 |
| 
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/23/2006 4:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | I don't know about the Calvinist position but I do believe that love must be freely chosen. God however was not looking for love in creating Adam and Eve because he sent miraculous signs to Pharaoh to compel obedience. If God really 'loved' his creation, he would've done the same to compel obedience from Adam and Eve. Also, Paul says God uses the deeds of the wicked to glorify himself and how much sense does it make to say that Jesus Christ was God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve just as Jesus Christ was the purpose in God killing Egypt's firstborn. So the love God wants is not in Adam and Eve but in those willing to come out of Adam and Eve's curse and come to life in Jesus Christ.
Hope this helps | | Back to Top | | |
 |
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/23/2006 11:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | SIR EDWARD: Jason do you realize what you are saying then -- God created Adam and Eve but didn't love them he used them to bring sin into the world so he could so love thorugh Christ. God is the author of sin (something he says he hates) because he forces Adam to sin so he could force his plan of redemption. You call the open theist God sadistic?!?
JASON: It would only be sadistic if God didn't have a better plan set up for Adam and Eve after their sin...that better plan and better reward being Jesus Christ and a true and righteous immortality. Read John 6:51 where Jesus declares that all who eat of his flesh will live forever...and where was his flesh? Hung upon a tree. Starting to see a connection? God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to show us what sin is and its consequence: no immortality [Genesis 3:22] and the immortal reward for doing just as Christ did in sacrificing one's very own sin nature desires [Romans 6:6]. The food of the true tree of life thus wasn't on the tree back in Eden...it was hung upon the cross in Calvary. This is what Paul meant in saying [Colossians 2:16] 'these are a shadow of the things to come...the reality is of Christ'. So your beef isn't with me...it's with Paul who said [Romans 9:22-23] 'What if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vesselse of mercy which he had aofre prepared unto glory.'
SIR EDWARD: He [Pharaoh] does not serve or know the God of Isreal like Adam and Eve did. He does not even acknowledge the God of Isreal. He is not going to cooperate with God's plan and has to be forced to do so. Pharoah is a sinner and he is proud and thinks he is god on earth. Sin is already in the picture and becasue of it God has to take different action. JASON: Obviously you haven't read the Exodus account because many times does Pharaoh repent and acknowledge the God of Israel after the plagues are inflicted upon his country. But God relents on the plagues and Pharaoh takes that kindness for weakness and hardens his heart again. You say the differences between the two situations are huge and I agree in that God was brutally killing himself by letting Adam and Eve sin while all that was to gain from freeing the Israelites was...freeing the Israelites. You also say Adam was 'God's son too' and that God loved him...well why wouldn't he protect the one he loved by sending some powerful signs to Adam to stop him from sinning as he did in Egypt. When is someone going to explain for me how God could see freeing the Israelites as more vital that he would raise heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to free them yet he would do nothing as Adam and Eve chose to sin and destroy themselves [and all of us] and thus call for his own brutal redemptive death. Even Jesus in the flesh sought to prevent his own death {Matthew 26:39]...was Jesus in the flesh smarter than God in Eden?Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/23/2006 11:15:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/24/2006 1:14 AM (GMT -6) | | jasonlevene said...
I don't know about the Calvinist position but I do believe that love must be freely chosen. God however was not looking for love in creating Adam and Eve because he sent miraculous signs to Pharaoh to compel obedience. If God really 'loved' his creation, he would've done the same to compel obedience from Adam and Eve. Also, Paul says God uses the deeds of the wicked to glorify himself and how much sense does it make to say that Jesus Christ was God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve just as Jesus Christ was the purpose in God killing Egypt's firstborn. So the love God wants is not in Adam and Eve but in those willing to come out of Adam and Eve's curse and come to life in Jesus Christ.
Hope this helps
Not really. I'm going to need to understand your frame of reference better, because the manner in which you're arriving at your conclusions seems entirely alien to me. Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it? You seem to show disdain for the concept of freewill, yet here you have stated that you believe that love must be freely chosen. You say that God was not looking for love in creating Adam and Eve, and apparently didn't really love his creation - yet I see this same God lovingly crafting Adam and Eve, giving them a paradise in which to dwell, and lovingly giving them a prohibition by which they could demonstrate either their love for God or their judgment of God (a test, as I explained earlier, and as attested to in the early church; which means, if it was a test, it would defeat God's purpose for Him to use heavy-handed compulsion to steer Man's choice in Eden, beyond the more than sufficient warning of death and the incredible blessings Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden along with face-to-face fellowship with their Creator). You seem to make a great issue of the fact that God allowed humans to enter into sin, and the fact that God had to suffer a brutal death on our behelf, despite Scripture stating "Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" and "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." I see in these passages the fact that the threat of sin and the subsequent atonement were apparently not a daunting prospect to God (obviously the pre-incarnate Christ, being God, knew prior to creation what was at stake should He create man - the potential for sin, the need for a painful atonement on His part, etc. - yet nonetheless God chose to create the world, thus demonstrating His confidence in His ability to deal with sin, His willingness to endure suffering and death as a human, and His eternal perspective which looks past the temporary issue of temporal suffering to an everlasting future world without pain and where love reigns supreme). So how you're arriving at your ideas is unfamiliar to me, and I think I'm going to need from you some insight into your theological framework and some explanation of how to understand how you're arriving at your conclusions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sir_Edward
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/24/2006 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Jason,
JASON: It would only be sadistic if God didn't have a better plan set up for Adam and Eve after their sin...that better plan and better reward being Jesus Christ and a true and righteous immortality. Read John 6:51 where Jesus declares that all who eat of his flesh will live forever...and where was his flesh? Hung upon a tree. Starting to see a connection? God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to show us what sin is and its consequence: no immortality [Genesis 3:22] and the immortal reward for doing just as Christ did in sacrificing one's very own sin nature desires [Romans 6:6]. The food of the true tree of life thus wasn't on the tree back in Eden...it was hung upon the cross in Calvary. This is what Paul meant in saying [Colossians 2:16] 'these are a shadow of the things to come...the reality is of Christ'. So your beef isn't with me...it's with Paul who said [Romans 9:22-23] 'What if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vesselse of mercy which he had aofre prepared unto glory.'
Edward: Once again you are assuming that the better plan is the cross -- I dont think that is the case. If God's whole purpose then is to cause sin why does he hate it when he obviously needs it to bring about his plan? I say sin is in defiance of God's plan it is absolute proof that God's will is conditional and requires some cooperation from us by God's design because if sin is part of his plan there is some good to sin -- "let us sin that grace may abound" sorry God forbid. God whole purpose in sending his Son was to destroy the works of the Devil -- what are those works -- SIN. But you have made sin a necessary part of God plan because you won't give up your determinism. It is you own preconcieved theology that is ultimately authoritative to you.
Bible: Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--
Jason: The food of the true tree of life thus wasn't on the tree back in Eden..
Sir Edward:Now your directly contradicting God himself. . Are you saying God is a liar?
You also take Colossians 2:16 out of context. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
The things that are refered to are not Adam and Eve but the cerimonial law of the Jews after the exodus are the shadows of the substance of Christ not the Fall. Nice reading into Scripture there.
Ah Romans 9:22-23. Sigh. Your missing two key words -- "WHAT IF .....," Now Paul does not do this in all the rest of Romans to my knowledge. Most of the time he is telling us like it is, but in this case he makes an exception. Because the point he is making is not that this is what God does, but IF he did do this then who would we be to argue. He point is that it is God's plan and not ours to question, not that God predetermines some to destruction. But IF He did who are we to argue. I don't think Paul beleives God does this, he is just saying that if he did we shouldn't talk back ot God about it. His real views of what God actually does are found in Romans 10 with: "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Ah Romans 9 -- I have to write my series on my open theism blog on it -- it needs to be addressed -- this supposed determinist stronghold of Romans 9.
JASON: Obviously you haven't read the Exodus account because many times does Pharaoh repent and acknowledge the God of Israel after the plagues are inflicted upon his country. But God relents on the plagues and Pharaoh takes that kindness for weakness and hardens his heart again.
Sir Edward: Wow -- having read it more times than I can count I should be offended but I will take this for what it is -- a person losing an argument will always resort to attacks on the person their arguing with. But onward.
Bingo -- Pharoah is playing Games and it is going to take God's correcion to make him let His people go. His acknoledgement of God is a shame -- a religious game playing with God. every tiem his repentence is nothing more than temproary becasue his desire to keep God's people is stronger than his repentence. When he does relent at tiems he always hold something back - -he thinks he can negotiate with God. There are only a few times that God actually hardens his heart and only at key moments because it is necessary because god said it would be: Exodus 3:19 -- "But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion."
Jason: You say the differences between the two situations are huge and I agree in that God was brutally killing himself by letting Adam and Eve sin while all that was to gain from freeing the Israelites was...freeing the Israelites. You also say Adam was 'God's son too' and that God loved him...well why wouldn't he protect the one he loved by sending some powerful signs to Adam to stop him from sinning as he did in Egypt.
Sir Edward: Adam needs no protecting he lives in a perfect world that would have remained so if he had been obedeint to God -- because there is an option available that is good. But God takes a risk in letting them choose their path -- that is love my friend -- love risks much to gain much. Your idea of protection seems to be overprotective and would then cause god to force obedience which would only have been outward not inward. God tests his creation and for the test to be legitimate an alternative future had to be possible or the whole creation and God's anguish over sin are a sham. Why get angry about something you are causing to happen and is needed to bring about Christ which is better than what God originaly created obviously in your view? God's orginal creation and plan must have had flaws according to you.
Jason: When is someone going to explain for me how God could see freeing the Israelites as more vital that he would raise heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to free them yet he would do nothing as Adam and Eve chose to sin and destroy themselves [and all of us] and thus call for his own brutal redemptive death. Even Jesus in the flesh sought to prevent his own death {Matthew 26:39]...was Jesus in the flesh smarter than God in Eden?
Sir_Edward; I think we have -- it is simply you do not want to accept our explaination because quite simply if you did you would have to give up your determinism. You simply can't accept that if Adam had obeyed the Lord it would have been better than the sacrifice of the cross. But isn't that what Samuel in essence said said to Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice? The two cases are very different astoundingly so. Adam and Eve are faced with a test of their freewill, but Pharoah is an obstacle to God's plan. Apple and Orange. The reason you want them to be the same is so you have some sort of bad argument against open theism. The one thing that is certain from your posts is that you are a determinist. You accuse open theism of creating a God that is sadistic but the determinist God causes people to sin and then sends them to hell for what he caused them to do. That's sadistic. Adam and Eve did not destroy themselves -- they still lived and so do we. God still loved them enough to begin a plan of redemption but it wasn't his orignial choice or I might add the best option that could have been had. Sin did not indicate all was lost just a change in plans needed to be made to redeem what was lost and that culminated in Christ
John Darby,
John N. Darby said...
Not really. I'm going to need to understand your frame of reference better, because the manner in which you're arriving at your conclusions seems entirely alien to me.
Not to me unfortunately. I have seen this many times on the Eternal Security forum. The determinist start with determinism, not Scripture. He then looks at Scripture through those lenses and sees determinism. He links Scriptures and takes them out of context to support his points. Even if faced with a good argument or other Scripture that directly contradicts what he says, he will hold to his determinism. His doctrine is his ultimate authority and if he find a verse that contradicts it, he will come up with an interpretive method to keep it or ignore the verse. The concept of letting his doctrine be shaped by Scripture is foreign to him in practics. I have see this many time -- too many times before.
Blessings John. Your post made some excellent points.
Sir_Edward -- Knight of the Theological Roundtable - 2 Timothy 4:1-5 | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/25/2006 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
John N Darby said...
You say that God was not looking for love in creating Adam and Eve, and apparently didn't really love his creation - yet I see this same God lovingly crafting Adam and Eve, giving them a paradise in which to dwell, and lovingly giving them a prohibition by which they could demonstrate either their love for God or their judgment of God (a test, as I explained earlier, and as attested to in the early church; which means, if it was a test, it would defeat God's purpose for Him to use heavy-handed compulsion to steer Man's choice in Eden, beyond the more than sufficient warning of death and the incredible blessings Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden along with face-to-face fellowship with their Creator).
Okay John you say you need some insight into my theological framework...well here goes. You say God's usage of 'heavy handed' compulsion to steer man's choice in Eden would've defeated God's purpose of a 'test' for Adam and Eve but what you haven't dealt with was what was at stake...as opposed of course to the time when God did use 'heavy handed compulsion' tactics to steer Pharaoh's choice in Egypt. By your logic, God allowed his greatest creation -the creation he loved- to destroy themselves [and all of their descendants] as some form of test yet God uses his great power time and time again to free a tribe from enslavement. And not only that...you say God was willing to endure the suffering and death as a human...well how do you explain Gethsemane? Jesus was not only sweating blood at the thought of his suffering and death, but he pleaded with God the Father to get him out of it! [Matthew 26:39] Now you tell me, why would Jesus in the inferior fleshly incarnation, seek to avoid his own death while the same Jesus as the superior spirit divine God in Eden not do so by preventing Adam and Eve from sinning in the first place. Seems to me that JEsus in his incarnation was 'greater than the Father'.
You know I would prefer the answer 'we won't know on this side of the resurrection' to the question as to why God would knowingly kill himself brutally in allowing Adam and Eve to sin yet raise heaven and earth to free a tribe of Israelites. At least the open theist I'm debating threw Romans 9:20-21 back at me...which I found rather amusing since Romans 9:9-29 confirms that God knew the future before it even took place [such as loving Jacob and hating Esau before the two were even born].
Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/25/2006 11:00:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/25/2006 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Jason: The food of the true tree of life thus wasn't on the tree back in Eden..
Sir Edward: Now your directly contradicting God himself. . Are you saying God is a liar?
Jason: Obviously you missed the point of my last post. Jesus said whoever eats of his flesh is going to live forever…and you would have us think it was a coincidence that all who sin share in Adam and Eve's curse and do not live forever. Shadow: Adam and Eve’s sin and its mortal curse. It's fulfillment: Jesus Christ’s overturning of that mortal curse and raising all who are in him to immortality.
Sir Edward: You also take Colossians 2:16 out of context. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. The things that are refered to are not Adam and Eve but the cerimonial law of the Jews after the exodus are the shadows of the substance of Christ not the Fall. Nice reading into Scripture there."
Jason: Guess you and that other open theist I’m debating are going to re-write your own Open Theist version of the bible in which you take out Paul saying that God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart and Paul calling Jesus ‘THE LAST ADAM’.
Edward:Ah Romans 9:22-23. Sigh. Your missing two key words -- "WHAT IF .....," Now Paul does not do this in all the rest of Romans to my knowledge. Most of the time he is telling us like it is, but in this case he makes an exception. Because the point he is making is not that this is what God does, but IF he did do this then who would we be to argue. He point is that it is God's plan and not ours to question, not that God predetermines some to destruction. But IF He did who are we to argue. I don't think Paul beleives God does this, he is just saying that if he did we shouldn't talk back ot God about it. His real views of what God actually does are found in Romans 10 with: "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Ah Romans 9 -- I have to write my series on my open theism blog on it -- it needs to be addressed -- this supposed determinist stronghold of Romans 9.
JASON: Obviously you haven’t learned to interpret a text of the bible by its context. But here’s a little hint…read the verses surrounding Romans 9:22-23 to see what those verses mean.
Sir Edward: Adam needs no protecting he lives in a perfect world that would have remained so if he had been obedeint to God -- because there is an option available that is good. But God takes a risk in letting them choose their path -- that is love my friend -- love risks much to gain much. Your idea of protection seems to be overprotective and would then cause god to force obedience which would only have been outward not inward. God tests his creation and for the test to be legitimate an alternative future had to be possible or the whole creation and God's anguish over sin are a sham. Why get angry about something you are causing to happen and is needed to bring about Christ which is better than what God originaly created obviously in your view? God's orginal creation and plan must have had flaws according to you.
Jason: God’s original plan and creation did not have flaws because God’s orignal plan and creation was Jesus Christ. The foundation for his original plan and creation had flaws…the main flaw being the sin nature. Adam and Eve sinned because of their sin natures. Jesus desired to sin because of his sin nature. Take a look at 1 John 2:16 and Genesis 3:6 and you will see that Eve desired to eat the tree of knowledge fruit because of her sin nature. Eve wanted to be like God in knowing good and evil more than remaining obedient to God. That’s why immortality is for those who crucify their sin natures just as Christ did…killing the sin nature kills its desires. The open theist I’m debating denies that Eve had a sin nature…he even denies that Eve had knowledge of good and evil before she’d eaten from the tree. I asked him that if Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, then why did she cite God’s commandment and its death penalty as the reason she and Adam had not eaten from the tree of knowledge prior to the serpent approaching her [Genesis 3:3]. Obviously she knew that death was bad and obedience was good. I have yet to hear an answer from that guy. The plan thus in Adam and Eve was to establish death as the penalty for sin so we would understand immortality as the reward for the righteous.
Sir_Edward; I think we have -- it is simply you do not want to accept our explaination because quite simply if you did you would have to give up your determinism. You simply can't accept that if Adam had obeyed the Lord it would have been better than the sacrifice of the cross.
Jason: Now I’ve heard it all. Adam’s obedience would’ve been better than Jesus’ sacrifice. But I’m not surprised…you have to believe this. But let me first explain that I do not believe in a hell…hell is a figment of the ‘original sin’ imagination. Only those who are in Christ live forever. But again, as I said to John Darby, according to you, your Jesus as a human being is smart enough to seek an escape from the brutal suffering and death that awaited him [Matthew 26:39] yet your same Jesus as God Almighty allows for the sin to take place that required his brutal suffering and death. Now as God the Father remained infinite perfect Spirit and Jesus emptied himself to become an inferior human, it seems to me Jesus in the flesh was smarter and superior to his Spirit existence because he could’ve prevented the whole Gethsemane situation by preventing Adam and Eve’s sin. And not only that, if the thought of divine suicide was too much for Jesus to bear in Gethsemane, he raises heaven and earth to free the Israelites. Why not do the same in Eden to prevent the divine suicide that is so much you can not bear. Man, I’m sure the devil would have a field day with that one…if it were true.Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/25/2006 12:09:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/26/2006 4:07 AM (GMT -6) | | to Jasonlevene,
Your post did not really address my questions. I had asked "Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it?" I want to help promote better understanding. So for now I'm going to focus on relevant topics, in the hope that by exploring them more thoroughly with you, perhaps we'll be able to better address your original questions.
Let's go back to the topic of "free will". In most of your emails thus far, it definitely seemed as though you disdain the idea of "free will". Yet when I asked if you believed that love must be freely chosen, you answered in the affirmative, and said that genuine love must be freely chosen.
If you could elaborate on this seeming discrepancy, I think it would be an important step in establishing greater understanding. So please, if you will, focus more intently on what I'm asking, and please try to convey information relevant to what I'm actually asking - I'll copy here the most relevant excerpt from my last message:
Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it? You seem to show disdain for the concept of freewill, yet here you have stated that you believe that love must be freely chosen.
Again, if you could address the question of whether you consider yourself a Calvinist, and if not, then what do you consider yourself. And if you could address this apparent discrepancy between your disdain for freewill, yet affirming that love must be freely chosen. For the moment, between you and I at least, let us set aside the question of Eden and Egypt; we'll eventually come back to both, but it seems we have some other ground to cover first, before we can meaningfully discuss your original questions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/27/2006 11:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman:
FINALLY someone is catching on to some of the things I'm getting at. God does not need to be able to do rediculous things in order to be God. Countless times when I've talked to people about the possilbilty that God has limits, they've practically started crying saying that they then can't count on Him.
I usually want to scream at this point! Who the hell do some people think they are? God creates the ENTIRE UNIVERSE in just six days, and they think if He has limits beyond that then He's obvoiusly too weak to be of any use to them? Whoes problems are bigger than Jupiter? More complex than the workings of a sun? Who among us needs more power at his disposal than it would take to form planets in what must have been minutes?
I'm still going with the theory that God could make things LOOK better, but in reality, appearance isn't everything. If God constantly interfered to force us to never to anything bad, virtually there would be no "us". I guess I think individuality and free will are part of what makes this world REAL.
When you do something wrong, that wasn't something God just planned for you to do. Don't ask Him why you did it, He DIDN'T make you do it nor in many cases :
Jeremiah 32:35
35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters [a] to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.
did He especially plan for you to do so. It was your chioce, don't ask God why you did it, and why you're reaping the consiquences, the better person to ask, is yourself.
I'm a firm believer that people who don't know what's wrong with the world just need to look in the mirror once in a while.
Now as to why didn't God stop Adam and Eve, that is actually an easy one.
It's highly likely that God wanted the descision in the garden to be one of free will. Man could choose God willingly or reject him willingly. To have forced man to choose the "right" path would have cheapened the choice making man's love an illusion, since what is love without chioce? Does anyone know the REAL reason robots can't replace animals and humans on an emotional level?
On Egypt, God was GOING to make Isreal a light to the world one way or another. He was using it and its experiences to show the world His power, and bring them to the truth. In and sense, putting Himself on the front page. The experiences of Egypt and Isreal were meant to reach both Isreal and Egypt. Actually were probably meant to reach a sizable chunk of the world.
Now, don't like those explanations, fine. In reality, it is not for us to say when God is right and wrong. NO I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT SUBJECT. What I am saying is, I'm confident MY God has His reasons, and I don't have to know exactly what they are at any give time to have faith.
If anyone is wondering, that's the faith of a child. It does not mean to abondone reason, it does mean, you have confidence in something, even when you don't understand it at the moment. It doesn't mean you give up on ever understanding, heaven knows and good five year old never stops asking "why". It means you don't have to right away.
For those of you so big on Omnipotence, I have an anecdote.
True story by the way.
Several months ago, whilst riding my bike to college, I was hit by a 4X4 truck. Lucky me, it wasn't going very fast. Unlucky me, I wasn't wearing, helmit, gloves or a long sleve shirt at the time. (To this day the only thing I really corrected is the helmit... oh well.) As a result, to this day my hands still have large buises, and my memory of the immediate incident is wiped clean by something called "tramatic amnesia" (I think that's it anyway). I only know what I'm told about the incident, when I came to after being hit, I still had to realize I was no longer on my bike.
I say, any delusions I had that day about being invulnerable, have now been sufficiently proved wrong. I have limits and my scars prove it.
Do wounds, whatever kind, scars, literal bleeding, memory loss, etc, prove limits or not?
Post Edited (Torkuda) : 5/27/2006 11:46:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/28/2006 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | |
There is no "either or" regarding freewill such that it is either God or us in our choices. Providence includes the sinful choices made by men and angels. God's plans are not thwarted by them.
God's will and His plans are revealed to us as they unfold in history. I make real choices and they unfold the plan of God. Even as I make sinful choices, God's plan is revealed in that He uses even sin, wicked sin, to accomplish His purposes. I make choices and am culpable for them, and yet His mercy is not thwarted by my choices.
The fact that God postpones judging our sinful choices is the reason that we live in a sinful sin filled world. Yet, because God chooses to postpone His judgment on our sins, we have the opporunity to repent and embarce the gospel and find His mercy.
Spen Lake | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/28/2006 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
Torkuda said...
Starkman:
Now as to why didn't God stop Adam and Eve, that is actually an easy one.
It's highly likely that God wanted the descision in the garden to be one of free will. Man could choose God willingly or reject him willingly. To have forced man to choose the "right" path would have cheapened the choice making man's love an illusion, since what is love without chioce? Does anyone know the REAL reason robots can't replace animals and humans on an emotional level?
On Egypt, God was GOING to make Isreal a light to the world one way or another. He was using it and its experiences to show the world His power, and bring them to the truth. In and sense, putting Himself on the front page. The experiences of Egypt and Isreal were meant to reach both Isreal and Egypt. Actually were probably meant to reach a sizable chunk of the world.
Let's see Torkuda...Jesus as God does not interfere in Adam and Eve's choice to sin because that would have cheapened man's 'free will' choice to either love or reject God. Yet this same Jesus in the flesh pleads in Gethsemane with God the Father to allow him to escape the suffering and death required to redeem Adam and Eve's very choice to sin [Matthew 26:39]. And to top it all off, this same Jesus INTERFERES in Pharaoh's free will choice to either keep the Israelites enslaved or free them. So this Jesus is either schizophrenic or just plain insane that he would cry out to escape the very suffering and death he himself could have avoided by preventing Adam and Eve from sinning just as he prevented Pharaoh from keeping the Israelites enslaved.
So basically what you're saying is Jesus in the flesh was superior to Jesus as God Almighty since the Jesus in the flesh would have prevented his own suffering. Sorry but that's not the kind of JEsus I'd like to follow.
Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/28/2006 8:58:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/28/2006 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Let's see Torkuda...Jesus as God does not interfere in Adam and Eve's choice to sin because that would have cheapened man's 'free will' choice to either love or reject God. Yet this same Jesus in the flesh pleads in Gethsemane with God the Father to allow him to escape the suffering and death required to redeem Adam and Eve's very choice to sin [Matthew 26:39].
___________________________________
Yes, indeed Jesus did not WANT to die. It was the price He paid for His love for us. I guess this is one of my prime examples of why I won't believe total omnipotence and omniscience. Both imply the sacrifice of Jesus was utterly unnecessary, and if the Bible is true in saying He didn't want to do it, that doesn't make any sense.
___________________________
And to top it all off, this same Jesus INTERFERES in Pharaoh's free will choice to either keep the Israelites enslaved or free them.
___________________________
Did you read the article I linked to earlier concerning this?
_____________________________
So this Jesus is either schizophrenic or just plain insane that he would cry out to escape the very suffering and death he himself could have avoided by preventing Adam and Eve from sinning just as he prevented Pharaoh from keeping the Israelites enslaved.
__________________________
By ALL theologies I know of, including Calvinism, yes, God could have prevented Adam and Eve from sinning. As well, all that I'm aware of, assume He allowed it anyway because it was man's chioce to make.
With the Pharaoh, you're comparing apples and oranges. That wasn't about choice, or Pharaoh's chioce anyway. It was about displaying God's power to mankind so they could see and believe in Him. Isreal and its experiences (even beyond Pharoah) were to be a sign to the world.
In the Bible, might I ask you a question. Miracles are usually refered to as signs. Why do you suppose that is?
Another question: If God's plan is set, why did He demand the Isrealites wipe out all living in the promise land, and then later, tell them not to? I can follow scripture and show you how God changed His mind and a little bit of why, but you say His mind never changes.
________________________________
So basically what you're saying is Jesus in the flesh was superior to Jesus as God Almighty since the Jesus in the flesh would have prevented his own suffering. Sorry but that's not the kind of JEsus I'd like to follow.
___________________________________
Ummmm..... Are you even reading your OWN writing? Did Jesus prevent is own suffering when in the garden praying that prayer? As I recall the answer is a definitive "NO". | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/28/2006 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | |
TORKUDA: Yes, indeed Jesus did not WANT to die. It was the price He paid for His love for us. I guess this is one of my prime examples of why I won't believe total omnipotence and omniscience. Both imply the sacrifice of Jesus was utterly unnecessary, and if the Bible is true in saying He didn't want to do it, that doesn't make any sense.
JASON: Jesus' sacrifice was utterly unnecessary if he could have and probably should have prevented it by intervening in Eden as much as he did in Egypt. And why would he want to as man escape his suffering and death when as God he could have prevented it?
TORKUDA: By ALL theologies I know of, including Calvinism, yes, God could have prevented Adam and Eve from sinning. As well, all that I'm aware of, assume He allowed it anyway because it was man's chioce to make.
With the Pharaoh, you're comparing apples and oranges. That wasn't about choice, or Pharaoh's chioce anyway. It was about displaying God's power to mankind so they could see and believe in Him. Isreal and its experiences (even beyond Pharoah) were to be a sign to the world.
JASON: Wait a second...if I understand you correctly, basically what you're saying is that God loved showing off his power more than Adam and Eve destroying all the rest of us. And instead of saving us the pain agony and suffering all humankind has endured for the past 6000 years, God cared more about his namesake amongst one generation of Egyptians and Israelites. Man what love God has for us eh...
TORKUDA: Ummmm..... Are you even reading your OWN writing? Did Jesus prevent is own suffering when in the garden praying that prayer? As I recall the answer is a definitive "NO".
JASON: I never said he prevented his own suffering...I said how could he have been smart enought to not want to die for man's sin as a man yet as God, he allowed man's sin to take place without taking any action. In other words, Jesus as man was smarter than he was as God. And if Jesus as man did not want to suffer the consequences of the actions that Jesus as God allowed to take place, then Jesus as both man and God is schizophrenic. Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/28/2006 11:04:24 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/28/2006 12:53 PM (GMT -6) | | God keeps His name alive in all ages one way or another. It's not something He skips on, because... well actually for the same reason He allows sin in the first place, man's chioce.
Lets also get something striaght, keeping God's name alive IS important.
If God were to allow His name to disappear forever, it would be all down hill from there. From there, man could only choose to follow fantasies, and probably would eventually be lost in the futility of such, eventually forgetting morality and ethics altogether. Look at what more powerful human religions do:
Islam: probably the most violent and blood thirsty religion in history and to Christianity, is the runner up as the dominate religious force.
Athiesm: Actually, athiest only THINK they're major players. They barely compose 5% of the world's popluation today, let alone how ineffective they've been in the rest of history. Loud and obnoxious as they may be, they and agnostics compose nothing but an annoying minority.
Nazism: like I really need to say why this philosophy was bad.
Communism: China, USSR, Cuba, need I say more?
Hinduism: Is actually thought of as a peaceful religion, I however view it as a belief system of chaos. The differences and disagreements make most Christian spats look like the petty arguements they are. Some hindus even become so paranoid about the sacredness of life, they espouse slowly starving to death. I guess since they aren't proned to going nuts and wiping out nations and people groups, not many people are aware of how crazy Hinduism is.
Truth is superior to lies and fantasy. If man can only choose between the imaginings of his own mind, as a species we will eventually destroy ourselves.
If truth is allowed to disappear, all chioce is false and chaos rules the day.
Each and every man must make his own day to day choices. Perhaps verses like "there is none righteous" are abused these days. I think it's probably possible this verse was not refering to Elijah, or Elisha, or several other people in the Bible, specifically called, righteous. The Bible does not teach man's inability to choose, but rather preaches to what he has done with his choice.
God does not interfere with your choices either. Stop trying to find ways to blame Him.
Or for that matter, lets all stop blaming Adam and Eve. It seems to me, their choice only brought sin into the world, it did not force anyone to follow it. Most of us eat our own apples practically every day, and its time to stop blaming dead people for the descions of the living.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/28/2006 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | |
TORKUDA: If God were to allow His name to disappear forever, it would be all down hill from there. From there, man could only choose to follow fantasies, and probably would eventually be lost in the futility of such, eventually forgetting morality and ethics altogether. Look at what more powerful human religions do:
Islam: probably the most violent and blood thirsty religion in history and to Christianity, is the runner up as the dominate religious force.
Athiesm: Actually, athiest only THINK they're major players. They barely compose 5% of the world's popluation today, let alone how ineffective they've been in the rest of history. Loud and obnoxious as they may be, they and agnostics compose nothing but an annoying minority.
Nazism: like I really need to say why this philosophy was bad.
Communism: China, USSR, Cuba, need I say more?
Hinduism: Is actually thought of as a peaceful religion, I however view it as a belief system of chaos. The differences and disagreements make most Christian spats look like the petty arguements they are. Some hindus even become so paranoid about the sacredness of life, they espouse slowly starving to death. I guess since they aren't proned to going nuts and wiping out nations and people groups, not many people are aware of how crazy Hinduism is.
JASON: And how many of these evil religious systems would have never existed if God did in Eden what he did in Egypt.
TORKUDA: God does not interfere with your choices either. Stop trying to find ways to blame Him.
Or for that matter, lets all stop blaming Adam and Eve. It seems to me, their choice only brought sin into the world, it did not force anyone to follow it. Most of us eat our own apples practically every day, and its time to stop blaming dead people for the descions of the living.
JASON: I don't blame Adam and Eve because I believe that God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to provide the framework for the manifestation of Jesus Christ. We were all -Adam and Eve included- destined to sin so we would understand the sinless life of JEsus Christ. This is the only way God's allowing Adam and Eve to sin as opposed to intervening in Egypt makes sense. God allowed Adam and Eve to sin because he had Jesus Christ in mind before creating them. he intervened in Egypt to provide the framework for the spotless Passover Lamb Jesus Christ. But if God's design in Adam and Eve was to see if they would love him freely, then his intervention in Egypt makes no sense because the later Jesus incarnate pleads with God the Father to prevent his death. In other words, Jesus in the flesh could have cursed himself as God [and the entire Godhead since he was the only one commissioned to suffer and die] for not preventing his own suffering and death when he had the chance. That is not an intelligent Jesus by any means. | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/28/2006 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | jasonlevene said...
Let's see Torkuda...
to Jasonlevene,
Did you happen to notice the reply I gave you, prior to Torkuda's? I was really hoping you might respond. Here it is again:
to Jasonlevene,
Your post did not really address my questions. I had asked "Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it?" I want to help promote better understanding. So for now I'm going to focus on relevant topics, in the hope that by exploring them more thoroughly with you, perhaps we'll be able to better address your original questions.
Let's go back to the topic of "free will". In most of your emails thus far, it definitely seemed as though you disdain the idea of "free will". Yet when I asked if you believed that love must be freely chosen, you answered in the affirmative, and said that genuine love must be freely chosen.
If you could elaborate on this seeming discrepancy, I think it would be an important step in establishing greater understanding. So please, if you will, focus more intently on what I'm asking, and please try to convey information relevant to what I'm actually asking - I'll copy here the most relevant excerpt from my last message:
Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it? You seem to show disdain for the concept of freewill, yet here you have stated that you believe that love must be freely chosen.
Again, if you could address the question of whether you consider yourself a Calvinist, and if not, then what do you consider yourself. And if you could address this apparent discrepancy between your disdain for freewill, yet affirming that love must be freely chosen. For the moment, between you and I at least, let us set aside the question of Eden and Egypt; we'll eventually come back to both, but it seems we have some other ground to cover first, before we can meaningfully discuss your original questions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/28/2006 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jason said...
JASON: I don't blame Adam and Eve
You just said, in that very post, that if God had stopped them (translation, if they hadn't done what they did) none of the evil belief systems of today would exist.
I'm use to this kind of arguing. The abandoning of our responsiblity is the number one reason determinism has to be defeated.
Jason said...
because I believe that God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to provide the framework for the manifestation of Jesus Christ. We were all -Adam and Eve included- destined to sin so we would understand the sinless life of JEsus Christ. This is the only way God's allowing Adam and Eve to sin as opposed to intervening in Egypt makes sense. God allowed Adam and Eve to sin because he had Jesus Christ in mind before creating them. he intervened in Egypt to provide the framework for the spotless Passover Lamb Jesus Christ. But if God's design in Adam and Eve was to see if they would love him freely, then his intervention in Egypt makes no sense because the later Jesus incarnate pleads with God the Father to prevent his death. In other words, Jesus in the flesh could have cursed himself as God [and the entire Godhead since he was the only one commissioned to suffer and die] for not preventing his own suffering and death when he had the chance. That is not an intelligent Jesus by any means.
So making us sin was the ONLY way God could have showed us righteousness... oh yea, that makes sense! Think about what you're saying.
God created man to show him His great love eh? How poetic. To show us how wonderful He is. Twisted, but acceptable I suppose. To strand an entire race in a pool of death, agony and destruction and condemn the overwhelming majority of them to an eternal torment like no other... hang on a sec... you're calling our version sadistic? Do you ever stop and think about the consiquences of what you say? You're version is a self-serving psychopath!
To remove human choice would have removed the very human spirit itself. There would be no point to our existence are far as God is concerned, because every step we made would basically be His own. God loved us and wants us to be real. So, He gives us real choices. However, because of the descions we have made, which yes, WE MADE, we stand condemned forever.
Jesus Christ was the sacrifice God had in mind for this express purpose. He knew we could go astray, and found a way, painful as it would be, to bring us back if we did. His love is FAR from earned by any man, but is still given freely to all.
No I can't undestand how the God of the universe, seeing how detestable we humans are, could ever die for us, but I've no choice but to believe that He must have, for otherwise we must all stand condemned forever (I'm not much of a defeatest). He died for us, and that sacrifice was more real and painful than you could ever imagine, to call it a mere show must be a sin itself.
Another thing, JESUS IS GOD! Jesus could not have called curses against God, for then He would have stood against himself. Anyone who opposes himself cannot stand.
Post Edited (Torkuda) : 5/28/2006 3:38:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/28/2006 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | |
spenlake said...
There is no "either or" regarding freewill such that it is either God or us in our choices. Providence includes the sinful choices made by men and angels. God's plans are not thwarted by them.
And my Jeremiah reference? Or how about this article I wrote including much scripture to my point:
spenlake said...
God's will and His plans are revealed to us as they unfold in history. I make real choices and they unfold the plan of God. Even as I make sinful choices, God's plan is revealed in that He uses even sin, wicked sin, to accomplish His purposes. I make choices and am culpable for them, and yet His mercy is not thwarted by my choices.
His mercy is BECAUSE of our choices. If His choices were what made us do what we do, there would be no point to mercy, lest it be mercy on Himself.
spenlake said...
The fact that God postpones judging our sinful choices is the reason that we live in a sinful sin filled world. Yet, because God chooses to postpone His judgment on our sins, we have the opporunity to repent and embarce the gospel and find His mercy.
I'm just guessing, but if I said no man can realize God's truth without God's help, you'd agree 100% right?
Oh, and please answer my anicdote:
Torkuda said...
True story by the way.
Several months ago, whilst riding my bike to college, I was hit by a 4X4 truck. Lucky me, it wasn't going very fast. Unlucky me, I wasn't wearing, helmit, gloves or a long sleve shirt at the time. (To this day the only thing I really corrected is the helmit... oh well.) As a result, to this day my hands still have large buises, and my memory of the immediate incident is wiped clean by something called "tramatic amnesia" (I think that's it anyway). I only know what I'm told about the incident, when I came to after being hit, I still had to realize I was no longer on my bike.
I say, any delusions I had that day about being invulnerable, have now been sufficiently proved wrong. I have limits and my scars prove it.
Do wounds, whatever kind, scars, literal bleeding, memory loss, etc, prove limits or not? | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 6/3/2006 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
John N. Darby said...
Your post did not really address my questions. I had asked "Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it?"
Sorry it took so long to get back to you...got caught up. I don't know anything about the Calvinist position or the Arminian position or any of the positions...perhaps you can explain them to me and then I can tell you where I fit in.
John N. Darby said...
ILet's go back to the topic of "free will". In most of your emails thus far, it definitely seemed as though you disdain the idea of "free will". Yet when I asked if you believed that love must be freely chosen, you answered in the affirmative, and said that genuine love must be freely chosen.
If you could elaborate on this seeming discrepancy, I think it would be an important step in establishing greater understanding. So please, if you will, focus more intently on what I'm asking, and please try to convey information relevant to what I'm actually asking...
Just to clarify, I do believe in free will but the open view holds that if God knows our future decisions before we make them, as I believe, then our decisions aren't free. This is not a valid conclusion because just because God knows our decisions doesn't mean he forces us to make them. The responsibility is still ours on making the decisions. So yes genuine love must be freely chosen but in the case of Adam and Eve, God didn't create them to seek love for himself. God created them as the framework for the foundation of the greatest form of love ever displayed: Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sin. God's purpose for man thus wasn't Adam and Eve: but the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his Church. I don't know if this clarified my position so let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know.
God bless. | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 6/3/2006 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | |
Torkuda said...
You just said, in that very post, that if God had stopped them (translation, if they hadn't done what they did) none of the evil belief systems of today would exist.
I'm use to this kind of arguing. The abandoning of our responsiblity is the number one reason determinism has to be defeated.
i was saying that if the open view is correct, and God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin before they actually chose to sin, then none of the evil belief systems would exist today if God had done in Eden half of what he did in Egypt to free the Israelites from slavery. You still can not get past that glaring discrepancy of God moving heaven and earth to free a small tribe of people yet he did nothing while his greatest creation chose to destroy themselves and call for the suffering and death that the later Jesus was smart enough to avoid while in our inferior flesh. I mean just think about it...Jesus is smart enough to seek an escape from suffering and death in our flesh but when it was time to prevent that suffering and death from taking place, as God Almighty he does nothing. Where is the logic in that?
Torkuda said...
Another thing, JESUS IS GOD! Jesus could not have called curses against God, for then He would have stood against himself. Anyone who opposes himself cannot stand.
Exactly...the open view has Jesus going against himself because as God Jesus could have prevented the very death that he himself wanted to escape from in the flesh! In other words, again, Jesus should have said on the cross: 'WHY DIDN'T I DO ANYTHING TO STOP THIS!' There is no logic in a Jesus who was smarter in our inferior flesh than he was as the superior God Almighty.
Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 6/3/2006 1:16:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/5/2006 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | jasonlevene said... John N. Darby said...
Your post did not really address my questions. I had asked "Since you say you "don't know about the Calvinist position", then what other position do you hold - and if there isn't a name for it, would you mind explaining it?"
Sorry it took so long to get back to you...got caught up. I don't know anything about the Calvinist position or the Arminian position or any of the positions...perhaps you can explain them to me and then I can tell you where I fit in.
Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism for a quick rundown of Calvinism; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_articles_of_Remonstrance and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism for a quick rundown of Arminianism (this page contains a flawed definition of open theism; for an accurate definition of Boyd's open theism, see http://www.gregboyd.org/oldcvm/gbfront/indexa84c.html?PageID=257 [and explore all the links on the right-hand side of the page].
John N. Darby said... ILet's go back to the topic of "free will". In most of your emails thus far, it definitely seemed as though you disdain the idea of "free will". Yet when I asked if you believed that love must be freely chosen, you answered in the affirmative, and said that genuine love must be freely chosen. If you could elaborate on this seeming discrepancy, I think it would be an important step in establishing greater understanding. So please, if you will, focus more intently on what I'm asking, and please try to convey information relevant to what I'm actually asking... jasonlevene said...
Just to clarify, I do believe in free will but the open view holds that if God knows our future decisions before we make them, as I believe, then our decisions aren't free. This is not a valid conclusion because just because God knows our decisions doesn't mean he forces us to make them. The responsibility is still ours on making the decisions. So yes genuine love must be freely chosen but in the case of Adam and Eve, God didn't create them to seek love for himself. God created them as the framework for the foundation of the greatest form of love ever displayed: Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sin. God's purpose for man thus wasn't Adam and Eve: but the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his Church. I don't know if this clarified my position so let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know.
God bless.
It somewhat helped clarify your position. I think, however, before we can continue, we need to clear up some apparent misconceptions you have about open theism. First, open theism generally agrees with the basic tenets of Arminianism (see the relevant webpages I posted above), and generally disagrees with the basic tenets of Calvinism (see the relevant webpages I posted above). The primary disagreement between "open theism" and "traditional theism" is over God's relationship to time: A) open theism recognizes from Scripture that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience, but asserts that the Scripture does not define God as omnitemporal - indeed, the very acts of Creation and Incarnation demonstrate definitive before/after sequences in God's own existence, which renders null the concept of divine omnitemporality; B) and open theism recognizes/deduces from Scripture that God created the future to be partly closed and partly open, and that His omniscience perceives the future as both partly closed and partly open. Both of these (A & B) are according to God's own choice, and not because of any external restriction. See http://www.gregboyd.org/oldcvm/gbfront/indexa84c.html?PageID=257 . Let me know when you have read through this page and the related links on the right-hand side of the page. I really think we can not move forward in any constructive manner until you have an informed understanding of what Boyd's open theism actually entails, rather than a second-hand understanding gleaned from an informal debate. For further information, read either "Is God to Blame?" by Gregory Boyd, or (the longer version) "Satan and the Problem of Evil", by Gregory Boyd. | | Back to Top | | |
| 116 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:21 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 |
|
|