The original Hebrew also means "country," or "field.":think:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
My assertion is that God is not omnipotent according to the definition given omnipotence by settled theology.
Also, I assert that the very same people who use that definition of omnipotence deny that He is omnipotent in the same breath, contradicting themselves over and over again.
The mainstream definition of omnipotence does not work with the mainstream definition of omniscience. God cannot be both.:nono:
assuranceagent
New member
The Hebrew word translated, 'Almighty?!'
I don't think you've looked up the right word. I read the Hebrew and the word is "Shaddai," the biblical usage for which is always "Almighty."
I've never heard any reference at all to that word being translated any other way. It's where we get one of the names of God: El Shaddai
assuranceagent
New member
Only you have it backwards. Omnipotence is defined. It is the OV that tries to redefine it.
I understand your definition and I wasn't arguing that point. The only intent of my interjection was to show that your assertion that "Almighty" does not mean "All-powerful" was incorrect. As it happens, that's exactly what it means.
So you have said. That's a fight I don't have a dog in.
The NASB translates it as field, three times. And those verses in the KJV are said to have a word very closely related to Shaddai, "Sadeh."
Actually, most of the OV proponents I know do not believe God is omnipotent. He iw powerful enough to do what can logically be done, yes, but He is not omnipotent, according to the definition of the word"omnipotent."
It doesn't mean it the way Lon meant it, which is the point.
assuranceagent
New member
Please reference the verses you mention. I'm genuinely interested in researching this further.
You would ask, now that I've closed the web pages.
Lamentations 4:9
Hosea 10:4
Hosea 12:11
What is the problem with the classical definition of omnipotence? God is Almighty. He is able to do all that is doable. Few say God can do the logically contradictory like making square circles (even atheists agree with this).
Having all-power does not mean God always uses it or that He does not delegate 'power' to us. Don't confuse omnipotence with omnicausal.
Open Theists do not have a problem with omnipotence (omniscience is the lightning rod). Eternal now and strong immutability are also tweaked to be more biblical.
I would not say LH, Clete, The Plot (don't make me burn my copy) speak for the majority of Open Theists. Of all the books and articles I have read on Open Theism, there was one book with a tiny footnote that mentioned someone who might hold a similar view of omnipresence or omniscience (knows what wants; is where want to be). Usually it is a non-issue and not held by prominent OTs. The bread and butter relates to dealing with the future, contingencies, etc.
Perhaps LH can give us the wrong classical definition of omnipotence and a source so we can see if it is a straw man. Maybe I will jump on his band wagon if it is flawed. Again, omnipotence is not usually the issue, because Arminianism is a non-deterministic view and recognizes delegated authority/power that does not make God less omnipotent (again, it does not mean omnicausal, except to a hyper-Calvinist).
Having all-power does not mean God always uses it or that He does not delegate 'power' to us. Don't confuse omnipotence with omnicausal.
Open Theists do not have a problem with omnipotence (omniscience is the lightning rod). Eternal now and strong immutability are also tweaked to be more biblical.
I would not say LH, Clete, The Plot (don't make me burn my copy) speak for the majority of Open Theists. Of all the books and articles I have read on Open Theism, there was one book with a tiny footnote that mentioned someone who might hold a similar view of omnipresence or omniscience (knows what wants; is where want to be). Usually it is a non-issue and not held by prominent OTs. The bread and butter relates to dealing with the future, contingencies, etc.
Perhaps LH can give us the wrong classical definition of omnipotence and a source so we can see if it is a straw man. Maybe I will jump on his band wagon if it is flawed. Again, omnipotence is not usually the issue, because Arminianism is a non-deterministic view and recognizes delegated authority/power that does not make God less omnipotent (again, it does not mean omnicausal, except to a hyper-Calvinist).
You are such a moron.
I mentioned it because I found it interesting. I never said that it meant that in the verses that were referring to God, you idiot.
And beside, the KJV says the original Hebrew was a different word. So I'm not sure what's up with the NASB.
And I'm not arguing about whether or not God is Almighty. I'm only saying that Almighty means "able to do all things logically possible."
Maybe you should try reading your copy, for once.
Now, is God able to not know something if He does not want to know it? Yes or no?
I have a copy of “The Plot” which I purchased some time ago. I still can’t get past the part that tells me to bold and underline words in a sentence to understand what the verse says.
For example:
Lighthouse makes a lot of posts on TOL, and is frequently in debates about open theism, and usually ends up calling people an idiot or a moron.
Now, if I do as The Plot tells me to, then I get the following:
The bolded tells me: Lighthouse posts on TOL, and is an idiot or a moron.
The underlined tells me: Lighthouse is an idiot.
This is what The Plot has taught me.
And now I'm going to do it again. You're an idiot.
It is made clear that this should only be done without changing the context of the sentence. It is done with the intention to bold, underline, or both relevant parts of the sentence.
For instance, many people ignore that God was talking specifically to Israel about certain things, and believe that what God said applies to us today. This method is used to bold or underline that God was talking to Israel.
Let's use your example:
Lighthouse makes a lot of posts on TOL, and is frequently in debates about open theism, and usually ends up calling people an idiot or a moron.
Now, is any of what you are left with untrue? Does any of it contradict the original sentence? Is it out of context?
How about this:
Lighthouse makes a lot of posts on TOL, and is frequently in debates about open theism, and usually ends up calling people an idiot or a moron.
This could be misconstrued if not understood, but the intention of the author remains the same. But this is something that should not be done, because of the possible misunderstanding. The Plot teaches that.
Then there is this:
Lighthouse makes a lot of posts on TOL, and is frequently in debates about open theism, and usually ends up calling people an idiot or a moron.
This one works, doesn't it? The meaning of the original sentence is not changed.
Actually Lighthouse, you responded to my post in a much more mature way than I ever expected. Good for you.
Could you tell me what this quote from Enyart means?
“Let each man reading this who disagrees, if you are willing, at this very moment, settle your heart, and pray and ask God: Lord, is love greater than knowledge?”
Yes.
God is a loving God. And that precedes His knowledge. His love is more important to Him than His knowledge. Love trumps omniscience.
If a person cannot see what you see, give them a break if they are trying. I see no need to call people morons for disagreeing with you (you are not always right and have even changed your views making you a moron for believing different things when you change your views).
God does not have to do everything doable, but He is able to. I think omniscience is different since knowledge and ability are not identical.
If there is something knowable, God knows it by default, so 'no'. A 'yes' would be compromising even an OT understanding of omniscience (your minority view here is not representative of most).
The way God voluntarily self-limits the scope of His certain knowledge is to create a universe capable of uncertainties and contingencies. These things are inherently unknowable except as possible vs certain. This is not choosing to not know something knowable, but parallel to not being able to create square circles. The issue is logic (modal), not divine amnesia by choice (not possible). Odd how you say that we cannot not know Christ if we once knew Him (OSAS issues), yet you think God can have less than perfect knowledge by willing it?
I had the same problem since this is a faulty hermeneutical principle that can get one into trouble. It will work sometimes, but not all the time. Part of the problem with MAD/Plot is that it tends to proof text in NKJV. Enyart admits to not being a Greek scholar. When I looked at proof texts in the footnotes and checked with Greek or other versions, they did not always support the points being made.
This seems like a poor man's version of parsing the Greek, which is technically more difficult than underlining English texts. The Greek grammar could lead to different conclusions than an imperfect English text (e.g. Acts 2:38 repentance, not baptism, is for remission; Eph. 2:8-9 salvation, not faith, is the gift of God).
The Plot has some interesting ideas, some good ideas, but some flawed ones as well. There are much better books for sound NT scholarship/dispensationalism.
Are you saying that you don't understand what the quote means?
What is unclear about it? Its as straight forward a question as can be!
Christianity 101...
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."
Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Why does Jesus use Faith at the end instead of love?
atrol: