Our Moral God

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Sorry, but you're wrong. When God speaks what doesn't exist begins to exist. Earth didn't exist until He spoke it into existence.

No one has said otherwise.

Also, do you really think an evil God would be a positive addition to the universe?

No one has suggested such.

Is that something that is really a limitation, or is that the greatest major positive attribute of God for the universe?

What are you even talking about?

You're actually arguing for sin being a positive influence in the universe.

No, he's not.

You seem to desire God to not be love and to be hateful.

No, he doesn't.

Love and hate are polar opposites.

Can God love? Can God hate?

Those are not rhetorical questions. Please answer both of them.

To say they aren't is impossible. It's like saying darkness and light are the same thing.

No one has said otherwise.

It seems to me you are going to self destructive extremes to defend open theism.

Please get your eyes checked.

Not good, as you are directly contradicting scripture with your assertions.

So demonstrate that, rather than just stating it as if it were true.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So, if you can forgive the crude analogy, if I add eggs to flour to make dough. Do I have two things or just one new thing?
I don't think that this analogy is appropriate.

In what way are a divine nature and a human nature like eggs and flour? How does a divine nature and a human nature "mix" or "blend"?
I feel like it's just one new thing.
I don't see any good support for this.

Yes, the ONE Jesus has BOTH of those natures as you have pointed out. BOTH literally means TWO, so I think that you have already conceded the argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Have a link? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2010/01/20/mormon-thought-vs-ope-theism (yes, that David Paulsen LDS and that Clark Pinnock Open Theist)
Important point: Don't be 'stupid' about it. If we hold something actually in common, I'll not be offended but will do the leg work to show that it is either true or false. My comparison was simply to draw a 'correct' line between who believes one thing, and who believes, rightly on the other side, the other thing. You do that and I'll be fine with it.
No, Lon! No! I won't put up with it. You know as well as I do that Open Theism has NOTHING in common with Mormonism that isn't superficial or purely coincidental and you bringing it up was an attempt to smear us as though we are somehow associated with that idiotic cult.

Now, you are either going to admit that this is what you were doing or you can waste someone else's time with your infantile and dishonest B.S.!

Note I didn't call you a Mormon, not at all.
Plausible deniability doesn't fly with me, Lon. When we are done here everyone is going to hear from you that you should never had made the assinine comment to begin with or you and I are done.

That said, I apologize for the offense. It 'seems' with things I've read from Sanders, Boyd, and Pinnock, that there is an open dialogue on agreed points with Mormons.
BULL!!!!

You saw someone make the association and are parroting it.

I don't really have much in common with Mormons but I have been compared to them in the way I've gone door-to-door in the past.
It aught to have offended you deeply! Mormonism is EXTREMELY EVIL and those that fall for it's foolishness will deserve the Hell they end up in. Any association they have with Christianity has to do with their own intentional lies and I, for one, am not going to permit you to get away with propagating additional similar lies and in anyway associate me with that despicable group of people.

If the comparison is benign, meh, I'm okay with it. "You evangelize like a Mormon!" Okay, guilty, I suppose. It was not my intention to get this kind of traction, nor reaction but I may have walked into something I know nothing about.
I've already told you more than once to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about.

I wasn't trying for 'guilty by association' so again, I apologize that was the take-away.
I do not believe you.

I've assumed there are some things alike to one another for dialogue to be this open between Open Theists and Mormons from major proponents.
I doubt that any such dialogue ever actually took place. If it did, whoever participated was a fool.

If it is problematic, it'd be a shared one the rest of us have with a 'like' position on the omnis' of God.
A topic I'm no longer interested in discussing with you until you fully and unambiguous recant this grossly insulting association between me and anything remotely associated with the Mormon cult.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Sorry, but you're wrong. When God speaks what doesn't exist begins to exist. Earth didn't exist until He spoke it into existence.

Also, do you really think an evil God would be a positive addition to the universe? Is that something that is really a limitation, or is that the greatest major positive attribute of God for the universe? You're actually arguing for sin being a positive influence in the universe. You seem to desire God to not be love and to be hateful. Love and hate are polar opposites. To say they aren't is impossible. It's like saying darkness and light are the same thing.

It seems to me you are going to self destructive extremes to defend open theism. Not good, as you are directly contradicting scripture with your assertions.
You are laughably stupid.

If Open Theism is so wrong, why do you only ever argue against things you know for a fact that it does not teach?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Did you read it?

[Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper?
If, as some Open Theists say, God asking Adam where he was after he ate of the tree means that God did not know where Adam was, then when God asks Cain where Abel is, it would mean that God did not know that Abel was dead. Yet the next verse tells us God already knew:

[Gen 4:10 KJV] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

And there's one more question that God already knew the answer to: What hast thou done? Both answers are shown to be known by God in the underlined text.

Using God's question to Adam as a way to determine if God doesn't always know something is a poor argument and shouldn't be used by any Open Theist.
I would agree.

Not every verse that could be interpreted as God not knowing something has to mean that He didn't actually know. Sometimes, such questions are rhetorical. It would be an equal error to assume that every time that such a question is asked that it never means that God doesn't know the answer. You have to make some effort to stay on the same page that God is on when you're reading the bible.

I don't recall any Open Theist using Genesis 4:9 to suggest that God didn't know the answer to the question He asked Cain.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't think that this analogy is appropriate.
Why?

In what way are a divine nature and a human nature like eggs and flour? How does a divine nature and a human nature "mix" or "blend"?
The only way they are alike is in that when you add one to the other, you end up with one thing.

If you take oil and mix in water, they don't mix. They remain quite separate. If I have a glass that is half full of water and I fill it the rest of the way with oil, now I have a class with two things in it - oil and water.

God did created mankind in His own image and likeness and it seems very clear that the purpose of His doing so was to create a being with whom He could relate. Both of those points seem to indicate to me that we aren't so completely different that the two are unable to blend into a unified whole person whom we call Jesus.

I don't seen any good support for this.
I see no support for the contrary and I showed you at least some support for it. Jesus is one singular person and we have His own testimony that HE (i.e. not merely His body or even His "humanity") died and rose from the dead. God the Father conceived Jesus in Mary's womb and by that fact alone, Jesus is every bit as much a human being as He is God the Son. He truly is 100% God and human.

Yes, the ONE Jesus has BOTH of those natures are you have pointed out. BOTH literally means TWO, so I think that you have already conceded the argument.
On the contrary. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I am right. Jesus does not have two natures, He has one and only one. God has always existed and that same God became a human being, whom we call Jesus and is now the divine human being, the God-man.

Now, that doesn't mean that speaking specifically of Christ's humanity as though it were a separate thing is forbidden. It's not like you're suggesting that water doesn't actually exist just because you happen to be speaking about the hydrogen that exists within it's molecules. Likewise, if one speaks about Christ's divinity, such speech does not imply that He isn't a man nor does speaking of His human nature imply that He isn't divine. It really does have to do with just what we mean by the things we say when speaking about such thing.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I would agree.

Not every verse that could be interpreted as God not knowing something has to mean that He didn't actually know. Sometimes, such questions are rhetorical. It would be an equal error to assume that every time that such a question is asked that it never means that God doesn't know the answer. You have to make some effort to stay on the same page that God is on when you're reading the bible.

I don't recall any Open Theist using Genesis 4:9 to suggest that God didn't know the answer to the question He asked Cain.
Right, but the question is formed in the same way as Gen 3:9.
[Gen 3:9 KJV] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
[Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper?

And Lon was bringing up Gen 3:9 and some Open Theists' use of it, including you: https://theologyonline.com/threads/our-moral-god.55115/post-1885150

The reasons no one uses Gen 4:9 that way is because the Bible explicitly explains that God already knew what had happened to Abel. But if that questioned wasn't answered so explicitly, some Open Theists might use it.

My point is that nobody should ever use Gen 3:9 to say God doesn't know everything because the same phrasing is used in Gen 4:9 when God already knew the answer to the question.

And so, a question from God should NEVER be taken to mean that He doesn't already know the answer to the question. Other proofs are necessary.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Because I don't believe that the attributes of "divine nature and human nature" are comparable with "eggs and flour".

The only way they are alike is in that when you add one to the other, you end up with one thing.
You have not establish how "divine nature and human nature" are able to be combined in a similar fashion to "eggs and flour".

If you take oil and mix in water, they don't mix. They remain quite separate. If I have a glass that is half full of water and I fill it the rest of the way with oil, now I have a class with two things in it - oil and water.
Indeed.
God did created mankind in His own image and likeness and it seems very clear that the purpose of His doing so was to create a being with whom He could relate. Both of those points seem to indicate to me that we aren't so completely different that the two are unable to blend into a unified whole person whom we call Jesus.
One is certainly similar to the other in that one was created in the image of the other. Does that mean that they can be "mixed" into one? Still don't see how that is established.
I see no support for the contrary and I showed you at least some support for it. Jesus is one singular person and we have His own testimony that HE (i.e. not merely His body or even His "humanity") died and rose from the dead. God the Father conceived Jesus in Mary's womb and by that fact alone, Jesus is every bit as much a human being as He is God the Son. He truly is 100% God and human.
Again, Jesus is BOTH God and human... i.e., TWO things in one person and not two things that have become one thing. One person... no doubt.
On the contrary. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I am right. Jesus does not have two natures, He has one and only one. God has always existed and that same God became a human being, whom we call Jesus and is now the divine human being, the God-man.
So the "second" nature is no longer second?
Now, that doesn't mean that speaking specifically of Christ's humanity as though it were a separate thing is forbidden. It's not like you're suggesting that water doesn't actually exist just because you happen to be speaking about the hydrogen that exists within it's molecules. Likewise, if one speaks about Christ's divinity, such speech does not imply that He isn't a man nor does speaking of His human nature imply that He isn't divine. It really does have to do with just what we mean by the things we say when speaking about such thing.
I completely agree that Jesus is the God-man. God AND man... BOTH.

Sorry for belaboring the issue. In the long run, I think that we actually agree on the important things.
 

Derf

Well-known member
No, Lon! No! I won't put up with it. You know as well as I do that Open Theism has NOTHING in common with Mormonism that isn't superficial or purely coincidental and you bringing it up was an attempt to smear us as though we are somehow associated with that idiotic cult.

Now, you are either going to admit that this is what you were doing or you can waste someone else's time with your infantile and dishonest B.S.!


Plausible deniability doesn't fly with me, Lon. When we are done here everyone is going to hear from you that you should never had made the assinine comment to begin with or you and I are done.


BULL!!!!

You saw someone make the association and are parroting it.


It aught to have offended you deeply! Mormonism is EXTREMELY EVIL and those that fall for it's foolishness will deserve the Hell they end up in. Any association they have with Christianity has to do with their own intentional lies and I, for one, am not going to permit you to get away with propagating additional similar lies and in anyway associate me with that despicable group of people.


I've already told you more than once to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about.


I do not believe you.


I doubt that any such dialogue ever actually took place. If it did, whoever participated was a fool.


A topic I'm no longer interested in discussing with you until you fully and unambiguous recant this grossly insulting association between me and anything remotely associated with the Mormon cult.
I think you're over-reacting (again). Even Lon's link explains that Mormons (at least the one writing the article) don't accept Open Theism:
"If you claim to be an Open Theist then you accept the perception of other knowledgeable people, at least those that have an inkling of what Open Theists believe, that you will be saddled with the perception that you believe the above points as they do. And I surely hope that you do not. For you cannot agree with their positions on these questions and truly agree with the LDS positions at the same time."

Rather, anytime someone has a legitimate beef with our theology, it should be addressed legitimately, not by a charade of offendedness, even if they are Mormons. And thus, it is legitimate to have conversations with Mormons, because the purpose is to present what we believe are true understandings about God. And in fairness to them, they should be presenting what they believe are true understandings about God. Dialoging with other beliefs is tantamount to what Paul did in trying to persuade others, and is what you seem to like about TOL. If @Lon believes we are like Mormons in some way, let's deal with that by showing why he's incorrect, not by being offended. Personally, I appreciate his willingness to be likened to Mormons in their evangelistic zeal, even if they are misdirected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Derf

Well-known member
Because I don't believe that the attributes of "divine nature and human nature" are comparable with "eggs and flour".


You have not establish how "divine nature and human nature" are able to be combined in a similar fashion to "eggs and flour".


Indeed.

One is certainly similar to the other in that one was created in the image of the other. Does that mean that they can be "mixed" into one? Still don't see how that is established.

Again, Jesus is BOTH God and human... i.e., TWO things in one person and not two things that have become one thing. One person... no doubt.

So the "second" nature is no longer second?

I completely agree that Jesus is the God-man. God AND man... BOTH.

Sorry for belaboring the issue. In the long run, I think that we actually agree on the important things.
I think there's a point to @Clete's assertion, in that Jesus is God, but no longer in exactly the same way as the Father is God. He is a creature and creator at the same time...and cannot ever NOT be a creature again. Oil and water can be unmixed. Even two types of flour could be unmixed. But the eggs and flour join together in a way that can't be undone (especially if they are cooked together).

But I agree that the analogy falls apart when we consider the characteristics of the flour and eggs before and after the joining.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Uh..... No, it's not.




Saying it doesn't make it so.
Tired. Saying it is so regardless.

And NOWHERE in the Bible is "sunistémi" used to mean "sustain."

Because it doesn't mean "sustain." It means:


Strong's g4921

- Lexical: συνίστημι
- Transliteration: sunistémi
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: soon-is-tah'-o
- Definition: to place together, commend, prove, exhibit; instrans: to stand with; to be composed of, cohere.
- Origin: Or (strengthened) sunistano (soon-is-tan'-o), or sunistemi (soon-is'-tay-mee) from sun and histemi (including its collateral forms); to set together, i.e. (by implication) to introduce (favorably), or (figuratively) to exhibit; intransitively, to stand near, or (figuratively) to constitute.
- Usage: approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with).
- Translated as (count): commending (3), are we commending (1), commends (1), Demonstrates (1), having been composed (1), hold together (1), I commend (1), I prove (1), shows (1), standing with (1), to commend (1), to have been commended (1), we are commending (1), you have proved (1).

:doh: All of those mean 'sustain.' You just like arguing to argue. You were wrong and you know it.
The one who is wrong here is you.
Be changed by truth, don't entrench with your fingers in your ears. Don't be arguing 'just' to argue. There is no point to this dialogue or interjection.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I think there's a point to @Clete's assertion, in that Jesus is God, but no longer in exactly the same way as the Father is God. He is a creature and creator at the same time...and cannot ever NOT be a creature again.
Note that "creature AND creator" are TWO things. So again, Jesus took on a second nature. So Jesus now has TWO natures in ONE person. Jesus is now and will always be the God-man (i.e., God AND man).
Oil and water can be unmixed. Even two types of flour could be unmixed. But the eggs and flour join together in a way that can't be undone (especially if they are cooked together).
Still... I don't think that these things can be compared to a divine nature and a human nature.
But I agree that the analogy falls apart when we consider the characteristics of the flour and eggs before and after the joining.
(y)
 

Lon

Well-known member
No, Lon! No! I won't put up with it. You know as well as I do that Open Theism has NOTHING in common with Mormonism that isn't superficial or purely coincidental and you bringing it up was an attempt to smear us as though we are somehow associated with that idiotic cult.

Now, you are either going to admit that this is what you were doing or you can waste someone else's time with your infantile and dishonest B.S.!
(with a good heart) All on you. You just are not reading my mind and this paragraph is 100% of where my statement came from: I meant no 'guilty by association.' Reread: the statement was about 'who doesn't hold to omni's.' Next? I apologized, and I meant it but please don't look for apology for 'intent.' It was not my intent to disparage but to 'categorize' between groups. I realize it looks like guilty by association. Look, you've called me a Calvinist many times. I suppose I didn't take it as offense because I don't dislike them and have some Calvinistic theology whether you meant it guilty by association or not. Do I care? No, except where I need to correct you and I've done so on the difference (I'm at least with you with double-pred Calvinists). Please 1) accept my apology (it was sincere). 2) Try not to read my mind. I believe you are projecting your problems with Mormons upon my intent (best guess how we got here). I was simply and only tying 'like categories.' 3) Again, forgive, I understand (I think), why "Mormon" is not acceptable. I haven't really thought about a need to avoid 'cults' in comparisons. My mind works literally like this: "Who else doesn't believe in Omnis?" and I couldn't (don't think there are any) think of one other Christian group besides Mormons, thus "Open Theists and Mormons." On top of that, it was readily available for comparison specifically because every prominent Open Theist author/theologian is in dialogue still, with Mormons. Because of that, you've actually surprised me! I actually, to this point, believed that Open Theists like Mormons. Seriously.
Plausible deniability doesn't fly with me, Lon. When we are done here everyone is going to hear from you that you should never had made the assinine comment to begin with or you and I are done.


BULL!!!!
Supra. If you want to die on this hill, I'll let you. 1) I apologized, but I'm not going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I certainly do apologize this has become a mess but 2) I am not guilty of the full accusation, just in the collateral harm. It is I who am guilty by association on this one, you are assuming I meant something disparaging but reread. They only drawn connection (and there are more than just this in the articles I've read of ongoing dialogue between Open Theists and Mormons that frankly puzzles and captures my investigative mind). . Clete, I'm being totally honest with you: I did not intend to malign. I was literally trying to think of categorical groups: Those who hold to Omnis and those who do not. And yet again, I'm sorry for this aftermath. Not my intent.
You saw someone make the association and are parroting it.
Possible, but not for the 'reason.' It might be why it readily came to mind but honestly, it had more to do with my research into the founding Open Theists and the yet ongoing associations and correspondence all of them have with LDS. It is so significant that this readily is yet an attachment my mind has between Open Theists and Mormonism. It is incredibly notable. That said, please: I'm sorry! Is there something of intent to be disparaging? Theologically I am concerned about both but I also need to say this: I believe Open Theists are believers and Mormons are not. Because of the overarching difference, I can readily admit any connection between Open Theism and Mormonism is superficial. That said, I may start a thread on why the major players in Open Theism are in ongoing dialogue, even going to each others conferences, between Open Theist and Mormons. Clearly there is a connection that greatly troubles you in the category of Guilty-by-Association. I appreciate your strong aversion and will be careful in the future. It is something I have to remember and I'm prayerful that I will not bring up this association, with you, ever again.
It aught to have offended you deeply! Mormonism is EXTREMELY EVIL and those that fall for it's foolishness will deserve the Hell they end up in. Any association they have with Christianity has to do with their own intentional lies and I, for one, am not going to permit you to get away with propagating additional similar lies and in anyway associate me with that despicable group of people.
Appreciate that. I believe they are like Samaritans with Jesus. They were despised/they are despised. I used to have a similar reaction but God has been working on my heart: I've tried to tell them clearly and compassionately that there is are huge differences with empathy. Wicked? Yes, anything that keeps one from the gospel. Different conversation, but I agree. This is all catching a bit on the surreal side because of the attention. I will try again with apology. I believe I've even been guilty of the accusation in the past. I'm just trying to say "not this time." At the very least, I think I can say "I think I should have known better." It wasn't the intention, as you can see there are a lot of other factors that went into my statement, but I think I have to own 'some' of this. Again, not the intent, but in the background? Yes. It wasn't the part that came into play at this time, but on the backburner.

Advice please: It may only be for you, but should I never bring up comparisons when it comes to cultists or sects? Is it better to simply not bring up comparisons? I'd think 'never' and see wisdom in it but realize I'm seeing "Mormonism and Open Theism Connection and Ongoing Dialogue" as a topic on TOL as a very connected reality. They are literally doing each other's conferences. How are the rest of us to understand this? Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, and others have been in extensive interaction with Mormons. How am I to 'disassociate' what is right in front of me?
I've already told you more than once to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about.
So I'm asking.
I do not believe you.


I doubt that any such dialogue ever actually took place. If it did, whoever participated was a fool.
🆙 I honestly wouldn't have known this about you and appreciate it.
Clark Pinnock at BYU
John Sanders lecturing at BYU
I had thought I'd read a dialogue between Greg Boyd and Mormon representatives in the past but cannot find that at this time.

This article bins Arminians with Mormons and Open Theists upon qualified Omnis, I believe wrongly. Arminians embrace the Omnis without qualification.
A topic I'm no longer interested in discussing with you until you fully and unambiguous recant this grossly insulting association between me and anything remotely associated with the Mormon cult.
I fully and unambiguously recant the implication as it wasn't the intention. I do indeed recant the insult to you by association. I honestly didn't know (should have suspected?) that any Open Theist was this antiMormon. Truly. Apologies.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Note that "creature AND creator" are TWO things. So again, Jesus took on a second nature. So Jesus now has TWO natures in ONE person. Jesus is now and will always be the God-man (i.e., God AND man).

Still... I don't think that these things can be compared to a divine nature and a human nature.

(y)


Triune God:

All physical analogies break down. "Spirit is indivisible" helps me begin to understand a Triune nature because as Father Son and Holy Spirit are/is Spirit, I can about manage to grasp Their/His Oneness.

Propositions for your inspection:
1) It is uniquely true that Jesus created the universe and became flesh.
2) At carnation, the Father and Spirit did not 'become' flesh.
3) The Lord Jesus Christ is uniquely two natured.

Question: How uniquely separated are Father, Son, and Spirit?
A) Father and Spirit are distinct how? They are both Spirit, they are both One.
B) If Spirit is indivisible, how are Father, Son, and Spirit conceived as separate?
RightDivider Sorry for belaboring the issue. In the long run, I think that we actually agree on the important things.
(this too seems off the beaten path of God's Morality, but I'm appreciating the direction and believe it extremely important)
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Yet, since we are talking about the character of water in a glass, we don't say, "God infinitely knows about the air in the glass."
Omnis come from the standpoint of 'all that is' isn't co-eternal with God. As humans, the universe is all we know but God is 'all' there is and much more than simply this piece of His creative work (universe) so the omnis are a way of trying to grasp God's statements:
Almighty: Omnipotent (no other power, ever, that exists. He is all the all of it, not just 'in' the universe, but all.
Knows "All things" Omnipresent: Ephesians 1:23 Psalm 139:8–10 Proverbs 15:3 1 John 3:20
But the point is that there is a limitation to "everything" when we are talking about "what exists". So when we read "by Him everything exists", we are not allowed to infinitize it to say that "everything exists, including things that don't exist." It's a limitation based on the character of "everything that exists", which is exclusive of "things that do not exist".
If God is 'everything that exists' what is the limitation? "Sin" is the first answer, but sin isn't part of creation, it is the destruction of it.
Again, the point is that God is limited by His character to "goodness". It is a limitation, and one that He Himself iterates: "I am not a man that I should lie." You can say it isn't a limitation, but that's merely an obfuscation about a limitation that God gives us.
Not an obfuscation but a desire to describe more correctly not what God 'isn't' but what He is. When we are talking about a limitation, we generally mean a 'weakness.' Personal problem? No, this is why theologians have avoided such language in preference for understanding God in a 'fuller' context. Scripture says very clearly that God is beyond our ability, thus a 'limitation' is problematic for comparison to a God that 'exceeds.' How often does 'limitation' come up in conversation? Philippians 2 absolutely expresses a 'limitation' in love. We want to be careful we aren't so caught up in our own egocentrism, that we begin to think "God 'has' to have limitations in order to relate to me." Limitation is true, but in a voluntary manner and not at all a condition upon His relation. He came in the flesh, in order to bring us ascended, not Him descended. Whenever you see 'a personal problem' it will be likely from this concern.
He is limited to never lying. Is that a bad thing? By no means...we count on God because of His self-imposed limitations. For instance, we believe in the hope of our resurrection, because He cannot lie. We believe in the fact of creation, because God cannot lie.
Again, it isn't truth, but the phrasing and problematic comparison, analogy. Example: I'm currently on a doctor directed diet. You can ask "what don't you get to eat? (limitation). Better: What do you get to eat? (what are you not limited from eating). If this doesn't make sense we can be done with this portion. I've a 'personal' aversion to 'limitation' when discussing God, partly because I'm nobody, just an incredibly limited creature, to qualify God's limitations (usually a negative). He is the One to do that, if He so desires. So perhaps it really is a personal problem, but I'll keep it. It feels a little like my dialogue with Clete, oddly enough. There are certain things that can become hot potatoes to another. "Limitation" regarding God, to me is a negative and certainly restrictive in language, for a God who is "able to do more than we can think or imagine." "Limitation" seems like a downer is talking in light of something much larger in discussion when we are to 'discover the height, breadth, and depth of God's love for us, that is beyond measure!"
So "omniscience" has limits. It is limited to knowing things that actually exist, or are firm and settled, but not limited when it comes to things that don't exist, or are not settled. If, then, God decides something is settled, we can be assured (because He cannot lie) that those things are settled. "Lo, I am with you alway, even tot he end of the age." is a settled thing. "Lon will never deny Christ." may not be a settled thing. But even if Lon denies Christ, He cannot deny Himself--you changing your character limits what God can do with you (an obvious limit on God), but it doesn't limit what or who God is.
Yet He does know about unicorns, and goblins, and Frankenstein. Point: If we make a statement that doesn't always work, then we aren't on the right track for description. I understand why Open Theism does this but I'm questioning the need that mostly only comes for an Open paradigm.
[Mat 23:37 NKJV] "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

Jesus was limited in what He could do by the unwillingness of Jerusalem. Not because He was unable to gather them against their will, but because He limited Himself to only gathering those who were willing to be gathered.
As with incarnation, it is a chosen limitation. It makes a difference: You and I 'cannot.' God 'will not' and thus limitation generally is a term for us that means 'unable' but for God means 'not can't but didn't or chose not to.' This too is why I don't believe limitation the best descriptor nor the best focus for talking about God.

In a nutshell, my whole conversation with you can be summed up: I don't like 'limitation' in these discussions. It isn't an accurate enough word most times in theology discussion and because of ideology that accompanies the term, is problematic to accurate conveyance.

I'd say our conversation for several posts can be summed up as:
Lon: "Limitation" is a poor term for theological discussion.
Derf: I like it and will continue to use it.
Lon: Here are my problems with it, here, on this, and thus.
Derf: I'll yet use it.
Lon: I'll continue to say it has problematic conveyance and illustrate why and where it is insufficient.

Not much more than that going on...
Sin has everything to do with God--because He is just. He has limited His responses (in the long term, to account for His patience) to only the just ones, even though He can do the unjust responses (grace). The unjust responses are limited to those who accept His son's sacrifice.
This too, is a discussion mostly on definitions and the place for certain definitions. Sin isn't on the table with God's attributes was the original.
Example: Hamartiology (sin) is a separate topic than Attributes of God in a Theology Proper book.
Gary took exception in that sin has nothing to do with God as being correct. You are describing rather God having 'remedy' for sin, not being connected to it. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." It isn't talking about iridescence, but sin. "...none at all."
I don't understand the view that God cannot look on our naked bodies while we're in the shower or going to the bathroom. And I agree with you that He knows when little ones are abused. How He knows, I'll be willing to discuss more, because I'm really not sure. I expect He actually observes everything that happens and that's why He was remorseful about creating man in the first place.
🆙
[Gen 6:5 NKJV] Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
You have the traditional view of omnipresence here. "How" has elements both of Open paradigms and Arminian from you to date.
Not only did He see their wickedness in action, He saw it in the planning. I don't really see how one could say God is somehow missing some incident because He's closing His eyes to its wickedness. Justice only makes sense if the one who is most offended by the sin is actually offended by it.
I agreed with you in discussion with Clete. You'll likely always be an Open Theist of a different color with Arminian hold-outs as it were, I'd think.
I think I agree with this, but I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of it. I gave the example of Cain murdering Abel, and I don't think He was in the dark about any of it. Since Abel was perceived by some as the one from which Christ would eventually come, and thus Satan would desire to snuff him out, I don't think the seriousness of the sin can be denied, yet God knew what Cain did.
🆙
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Triune God:

All physical analogies break down. "Spirit is indivisible" helps me begin to understand a Triune nature because as Father Son and Holy Spirit are/is Spirit, I can about manage to grasp Their/His Oneness.
You're all over the place Lon. Sometimes I think that your education may have confused you.
Propositions for your inspection:
1) It is uniquely true that Jesus created the universe and became flesh.
2) At carnation, the Father and Spirit did not 'become' flesh.
3) The Lord Jesus Christ is uniquely two natured.
OK
Question: How uniquely separated are Father, Son, and Spirit?
You just said that "Spirit is indivisible".
A) Father and Spirit are distinct how? They are both Spirit, they are both One.
All three are One. The are all three Spirit.
B) If Spirit is indivisible, how are Father, Son, and Spirit conceived as separate?
If.. how about you establish that first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
You're all over the place Lon. Somethings I think that your education may have confused you.
"Sometimes" rather, (I appreciate irony but take the criticism as good, you are correct). No, I'm just a random. My mind goes 100 miles an hour and it evident. My first drafts are rarely gems. I did graduate an MA with a very high score, but had to really work at it.

You were talking with Clete and Derf about illustrations regarding the dual nature of Christ, I believe. In that, I was also thinking (the random) that talking about Spirit and the distinction between Father and Holy Spirit is similar. Meh, I'm off the beaten path (has 'somewhat' to do with what you were talking about, simply a similar note). You can ignore the rest of this if you like but I want to respond since you were kind enough to go on a random with me and I appreciate the walk...
OK

You just said that "Spirit is indivisible".
It was a proposition to be inspected. Does it hold as true? Any scriptures come to mind? For me, this is where the two ideas merged: Analogy and description is difficult for the dual nature of the Lord Jesus Christ and for me, the same with trying to distinguish 'how' the Father and Spirit (and Son) are unique. That said, it was random.
All three are One. The are all three Spirit.
So, my question is (was), "How then, are Spirit and Father distinct. Consider 1) the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father, not in position but in bidding. 2) The jobs they carry are different. 3)? It seems off topic, now that you bring it up but I do think God's nature is worth exploring, definitely a side trail.
If.. how about you establish that first.
Help? The oneness of the Triune God isn't disputed between you and I. Let me attack it with "and These Three are One." Granted not in some bibles but between us I don't think there is dispute. Rather, because I agree with you that analogy like eggs and flour do not work because of their physical nature, specifically because the Father and Holy Spirit are spirit. It may not help with a discussion about the Lord Jesus Christ's dual nature at all, however. Meh, I'm tired, thus prone to my randomness. Good call.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Right, but the question is formed in the same way as Gen 3:9.
[Gen 3:9 KJV] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
[Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper?

And Lon was bringing up Gen 3:9 and some Open Theists' use of it, including you: https://theologyonline.com/threads/our-moral-god.55115/post-1885150

The reasons no one uses Gen 4:9 that way is because the Bible explicitly explains that God already knew what had happened to Abel. But if that questioned wasn't answered so explicitly, some Open Theists might use it.

My point is that nobody should ever use Gen 3:9 to say God doesn't know everything because the same phrasing is used in Gen 4:9 when God already knew the answer to the question.

And so, a question from God should NEVER be taken to mean that He doesn't already know the answer to the question. Other proofs are necessary.
Okay, fine. Don't use it. It doesn't matter. It has no effect on the doctrine anyway, so if you want to believe that God already knew the answer to His question then that's no skin off my nose. At the end of the day it makes no difference one way or the other because our doctrine is not based on such passages anyway but rather on passages such as....
Deuteronomy 32:4 “The Rock! His work is perfect,​
For all His ways are just;​
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,​
Righteous and upright is He.​
Isaiah 61:8 For I, the Lord, love justice,​
Isaiah 30:18 .....For the Lord is a God of justice;....​
Job 34:12 “Surely, God will not act wickedly,​
And the Almighty will not pervert justice.​
Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,​
But a just weight is His delight.​
God is just! Therefore, Calvinism (and much of Arminianism) is false.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Because I don't believe that the attributes of "divine nature and human nature" are comparable with "eggs and flour".
That isn't an answer. Why aren't they compatible? It wasn't those two things I was comparing anyway, it was the fact that when you mix them together in a bowl, you are left with a lump of dough (one thing) rather than a bowl with two things in it. The fact that I picked eggs and flour is incidental. It could have been a thousand different things that one might mix together to make something else.

You have not establish how "divine nature and human nature" are able to be combined in a similar fashion to "eggs and flour".
How it is done is not the question but rather whether it was done. I have no idea how it was done. I just see no reason to believe that Jesus has two natures. Jesus is Jesus, He has His nature. It is different now than it was before. What was Spirit is now Spirit filled flesh. What was divine is now divinely human. We agree that His humanity was added but I don't see that it remained separate but that it become a fully integrated part of His nature.

Well, this is the question, isn't it? Is Jesus this bifurcated being with two separate unmixed natures that are as incompatible as oil and water?

I do not think so at all!

One is certainly similar to the other in that one was created in the image of the other. Does that mean that they can be "mixed" into one? Still don't see how that is established.
Established? Perhaps not but it is certainly no less established than is the notion that there are these two, at least semi-incompatible, natures within Christ.

Again, Jesus is BOTH God and human... i.e., TWO things in one person and not two things that have become one thing.
I don't see how that is established.

One person... no doubt.
Definitely! (y)

So the "second" nature is no longer second?
Huh?

It is second in that it came after the first, that it was added to the first, but isn't the same as having a pocket knife in your pocket and then putting a Bowie knife on your belt and so now you're carrying around two knives. Rather, it is more like taking iron and adding carbon so that now you have steal. The iron is still there and so is the iron but the steal isn't merely the sum of its parts because you can throw a junk of iron into a pile of coal and you'll have a pile of iron and carbon but you won't have steal. The two, when forged together, become something other than a mere mixture of the ingredients. It is no longer merely iron and carbon. It is steal.

I completely agree that Jesus is the God-man. God AND man... BOTH.
Why not both, the two become one?

Sorry for belaboring the issue. In the long run, I think that we actually agree on the important things.
Well, neither of us has to be convinced by the other on this, right. It's enjoyable to hash out a disagreement, no matter how minor, with someone I respect and who can articulate themselves with clarity and substance.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think you're over-reacting (again).
I don't think so!

Even Lon's link explains that Mormons (at least the one writing the article) don't accept Open Theism:
Then why bring it up in the first place?

"If you claim to be an Open Theist then you accept the perception of other knowledgeable people, at least those that have an inkling of what Open Theists believe, that you will be saddled with the perception that you believe the above points as they do. And I surely hope that you do not. For you cannot agree with their positions on these questions and truly agree with the LDS positions at the same time."
No one compares Open Theism to Mormonism because they both believe that God exists. No one compares Open Theism to Mormonism because they both accept the fact that someone named Jesus died on a cross. There are a thousand possible parallels one might draw between Mormonism and any actual Christian sect. Mormons believe in getting water baptized is required for salvation. Should we therefore look at the Church of Christ with squinted eyes because of their similar doctrine?


Rather, anytime someone has a legitimate beef with our theology, it should be addressed legitimately, not by a charade of offendedness, even if they are Mormons.
The entire point is that it is NOT legitimate! It's asinine! It's nothing at all but a smear and it's insulting and I will not put up with it.

And thus, it is legitimate to have conversations with Mormons, because the purpose is to present what we believe are true understandings about God.
Mormons are evil cultist. It is no more legitimate to have such a discussion with them than it would be to have a similar discussion with a Scientologist or with a Branch Davidian.

And in fairness to them, they should be presenting what they believe are true understandings about God. Dialoging with other beliefs is tantamount to what Paul did in trying to persuade others, and is what you seem to like about TOL.
Paul never talked about pagan religions as though there were on even ground with Christianity or that they were a different flavor of the same. Mormons are not Christians - AT ALL! So long as that is the context of the discussion then interacting with Mormons is perfectly acceptable thing to do.

If @Lon believes we are like Mormons in some way, let's deal with that by showing why he's incorrect, not by being offended.
He doesn't believe it, Derf! It was a smear!

Personally, I appreciate his willingness to be likened to Mormons in their evangelistic zeal, even if they are misdirected.
STUPIDITY!

Satan is zealous too, Derf! Would you be proud if I called you Satanic?
 
Top