ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[gimp]

I just have to ask this because I don't understand this debate.

Is the United States not a sovereign nation now that a US citizen has rebelled and joined the Taliban? Is the Presidency any less the Presidency because of the kid that joined the Taliban?

If the answer to the above questions is no, how could a God be any less sovereign because someone sinned?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by gimp

I just have to ask this because I don't understand this debate.

Although this isn't really a debate thread (it's more like a smackdown thread), the controversy is indeed over whether or not God is truly sovereign, or if He is just a Poseur and a Big Loser.

gimp writes
Is the United States not a sovereign nation now that a US citizen has rebelled and joined the Taliban? Is the Presidency any less the Presidency because of the kid that joined the Taliban?

The sovereignty of a king or nation is not the same as that of God. Consider the following definitions of "sovereign":

1. Supreme or highest in power; superior to all others; chief; as, our sovereign prince.

2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.

These are human definitions, understood and applied according to the limits of human ability. Sovereignty in the human realm is relative to other humans or nations. God is not sovereign just because his power is only slightly higher than all other powers. He has absolute power. God is not sovereign just because He is independent and unlimited any other power. He has absolute power. And the fact is, sovereignty on a human level is always relative and symbolic, never absolute.

gimp writesIf the answer to the above questions is no, how could a God be any less sovereign because someone sinned?

Since the answer is "yes," the premises you imply by your question are wrong.

Isa 14:24-27 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?

As absolute Sovereign, God will rightly judge you for each and every sin you've committed and you will suffer in utter torment in hell forever.

As someone in open rebellion against your Master and Creator, you need to watch what you say.

Ps 50:16-23 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

 

[godrulz]

How do we know from one post if gimp is a believer or unbeliever?

Disagreeing with Hilston's or Calvin's view of sovereignty does not mean one is unbeliever (how many times is the word sovereignty in the Bible?!).

Hilston assumes his view of sovereignty is the only one. The key is in the definition and understanding of the term. Pressed to its logical conclusion, his view could make God responsible for horrific evil, contrary to His Word and character.

Sovereignty does not have to be meticulous control and full exercise of His power and will in every mundane and moral choice in the universe.

In His sovereignty, He created other beings with free moral agency. The possibility of love and holiness now also had the inherent possibility of hate and evil. Man, not God is culpable for this.

Sovereignty is better seen as providential, dynamic, responsive control. He determines some things and brings it to pass by His power for His purposes. This does not mean He determines every detail along the way.

A coach can give the overall game plan and strategy for a football game. The QB could call a variety of plays on his own and even make mistakes along the way. The coach (cf. God) can adjust the game plan and respond to new contingencies. He does not have to kill or control every player or play on either team to win the game if they are a vastly superior team (God vs man or Satan).

Certainly, God's rule is not identical to a king's rule. God is omnicompetent (all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.) so He does not have to control with brute force and determinism/fatalism. His rule is not dissimilar in every absolute sense from a king's rule. There are parallels. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and rules with persuasion, love, influence, and intervention only when necessary. His sovereignty and glory is upheld while giving genuine, limited freedom to His creatures. This was risky, but a higher good than creating automatons/robots who could not love in freely chosen relationship.

God rules inanimate creation by the law of cause and effect (I can't help but feel that determinism thinks this is how God rules moral beings).

God rules animate creation by the law of instinct (birds migrate, etc.).

God rules moral creation (man and angels) by the law of love and freedom. It is in the realm of choice/morals, not metaphysics (things). This is why man is responsible and accountable, praiseworthy or blameworthy. If God's will is the only factor in the universe, He becomes responsible for moral evil (not just natural 'evil' like judgments by earthquake, etc.). No, No!

The fact that some go to hell does not make God less sovereign unless you define sovereignty incorrectly (meticulous control vs providential control). There is a consequence to rebellion, but it does not threaten the one on the throne. He scoffs and laughs at the wicked who refuse to bow their knee.

So, the correct answer for gimp is 'yes' unless you are locked into the assumptions of Calvinism (which is wrongly assumed to be biblical; it is actually problematic).

He is King of kings, Lord of lords, the Sovereign potentate!

 

[Hilston]

Gimp asked: "Is the United States not a sovereign nation now that a US citizen has rebelled and joined the Taliban?

godrulz answers: "So, the correct answer for gimp is 'yes' unless you are locked into the assumptions of Calvinism (which is wrongly assumed to be biblical; it is actually problematic)."

Gimp asked: "Is the Presidency any less the Presidency because of the kid that joined the Taliban?"

godrulz answers: "So, the correct answer for gimp is 'yes' unless you are locked into the assumptions of Calvinism (which is wrongly assumed to be biblical; it is actually problematic)."

:kookoo:

 

[gimp]

Although this isn't really a debate thread (it's more like a smackdown thread)

That is an interesting statement. It assumes that everyone agrees with what you have said and that you have provided arguments that are unanswerable in anyone elses mind. It speaks to me of a guy who is legend in his own mind, kind of a slightly more polite sozo.

There are many arguments against determinism that have never been defeated to the satisfaction of all human beings, so just stating a deterministic premise doesn't make it either unanswerable or true.

It seems to me that you have made your God into your own image. You decided he couldn't allow people to make their own decisions. However, if I have understood anything that you have written here your position is that your God can do anything he so chooses. If this premise is true then he could also allow people to choose things for themselves without his interference or pre-determination. That would fall well into the realm of his perogatives as a sovereign ruler because no one can tell him what to do. If he is not able to choose to do that then he himself does not have free will, but is controlled by something larger than himself. As I understand your view of your God this possibility is unacceptable to you yet it is a valid possibility.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Hilston

Gimp asked: "Is the United States not a sovereign nation now that a US citizen has rebelled and joined the Taliban?

godrulz answers: "So, the correct answer for gimp is 'yes' unless you are locked into the assumptions of Calvinism (which is wrongly assumed to be biblical; it is actually problematic)."

Gimp asked: "Is the Presidency any less the Presidency because of the kid that joined the Taliban?"

godrulz answers: "So, the correct answer for gimp is 'yes' unless you are locked into the assumptions of Calvinism (which is wrongly assumed to be biblical; it is actually problematic)."

:kookoo:

Those sentences were not my simplistic answer to gimp. It was the final statement of a cogent and reasonable argument expanded on before the final conclusion. Refute the argument, not the sentence out of context.

Is it possible or plausible to define sovereignty differently than your assumptions? Yes. A Sovereign can chose to have varying levels of control and freedom in his kingdom/universe.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by gimp

That is an interesting statement. It assumes that everyone agrees with what you have said and that you have provided arguments that are unanswerable in anyone elses mind. It speaks to me of a guy who is legend in his own mind, kind of a slightly more polite sozo.

There are many arguments against determinism that have never been defeated to the satisfaction of all human beings, so just stating a deterministic premise doesn't make it either unanswerable or true.

It seems to me that you have made your God into your own image. You decided he couldn't allow people to make their own decisions. However, if I have understood anything that you have written here your position is that your God can do anything he so chooses. If this premise is true then he could also allow people to choose things for themselves without his interference or pre-determination. That would fall well into the realm of his perogatives as a sovereign ruler because no one can tell him what to do. If he is not able to choose to do that then he himself does not have free will, but is controlled by something larger than himself. As I understand your view of your God this possibility is unacceptable to you yet it is a valid possibility.

This sounds reasonable. Tell us more about your background gimp. Sorry to hear you are gimped.

Which is more praiseworthy? A dictator or parent that exercises his power and control all the time because of his power or position, or one that gives freedom to subjects or children to grow and mature, even if it means making mistakes or having the potential of rebellion?

It is a bad parent who controls rather than molds their children into responsible, mature individuals.

It is an oppressive ruler who exercises power when it is not necessary to do so at the expense of freedom and personal responsibility. This breeds lip service, not loyal subjects. Love trumps fear.

God is not a control freak. He is a responsive, providential Ruler and 'parent' who works out of love rather than control. He is omnicompetent and not insecure as to have to always have His way. Scripture gives verses and examples of God's will be opposed and thwarted. This grieves God, but His love demands this possibility. The less wise alternative would be deterministic fatalism. It is disingenuous to say determinism and freedom are compatible. This is not genuine free moral agency, but an illusion.

 

[gimp]

godrulz,

I am someone that has been around Christians, studied the Bible, but never accepted it in the way I see someone should from what I have understood of it. I am not anti-Christian by means, I just have never made a decision for it.

Gimp, as referenced in my username, is an open source graphics program first made for Linux but now available for Windows for free too. Some say it is about on par with Adobe Photoshop. I don't know if that's true as I have never been able to afford Photoshop, but I do know Gimp is powerful.

BTW, I like reading your posts. They are thoughtful, coherent, lack any personal animosity, and you write very fluently.

 

[gimp]

Here is what I see of Hilston's philosophy and how he describes his God.

To see his God in the terms he uses one must many time accept that the terms he uses also include the antonyms of very words he uses to describe him. When Hilston says his God is loving, one must also include the meanings of the terms tyrannical, despostic, and micro-manager to arrive at the meaning of what Hilston sees as a loving God. Unless that is, Hilston sees those attributes as loving when expressed in a human being.

To arrive at the meaning of the word soveriegn in Hilston's vocabulary one must also include the meaning of the terms tyrant, despot, and micro-manager. It has always been my experience that the more powerful an individual is the less need they have to control every action, unless that is, they also fit the meanings of the terms tyrant, despot, micro-manager, and/or the description of a very insecure personality.

Somebody who is secure in themselves doesn't need to control each and every action and thought of those under his power. A benevolent ruler only sets the broad guidelines for behavior. He establishes right and wrong for the good of his subjects and sets the punishments for breaking the rules, but feels no need of making every decsion for everyone. However, if Hilston's God fit this description Hilston would declare him a loser and posuer. Thus Hilston's God has to fit the defintion of tyrant, despot, and micromanager.

I also don't think Hilston sees Jesus as God, unless he thinks his God has psychotic breaks and became a completely different person on earth than he was before he came here and after he left here, or Jesus was a posuer. As I've read the Bible I don't see a despotic, tyrannical, or micro-managing personality and character in Jesus. If Hilston's God is really like he describes him there are only two options that I can see left open for him to explain this discrepancy.

1. jesus was just putting on a show here on earth. He was really only a posuer pretending to be someone he wasn't.

2. Jesus had a psychotic break during the time he was here on earth. His personality and character were the opposite of who he was before and who he is afterward.

I really don't see any other options left open unless Hilston want's to deny all versions of the doctrine of the trinity that I have heard.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by gimp

godrulz,

I am someone that has been around Christians, studied the Bible, but never accepted it in the way I see someone should from what I have understood of it. I am not anti-Christian by means, I just have never made a decision for it.

Gimp, as referenced in my username, is an open source graphics program first made for Linux but now available for Windows for free too. Some say it is about on par with Adobe Photoshop. I don't know if that's true as I have never been able to afford Photoshop, but I do know Gimp is powerful.

BTW, I like reading your posts. They are thoughtful, coherent, lack any personal animosity, and you write very fluently.

Pleased to meet you. Do I take it that you are pre-Christian? Two roads diverged in a wood...and I took the one less travelled by...and that has made all the difference (poor paraphrase of Robert Frost poem).

When Christianity went from my head to my heart it transformed me. There is a vast difference between speculating about God, and knowing Him personally. I encourage you to pursue the God who is pursuing you. We come to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Jn. 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12). He alone gives abundant and eternal life. I realize some Christians seem to misrepresent God, but see Him in His awesome beauty and majesty. He alone is worthy and the most valuable being in the universe. He commands us to come in repentant faith. Surrender on His terms.

God bless you on your faith journey. You will find Christianity coherent and defensible. You will find the Christ of Christianity to be Lord and God, the mighty risen Savior.



Phil. 2:5-11 relates to the incarnation of Christ.

Jesus is God with a face. If you see Jesus, you see what the Father is like (Jn. 14:9). He is the exact representation of God since He is God (Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15 ff.).

The Calvinistic blueprint worldview is contradicted by the open warfare model demonstrated in the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus' glory was veiled as the God-man, so He was not superman-God. Yet, He certainly was not a control-freak. He was in control, but He did not rely on the Father to micromanage and control every moral and mundane choice in the universe.

Determinism is worthy of Islam and fatalism, not the omnicompetent God of glory.

 

[gimp]

Pleased to meet you. Do I take it that you are pre-Christian? Two roads diverged in a wood...and I took the one less travelled by...and that has made all the difference (poor paraphrase of Robert Frost poem).

I couldn't really say as yet. I simply don't know.

See, it is for this reason that I must deny determination. If I am to make a decision, and be held morally accountable for that decision, then I must be able to freely choose for or against. I can see where there are influences both for and against every decision we make, but I cannot see how determinism can be true if moral responsibility really exists. If moral responsibility doesn't exist then I'd say all of humanity has been living in a fantasy ever since humans have existed. And, if determinism is untrue then so is everything that Hilston posits about his God.

I really don't see Hilston's image of his God so much about the Bible as I do it about determinism. The Bible clearly has evidence for both sides of the issue, so the deciding factor is whether one accepts determinism with all its flaws as true or not. If one accepts determinism as true then one can only see those things in the Bible that reinforce that belief, and interpret all other passages through that paradigm. It's the only possible way I can think to see things as he does, I just don't like the logical conclusions one must draw from those starting points. They just aren't logical or sensible.

 

[godrulz]

It seems that you are philosphically astute. I concur that determinism is incompatible with freedom and moral responsibility. It also makes God culpable for heinous evil, which He most certainly is not.

Here is another possible resolution proposed by Dr. Gregory Boyd and others:

Some, but not all, of the future is determined by God. Such things as creation, the incarnation, future end-time judgments, the Second Coming, etc. are determined (at least after the Fall) and will happen regardless of what man choses. This does not mean every detail is ordained. It is not necessary to control everything to bring His major purposes to pass. He is creative, responsive , and omnicompetent.

Much of the future is genuinely open. Areas of contingencies (may or may not happen), moral choices, mundane choices, eternal destinies, etc. are not fixed. We can chose between alternatives and are responsible for our choices. Possibilities do not become certainties/actualities until the choice is made. We have genuine free moral agency (personal and moral image of God).

So, some passages do support determinism, but it is wrong to extrapolate this to every detail in the universe. Other passages show God changing His mind in response to man's response and a future that is not fixed. Prayer and evangelism can change the course of personal and national history.

 

[gimp]

Much of the future is genuinely open. Areas of contingencies (may or may not happen), moral choices, mundane choices, eternal destinies, etc. are not fixed. We can chose between alternatives and are responsible for our choices. Possibilities do not become certainties/actualities until the choice is made. We have genuine free moral agency (personal and moral image of God).

So, some passages do support determinism, but it is wrong to extrapolate this to every detail in the universe. Other passages show God changing His mind in response to man's response and a future that is not fixed. Prayer and evangelism can change the course of personal and national history.

I agree that there has to be other possibilities other than Hilston's assumptions. If the God of the Bible is who he says he is, then much of what Hilston posits can't be true, for he describes himself as having the attributes of lovingkindness, mercy, and reasonable because he asks people to reason with him. This describes a leader who would be described as benevolent, kindly, and caring. One who is out to influence people, not coerce them and then hold them responsible for what he made them do.

To tell the truth I see personal responsibility and moral responsibility taught in the Bible. Since those concepts are greatly at odds with determinism then it is hardly likely that the God of the Bible would place his creation under the bondage of such a thing as determinism. Reasoning with a robot is not possible. A robot cannot truly appreciate love, mercy, kindness, or any of the other attributes which the God of the Bible describes himself. Thus determinism makes the Bible kind of a fatuous exercise in which God would talk to himself. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[natewood3]

gimp,

Is God a God of wrath, fury, anger, and judgment as well as love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by natewood3

gimp,

Is God a God of wrath, fury, anger, and judgment as well as love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness?

Bien sur (of course). Justice and wrath flow out of His love and holiness. His mercy must be exercised consistent with His responsibility as the Moral Governor of the universe. A judge does not extend mercy and turn all the mass murders lose into society. The law has penalties for a reason. Repentance is a condition of forgiveness, resulting in transformation.

Gimp?

 

[gimp]

On the subject of a personality and character containing equally distinguishing features fury and kindliness, anger and love, wrath and mercy I have to say these are concepts that are so divergent that we would say a human being was psychotic who had equal amounts of each.

Yes, a loving person can get angry about something, but is anger a prominent feature of who they are? Not at all. Is a kind person known for their fury? Not at all. Fury just isn't a distinctive characteristic associated with kindliness, and neither is it a distinguishing feature of love.

On mercy and judgment, and I'll throw justice into the mix, I find that if someone isn't just they can't really be merciful, and if one can't be merciful one can't be just either. These concepts are very much intertwined. But are fury and anger closely associated with mercy and justice? Once again, no.

So, once again I see people trying to make their God reflect something that we don't see in reality. I see them attempting to make antonyms into synonyms. Opposing emotions and characteristics aren't found in equal proportions in one individual. It's impossible. One can't be psychotic and sane at the same time. One can't be full of anger and fury, and be just and merciful at the same time. One side or the other will rule in the individual. It's just not logical and consistent to think otherwise.

 

[godrulz]

Justice and mercy do not have to be seen as equal dualisms. God demonstrates justice against unrepentant, persistent rebels; He extends mercy to those who come in repentance and embrace God's provision for the penalty of sin (death) in the person and work of Christ. So, the object of God's mercy or wrath is another factor in addition to His character and ways. He is wise and righteous in all He does. It would be unwise to show mercy where justice is indicated (public good).

 

[gimp]

godrulz,

You misunderstood what I said.

To be truly merciful justice must be dispensed, or else mercy is meaningless. However, justice is not justice if the penalty is dispensed in fury or anger. It is then revenge or spite.

My point is all about how unity of personhood, character and personaility does not allow opposing characteristics to be dominant in the same person. A wrathful person is not a loving person. An angry person is not a kindly person. I'm talking about the person as a whole, not individual events. Kind people may get angry but they are not continually angry. Loving people may become wrathful, but they are not that way on a consistent basis.

What you, natewood, and Hilston describe to me as your God is someone who is continually angry, wrathful, merciful, just, kind, and loving all at the same time. This just does not compute. It is psychotic.

A loving person can dispense justice, a kind person may have to show anger or become wrathful at times, but these characteristics are not on continuous display at the same time in the same person. That is both illogical and non-sensical.

Take yourself as an example. Do you hate me because I am not a Christian? It doesn't seem so, yet if what you, Hilston and natewood are putting forth is true God will hate me simply because I am not a Christian and love you. Thus the same person is continously displaying love and hatred at the same time.

It does not compute. Either a person is loving, or they aren't. A loving person does not hate those who disagree with them. He may break off any kind of relationship with them, but he doesn't hate. It is against his nature. A kind ruler does not hate those who break his rules, but he may very well have do his duty and execute justice when all else fails. It all goes to unity of personhood.

 

[godrulz]

"God is love" is the most basic biblical revelation of who He is. God loves all men impartially all the time. He does not love Christians and hate non-Christians. He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were sinners, He died for us.

His anger, wrath, and justice flow out of His great love and holiness. They are not in opposition to it.

We cannot compare mere mortals with the living God. God's anger is righteous indignation, not vengeful spite. God loves truth and hates error and sin. This does not mean He hates your guts.

Most people believe God is in a timeless 'eternal now'. This is illogical. A personal being (will, intellect, emotion) must experience in sequence, succession, duration=time.

So it is possible for God to experience great joy and delight in His children and yet be grieved, disappointed, hurt, 'angry' when they rebel or disobey (cf. Gen. 3). God's emotions and dispositions are seen at different times in different ways depending on the circumstances. He is infinite, so He can experience great joy and great pain in His heart as He delights in one person and grieves at the wickedness of another person. We are finite, so do not have the same capacity in an identical manner.

 

[natewood3]

gimp,

You seem to be rejecting the Bible, not Hilston, godrulz, and I...when you read the Scriptures, ask God to open your eyes so that you may truly see Him for who He really is.