 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/21/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi SwanLake,
quote:
Lee: If God can be disappointed, then we can be disappointed,
Swanlake: That does not logically follow.
If you can violate simple logic like that, then these all would be true as well:
If it's impossible for God to sin, then it's impossible for us to sin.
I need the rest of my statement, though, to make my point:
"If God can be disappointed, as you say, then we can be disappointed, if 'hoping in him' means we rely on his strength and wisdom, which can fail."
I don't think that's logically inconsistent...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/21/2004 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi SwanLake,
quote:
Lee: If God can be disappointed, then we can be disappointed,
Swanlake: That does not logically follow.
If you can violate simple logic like that, then these all would be true as well:
If it's impossible for God to sin, then it's impossible for us to sin.
If God can speak worlds into existence, then we can speak worlds into existence.
If we can sin, then God can sin.
If we can die, then God can die.
I need the rest of my statement, though, to make my point:
"If God can be disappointed, as you say, then we can be disappointed, if 'hoping in him' means we rely on his strength and wisdom, which can fail."
Where did anyone say His wisdom and strength fail?
We fail, not Him.
We may fail to seek His strength and wisdom, but our failure is what disappoints Him. The converse is not automatically true.
If God can be disappointed entails that we can be disappointed,
then if God can speak worlds into existence entails we can speak worlds into existence is just as valid.
And if God can divide the Red Sea entails that we can divide the Red Sea is valid as well.
Simple logic, if A-->B is true, it does not mean that B-->A is automatically true as well.
http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/logic/lognot/node2.html
"One common error is to think that the statements p->q and its converse q->p are equivalent, but they are not."
Our failure disappoints Him. It does not follow that we are disappointed in Him; the reason being HE NEVER FAILS.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/22/2004 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
if 'hoping in him' means we rely on his strength and wisdom, which can fail."
I believe hoping in Him means we rely on His strength and wisdom.
You say His wisdom and strength can fail.
Can you provide some scriptural support that shows God's strength and wisdom can fail, which you assert here?
Spenlake-
Here's what Lee means. Open theists claim that in spite of his wisdom and strength, God can fail to obtain the desired end. For example, you and I would say (at least I would) that God can truly TRY to win somebody to his love and FAIL to convince that person to open up. So we might say that God's wisdom and strength failed to achieve what they set their intention on. Lee reasons that if God can be disappointed in this was, then so we can be disappointed in God this way. Not sure how his reasoning works ('cause it doesn't). When God is disappointed, it's not in HIS wisdom and strength but in humans.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/22/2004 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Spenlake-
SwanLake (spenlake obsesses over morbid subjects, I do not)
quote:
Here's what Lee means. Open theists claim that in spite of his wisdom and strength, God can fail to obtain the desired end. For example, you and I would say (at least I would) that God can truly TRY to win somebody to his love and FAIL to convince that person to open up. So we might say that God's wisdom and strength failed to achieve what they set their intention on. Lee reasons that if God can be disappointed in this way, then so we can be disappointed in God this way. Not sure how his reasoning works ('cause it doesn't). When God is disappointed, it's not in HIS wisdom and strength but in humans.
God's strength and wisdom don't fail, some people choose to reject His offer. Sure, if you believed He forced Himself on people, you could say His strength wasn't enough but since He doesn't force Himself on people, His strength and wisdom don't fail. And we cannot be disappointed in God. Lee cannot support this through scripture or logic.
There's lots of scriptural examples of people failing God,
there are NO scriptural examples of God failing us.
Lee is saying that if A-->B, then automatically B-->A, which is not correct.
If God can be disappointed in us (He can) DOES NOT entail that we can be disappointed in God. And he has failed to make that case.
If A-->B automatically entailed B-->A, then:
If God can divide the Red Sea, then we can divide the Rea Sea is true as well.
If A-->B automatically entailed B-->A, then:
If God can speak worlds into existence, then we can speak worlds into existence is true as well.
Tom, where's their starting team??? 
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/22/2004 2:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Deuteronomy 31:6 "Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you."
7 Then Moses called to Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, "Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land which the LORD has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall give it to them as an inheritance.
8 "The LORD is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed."
1 Chronicles 28:20 Then David said to his son Solomon, "Be strong and courageous, and act; do not fear nor be dismayed, for the LORD God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you nor forsake you until all the work for the service of the house of the LORD is finished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
1 Samuel 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
1 Samuel 15:23 "For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He has also rejected you from being king."
26 "But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel."
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/22/2004 2:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I wrote Swanlake? That's funny! Oh well.
I'm with ya on Lee's logic. Doesn't work. Just because God can be disappointed in us doesn't mean we can be disappointed in God. But if you have to defend that to somebody, something so simple, do you really want to invest the time? I don't.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Here's what Lee means. Open theists claim that in spite of his wisdom and strength, God can fail to obtain the desired end. For example, you and I would say (at least I would) that God can truly TRY to win somebody to his love and FAIL to convince that person to open up. So we might say that God's wisdom and strength failed to achieve what they set their intention on. Lee reasons that if God can be disappointed in this was, then so we can be disappointed in God this way. Not sure how his reasoning works ('cause it doesn't). When God is disappointed, it's not in HIS wisdom and strength but in humans.
Tom
The REAL "Openness" is in God's Love, that it is his will to create us with, and sustain our nature with the freedom of will to either love God or reject him. Openness is God's love; not -- as sometimes is thought -- mathematical, numerical choices or "outcomes."
I read a study on "wrath" that showed it to be a word used at the time to describe the military commander's will so that "ZEAL" better evokes the right idea in our minds. God's ZEAL is such that he continues to Love those who have rejected them, and continues -- even after death -- to Love them. And to some that is "hell." (Just like 'Polka music' is heaven to some and hell to others!)
That defines what is described by Tom above. Instead of saying "So we might say that God's wisdom and strength failed to achieve what they set their intention on" it seems better to recognize that God's wisdom includes creating us with free will. Our working out our salvation, by his strength, is the task for the moment in this life. (Salvation is totally by grace, yet includes synergistically our "yes.") We fail ourselves -- or rather, we fail our created nature.
.
As to "God can truly TRY to win somebody to his love and FAIL to convince that person to open up." we must remember that we are not born sinning. We inherit "original sin." We are created "in sin" (Ps. 51), but that means we are born with the mortality of the fall and the propensity to sin; not imputed guilt.
God's openness is that God CHOOSES TO "obtain the 'desired' end" as WE might decide to determine what is "desired." But God desires our love, not a forced love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: The REAL "Openness" is in God's Love, that it is his will to create us with, and sustain our nature with the freedom of will to either love God or reject him. Openness is God's love; not -- as sometimes is thought -- mathematical, numerical choices or "outcomes."
Tom: Spoken like a genuine open theist! Precisely. It's LOVE first and last. You sound like Doc, PoW: Love requires freedom. Freedom entails risk. Risk...and on and on. I'd only add that if love is open in the sense you describe, then it's not inaccurate to say the outcome of such love and freedom is also open ended.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I'd only add that if love is open in the sense you describe, then it's not inaccurate to say the outcome of such love and freedom is also open ended.
I won't differ.
But to illustrate it, I'd picture two parallel lines. Can't we just as easily describe two parallel lines as both defining "open ended space" and "delineated space?" It just keeps going on and on, with no way to enter from the outside; yet it never closes off.
I'm not being literal with that illustration. But it preserves some of the idea of continual-growth-while-at-rest that the Fathers talk about. (Like God's immutability is not something frozen; and God's impassibility is not something cold -- words simply fail!!!)
Nature is useful to recognize. And especially the distinction between the "structure" given in a creature's nature as opposed to the "direction" of creation as being fulfilled in our work and worship versus "anti-thetical" perversions of our task and opportunities -- that is important. But the "personal" aspect, that nature is "hypostatic" of person, that we live through it and are not determined by it........that is important.
So, the "outcome of such love and freedom is also open ended." Yes.
But the impression that God's Love makes on us, according to Maximus the Confessor, can never be mistaken--were we to flee it--for any immitation, ever, not even an eternity later!
That too is why I like the this illustration (that popped into my head) of the unending parallel lines. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I'd only add that if love is open in the sense you describe, then it's not inaccurate to say the outcome of such love and freedom is also open ended.
I won't differ.
But to illustrate it, I'd picture two parallel lines. Can't we just as easily describe two parallel lines as both defining "open ended space" and "delineated space?" It just keeps going on and on, with no way to enter from the outside; yet it never closes off.
I'm not being literal with that illustration. But it preserves some of the idea of continual-growth-while-at-rest that the Fathers talk about. (Like God's immutability is not something frozen; and God's impassibility is not something cold -- words simply fail!!!)
Nature is useful to recognize. And especially the distinction between the "structure" given in a creature's nature as opposed to the "direction" of creation as being fulfilled in our work and worship versus "anti-thetical" perversions of our task and opportunities -- that is important. But the "personal" aspect, that nature is "hypostatic" of person, that we live through it and are not determined by it........that is important.
So, the "outcome of such love and freedom is also open ended." Yes.
But the impression that God's Love makes on us, according to Maximus the Confessor, can never be mistaken--were we to flee it--for any immitation, ever, not even an eternity later!
That too is why I like the this illustration (that popped into my head) of the unending parallel lines.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | In "River of Fire":
quote:
Saint Peter the Damascene writes: "We all receive God's blessings equally. But some of us, receiving God's fire, that is, His word, become soft like beeswax, while the others like clay become hard as stone. And if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him. And no one is responsible for this privation of light except the one who does not want to have it. God created the sun and the eye. Man is free to receive the sun's light or not. The same is true here. God sends the light of knowledge like rays to all, but He also gave us faith like an eye. The one who wants to receive knowledge through faith, keeps it by his works, and so God gives him more willingness, knowledge, and power" (Philokalia, vol. 3, p. 8).
There's an illustration if the flesh. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/22/2004 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: "If God can be disappointed, as you say, then we can be disappointed, if 'hoping in him' means we rely on his strength and wisdom, which can fail."
SwanLake: Where did anyone say His wisdom and strength fail?
I'm not getting anyone to admit this, but I think it's a plain implication. If God estimates and then hopes, and if God also has an intent in the matter, then if God can be disappointed, then we must say, I think, that God failed.
quote:
We may fail to seek His strength and wisdom, but our failure is what disappoints Him. The converse is not automatically true.
Are you saying God has no intent, and does not try and affect the outcome, where free-will human choices are involved? I think the OV teaches that he does.
quote:
And if God can divide the Red Sea entails that we can divide the Red Sea is valid as well.
Simple logic, if A-->B is true, it does not mean that B-->A is automatically true as well.
Yes, I agree. That is not what I am saying here.
quote:
Our failure disappoints Him. It does not follow that we are disappointed in Him; the reason being HE NEVER FAILS.
If I set out for Alaska, and intend to get there, but somehow I don't make it, then I failed to reach Alaska, I can be said to have failed.
quote:
There's lots of scriptural examples of people failing God,
there are NO scriptural examples of God failing us.
Yes, saying God can fail is completely unscriptural, and therefore incorrect.
quote:
POW: Instead of saying "So we might say that God's wisdom and strength failed to achieve what they set their intention on" it seems better to recognize that God's wisdom includes creating us with free will.
Yes, but if you say that God set his intention on a outcome (OV says this), then still you have to say God failed, if the outcome was not what he tried to achieve. Just saying God give free will to man does not get around this, I think.
quote:
Saint Peter the Damascene: ... if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him.
I don't think so, though!
AC 9:3-4 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
So to summarize, if God has to estimate, and hopes for an outcome, and has an intent to bring about that outcome, then if he is disappointed, then he must be said to have failed.
Then if we place our hope in God, when he says he intends to do something that involves free will, then we may be disappointed in him. And look somewhere else...
2KI 1:2 So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury."
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/22/2004 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: I'm not getting anyone to admit this, but I think it's a plain implication. If God estimates and then hopes, and if God also has an intent in the matter, then if God can be disappointed, then we must say, I think, that God failed.
Tom: You can get people to admit this (I admit this for example), provided that by “failed” you mean “God didn’t get what he wanted” without suggesting that the REASON he didn’t get what he wanted is because of some weakness or fault in God, for in fact, when God fails to get what he wants it is because of some weakness or fault in others. And that disappoints him (just as it does us when it happens in our lives). But what you can’t get anybody with 2 cents of sense to admit is that we should be disappointed in God when God fails to get what he wants because "getting it" was by God's own design conditioned upon the choices of others.
quote:
?: We may fail to seek His strength and wisdom, but our failure is what disappoints Him. The converse is not automatically true.
Lee: Are you saying God has no intent, and does not try and affect the outcome, where free-will human choices are involved? I think the OV teaches that he does.
No, God does have an intent and does try to affect the outcome. But when in spite of intent and action God does not get what he wants, we can conclude two things: 1) what God wanted to achieve was (by God's own design) conditioned upon the cooperation of others, and 2) any just disappointment in such cases is entirely attributable to those others and not to God.
quote:
?: Our failure disappoints Him. It does not follow that we are disappointed in Him; the reason being HE NEVER FAILS.
Lee: If I set out for Alaska, and intend to get there, but somehow I don't make it, then I failed to reach Alaska, I can be said to have failed.
You two gotta agree on what it means to say God "fails." It’s OK to say God fails if one means “God does not always get what he wants and attempts to achieve because acheiving it is conditioned upon the choices of others.” It can be said that “God fails” in this sense. If the rules of the game include (by God’s own design) God’s sometimes getting what he wants being dependant upon the choices of others, then in those cases (and only those cases) God’s not getting what he wants is attributable to others (who disobey, who don’t respond, who etc.) and not to God.
Lee insists that “failing” by definition means the one who fails fails because of some fault or weakness in herself and therefore that our disappointment that the desired outcome was not achieved is disappointment in the one who attempted to achieve but failed. That’s just not so, and to insist that it must be so is, Lee, irrational (though I understand that insisting that it is the case is holding up your house of cards). I can fail to get what I want if getting what I want is conditioned upon both my wanting and working for it and someone else’s wanting and working for it. If they don't want and work for it, then I fail to get what I desired and worked for. The other person is to blame and anybody who is disappointed in the matter is disappointed in the non-cooperative partner and not in God.
quote:
?: There's lots of scriptural examples of people failing God, there are NO scriptural examples of God failing us.
Lee: Yes, saying God can fail is completely unscriptural, and therefore incorrect.
Only if the failure to achieve what one wants is by definition due to some weakness or fault in the person. God doesn’t do THAT in the Bible. But there are examples in the Bible of God desiring and attempting to achieve something but not getting that something because getting that something was partly dependant upon others making choices that were not determined by God. So it IS Scriptural to say God "fails to always get what he wants" in this sense.
Lee: No it’s not!
Tom: Yes it is.
Lee: No it’s not!
Tom: Yes it is.
Lee: If that's true then my house of cards crashes down!
Tom: The sooner the better.
Lee: So to summarize, if God has to estimate, and hopes for an outcome, and has an intent to bring about that outcome, then if he is disappointed, then he must be said to have failed.
Tom: Yes, but this is not a “mistake” on God's part since the outcome depended on wills other than God's.
Lee: Yes it is a mistake of God's!
Tom: No it isn’t!
Lee: Yes it is!
Tom: No it isn’t.
Lee: Then if we place our hope in God, when he says he intends to do something that involves free will, then we may be disappointed in him.
Tom: No, we would be disappointed in those who made the choice to not cooperate with God in achieving his will. But if God told me he intended to do something that depended upon free will choices, I would immediately conclude that that something was conditional and would, with God, ascribe any disappointment I felt in its not happening to those who failed to make the right choices and not to God.
Lee: And look somewhere else...
2KI 1:2 So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury."
Tom: You are one hard-headed nut to break, Lee. Look man, you can understand open theism if you WANT to. Right now you don't understand it. I know you think you do. But you don't. You don’t have to agree with the open view, but golly, dude, you should at least be able to articulate it accurately. Until now you haven’t. Trust me on this one, Lee. You do not understand the open view. You don't like the tiny bit you hear and think you understand, so you set your course to defeat the view without really understanding it. I suggest more listening, less debating and judging, and lots more prayer. Take a year off and just read and pray and think and read and pray and think and read and pray and think and read and pray and...
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/23/2004 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
I'm not getting anyone to admit this, but I think it's a plain implication. If God estimates and then hopes, and if God also has an intent in the matter, then if God can be disappointed, then we must say, I think, that God failed.
The person who rejects God is not disappointed in God's efforts, they have rejected God. That's their choice, they get their way. God will not violate their will.
The person who accepts God is not disappointed in God, they have accepted God. That's their choice, they get their way (God's way). God will not violate their will.
So who's disappointed in God?
You're implying that people who reject God are disappointed that He didn't FORCE them into an eternal relationship, that He wasn't strong enough or smart enough to violate their will and give them something they didn't want.
If you work with God, He will never fail.
If you refuse to work with God, He won't FORCE Himself on you. You may see it as Him failing, I don't. I see it as Him letting someone have their way, the way they choose.
Why would God want to FORCE someone into an eternal relationship against their will?
Is that your concept of love?
Paul on the road to Damascus? He responded positively! He could have kept on the same course he was on. Paul was zealous about serving God but was incorrect in his goals, once God called him to change his course, he responded positively with the same zealousness. God questioned Paul, Paul chose to respond positively to God's call.
I knew a guy once who said that God had sovereignly saved him, without any response from him. I couldn't convince him otherwise, a very assured calvinist. He later exposed himself to pre-teen girls and his response to the charges was that that was the way God made him!
God's "sovereign election" to indecent exposure.
On earth, as it is in heaven.....
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/23/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | Nice post, Swan. Read the posted quote from "River fo Fire" that Selah put on the "Resurrection" thread. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/23/2004 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
SwanLake: You're implying that people who reject God are disappointed that He didn't FORCE them into an eternal relationship, that He wasn't strong enough or smart enough to violate their will and give them something they didn't want.
No, I'm saying that if John understands that God intends to bring about some outcome for others, that depends on human choices, and then if John puts any hope in God, that he will accomplish his purpose, John can be disappointed in God, according to the OV.
quote:
Swanlake: If you work with God, He will never fail.
Not according to the OV! If God works to bring about an outcome that involves human choices, and even if you work with him, you can both fail.
quote:
Tom: It’s OK to say God fails if one means “God does not always get what he wants and attempts to achieve because achieving it is conditioned upon the choices of others.” It can be said that “God fails” in this sense.
Lee insists that “failing” by definition means the one who fails fails because of some fault or weakness in herself and therefore that our disappointment that the desired outcome was not achieved is disappointment in the one who attempted to achieve but failed.
No, I'm not saying it's a failure because of a fault or a weakness. The only way we cannot be disappointed in God, if he is as the OV says, is if we never hope in God, when he intends to bring about an outcome that involves human choices. If I do that, then I'm safe from disappointment in God.
But is this Scriptural?
ISA 49:23 Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.
This prophecy involves human choices! What if the kings decide not to adopt, nor the queens to be mothers? What if they refuse to bow? Let's look at the previous verse:
ISA 49:22 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders."
More human choices! What if they refuse to carry the sons and the daughters?
Here is another example:
AC 27:25 "Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God, that it will turn out exactly as I have been told."
But this refers to a promise that none on the ship would die, which involves human choices. But Paul is hoping in God, and believing that this promise will be fulfilled, exactly as he was told.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/23/2004 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: No, I'm saying that if John understands that God intends to bring about some outcome for others, that depends on human choices, and then if John puts any hope in God, that he will accomplish his purpose, John can be disappointed in God, according to the OV.
Tom: No, according to the OV, John can’t be disappointed in God. You don’t understand the open view yet.
Lee: Not according to the OV! If God works to bring about an outcome that involves human choices, and even if you work with him, you can both fail.
Tom: Right. And we can both be disappointed in the others that didn’t work with God. But neither of US would have made a “mistake” in doing all WE COULD DO to achieve the desired outcome even if others had a necessary part to play but chose not to play it.
Lee: No, I'm not saying it's a failure because of a fault or a weakness. The only way we cannot be disappointed in God, if he is as the OV says, is if we never hope in God, when he intends to bring about an outcome that involves human choices. If I do that, then I'm safe from disappointment in God.
Tom: This is simply not so, Lee. Stop saying it please, for you are misunderstanding the OV. If the outcome is partly dependant upon the choices of others, then I can know a) that God will DO HIS PART to achieve the desired outcome and b) that the desired outcome depends on ‘wills’ other than God’s, so that if the outcome isn’t achieve, I can know that it was due to ‘wills’ other than God’s and can accurate attribute my disappointment to those ‘wills’ and not to God.
Now, if God says nations will bow and there’s nothing conditional about it, then by-golly they’ll bow. No problem. God WILL bow them. God can do that to nations. He can determine that they will lose in battle against Israel, that their gods will be humiliated, and that they will bow in recognition of Israel’s God. But there’s nothing about God’s nature that requires him to do EVERYTHING unconditionally. God can, if he wants to, condition some outcomes. With regard to desired but conditioned outcomes, the disappointment for their not obtaining is entirely attributable to others upon whom the outcome was also conditioned.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2004 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lee: No, I'm saying that if John understands that God intends to bring about some outcome for others, that depends on human choices, and then if John puts any hope in God, that he will accomplish his purpose, John can be disappointed in God, according to the OV.
God's purpose is to give everyone a choice, a chance. His purpose is fulfilled!
I'd be disappointed in God if He chose people for damnation and NEVER gave them a choice, a chance.
Heck, I'd be mad at a cruel, capricious god like that.
We're not disappointed in a God that loves everyone and gives each a choice, a chance.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/24/2004 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lee: No, I'm not saying it's a failure because of a fault or a weakness. The only way we cannot be disappointed in God, if he is as the OV says, is if we never hope in God, when he intends to bring about an outcome that involves human choices. If I do that, then I'm safe from disappointment in God.
Tom: This is simply not so, Lee. Stop saying it please, for you are misunderstanding the OV.
Well, what I am saying the OV says is this: God doesn't know the future, and estimates what people will do, and sometimes has an intent, in regard to peoples' choices.
Given that, then (this is an implication, I don't say the OV is saying this part): If we put any hope in God, that he will accomplish such a purpose, then we can be disappointed in God.
quote:
... if the outcome isn’t achieved, I can know that it was due to ‘wills’ other than God’s and can accurate attribute my disappointment to those ‘wills’ and not to God.
I agree! I'm saying something different, I'm saying that if the OV is correct, then (again this is an implication) we dare not put our hope in God, that he will accomplish his purposes, where those purposes involve human free-will choices. And that's most of the prophecies, and most of the promises. And it's not Scriptural!
quote:
But there’s nothing about God’s nature that requires him to do EVERYTHING unconditionally. God can, if he wants to, condition some outcomes. With regard to desired but conditioned outcomes, the disappointment for their not obtaining is entirely attributable to others upon whom the outcome was also conditioned.
Well, let's take one area where I think the OV holds God will never force the issue, in the area of salvation.
AC 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Now there is a condition here. But once the jailer believed, then his household would be saved, he was told. But the OV must deny this, and say that the jailer could not dare hope that his family would be saved, lest God fail in his purpose, and he would be disappointed.
Similarly with these verses:
EZE 36:29 I will save you from all your uncleanness.
EZE 37:23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
quote:
Laika: God's purpose is to give everyone a choice, a chance. His purpose is fulfilled!
I think the OV teaches God has a purpose to save people, too, though:
LK 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.
Thus God's purpose is not only to give people a choice, in the OV.
quote:
We're not disappointed in a God that loves everyone and gives each a choice, a chance.
Well, now I will say that I believe God indeed loves everyone, and has a purpose to save them, which will not be frustrated:
JN 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
PS 33:10-11 ... the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/25/2004 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Well, what I am saying the OV says is this: God doesn't know the future, and estimates what people will do, and sometimes has an intent, in regard to peoples' choices.
Given that, then (this is an implication, I don't say the OV is saying this part): If we put any hope in God, that he will accomplish such a purpose, then we can be disappointed in God.
Tom: The implication is not a valid one. It’s simply wrong to say that if we hope in God to do all he can do to bring about something which is partly conditioned upon the responses of others and those others don’t respond that we may be rightly disappointed in God when the outcome isn’t achieved. Give this line of argument up Lee. It’s not a valid implication of the open view.
Lee: I'm saying that if the OV is correct, then (again this is an implication) we dare not put our hope in God, that he will accomplish his purposes, where those purposes involve human free-will choices.
Tom: And you’re wrong. This is not sound reasoning. We may certainly hope in such cases. I do. If the outcome materializes, thanks be to God. If it doesn’t, the disappointment is rightly placed in others, not God.
Lee: Well, let's take one area where I think the OV holds God will never force the issue, in the area of salvation.
AC 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Now there is a condition here. But once the jailer believed, then his household would be saved, he was told. But the OV must deny this, and say that the jailer could not dare hope that his family would be saved, lest God fail in his purpose, and he would be disappointed.
Tom: This is so bad, Lee. I’ve never read this narrative in the sense you do. It makes perfect sense to understand the “and your household” not as promising salvation to the jailer’s household as a consequence of HIS faith, but rather as addressing the same challenge (“believe in the Lord Jesus”) and promise (“and you will be saved”) to the jailer’s household. The verse doesn’t issue the challenge to believe to one man and promise him the result of a saved household. It issues the challenge to believe to the entire household. If nobody else in his household believed that night, nothing of the words of Paul and Silas would have been untrue or unfulfilled.
I refuse to argue with you about this, Lee. I know you’re coming back with some argument for why your understanding of this verse is the right one. But you’re misreading the narrative here.
Lee: Similarly with these verses:
EZE 36:29 I will save you from all your uncleanness.
EZE 37:23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
Tom: See what I mean ya’ll? You argue a point with Lee and then move on to other stuff and find yourself right back where you started. And here we are right back where we started, with the certainty that God will find some, many even, who will respond to his invitation, a certainty that’s justified because the probabilities are spread out over a wide enough area. I’m not going around this cul-de-sac with you again, Lee. Been there. Done that.
Lee: Well, now I will say that I believe God indeed loves everyone, and has a purpose to save them, which will not be frustrated:
JN 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
PS 33:10-11 ... the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
Tom: Neither of these verses means none of God’s purposes fail to be achieved. All Jo. 3 declares is that the reason Jesus came was to save the world. It doesn’t mean that purpose will or won’t be fulfilled. It’s just a declaration of purpose. That’s all. Ps. 33 doesn’t mean God’s purposes are never frustrated and unfulfilled. All it means is God’s purposes aren’t fickle and exchangeable every other day. God is faithful to stick with his purposes to the end. In the end they might be fulfilled in some cases and unfulfilled in others. The point is, they won’t be unfulfilled because of God’s having abandoned them. God is faithful; not always successful, but always faithful.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 131 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|