ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Clete]

The last two posts on this thread, both posted by Nicholsmom, stand as the most intellectually honest posts I have seen in months!

I love it! Somebody give her some positive rep!!!

I'll respond to both posts this evening. Don't let me forget!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

I can't say that I understood any of this because I have not yet found time to study dispensationalism in any sort of depth (it is some kind of dispensationalism isn't it?).

There isn't anything to study. You must believe simply what the Bible says. No reason to keep going over the same thing over and over.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

What do you think you would learn about somebody by their internet battles against evil people that will not owe up to the truth? Just wondering.

Galations 5: 22-26 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

I I don't believe that free will is "the whole point" of our existence, or that it is a requirement for "the whole point" of our existence to occur. On this point (free will) we disagree, mostly because I am not certain of the definition and extent of this freedom.

Can love be forced? Or is a choice and your own decision? Since love is the greatest of all.

I hope you won't mind if I remind you of some of those "passions and desires" that we are to crucify with the flesh:
Galations 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

You are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. There isn't an in between. A slave to sin will be convicted of those things listed.

Yes, God showed outbursts of wrath, but then He is holy. He alone is holy and can therefore excercise righteous anger. I do not deny that we gain righteousness from Christ, but we are instructed clearly by Paul to crucify this "work of the flesh." So, once again, what is allowed to God, is disallowed to man - even those who have put on Christ and His righteousness.....That we are to be like Him does not include those aspects of God that we can never claim - we will never be God. We are called to obey, and Christ was clear in His preaching that we are to love one another.

Paul also said that government is giving his anger and wrath its place. And that is with people against other people. Just don't engage in vigilante justice. I know you aren't making a blanket statement, I just wanted to show that he did in fact delegate his wrath to us.

 

[tetelestai]

Anthropomorphisms - The representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits.

Anthropopathisms - Attribution of human feelings to things not human.

The problem with open theism is that open theists only acknowledge one of the above when it comes to God.

Both categories are figures of speech, not descriptions of God’s true nature or essence. God does not hate, even though the Bible declares that “You hate all who do iniquity.” (Psalms 5:5). Nor is He jealous, in spite of the Bible telling us “jealousy will burn against that man” who turns away from the Lord (Deu 29:19-20).

God’s purpose in using these teaching aids is certainly not to keep us in the dark as to His true character, nor even to cater to our ignorance, but to enable us to learn. He comes down to our frame of reference when presenting what otherwise would go as far over our heads “as the heavens are higher than the earth.”

Unless OVT’s want to advocate that God has grey hair, blue eyes, and sits on a throne with head, shoulders, knees, and toes; they should stop taking the anthropopathisms literally as well

 

[Clete]

No time for editing this one. Please over look all the typos!

Once again, I am sorry that I used the wrong translation of the Bible in my last post - I did not realize that critical words were left out.

I do have a point below about the singular priveleges of God, but here I would like to address this word "cause"

The Greek, eiÎkhÙ÷, or Eike (transliterated), carries with it the implication that the "cause" is not only just, but has purpose. So the cause is a purpose-driven one. So any anger toward a brother ought not to be a knee-jerk reaction, nor a strictly emotional one, but rather a purposeful intolerance of sin or foolishness (things that lead one toward hell) toward the redemption of a lost soul or sinful brother. To me there is a clear difference. Again, I do have a point below about the exclusive arena of God, but I hope that you will read this in order and all the way through as a kindness to me, your sister in Christ.

It always amuses me slightly when people act as though they are afraid of me. It demonstrates that they do not know me very well and haven't been around long enough to know why I say the things I say to certain people around here.

I agree that we should not let our emotions get out of control but that isn't to say that we should have emotions and the idea that we are not permitted to be angry is not only impossible it is unbiblical. You just got through conceding that Jesus told us not to call people fools without cause; how would that make any sense if we weren't supposed to call people fools (or be angry) at all?

I can't say that I understood any of this because I have not yet found time to study dispensationalism in any sort of depth (it is some kind of dispensationalism isn't it?). Perhaps I'll get to that soon.

If you do not understand what we refer to today as Dispensationalism, you do not understand the Bible. You should read Bob Enyart's "The Plot" immediately!
That's not just a plug for Bob's book, I'm serious. Your theology will be a confused, conflicted, contradictory mess until you get a handle on just what happened in the New Testament and why and there is no better book on the planet to read on the subject than Bob's.

If you cannot afford a copy, I'll buy you one. PM me and we'll work out the details.

Meanwhile, I'll err on the side of caution and assume that Jesus is talking to me - I may have liberties that I do not take at this time.

Boy! You can say that again. But for now, I agree, you should not violate your conscience.

I do want to speak more about Christian behavior, if you will allow, though I don't intend to hijack this thread for more than this post.

Don't worry about the thread. Its not as if a lot of anything substantive is going on anyway.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

What fruit then? Paul expounds on this:
Galations 5: 22-26 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

I hope you won't mind if I remind you of some of those "passions and desires" that we are to crucify with the flesh:
Galations 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Yes, God showed outbursts of wrath, but then He is holy. He alone is holy and can therefore excercise righteous anger. I do not deny that we gain righteousness from Christ, but we are instructed clearly by Paul to crucify this "work of the flesh." So, once again, what is allowed to God, is disallowed to man - even those who have put on Christ and His righteousness.

I don't understand this. You just conceded that the teaching is that we should not be angry without cause and now you seem to be making the opposite argument again.

Which is it?

Do you really think that it makes sense that God is the only one allowed to get angry?

Doesn't it make better sense to believe that you've been tricked by mainstream Christianity into thinking that Christians are supposed to always be nice no matter what?

It is not a sin to be angry. It is not a sin to treat your enemies as enemies. It is not a sin to treat people who say stupid things as though they are stupid. It is not a sin to mock your enemies. There are examples throughout the Scripture of God and godly men doing such things.

The things listed by Paul as fruits of the flesh are the things you were talking about in the beginning of your post when you said, "anger toward a brother ought not to be a knee-jerk reaction, nor a strictly emotional one". Spiritual battles are fought in the mind. When you lose control of your mind and let your emotions take over, you've lost the battle with the flesh.

(I want to make a point here that I think will anger you for a moment, Clete.

Points made with honesty do not anger me.

I submit to you that God the Father and God the Son do one thing (have outbursts of wrath) and tell us to do something entirely different (crucify such things with the flesh).

I've read the whole paragraph but will respond like I do with every other post, point for point.

It seems to me that you just equated outbursts of wrath with the flesh and thereby attributed acts of the flesh to God. I know for sure that you didn't intend to do that but I'm pretty certain that's exactly what you did.

Also the Bible comes right out and teaches us that we should hate those who hate God.

2 Chronicles 19:2 “Should you help the wicked and blove those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you."

Psalms 139:21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.​

This sort of unevenness is only just in this one case: the comparison of Creator and Created. God the Creator alone can condemn; He alone can know the hearts of man; His blood alone has the power and purity to save all of mankind. There are, in fact, countless things that are God's alone to do and to be, as you well know.

You really need to read Bob's book. You contradict yourself without even realizing you're doing it. You just a moment ago quoted me a passage that stated clearly that we can know peoples hearts by the fruit they produce, did you not?

That's not to say we can know the hearts of men the way God can nor does it mean we have the authority to condemn someone to Hell but we don't have to do that. Jesus tells us that if a person does not believe they are condemned already. If we tell someone the truth concerning their spiritual condition we aren't usurping God's thrown of judgment, we're simply reporting the verdict. If what you are saying were true, it would be sinful to quote whole sections of the Bible to people! Not to mention the fact that you'll have lopped your legs off with respect to evangelism. The law and the conviction it brings is the primary and most effective evangelistic tool there is!

That we are to be like Him does not include those aspects of God that we can never claim - we will never be God. We are called to obey, and Christ was clear in His preaching that we are to love one another.

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive concepts. Love and "nice" are, but not love and hate. Painfully executing the murder is the most loving thing a person can do to the murderer. Reviling the blasphemer is likewise the most loving response possible toward those who hate the God we serve. Being nice to such persons is the most damaging and therefore the least loving thing a Christian can do. Loving someone isn't about being nice to them, its about acting in their best interests, even if they hate you for it. Being nice, on the other hand, gets back to that flesh issue you brought up. It has everything to do with emotions. Being nice to someone has two possible motivations. You're either sparing your neighbor's feelings or else you are sparing your own (or both). Either way, its fleshly and wrong. 'Nice' is not in the Bible.

So as my last point on this issue:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Yes, I picked out just two from these, but don't think I miss the part that says "does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth." I think that the word "rejoice" has nothing whatever to do with railing - that is when Paul says "does not rejoice" he doesn't mean "rails against," and when he says "rejoices" he doesn't mean "rubs noses in" or "slaps people in the face with." Remember that among the fruits of the spirit is gentleness - not wimpiness, but gentleness.

First of all, I'd like to encourage you to read the opening post of the following thread....

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16851

Secondly, I'm gentle as a dove (okay maybe not as gentle as a dove) to those who are not my enemies. I'm patient as the Rockies with people who aren't dishonest or blasphemous. I've been blue in the face with repeating myself on the same point because the person(s) I was talking too wasn't being stupid, he just didn't see it yet (there's a whopping big difference). And I'm even kind and patient with my enemies for the longest time! I practically begged Nang to drop her attack mode and engage the debate and did so for weeks and weeks until it proved to be simply a waste of effort and she started intentionally saying one blasphemous thing after another. Contrary to what it might appear by having simply witnessed my interactions with two people during the the last several weeks on this thread, I am not the hot head your post would seem to suggest. I am being very intentional with the way in which I am dealing with both Lon and Nang (primarily Nang).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Anthropomorphisms - The representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits.

Anthropopathisms - Attribution of human feelings to things not human.

The problem with open theism is that open theists only acknowledge one of the above when it comes to God.

Fascinating since it is almost certainly Bob Enyart who is primarily responsible for your even knowing that the term Anthropopathism even exists in the English lexicon. If you didn't hear it from him you heard from someone else who did hear it from him.

Further, Bullinger, the real person who is responsible for the use of this term in Open Theism circles wrote a whole book about figures of speech in the Bible is one of Bob's (and my) favorite Bible scholars.

Both categories are figures of speech, not descriptions of God’s true nature or essence. God does not hate, even though the Bible declares that “You hate all who do iniquity.” (Psalms 5:5). Nor is He jealous, in spite of the Bible telling us “jealousy will burn against that man” who turns away from the Lord (Deu 29:19-20).

So who then shall we believe?
You or the Bible?
Your theology or the plain reading of Scripture?

I'll give you one guess which is the right answer to that question.

God’s purpose in using these teaching aids is certainly not to keep us in the dark as to His true character, nor even to cater to our ignorance, but to enable us to learn.

Which must be why you, and all other people that assume for purely doctrinal reasons that "hate" being ascribed to God is a figure of speech, think that the figure "God hates" means that God does not hate, the exact opposite of what it says.

He comes down to our frame of reference when presenting what otherwise would go as far over our heads “as the heavens are higher than the earth.”

On what basis would you refute the same argument made by David Koresh in defense of his being the Messiah? In other words, if he met your objections to the idea that he was God with, "Well you don't get it because the truths of which I speak are over your head as the heaven are higher than the Earth!" On what basis would you refute that argument?

Unless OVT’s want to advocate that God has grey hair, blue eyes, and sits on a throne with head, shoulders, knees, and toes; they should stop taking the anthropopathisms literally as well

This is fallacious. We have specific and clear Biblical teaching that supports the notion that God does not have hands or feet or arms. We therefore have BIBLICAL reason to take such comments figuratively. You, on the other hand, have no such basis for your doctrine that God is impassible (that God has no feelings). The Bible does not teach such an idea in any way nor does the idea that God does have feelings conflict with any other portion of Scripture.

In short, we take the Bible for what it says unless there is solid Biblical reason to do otherwise. You take the Bible for whatever you need it to mean in order to maintain your tradition and your doctrine.
Indeed, this is the central difference between Open Theism and Reformed theology (and most other theologies for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

There isn't anything to study. You must believe simply what the Bible says. No reason to keep going over the same thing over and over.

Ouch Nick, have you read a dispensational theology book lately? On top of that, I'm Covenant Theology. I believe His plan unfolding and it also drives Calvinist vs. open doctrines: That He knows precisely what He is doing and isn't winging it. I believe in a lot more sovereignty and control with a specific unfolding plan.

Can love be forced? Or is a choice and your own decision? Since love is the greatest of all.

It is placed within us as created beings. I don't think we have to 'choose' to love, it is rather that sin has forced that. It seems wholly reasonable to me that Adam and Eve loved because they were made that way. So where before, it was actual love emanating from their being, we now have to actually choose to do it. It is a defining point from our current condition, in that I agree, but not that it necessarily has to be the definitive.

Paul also said that government is giving his anger and wrath its place. And that is with people against other people. Just don't engage in vigilante justice. I know you aren't making a blanket statement, I just wanted to show that he did in fact delegate his wrath to us.

But how gentle he himself was with such. In Corinthians: 1Co 4:14
1Co 5:13. It isn't done with anger, malice, rage, or vitriol, and the circumstance was extreme misbehavior.

2 Corinthians reveals an incredible turn-around and graciousness
2Co 2:7,8

There was no gladness in discipline nor a casual unconcerned nonchalance in banter or dismiss. Rather it was with heavy care-laden hearts and remorse that they expelled the brother and there was a genuine readiness and longing for re-established fellowship at his repentance. The heart of God is reconciliation. We should be of the same stuff, heart and mind.

 

[godrulz]

Just because we reject meticulous control does not mean we deny that God governs providentially and precisely. He is not a Deist god!

How many unique Rubik's Cube combinations are there? 43 Quintillion.

How does a determinist explain the way people play with this thing leading to EDF?

How does an Arminian explain it with simple foreknowledge, whatever that is (good luck describing its mechanism).

Open Theism has an explanation for why God does not know from trillions of years ago every turn of the cube by every person who has ever or will ever touch one. His lack of EDF in this area surely is a threat to the Book of Revelation coming to pass?!?!:loser:

 

[tetelestai]

Fascinating since it is almost certainly Bob Enyart who is primarily responsible for your even knowing that the term Anthropopathism even exists in the English lexicon. If you didn't hear it from him you heard from someone else who did hear it from him.

Sorry to burst your Enyart bubble, but I was reading the book “The Integrity of God” written by Colonel R.B. Thieme Jr, yesterday. It was published in 1972. On page 4 the word anthropopathism is used and defined in explaining the perfect nature of God.

So, since I first read this book (The Integrity of God) in the mid eighties, and never even heard of Enyart until 2007, and did not read “The Plot” until 2008, your hypothesis is incorrect.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Sorry to burst your Enyart bubble, but I was reading the book “The Integrity of God” written by Colonial R.B. Thieme Jr, yesterday. It was published in 1972. On page 4 the word anthropopathism is used and defined in explaining the perfect nature of God.

So, since I first read this book (The Integrity of God) in the mid eighties, and never even heard of Enyart until 2007, and did not read “The Plot” until 2008, your hypothesis is incorrect.

I heard this figure of speech over 20 years ago ( page 871 ) out of the book:
Figures of Speech in the Bible by E.W Bullinger....written in
1898....

BTW- an excellent book helping out in studying.

 

[godrulz]

I heard this figure of speech over 20 years ago ( page 871 ) out of the book:
Figures of Speech in the Bible by E.W Bullinger....written in
1898....

BTW- an excellent book helping out in studying.

Apparently, this is a classic.

I personally would avoid his dispensational books though.

John Sanders ('The God who risks') deals with this anthropomorphism issue. It is an important hermeneutical issue in the debate. I think he well establishes the OT view on the subject and refutes the classical view that leads to eisegesis.

 

[Lon]

Just because we reject meticulous control does not mean we deny that God governs providentially and precisely. He is not a Deist god!

How many unique Rubik's Cube combinations are there? 43 Quintillion.

How does a determinist explain the way people play with this thing leading to EDF?

How does an Arminian explain it with simple foreknowledge, whatever that is (good luck describing its mechanism).

Open Theism has an explanation for why God does not know from trillions of years ago every turn of the cube by every person who has ever or will ever touch one. His lack of EDF in this area surely is a threat to the Book of Revelation coming to pass?!?!:loser:

Nice reference to your debates with AMR in that last paragraph, nice to see you wrestled with it.

"43 Quintillion" I really need to challenge your very very small box here:

After counting 43 Quintillion years back in history, you still haven't touched an eternal past with even a dot of expression for the considered time-line and amount of vast perfect knowledge of God. Trillions and trillions also is but a piff of what we are talking about here. Your box is way too small.

At this point, I'm just trying to get you to realize your concept for building doctrine is incredibly limited. For us to even express 43 Quintillion, it must be held within God's being (diminishing returns-student (creation) isn't above his master (Creator)...

There are 7 billion people on the planet. On average, we make about 10,000 conscious and unconscious decisions everyday. The average person's head contains 100,000 hairs. There are between 200-400 Billion birds on the planet, yet not one of them falls without our Father knowing.
Has your box expanded at all yet? Or shall I keep going? -43 Quintillion isn't even 1% of what God already knows.

What about premonitions? Matthew 27:19
If humans can have a certain foreknowledge of events, why would this not be more than plausible for God? If we can accurately predict the weather, why wouldn't God, who knows all, be able to know without doubt?
With questions like this, it would press you to a position that most nearly resembles EDF as to be almost Calvinistic.

I may be naive' on this particular, but I only think there are so many patterns to figuring out the cube and am guessing it is less than 100. I've only seen, I think, two solutions that most use.

 

[Nang]

I don't think we have to 'choose' to love, it is rather that sin has forced that. It seems wholly reasonable to me that Adam and Eve loved because they were made that way. So where before, it was actual love emanating from their being, we now have to actually choose to do it. It is a defining point from our current condition, in that I agree, but not that it necessarily has to be the definitive.

Human love was inherent between A&E in the beginning, but like you say, sin destroyed that natural capacity.

But even worse, according to His Holy Law, God cursed A&E through Satan, by imposing enmity in their hearts towards God and His promised seed. (Genesis 3:14-15)

I believe this means it is impossible for any sinner to love God or love his fellow man, without having that curse of enmity removed according to Law.

And this Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, by becoming a curse for us:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:13a

Only the love of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, restores a natural (and spiritual) capacity to love God and our brethren.

"We love God because He first loved us." I John 4:19

This is why love for the brethren is considered evidence of salvation. A professing Christian who loves his brethren and even his enemies, manifests the removal of enmity from his heart by the grace of God.

"He who loves his brother abides in the light . . ." I John 1:10

"Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! . . ." I John 3:1

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." I John 3:14-15

Anyone who considers this divine love, that removed the Godly curse, to be "forced" upon sinners, is denying the very cross work of Jesus Christ.

God does not force the benefits of the atonment upon people; it is His gift. However, God does not sit back and wait for cursed people to choose to love Him. They cannot do so. It is impossible for hearts cursed by God to love God. Such a thing would never happen without God first loving those He has reconciled to Himself.

The heart of God is reconciliation. We should be of the same stuff, heart and mind.

AMEN!

Nang

 

[nicholsmom]

On love being chosen or forced:

It is placed within us as created beings. I don't think we have to 'choose' to love, it is rather that sin has forced that. It seems wholly reasonable to me that Adam and Eve loved because they were made that way. So where before, it was actual love emanating from their being, we now have to actually choose to do it. It is a defining point from our current condition, in that I agree, but not that it necessarily has to be the definitive.

This idea is similar to the one I have about the praise and worship of God - it is automatic when we are near to Him. It isn't that he wants it, needs it, or demands it - it is that it is due Him. When we are near to Him, His infinite beauty and majesty draws from us the most natural response of awe which inspires praise and worship. This is not unlike seeing fireworks (though to a much, much smaller degree) or the ocean, a mountain range, a rainbow, the Niagra Falls. We stand in awe.

Jesus said that if the people lining the streets on Palm Sunday did not praise and worship Him that the very rocks would cry out. Love of God - and therefore of His people (the Spirit in me calls to the Spirit in you) - is likewise automatic the nearer we are to Him. We are drawn to love Him because He has first loved us and revealed Himself to us.

 

[Nick M]

Ouch Nick, have you read a dispensational theology book lately?

Aside from the Bible, no. I have never read any book based on theology, including Bob Enyar'ts The Plot. Should I have? I did read most of The Case for Christ, out of curiosity away from the Bible. But that author did cover the Bible itself, and quite niecely.

I believe His plan unfolding and it also drives Calvinist vs. open doctrines:

I don't disagree that he had a plan, he said so. From the before the foundation of the world. But people's sin got in the way.

That He knows precisely what He is doing and isn't winging it.

So do I. But he can if he needs to do so.

I believe in a lot more sovereignty and control with a specific unfolding plan.

Do you believe the Bible when it says he delegated authority? He isn't the control freak you make him out to be. He does't have pride, as in the vanity type of pride he hates.

I don't think we have to 'choose' to love, it is rather that sin has forced that.

So when God commands that husbands are to love their wives, is he commanding some sort of emotion, or is it an action?

It seems wholly reasonable to me that Adam and Eve loved because they were made that way.

Did they love God when they sinned against him? They had no knowledge of good and evil at the time. So you can't really use them for much.

But how gentle he himself was with such. In Corinthians: 1Co 4:14
1Co 5:13. It isn't done with anger, malice, rage, or vitriol, and the circumstance was extreme misbehavior.

What about when he puts beings into the lake of fire where they are to be tormented day and night forever?

My problem is you make him out to be one dimensional, a machine that has no feelings, and can't choose. When the Bible clearly shows that he does.

 

[Nick M]

What fruit then? Paul expounds on this:
Galations 5: 22-26 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Yes, God showed outbursts of wrath, but then He is holy. He alone is holy and can therefore excercise righteous anger. I do not deny that we gain righteousness from Christ, but we are instructed clearly by Paul to crucify this "work of the flesh." So, once again, what is allowed to God, is disallowed to man - even those who have put on Christ and His righteousness.


So as my last point on this issue:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

One other thing. What are your thougts on Paul(The Holy Spirit) saying this.

2 Thessalonians 1

....We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.
Therefore we also pray always for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power, that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lon, is that love? Flaming fire and vengence? How about you Nicholsmom? Was Paul mistaken, and God does not find it righteous to repay those who trouble you with tribulation? I think the olny problem is identifying those who trouble you.

If somebody cuts me off in traffic, so what. I have a fast car, I will make my own lane.

When keypurr or some other piece of **** comes in here and spreads lies about God, that is trouble. I have a problem with it. And I will repay them with tribulation. Or any other vile demon that comes here, and promotes evil wicked behavior, such as social liberals. They are going to hear about. My gut tells me to do it, and the Bible shows me I am right for doing so.

 

[godrulz]

Nice reference to your debates with AMR in that last paragraph, nice to see you wrestled with it.

"43 Quintillion" I really need to challenge your very very small box here:

After counting 43 Quintillion years back in history, you still haven't touched an eternal past with even a dot of expression for the considered time-line and amount of vast perfect knowledge of God. Trillions and trillions also is but a piff of what we are talking about here. Your box is way too small.

At this point, I'm just trying to get you to realize your concept for building doctrine is incredibly limited. For us to even express 43 Quintillion, it must be held within God's being (diminishing returns-student (creation) isn't above his master (Creator)...

There are 7 billion people on the planet. On average, we make about 10,000 conscious and unconscious decisions everyday. The average person's head contains 100,000 hairs. There are between 200-400 Billion birds on the planet, yet not one of them falls without our Father knowing.
Has your box expanded at all yet? Or shall I keep going? -43 Quintillion isn't even 1% of what God already knows.

What about premonitions? Matthew 27:19
If humans can have a certain foreknowledge of events, why would this not be more than plausible for God? If we can accurately predict the weather, why wouldn't God, who knows all, be able to know without doubt?
With questions like this, it would press you to a position that most nearly resembles EDF as to be almost Calvinistic.

I may be naive' on this particular, but I only think there are so many patterns to figuring out the cube and am guessing it is less than 100. I've only seen, I think, two solutions that most use.

God is omniscient. His knowledge is vast as in His intelligence. The cube is a drop in the bucket. Add myriads of contingencies and it is apparent that there is more unsettledness/openness than you realize. The issues relate to free will, possible objects of certain knowledge, etc. Do you really believe God determines the turn of the cube trillions of years in advance? If He does not, then there is no reason to assume EDF. What extremes you must go to in order to think God does not let us do something as simple as play with a toy without meddling in this. It is not of consequence and God is secure and competent enough to give us genuine freedom in this and other areas. Since we may or may not pick it up, or may turn this way or that, the future is not settled and is thus not known as such (knows reality as it is), at least in this and countless other e.g. If one spins compatibilism (AMR), then we somehow have God controlling the desire as to which way to turn the cube, yet somehow man is still compabitilistically free to do it. Does God really micromanage these desires? Does this really get Him off the hook as the First Cause of evil?

Simplicity and common sense save the day compared to the confusing edifice of determinism/Calvinism to retain flawed sovereignty-free will preconceptions at all costs.

The occasional proximal e.g. of prediction/premonition (?) cannot be extrapolated as proof of EDF of all future free will contingencies (non sequitur?).

The issues of this debate are huge, technical, difficult on one hand, yet simple enough for Joe Plumber to grasp if his brain has not been messed with by indoctrination.

If someone says 'moving or going forward' one more time, I am going to scream. When is this buzz phrase going to die?:singer:

 

[Lighthouse]

Anthropomorphisms - The representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits.

Anthropopathisms - Attribution of human feelings to things not human.

The problem with open theism is that open theists only acknowledge one of the above when it comes to God.

Both categories are figures of speech, not descriptions of God’s true nature or essence. God does not hate, even though the Bible declares that “You hate all who do iniquity.” (Psalms 5:5). Nor is He jealous, in spite of the Bible telling us “jealousy will burn against that man” who turns away from the Lord (Deu 29:19-20).

God’s purpose in using these teaching aids is certainly not to keep us in the dark as to His true character, nor even to cater to our ignorance, but to enable us to learn. He comes down to our frame of reference when presenting what otherwise would go as far over our heads “as the heavens are higher than the earth.”

Unless OVT’s want to advocate that God has grey hair, blue eyes, and sits on a throne with head, shoulders, knees, and toes; they should stop taking the anthropopathisms literally as well

You're an idiot.

 

[godrulz]

You're an idiot.

At least he is a nice guy

 

[tetelestai]

You're an idiot.

Recall that in (John 3:16) Christ was explaining Divine motivation to someone who had no frame of reference to understand anything about God’s essence, let alone about God’s true and magnificent attribute of Divine love.

Nicodemus, for all his intelligence, religious education, and respectability, was an ignorant man regarding the attributes of God. We know that he was on the wrong track because as a legalistic Pharisee he had been striving all his life to impress God with human morality.

But only a person who is misinformed about God’s character, or who is too proud of his own accomplishments to recognize man’s total depravity, would expect Divine approbation for human morality.

But don’t look down your nose at the anccient Pharisee, we all start out at below zero, yet God is always fair to each of us in that He accommodates our stupidity long enough for us to learn basic Truth as a foundation for more advanced Truth.

 

[Lighthouse]

Recall that in (John 3:16) Christ was explaining Divine motivation to someone who had no frame of reference to understand anything about God’s essence, let alone about God’s true and magnificent attribute of Divine love.

Nicodemus, for all his intelligence, religious education, and respectability, was an ignorant man regarding the attributes of God. We know that he was on the wrong track because as a legalistic Pharisee he had been striving all his life to impress God with human morality.

But only a person who is misinformed about God’s character, or who is too proud of his own accomplishments to recognize man’s total depravity, would expect Divine approbation for human morality.

But don’t look down your nose at the anccient Pharisee, we all start out at below zero, yet God is always fair to each of us in that He accommodates our stupidity long enough for us to learn basic Truth as a foundation for more advanced Truth.

Your argument is that God does not love us. You're an idiot.