance, God commandeth us to believe; here His revealed will is that we should so do; withal, He intendeth we shall do; and therefore ingenerateth faith in our hearts that we may believe. Here His secret will and revealed will are coincident; the former being His precept that we should believe, the latter His purpose that we shall believe."

This is what I've been saying all along. There are indeed cases in which God's prescriptive will (the command to believe, God's "moral will") aligns with His decretive will (the fact that the elect believe, God's "volitional will"), but this is not always the case (as in the case of the non-elect). There are cases in which the decretive will (volitional will) and prescriptive will (moral will) align, but these do not demonstrate the distinction as clearly as those cases in which they do not, hence my focus on the latter.

There are differences between how the the will of God is revealed and differences and degrees of to whom the will of God is disclosed. No question.

So now do you agree with the differences between God's commands (prescriptions, moral will) and God's purposes and intentions (decrees, volitional will)?

But this does not mean God has two wills.

I guess not. Oh well.

Again, from John Owen:

"The essence of God, then, being a most absolute, pure, simple act or substance, His will consequently can be but simply one; whereof we ought to make neither division nor distinction."

You continue to assume that I am imposing some sort of division within God. Owen is speaking of God's decrees, not His commands. Please try to get this.

(J.O. quoting St. Austen):

"He illustrates the example of a sick parent having two children; the one wicked, who desires his father's death; the other Godly, and he prays for his life. But the will of God is that he shall die, agreeably to the desire of the wicked child; and yet it is the other who hath performed his duty, and done what is pleasing to God."

The godly child obeyed God's prescriptive will (moral will), yet, simultaneously, it was God's decretive will (volitional will) that the sick parent die.

This little quote describes in principle how Abraham pleased God with his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, even while knowing and being assured God's intent was to give all covenant promises to Isaac and Isaac's spiritual seed. Abraham followed God's preceptive will in obedience, by having faith that God's will and good purposes (decrees) would assuredly work good according to promise.

This is what I've been saying all along. God's "preceptive will" is His prescriptive/moral will. And God's "will and good purposes (decrees)" refer to His decretive/volitional will.

No conflict in Abraham about whether God demonstrated two wills …

Whoever said there was a conflict? The fact that God's prescriptive will often does not match His decretive will is not a conflict. They are two different things. Two different wills. Not contradictory. They are different categories altogether.

. . .Abraham did his duty and trusted God to do well according to His will revealed in the covenant promises.

Abraham understood the difference between God's prescribed will (the moral law which Abraham obeyed) and God's purposes and intentions (His volitional will as expressed in God's promises to Abraham).

We are not discussing God being double-minded. We are discussing creaturely obligation to live according to the will of God, according to the Word of God . . . and trusting that all God's will be accomplished through Jesus Christ on our behalf.

At least, I hope that is what is being discussed . . .

It is. I am baffled as I go back over our dialogue and realize that it took you this long to see this. There has never once been the suggestion on my part that God is double-minded. There has never once been the suggestion on my part that God is conflicted. These are your inventions, and they explain a lot of what I've seen in your posts.

. . . the gist of it is in Acts 17:30, which presents a precept of God, "that God commands all men everywhere to repent." But we know that God has decreed that some men NOT repent. That is one of many examples in which God's precept (command) does not match His decree.

You have given answer to this, and I quote your words:

"There's nothing inconsistent or contradictory about God prohibiting something and decreeing that it happen. Throughout scripture we are shown examples in which God has decreed that which is contrary to His prescriptions for His own good reasons and purposes."

The first sentence is our area of agreement. There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about God’s precepts and decrees. The one will of God, revealed in His word and Law, is fulfilled through sovereign decree. Since this statement is inconsistent on your part, I do not agree with the last sentence, which we now discuss.

“. . For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying ‘My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10

That verse refers to God's decretive will only (such as the decreed murder of His Son) and not God's prescriptive will (such as "Thou shalt not murder"), which is obviously different. This is not a conflict within God, because they are two different things. You said yourself: "There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about God’s precepts and decrees." When we see a command from God that does not align with His decree, we ought not to assume God is conflicted, only that His moral will is different from His volitional will.

God declares (prescribes and proscribes) = “the end from the beginning”

God decrees the end from the beginning. He does not prescribe/proscribe it. Please look up these words. Prescription and proscription refer, respectively, to what God commands and prohibits (His moral will), not what He decrees (i.e., His volitional will).

God decrees = “things that are not yet done”

This refers to God's decretive/volitional will, not His prescriptive [edited from "decretive"] will.

God purposes = “My counsel (precepts) shall stand and I will do (decreed) all My pleasure.

God's counsel and pleasure refer to His decrees, not His precepts. It's important to understand this distinction:

Laws, commands, precepts, prescriptions, proscriptions all refer to that which men ought to do, God's prescriptive will, what AMR's quote calls "moral will."

Decrees, good pleasure, the secret things of God (Deu 29:29), the end from the beginning, all future-telling refer to that which will inexorably come to pass, God's decretive will, what AMR's writer calls "volitional will."

So I question why you find it necessary to insist upon making distinctions? Why say God has “two wills” when it is clear that all God has commanded, God will do, and His will be done?

Because they are different. There is a distinction between the command "Thou shalt not murder" and the decree that God's Son would be murdered. Surely you must see this. If you can see this, then you see the difference between a command (law, precept, proscription) and a decree (that which surely comes to pass).

It has been my observation, that this unnecessary argument is made only when one attempts to formulate a doctrine that does not easily accord with the Word of God.

You've said this before. You were wrong then, and you're still wrong. I gave you very, very clear reasons in my previous post. Here they are again:

• God's precept is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), but God's decree was to raise up adversity against David from his own house, to take David's wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor, who would lie with David's wives in the sight of the sun. The precept (moral will) does not match the decree (volitional will).
• God's precept is the blessing of his people by other nations (Genesis 12:3), but God's decree was "[turn] their heart to hate his people" (Psalm 105:25). The precept (moral will) does not match the decree (volitional will).
• God's precept to Pharaoh was to let His people go (Exodus 5:1, 8:1), but God's decree was to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21). The precept (moral will) does not match the decree (volitional will).
• God's precept was for David not to take a military census of the people (2 Samuel 24:10), but God decreed that He would be angry with David and to move him to do just that (2 Samuel 24:1). The precept (moral will) does not match the decree (volitional will).
• God's precept is "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13), but God decreed that His only Son would be murdered, "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Ac 2:23), "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28).

In each of these examples, the precept (moral will) does not match the decree (volitional will).

For example: the most common reason to teach that God has two wills, is to uphold the notion that God loves all men and desires that no man perish in their sins.

You've said this before. And as I told you before, that's not my view. I despise the Luciferian view of Universal Redemption. Are you just going to keep repeating this, as if the sheer repetition will convince me that this is my real reason for positing the distinctive wills of God?

Supposedly God brings the gospel to all men, in a well-meant offer of salvation, made possible through the universal atoning work of His Son on the cross. The fact that not all men are saved, and not all men even hear this gospel, presents a difficulty to this teaching . . . so it is explained away by teaching that God “desires” all men be saved, …

Stop it. That odious and reprehensible teaching is repugnant to me, and I absolutely resent your efforts to pin that despicable sewage on me. Think, Nang. THINK. Read the examples above. Read AMR's quote. AMR, can you help Nang out? (Please?)

... but God has “decreed” that only an elect be saved. It is thought this answers the contradiction in their teaching, but all that is achieved is that God’s just reasons to repropate many creatures and bring many men to justice through judgment is neglected if not outright denied. Plus, it depicts a God that desires but does not get, which does not accord with the revealed precepts of God, at all; exampled in the above verse.

Excrement. All of it. It doesn't belong in a discussion of our wonderful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible and immutable God. Please cease and desist from this loathsome line of vomitous filth.

… We asked our Elders for their views, and they answered us with the same philosophical notion, that you propose, namely:

Yes, God presents moral “ideals” in the Scriptures and Law, but they are not realized, for men cannot live up to them. So God is loving and being understandinf of mens' limitations, often permits (decrees?) divorce and remarriage, despite Jesus’ teachings.

We're done, Nang. If that detestable and abhorrent view is what you've gotten from what I've written, then we're not speaking the same language. Goodbye, Nang. God help you. Please ask AMR to help you, too. He understands the differences; perhaps he will fare better in helping you to see what I've been saying all along.

Fresh roasted flavor,
Hilston

 

[Nang]

Response to AMR and Nang

AMR's quote is excellent, and eloquently states the thesis I've been trying to explain these several posts.

The above use of "will" refers precisely to the decretive will of God.

This refers precisely to the prescriptive will of God. Wherever the quote comes from, it's an excellent and concise statement of what I've been trying to convey all along. Thank you AMR for posting it.

Now the troubling part. Nang agrees (!?!?)

Yes I agree because they work to achieve the singular will of God.

Those two different ways are "decretively" and "prescriptively," what the writer calls "volitional will" and "moral will," respectively.

This is a matter of terminology that avoids my original complaint that it should not be taught that God has two wills.

This is what I've been saying all along.

If you need to bolster yourself on AMR's back, go ahead.

Nang, you should not be quoting this, because in several posts you have said there is no difference between God's commands with God's purposes and intentions, contrary to Owen, who distinguishes between them.

There is no difference between God's commands and God's purposes. The only difference is how much of God's will we mortals know. God has clearly revealed His commands, orally and in written form, but we cannot see all the future that He has ordained, and we cannot know who are His elect (or reprobate).

Now, if you and AMR want to put labels and terminology on what parts of God's will we know, and what parts of God's will we do not know, and I will agree.

However, I refuse to agree that God's will differs with His commands and/or purposes.

This is what I've been saying all along. There are indeed cases in which God's prescriptive will (the command to believe, God's "moral will") aligns with His decretive will (the fact that the elect believe, God's "volitional will"), but this is not always the case (as in the case of the non-elect).

I disagree. God's command to all men to believe and repent aligns with God's will to elect or reprobate. From the same command, God either blesses the sinner with faith, or God further condemns the unbeliever. That does not constitute a difference in the will of God, it reveals a difference in the destinies of men.

You continue to assume that I am imposing some sort of division within God. Owen is speaking of God's decrees, not His commands. Please try to get this.

Oh, please. Owen is speaking of God's singular will throughout. Yes, he also uses terminology to explain some of the will of God is known, and yet God has not revealed all his will to finite men. (Deut. 29:29) That distinction is valid, for it does not claim God desires one thing but does another, which is my complaint.

The godly child obeyed God's prescriptive will (moral will), yet, simultaneously, it was God's decretive will (volitional will) that the sick parent die.

So in both instances, God's will was done. That is my argument and Owen's argument.

Whoever said there was a conflict? The fact that God's prescriptive will often does not match His decretive will is not a conflict. They are two different things. Two different wills. Not contradictory. They are different categories altogether.

They are not two different wills. From our human perspective they might appear different, but the will of God always achieves His purposes. The commands will either bless or curse mankind, according to God's choosing men in Christ for glory, or leaving men in guilty under Law as a matter of justice.

Abraham understood the difference between God's prescribed will (the moral law which Abraham obeyed) and God's purposes and intentions (His volitional will as expressed in God's promises to Abraham).

Agreed. Abraham fulfilled his faithful duty in full faith God's will be done rightly.

It is. I am baffled as I go back over our dialogue and realize that it took you this long to see this. There has never once been the suggestion on my part that God is double-minded. There has never once been the suggestion on my part that God is conflicted. These are your inventions, and they explain a lot of what I've seen in your posts.

Well, this whitewash is convenient, but I do not totally buy your innocence, when you keep using the term, two wills of God. Your labels, whatever language you want to use, do not define two wills. They merely denote distinctions between God's execution of His singular will.

This is not a conflict within God, because they are two different things.

See . . . you are not really agreeing with AMR at all. At least not with the quote that AMR presented, which said nothing about "two different things." Two different workings; two different descriptions, two different applications . . .of the one will and purpose of God.

His moral will is different from His volitional will.

God's moral Law is revealed and known to man. How God executes His will is not always immediately known to man.

You are making distinction with God's will from mens' vantage point, but in the mind of God His will is singular according to His purposes and good pleasure.

they are different.

Only in how we are to respond. We are to obey what we know, and trust in God for what we do not know. Both are called faith.

You've said this before. And as I told you before, that's not my view. I despise the Luciferian view of Universal Redemption. Are you just going to keep repeating this, as if the sheer repetition will convince me that this is my real reason for positing the distinctive wills of God?

I am glad you do not believe in universal atonement, but those who do, or those who would make Christ's atonement a hypothetical possiblity for the salvation of all (Amyraldianism) teach that God has desires something He does not totally achieve.

Stop it. That odious and reprehensible teaching is repugnant to me, and I absolutely resent your efforts to pin that despicable sewage on me. Think, Nang. THINK. Read the examples above. Read AMR's quote. AMR, can you help Nang out? (Please?)

Excrement. All of it. It doesn't belong in a discussion of our wonderful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible and immutable God. Please cease and desist from this loathsome line of vomitous filth.

We're done, Nang. If that detestable and abhorrent view is what you've gotten from what I've written, then we're not speaking the same language. Goodbye, Nang. God help you. Please ask AMR to help you, too. He understands the differences; perhaps he will fare better in helping you to see what I've been saying all along.

Good grief! All the dramatics!

I gave you examples of other errors to explain why I have taken my position against teaching God has two wills. Not everything is about YOU. And there are others reading our discussion, who need to understand the ramifications of what we speak.

I was not, and I do not now say, any of these are your motives for your teaching the way you do. God alone has you figured out, not me.

I will say, however, that you harbor an arrogance that precludes any enjoyment of agreeing with you. I have the notion that if I gave one inch your direction, you would somehow turn it against me. Is that how Christians fellowship and have civil conversation? No, with you, it is always a battle of "King Of The Mountain!"

So long . . .Hope you don't miss me too much! :crackup:

Nang

 

[godrulz]

No it is true.

Last year there was a huge problem with Canada geese in a local park. Our local government rounded them up and killed hundreds of them without telling anyone before hand.

The local animal rights people went nuts.

Now over a year later, the geese have returned, and nobody knows what to do.

Hilston is correct, the geese are everywhere, and they are mean. Especially near lakes and rivers.

C'mon Godrulz, get your geese out of here.

We are holding your Eagles hostage. Let's trade.

Nang, Hilston, etc....talk about confusion with your 'will' concepts/loopholes.

 

[Nang]

Nang, Hilston, etc....talk about confusion with your 'will' concepts/loopholes.

I am not confused . . .I know God is singular in will. . .

Nang

 

[godrulz]

I am not confused . . .I know God is singular in will. . .

Nang

If God is omnicausal and His will monothetic, then He is ultimately the source of evil, contrary to His holiness and self-revelation. In His sovereignty, He created significant others with a say so and self-determination. He macro vs micromanages. He does not tightly control everything (if He did, things would be better than they are), but is still 'in control'. His sovereignty is providential, not meticulous.

Like Luther, here I stand. I will not recant biblical truth to join your narrow camp (Calvin's one will assumption is the demise of his views).

 

[Hilston]

Response to penofareadywriter

Whether or not others are teachable is irrelevant.

I agree.

Then why did you bring it up? And why do you continue with the point below?

I learn lots of things from intransigent people. Do you insist on only learning from teachable people? It's irrational.

If this was the case I would have left TOL a long time ago. Most people here are NOT teachable. I found that out real quick.

How do you know that they're unteachable? It's a massively presumptuous and unduly judgmental thing to say. You can't see their hearts, or their minds, to know whether or not it's true intransigence, or just merely ego and pride being defiantly expressed. I've dealt with lots of seemingly unteachable people who later come to me, or e-mail me, to thank me for teaching them, despite the fact that it did not appear very teachable at all.

The ONLY reason I am still hear is to be sharpened by others. All I am saying is this; I just got done reading a debate you were in and saw the fruit of that debate...which was that nether one of you changed your minds.

That's not the purpose of debate. We should never confuse persuasion with cogency. Many coherent arguments are not as persuasive as emotional ones. But we are called to give a reasoned, coherent defense of the Hope that is in us. That is what I attempted to do with Knight, whether or not he or anyone else thought it was persuasive. And while you or Knight may not have changed your minds, there are others who have indeed changed their minds as a result of that and similarly "unpersuasive" debates.

Most of what I was going to say...Knight had already said to you, which you vehemently rejected.

I only reject arguments that are not sound. Show me a single argument from Knight that was logically and biblically sound. Knight uses the same inbred arguments that Bob Enyart, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, William Hasker, Clark Pinnock and David Basinger use. To the uninitiated, the specious polemics of these men often give the average non-Open Theists pause, causing them to scramble for an answer to their questions (questions that certainly should be asked). Sadly, most proponents of Christendumb are too afraid to confront those questions, or have never encountered such questions and are unprepared to answer them. This is one of the things that is so appealing about Open Theism. But when Open Theism finally encounters someone who can answer these questions and challenge their underlying assumptions with solid logic and biblical clarity, he is conveniently dismissed as "unteachable."

I am open to debate Open Theism on IT'S terms but I am NOT interested in hearing THIS in response to OT.....SETTLED VIEW!!!! SETTELED VIEW!!!! SETTLED VIEW!!!! Do you get what I am saying?

Sure. Let's discuss Open Theism on its own terms.

If you rationally process the arguments in my dialog with Knight, there's a lot to be learned there about the irrationality of Open Theism and the soundness and clarity of the determinism view.

For YOU... obviously it is not that clear for EVERYONE. If it was, this thread would not have over 2000 posts and we would all live happily ever after!

Again, this isn't about persuasion. It's about coherence. I've pointed out repeatedly the incoherence of the Open View and the singular biblical coherence of the Settled View. No one has yet to show otherwise, despite myriad attempts by myriad others to do so. Who knows; maybe you'll be the first.

It has been shown time and again how the very best the Open View can offer is unable to bear the scrutiny of sound logic and clear exegesis.

Again....this is obviously a true statement from your perspective.

It has nothing to do with my perspective. It has everything to do with sound logic and biblical clarity. If I'm illogical in my arguments, show it. If I'm not clear in my exegesis of scripture, show it. It's all I'm doing with the Open View, on its own terms.

If I might offer some advice: If you're going to present an argument, look to see if I've addressed it already, and be prepared to show how I've failed to expose its incoherence.

Thank you for considering my offer.

Punch buggy (no punch-backs),
Hilston

 

[penofareadywriter]

Of course God controlled Adam when Adam sinned. God controls you and I when we sin.

Spiritual principle:

"But as for you (and as for Adam too), you meant it for evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people." Genesis 50:20

The sin of the first Adam was necessary in God's purposes to reveal the grace provided by the last "Adam," Jesus Christ.

It is a BIG picture, Michael . . . try to wrap your brain around God's purposes, rather than getting stuck in the beginnings with Adam and the devil. The fall of mankind only reveals sin and death.

Look to the last Adam, the Lord from heaven; Jesus Christ, and His grace for answers providing forgiveness and everlasting life.

Nang

That would be like a doctor giving a bunch of perfectly healthily people Cancer, just so he could create a cure.
Of curers the scenario you are suggesting is infinitely more sadistic and horrifying.

 

[Nang]

That would be like a doctor giving a bunch of perfectly healthily people Cancer, just so he could create a cure.
Of curers the scenario you are suggesting is infinitely more sadistic and horrifying.

Muz does not know the difference between the English words "cause" and "control," and apparently neither do you.

God did not "cause" sin but God "controls" sinners.



Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

Muz does not know the difference between the English words "cause" and "control," and apparently neither do you.

God did not "cause" sin but God "controls" sinners.



Nang

With all do respect....what is the difference? If I drive my remote control car that has a bomb on top of it into a building...using your logic..the cop should arrest my remote control CAR!:crackup: Your logic is stunning!

 

[Nang]

With all do respect....what is the difference?

Holy Scripture.

Cause of sin = Romans 5:12

Control of sinners = II Thessalonians 2:6-7

 

[penofareadywriter]

Holy Scripture.

Cause of sin = Romans 5:12

Control of sinners = II Thessalonians 2:6-7

This would be a great point if everyone was in unity on WHAT the restrainer is. This is up there with the identity of the two witnesses. If the restrainer is the Holy Spirit...you might be on to something. But in my studies I have come to believe that it is the governments of the world.

 

[themuzicman]

Muz does not know the difference between the English words "cause" and "control," and apparently neither do you.

God did not "cause" sin but God "controls" sinners.

Nang

So, if I control my robot, but it sets a fire to a house, my robot is the "cause"?

LOL

Muz

 

[Nang]

So, if I control my robot, but it sets a fire to a house, my robot is the "cause"?

LOL

Muz

Here's how it goes, Muz . . .

God creates man

Man causes sin

God controls the mess



Get it?

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Here's how it goes, Muz . . .

God creates man

Man causes sin

God controls the mess



Get it?

Nang

Except that this isn't Calviinsm. You've already said that God was in contorl of Adam when Adam sinned.

 

[Nang]

Except that this isn't Calviinsm. You've already said that God was in contorl of Adam when Adam sinned.

God was in control of Adam, but God gave Adam the ability to have secondary cause and effect.

You wouldn't want to think God created Adam a robot, would you?

 

[godrulz]

Holy Scripture.

Cause of sin = Romans 5:12

Control of sinners = II Thessalonians 2:6-7

Rom. 5 is the occasion of sin entering the human race through Adam leading to physical vs moral depravity to all men. Moral depravity is actualized in the individual when we individually sin (Rom. 1-3).

2 Thess. 2 is about the future great Tribulation and the Antichrist, not individual volition in the Church Age. Nice proof texting/eisegesis, young lady.