Southern prof in middle of growing open theism debate

I notice you picked up on the slander...

I only meant that rhetorically. I could care less what anybody says about me. This is only a forum. If you've conversed with me before, you know I have skin of iron.

No, I have been out and hadn't read previous posts. On another ocassion I repeatedly asked you to affirm or deny you are a modalist and you evaded answering (in a most lawyerly manner) the question you now answer.

I suspect my "lawyerly manner" was sluffing the question off, because I make myself perfectly clear as to what I believe, and only an idiot would think what I describe is modalism, but then, there is no shortage of idiots in the world.

If I've answered your sincere question, I am pleased.

Hank

I know that as a man on earth God the Son prayed to God the Father,

Was a Divine Person distinct from God the Son, listening to Jesus' prayer?

and that another time God the Father made himself audibly heard with the words, "this is my Beloved Son, hear ye Him."

Was a Divine Person distinct from God the Son, speaking?

It's actually difficult for me to imagine how the open theists can even read the Bible. Entire portions would simply disappear in the confusion.

Perhaps you could give the specific passages of Scripture (not construct doctrine) that would "disappear in the confusion." So, please don't waste bandwidth with formulations of some 'confession' or other which might be troubled by OT, they are of no weight whatever. But I am interested in your assertion that "portions" of the Bible cannot be reconciled with OT. Which ones?

Both insist that All Scripture must conform itself to their Idol, either to be discarded, or to be re-formulated as necessary, according to their respective hermeneutic.

Same question of you as of GWB and drstevej. You offer the conclusory statement without examples. Could you cite some passages of Scripture which, in your view, have to be 'discarded or ... reformulated as necessary' to conform with OT?

Since the proponents of OT make a great deal of accepting the plain meaning of Scripture, you can probably set them straight in no time.

I'd say that the essential difference between my syllogism on Matthew 11:20-27, and the probability-argumentation of the Open Theists, is that I am arguing that prior to Creation, God in His omnipotence enjoys an infinite number of Creative Potentialities comprehensive, precisely and absolutely Foreknown to Him from Beginning to End, and He has the Divine Freedom to Elect to Actualize (create) that Foreknown Potentiality which He elects to actualize.**

Naturally, I was not suggesting that you believed anything so loony as these open theists. I think I'll just stick with my idea of God as possessed of a monolithic and eternal Will with regard to the unfolding of His plan for the human race and for the rest of His creation generally. I observe the relative silence of the Bible on the general topic of how God thinks and don't think that the matter is of any great importance anyway.

Perhaps my prejudice against the whole idea is that it reminds me too much of iterative computer-based problem-solving. Human beings do not naturally reason in this way in a creative endeavor. So, I tend to think that, if we are created in the image of God, that God probably does not think in this way either. I have to admit that my explanation is pretty simplistic.

But, among Baptists, that's never a liability. ; )

...Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward...

A Recompense is a Payment.

Ah...that's right! As the verse says, it is the transgression and disobedience received a just recompence; which, unless you think the word 'received' has some new meaning, the sinner got (received) the recompence (payment), he didn't give (or pay) it.

Please, don't waste your time. The reason the Bible never says sin is "paid" for is becaue it cannot be "paid," for. First, there is nothing that can be paid that would make sin OK. That is the principle of the RC indulgences. (Pay this much, you can do these sins, no problem.)

Secondly, it would mean that God considered suffering and death a positive value, that is, something he would accept as "payment," (because it was something of value to Him) for which He would overlook sin. But the Bible everywhere teaches God does not enjoy or desire the suffereing and death of any man, particularly His Son. He could not accept pain, suffering, and death as a payment, only a sadist would consider those things positive values or payment.

Hank

Perhaps you could give the specific passages of Scripture (not construct doctrine) that would "disappear in the confusion."

From the article:

Boyd says that while God does not know the outcome of specific events, he knows the countless possibilities of future events and is prepared to react to each one.

If Boyd's statement is accurate, then all of biblical prophecy is nonsense. If they are correct, then God could not have fulfilled prophecy if He merely knew the possibilites and reacted to them.

The open theists are defending the usual weak God-is-a-bumbling-idiot stance taken by those who refuse to acknowledge God's full sovereignty over His creation.

The failure of the RC "indulgence" theory, is the idea that a Finite Value can be assigned to Sin.

Sin -- any sin -- is an Infinite Offense, and may only be Propitiated by an Infinite Atonement, no mere "indulgence".

Secondly, it would mean that God considered suffering and death... something he would accept as "payment," for which He would overlook sin

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Btw, still wondering...

I know that as a man on earth God the Son prayed to God the Father,

distinct

and that another time God the Father made himself audibly heard with the words, "this is my Beloved Son, hear ye Him."

distinct

Was a Divine Person distinct from God the Son, listening to Jesus' prayer?

God the Father is distinct form God the Son and God the Father was listening to Jesus' prayer.

Was a Divine Person distinct from God the Son, speaking?

God the Father is distinct form God the Son and God the Father was speaking.

Here is the only passage in scripture that actually uses the word person in relation to God:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Interestingly, it says Jesus was the express image, not of his own person, but the person of God the Father.

I just do not think the addition of the word "person" to the plain Bible description is necessary, and actually confuses many. If God wanted us to use that word, don't you believe He would have thought of it?

Hank

Could you cite some passages of Scripture which, in your view, have to be 'discarded or ... reformulated as necessary' to conform with OT?

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. ~~ Matthew 11:21

God knew as an absolute certainty that the Free Choice of Tyre and Sidon, in response to the performance of Miracles therein, would certainly be to Repent. He knew EXACTLY and CERTAINLY what their Free Choice, in response to these Miracles, would really, factually, and actually be. True, or False?

God the Father is distinct form God the Son and God the Father was speaking.

Is God the Father a Divine Person, distinct from God the Son?

If not, what is the relation of God the Father to God the Son?

Be specific. If you don't know what, in particular, you believe... then you don't believe anything in particular.

Here is the verse you quoted:

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I have a question for you. Since, "almost all things are by the law purged with blood...," what isn't purged with blood?

Before you ask me any more questions, please answer that.

(BTW, if you actually figure out the answer, you will also know why suffereing and death are not payments made, but punishment and consequences received. You may even understand the difference.)

Thanks!

Hank

I cannot answer your question, because I do not know what you mean. My Father, my wife, and I had supper together tonight. My Father is a person. My wife is a person, I am a person. We are three persons. If that is what you mean by Trinity, then you believe in three Gods.

If you mean something else by person, I cannot imagine what it is.

What do you mean by "person?"

Be specific. If you don't know what, in particular, you believe... then you don't believe anything in particular.

It the tendency, shown in this argument, which seems to lead almost inexorably toward this line of thinking that makes me so leary of the idea of God as a theoretical thinker and planner.

The few passages in which God says He is not going to change His mind (in those specific situations) are taken as proof of immutable transcendence because it fits so nicely into the framework of Greek metaphysics.

Into this abuse of the revealed God of the Bible, the open theists march with their biblical arguments of a responsive God, interacting with humanity on a daily basis. It's no wonder they are making headway in bible-believing churches. People are sick and tired of talking to a volleyball god, when the Bible promises so much more.

The question is: Is God what the Greeks thought Him to be, cold, aloof, distant and immutable (dare I say 'Calvinist'?), or what the Bible reveals Him to be, immanent, suffering, changeable?

I have a question for you. Since, "almost all things are by the law purged with blood...," what isn't purged with blood?

ALL Sins are purged by the shedding of (perfect) Blood, for without the shedding of Blood, there is no remission of Sins.

However, under the Levitical covenant, not every ceremony involved the shedding of blood. Some merely pre-figured the Bloodshed of Christ, but did not themselves involve blood-shed.

They were, after all, "types and shadows".

But "Types and Shadows" do not change the fact that without the Shedding of Blood, there is NO remission of Sins.

I do not believe in Three Gods.

But you clearly do not believe in the Christian Trinity.

So don't be so disingeuous as to pretend that you do.

If you mean something else by person, I cannot imagine what it is. What do you mean by "person?" Be specific. If you don't know what, in particular, you believe... then you don't believe anything in particular.

Person = an Individual Personality. (which is not in any way exclusive with total agreement and congruence with a distinct, co-equal Personality)

Three distinct Persons, One God.

I observe the relative silence of the Bible on the general topic of how God thinks and don't think that the matter is of any great importance anyway.

Unfortunately for the set-piece, construct theorists, the "relative silence" is a raucous one. God's repentance in a variety of circumstances, i.e. Gen 6:6 (sorrow over making mankind), i Sam 15:35 (sorry that He had made Saul king), His repentance over something He had said He would do or started to do, Jonah 3:4-10 (changing His mind about Ninevah), repenting in response to human intercession, Ex 32:9-14 (relenting of the disaster He had threatened), Gen 18:23-32 (changing the threshold determination for destruction of Sodom.

So, we see that, in revealed history, we learn quite a bit about "the general topic of how God thinks". Only such a great (and unapologetic) student of reading disorders could so readily decide that he "... [doesn't] think that the matter is of any great importance anyway." I love it. What an intellect!

The difficulty is that much of what passes for conservative systematic theology is controlled by the presuppositions of the static, independent god of Greek metaphysics. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that prayer cannot change God's mind. This leads to the 'mantra' school of prayer. You can say anything over and over, howsoever meaningless, and call it 'prayer' for its only value is to change you, the pray-er. In other words, you might as well be talking to a stone, or, as the modern screenwriter has it, to Tom Hanks' Cast Away volleyball friend, "Wilson". This pagan god of the Greeks, transmuted into a Christian construct god, never answers, never wavers, never responds.

No, that is not the case at all. Even if it were true, the Bible instructs us that the prayers of the faithful are a sweet savor to God. Even if it were true, we are commanded to pray to the Father in the name of the Son and that is enough for anyone to obey. The repeated testimony that this is one of the things any of us can do to please God makes it an imperative.

In opposition to your praying-to-a-rock caricature, I'll ask how anyone should consider the God you are praying to be a divine idiot, since He requires the instruction and pleading of the faithful, beings infinitely more ignorant than Himself, in order to do that which is just and righteous and holy.

On the face of it, your view is at least as weak as the one you impute to me.

But in the face of scripture, yours falls to pieces. Mine, i.e. the view of orthodox Christians, doesn't.

Well, I'd better let you go for now. I'm sure you need to go pray so that, with your advice and counsel, God can somehow limp through another day. What would He do without our helpful prayers?

However, under the Levitical covenant, not every ceremony involved the shedding of blood. Some merely pre-figured the Bloodshed of Christ, but did not themselves involve blood-shed.

This is interesting. Do you believe that all salvation under both the Old and New Covenant was ultimately redeemed only by Christ's sacrifice? I'm sure you do but thought I'd ask.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.