 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Is the OT view really a "logical" view? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/8/2004 12:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | "The world's logic!!!" OHNO, we are using the world's logic!  Seriously, though, Lock, to state that the OV has no purpose for sin shows that you do not truly understand the Open theology. However, in your view, God has no purpose either, for you claim it wasn't God who meant it to happen. And if he didn't, then it wasn't his PURPOSE for it to happen. Therefore, your view has the same purpose for sin as the open view does (which I find quite ironic).
I believe any view that correctly interprets scripture is what gives the most glory to God, not whether or not OUR view gives greater glory to God.
The Bible depicts God a certain way. We need to be faithful to that way, as much as possible, recognizing that we have our own preconceptions and seeing them as we try to see God.
I am unconcerned whether my view gives more or less glory to God. I am more concerned with how true it is. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/8/2004 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lock: if that is truly the way you view marriage, you are either lying or sad. You truly believe that an arranged marriage where someone has to be with you is as wonderful as someone who chooses to love you. No, correction, you simply have no answer to the statement and are not telling the truth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/8/2004 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
"The world's logic!!!" OHNO, we are using the world's logic! Seriously, though, Lock, to state that the OV has no purpose for sin shows that you do not truly understand the Open theology. However, in your view, God has no purpose either, for you claim it wasn't God who meant it to happen. And if he didn't, then it wasn't his PURPOSE for it to happen. Therefore, your view has the same purpose for sin as the open view does (which I find quite ironic).
I believe any view that correctly interprets scripture is what gives the most glory to God, not whether or not OUR view gives greater glory to God.
The Bible depicts God a certain way. We need to be faithful to that way, as much as possible, recognizing that we have our own preconceptions and seeing them as we try to see God.
I am unconcerned whether my view gives more or less glory to God. I am more concerned with how true it is.
You may have confused me with someone else because I am the one who claims God has a purpose for allowing sin to enter creation.
quote:
The Bible depicts God a certain way. We need to be faithful to that way, as much as possible, recognizing that we have our own preconceptions and seeing them as we try to see God.
I am unconcerned whether my view gives more or less glory to God. I am more concerned with how true it is.
If you do not think that God's glory is important when interpreting the bible, then I suggest you reconsider your motives. Let God be true, but every man a liar.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/8/2004 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross,
quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Hey Lock,
I'm kind of coming in late on this discussion; I just sat here and read through the thread and I'm having trouble following you. So if you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions that I hope will help me better understand where you are coming from.
First off, in one of your last posts you said quote:
We use human logic to explain God because we are human and our understanding is limited.
+ Do you believe that God is above "human" logic? For example, can God create a square circle? Can God exist and not exist at the same time?
+ Are there some things that God can't do? For example, can God lie? Can God sin? Can God not exist?
+ In your view, what purpose does God have for sending people to hell?
I know that these questions are kind of random, but I think that they will greatly help me understand where you're coming from, which is always beneficial in a discourse like this.
Peace, Ross
Hello Ross,
I really am not sure where you are going with some of your questions. You may have to clarify what you are getting at with the circle and God's existence questions. The bible tells us that God does not lie (Num. 23:19). The bible tell us that God does not sin, plus how could He miss the mark which He sets? Your question about Hell; I do not believe that the christian hell exists. If you are speaking of God's judgment and those who are cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death, then,
"What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath-prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory-even us whom He also called" (Romans 9:22-24)
Yes, I believe God's understanding is infinitely beyond ours. I believe that He uses figures of speech, which give Him human attributes, in order to help our understanding. Do you believe that God's understanding is equal to man's?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/8/2004 11:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
We use human logic to explain God because we are human and our understanding is limited. Why must we assume that God also is human just because He gives Himself human attributes when aiding our understanding of Him? God's ways are not our ways. We are able to understand up to the level of our understanding, but that does not mean God's understanding stops there also. I could point out many passages that say God's purpose prevails over man's even though man may not think so and have in previous posts. If the instances where God declares He is not a man are specific to just those situations, then does that mean He is a man is those instances where He speaks of His eyes or ears or hand or that He hates or repents, or is disappointed?
You do realize you are contradicting yourself. You are a human. You are using logic. Self-contradictory logic, but logic none the less. And once again: God is a man! His name is Josh in Hebrew, Jesus in Greek. The full deity rests in Christ. To say God is not a man is gnosticism or something. God has two ears, two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. For real. You have to do some complicated logical gymnastics to get around the incarnation. Now I'll grant you that the body was created, but the person of Christ was not. He is God. He is also man. He wasn't always man, but it was never a huge leap. (But then again, what is a huge leap for God?) We were made in his image after all. Take the "God is not man" verses one at a time, look at the context, and see if God is dealing with ontological questions. I sure hope by "human" you meant "bad". If so, how is the logic bad?
Seriously, if you're really into this sharp distinction between human and spiritual, then check out gnosticism. There are people out there who acknowledge that they are gnostics, even "Christian gnostics". I think they've got it wrong, but at least a few of them are nice people.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/9/2004 1:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
We use human logic
Logic is not limited to humans.
2 + 2 = 4 is just as valid for rabbits
Gravity works on trees and armadilloes same as it does on us.
A skunk can't be dead AND not dead at the same time.
'The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two other sides' is just as valid for God as it is for us.
quote:
Why must we assume that God also is human just because He gives Himself human attributes
We're not assuming God is a human because we're made in His image. You're using emotional language again.
God gave us some of His attributes when He created us in His image. So your mind, will and emotions are copies of God's. Just less developed and controlled.
quote:
He speaks of His eyes or ears or hand or that He hates or repents, or is disappointed?
We know God doesn't have a physical body, "God is spirit" John 4:24
No where are we told God can't love or hate or be pleased or be disappointed.
If God says "I will do this with my arm", we know He will do it. The arm part is figurative.
If God says "I'm pleased with My Son", we know He is pleased with His Son, there is NO figure in that speech. Otherwise, what is He communicating? A question you've dodged so far.
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God
James 3:
8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.
9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/9/2004 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
You present you arguements well (except I don't think you will be able to teach a rabbit math) but I will hold to the difference between God and mankind at this time.
Rabbits don't need to know math for 2 + 2 = 4 to apply to them as well. Logic isn't "human", it's just a description of the way things are, trees, animals, planets, humans.
Humans can't make square circles and neither can rabbits, trees or God.
My view is that God doesn't have a physical body but I'm made in His image, mind, will, emotions.
Your view is that you aren't made in God's image in ANY way.
quote:
Originally posted by lock
that is why God must condescend when describing Himself and His ways.
Yet you have failed to explain one of those descriptions without resorting to "human" language.
Again, if God says "He loves, He hates", what is He communicating?
Is it the OPPOSITE of what He communicated?
Is it the SAME as what He communicated?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/9/2004 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | |  I love you.
 You're condescending to me now.
?!?!?
Yeah, but what did I communicate to you?
That you love me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/9/2004 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: My belief is that God is not like a man who sins, changes his mind, who knows the possibilities of the future.
Tom: Maybe when God changes his mind and knows possibilities God is being more like a woman. 
Seriously though, Lock, to say God never foreknows possibilities is to say there ARE NO possibilities, for if God knows all things, and if God's knowledge is infallible, and if God knows NO possibilities, then it follows that there are no possibilities. If there were, God would know them. The existence of God and the existence of possibilities are contradictory? It follows simply from the fact that God exists that there are no possibilities? Is this what you're saying?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/9/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Lock: My belief is that God is not like a man who sins, changes his mind, who knows the possibilities of the future.
Tom: Maybe when God changes his mind and knows possibilities God is being more like a woman.
Seriously though, Lock, to say God never foreknows possibilities is to say there ARE NO possibilities, for if God knows all things, and if God's knowledge is infallible, and if God knows NO possibilities, then it follows that there are no possibilities. If there were, God would know them. The existence of God and the existence of possibilities are contradictory? It follows simply from the fact that God exists that there are no possibilities? Is this what you're saying?
Tom
Let's look at the situation with King Hezekiah. When He was sick unto death and found out from God that He would die, and prayed to God, from what I understand about the OT view (and I could be wrong) that God knew that it was possible the king would humble himself and pray and when he did, God changed His mind. I see it as God knew Hezekiah would humble himself and pray and that this would the opportunity to show His love, kindness,and power. I see it from a different perspective, but both perspectives see it as God showing His love, kindness, and power.
As far as sin is concerned. I know the OT view does not think God sins, I just clarified that I also do not believe God sins because some people like to take posts and twist the statements in attempts to discredit what has been said. I do believe that God has a purpose for allowing sin to enter creation.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/9/2004 11:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
We use human logic to explain God because we are human and our understanding is limited. Why must we assume that God also is human just because He gives Himself human attributes when aiding our understanding of Him? God's ways are not our ways. We are able to understand up to the level of our understanding, but that does not mean God's understanding stops there also. I could point out many passages that say God's purpose prevails over man's even though man may not think so and have in previous posts. If the instances where God declares He is not a man are specific to just those situations, then does that mean He is a man is those instances where He speaks of His eyes or ears or hand or that He hates or repents, or is disappointed?
You do realize you are contradicting yourself. You are a human. You are using logic. Self-contradictory logic, but logic none the less. And once again: God is a man! His name is Josh in Hebrew, Jesus in Greek. The full deity rests in Christ. To say God is not a man is gnosticism or something. God has two ears, two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. For real. You have to do some complicated logical gymnastics to get around the incarnation. Now I'll grant you that the body was created, but the person of Christ was not. He is God. He is also man. He wasn't always man, but it was never a huge leap. (But then again, what is a huge leap for God?) We were made in his image after all. Take the "God is not man" verses one at a time, look at the context, and see if God is dealing with ontological questions. I sure hope by "human" you meant "bad". If so, how is the logic bad?
Seriously, if you're really into this sharp distinction between human and spiritual, then check out gnosticism. There are people out there who acknowledge that they are gnostics, even "Christian gnostics". I think they've got it wrong, but at least a few of them are nice people.
Sahid-
I am not speaking about Jesus when He walk the earth in the flesh. I am am speaking of God the Father.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/9/2004 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock: first, when interpreting the Bible I want the truth of what God is saying. I am not interested in whether or not my view glorifies God more than yours does. God will be glorified nonetheless. It sounds to me that you use that as a yardstick for whether or not your view is true (I view my view as the one which gives more glory to God, therefore it must be true. Actually, the OPPOSITE should hold. Whatever view is true will give the most glory to God BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.) Falsehood does not give glory to God, therefore we should seek the truth as scripture reveals it, not what we view as most glorious.
As far as Israel was concerned, they had a lot of choice. They rejected God continuely and they paid the price. We also must make that choice.
You are confused, Lock. There are two clear choices: either God willed that we sin or he didn't. If you don't believe he willed us to sin (that he wanted it, decided that was what we were going to do), then you can shout all about God having a purpose for our sin and it still doesn't matter. Because unless God wanted sin, desired our sin, then he did not purpose our sin and you are in the same boat as open theists. AS an open theist I do not believe God wanted sin, but I do believe he can use sin to his glory and our salvation. You are basically saying the same thing. You are an Arminian in Calvinist clothing. It makes you feel better to say God has a purpose because that makes you feel more secure. But the problem is that if God didn't want it, it is not of his purpose and therefore not of his design. He can use it, but if he did not want it, its not his.
You need to decide which side of the fence you want to live on. Right now you're an Arminian dressed in Calvinist clothing...fancy clothes that fit too loose around God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/9/2004 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | "We use human logic to explain God..." how do you know this? You are using human logic...if God is beyond us, how can we truly know anything about God? You are using presuming what you are saying is true, Lock, and then fitting the Bible into it. Why should I believe you if you are using human logic to describe someone no one can possibly describe? | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/10/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Feelin'-
quote:
You are confused, Lock. There are two clear choices: either God willed that we sin or he didn't. If you don't believe he willed us to sin (that he wanted it, decided that was what we were going to do), then you can shout all about God having a purpose for our sin and it still doesn't matter. Because unless God wanted sin, desired our sin, then he did not purpose our sin and you are in the same boat as open theists.
I believe that God has a purpose for sin in creation. Here is a clip from another post of mine in a different area
quote:
1 Cor. 15:45 makes the distinction between the soulish (psuchikon) body and the spiritual body. It quotes the creation record and states, "Adam became a living soul(psuche)." and contrasts this with Christ became a vivifying spirit. So we see that there is a difference between soulish (psuche) and spiritual (pheumatikon).
Earlier in this same letter Paul uses psuchikon: 2:14, "Now the soulish (psuchikon) man is NOT RECEIVING THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, FOR THEY ARE STUPIDITY TO HIM, AND HE IS NOT ABLE TO KNOW THEM, SEEING THAT THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY EXAMINED."
As you can see there is an obvious difference between the natural (flesh) man and the spiritual man. God created flesh unable to meet the requirements of His glory, so that, He could display His love through the giving of His Son (John 3:16) to take our place.
quote:
It makes you feel better to say God has a purpose because that makes you feel more secure. But the problem is that if God didn't want it, it is not of his purpose and therefore not of his design. He can use it, but if he did not want it, its not his.
I do not set my beliefs through how I feel, but actually the opposite. I am human, I would love to say along with you, that I made the choice to have God in my life. I would love to say the God's favor rests upon me because of something I did or some choice I made. But I can't, because of the realization of God's suffeciency that He has given me. All that I have is from God. The godly choices I have made in my life are only by God's influences. You can disagree with me according to your preconceptions of what the bible teaches, but I will stand by my beliefs.
quote:
Why should I believe you if you are using human logic to describe someone no one can possibly describe?
I claim that God condescends to our human understanding in order to explain His ways and actions. I think it wise to only use those figures of speech used in the bible to explain God. When we use our own logic to explain God (like I have tried at times in my posts) our analogies fall short of God's true glory.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
| 134 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:25 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 |
|
|