Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[godrulz]

Eternal punishment and eternal life are used in the same sentence by Jesus. Eternal modifies each of the words. If eternal life is forever, one would think punishment is forever. JWs try to say that annihilation is forever, but that strains the text.

Hell is a temporary holding tank for the wicked. Someday, it will be thrown into the permanent lake of fire that burns forever. The burning bush of Moses burned without being consumed. I wish the lake of fire would consume everything, but this seems contrary to all the verses related to eternal punishment. Our arguments have to be based on revelation, not sentimental views about God. Hell is not a medieval torture chamber. It is a place of separation from God.

It is possible that the immortality of the soul is a pagan Greek concept. Yet, the creation of man's spirit at conception seems to be an irreversible gift. All men live forever. God does not destroy His creation. It is a matter of where they will spend eternity. It would not be just to annihilate Satan. His evil needs to be punished forever or He gets off easy. It does say that men will join Satan and be tormented forever and ever. The continuous nature of this and the word for torment do not support annihilation. It seems that the soul is not immortal in and of itself, but that God breathes everlasting existence into His creation at conception. He gives eternal life and immortality to those who trust Him. Death/separation (death does not mean annihilation in Scripture....it calls living people 'dead' in their sins) are the consequences of rebellion against God.

see Mt. 25:41,46; Rev. 20:10,15

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

We might clarify that God is immutable in some senses, but changes in other senses.

His uncreated attributes do not change. His moral character is consistent. However, His experiences and relations do change. These are outside of His being, but they do affect Him personally. When God said creation was 'very good', He had a certain inner disposition. When man fell, He was grieved and regretted making man. This was a change in His inner disposition without making Him imperfect or changing His essential character and attributes. An absolutely changeless personal being is no better than an impersonal rock.

This clarification has been made about a dozen times already but there's no harm in re-clarifing it since Airy seems to ignore primary points of the argument.

AiryStottel,

Please answer these questions. I will not respond any further to you on this topic until you do so.

Has God always been a man?

Has God ever been a man?

Is God a man today?

Has God ever died?

Is God dead now?

In what way is it possible to reconcile the incarnation, crucifixion, burial and resurrection with the idea that God is utterly immutable?

The last question is by far the more important. A simple yes or no answer will suffice on all but the that last question. In fact, if all you do is answer the last question that will be fine with me and frankly more than I would expect from you at this point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Let's take this to PMs. If I don't get back to you, within a day, PM me about it.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

12/26/04
To godrulz

Once again, you try to obfuscate the issue. Perhaps if you understood what omniscient means, you wouldn’t be making blasphemous statements.

From Webster’s dictionary:
Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

You imply you believe God is omniscient, but you really don’t understand what it is you are saying. If God is omniscient, that means that God has total knowledge of what we consider the past, present and future.

When you agree with Pinnock that “aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known, even to God”, you are denying that God is omniscient. That, my friend, is blasphemy, and as you very well know, blasphemy is anything which derogates from the prerogatives of God. You need to do a lot more research before YOU can lecture ME on what blasphemes the one true God and what does not.

You wrongly assume that God views time the same way we view it. Time is a measurement just as 36 inches is a measurement. Measurements are not things, but you need things to measure.. If you knew the difference between the being of God, Who is eternal, or immeasurable, and time, which IS measurable, then you could see why you are tying yourself all up in knots. Time is meaningless without things to measure. How do you propose to measure God?

Also, you do not have to be a Calvinist to reject open-ended theology, you simply need common sense. By espousing that theology, it necessitates the rejection of God’s attributes, because when you reject one attribute, the domino theory takes effect because once you take away one of God’s perfections, it affects all of God’s perfections. For example, if you say that God is not omniscient because God has no knowledge of the future, then that impacts the attribute of omnipotence, etc., etc., etc.

Once you make God less than absolute perfection, the road to hell gets steeper and steeper. May you reverse your direction before you find it impossible to do so. Although God’s mercy is infinite, we must never forget that God’s justice is also infinite.

Airy

Airy,Look up the term circular reasoning then re-read all 14 your own posts. Come back and see us when your headache goes away.

 

[godrulz]

circular reasoning=begging the question= logical fallacy of assuming what you are trying to prove...common error we must all guard against.

 

[AiryStottel]

To deardelmar:

YOU WROTE:
Airy,Look up the term circular reasoning then re-read all 14 your own posts. Come back and see us when your headache goes away.

MY RESPONSE:
Other than uttering blasphemies, when are you going to equate God's omniscience (infinite knowledge) with God not knowing the future. YOU are the one using circular reasoning like the dog chasing its tail.

When are you going to get it that infinite knowledge is exactly ALL knowledge. Your biggest error is that you confuse things eternal with things temporal, and you'll never figure this thing out unless you grow in wisdom, age, and grace. Right now, you are being stampeded and following the lemmings. Misery loves company as they say.

Airy

 

[AiryStottel]

To godrulz

Your sincerity shines through, but the road to hell is paved with false sincere convictions.

YOU WROTE:
God has everything, but He does not NEED anything. He is self-sufficient and perfect. To experience changing thoughts, feelings, acts, relations, love, creativity, etc. is not a technical need. It is simply the glorious, perfect reality of any personal being, including God. Jesus is the PERFECT God-Man. He is God with a face. He GREW (= change, by definition) spiritually, intellectually, physically, socially (Luke 2:52). These changes did not make Him imperfect. God the Father did not change as a man, but the principle also applies to Him. There are some ways He changes (relations, communication, fellowship, experiences of changing reality, etc.) without becoming less than perfect. He does not change in His essential uncreated being/attributes/character. He does change in relation to external realities that He created. When a baby is conceived and born, this is new reality for the parents and God that did not co-exist with God from eternity past. It is a new object of knowledge that was once possible and is now actual. Your root assumptions about God and change are flawed.

MY RESPONSE
God is pure act. If you reread your post, you are denying this, and that is blasphemy (diminishing God's attributes, derogating God's attribute of immutability. THINK! Whose root assumptions are flawed? I have never described God as being less than absolute perfection. YOU JUST HAVE.

Because you are sincerely searching, I honestly pray that you will find the one true God, and when you do, you will understand what I am saying. The one true God is absolute perfection and that means that God lacks nothing, not future knowledge, not anything, and that perfection is eternal and will never change.

Airy

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

To deardelmar:

YOU WROTE:
Airy,Look up the term circular reasoning then re-read all 14 your own posts. Come back and see us when your headache goes away.

MY RESPONSE:
Other than uttering blasphemies, when are you going to equate God's omniscience (infinite knowledge) with God not knowing the future. YOU are the one using circular reasoning like the dog chasing its tail.

When are you going to get it that infinite knowledge is exactly ALL knowledge. Your biggest error is that you confuse things eternal with things temporal, and you'll never figure this thing out unless you grow in wisdom, age, and grace. Right now, you are being stampeded and following the lemmings. Misery loves company as they say.

Airy

If the lemmings represent the majority, classical view, then you are the one following the herd.

The alternate view is a minority position (Open Theism) and considered heretical by most of the old guard who assume Calvinism, Augustinianism, etc. are explicitly biblical.

To help you understand that there are legitimate theories about the nature of God, time, and eternity, try this fair approach by Intervarsity Press (arguments; responses):

"God and Time: 4 views" ed. Ganssle

Contributors:

Paul Helm= divine timeless eternity (your view)

Alan Padgett= eternity as relative timelessness

William Lane Craig= timelessness and omnitemporality

Nicholas Wolterstorff= unqualified divine temporality (my view)

Until you understand and are familiar with alternate views (the authors claim to base ideas on Scripture and sound philosophy), you should not be so dogmatic, arrogant, and condescending. The strengths and weaknesses of each view must be factored in. In the end, the Bible is not explicit on the exact nature of God's relation to time and what exactly eternity is.

You still have not told us your background and influences. Is the 'pure act' concept Bultmann, Karl Barth, Hartshorne, Anselm, Thomas, Hegel, etc.? It is not an explicitly biblical concept, but a philosophical one. You probably picked the idea up from one of the modern theologians. Philosophical speculation does not determine salvation or blasphemy. Salvation is in Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12; 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Where did you get those ideas?

Have you considered what He said about Himself?

 

[Sozo]

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever."


So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.


Based on your non-blasphemous logic , AiryStottel, God has always had in His mind all things for all eternity. Yet, we see here that God changed His mind. How can God change His mind if it was always in His mind?

 

[AiryStottel]

To godrulz

YOU WROTE
If the lemmings represent the majority, classical view, then you are the one following the herd.

The alternate view is a minority position (Open Theism) and considered heretical by most of the old guard who assume Calvinism, Augustinianism, etc. are explicitly biblical.

To help you understand that there are legitimate theories about the nature of God, time, and eternity, try this fair approach by Intervarsity Press (arguments; responses):

"God and Time: 4 views" ed. Ganssle

Contributors:

Paul Helm= divine timeless eternity (your view)

Alan Padgett= eternity as relative timelessness

William Lane Craig= timelessness and omnitemporality

Nicholas Wolterstorff= unqualified divine temporality (my view)

Until you understand and are familiar with alternate views (the authors claim to base ideas on Scripture and sound philosophy), you should not be so dogmatic, arrogant, and condescending. The strengths and weaknesses of each view must be factored in. In the end, the Bible is not explicit on the exact nature of God's relation to time and what exactly eternity is.

You still have not told us your background and influences. Is the 'pure act' concept Bultmann, Karl Barth, Hartshorne, Anselm, Thomas, Hegel, etc.? It is not an explicitly biblical concept, but a philosophical one. You probably picked the idea up from one of the modern theologians. Philosophical speculation does not determine salvation or blasphemy. Salvation is in Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12; 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Where did you get those ideas?

Have you considered what He said about Himself?
------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE

It will not hurt me to read blasphemous writings because it only fortifies what I have already stated, and gives me more ammunition with which to denounce the heretical beliefs being propagated by the lemmings. So I will try to find and read each of them.

I came to this forum to try to understand why so many people are confused about the nature of God, why they are joining others in the slide down the slippery slope into perdition. So far, I have concluded they like to have their ears tickled. But God’s truth was not meant for that sort of thing. People are throwing away an aeveternity with God for a bowl of lentil soup. What a shame! What a pity!

There are no other reasons for why I came to this forum. Who I am, whether I am female or not, whether I have one or more degrees, is inconsequential during a debate. Only the arguments are of importance. The only thing I can tell you is that my writings have been published and include comprehensive research into the real nature of God, the most thorough analysis of Christ’s teachings and what he really meant by what he said, and volumes of other writings. Be that as it may, in the kingdom of God, I am merely a servant, and I refuse to have the holiest of names left undefended from attacks by those who would corrupt it by derogating it through blasphemous doctrines.
Your questions, although not germane to the topic in question, may be of interest to you, but I am only interested in getting to the root causes of why and who started this open-ended theology doctrine. Christ’s attributes are for another discussion, as far as I am concerned.
I honestly do appreciate your sincerity in how you present your arguments, and I hope you understand that I am not trying to be mean, but I am very defensive when God’s name is attacked in such sinister ways.

Airy

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

I am very defensive when God’s name is attacked in such sinister ways.

Airy

Me too! :thumb:

So, when are you going to address my questions?

 

[Clete]

Hello?

AiryStottel! Do you intend to answer these questions or not?



Has God always been a man?

Has God ever been a man?

Is God a man today?

Has God ever died?

Is God dead now?

In what way is it possible to reconcile the incarnation, crucifixion, burial and resurrection with the idea that God is utterly immutable?

The last question is by far the more important. A simple yes or no answer will suffice on all but the that last question. In fact, if all you do is answer the last question that will be fine with me and frankly more than I would expect from you at this point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I have a theory!

My intuition is telling me that something isn't right about this AiryStottle guy. I think there are two main possibilities.

1. That he is either lying about being highly educated and published.

or

2. That he is Freak (or maybe Freaks best friend) or at the very least the spirit of Freak has taken over Airy's body. :freak:

His posts seem very Freak-ish to me as does his outrageous arrogance and hypocrisy.

Does anyone agree or do you think I'm just jumping to conclusions?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I have a theory!

My intuition is telling me that something isn't right about this AiryStottle guy. I think there are two main possibilities.

1. That he is either lying about being highly educated and published.

or

2. That he is Freak (or maybe Freaks best friend) or at the very least the spirit of Freak has taken over Airy's body. :freak:

His posts seem very Freak-ish to me as does his outrageous arrogance and hypocrisy.

Does anyone agree or do you think I'm just jumping to conclusions?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete... I was going to suggest the exact same thing this morning, but had meetings to attend. If this is not :freak: , he certainly has the same boneheaded spirit.

:think: Maybe we should ask him what he thinks of the death penalty? :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well it appears AiryStottel wants nothing to do with my response to him in my last post located... here.

That's OK I don't blame him, there really isn't any way for him to respond to it without losing the debate so I am guessing AiryStottel will be happy to just sit there and refuse to move his checkers.

I will move on to a couple of other things AiryStottel has stated....

Originally posted by AiryStottel
To say limits can be placed on God, is blasphemous,

Is that so?

Can God not even limit Himself?

If so... God is limited to NOT being able to limit Himself and therefore He is limited.

Truth be told....
God is all powerful, so powerful that He even has power over His own power! He has the ability to limit Himself in anyway He so desires. Afterall He did dwell among us as a man and the Bible describes how He limited Himself....

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

The above is a clear example of God placing limits on Himself. He is indeed that powerful!

Therefore...
To state that God cannot be limited in any way is in error.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Furthermore....

Just look at the limits that even AiryStottel places on God in the past few pages...

Originally posted by AiryStottel
Did you know that God is pure act? Do you know what pure act means? It means there is no potentiality in God.

AiryStottel limits God to "no potentialities" and also limits God to a "pure act". I am not saying I necessarily disagree with these statements I am merely pointing out that they are limitations.

Originally posted by AiryStottel
My friend, God is absolutely omnipotent

AiryStottel limits God to "absolutely omnipotent".

Originally posted by AiryStottel
Blasphemy is something that God will not tolerate . . . ever

AiryStottel limits God to "never tolerating blasphamy".

Originally posted by AiryStottel
God’s mercy is infinite

AiryStottel limits God's mercy to being "infinite". By the way.... this will also be my segue to my next post to AiryStottel.

OK... all of this is rather silly I agree but I think we can safely say that when AiryStottel made the claim.... "To say limits can be placed on God, is blasphemous" it was a claim that was not only in error but a claim that not even AiryStottel could maintain himself.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Knight

Well it appears AiryStottel wants nothing to do with my response to him in my last post located... here.

That's OK I don't blame him, there really isn't any way for him to respond to it without losing the debate so I am guessing AiryStottel will be happy to just sit there and refuse to move his checkers.

I just think it amusing that he has the stones to accuse others of refusing to answer!

Originally posted by AiryStottel
To Clete:
If you refuse to answer my question, how can we have an honest debate on this question of open-ended theology? My question is this: do you believe that God is absolutely perfect? Yes or no!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by AiryStottel
God’s mercy is infinite

Hmmmm... :think: is that statement accurate?

I think so... but only if properly defined. God does not show mercy to EVERYONE all the time does He? Of course not! There are untold millions and billions that die without God's mercy being applied to them and therefore in the raw sense God's mercy is NOT limitless.

However....
One could say.... in any circumstance where righteous mercy is in order God's mercy is indeed limitless. In other words... God doesn't always show His mercy but He has enough mercy to show it when ever He so desires.

Ok now that that is out of the way lets talk about mercy.

What is mercy?

And what does mercy tell us about God's immutability?

mercy
n 1: leniency and compassion shown toward offenders by a person or agency charged with administering justice; "he threw himself on the mercy of the court"

I think that's a pretty fair definition don't you? God at times shows mercy or compassion towards humans, nations, churches, families etc. The demands of justice are sometimes met through mercy in the right circumstances.

But if God were truly immutable as so many claim how could God show mercy? Mercy is a change word! God is ready to dispense punishment but for a variety of reasons He CHANGES His course and applies compassion in the form of mercy!

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.

Condemnation is in order for all sinners...

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

But when sinners turn to God and the work on the cross God shows mercy upon them through His grace.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Therefore...
IF God has infinite mercy He also has an infinite ability to change His course so that mercy can be manifested in a real sense.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Knight
Therefore...
IF God has infinite mercy He also has an infinite ability to change His course so that mercy can be manifested in a real sense.

:thumb: :BRAVO:

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Knight



AiryStottel limits God to "never tolerating blasphamy".

AiryStottel limits God's mercy to being "infinite". By the way.... this will also be my segue to my next post to AiryStottel.

Talk about painting himself into a corner! God's mercy is limited, by what he will not tolerate!