freeatlast
New Member
Only in your mind.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Openness View of Reality
- Thread starter humblethinker
- Start date
Only in your mind.
By claiming that the Perfect God can, or indeed has made mistakes.If anything questions the character of God it is Calvinism that teaches God ordains/predestines everything. How does open theism question the character of God?
God said:
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Yet, open theists try to define reality necessarily as a "genuine give-and-take" relationship between God and His creatures, such that God learns through the actions of His creatures. This would necessarily imply that at some points in time God's creatures can know things that God does not, and that they "genuinely" "counsel" and "instruct" God, contrary to the passage above.
God said:
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2Sa 2:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Yet, the open theist insists that God can make mistakes (take "risks"). He can say that something will happen, yet it can fail because His creatures have LFW and they can surprise God.
According to Job:
Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
If God is "perfect [complete] in knowledge," it cannot be said that autonomous creatures can create new knowledge in a vacuum and give it to God whereby His total body of knowledge is increased.
This is the problem with open theism. It tries to define God from philosophical existentialism. If it is irrational to man, it cannot be true of God. God cannot be what man cannot perceive through his senses and the limitations of his brain. God must be like man--in his limitations--only greater. If man understands "relationship" through his own makeup and interactions with each other, then that must be how God relates to us--through so-called "genuine give-and-take."
humblethinker
Active Member
No, God has not made mistakes, nor can he be mistaken.By claiming that the Perfect God can, or indeed has made mistakes.
yes, all of these are affirmed in open theism.God said:
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
It does not imply or even suggest that God's creatures can know things that God does not.Yet, open theists try to define reality necessarily as a "genuine give-and-take" relationship between God and His creatures, such that God learns through the actions of His creatures. This would necessarily imply that at some points in time God's creatures can know things that God does not, and that they "genuinely" "counsel" and "instruct" God, contrary to the passage above.
yes, all of these are affirmed in open theism.God said:
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2Sa 2:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
This is a strawman you have created. And it open theists are but a small number of people that you disagree with here. Many are on this side of the divide, who think that God risks/risked pain and rejection to save and love mankind.Yet, the open theist insists that God can make mistakes (take "risks"). He can say that something will happen, yet it can fail because His creatures have LFW and they can surprise God.
The quantity of his knowledge does not change but the quality of that which is known is what changes.According to Job:
Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
If God is "perfect [complete] in knowledge," it cannot be said that autonomous creatures can create new knowledge in a vacuum and give it to God whereby His total body of knowledge is increased.
Of course there are things beyond our comprehension but we can, however, observe the reality and revelation that is available to us... and we should. How do determinists or anyone for that matter escape the same judgement you have placed on open theists? Tell me, if you can, without using reason or logical construct how God reveals himself to be. We find the Bible chocked full examples of God entering into genuine give-and-take relationships. I think most christians would be surprised to hear their teachers say that God does NOT participate in genuine give-and-take relationships with his creatures. Why do you not lead with that when talking with someone new to faith about God? Maybe you do.This is the problem with open theism. It tries to define God from philosophical existentialism. If it is irrational to man, it cannot be true of God. God cannot be what man cannot perceive through his senses and the limitations of his brain. God must be like man--in his limitations--only greater. If man understands "relationship" through his own makeup and interactions with each other, then that must be how God relates to us--through so-called "genuine give-and-take."
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Aresman.
Thanks for the insightful response to freeatlast.
I have always thought that the following Scripture shows man relative to God:
Isaiah 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Yet the grasshopper, not satisfied with God as revealed in Scripture, attempts to create one in his own mind. What is really different in those who advocate "open theism" and the people described in the following Scripture?
Isaiah 44:13-20
13. The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17. And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20. He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Many years ago I shared an office with a very intelligent young man of the 60's generation. His attitude as stated was: "I would not worship a god I could not understand." I wonder if this same attitude is what motivates those who advocate open theism.
The only god man could understand is one he creates in his own mind or whittles out of a piece of wood.
Thanks for the insightful response to freeatlast.
I have always thought that the following Scripture shows man relative to God:
Isaiah 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Yet the grasshopper, not satisfied with God as revealed in Scripture, attempts to create one in his own mind. What is really different in those who advocate "open theism" and the people described in the following Scripture?
Isaiah 44:13-20
13. The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17. And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20. He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Many years ago I shared an office with a very intelligent young man of the 60's generation. His attitude as stated was: "I would not worship a god I could not understand." I wonder if this same attitude is what motivates those who advocate open theism.
The only god man could understand is one he creates in his own mind or whittles out of a piece of wood.
freeatlast
New Member
By claiming that the Perfect God can, or indeed has made mistakes.
God said:
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Yet, open theists try to define reality necessarily as a "genuine give-and-take" relationship between God and His creatures, such that God learns through the actions of His creatures. This would necessarily imply that at some points in time God's creatures can know things that God does not, and that they "genuinely" "counsel" and "instruct" God, contrary to the passage above.
God said:
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2Sa 2:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Yet, the open theist insists that God can make mistakes (take "risks"). He can say that something will happen, yet it can fail because His creatures have LFW and they can surprise God.
According to Job:
Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
If God is "perfect [complete] in knowledge," it cannot be said that autonomous creatures can create new knowledge in a vacuum and give it to God whereby His total body of knowledge is increased.
This is the problem with open theism. It tries to define God from philosophical existentialism. If it is irrational to man, it cannot be true of God. God cannot be what man cannot perceive through his senses and the limitations of his brain. God must be like man--in his limitations--only greater. If man understands "relationship" through his own makeup and interactions with each other, then that must be how God relates to us--through so-called "genuine give-and-take."
The bible says God repented over making man. You just need to believe what is written. If I build something and know without question it will fail on a given day in a given way I can hardly say I repent that I built it.
humblethinker
Active Member
Aresman.
Thanks for the insightful response to freeatlast.
I have always thought that the following Scripture shows man relative to God:
Isaiah 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Yet the grasshopper, not satisfied with God as revealed in Scripture, attempts to create one in his own mind. What is really different in those who advocate "open theism" and the people described in the following Scripture?
Isaiah 44:13-20
13. The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17. And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20. He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Many years ago I shared an office with a very intelligent young man of the 60's generation. His attitude as stated was: "I would not worship a god I could not understand." I wonder if this same attitude is what motivates those who advocate open theism.
The only god man could understand is one he creates in his own mind or whittles out of a piece of wood.
Talk about a theology making God into a stoic statue... Let's see, in this passage... they make their 'God' into a statue that does not change form, does not have relationships with people, does not express or experience emotions, a statue that does not demonstrate his god qualities in ways that people can observe.. And now contrasting that with a Calvinist's idea of the real God that explains Him as immutable and impassible in the most unequivocally extreme sense of the words... Well, the comparisons are striking!
If some say that Open Theists make God to be a man, then it can be said that Calvinists/Determinists make God to be man's statue.
And, in the conclusion of the matter scripture upbraids this statue making man and would advise him to, "considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding...", which is, ironically, the very thing that you and Aresman condemn Open Theists for doing.
The God that we can and should understand is the God that has revealed himself to us. He is as He reveals himself to be. He is as the Bible says he is: Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Son as testified to in the Bible.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are being obtuse. The point is that "open theists" are creating a god of their liking in their own mind, little different than the man who whittles one out of a piece of wood. Hope that clears everything up for you!Talk about a theology making God into a stoic statue... Let's see, in this passage... they make their 'God' into a statue that does not change form, does not have relationships with people, does not express or experience emotions, a statue that does not demonstrate his god qualities in ways that people can observe.. And now contrasting that with a Calvinist's idea of the real God that explains Him as immutable and impassible in the most unequivocally extreme sense of the words... Well, the comparisons are striking!
If some say that Open Theists make God to be a man, then it can be said that Calvinists/Determinists make God to be man's statue.
And, in the conclusion of the matter scripture upbraids this statue making man and would advise him to, "considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding...", which is, ironically, the very thing that you and Aresman condemn Open Theists for doing.
The God that we can and should understand is the God that has revealed himself to us. He is as He reveals himself to be. He is as the Bible says he is: Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Son as testified to in the Bible.
And the God who revealed himself to you calls you a grasshopper; but "grasshopper" you don't like that God so you are whittling out a god to your liking in your mind. :laugh:
humblethinker
Active Member
No, I'm not being obtuse. I understood the point you were making but just think that it is closer to the truth the way I presented it. The one who is a grasshopper is the one that makes God into a statue, the one in scripture just has a physical representation, the other's statue is like Plato's and is of the mind and vain reason, unlike the God of scripture. I am not trying to be annoying. One of my biggest complaints about closed/deterministic theism is that their description of God in His truest sense is almost indistinguishable from Plato's view of 'the good', et al. It's the baptism of Hellenistic philosophy and it seems that, according to Cals, the demonstrations of God's interaction as revealed in the Bible are exceptions to the way God truly is. This is a problem for me.You are being obtuse. The point is that "open theists" are creating a god of their liking in their own mind, little different than the man who whittles one out of a piece of wood. Hope that clears everything up for you!
And the God who revealed himself to you calls you a grasshopper; but "grasshopper" you don't like that God so you are whittling out a god to your liking in your mind. :laugh:
I don't want to create a strawman so if I have please convince me that I have. I don't think anyone here wants to believe what is contrary to truth but I do believe that our own fear, comfort and pride keep us from the possibility of change. I, of course, am no more immune to this than anyone else here. In the past recent years I have experienced change being forced upon me and I've learned how pride, comfort and mostly fear were fueling my defenses.
Last edited by a moderator:
The bible says God repented over making man. You just need to believe what is written. If I build something and know without question it will fail on a given day in a given way I can hardly say I repent that I built it.
Again, we do not always have to understand God in the way we experience things ourselves.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.Is God saying here that He made a "mistake"? Did He goof in that something did not turn out the way He actually expected?
1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Nacham ("repent") is used in all three cases, yet v. 29 seems to contradict vv. 15,35. They would contradict if not for the explanation that v.29 gives as to how God "repents."
God clearly does not "repent" in the same way that we repent. If God "will not lie (like a man) or repent... for he is not a man, that he should repent," then His "repentance" is of a totally different nature than that of man's repentance. He does not "repent" as "a man [repents]."
God's repentance is not from lack of knowledge, for he "is perfect in knowledge." His repentance is divine emotion of justice against those who disobey Him, not that He went "Oops!"
Consider the following:
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. If God had intended that Saul remain king and pass it on to his progeny, He would have violated His own prophecy!
No, remember that Saul was the people's choice of a king in rebellion against God (as He also prophesied in Deuteronomy 17:14). God consented to the will of the people, confirming Saul as king--temporarily. However, God commanded that they should set up a king "whom the Lord thy God shall choose" (Deu 17:15). Therefore, Saul's rule was destined to fail. To make God's "repentance" the way you assume results in a triple failure on God's part:
1. He chose to violate His own prophecy.
2. He made a mistake about a king that He had thought would be better in violation of His own prophecy.
3. He contradicted Himself by saying in His Word the He "repented" and that He does NOT "repent" (if understood according to imperfect knowledge).
All things considered, God's "repentance" simply CANNOT be due to lack of knowledge about what Saul would do. There are too many problems with that!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not being obtuse. I understood the point you were making but just think that it is closer to the truth the way I presented it. The one who is a grasshopper is the one that makes God into a statue, the one in scripture just has a physical representation, the other's statue is like Plato's and is of the mind and vain reason, unlike the God of scripture. I am not trying to be annoying. One of my biggest complaints about closed/deterministic theism is that their description of God in His truest sense is almost indistinguishable from Plato's view of 'the good', et al. It's the baptism of Hellenistic philosophy and it seems that, according to Cals, the demonstrations of God's interaction as revealed in the Bible are exceptions to the way God truly is. This is a problem for me.
I don't want to create a strawman so if I have please convince me that I have. I don't think anyone here wants to believe what is contrary to truth but I do believe that our own fear, comfort and pride keep us from the possibility of change. I, of course, am no more immune to this than anyone else here. In the past recent years I have experienced change being forced upon me and I've learned how pride, comfort and mostly fear were fueling my defenses.
You simply won't face the truth that "open theism" has the purpose of changing the God that is declared in Scripture and is therefore heretical!
freeatlast
New Member
So what do you think the passage is saying?Again, we do not always have to understand God in the way we experience things ourselves.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.Is God saying here that He made a "mistake"? Did He goof in that something did not turn out the way He actually expected?
1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Nacham ("repent") is used in all three cases, yet v. 29 seems to contradict vv. 15,35. They would contradict if not for the explanation that v.29 gives as to how God "repents."
God clearly does not "repent" in the same way that we repent. If God "will not lie (like a man) or repent... for he is not a man, that he should repent," then His "repentance" is of a totally different nature than that of man's repentance. He does not "repent" as "a man [repents]."
God's repentance is not from lack of knowledge, for he "is perfect in knowledge." His repentance is divine emotion of justice against those who disobey Him, not that He went "Oops!"
Consider the following:
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. If God had intended that Saul remain king and pass it on to his progeny, He would have violated His own prophecy!
No, remember that Saul was the people's choice of a king in rebellion against God (as He also prophesied in Deuteronomy 17:14). God consented to the will of the people, confirming Saul as king--temporarily. However, God commanded that they should set up a king "whom the Lord thy God shall choose" (Deu 17:15). Therefore, Saul's rule was destined to fail. To make God's "repentance" the way you assume results in a triple failure on God's part:
1. He chose to violate His own prophecy.
2. He made a mistake about a king that He had thought would be better in violation of His own prophecy.
3. He contradicted Himself by saying in His Word the He "repented" and that He does NOT "repent" (if understood according to imperfect knowledge).
All things considered, God's "repentance" simply CANNOT be due to lack of knowledge about what Saul would do. There are too many problems with that!
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you perceive the world if it is not through your rational thinking or your senses? I would like to hear this! Wait... Can the explanation you give be a visual representation since those are the only senses I use to receive information from baptistboard.com. I then use reason to understand it... Will your explanation be such that reason can make it understandable?
That was toungue-in-cheek... but really, what is the problem you have with what you said?
Would you say that God does not meticulously control all events? The act of willing something is an event, no? From a Cal perspective, if God didn't cause the event then how could he still be sovereign?
Hmmm... I don't quite follow what you mean. I would say this though:
According to the logic of open theism, God cannot create "relational" beings that are not "relational". But surely you would not disagree so I'm not sure what you are saying.
Well... God does determine the final end result of ALl and ANY happenings that occur, its just that he can freely chose to have the overall even happen due to Him dtermining it, or else ordaining to end result what others do!
freeatlast
New Member
Are you in politics? :laugh:Well... God does determine the final end result of ALl and ANY happenings that occur, its just that he can freely chose to have the overall even happen due to Him dtermining it, or else ordaining to end result what others do!
AiC, where did you get that quote? From what I understand, I don't think it is entirely accurate.
This sounds like what Boyd would say, and I have no reason to doubt it.
There may be some that would say this. The ones I know try to argue that the Crucifixion was a "special case" as was the selling of Joseph into Egypt, but they would say that the specific actors were not ordained to do what they did. Supposedly, the time and conditions were "just right" so that Jesus would be guaranteed to be put to death by someone.
However, Bob Enyart and his followers emphasize the "real choice" that Jesus had in the Garden of Gethsemane. They argue that if Jesus did not have the "real" ability and possibility of choosing to forego His mission, He did not have a "real" choice (and that would be BAD, BAD, BAD!) They also emphasize Jesus' statement that He "could have called ten legions of angels," and say that if Jesus' nature as God determined that He "really" could not because He had to fulfill His mission, then His words were a lie, because "could have called" must mean "could have called" in a "real" sense, not a "hypothetical" sense.
In other words, for Jesus to be truly "good" and "loving," He had to have the "real" ability to do exactly the opposite of what He earlier said He would do--and plunge the universe into utter doom!
In other other words, Jesus could not be "genuine" unless He really, really could LIE (contra Deuteronomy 18). However, the Word of God is clear that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18); yet, Jesus says that He is "the truth" (John 14:6). There is NO reason to believe that God has to have the "ability" to lie for His truthfulness to be "genuine."
In the same way, we are told that "love is of God" and "God is love" (1 John 4:7-8,16); yet, there is NO reason to believe that God has to be "really" capable of unrighteous hatred for His love to be "genuine."
The rationale of the mainstream open theist is a form of good-evil dualism (like zoorastrianism, or yin-yang) that transcends God, because any "personal" being must have the libertarian free will capacity of true good and true evil to be "genuine" and "personal."
Not all open theists would believe or argue this way, but there are problems with where their view leads. Open theists cannot believe in a truly "substitutionary" atonement because God cannot know what sins would have been committed after the Cross. This means that the atonement could not have been a real payment for any sins in particular, but only for "sin" in general, governmental sort of way.
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Peter is clear that Christ "bore OUR sinS" (plural), and He did it "in His own body on the tree." Just as Israelites had to offer specific sacrifices for specific sins in the law, so Christ as the ultimate Lamb of God had to have paid for sin in an intimate way, regarding the very sins themselves. That is a difficult pill to swallow, and extremely humbling to think of Christ actually suffering the putridness of MY sinS, but that is what substitutionary atonement is all about. It makes us understand how intimate our salvation really is and what grace and mercy are, rather than just an historical, academic doctrine.
the Cross of Christ was in the plan of God before the world was even around!
The bible shows us a view of God knowing ALL things..period, as he had jesus coming and dieing for sins before even the fall!
Since God had from eternity predestined that, that Jesus death would be as a sin bearer, How can there be any other "free will" option?
just seems that Open theism seeks to reduce God down to our understanding levels, not just accepting what the Bible states about him!
freeatlast
New Member
I am not sure where that rational comes from but there can be free will because the scriptures point to it. Does God want yuo to sin? Are you saying that you never sin? Free will.the Cross of Christ was in the plan of God before the world was even around!
The bible shows us a view of God knowing ALL things..period, as he had jesus coming and dieing for sins before even the fall!
Since God had from eternity predestined that, that Jesus death would be as a sin bearer, How can there be any other "free will" option?
just seems that Open theism seeks to reduce God down to our understanding levels, not just accepting what the Bible states about him!
I am not sure where that rational comes from but there can be free will because the scriptures point to it. Does God want yuo to sin? Are you saying that you never sin? Free will.
there is a measure of free will, but the Lord can change our wills and move us as he pleases, and that NOTHING that ever is done happens apart from him already knowing it will happen!
freeatlast
New Member
"A measure of free will," Hmmm, well that is a start. Whether He knows all of eternity everything thta will happen or not I cannot tell. Scripture seems to suggest sometimes yes and sometime no, but I have no problem if He does. The question it rases is if He does then did He have to look down through History to know or did He predestine everything?there is a measure of free will, but the Lord can change our wills and move us as he pleases, and that NOTHING that ever is done happens apart from him already knowing it will happen!
"A measure of free will," Hmmm, well that is a start. Whether He knows all of eternity everything thta will happen or not I cannot tell. Scripture seems to suggest sometimes yes and sometime no, but I have no problem if He does. The question it rases is if He does then did He have to look down through History to know or did He predestine everything?
yes! GHod knows at this very moment ALLl that ever shall come to Pass!
Since I, as a finite creature, cannot entirely understand God, I cannot answer the question in such a way that exhausts the description as it applies to GodSo what do you think the passage is saying?
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king
Since God said that he "repented," yet He also said that He does not "repent" as "a man [repents]," I would say that
"It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king"
would have substantially different implications of meaning from
"It repenteth me [Samuel] that I have set up Saul to be king"
I surmise that God's "repentance" is focused more on the emotion of changing His actions in response to what Saul--according to the dictates of His perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future." It is not like man's repentance in that man is doing it from the condition of being wrong in some way.
I demonstrated above that if you try to argue that God's "repentance" over making Saul king is similar to how we relate to "repentance," there are serious problems. God does not "repent" because He didn't know, He "repents" precisely because He did know.
freeatlast
New Member
The question it rases is if He does then did He have to look down through History to know or did He predestine everything?[/COLOR]
yes! GHod knows at this very moment ALLl that ever shall come to Pass!