1 Samuel 8:10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
I Samuel 9:1Sa 9:17 And when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people.
Which king?
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
Saul was a lesson in disobedience all around, chosen as a curse for rejecting God as King over Israel.
Samuel’s warnings didn’t specifically highlight the importance of the king’s obedience to God, rather Samuel predicted a king would oppress the Israelites (i.e. taking their sons, daughters, land, and wealth for his own benefit). Saul’s failures, however, were not about widespread exploitation or tyranny over the people. In fact, he had popular support for much of his reign. Saul’s rebellion was rooted in his personal lack of trust, fear of man, and disregard for God’s explicit commands, which Samuel's warnings did not address.
Then in response to my saying, "God's own words prove your thesis false, Lon. That should be enough for you. Why isn't it?"
you said....
This somewhat minor disagreement here is an excellent example of what happens when one has this idea in their head that they bring with them and then read into the scripture. What you are suggesting simply does not exist in the text itself. You quoted verbatim the very passages that prove you wrong, Lon! Saul didn't take the best of the fields or a tenth of the grain nor did he take the people's servants for his own use or make slaves of any of his people. He didn't do any of that and somehow your mind still reads your desired doctrine into this text so completely that you quote the passage as though it supports a doctrine that you seem to have made up out of whole clothe (or were taught it by someone else who had done so).
It really is an excellent example of what I mean when I say someone is "reading their doctrine into the text"! You'd do yourself a service by making an effort to mentally step back for a second and reread that passage, pretending like you've never read that passage before and that you don't know anything about Samuel or Saul and just read the words themselves to see what they objectively say outside of any theological construct. If you do so, you'll find that your doctrine isn't there. It's an illusion you're seeing that's created by your theological paradigm.
When you break out of all such paradigms where scripture is refracted in order to bring some pet doctrine into focus, and the scripture is simply allowed to say what it says, the result will be open theism.
Happy about that, if shared.
Perhaps not. One of the reasons for my 'how did you get to Open Theism' thread is to try to walk a mile in your shoes and discover perchance underlying differences in our thought processes. Even if unsuccessful, I hope it is appreciable. I care even if this is a fool's errand (I don't think it is, but perhaps the fruit of it isn't going to produce but I tried breaking that fallow ground. After 25 years, I thought to understand a bit more because I believe Open Theists good people with good hearts. We disagree and perhaps there is no way to bridge such, but I do care about you all after 25 years. Continuing on point:
Oh I don't think it's a fool's errand at all! On the contrary, there is something about open theism and the way that open theists think that you're attracted to and that fascinates you. That's a very encouraging sign! If you keep at it, one of these days you'll have a light bulb moment where suddenly the light will come on and you'll see it clear as can be. The paradigm shift will have occurred and you'll understand from experience what I'm talking about when I say that I
used to be the guy who believed all of the normal Christian stuff because then you will be that guy.
True to a point. I also look to the scriptures as you do. We observe something differently. Okay? If we keep sharing in good faith what we see. Prayerfully, we are more like Our Creator for it. I suspect TOL and sites like it exist as proving grounds for our thoughts. This thread is proving ground for consideration of God's omniscience.
I agree with the sentiment here but I feel like you're missing an important part of the "proving ground" analogy.
The willingness to be shown wrong and to adjust thinking in response to results is essential to the very concept of a proving ground. Without this openness (see what I did there!), the entire endeavor would collapse into futility. The underlying presupposition is that reality exists independently of our beliefs or desires, and the purpose of testing is to align our understanding with reality. The tester must prioritize discovering what is true, even if it contradicts prior assumptions or expectations. That's what logic is all about and that's certainly what sound reason is all about; conforming one's thinking to the truth of reality. In essence, the proving ground is only as meaningful as the tester's willingness to confront reality and allow it to shape their understanding and actions. Without this willingness, testing becomes a hollow exercise, serving only to reinforce biases rather than uncover truth. This openness is not just a technical requirement but a profound philosophical and even ethical stance (Oh! I did it again!
).
If someone comes here with that in mind, they're fixing to become an open theist, if they aren't one already, because this objectivity is literally the core attitude that produces the doctrine. It is the reason why we lean on sound reason (i.e. thought governed by objective rules) and the PLAIN reading the the text of scripture. They are the only objective sources of doctrinal truth.
It is a valuation, I'm not offended. It is sincere from you and I don't take it that way. It is an indictment to all of the rest of us because I carry a lot of their theology. I've a good mind, however confused you find me, it is wrought over years of study for 50 years (I started, in a United Methodist church, hearing heresy doctrine and began as 12 to search the scriptures as the sermon went on and then at home to understand what God was and wasn't saying. I'm not a perfect theologian because I'm finite. I look to God who is infinite to grasp even a little of Who He is and must be.
I have no doubt that what you've said here is an honest depiction of your attitudes toward bible study and indeed, we all make errors in our thought process here and there and from time to time. I find myself constantly asking God to show me my errors and for Him to bring me to a place mentally such that I have the courage to correct them when they're found.
I am one step away with panentheism. It greatly distances from pantheism but surely some of those thoughts come to mind because there really is nothing besides God originally. He has never dwelled 'in' something. He is Spirit thus unlike us, not physically anywhere. That is one reason He 'cannot come down and investigate' but in personification (theophanies).
Who taught you such things, Lon?
God can't [
fill in the blank]?
Never mind the fact that this gem of ridiculousness flies directly in the face of what the bible records God HIMSELF saying, how would any sentence that starts with the words, "God cannot..." fit inside the mouth of the guy who intentionally ties himself into intellectual knots for the sole purpose of preserving the Classical doctrine of omnipotence? How does one compartmentalize their mind to such a degree that they can say in one breath that God can do anything at all and in the next breath insist God can't go somewhere to do something that He Himself explicitly states that He's going there to do?
Further, just what is it about being a spirit that would make it impossible for Him to go somewhere? What do you do with the two angels (i.e. spirit being) that visit Lot in Sodom and who physically pull him and his family out of danger, and strike the men of the city with blindness to protect them? How about the angel who rolled back the stone from Jesus' tomb, and the two angels that appeared to Mary and Martha and spoke to them about the resurrection. Were they not really there? Was the rolling away of that physical stone by a spiritual being some sort of metaphor?
I won't even touch, except to mention it, the implications of what you've said here in regards to the conception of Christ and the incarnation itself, not to mention the fact that God the Son was in the grave for three days or that He rose physically from the dead.
A good bit of my intimations to you aren't as spelled out as AMR or Hilston would present them because they were always conscious of expiation of details. My posts would be incredibly long if I followed pattern so I hope often that one will ask or search. Forums are more for soundbytes unfortunately. Next: As always, I do not think like the rest of people, they can inspect the trees and I'm always observing everything in the forest. I try, with you and other concrete sequentials to speak to the need but apologize when that doesn't happen. Finally, I too am prone as many in forums to rabbit trail at times and follow them down.
This is helpful. I have noticed a rather stark lack of precision in your presentations. It helps to know that it is intentional.
It helps. I think the objections create a pushback, if you will with many. This thread and other interactions have led me to believe Open Theists aren't as opposed. It is enlightening that Enyart embraced a sense of omniscience and helpful. Thanks.
Open Theists are nearly as hostile to many Christian doctrines as our openents would have you believe. If you haven't already done so, you'd do well to read
Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views – by Gregory Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Graig & Paul Helm. Boyd does a masterful job of describing the open view and how it isn't so very far away from normal Christian thinking as many accuse it of being.
Just following the logic.
Oh, Lon! This was a lie! Don't destroy a productive discussion by making claims that you know are false as you type them! You aren't following any sort of logic with this! That's just the whole entire point! You don't get to assume the truth of a doctrine and then proceed to read that doctrine into whatever text you want and then proclaim that you're "just following the logic"! That's lying! (To yourself perhaps??)
Impossible.
You say that God can't write a new song.
God wrote over a hundred songs and recorded them in the bible.
Therefore, you're wrong.
You aren't stupid enough to not follow that logic.
After 25 years of discussion with Open Theists? I'm pretty sure I've been over and over links, propositions, inklings. In just this post, I'm even less hung up on the disagreement I'm seeing as minute, presently. Proposition for consideration: If Bob Enyart used "Omniscient," aren't we then simply differentiating a mutual belief? IOW, if an Open Theist preaches omniscience, we are then simply trying to define it and the difference? It places us more on page than not on point if true. I can and do acquiesce that I'm not a Greek nor take those ideas. Rather, like you, I have a biblical context for using the term and likely have a lot of the same ideas involved. It'd seem Omnicompetence is OV's attempt to differentiate. In order to appreciate that, I (and you) had to have this conversation. I pray again for your longsuffering and patience and pray too you hear: I appreciate you. Thanks. -Lon
Well, once again, it isn't the word that's the problem, its the doctrine. Your allegience is not to the words "omnipresence", "omnipotence" and "omnciscience" it's to the doctrines; the Classical doctrines! And you can make the claim as often as you like but the fact is that those Classical doctrines HAVE NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE!!!! Meaning that you CANNOT derive them from the plain reading of the text, but are rather forced to bring them with you in an a priori fashion to the reading of the bible. Go ahead, Lon! Try it! Show me the passage that teaches any one of those Classical doctrines. You'll fail because no such passage exists. The bible simply does not teach that God is a know-it-all control freak, who not only predestined the existence of gay bars but is forced to be a first person witness to every vile act of perversion that happens in the back rooms of such places. In fact, the bible openly contradicts such a conception of God over and over and over again.
"Dang it!" (I tried, failed - was trying to intimate that all we are is 'created.' How do I know this? What 'can' be put there that God didn't intend? Note that it is my position that sin is an absence and breaking. We certainly are different than intent from Genesis givens. Sin is an absence and breaking of what is there. All that is there came from God. Analogy has us away from my intent on topic. Thanks for a moment or many.
