Jump to content


Photo

Openness Theology Debate


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#61 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 September 2011 - 09:28 AM

Teejay,

Do you believe that Jesus HAD to be betrayed at all? If you believe that He did, could someone else have done it? Why would John, in writing his gospel, tell us that Jesus knew "from the beginning" WHO would betray Him? When Jesus told His disciples after the transfiguration in Matthew 17 about His upcoming betrayal,death and resurrection all in one sentence; was that only a possibility? I'm not looking for a debate, just trying to understand how you view all these things.


Chip,

Good questions! First, there was no shortage of people in Israel who wanted to "betray Him." When He raised Lazerous from the dead, the Pharisees immediately made plans to kill Him. I think Jesus pretty much knew that the whole of Israel would reject him, even after He rose from the dead. But God is the eternal optimist and He pressed on trying His best to get some "fruit in Israel." Sadly, Jesus lamented that the Gentile centurion showed more faith than His people Israel.

But Jesus had to die and shed His blood. I believe it's Hebrews that says, "Without the shedding of blood there is no redemption." So let's pretend that after seeing Jesus' miracles that the whole of Israel and all the Roman Empire got on their knees and accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. The reigning high priest could have taken Jesus and made the Final Sacrifice of Jesus--just as the high priests of Israel had been doing for centuries. But this Sacrifice would have been not of the blood of animals which were symbolic; but this Sacrifice would have been the true "Spotless Lamb" without sin.

Had this happened, there is the possibility that God would not have had to put Israel through their Tribulation, as the Tribulatin was to purify Israel. Since all of Israel had repented and accepted their Messiah, the Tribulation may not have been necessary. Jesus would still ascend to the Father to present Himself and then Father God would have sent Jesus back quickly and Jesus would set up His kingdom, sitting on King David's throne in Jerusalem with the Twelve Apostles sitting on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus would then have judged nations, etc.

I know John wrote that Jesus knew who would betray Him. And Jesus probably did with much certainty. God can read our hearts. But I contend that all who betrayed Jesus did it of their own volition. It's not possible for God to grand us free will and then know with absolute certainty that we will reject or accept Him. This is like asking God to draw a square circle.

After the fact, Jonah could have written that God knew that the whole of Neneveh would "repent in sackcloth and ashes." But did He really know. God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. But He can't know the unknowable. Now God could look into the heart of the King of Neneveh--IF HE WANTED TO--and predict with great accuracy what the King might do. Most prophesies that God makes He does not want to come true. His prophesies warn of coming judgment and He is always hopeful that His prophesy will fail--Neneveh for example.

Anyway, this is my story and I'm stickin' to it!

TeeJay

#62 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:13 AM

I was recently involved in a discussion where I mentioned the verse that tells us that it is impossible for God to lie.


The true five-point Calvinist believes that God can't change the number of rain drops that will fall in Montana tomorrow. The Muslims believe all "is written." I contend that it's not true that God "can't lie." Rather I argue that God can't lie and remain honest. God gave Adam and Even the freedom to choose whether to eat of the fruit or not eat of the fruit. But for some reason, Christians think that God does not have the same freedom? It takes no faith to trust in a God that can't do otherwise. If God could not lie, then His honesty is without value. I trust in God not because He "can't" lie. Rather I trust in God because He "will not" lie.

I was then challenged by an atheist to explain who it was that was imposing restrictions upon God.


Now I know how Jesus felt when He lamented that the Gentile centurion showed more faith than His people Israel. The Bible says that "Jesus was tempted in all ways." Now if He was really tempted, then there was a chance that Jesus could have surcumbed to the temptation and bowed His knee to Satan. Of course, if He had, sin would have entered the Godhead and God would have come undone, for "Righteous and Justice are the foundation of Your throne," one of the Psalms says. And if Jesus could not be tempted, then Jesus' temptation in the wilderness did not mean anything and was just a show. So I want to shake this atheist's hand and tell him that I find more wisdom in him than I find in most of the Christians.

The atheist in question suggested this:

If the answer is "God Himself", then the "restrictions" aren't restrictions at all.

My answer was that the impossibility had less to do with "restrictions" and more to do with the "nature" of the one being restricted. For example, if you strike a match and try to ignite water, it will not burn, because the nature of water does not permit it to burn.

Similarly, God does not lie becaues it is not in his nature to lie.


I must agree with the atheist. If I restrict myself, then breaking my self-imposed restriction is my choice. This choice to either break my self-imposed restriction or God's restriction was given to me by God. "Ghoose you this day, blessing or cursing..." God has freedom to choose to lie or be honest. God could have made us programmed robots but then love would not be possible. By definition, love must be freely given. I value my wife's love because she is free to love another. If she were not free, then her love for me would be no more valuable than my programmed computer which says to me every morning, "I love you. I love you. I love you."

While it's true that God does not lie because He's righteous, we must also say that He's righteous because He does not lie. But we can't argue that He can't lie. If He could not lie, then His honesty would be of no value.

We on the other hand do lie, because it is one of the constituents of the sinful nature.


But we also have the freedom to not lie. If we did not have this freedom, then God could not hold us accountable.

So while I am totally convinced that God knows what constitutes a person's nature and can predict and "bring to pass" events based on that nature, I don't find much in scripture that supports the idea that God keeps track of trillions and trillions of decisions made by every human being, from here to eternity. It's a good thing to praise God, but preferable for the attributes lined out in scripture, and not the imagined ones.


Upps, I so agree! Jesus said that God knows the number of hairs on your head, and I always add, "If He wants to know." But I don't envision God as a government bureaucrat keeping track of useless information.

perhaps it is a fine line to draw, but I think that it would have been as impossible for Judas to not betray Jesus as it is impossible for God to lie, not because God knew each and every decision that Judas would make, but that he knew what constituted Judas nature.


I'll have to think about this a bit. But I think you might be right?

So when the Bible teaches us that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, or something along those lines, perhaps it is more a case of manipulating something that is already inherant in that person's nature to bring about a certain sequence of events.


You're on to somethng here. Most of the time, miracles performed by God harden people's hearts. Most people have a hard heart towards God. When God performs a miracle, God shoves the truth of Himself in their faces, and proves them wrong. People do not like to be proved wrong. They do not love you for it. Even if the matter is trivial people will still hate you if you prove them wrong. In the cities where Jesus did most of His Miracles, they totally rejected Him. And the Jews who came out of Egypt, who saw thousands of miracles, died on the wilderness floor in unbelief.

Sure, the potter molds us out of the same lump of clay, indicating that we all have a fallen nature, but that does not mean that we are all puppets forced to do things against our will.


Agree. A careful reading of Jeremiah 18, the potter and the clay, shows that God wanted to make a beautiful vessel of honor, but the clay was marred in the Potter's hands. So the potter had to make a spittoon instead. But God did not mar the clay. We did that.

Perhaps God pulls a few strings to "bring his will to pass", but that is a far cry from him determining, or even knowing, all our decisions in advance.


Yes HE can. And He did while working with Israel. He made a mule talk, for example, and He opened the earth one time and swallowed up Moses' enemies. He put leprocy on Miriam. And actually the Bible does not say that "God knows the end from the beginning." It says that God DECLARES the end from the beginning.

In my opinion, God shows more power and intelligence when He has to work through men's hard-hearted hearts to accomplish His goals. This is much harder than working with willing individuals.

TeeJay

#63 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 September 2011 - 03:36 PM

The true five-point Calvinist believes that God can't change the number of rain drops that will fall in Montana tomorrow. The Muslims believe all "is written." I contend that it's not true that God "can't lie." Rather I argue that God can't lie and remain honest. God gave Adam and Even the freedom to choose whether to eat of the fruit or not eat of the fruit. But for some reason, Christians think that God does not have the same freedom? It takes no faith to trust in a God that can't do otherwise. If God could not lie, then His honesty is without value. I trust in God not because He "can't" lie. Rather I trust in God because He "will not" lie.


I still maintain that it is impossible for God to lie. If that is not the case then surely Hebrews 6:18 is incorrect, as would be the previous verse that teaches us that God's nature is immutable.

I agree with you that God "will not" lie. But obviously that is just another way of saying the same thing as I was pointing out in my previous post - God has no desire to lie because it is not in his nature to have the desire to lie.

In that context it doesn't make sense to say that God could lie if he wanted to. You might as well say that God could become a snail if he wanted to, but if he was a snail, would he still be God? I don't think so.

Putting your faith in God has nothing to do with the possibility of God being dishonest. God can obviously be perfectly honest without that having any detrimental effect on your faith. Faith is not based on the absence or presence of any of God's qualities - it is based on us believing his word despite the lack we experience here on earth to see his word manifested. It is being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". We cannot "see" God's honesty, but (hopefully) we believe that it is perfect as his word tells us.

I also doubt that Jesus temptation indicates that it was possible for him to cave in under the pressure he was under. Temptation arises when we are susceptible to weakness. Jesus was exposed to this susceptibility - his body was weakened - but his nature prevented him from chosing anything other than his nature permitted him to choose.

This doesn't mean that he wasn't tempted. It doesn't mean that he wasn't weakened. It doesn't mean that the choice was not laid out before him. It simply means that it was impossible for him to make the wrong decision due to his divine nature.

#64 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 20 September 2011 - 07:20 PM

Teejay,

The problem I see with your view is that in both the prediction of Judas' betrayal ( Matthew 26:21, Mark 14:18) and Peter's denial (Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:30), Jesus uses the word "verily" (KJV) which in the Greek means "firm" or "trustworthy".

#65 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:58 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1316298999' post='75040']
I still maintain that it is impossible for God to lie. If that is not the case then surely Hebrews 6:18 is incorrect, as would be the previous verse that teaches us that God's nature is immutable.[/quote]

UppsalaDragby,

Then God does not have the freedom to do otherwise--a freedom that He granted to us. If He can't do otherwise, then His righteousness is valueless and meaningless. Jesus is God the Son. Scripture says that Jesus was "tempted" in all ways. If Jesus could not do otherwise, then how could He be tempted?

[quote]I agree with you that God "will not" lie. But obviously that is just another way of saying the same thing as I was pointing out in my previous post - God has no desire to lie because it is not in his nature to have the desire to lie.[/quote]

But what we are debating is whether God has the freedom to do otherwise, and not whether He has the "desire" to do otherwise. While it is true that it is not in His nature to sin, this does not argue for whether He "can" sin. He is not a programmed robot Who can't do otherwise.

[quote]In that context it doesn't make sense to say that God could lie if he wanted to. You might as well say that God could become a snail if he wanted to, but if he was a snail, would he still be God? I don't think so.[/quote]

Me thinks this is not a good analogy.

[quote]Putting your faith in God has nothing to do with the possibility of God being dishonest. God can obviously be perfectly honest without that having any detrimental effect on your faith. Faith is not based on the absence or presence of any of God's qualities - it is based on us believing his word despite the lack we experience here on earth to see his word manifested. It is being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". We cannot "see" God's honesty, but (hopefully) we believe that it is perfect as his word tells us.[/quote]

It takes no faith to believe that God can't break His promise to us. You can't believe in His word apart from trusting in Him. For you, His honesty is not because you "hope" he won't do otherwise; it's because you think He can't do otherwise. You can have the same faith in your programmed computer.

[quote]I also doubt that Jesus temptation indicates that it was possible for him to cave in under the pressure he was under. Temptation arises when we are susceptible to weakness. Jesus was exposed to this susceptibility - his body was weakened - but his nature prevented him from chosing anything other than his nature permitted him to choose.[/quote]

If it was not "possible for Him to cave in," then it was not possible for Him to be tempted. But the Bible says He was. And if He was not tempted, then the Temptation in the Wilderness was a big meaningless show.

[quote]This doesn't mean that he wasn't tempted. It doesn't mean that he wasn't weakened. It doesn't mean that the choice was not laid out before him. It simply means that it was impossible for him to make the wrong decision due to his divine nature.
[/quote]

The Bible does not say He was "weakened." It says He was "tempted." You have freewill to love or hate, to sin or not sin. Why does not God have the same freedom that He gave you? The fact that God (Jesus) has the freedom to do otherwise is what gives value to His temptation. The best example I can give is that without free will, love is not possible. I value my wife's love because she is free do love another. But she loves me. If she were a programmed person who had no freedom to love another, I would not cherish her love. If you can explain how God can love absent the freedom to hate, I would be interested in learning how this is possible.

TeeJay

#66 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 October 2011 - 05:56 PM

[quote] name='chipwag64' timestamp='1316571611' post='75103']
Teejay,

The problem I see with your view is that in both the prediction of Judas' betrayal ( Matthew 26:21, Mark 14:18) and Peter's denial (Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:30), Jesus uses the word "verily" (KJV) which in the Greek means "firm" or "trustworthy".
[/quote]

Chip,

If peter and Judas did not sin of their own free will, and God predestined them to sin, then God is the "author of sin." Have you considered this?

TeeJay

#67 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 28 October 2011 - 07:09 AM

Teejay,

I believe that Peter and Judas and everyone else in the world sin of their own "free"? will. Just because God knows that it will happen does not make God the causal agent in that sin. I can't speak for other people, but my understanding of predestination is not of every single act of one's life, only the biblical things that are said to be predestined such as being conformed to the image of Christ, adoption, calling, justification, glorification etc.

Chip

#68 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 October 2011 - 05:31 PM

[quote] name='chipwag64' timestamp='1319810999' post='76134']
Teejay,

I believe that Peter and Judas and everyone else in the world sin of their own "free"? will. Just because God knows that it will happen does not make God the causal agent in that sin. I can't speak for other people, but my understanding of predestination is not of every single act of one's life, only the biblical things that are said to be predestined such as being conformed to the image of Christ, adoption, calling, justification, glorification etc.

Chip
[/quote]

Chip,

God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. It is not possible for God to grant you the freedom to love or hate Him and then know in advance that you will hate Him. This is much like drawing a "square circle" dilemma. If God has granted me the freedom to choose to live with Him or reject Him, then He can't possibly know, with absolutely certainty, what my choice will be in the future. Nor can God know before the foundation of the world who will reject or love Him. Why? Because God can't know someone who does not exist. My great, great, great grandson does not yet exist. Hence, God can't know even if I will have one let alone know if he will be saved.

TeeJay

#69 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:41 AM

UppsalaDragby,

Then God does not have the freedom to do otherwise--a freedom that He granted to us. If He can't do otherwise, then His righteousness is valueless and meaningless. Jesus is God the Son. Scripture says that Jesus was "tempted" in all ways. If Jesus could not do otherwise, then how could He be tempted?


I don't think that this has anything at all to do with freedom, but with what is possible. I think it is related to the "God creating heavy rocks that he can't lift" idea. Is God "free" to lift the rock? Is God "free" to create a circluar square? It is pointless to talk about freedom unless it is associated to what is possible.

If God nature prevents him from lying, then it is simply impossible, which can be scripturally validated by what we can read in Hebrews 6:18, where it mentions two unchangeable things: his promise, and his oath. If God is corruptable then his oath is worth as much as his promise.

Consequently, if Jesus could possibly have a nature susceptible to giving in to temptation then what would God's backup plan be? Another son? 20 sons? 1000? Would he have just given up?

I would rather believe what Bible that states - God cannot lie. Jesus must have had something incorruptible in his nature that prevented him from lying. Otherwise our salvation, along with God's promises, were all based on chance.

#70 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:10 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1319892070' post='76142']
I don't think that this has anything at all to do with freedom, but with what is possible. I think it is related to the "God creating heavy rocks that he can't lift" idea. Is God "free" to lift the rock? Is God "free" to create a circluar square? It is pointless to talk about freedom unless it is associated to what is possible.[/quote]

UppsalaDragby,

I said that I agree that God is righteous. But my question to you: Is God "FREE" to be unrighteous? If not, then you have a freedom that God Himself does not have. If God were not "FREE" to love or hate you, then He is a programmed robotic being who can't do otherwise. And His love for you does not have any value-no more value than if you programmed your computer to say, "I love you."

Question: Can God hate?

[quote]If God nature prevents him from lying, then it is simply impossible, which can be scripturally validated by what we can read in Hebrews 6:18, where it mentions two unchangeable things: his promise, and his oath. If God is corruptable then his oath is worth as much as his promise.[/quote]

You contend that God "can't" lie because of his righteous nature. I contend that God has a righteous nature because He "won't" lie. If Jesus had given in to Satan's temptation, sin would have entered the Godhead and God would have come undone. If Jesus' nature made it "impossible" for Him to sin, then Jesus was not "tempted in all ways," as the Bible says. You think that you are uplifting God in your believing that God can't sin, but you are really lowering Him--lowering Him to the status of a programmed robot.

If God could not do otherwise, then there would be no need for His making an oath. Why would an oath be necessary if He were not free to break the oath.

[quote]Consequently, if Jesus could possibly have a nature susceptible to giving in to temptation then what would God's backup plan be? Another son? 20 sons? 1000? Would he have just given up?[/quote]

If Jesus had fallen and worshipped Satan, God would have come undone. One of the psalms says, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne, O Lord." If Jesus had sinned, he would not have been the sinless lamb "without blemish" and could not paid the price for the sins of all mankind. No back-up plan is possible. This is what makes Jesus' not giving in to temptation so precious. God can't sin and remain sinless. God can't lie and remain honest. God can't break His word and remain trustworthy. But this does not mean that God "can't" sin. It takes no effort to trust a Being who can't break that trust.

[quote]I would rather believe what Bible that states - God cannot lie. Jesus must have had something incorruptible in his nature that prevented him from lying. Otherwise our salvation, along with God's promises, were all based on chance.
[/quote]

"Chance." Yes! God took a huge chance when He sent His Son to live within His creation which was a fallen world ruled by Satan. But God risked it all to save us. He literally "went for broke." This is what makes Jesus' Incarnation and sacrifice so precious. But you want to demean Jesus' temptation and argue that Jesus temptation was meaningless and of no value. Again, this is not uplifting God; it's demeaning God.

TeeJay

#71 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 October 2011 - 02:32 AM

I said that I agree that God is righteous. But my question to you: Is God "FREE" to be unrighteous? If not, then you have a freedom that God Himself does not have. If God were not "FREE" to love or hate you, then He is a programmed robotic being who can't do otherwise. And His love for you does not have any value-no more value than if you programmed your computer to say, "I love you."


You are still playing around with the concept of freedom. Freedom to sin is not freedom, but slavery! Jesus said "everyone who sins is a slave to sin". That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Question: Can God hate?


Yes, of course! Hate is not synonymous with sin!

It all depends on what you hate, and why. God hates sin. Does that make him a sinner?

You contend that God "can't" lie because of his righteous nature. I contend that God has a righteous nature because He "won't" lie.


Sure. Not wanting to lie would definitely be an effect of having a righeous nature, and having a righeous nature would definitely hinder you from wanting to lie. But whatever way you look at it it still leaves you with an impossibility. What would "possibly" make God "want" to lie?

You think that you are uplifting God in your believing that God can't sin, but you are really lowering Him--lowering Him to the status of a programmed robot.


Wow, that's quite a stretch! I don't think that having righteous limitations turns you into a robot. God isn't "programmed" and neither are you simply because you refrain from banging your neighbor on the head with a hammer. God is what he is and he tells us in scripture who he is. I am hardly uplifing God by agreeing with what He says about in scripture.


If God could not do otherwise, then there would be no need for His making an oath. Why would an oath be necessary if He were not free to break the oath.


That's a logic I don't understand. An oath is merely the guarantee from one part that his word is binding in an agreement. It would be a peculiar state of affairs where an oath exposes a weakness, or a tendency to break the oath from one of the parts making the oath! That defeats the intention of the oath altogether! If anything, the oath was necessary for OUR benefit and for OUR weakness, not for God's!


This is what makes Jesus' Incarnation and sacrifice so precious. But you want to demean Jesus' temptation and argue that Jesus temptation was meaningless and of no value. Again, this is not uplifting God; it's demeaning God.


It seems you are trying to attack my character in order to defend your argument. You can "demean" ME all you want. That I can live with. But I don't think you have the right to be making such a blatent attempt to cast dark shadows on the character of someone who makes full recognition of the offer and sacrifice that Jesus made.

Jesus suffered in his body and layed down his life. That pretty much sums it up. Now please respect the fact that I believe in what scripture clearly tells us - it is impossible for God to lie. Either scripture is right or you are, and attributing someone with divine nature does NOT demean them!!! Be careful about what you are saying!

Question: which is the stronger of the two? Temptation, or divine nature??

I think Jesus answered that question for you!

#72 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 October 2011 - 04:32 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1319967121' post='76152']
You are still playing around with the concept of freedom. Freedom to sin is not freedom, but slavery! Jesus said "everyone who sins is a slave to sin". That doesn't sound like freedom to me.[/quote]

UD,

It is true that God is free to do otherwise OR it is not true that God has the freedom to do otherwise. Do you at least agree with this? To give an argument that God is NOT FREE to do otherwise is extremely difficult. The only explanation is that He can't change. He's a stone idol.

Do you believe God can change His mind?



[quote]Yes, of course! Hate is not synonymous with sin!

It all depends on what you hate, and why. God hates sin. Does that make him a sinner?[/quote]

Does God hate the wicked (people)?



[quote]Sure. Not wanting to lie would definitely be an effect of having a righeous nature, and having a righeous nature would definitely hinder you from wanting to lie. But whatever way you look at it it still leaves you with an impossibility. What would "possibly" make God "want" to lie?[/quote]

We all agree that God does not "want" to lie. But can He lie? If not, why not?



[quote]Wow, that's quite a stretch! I don't think that having righteous limitations turns you into a robot. God isn't "programmed" and neither are you simply because you refrain from banging your neighbor on the head with a hammer. God is what he is and he tells us in scripture who he is. I am hardly uplifing God by agreeing with what He says about in scripture.[/quote]

In other words, you are free to bang your neighbor on the head, but God is not free to do likewise. Yikes! How did Christians come to believe this nonsense? Fred mentioned a debate on ToL on this subject. I suggest that you buy it and read it. You will be shocked to learn that Closed Theism has its roots in Greek fatalism which came from the Greek philosophers. They saw God as being unable to change in any way. The Greek god could not change in any way, for if he did, he would no longer be perfect. Their god could not learn anything new, hear a new song, or read a new book, for He know everything. He was timeless and could not even change the future. All was set in stone. I once argued with a Five Pointer on ToL. I asked him if God could change the number of rain drops that would fall in Montana tomorrow. He answered that God could not change anything. Such is life in Calvinism.

This view of God was inserted into Christianity by Augustine. Augustine's mother wanted her son to become a Catholic priest. But Augustine had a problem. He was an avid Greek scholar of Greek philosophy. So when Augustine read the Bible, the God of Scripture did not agree with the god of Greek philosophy. So Augustine's mother got her bishop (Bishop Ambroes) to talk to Augustine. Guess what? Bishop Ambrose was also a student of Greek philosophy. He assured Augustine that when the Bible said that Jesus wept, Jesus did not really cry. When the Bible said that God was sorry that He had made man, He was not really sorry. All was symbolic.

Armed with this new revelation from Bishop Ambrose, Augustine accepted God, but not on Bible terms but on the Greek philosophers' terms. He read and interpreted the Bible through the lens of Greek fatalism. So Augustine's God could not cry or be sorry or change in any way. All was set in stone and Augustine attributed all that happened or will happen to God--even attributing his own sin to God. God was all soverign and nothing happened that God did not want to happen.

Augustine was so successful in inserting this into the church that our early colleges that trained young clergy had mandatory Greek philosophy classes. Martin Luther may have broke with Rome, but he stayed with Augustine.




[quote]That's a logic I don't understand. An oath is merely the guarantee from one part that his word is binding in an agreement. It would be a peculiar state of affairs where an oath exposes a weakness, or a tendency to break the oath from one of the parts making the oath! That defeats the intention of the oath altogether! If anything, the oath was necessary for OUR benefit and for OUR weakness, not for God's![/quote]

The Greek god of Greek fatalism could not break an oath. He could not change in any way.




[quote]It seems you are trying to attack my character in order to defend your argument. You can "demean" ME all you want. That I can live with. But I don't think you have the right to be making such a blatent attempt to cast dark shadows on the character of someone who makes full recognition of the offer and sacrifice that Jesus made.[/quote]

I am not attacking your character; I am attacking your false belief that God can't do otherwise. Question: Did Jesus have to go to the Cross?

[quote]Jesus suffered in his body and layed down his life. That pretty much sums it up. Now please respect the fact that I believe in what scripture clearly tells us - it is impossible for God to lie. Either scripture is right or you are, and attributing someone with divine nature does NOT demean them!!! Be careful about what you are saying![/quote]

Could your Jesus have elected to not lay down His life? If it's impossible for Jesus to sin, then He could not have been tempted? Can you agree with this?

[quote]Question: which is the stronger of the two? Temptation, or divine nature??[/quote]

Jesus alway answered a question with a question. Question: Explain why Jesus' divine nature prevents Him from being tempted? If He were not tempted, then how strong His righteous nature was has no meaning.


[quote]I think Jesus answered that question for you!
[/quote]

But was He tempted? OR Was He not tempted?

TeeJay

#73 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:33 AM

Teejay,

I have already gone through your "freedom" argument and don't want to go around in circles. If you want to think that having a sinful nature that allows you to choose sin is an example of freedom then do so. I prefer to see it as slavery, because that is the way scripture describes it. There is no "weakness" involved in having a nature that prevents you from sinning, just as it is not a "strength" to be able to sin.

You will be shocked to learn that Closed Theism has its roots in Greek fatalism which came from the Greek philosophers


Rubbish! Since I have had the chance to debate WITH Fred Williams AGAINST Closed Theism then I don't think it will be quite the shock you would imagine! The problem is I don't see God's immutable nature as being either the baby or the bathwater of Closed Theism and I don't have the Greek philosophical view on this that you are trying so very hard to pin on me.

The fact that I believe that God is the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow" has nothing to do with believing the silly notion that he is either programmed or petrified! Instead of wasting time with these strawmen, why don't you calm down and check things out with me first. I don't like other people trying to pin things on me that I don't agree with, and neither I supposed do you.

God is obviously able to change his mind. But that doesn't mean he changes his nature! It is his nature that is both imperishable and immutable. It is his nature that tells us that he will destroy us if we continue to rebel against him, just as much as it is his nature that ensures us that if we repent he will "change his mind" and not destroy us.

#74 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 October 2011 - 03:35 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1320068019' post='76181']
Teejay,

I have already gone through your "freedom" argument and don't want to go around in circles. If you want to think that having a sinful nature that allows you to choose sin is an example of freedom then do so. I prefer to see it as slavery, because that is the way scripture describes it. There is no "weakness" involved in having a nature that prevents you from sinning, just as it is not a "strength" to be able to sin.[/quote]

UD,

Slavery is when you are not free to do otherwise, even if the choice to do otherwise is a bad choice. It's this simple: You have the freedom to sin or not sin. But God does not. We all know that when we sin, we become a slave to sin. I agree with the Bible, but God does not step in and prevent us from becoming "slaves to sin." If we did not have the freedom to not choose to sin, then any righteous act we did would have no meaning. Why can't you see that. Without free will, there could be no love. Do you agree with this last statement? Can God hate people?



[quote]Rubbish! Since I have had the chance to debate WITH Fred Williams AGAINST Closed Theism then I don't think it will be quite the shock you would imagine! The problem is I don't see God's immutable nature as being either the baby or the bathwater of Closed Theism and I don't have the Greek philosophical view on this that you are trying so very hard to pin on me.[/quote]

The "closed theist" that was in the debate that Fred referenced came back with the same argument. But the "open theist" quoted the sources for all to see--that the roots of Closed Theism is in Aristotle and Plato. Just curious: If you had looked at the quotes that the Open Theist presented, you could not possibly call my argument "rubbish."

[quote]The fact that I believe that God is the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow" has nothing to do with believing the silly notion that he is either programmed or petrified! Instead of wasting time with these strawmen, why don't you calm down and check things out with me first. I don't like other people trying to pin things on me that I don't agree with, and neither I supposed do you.[/quote]

Okay! Can God change in any way?

[quote]God is obviously able to change his mind. But that doesn't mean he changes his nature! It is his nature that is both imperishable and immutable. It is his nature that tells us that he will destroy us if we continue to rebel against him, just as much as it is his nature that ensures us that if we repent he will "change his mind" and not destroy us.
[/quote]

But if he can't break a promise, then His trustworthyness has no value. It takes no faith to trust a God who can't do otherwise. Again, why can't you see that? I know not if you are married. But could you value your wife's love if she were not free to love another? Run this by your wife or a female acquaintance (women understand this; men don't). If you were "forced" to bring your wife flowers, would they go in the trash or a vase? Think about it.

Just curious as to how you handle Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; 2 Sam. 7:28; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Chron. 18:22; Jer. 4:10 and 20:7; Ezek. 14:9; 2 Thes 2:11; Ex. 1:15-20.

TeeJay

#75 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:28 AM

Slavery is when you are not free to do otherwise


No. Slavery is when someone else determines what you do. Being restricted by your own righteousness is not slavery.

You have the freedom to sin or not sin. But God does not.


But Teejay, isn't that exactly what you are saying - that God HAS the "freedom" to sin?

Now you are saying that he doesn't!?! :blink:

If we did not have the freedom to not choose to sin, then any righteous act we did would have no meaning. Why can't you see that.


You are confusing our righteousness before God, with God's righteousness. What "righteous act" does God need to do in order for him to be considered righteous? There is none. He is not answerable to anyone but himself.

WE have a choice between sinning and not sinning due to weakness. You are trying to portray this "choice" as something positive by constructing an argument whereby we have a freedom that God lacks. Oh lucky us!

We can choose to be free from sin, only because we have a sinful nature. God doesn't have a sinful nature.

Without free will, there could be no love. Do you agree with this last statement? Can God hate people?


If you want to discuss God's hate or love for men then do so in the cliché thread that covers that, instead of trying to bait me into something that is beyond what we are discussing, which is the possiblity of God to choose to lie. If you have a point then just make it.

Just curious: If you had looked at the quotes that the Open Theist presented, you could not possibly call my argument "rubbish."


The "rubbish" part of your argument has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the idea Closed Theism having its roots in greek philosophy! You are presupposing something that is not true. On the contrary, it was your comment saying that this idea would shock me. I AGREE FULLY that Closed theism has its roots in Greek philosophy, so how is that possibly going to shock me!?!!

Okay! Can God change in any way?


Of course God can change! But not in "any way"! He is not a man that he should lie and shouldn't be compared to a man who can lie. God cannot lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to lie. You say that you agree with scripture, but obviously you don't. Scripture says that it is impossible for God to lie. You say it IS possible. That is hardly what I call "agreeing with scripture".

But if he can't break a promise, then His trustworthyness has no value.


That's nonsense! Do you only trust someone who can break a promise???

It takes no faith to trust a God who can't do otherwise.


Faith is being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". It has nothing to do with the actual character and nature of God. Does God have to be a lyer in order for us to have faith in his truthfulness?? Heavens no!! Faith only steps in when we fail to "see" his truthfulness.

My faith in God's existance is not nullified by the fact that God exists, is it? Neither does the impossibility for God to lie nullify my fiath in his truthfulness.

If you were "forced" to bring your wife flowers, would they go in the trash or a vase? Think about it.


If it was my own love for her that was forcing me then I think the vase would be the vessel of her choice.

If it was someone else forcing me, or some other motive, then perhaps the trash can would come in handy.

Just curious as to how you handle Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; 2 Sam. 7:28; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Chron. 18:22; Jer. 4:10 and 20:7; Ezek. 14:9; 2 Thes 2:11; Ex. 1:15-20.


Well, what I'm curious about is why you think these verses would be a problem for me... rather than for you.

#76 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 03 November 2011 - 08:48 AM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1320139682' post='76196']
No. Slavery is when someone else determines what you do. Being restricted by your own righteousness is not slavery.[/quote]

UD,

Who imposed this restrictive morality on God? If you answer God, then I must ask, was God free to not impose this restrictive morality on Himself? If so, then God has free will.



[quote]But Teejay, isn't that exactly what you are saying - that God HAS the "freedom" to sin?

Now you are saying that he doesn't!?! :blink:[/quote]

I stated WHAT YOU BELIEVE. You argue that God can't do otherwise, but then you argue that we can? If God does not have free will, how can He grant us that which He does not have Himself?



[quote]You are confusing our righteousness before God, with God's righteousness. What "righteous act" does God need to do in order for him to be considered righteous? There is none. He is not answerable to anyone but himself.[/quote]

Jesus (who is God) promised the Father than He would come in the flesh and die for us. Was He "answerable" to the Father if He broke His promise? Jesus died with the promise of the Father and the Holy Spirit that He would be resurrected from the dead. If They both broke their promise to Jesus, would they be answerable? If God were not a Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), how could He know that He were good (before He interacted with men), since He would have no interaction with anyone but Himself? If murder of the innocent is wrong, is it not also wrong for God? I have the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. My righteousness is as filthy rags. Righteousness is righteousness whether it be of God or of man. I don't think you've given this enough thought.

[quote]WE have a choice between sinning and not sinning due to weakness. You are trying to portray this "choice" as something positive by constructing an argument whereby we have a freedom that God lacks. Oh lucky us![/quote]

My choice to sin or not sin is not due to my weakness. I have this choice because God has given it to me (and you). And yes I am portraying this choice as "positive" because it was given to me by God. If God had not given us freedom to love or hate, then love would not be possible. Do you agree that love must be "freely" given?

[quote]We can choose to be free from sin, only because we have a sinful nature. God doesn't have a sinful nature.[/quote]

Before the Fall, did Adam and Eve have a sinful nature? If they did, then where did that sinful nature come from? God? Why did't God create them with His nature, where they could not sin? The Bible says that we were created in the image of God. Why does God not have a sinful nature? Is it because He has not sinned? But if He sins, then He will have a sinful nature just like us. Right? But you have created a god who can't possibly choose to do otherwise. He is a slave to His "nature" rather than His nature being subservient to Him. Perhaps we should be worshipping His natgure rather than Him?



[quote]If you want to discuss God's hate or love for men then do so in the cliché thread that covers that, instead of trying to bait me into something that is beyond what we are discussing, which is the possiblity of God to choose to lie. If you have a point then just make it.[/quote]

My question is very germane this debate we are having. I will ask again: Is God free to hate men? Or does His nature restrict Him from hating?



[quote]The "rubbish" part of your argument has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the idea Closed Theism having its roots in greek philosophy! You are presupposing something that is not true. On the contrary, it was your comment saying that this idea would shock me. I AGREE FULLY that Closed theism has its roots in Greek philosophy, so how is that possibly going to shock me!?!![/quote]

If you agree that the roots of God's immutability stems from the pagan Greeks and not from Scripture, then why are you arguing that God can't change?



[quote]Of course God can change! But not in "any way"! He is not a man that he should lie and shouldn't be compared to a man who can lie. God cannot lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to lie. You say that you agree with scripture, but obviously you don't. Scripture says that it is impossible for God to lie. You say it IS possible. That is hardly what I call "agreeing with scripture".[/quote]

But actually, God is a Man in the human form of Jesus Christ. Then you write that "it is impossible for Him to lie." If I ask why, you answer that "His nature" precludes Him from doing so. You are back with the Greeks in that God is not free to do anything. I argue that "righteous and justice are the foundation of your throne, O Lord" not because He CAN'T lie but because He WON'T lie. Why should God get any credit or honor for not doing something that He can't really do in the first place? Would you praise your computer for doing what you programmed it to do?

Do you think that God can lie or deceive His enemies? Before you answer, please consider your original position that God's nature will not permit Him to do otherwise.



[quote]That's nonsense! Do you only trust someone who can break a promise???[/quote]

If that someone could not break a promise, then my trust in him would have no value and would be meaningless. Can you agree with this?



[quote]Faith is being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". It has nothing to do with the actual character and nature of God. Does God have to be a lyer in order for us to have faith in his truthfulness?? Heavens no!! Faith only steps in when we fail to "see" his truthfulness.[/quote]

But "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." But you write that faith "has nothing to do with the actual character and nature of God." But you are arguing that it's God's "nature" that restricts God from breaking a promise. I'm having trouble following your argument?

[quote]My faith in God's existance is not nullified by the fact that God exists, is it? Neither does the impossibility for God to lie nullify my fiath in his truthfulness.[/quote]

If God can't lie, why do you need faith to believe that He will not lie?



[quote]If it was my own love for her that was forcing me then I think the vase would be the vessel of her choice.

If it was someone else forcing me, or some other motive, then perhaps the trash can would come in handy.[/quote]

If you gave her flowers because you loved her, you would be doing it because you were not "forced." Basically, you answered correctly. Love can't be forced; neither does love "force." You are free to love or hate. And so is God. In your second sentence, you also answered correctly. But realize that you are arguing that God's "nature" forces Him to love and not hate, to not lie, to not break a promise. God is not doing any of these things due to the fact that He can't do otherwise. Your wife would also be justified in tossing God's flowers in the trash, for according to you, He is not free like you are.



[quote]Well, what I'm curious about is why you think these verses would be a problem for me... rather than for you.
[/quote]

Let's just take one. Why did God reward the midwives in Egypt for lying?

TeeJay

#77 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:27 AM

UD,

Who imposed this restrictive morality on God? If you answer God, then I must ask, was God free to not impose this restrictive morality on Himself? If so, then God has free will.


No one has to impose a restriction concerning one's nature. If you take a match and try to make water burn, do you have to impose a restriction on the water to hinder it from burning? It doesn't ignite because it is not the nature of water to burn. God doesn't lie because it is not in his nature to do so.

I stated WHAT YOU BELIEVE. You argue that God can't do otherwise, but then you argue that we can? If God does not have free will, how can He grant us that which He does not have Himself?


Teejay, you are trying to use a logical argument to defeat scripture, and you are just getting repetitive. Are you trying to wear me out with this argument? God doesn't lie because there is no darkness in him. If you want to believe that God has the free will to gobble up some darkness and lie then do so. But I don't see how it would be possible for God to have the "will" to do that. Do you?

Jesus (who is God) promised the Father than He would come in the flesh and die for us. Was He "answerable" to the Father if He broke His promise? Jesus died with the promise of the Father and the Holy Spirit that He would be resurrected from the dead. If They both broke their promise to Jesus, would they be answerable? If God were not a Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), how could He know that He were good (before He interacted with men), since He would have no interaction with anyone but Himself? If murder of the innocent is wrong, is it not also wrong for God? I have the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. My righteousness is as filthy rags. Righteousness is righteousness whether it be of God or of man. I don't think you've given this enough thought.


If??? If this, if that. Ok, let me grant you this. IF God ever lies then I will concede that you were right all along. Until then it doesn't help to construct hypothetical questions suggesting scenarios that the Bible tells us are impossible.


Before the Fall, did Adam and Eve have a sinful nature? If they did, then where did that sinful nature come from? God? Why did't God create them with His nature, where they could not sin? The Bible says that we were created in the image of God. Why does God not have a sinful nature? Is it because He has not sinned? But if He sins, then He will have a sinful nature just like us. Right? But you have created a god who can't possibly choose to do otherwise. He is a slave to His "nature" rather than His nature being subservient to Him. Perhaps we should be worshipping His natgure rather than Him?


I don't think Adam and Eve were created sinful, but on the other hand I doubt they shared in the divine nature in the same way that Jesus did. If Jesus was in the garden would he have sinned? I don't think so. Having eternal qualities is part of the divine nature of God. Adam and Eve did not have these qualities.

My question is very germane this debate we are having. I will ask again: Is God free to hate men? Or does His nature restrict Him from hating?


I will answer again: God is free to do whatever his nature allows him to do, and since hate is not synonymous with sin then sure God can hate. So what's your point?


If you agree that the roots of God's immutability stems from the pagan Greeks and not from Scripture, then why are you arguing that God can't change?


Change what? Tyres? His shirt? God can change anything he wants except for one thing: His righteous nature. Why? Because it would take an unrigtheous nature to do that.


Do you think that God can lie or deceive His enemies? Before you answer, please consider your original position that God's nature will not permit Him to do otherwise.


Sure, but before hitting me with the "powerful delusion" argument then please consider the fact that what God allows in order to carry out his will is not the same thing as him actually lying, especially when he announces beforehand that he will be sending the delusion.


If that someone could not break a promise, then my trust in him would have no value and would be meaningless. Can you agree with this?


No, definitely not. I would put more trust in someone who could not break a promise than someone who can. But if potential promise-breakers appeal to you then what can I say?

If God can't lie, why do you need faith to believe that He will not lie?


Because of my own imperfection. I cannot "see" God's perfection. I need to have faith that what he says about himself is true.

God does not need to be imperfect in order for me to have faith.

Let's just take one. Why did God reward the midwives in Egypt for lying?


He didn't reward them for lying, he rewarded them for saving lives. The fact that they used lying as a means to do this was unfortunate but necessary and in that context, and only in that context, did God reward the midwives.

Now it is your turn: Why does the Bible tell us that it is impossible for God to lie? Is scripture itself lying?

#78 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 November 2011 - 07:31 AM

UD,

But actually, God is a Man in the human form of Jesus Christ. Then you write that "it is impossible for Him to lie." If I ask why, you answer that "His nature" precludes Him from doing so. You are back with the Greeks in that God is not free to do anything. I argue that "righteous and justice are the foundation of your throne, O Lord" not because He CAN'T lie but because He WON'T lie. Why should God get any credit or honor for not doing something that He can't really do in the first place? Would you praise your computer for doing what you programmed it to do?


OK, God is man in the "form" of Jesus Christ. But what exactly does that mean, in your opinion?

What does "God" being "human" mean?

In particular, what differentiates Jesus "human form" from your "human form"? Are you trying to argue that your ability to lie is common with Jesus ability to lie!

But why stop there?

What exactly, in your oppinion, differentiates Jesus from Hitler? Or a murderer? A rapist? A con man? Mother Theresa? The pope? Your next door neighbor ... anyone else on the street?

What is the difference?

#79 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:54 PM

='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1320398861' post='76259']
No one has to impose a restriction concerning one's nature. If you take a match and try to make water burn, do you have to impose a restriction on the water to hinder it from burning? It doesn't ignite because it is not the nature of water to burn. God doesn't lie because it is not in his nature to do so.


UD,

Water can't do anything of its own accord. Water is material. God is living, personal, relational, good and loving. But according to you, he can't choose to be the opposite of any of these attributes.



Teejay, you are trying to use a logical argument to defeat scripture, and you are just getting repetitive. Are you trying to wear me out with this argument? God doesn't lie because there is no darkness in him. If you want to believe that God has the free will to gobble up some darkness and lie then do so. But I don't see how it would be possible for God to have the "will" to do that. Do you?


Imagine that! Being logical. Where do the laws of logic come from, if not from God. Laws of logic are non-physical and can't come from matter. They are actually the way God thinks--logically. And we should not be illogical because to do so wound deter us from reaching truth. We have a moral obligation to reach truth. And it's impossible for God to "gobble up some darkness" because darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. You state that does not have the "will to lie." You can think and assert that, but there is no basis for this belief in reality. If God can't lie, then His honesty does not have one iota of value and He should not be revered for this qualitative attribute because He can't choose to not lie. You have made God a stone idol who can't do otherwise. As far as you accusing me of "trying to wear you out," could I not post the same back to you?


If??? If this, if that. Ok, let me grant you this. IF God ever lies then I will concede that you were right all along. Until then it doesn't help to construct hypothetical questions suggesting scenarios that the Bible tells us are impossible.


The difference between you and me is that I worship and trust God because I believe that He WILL NOT break His word. You trust Him because you believe He CAN'T break His word. Would you trust Him if you found out that He chooses to be righteous rather than forced to be righteous. Would you place any value on a forced relationship? I think not.




I don't think Adam and Eve were created sinful, but on the other hand I doubt they shared in the divine nature in the same way that Jesus did. If Jesus was in the garden would he have sinned? I don't think so. Having eternal qualities is part of the divine nature of God. Adam and Eve did not have these qualities.


So what you are saying is that Adam and Eve have more freedom than God who granted them their freedom.



I will answer again: God is free to do whatever his nature allows him to do, and since hate is not synonymous with sin then sure God can hate. So what's your point?


My point: God is free to love. Is God free to hate? And does He hate people? The reason I ask this is so far you have presented a god who can't do otherwise. So if His nature precludes Him from lying, does this same nature preclude Him from hating? If no, why not?




Change what? Tyres? His shirt? God can change anything he wants except for one thing: His righteous nature. Why? Because it would take an unrigtheous nature to do that.


Is God righteous becasue He can't be unrighteous or is He righteous because He loves. If you love you neighbor, your neighbor does not have to lock his door or guard his wife. So because God loves, Jesus can trust the Father to resurrect Him. Because Jesus loves the Father, the Father could trust Him to keep His promise to come and die on the Cross. Because of love, the Holy Spirit has nothing to fear from the Father or the Son and vice versa. You answered correctly that God can't change His righteous nature, but you should have added "and remain a righteous God." Recall that I posted that God can't lie and remain honest. He can't sin and remain sinless. He can't break His word and remain trustworthy. He can't reason illogically and remain logical. Jesus could have sinned when tempted by Satan. But if He had, sin would have entered the Godhead, and God would have come undone. "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne, O Lord." Jesus' temptation was real, but you make it of no value, for since Jesus could not have sinned, this "temptation in the wilderness" was just a big show. It meant nothing. Such is life in Closed Theism.


Sure, but before hitting me with the "powerful delusion" argument then please consider the fact that what God allows in order to carry out his will is not the same thing as him actually lying, especially when he announces beforehand that he will be sending the delusion.


But won't his "nature" preclude Him from deceiving anyone? If you can lie to your enemies, why can't God lie to His enemies? Or would His nature preclude Him from lying to anyone? Jesus used parables as turned road signs to the hard hearted. And if their hearts remained hard, Jesus did not volunteer to explain. Those with "ears to hear and eyes to see" received an explanation (parable of the seeds). When the Pharisees asked, "By what authority do you do this?" He refused to answer them, even though salvation was inherent in the correct answer. Jesus withheld salvation from them.




No, definitely not. I would put more trust in someone who could not break a promise than someone who can. But if potential promise-breakers appeal to you then what can I say?


What I'm trying to show you and what you refuse to see is that it takes no faith to trust a God who can't break His trust. How could you possibly give value to someone who was trustworthy because he could not be untrustworthy? Again, I value my wife's love because she is free to love another.



Because of my own imperfection. I cannot "see" God's perfection. I need to have faith that what he says about himself is true.

God does not need to be imperfect in order for me to have faith.


I can see God's perfection in the OT promises to send a Savior. He has a very good track record within the Godhead between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and with His created humans. Thus far, He has not shown me any reason not to trust Him. His qualitative attriutes (which have more value than His quantitative attributes) are that He is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. Notice the last one. Love must be freely given. Without the freedom to hate, God can't love. Unless my wife is free to hate, she can't love me or anyone else. If God did not have the freedom to lie, His truthfulness would have no meaning just as His love within the Godhead and with us would have no meaning unless there was freedom to do otherwise. God's main desire if for us to "trust" him. This is what He means by having faith. "Without faith, it's impossible to please God. The law is not of faith (love can't be forced). I don't think you wold argue that God's nature forces Him to love, but you then argue that God can't sin. God will give you no atta boy for worshipping and trust Him because He can't do otherwise. And I don't know why you can't see this simple truth.



He didn't reward them for lying, he rewarded them for saving lives. The fact that they used lying as a means to do this was unfortunate but necessary and in that context, and only in that context, did God reward the midwives.

Now it is your turn: Why does the Bible tell us that it is impossible for God to lie? Is scripture itself lying?


There is no gitting around or behind this. They lied to the Pharaoh. Now I will admit that their deceitfulness did save lives, Their lying to an enemy was not "unfortunate." I don't know how you conclude this. What in the world makes you think it is "unfortunate" to lie to an intruder in your home to protect your wife and daughters who are hiding under the floor?

I will answer. God can lie to His enemies who wish to hurt His followers. But He can't lie to those who trust Him and, this is important, remain a righteous God.

UD, let's quit. I'm wasting time with you in that I know you are saved. Confused, but still saved. I would rather spend my time trying to find the one sheep that is lost from the flock than to try and undonfuse those who want to remain confused. I know this is harsh, but I just don't know how to sugar coat it. The God I see in Scripture is a God who is free, and I value Him and worship Him because He freely chooses to love me. Love can't be forced, and not lying to your friends requires love. It can't be forced.

TeeJay

#80 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 05 November 2011 - 03:57 AM

UD,

UD, let's quit. I'm wasting time with you in that I know you are saved. Confused, but still saved. I would rather spend my time trying to find the one sheep that is lost from the flock than to try and undonfuse those who want to remain confused. I know this is harsh, but I just don't know how to sugar coat it. The God I see in Scripture is a God who is free, and I value Him and worship Him because He freely chooses to love me. Love can't be forced, and not lying to your friends requires love. It can't be forced.


Fair enough, although I'm just as prone to call you confused since you seem to feel the need to add something to scripture that simply isn't there. There are plenty of examples of direct conversations between God and his creation, including his enemies, but nothing that shows him lying. That settles it for me.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users