Open Theism Debate
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hi Nomad,
Just listening to Bob's openning statement at the mo and I had not gone far when I happened upon this comment which does not make sense. Please clarify if you are able...
..."And thirdly, the Incarnation irrefutably shows that God is not outside of time. The Incarnation proves that God is not outside of time because the life of God the Son is being lived in a sequence. First, He existed through eternity past with only one nature, a divine nature, not having a human nature. Then, by the Incarnation, He became a Man, even, the Son of Man, taking upon Himself a second nature, our human nature. So that now and forever, He is both God the Son and the Man, Jesus Christ...
"For 1600 years the church has argued that the future must be settled because God is outside of time, but that collapses by the force of the central doctrine of Christianity: the Incarnation."
"Now let’s look at those three truths, starting with the Incarnation.
The Incarnation shows that God is not outside of time, because God has a past."
For God the Son was not eternally a Man. Back before the Incarnation, the books of Numbers and First Samuel explicitly state, that God was not a man."
Surely God is capable of infiltrating time whenever he chooses and just because he chose to reveal to mankind that he will send a savior - then did it... does not make him somehow subject to time. I do believe however, that he is subject to his own spoken/written word
"Moses even wrote that God is not a man, nor a son of man. So in God’s past, God the Son was not a man, and had only a divine nature, which was perfect. Then, He became a Man, as the Bible says, and became is a word that indicates change, and He took on a human nature. So now He has two natures, which is still perfect."
The above underlined in blue only indicates that the God Moses' refers to... is God the Father and not his only begotten son or any son...
That proves that that God lives in sequence, which also shows that God is not outside of time, and that perfect things can change, contrary to the doctrine of immutability."
If God is eternal, he would still have a past which we humans can track through his word..."living within a sequence" in my opinion, does not validate the fact that he is subject to time, nor infer that having a past equates to having a beginning [particularly since God is Spirit], but rather...his humanness enabled him to live within the time frame that God had allowed for him, as a man on a mission.
Thoughts? :huh:
Just listening to Bob's openning statement at the mo and I had not gone far when I happened upon this comment which does not make sense. Please clarify if you are able...
..."And thirdly, the Incarnation irrefutably shows that God is not outside of time. The Incarnation proves that God is not outside of time because the life of God the Son is being lived in a sequence. First, He existed through eternity past with only one nature, a divine nature, not having a human nature. Then, by the Incarnation, He became a Man, even, the Son of Man, taking upon Himself a second nature, our human nature. So that now and forever, He is both God the Son and the Man, Jesus Christ...
"For 1600 years the church has argued that the future must be settled because God is outside of time, but that collapses by the force of the central doctrine of Christianity: the Incarnation."
"Now let’s look at those three truths, starting with the Incarnation.
The Incarnation shows that God is not outside of time, because God has a past."
For God the Son was not eternally a Man. Back before the Incarnation, the books of Numbers and First Samuel explicitly state, that God was not a man."
Surely God is capable of infiltrating time whenever he chooses and just because he chose to reveal to mankind that he will send a savior - then did it... does not make him somehow subject to time. I do believe however, that he is subject to his own spoken/written word
"Moses even wrote that God is not a man, nor a son of man. So in God’s past, God the Son was not a man, and had only a divine nature, which was perfect. Then, He became a Man, as the Bible says, and became is a word that indicates change, and He took on a human nature. So now He has two natures, which is still perfect."
The above underlined in blue only indicates that the God Moses' refers to... is God the Father and not his only begotten son or any son...
That proves that that God lives in sequence, which also shows that God is not outside of time, and that perfect things can change, contrary to the doctrine of immutability."
If God is eternal, he would still have a past which we humans can track through his word..."living within a sequence" in my opinion, does not validate the fact that he is subject to time, nor infer that having a past equates to having a beginning [particularly since God is Spirit], but rather...his humanness enabled him to live within the time frame that God had allowed for him, as a man on a mission.
Thoughts? :huh:
Hi Angelina,
You're preaching to the choir sister. LOL
Bob Enyart's reasoning, if you can call it that, has me dumbfounded. He twists Scripture into a pretzel and his arguments are one non sequitur after another. I have difficulty understanding how someone could be so self-deceived.
Have you listened to Dr. White's arguments yet? He does a great job refuting Open Theism.
You're preaching to the choir sister. LOL
Bob Enyart's reasoning, if you can call it that, has me dumbfounded. He twists Scripture into a pretzel and his arguments are one non sequitur after another. I have difficulty understanding how someone could be so self-deceived.
Have you listened to Dr. White's arguments yet? He does a great job refuting Open Theism.
Not yet but I'll be critiquing both sides of this argument with interest and posting my findings here! I'm a Pentecostal believer ya know! h34r: ...Thanks for posting it.
I'm a Pentecostal believer ya know! h34r: ...Thanks for posting it.
I grew up Pentecostal so I'm almost certain you're not going to agree with everything Dr. White says, but I look forward to your thoughts.Angelina said:Not yet but I'll be critiquing both sides of this argument with interest and posting my findings here!
Unless a man has a testimony.............I don't pay much attention to them
I want to know what God has done for a person more than what they think God is.
John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those ...
... behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; ... behalf,
but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony
Those Christ healed....didn't go around talking in scriptures...............they went screamin to the world....
LOOK!.....LOOK!.....LOOK!....What Jesus did for me.........which gave the masses hope that Jesus would also touch them.
For where we see no Praise.........there...........it must not exist.
I've read plenty of books...........but............I found it was a waste of time........merely their teaching.....but with no power.
The books I do read now........is the ones......hard rock-n-rollers, celebrities, atheists...and others.....writing to tell us how God appeared to them
and forgave them of their sins.
They are excited.........ON FIRE!!!!!!!
HA!!!!.........................I find this very interesting.......some in here have called me self righteous.....HA!!!!!!
So being set free...............delivered.......forgiven........and sanctified..........and screamin from the roof top is being self righteous......
Then touch me again Lord......because I want more of it.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I want to know what God has done for a person more than what they think God is.
John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those ...
... behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; ... behalf,
but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony
Those Christ healed....didn't go around talking in scriptures...............they went screamin to the world....
LOOK!.....LOOK!.....LOOK!....What Jesus did for me.........which gave the masses hope that Jesus would also touch them.
For where we see no Praise.........there...........it must not exist.
I've read plenty of books...........but............I found it was a waste of time........merely their teaching.....but with no power.
The books I do read now........is the ones......hard rock-n-rollers, celebrities, atheists...and others.....writing to tell us how God appeared to them
and forgave them of their sins.
They are excited.........ON FIRE!!!!!!!
HA!!!!.........................I find this very interesting.......some in here have called me self righteous.....HA!!!!!!
So being set free...............delivered.......forgiven........and sanctified..........and screamin from the roof top is being self righteous......
Then touch me again Lord......because I want more of it.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Randor my friend, I love your evangelical zeal! However, there are wolves in sheep's clothing among us. Some of us have been called to defend the faith while others are called to be evangelists. We should never forget that we're one body with many parts. I really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for your reply.
Defend on...............Nomad said:Randor my friend, I love your evangelical zeal! However, there are wolves in sheep's clothing among us. Some of us have been called to defend the faith while others are called to be evangelists. We should never forget that we're one body with many parts. I really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for your reply.
Thank you for Loving Jesus †
Mr Bob says;
(Now for those who think that time was created by God, and not an aspect of His existence, please consider that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a before and an after. And since time therefore is a pre-condition of creating, time itself cannot be created.)
Now that does not make any logical sense. We are created beings having a beginning and an end, God however, could not be a created being since he existed before the creation of the world and is considered "The Creator of all living things" Being Spirit does not make one non-existant, it just means that God works on two different levels. A spiritual and a physical level. :huh:
(Now for those who think that time was created by God, and not an aspect of His existence, please consider that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a before and an after. And since time therefore is a pre-condition of creating, time itself cannot be created.)
Now that does not make any logical sense. We are created beings having a beginning and an end, God however, could not be a created being since he existed before the creation of the world and is considered "The Creator of all living things" Being Spirit does not make one non-existant, it just means that God works on two different levels. A spiritual and a physical level. :huh:
Bob Enyart said:
I agree with you Angelina. Bob assumes what he's trying to prove, as we can see from his statement above. He then draws a conclusion based on that assumption. Most of his arguments regarding time and eternity are nothing more than philosophical speculation. Did I ever mention that philosophy gives me a rash? lolAngelina said:
Born_Again
Well-Known Member
Wow, that gave me a headache, Ha Ha Ha... Soo, does that guy assume he's right? I guess anyone can take any topic they want and make it sound convincing if you know how to sell it. Does he have like loyal followers who scream. "AMEN" and stuff like that??? You know what, I think I talking just to talk..... ignore me. Ha Ha!
Wormwood
Chaps
I would be an open theist before I would be Reformed. I agree that any position that would put God as one who double-predestines men for destruction or decrees every human work (good and evil) should be rejected. Ultimately I think both of these positions are incorrect.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Seems to me that what we call reality has already happened. I think Adam and Eve asked God what the Fall really was and how it affected Him........God gave them / us the ultimate lesson. Christ's sacrifice was Gods heart breaking for us - even the Trinity, One God, viewed as three, seems to be the result of us literally Falling at great speed through space / time. It is all about our perspective - white light viewed through a prism is seen in parts; i think our view of God is similar.
Fact is, no matter how you choose to view it, we are already kneeling at God's throne or in another place for eternity. Yet, I have a sneaky suspicion that God is going to successfully redeem / already has redeemed us - I think it is harder for me to believe that He could really fail to accomplish this, despite us.
Fact is, no matter how you choose to view it, we are already kneeling at God's throne or in another place for eternity. Yet, I have a sneaky suspicion that God is going to successfully redeem / already has redeemed us - I think it is harder for me to believe that He could really fail to accomplish this, despite us.
Wormwood
Chaps
aspen,
I think God's sovereign choice to create a universe that permits choice will not be superseded by His desire for all to be saved. There is nothing in all of the witness of Scripture that would indicate as much. Rather, the Bible is filled with proclamation about the Kingdom and warning about rejecting God's work in Jesus Christ. If God determined from the beginning that He would create a world with genuine free choice and choose to lovingly provide a means of salvation for his creation in his foreknowledge of the repercussions of our free-will actions, I do not know how it could be said that God could "fail." Rather, it would seem that it would be a "failure" for God if he determined to save human beings through a means that circumvented their own free-will choices to reject his grace. God's victory is in the cross, not our acceptance or rejection of it.
Rob Bell alludes in "Love Wins" that certainly God will get what he wants when it comes to all people being saved. However, this is a very simplistic painting of God's desires and "wants" as displayed in Scripture. Yes, God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. However, God also wants salvation to come by grace through faith. God also wants evil to be punished and has determined that his wrath will "abide" with those who reject his Son. God wants people to choose. All of the Scriptural witness testifies to this fact. And there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God will override our own free will choice to accept or reject his grace in Christ.
I think God's sovereign choice to create a universe that permits choice will not be superseded by His desire for all to be saved. There is nothing in all of the witness of Scripture that would indicate as much. Rather, the Bible is filled with proclamation about the Kingdom and warning about rejecting God's work in Jesus Christ. If God determined from the beginning that He would create a world with genuine free choice and choose to lovingly provide a means of salvation for his creation in his foreknowledge of the repercussions of our free-will actions, I do not know how it could be said that God could "fail." Rather, it would seem that it would be a "failure" for God if he determined to save human beings through a means that circumvented their own free-will choices to reject his grace. God's victory is in the cross, not our acceptance or rejection of it.
Rob Bell alludes in "Love Wins" that certainly God will get what he wants when it comes to all people being saved. However, this is a very simplistic painting of God's desires and "wants" as displayed in Scripture. Yes, God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. However, God also wants salvation to come by grace through faith. God also wants evil to be punished and has determined that his wrath will "abide" with those who reject his Son. God wants people to choose. All of the Scriptural witness testifies to this fact. And there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God will override our own free will choice to accept or reject his grace in Christ.
Born_Again
Well-Known Member
Let me dust this one off.Angelina said:Hi Nomad,
Just listening to Bob's openning statement at the mo and I had not gone far when I happened upon this comment which does not make sense. Please clarify if you are able...
..."And thirdly, the Incarnation irrefutably shows that God is not outside of time. The Incarnation proves that God is not outside of time because the life of God the Son is being lived in a sequence. First, He existed through eternity past with only one nature, a divine nature, not having a human nature. Then, by the Incarnation, He became a Man, even, the Son of Man, taking upon Himself a second nature, our human nature. So that now and forever, He is both God the Son and the Man, Jesus Christ...
"For 1600 years the church has argued that the future must be settled because God is outside of time, but that collapses by the force of the central doctrine of Christianity: the Incarnation."
"Now let’s look at those three truths, starting with the Incarnation.
The Incarnation shows that God is not outside of time, because God has a past."
For God the Son was not eternally a Man. Back before the Incarnation, the books of Numbers and First Samuel explicitly state, that God was not a man."
Surely God is capable of infiltrating time whenever he chooses and just because he chose to reveal to mankind that he will send a savior - then did it... does not make him somehow subject to time. I do believe however, that he is subject to his own spoken/written word
"Moses even wrote that God is not a man, nor a son of man. So in God’s past, God the Son was not a man, and had only a divine nature, which was perfect. Then, He became a Man, as the Bible says, and became is a word that indicates change, and He took on a human nature. So now He has two natures, which is still perfect."
The above underlined in blue only indicates that the God Moses' refers to... is God the Father and not his only begotten son or any son...
That proves that that God lives in sequence, which also shows that God is not outside of time, and that perfect things can change, contrary to the doctrine of immutability."
If God is eternal, he would still have a past which we humans can track through his word..."living within a sequence" in my opinion, does not validate the fact that he is subject to time, nor infer that having a past equates to having a beginning [particularly since God is Spirit], but rather...his humanness enabled him to live within the time frame that God had allowed for him, as a man on a mission.
Thoughts? :huh:
Just because there were a sequence of events doesn't mean anything. We, man, created the concept/ units of measurement for time. In the Kingdom of heaven, time is irrelevant. It kind of goes back to our discussion about what happens to our souls when we die. Do we hang in limbo or do we die only to wake and see the rapture? Everything is done in His time anyways. I agree with the comment about him taking scripture and twisting it into a pretzel so it is so confusing it makes you want to go "okay, whatever you say, dude."
Everything has a past. But that does not, like Angelina said, validate anything. When God said he would send His son, he didn't say, "Mark you calendar." if He had said that, then would Jesus had been accepted as the savior by the church instead of called a blasphemer and crucified? He gives us clues for end times but even that can be vague as we construe certain events to mean certain things about end times as we see fit to fit our own agendas.
BA
Similar threads
- Locked
