|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 27, 2007 18:33:01 GMT -5
We need to first find out where you have derived this definition of time, and if that source is scripture. If it is scriptural, from what scripture did you derive it? If it is not scripture, than how can you apply it to God.
[edit] -- Your definition of time, at least in the research I have done, is not found in any dictionary. So this first question is of utmost importance.
While addressing the second quoted text, we must keep in mind the fact that you are defining time in this manner. I am not going to quote endless scripture, but only reduce your stance to absurdity and let that speak for itself.
Here is the conclusions, and the dilemmas we face if what you say, that God dwells within time and is subject to it, were true.
1. If God were subject to time, than God would be subjected to logic. Logic is inoperable outside of time, as cause and effect, and everything we know is bound by our understanding that things need a beginning. Since this logic applies only within time, we must conclude, from your view, that God is subjected to logic and therefore must have a beginning as well as a cause, as God is within time. But of course we both know God is eternal, hence the revelation of Himself to Moses, "I AM" - Not I was and am still, but "I AM".
So if your view were true, God must needs have had a cause, as He is subjected to our finite understanding of time and logic. Also, defending the trinity just became that much more difficult as we must now logically explain the trinity, which is utterly impossible.
But in actual fact God is not subjected to our finite logic as He is trancendant of created time (Gen. 1), therefore we can conclude that God is eternal, and the doctrine of the trinity is not at all at stake.
These are serious things that need to be considered before a full acceptance of this doctrine can be made.
1. Where do the scriptures define time in this manner? 2. Where do the scriptures CLEARLY ascribe this definition of time (which at the answering of this question we will have established whether or not the bible even defines time in this way) to the existence of God?
Until you reply...
-- Evan
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 27, 2007 18:50:49 GMT -5
Also, why is it a problem that all things, in God's point of view, are perfectly certain. In reality our actions, choices, and decisions are all foreknown by God. Therefore in the eyes of God all things are indeed certain; but to man, who has a totally different point of view, these same actions, choices and decisions, are seemingly not determined because we cannot see the future and cannot what will happen tomorrow.
Our actions and choices are still our actions and choices, but those actions and choices were foreknown by God, we chose to do them, and God knoows our choice before we make it.
So why is it a problem, scripturally, that TO GOD all things are certain?
-- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 27, 2007 18:57:02 GMT -5
Quick point on your logic question. Logic is derived from the eternally existing mind of God. Logic was never created because God's mind has eternally existed and God had never been anything other then wise.
But our finite minds cannot comprehend total logic or complete wisdom, because that is based upon the infinte mind of God but we have finite minds.
But likewise with time. If it's true, that time is the succession of consciousness, then time was never created, because God has always been self-conscious of Himself. So God is eternal, and lives in eternity, because God lives in endless duration of time.
This is all philosophy. You presuppose that all things are foreknown. Can you list any scriptures that say "all things" are certain and foreknown? There are plenty of scriptures that say some things are foreknown and certain, but can you offer any that say all things?
I can only believe what the bible plainly and clearly says.
-----------------------
Regarding time, I cannot think of a specific definition of time in the bible at all. Unless you know of one. If you have a scriptural definition of time, please let me know.
What I do know about the the existence of God from the bible is this:
God experiences successions of emotions (Nu 24:1, 1Sa 12:22, Ps 2:4, Ps 7:11, Ps 59:8, Isa 53:10, Mr 10:14, John 11:33 etc)
God has repented (changed his mind) of destructions and judgments that He had purposed to bring (Nu 25:11, 2Ch 12:12, Ps 78:38, Ps 85:3, Jonah 3:10 etc)
The succession of emotions, the changing of God's mind, the chronological sequence of events, are deffinately and undeniably attributes that the scriptures give to the existence of God.
Websters defines:
Time as "succession" or "chronologial sequence"
Eternity as "never ceasing duration or immeasurable time"
Can anyone offer any better definition then these?
Evan,
If you cannot offer an alternative definition of time, then I cannot understand, and therefore cannot believe, anything you say about time.
Do not use a word that you cannot define.
----------------------------------------------
Can you explain Ps 7:11? God is angry with the wicked "every day". Isn't "every day" a clear reference to time?
Can you explain Eph 2:3? Isn't "were...children of wrath" a clear reference to time?
How could God go from being angry with us while sinners and then no longer angry with us as saints, if time is not an aspect to God's existence?
Can you explain how God can have successions of emotions, and how God can change His mind, if God's existence is not in time and if God has abosolute fore-knowledge or pre-science?
--------------------
When Nineveh "believe God" that they would be destroyed in "forty days", did they believe a lie?
When God told King Hezekiah through Isaiah that He would surely die, was God pulling his leg?
How could God "add" fifteen years to King Hezekiah's life, if those 15 years were never not going to occur?
Can we believe these parts of the bible? Are they lying to us? Or was God insincere when He said Nineveh would be overthrown and Hezekiah would die?
Couldn't we believe that God was genuine and sincere, and that those things were going to happen given the current circumstances, but when those circumstances changed because of man's free-will, God saw these new circumstances and changed His mind. Couldn't we believe that God reserves the right to change His mind when He see's it fit to do so?
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 27, 2007 19:40:50 GMT -5
Webster says - Time: 1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues Eternity: Infinite Time ---------------------------------- Has the earth, and creation been in existence for infinite time? No. Has God? Yes. Therefore, since in our realm of existence is finite time, and God is infinite, He cannot, and does not exist in time - but eternity. God is trancendant of the succession of EVENTS and ACTION takes place, as time is not defined, even by webster as "succession of conciousness". Succession of events started when God created - and God was before created things. Next... Are all things foreknown? Yes. (Acts 2:23 - this scripture teaches God foreknew that wicked men would crucify the Son; I Peter 1:2; Eph. 1:4; Eph. 2:10, Rom. 11:2; Isa. 46:10; Acts 15:18) Acts 15:18 is an interesting scripture - it teaches that all of the works of God are known unto Him before the fundation of the world. Does God change His mind, yes - in response to man changing His. Both of these tihngs, man changing his ways, and God changing His mind, both of these are uncluded in the foreknowledge of God. God knew that an would repent and that He would change His mind and turn from the wrath He had planned to all who work iniquity. Psalm 7:11: God is angry every day, as everyday there is wickedness and the wicked are subject to time, therefore God is angry at the wicked everyday. How does that prove that God does not know everything? I think what is happening is you are being inconsistent - you tell me we cannot understand the infinite, yet you, in order to understand the inifinite, have brought the eternal God down to the level if finite man and tried to make Him bow His knee to your standards - you have mistaken the creature for the creator. Eli said the other day, "I never thought I would see the day when I would see someone change God to fit his theology". It is entirely true brother. You must change your theology to fit God. You say God is an infinite mind - and yet you are an open theist - that makes absolutely no sense to me. Is He an infinite mind, or is He not. -- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 27, 2007 19:52:13 GMT -5
This is philosophy. All this says is that the material world was created. And the material world has not always been.
But has God always been self-consious? If time is the succession of consciousness, and God has never begun being self-conscious never has ceased being self-concious, time has never had a beginning nor an end.
This says some things, not all things.
Open theism says that some things are open, some things are certain.
Anything God determines to bring about are certain, because God predetermines them. God's foreknowledge is then based upon His predetermining. His predetermining precedes his foreknowledge.
But is there a scripture that explicitly says "God foreknows everything"? Such a view is philosophy, but not scripture.
God knows what He will do, He will always act wisely and benevolently.
If He knew that he would repent and that He could change His mind, then He never really changed His mind. If God intended to do something, but always knew He wouldn't do it, can you really say He intended to do it?
If time is not an aspect of God's existence, how could God go from being angry with us to being not angry with us? Such a chronological sequence of event must take place in time. But if God is in an eternal now realm, and God never changes, God cannot go from being angry with an individual to being not angry with an individual, unless you believe God can change.
The more I understand the scriptures, accrediting God with changing His mind as He achieves knowledge He did not previously have, the more I see the classical view of foreknowlege as almost idolatrous. They have added to God something the bible doesn't. They have created their own idea of God, and then force the God of the bible into their precommitted philosophical view of God.
God is omniscience. God has all the knowledge that there is. But as new knowledge is created, God instantly recieves it.
I noticed you intentionally avoided the real scriptural questions:
When Nineveh "believe God" that they would be destroyed in "forty days", did they believe a lie?
When God told King Hezekiah through Isaiah that He would surely die, was God pulling his leg?
How could God "add" fifteen years to King Hezekiah's life, if those 15 years were never not going to occur?
Can we believe these parts of the bible? Are they lying to us? Or was God insincere when He said Nineveh would be overthrown and Hezekiah would die?
Couldn't we believe that God was genuine and sincere, and that those things were going to happen given the current circumstances, but when those circumstances changed because of man's free-will, God saw these new circumstances and changed His mind. Couldn't we believe that God reserves the right to change His mind when He see's it fit to do so?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 27, 2007 20:09:39 GMT -5
Webster says - Time: 1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues Eternity: Infinite Time ---------------------------------- Has the earth, and creation been in existence for infinite time? No. Has God? Yes. Therefore, since in our realm of existence is finite time, and God is infinite, He cannot, and does not exist in time - but eternity. God is trancendant of the succession of EVENTS and ACTION takes place, as time is not defined, even by webster as "succession of conciousness". Succession of events started when God created - and God was before created things. If I may interject... The very fact that God started creating anything showed Him making decisions (and for those Calvinists, deciding who He'll save and who He'll send to Hell). This is what I believe Jesse's argument could refer to (correct me if I'm wrong, Jesse)... the conscience is of thought, reasoning and decisions. God isn't stuck in a single line of action without being able to creatively maneuver and do new things... He's much more than that... being all-knowing, He's got the full foresight of all possibilities and can work with freewill and time in order to bring about His promises. Praise GOD!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 27, 2007 20:14:09 GMT -5
That's right. Absolute fore-knowledge and pre-science would take away God's free-will. It would mean that God never originated or determined anything at a specific time for the first time. If God was in a realm which is absent of time, then God could never have decided to create time itself. Time could have never been non-existing and then existing, if God is in some stand still realm absent of time. It would render God incapable of creating anything new.
Such a philosophical view really complicates a lot and causes more problems and more contradictions then most people realize.
But what does the bible plainly and obviously say at face value? These are some honest and sincere questions deserving of an honest and sincere answer:
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 27, 2007 21:21:30 GMT -5
Jesse, there are two simple questions that I think would help here:
1. Does God change His mind, in light of Numbers 23:19? This verse says that God is not like a man that He should lie, nor like a son of man that He should change His mind. You seem to be using a "plain sense" hermeneutic with the verses that you claim show God changing His mind, experiencing emotions due to the acts of human beings (i.e. those human beings actually causing God to become sad, mad, due to THEIR free will), etc. With your plain hermeneutic how do you see this verse? Do you interpret it in terms of the ones you cite? If so, how can this be done?
Also how do you deal with 1 Samuel 15:29, which says: " 29"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.""
It says that just as God is not a man, also He does not change His mind! This is a very general statement! How can it be interpreted in terms of the verses that you claim to support the idea of a God who is changing His mind and growing literally tired?
2. Does God grow weary, in light of Isaiah 40:28? The same principles in the previous paragraph apply. It says right here that God does not grow weary i.e. tired. You have claimed elsewhere, based on other verses which are anthropomorphic, that God does indeed grow weary and/or tired. So which is it? How do you interpret this verse?
I noticed this quote of yours in particular.
Jesse, you use "this is philosophy" to attack the arguments of others, but you heavily endorse Finney and his works, the first 58-some pages of whose systematic theology contain NO scriptural references - in the area where he is expounding on the very most fundamental areas of his "theology"! Not only that, but your definition of time is not found in Scripture at all. So this is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.
Also - you would claim that some, but not all things are foreknown by God. But there is an argument I have brought forth that has never received a satisfactory response if it received one at all, and that is:
If God's plan from the foundation of the world was to send Christ to save his people, that means the sins his people would commit were contingent upon this plan. This means that the sins His people would commit were also foreknown and part of His plan. HOW can you deny this? It is very clear. Not only that, but the limited things you affirm as being part of God's foreknowledge surely encompass millions and billions of contingent events, if not ALL contingent events - therefore making all of these events also part of God's foreknowledge... How do you respond to this? I am only using logical principles here, which can be derived from Scripture, so a "this is philosophy" response is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 27, 2007 22:20:37 GMT -5
Oh Brother Jesse,
What?
And the Bible says...?
Both of these can be answered by plain scripture, not just inferences based on events taking place;
1 Peter 1:2 KJV 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 1:2 NASB who are chosen 2according to the (J)foreknowledge of God the Father, (K)by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to (L)obey Jesus Christ and be (M)sprinkled with His blood: (N)May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
Romans 8:29,30 KJV 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
The Bible says that it is the other way around. (Perhaps this is a moot point.) It says his predetermining is according to his foreknowledge, not his foreknowledge is according to his predetermining.
That may be true. But what about every single messianic prophecy that is not just God determining that he will do good, but rather specifically and in a specific time frame events shall take place, specifically? How in the world does that fit into open theism?
What a false dilemma. "I am the Lord I change not." So does the open theist think that the non open theist thinks that God doesn't even understand time and doesn't know how man is subject to it?
God can't choose to show his anger towards someone for a time and then lift it at a time and for reasons he sees fit? That is not God expressing His not knowingness, but rather his character. Is there really a problem there?
Wow. I can't even believe you would say something like this. The classical view of foreknowledge idolatrous? You have gone off into believing something that is about as far from orthodoxy as possible. According to wikipedia the first mention of this idea was in the 5th century by a writer inspired by Plato. I was just thinking the other day about the reason for our rejecting cults like mormonism and Islam; Is it not because their view of God is idolatrous? The mormon says Jesus and God and Holy Spirit except when pressed, the way he views these things is not what the Bible says. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the God of the Bible. Neither is the god of the Koran the God of the Bible. They may have the same names and many similarities but they are described as completely different. I really really hesitate to say that you are an idolater, but the god you are speaking of is not the God of the Bible. The more I look at your theology the more I hit my forehead in unbelief. If anyone is squeezing the Bible to fit into presuppositions it is you.
Now again and again PLAIN SCRIPTURE will be presented. Not just stories of events and then basing doctrines throw your flag in the ground style from them... But plain scriptural teachings.
KJV Romans 8:29,30 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1 Peter 1:2 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Matthew 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
John 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
I really like something Eli has said many times. That a man should have five smooth stones when declaring a doctrine, but have need of using only one of them.
1 Samuel 17:40 And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.
Also something John Wesley said about how if something is new he can be sure it is wrong. Open theism is new, plain and simple. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught as a doctrine (where God's foreknowledge is plainly taught). Nowhere in the early church fathers do they believe this. This is a strange doctrine, by strange I mean foreign.
I understand that some verses are difficult. I am sure they can be explained and I may not know everything at this time. I do know this, that unclear verses should be interpreted in the light of the plain. It is one thing to look at difficult passages and say in response, "Well, some would say that it means such and such... (i.e. God knows all that is knowable" but another to dogmatically dig the flag in, especially on something like this.
With so much of your theology, if it were true, I wouldn't even be able to do any apologetics, especially of the presuppositional sort.
My advice to you is to seriously rethink the direction you have been heading in. I have been loyal to the ministry and you know me... I stick it out to the bitter end. But this theology has gone over board. I really fear for the future of OAO. I wish you would seek some council from some trusted and respected brothers like John Duncan. I especially think of John because there was a time when he believed a lot like you, but he has since come out of it and am sure for well thought out reasons.
Blessings,
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 27, 2007 22:24:58 GMT -5
I concur.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 27, 2007 22:45:25 GMT -5
Jesse, Brother, you're entering into, or have entered into, Gnosticism.
Beware of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, dear Brother.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Mar 27, 2007 22:58:47 GMT -5
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Gods word is what we are to study. It has always been that way. We are in danger of all kinds of heresies if we study the words of men.
2Sa 22:31 [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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psa 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Mar 27, 2007 23:02:54 GMT -5
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
His ways are past finding out, and that is good. If God was able to be disected and placed into my understanding then He would cease to be God. A God worthy of all our praise and worship. He would become like the god of the world and all false religions.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 28, 2007 0:00:14 GMT -5
Another thing I need to add:
Chris Devidal mentioned this passage a while back and I do not know if it got a response, but it is sufficient to show that Jonah was a false prophet and therefore the word of God contains a book that shouldn't be there, if indeed one of his prophecies failed or went unfulfilled.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
There is another issue I have which may or may not have been brought up. It is perhaps even more blunt. Isaiah 41:
21 "Present your case," says the LORD. "Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.
22 "Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come,
23 tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.
What this is saying is that a criteria to tell whether a god is false or not is to be able to tell what the future holds.
Now I see two possibilities here.
1. This completely refutes open theism, as in order to preserve libertarian free will it must erect a picture of god such that he does not know the future or chooses not to know the future in order to protect the "free choice" of His creations. But in this case, this god cannot tell the future and therefore by Isaiah's standards, is a false god.
2. The open theist can take the view that God knows the future because He is going to cause it. This is what I have seen from open theism when it comes to fulfilling messianic prophecies - God knew they would occur because He decided to make them occur by sheer force. Despite the fact that this presents a problem for the libertarian free will choices of the individual human beings related to this event... it causes another problem. The only other way I can see out of this is if you say that God knows these future events because He literally causes every event to occur by his sovereign and ultimate power and authority. And if you say this, you have totally left open theism and essentially become a Calvinist.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 28, 2007 2:47:50 GMT -5
It is very clear. Not only that, but the limited things you affirm as being part of God's foreknowledge surely encompass millions and billions of contingent events, if not ALL contingent events - therefore making all of these events also part of God's foreknowledge... By jobe, I think he's got it!Have you ever heard of the "web of possibilities"? It's just a title for a way of understanding of perhaps the way God sees things. Consider this, God is all knowing, this we know. But how does one know the definition in practical terms? We know He knows us better than we know ourselves, our very thoughts and the hairs on our head, (showing our hearts, minds and physics). And being the Creator of all things, He also knows how every single thing in this world works, the physics and characteristics of matter itself even. Now many people today go further and say He also knows the future as if it already happened without any possibility of alteration of any bit of the future. This brings about the obstacle of freewill, but also makes God knit into one single line of action. Since its already done in His eyes, then He can't change anything... He's stuck! He has no chance to be creative (which is His very nature), to be persuasive and guide His creation. There would also be no reason to test us (since everything has already been done in His view). There would be no reason for Him to give options, commands and the consequences if not met. There would be no way for Him to change His direction or annul His promise. And each one of these issues I just mentioned have verses which show otherwise. Now go back and remove the previous paragraph... Now consider how God can see all things possible... He knows our very essence, our desires, the things around us and the possibilities of every action we might take (taking all things into consideration because He is all knowing, able to make any computer look like a snail dead in its tracks... and yes, I'm just using a lame analogy). When we do decide on something and do it, He does respond to it... I see Scripture clearly showing this; He makes a promise of blessing but warns of the consequences if they don't meet His conditions (obedience for instance). There are times when its definite to God and He says "they will end up doing this" but He then follows with the reason "because they will follow their ways". (its late for me, but I'll get you examples verses if you need em, but I know you probably have em already) I'm not trying to convince you to believe this is THE WAY it works. But I am seeing people read into passages just as they claim others are doing... and I'm guilty here too, I know. So I thought this description could at least be an example to show there are very logical ways to consider things that actually fits with Scripture perfectly without having to say "its over my head in this life". By the way, many others that have understood God's moral value in this way took their beatings... look at Finney's experience even, Christian pastors said they'd meet him with cannon if he came to their city??? (you tell me, is that Christian?) And his converts were there to stay... over 85% still in the faith some 20 years after (if I have that correct). No other preacher has that track record! And it just might have something to do with God's blessing and anointing on the message preached, one that teaches the very character of God and WHY He is who He is... and why we are not. Blessings
|
|
|
Post by joem on Mar 28, 2007 7:08:37 GMT -5
There seems to be a lot of people calling other people heretics here and I would post a word of caution. Most of you are young and 10yrs from now the doctrines you are so sure of may seem heretical in light of what you will learn between now and then. Use these debates as an opportunity to learn and to test your positions within the entire context of scripture, not as an occasion to blow off steam.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 28, 2007 10:05:52 GMT -5
Very good points.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 28, 2007 10:30:45 GMT -5
Now I see two possibilities here. 1. This completely refutes open theism, as in order to preserve libertarian free will it must erect a picture of god such that he does not know the future or chooses not to know the future in order to protect the "free choice" of His creations. But in this case, this god cannot tell the future and therefore by Isaiah's standards, is a false god. 2. The open theist can take the view that God knows the future because He is going to cause it. This is what I have seen from open theism when it comes to fulfilling messianic prophecies - God knew they would occur because He decided to make them occur by sheer force. Despite the fact that this presents a problem for the libertarian free will choices of the individual human beings related to this event... it causes another problem. The only other way I can see out of this is if you say that God knows these future events because He literally causes every event to occur by his sovereign and ultimate power and authority. And if you say this, you have totally left open theism and essentially become a Calvinist. 3. (read my example of "web of possibilities") In this view, God sees every possibility, some things are inevitable, others depend on decisions to be made. And throughout it, God can intervene when necessary. There are passages all over that show examples of each of these. EDIT: God does intervene with His creation throughout, but more in regards to drawing people to Him... He is constantly interacting with us to bring about His promises! I don't see Scripture showing Him as being stuck in one single foreseen path, but sees all possibilities considering each of our persons and the world around us, still bringing about His purposes as He determined He would and promised to us. This, I think, shows a much more powerful, sovereign, all-knowing God. 4. I'm sure we're not thinking of quite a few more, so leave it open to hear out other people's views, don't just close the door as if we're all-knowing
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 28, 2007 14:36:40 GMT -5
Yes, God see's all the future possibilities, all the position decisions people will make with their free-will. And God is so wise, that He does not need to micromanage everything for His soveriegn plan to be ultimately accomplished. God knows what all the future possibilities are and He already knows exactly how He would respond to all of them. He already knows how to weave all the actions of free-will into His soveriegn plan.
It's really no wonder so many preachers are not soul winners, it's because their theology doesn't allow it! But Finneys certainly did. He pressed upon men their responsibility and their ability, and so sinners repented and stayed in the faith because it was their "will" that changed!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 28, 2007 15:11:17 GMT -5
Evan or Miles,
Can you please answer these questions?
What is very important is that we look at the surrounding context of a passage.
Let's look at other passages in the same exact chapter:
1 Samuel 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.
1 Samuel 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.
And then inbetween those two verses in that chapter is: 1 Samuel 15:29 - And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
So twice God said He repented of making Saul King, and then once God said that He will not repent of His repentance.
So within that one chapter there are two verses that says the Lord repented and then one that says the Lord does not repent.
Which of these three scriptures are correct? Are any of these scriptures wrong or misleading?
The answer is absolutely not. The Open Theist is in the position to say that all these scriptures are literal and truthful, all three of them are correct.
But the opposing view cannot say that all three passages are literal. The classic foreknowledge can only say that the one scripture is God as He really is, while the other two passages describe God as He really isn't.
This is what I believe, considering the whole content of the chapter: God reserves the right to repent or modify His plans as He see's fit, and God reserves the right to not repent and continue His original plan as He see's fit. So God can both repent and not repent, as He see's it fit, or as He decides what is the wisest or most benevolent course. As new circumstances arise, God is so wise that He knows how to weave all the future possibilities into His soveriegn plan.
The classical foreknowledge view says that the middle verse is literal, but the other two are figurative. But I must ask. What are they figurative of? If they are not saying that God repented, what are they saying exactly?
What do these passages mean: If they do not mean what they say, what do they mean?
2Sam 24:16 - And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.
Jeremiah 26:19 - Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls.
Numbers 25:11 - Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
Genesis 6:6 - 6:6 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
2 Chron 12:12 - And when he humbled himself, the wrath of the LORD turned from him, that he would not destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well.
Ezra - 10:14 - Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.
Ps78:38 - But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
Ps 85:3 - Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger.
What do all these verses mean if they do not mean what they plainly say?
---
Eph 2:3 "were...children of wrath" a clear reference to time?
How could God go from being angry with us while sinners and then no longer angry with us as saints, if time is not an aspect to God's existence? If God was always only going to pour out a certain amount of wrath, how could God "turn from his wrath" if He never actually intended in pourint out that wrath?
---------------
HERE IS THE KEY
I firmly believe, because of the plainness of the scriptures, without any precommitted philosophical view of God, that God's existence is in a linear fashion.
To say that God's existence does not move in a linear fashion, but is outside of time in eternity looking uon time past, present, and future, or that God lives in the past, present, and the future, all assume the philosophical belief that the past still exists and that the future has already occurred!! This cannot be proved with scripture.
I believe that the past is gone and is no more. The future hasn't happened yet. But the present is the only actual or current reality.
That is why "time travel" is naturally impossible, it is not consistent with the nature of reality. The past is no more, anywhere. And the future hasn't occurred yet, anywhere. But all of reality is made up of the present and that is where God Himself dwells.
If the past and the future already exist along side the present, then there is another Evan Schiable somewhere in another dimension! But not only one other Evan, but Evan times every nano second that Evan has ever existed!
But the past and the future do not exist in some other dimension. Only the present is actual. The past is forever gone. And the future yet has to occur.
THINK ABOUT IT Brothers please, consider the issue.
If eternity is the absense of time, then eternity is a stand-still. But the bible says contrary. The bible says, for example, that the smoke of the torment of sinners shall rise up forever and ever! Eternity is not a stand still, or the absense of time, but eternity is "forever and ever" that is, eternity is never ending duration, it is never ending time.
And God has eternally existed in duration. If there was no duration prior to God's "creating time", God would have been without duration and then make duration, but such a sequence requires duration! For time to not exist, and then to exist, requires succession or a chronological sequence of events. If there was no time, there could be no creating of time.
The alternative view is that God never made time at a specific point in time, but that God has always created time, in which case time itself was never created but always existed. But that is self contradictory to the point the classical foreknowledge camp is trying to prove.
The nature of reality is this: The past is gone and is no more. It is not somewhere in another dimension still occuring. The future has yet to occur and is not yet. It is not in another dimension somewhere. Only the present is actual reality.
How do I know that the future hasn't occured yet? Evan told me when he quoted this passage:
Isaiah 46:10 says that "the end" or "my counsel" for "the end" "are not yet done". And so God says "I will do" rather then "I have already done."
Can we take this scripture to mean what it is saying, that the end is not yet done? Or are we to believe that the end is already done?
Because the future hasn't happened yet, only what God predetermines is certain and foreknown (unless He see's it fit to modify or change it under new circumstances) while what is not predestined isnot foreknown, so it is not a fixity but a possibility, it is open. So the future, though it hasn't happened yet neither does it exist somewhere, is both partly settled and partly open.
EVERY CHRISTIAN AFFIRMS THE FUTURE IS OPEN:
Every praying Christian testifies that they really do presuppose an open future that has different possibilities. They are testifying that they subconsciously, or consciously believe that "prayer changes things" just as Moses's prayer saved Israel and altered the possible future (Exodus 32:14) and just as Hezekiels prayer altered the future and extended his own life (2 Kings 20:2, Isaiah 38:2).
Every individual who has ever said, "I am really glad that I did that" or "I am really glad that I didn't do that" is making it known that they either subconsciously or consciously believe in contingent actions and in the multiple future possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 28, 2007 15:29:31 GMT -5
I don't want to ignore everything you wrote, but a question came to mind.
Can you have a vision of the future and be sure it will happen? EDIT: And suppose that man always has "free will?"
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Mar 28, 2007 15:33:50 GMT -5
Jesse said: This is what I believe, considering the whole content of the chapter: God reserves the right to repent or modify His plans as He see's fit, and God reserves the right to not repent and continue His original plan as He see's fit. So God can both repent and not repent, as He see's it fit, or as He decides what is the wisest or most benevolent course. As new circumstances arise, God is so wise that He knows how to weave all the future possibilities into His soveriegn plan.
Jesse,
Question: Can God decide not to follow through with the plan of salvation, and Hell and destruction, and all that we look forward to as Christians, and all we warn sinners of?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 28, 2007 15:35:05 GMT -5
Grant, I will respond to your most recent post here:
Keep in mind that even if you were right (I am 99.999% sure you are not), all the arguments I've made against the open theist position would still be in force.
You said, This whole paragraph begs the question. You are assuming a a sequential, human view of time and concluding that God must operate in this view because it wouldn't make sense otherwise - but when you argue that it wouldn't make sense, you merely assume that God is already operating in this kind of time simply because it wouldn't make sense to you if it were otherwise. I would contend that God is timeless and immutable, and that this is totally impossible for humans to understand this - BUT that it is not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction because it has not been shown that if God is timeless and immutable ( i.e. transcendent of our understanding of time and time itself), then we come upon a statement equivalent to A = ~A (not A) in the same place at the same time, etc.
To be more specific, you say that if the future is fixed, then God is "stuck". No, He isn't, because if the future is fixed and yet God is timeless and transcends that future, He is by no means "stuck". He is operating in a higher sphere that we cannot understand. The other arguments like "He has no chance to be creative" or "there would be no reason to test us" are also bunk, especially the latter because you don't know that there would be no reason to test us if God already knew what would happen. The answer to that is God does all things for His glory and for the sake of His name. In Romans 9, it says that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that His name would be proclaimed throughout the earth. He brought Pharaoh into power and then destroyed him for this purpose.
As a solution you suggest that God merely knows all of the possibilities? So God knew it would be a possibility that He would send His sons to die for the sins that they would possibly commit? This is unacceptable. You do not deny that God's plan was to send His Son, right? And that the sins His son would save us from are therefore part of the plan too?
Yes, God makes promises of blessings and warns us that the blessings will not occur if we do not do what we are told. These kinds of verses are always used to try to make some idea of free will, or to say that God doing or not doing something is dependent upon the reactions of humans. But this is flawed reasoning, and this sort of meaning is being pressed into the text. If my view is correct, then God is intervening in time with creatures who do not know the future, and He is telling us what will happen in whatever case there is. Now, He knows exactly what will happen, but as the secret things belong the the Lord (Deut. 29:29) He does not tell us yet, or we do not find out until it actually happens. So the event that will actually happen is most likely contained in what God says (although not necessarily), but He also can project other possibilities and tell us what would happen in another case - even if this case was never going to happen in the first place. Is what I am saying clear?
Then you say, They were probably using a figure of speech, although I don't know. I wouldn't support anybody like Finney. Finney was most likely a heretic and I think his salvation is somewhat dubious. You can get mad at that if you want, but that's your choice. Just because it seems to "work" doesn't mean anything. That's like saying that scientific "laws" are always true if they "work", which is the argument I am getting from the atheists on this board. It "just might" have something to do with God's blessing, but I would say that it most likely had to do with the fact that he preached a gospel that made people think they could be perfect and enter heaven based on their obedience, which is no gospel at all - yet there are billions of people worldwide who like this kind of idea (Catholics and muslims for example).
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 28, 2007 15:54:43 GMT -5
Here is the first part of my refutation of Jesse's most recent post.
=====
Jesse, you have taken only one of the arguments I presented and unsatisfactorily replied to it (I will show why shortly). The others have gone untouched, and without impugning your motives here, I am finding many of your arguments (and the avoidance of my arguments) to be disingenuous. You may or may not intend them to be, I do not know - but I am kind of starting to feel like I do when I am debating shetani or cervy or someone like that. Banging my head against a wall.
Anyway, I will answer every single part of your post in detail. Evan may disagree with some points because I am coming from a calvinist perspective, but we do both agree that God's foreknowledge indeed exists and is exhaustive. We also both believe that man cannot attain this moral perfection you speak of. I would say that if you really think you are morally perfect and that you can enter heaven because of that, then you're lost. It is hard for me to say that because of the fruit you've shown, but Jesus says that many people will say to Him "Lord, Lord" and talk all about their works and the wonderful things they've done in His name, and Christ will send them to hell forever. He won't say that He knew them and forgot about them, or that He knew them and ceased to know them based on something bad they did - He will say that He never knew them.
Anyway,
None of them are wrong or misleading. You are forgetting how strong verse 29 is - God is making an analogy. He is saying that just as He is not a man, so He does not repent. It follows from this that if God were to genuinely repent, He would be a man, or like a man. This is idolatrous and heretical.
And neither can you. You claim to have a "plain" hermeneutic but you struggle with some verses too, such as this one - and you have to find a non-plain way to read verse 29 in order to fit it into your systematic theology. You are not neutral here, just like atheists aren't neutral to the debate of whether God exists. I do not see how you could have once supported presuppositional apologetics and then tell us that you are taking the "neutral, plain sense" approach even to verses that seem to conflict with your views. Nobody is neutral.
This is hogwash and wordsmithing. The classical view says that the verses which describe God as changing His mind are anthropomorphic - that is, they are designed to relate something to man about God that can really only be explained in human terms, i.e. His disposition towards sin. The open theist doctrine you are turning to is seriously flawed in that it assumes that if humans can't comprehend the way something works, it just can't be - such as God's timelessness, which I will get to later...
But in order to say this you must refute the argument based on verse 29 that I have presented - that is, God does not repent just as He is not a man. If God repented that would mean that He were like a man, or that He was a man. Both of these are unacceptable.
They are communicating God's disposition towards sin. Anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are designed by God to relate certain things to His creations in creaturely terms so that we can understand them. The verse which says God does not repent is so strong that we are forced to this conclusion, just as we know that God is spirit, and therefore verses which say God has eyes, hands, etc - are anthropomorphic.
Anthropomorphism. God is using creaturely language to express His disposition towards sin, and this lines up with His interaction with human beings who are bound by time. See the post I just made to Grant for more on this as well.
Now, tell me Jesse - what do Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29, in light of what I have already said, mean - if they do not mean what they "plainly say"?
Because God is expressing His actions in creaturely terms, and we cannot understand His timelessness. God is interacting with human beings in time, remember. So in our frame of perspective, we indeed were children of wrath, but no longer are. What does this look like to God? I don't know, but that doesn't make the timeless view wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 28, 2007 16:16:59 GMT -5
Part 2: ===== --------------- You are not without a precommitted philosophical view. You are not coming to this debate with a blank slate in the area of your mind that deals with God's nature. Nobody says that God "lives in the past, present and future". On the other hand you would say that God lives within time, i.e. He is always experiencing a "present" and nothing else. To WHOM? This is absurd. First of all, I have never articulated this as my view, that the past still "exists". What do you mean by "exists"? That it exists in the mind of God, i.e. that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all things which have happened in the past? That it exists in some alternate dimension where it is stored? How can you attribute this belief to me when you have not articulated what I supposedly believe about it? Also, no, to us the future has not already occurred. How does God see the past, present and future? I do not know, but you are pushing your view (that God exists within time just like we do) onto mine and begging the question in doing so. Neither can the "time is the succession of consciousness" view, Jesse. Sure, to us the past is gone. The present is what is. Future things have not happened to us, but what we experience means nothing when we are trying to deduce, from that, what GOD experiences! How do you know, Jesse? Where did you get this in the Bible? This is absurd. I cannot believe you are making the "this is philosophy" or "this cannot be proved from Scripture" argument against those who believe God is timeless, and then saying things like this. Not necessarily true! How do you know that the past, present and future to humans who are time-bound do not exist as an infinitesimally small singularity in the mind of God? To Him, who is all knowing, all of human history must be like a speck compared to what He knows! You are once again assuming that just because something doesn't make sense to you, it can't be true. Chapter and verse, please. Of course the future has yet to occur, and the past is gone, to us. But as I have already argued (and as you have not rebutted), God is so sure of all the events that will ever happen within time that it is as if they already happened. False. You don't know that, and you didn't get it from Scripture. Even those who believe God is timeless do not believe that mortal and finite beings will enter an "eternal now" state upon death. We will exist in time forever, and that is why the smoke of the reprobates' torment will rise forever and ever. But it is a logical fallacy to try to extend your finite understanding to God and force Him to your standards, Jesse. This is all begging the question. It basically boils down to "God exists in time. All of His actions - in HIS frame of reference - should be totally comprehensible to puny, finite human beings, one of which is Jesse Morrell. Therefore if God does not exist in time, time could not exist. Therefore God exists in time." What is the contradiction we are trying to prove, Jesse? Articulate it clearly, please, so I can show that it is really no contradiction at all and that your proofs all beg the question against the orthodox position. I've already responded to this type of argument. No. To us, the end is not yet done. But to God, the end is so sure that it may as well have been done. God's view of this is incomprehensible to humans because we are finite and time-bound. I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me, could you repeat it more clearly? It seems to be assuming your false presuppositions to begin with, such as "the future hasn't happened yet [in our frame of reference], therefore it doesn't exist yet [to us], therefore it doesn't exist to God" and whatnot. Balderdash. Let me post an excerpt from a site which is sound on this topic (http://www.withchrist.org/cuthroat.htm): 4.No Christian humanist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Christian humanists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Christian humanist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead. 5.No Christian humanist can consistently say the God foreknew all things yet teach that prayer is of any use. We would ask, "Should we pray for the salvation of those whom God foreknew would be d**ned?" "Should we pray for those whom God foreknew would be saved?" "If so, why?" Would they not be saved anyway, seeing that God foreknew they would be? Why pray at all, then?
The only one who can rightly pray is the believer who believes in the sovereignty of God, that man is active not passive in the drama of redemption, and that God has appointed prayer as the means through which God brings about certain ends. For example, God through His prophet caused Hezekiah to go to God in prayer, asking for his life. God answered and said He would add fifteen years to Hezekiah. Now that was God's purpose all along, but you will notice that he caused Hezekiah to pray for that very purpose. All true prayer today is just like that.
So to the Christian humanist, we ask: "Why pray?" But to the believer in the sovereignty of God, we ask: "Why cease to pray?" Such a believer should be in continual prayer and praise to God, Who is working all things according to the counsel of His own will.
So Jesse - how do you consistently pray for a sinner to be saved according to the open theist, pelagian worldview? You cannot pray that God will change the person's heart or even 'prick' his conscience. If God were to change the person's heart, then that would be forcing the person to believe and you couldn't have that! That would violate his free will, which is totally unacceptable! You cannot pray that He will "prick his conscience" and "woo" him to belief, because in order for God to do this in a non-coercive way, it is ultimately going to have to come down to that person's totally independent and free choice. God can't have anything to do with it, according to you, or else that would be coercive and God would supposedly become a "tyrant" among other things. So what you are left with is... hoping that the lost person musters up enough will to repent on his own. That's basically all you've got.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 28, 2007 23:10:09 GMT -5
Keep in mind that even if you were right (I am 99.999% sure you are not), all the arguments I've made against the open theist position would still be in force. Tyler, Thanks for your response! I acknowledge the great possibility of being wrong in so many things, and I dare say I'm 99.999% sure I'm right. If I ever do make such a statement, hit me with great force for being in such sickening pride, please! As for your arguments, they beg the question. Why do so many arguments by Calvinists conclude with "this is totally impossible for humans to understand this"? Is it their reasoning just doesn't make sense and this is an acceptable means to close the door to maintain their view? (this is a sincere and honest question... I'm seeing it all over the place in other forums as well)And contrary to what many on these boards might think, I don't try to put GOD in a box, nor is it remotely possible for me to know all about Him, BUT I am to know Him! and that is what I continue to do. Today, I might say "I don't know" on many matters, but hope never to close the door on God of revealing Himself to me by making statements like "this is impossible to understand". I believe He takes pleasure in revealing Himself in our lives, why do so many people enjoy the opposite? I hope I've been irenic, but please let me know if I failed. Blessings
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 29, 2007 0:12:31 GMT -5
Oh Brother Jesse, What? And the Bible says...? Both of these can be answered by plain scripture, not just inferences based on events taking place; 1 Peter 1:2 KJV 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.1 Peter 1:2 NASB who are chosen 2according to the (J)foreknowledge of God the Father, (K)by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to (L)obey Jesus Christ and be (M)sprinkled with His blood: (N)May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. Romans 8:29,30 KJV 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. The Bible says that it is the other way around. (Perhaps this is a moot point.) It says his predetermining is according to his foreknowledge, not his foreknowledge is according to his predetermining. That may be true. But what about every single messianic prophecy that is not just God determining that he will do good, but rather specifically and in a specific time frame events shall take place, specifically? How in the world does that fit into open theism? What a false dilemma. "I am the Lord I change not." So does the open theist think that the non open theist thinks that God doesn't even understand time and doesn't know how man is subject to it? God can't choose to show his anger towards someone for a time and then lift it at a time and for reasons he sees fit? That is not God expressing His not knowingness, but rather his character. Is there really a problem there? Wow. I can't even believe you would say something like this. The classical view of foreknowledge idolatrous? You have gone off into believing something that is about as far from orthodoxy as possible. According to wikipedia the first mention of this idea was in the 5th century by a writer inspired by Plato. I was just thinking the other day about the reason for our rejecting cults like mormonism and Islam; Is it not because their view of God is idolatrous? The mormon says Jesus and God and Holy Spirit except when pressed, the way he views these things is not what the Bible says. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the God of the Bible. Neither is the god of the Koran the God of the Bible. They may have the same names and many similarities but they are described as completely different. I really really hesitate to say that you are an idolater, but the god you are speaking of is not the God of the Bible. The more I look at your theology the more I hit my forehead in unbelief. If anyone is squeezing the Bible to fit into presuppositions it is you. Now again and again PLAIN SCRIPTURE will be presented. Not just stories of events and then basing doctrines throw your flag in the ground style from them... But plain scriptural teachings. KJV Romans 8:29,30 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 1 Peter 1:2 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.Matthew 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.John 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.I really like something Eli has said many times. That a man should have five smooth stones when declaring a doctrine, but have need of using only one of them. 1 Samuel 17:40 And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine. Also something John Wesley said about how if something is new he can be sure it is wrong. Open theism is new, plain and simple. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught as a doctrine (where God's foreknowledge is plainly taught). Nowhere in the early church fathers do they believe this. This is a strange doctrine, by strange I mean foreign. I understand that some verses are difficult. I am sure they can be explained and I may not know everything at this time. I do know this, that unclear verses should be interpreted in the light of the plain. It is one thing to look at difficult passages and say in response, "Well, some would say that it means such and such... (i.e. God knows all that is knowable" but another to dogmatically dig the flag in, especially on something like this. With so much of your theology, if it were true, I wouldn't even be able to do any apologetics, especially of the presuppositional sort. My advice to you is to seriously rethink the direction you have been heading in. I have been loyal to the ministry and you know me... I stick it out to the bitter end. But this theology has gone over board. I really fear for the future of OAO. I wish you would seek some council from some trusted and respected brothers like John Duncan. I especially think of John because there was a time when he believed a lot like you, but he has since come out of it and am sure for well thought out reasons. Blessings, Miles
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 29, 2007 1:12:01 GMT -5
Hello Grant, as for you putting God in a box, I believe this is what open theism does. I do not know too much about your position, so forgive me if I have mislabeled you. If it is fully embraced with all of the things that it entails, I think it (open theism) blooms into damnable heresy. It simply shows a picture of god that is not one of the God of the Bible. Miles is correct on this.
Jesse has not embraced open theism as far as it will take him. I have listened to a debate between a calvinist and an open theist named Bob Enyart, who ended up saying things like "God cares more about souls than about the fulfillment of His prophecies", trying to prove that some prophecies failed in order to make his points, saying Jesus could have hated the Father or else the love within the Trinity wouldn't have been "genuine", etc. These things are just simple heresy. It is my prayer that Jesse will turn from this view. I do not like having to debate this but it is a topic that needs to be fought over. OAO does not have an insignificant influence, and I don't like the idea of Jesse spreading this disgusting false doctrine all over the USA. Of course, it is apparently happening and has happened for some time if all those people he named are into the moral government - open theism bit as well.
Anyway, you said:
Could you please point out how I beg the question in my arguments? I just said that we can't understand the full extent of some of God's incommunicable attributes - under discussion here is the meaning of His omniscience, His eternality, and His immutability/impassibility. You may find some calvinists saying that some of their beliefs are paradoxical - for example, the supposed tension between God's utter sovereign and man's culpability for sin. I do not believe there is any such tension, it is as simple as that. Maybe you could be more specific in what you are talking about. I really don't make the "it's incomprehensible to us" statement very often when talking about doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 29, 2007 1:56:14 GMT -5
Some of these same points / debates have been brought out on the C.A.R.M. site (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - http://www.carm.org). here is the link.... www.carm.org/open.htm
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 29, 2007 9:36:53 GMT -5
Tyler,
I had a response ready to send last night but did the Lincoln-letter thing. I've prayed a lot about what's been going on here. There's so much bashing, name-calling and illegitimate rebuking on these boards lately, that I'm not even sure its worth time to share views because people seem so set on their ways they aren't hearing to understand the other sides. And if someone is 99.999% sure they are right, then there's no open-minded discussion.
When I feel the discussions are back on track, I'll ping back in. But for now, may only the LORD be lifted up in our lives.
GOD bless you.
|
|