Jump to content


Photo

Openness Theology Debate


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 August 2005 - 08:11 PM

Time is how we perceive things, and is known to be a part of the fabric of the universe, e.g. gravitational time dialation.


Possibly, though you may be surprised that there are some creation scientists who do not buy into Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Why do I personally have a hard time with it? For a completely unscientific reason: “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Cor 1:20). How many things can you think of that unbelievers discovered about fundamental science that is true?

that's what it means to be eternal. I'm not saying that he created the future, only that when he created the universe, he knew everything that would take place. I admit, that this is what I've been taught, and I'm not prepared to defend it with scripture.


That is also what I was taught, and believed until the last few years. Three years ago if I were to have died, and God asked me if He can “see” into the future, I would have said unequivocally “yes”! If I were to die today, I would have to honestly answer “I don’t know”! That is where I am at with this issue. Why? There are no verses that falsify the Open View (OV) position that the future does not yet exist (if you find one I’d be very interested to see it, I’ve been searching for two years for one :rolleyes:). OV postulates that God cannot know something that doesn’t exist. He knows what the future holds because he will “bring it to pass”. There are so many verses that seem to better fit with this idea than the idea that God peers into the future, then tells us what will happen.

One way to falsify the OV is to find a verse that God knew us before we were conceived. Psalms 139 doesn’t do that (see below).

I don't much about Calvanism, other than it denies free will and, IMO, distorts the doctrines of election and pre-destination.


I agree, and why I will boldly predict you will change your view of Psalms 139, as I did just recently. ;) Otherwise, it will force you into a strict Calvinist position. Let's take a look -->

PSA 139:16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.


What is the context of this passage? David is praising the awesome design of our God while we are in the womb!

Ps 139:13-16: For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

This clearly must be referring to our time in the womb! The days fashioned for me – in the womb! If not, then you have to become a strict Calvinist - I can’t see any other logical way out of this dilemma. Why? Then you have to admit that God ordained (NAS; NKJV above that uses “fashioned”) the death of Susan Smith’s kids, the kids at Columbine, all the murders throughout history! This is one of the bizarre positions that Calvinists are forced to hold, but it is completely unjustified by scripture, being contrary to God’s attributes. We know this cannot be true and must be rejected because of scores of other scripture (i.e. God is not the author of evil, i.e. Deut 32:4, God is longsuffering that *all* be saved, etc). I believe such an idea that our days are all ordained is unsupportable in scripture short of wrenching Psalm 139 out of its context. :P What is interesting is most Christians will on one hand say that God did not pre-ordain all the murders, and on the other hand unwittingly support Psalms 139. But once the context is understood, the problem goes away. If the word ordained was not used here, it would be a little bit harder sell to claim the passage referred to the womb, we would essentially be left guessing. But ordained was used, so we don't have to guess - -it clearly must mean the womb, or else lots of other scripture have to be compromised.

BTW, “the lowest parts of the earth” is an idiom for the womb (i.e. see Job 1:21).

Another thing to note – this passage when taken to mean God ordained all our days, has been used to justify apathy toward abortion by Christians. I think we have to seriously reconsider our long taught, Christianity 101 view of this scripture. I can see why OV proponents so often point to the heavy Greek pagan influence on Augustine (and subsequently Calvin) that permeates most of Christianity, and why we need to reject it. It just doesn’t fit.

In Christ,
Fred

#42 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 August 2005 - 08:20 PM

As long as their is sin atonement, man is safe. Where it says no sin atonement, the person is not.

1) The old convenant: God-Goat (sin atonement)-man.

2) The new convenant: God-Jesus (sin atonement)-man

3) The rejection of convenant: God-Goat (NO sin atonement)-man

Number one shows the old convenant, and who the sin atonement was with, and what had to be sacraficed to get atonement (sins forgiven) for sin.

Number two show the new convenant, where Christ died on the cross and became the sacrafice for all sin. And became the lamb of God (sins fogiven).

Number three shows what happens if we deny, live a lukewarm life, etc... and fall from the new convenant by the spueing of the mouth. The term: "falling from grace" is what happens here.

In all of one, two and three. We are still in the hands of God. We never fall from that. But God is not the new convenant, Christ is. Those who are with Christ are called sheep. Those who have fallen from the new convenant with Christ, are called goats. This is how the sheep and goats end up in front of the saved throne.

mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


So what makes them both to be able to appear before the same throne? Like the verse says:

jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


In each instance, we are still in God's hands, as that verse says. But only one instance gives us salvation. And that's when we are in the number two example. The new convenant makes one and three not work for sin atonement. But if we fall from number two, we go to number three, which is the old convenant. As this verse says:

heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


The reason the people who rejected Christ are not called bulls, is because bulls are not of the same kind of animal as sheep. Being in God's hands makes you of the same kind (different creature in Christ). So even if you fall from grace, you still have to be of the same kind because you still in God's hands.

Example: A sheep and a goat can mate and have a child. They call them gheeps (jeeps). You cannot mate a bull with sheep.

Here's a verse that confirms this:

gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


1) Christ becomes of no effect unto you. This is where you have fallen from the new convenant. When you do, what is said next is all that is left.

2) Whosoever of you are justified by the law. The law is a reference to the old convenant. You can only fall back this far from the new convenant. To fall any further, you would fall out of God's hands.

jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


The next part expalins what happens when you are justified by the law.

3) ye are fallen from grace. Fallen from grace means you have become a goat. Only sheep are selected for heaven. This is why they are divided at the same throne.

mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


But why the right hand and left hand seperation? The right hand is the hand you use for blessing someone. The left hand is used for cursing someone. And this is why God says this to the goats:

mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Did they go to the white throne of judgement here? Nope. They received a right hand left hand judgement, and upon doing so, they were cursed (ye cursed).

So why no judgement here like at the white throne? The goats knew the truth, or they would not have been in God's hands at one time. So no judgement is needed of those who choose truth, and then rejected it. They cursed themselves by their own actions, as demonstrated by being cursed with a left hand judgement.

So what is the difference between the white throne of judgement, and the left hand judgement?

The left hand Judgement is reserved for those who knew the truth, but rejected it. It is more of a curse because of what they did.

The white throne judgement is for those who never accepted the new convenant.

But what about those born before Jesus? Are they condemned?

mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
mt 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


The first ressurection was also a rapture. Rapture of those worthy to go to heaven from the old convenant. Notice the word "many". It does not say all. Why? This rapture was also a judgement of sorts because only those worthy went.

Is there another verse that confirms this rapture?

rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


These two verses confirm that the ressurection was a judgement.
1) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This shows that not everyone rose. And that these people that did not, will not recieve their judgement until the thousand years that Christ will rule, and reign ends.

2) The whole part of the second verse shows that the ones who did rise in the first resurrection, will rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

So blessed were the ones who were ressurected, and cursed were the ones left.

So one rapture has already happened? Yes. But there are two more. The rapture of the church (those in the body of Christ), and the rapture at the end of the tribulation.

Why were those people raptured when Christ went up? Because the second rapture is only for those of the body of Christ. Those before that are called the dead in Christ (the old convenant).

1thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


But are the dead in Christ, those who died while saved? Nope. The parable of the rich man poor man confirms this. The new convenant makes it to where we go to where we are supposed to upon death. Those (saints) who were of the old convenant, and did not go up with Christ, will rise for their judgement. Christ is about bringing life, this is why they are called the dead in Christ. They were dead to the old and new convenant, and was the reason they were left in their graves.

Is there another verse that confirms the rising of some of the saints? The rich man poor man parable also confirms this. Abraham was already in heaven when the poor man arrived under the new convenant. Only under the new convenant do we go to where we are supposed to after death. So Abraham already being there means he rose with Christ, during the first resurrection.

So what did the old convenant people do after death? They did what is called sleep. This is why Samuel ask Saul, when saul used a witch to talk to him, why do you wake me from my sleep? And when the little girl died, and Jesus said: She is not dead, only asleep. Then He brought her back to life. Jesus was refering to what had happened to the girl in a spiritual sense. The people around him, who said she was dead, was refering to her condition in a physical sense. They did not understand about what Christ was saying, so they laughed at Him upon saying it.

Can you see how all this fits?

#43 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 07:08 AM

I agree, and why I will boldly predict you will change your view of Psalms 139, as I did just recently. :) Otherwise, it will force you into a strict Calvinist position. Let's take a look -->


We'll see.... :)

I've mentinoned this once before, but I don't think I've done a good job at getting it accross. The Calvanist postion and OV positions are not the only possiblities of interpreting scripture. What's left is the scriptural position itself. IOW, I don't acccept the Calvanist position, but I don't see that as any reason to accep the OV postion either. At some level I disagree with both, as I see the scripture being kind of in between in some cases, and in total agreement with one side or the other in other cases.

What is the context of this passage? David is praising the awesome design of our God while we are in the womb!


I disagree with this conclusion, but the sake of argument, I'll concede it for the moment: the result is still the same. God new his days in the wormb, and they were written down before they happend. Hence God knew the future before it happend.

I believe the "days fashioned for me" refer to his life.

This clearly must be referring to our time in the womb! The days fashioned for me – in the womb! If not, then you have to become a strict Calvinist - I can’t see any other logical way out of this dilemma. Why? Then you have to admit that God ordained (NAS; NKJV above that uses “fashioned”) the death of Susan Smith’s kids, the kids at Columbine, all the murders throughout history!


1st, if we are to think that God makes all things happen, then to me that's even worse with the OV, since you are attributing murders to his willful action.

God's soveriegnty is a difficult subject, but as I said before, and I still believe that God is in control, even when things take place that would seem to not line up with what we see as his charachter.

Lets conisder this passage in 1 Kings

1KI 22:19 And Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.
1KI 22:20 "And the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.
1KI 22:21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, 'I will entice him.'
1KI 22:22 "And the Lord said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'
1KI 22:23 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you."

Now this is an interesting passage from your perspective, because it demonstrates the Lord interacting with his creation in the fashion that the OV puts forth, so in that sense, the OV has scriptual support.

The important thing to note here is that in the end, its was the Lord that "put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets".

Question: Was it the Lord's idea to do it? No. Does God's Word say he did it? Yes.

IOW, God is in control of everything, and much of what happens is not his idea, but it the end, if it happens he did it, because he is in control of everything. I belive this is also true for the Law. The law was probably not God's idea, but he allowed it to be implememented.

GAL 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.

Through here means, "on account of".

How else are we to understand this verse:

PRO 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.

I don't believe that he "made" anyone wicked, but that he allows the wicked to exist, and excersize volition, and since he allows it, he does it.

Added: The Lord knows the results of things that did not even happen:

MAT 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.

How can the Lord say what would have happened if he does not foreknow all of the results based on his actions?

In Christ,

Terry

#44 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 August 2005 - 03:29 PM

First, I wanted to say thanks to all for an interesting discussion and some "reasoning together" that has been fruitful for all of us in one way or another.

The Calvanist postion and OV positions are not the only possiblities of interpreting scripture.


I agree completely, and have tried to explain that I am not 100% committed to the Open View. Regarding whether or not the future exists, a few years ago I was 100% convinced it did (because of scripture), but now I’m not so sure (because of scripture).

IOW, I don't accept the Calvanist position, but I don't see that as any reason to accep the OV postion either. At some level I disagree with both, as I see the scripture being kind of in between in some cases, and in total agreement with one side or the other in other cases.


I again didn’t mean to imply they are mutually excusive, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

I disagree with this conclusion, but the sake of argument, I'll concede it for the moment: the result is still the same. God new his days in the wormb, and they were written down before they happend. Hence God knew the future before it happend.


How is this different than God writing it down and bringing it to pass? Let’s set aside this argument, because it’s not really an Open View proof text (nor was it intended to be) since either position regarding God’s knowledge of the future (seeing vs bringing to pass) IMO is reasonable in this passage. Instead, let’s look at it’s implications to Calvinism that you raise in your very next statement:

I believe the "days fashioned for me" refer to his life.


If so, then you are in quite a dilemma. You seem to unwittingly acknowledge this dilemma with your very next statement:

1st, if we are to think that God makes all things happen, then to me that's even worse with the OV, since you are attributing murders to his willful action.


The Open View is stating the opposite! The Open View says that God does not ordain or plan the time of our death before creation began. Otherwise, God ordained that Susan Smith’s kids would die at the hands of their mother, and therefore, Susan Smith herself was ordained to kill her kids. I see no logical way out of this dilemma. If you accept the traditional Psalms 139 interpretation that God controls or “fashions”, “ordains” our lives all the way to and including our death, then you must accept that he ordained all the murder-suicides that have ever occurred! This is a strict Calvinist position and why they love Psalms 139, that I submit they have severely ripped out-of-context.

Let me put it this way. Since you believe God did not ordain that Susan Smith kill her kids, or Scott Petersen kill her wife, then logically you must reject the traditional teaching of Psalms 139. The days in Psalms 139 referring to the womb makes perfect sense, since the womb is the context after all. :) David is bragging about God’s wonderful works of our time in the womb, that the words written in the book mentioned (God has many books!) is also regarding our time in the womb.

Question: Was it the Lord's idea to do it? No. Does God's Word say he did it? Yes.


Why do you believe it wasn’t God’s idea? Why else would he ask, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'. I believe this is one of many examples of God working through history. “Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass . I have purposed it; I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:11) Even if this spirit were evil, why couldn’t God manipulate it to do His work? God manipulates evil people all the time throughout scripture to achieve his plan.

IOW, God is in control of everything, and much of what happens is not his idea, but it the end, if it happens he did it, because he is in control of everything.


But can’t you see how this is logically inconsistent with God’s attributes? Even above you don’t accept that God ordained all the murders that ever took place. God is Sovereign and can control everything He wants to control. Do you truly think God wants to control and even know every detail of the process of human waste as it travels through the sewer system? God has every right to turn away and not look at filth of any kind. I completely agree with the Open View position that God knows all things knowable that he chooses to know and believe it is very scriptural. For example:

And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." - Gen 18:19-21

Is it really fair to chalk this off as another anthropomorphism? I submit God chose to completely turn away and not peer upon the utter filth and wickedness going on there. Ironically, I submit the Calvinist position that God can't do this, limits God's soveriegnty. I say God can do what every He wants, He's God after al! :)

PRO 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.

I don't believe that he "made" anyone wicked, but that he allows the wicked to exist, and excersize volition, and since he allows it, he does it.


I essentially agree, but It doesn’t say God Himself does the evil. Evil exists because of free-will. Without free will God’s creatures could neither do evil, or express love – neither could exist without the possibility of the other.

So I don’t know how this supports your position that “God controls everything”. God by His Soveriegn choice, chose not control everything, you even seem to admit this regarding volition. He willfully gave up some of his power by granting us free will:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34-35)

MAT 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.

How can the Lord say what would have happened if he does not foreknow all of the results based on his actions?


If God knows everything knowable, including the hearts of men, He would know how they would respond. So I don’t see why this requires God to peer into the future to find out what would happen, instead of peering into the hearts of men to know how they will respond. Which is harder for God to do? Which one brings Him more glory?

In Christ,
Fred Williams

#45 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 06:10 PM

First, I wanted to say thanks to all for an interesting discussion and some "reasoning together" that has been fruitful for all of us in one way or another.

I'll second that, this is worth thinking about, and its a good fruitfull discussion. I really appreciate it.

Let me put it this way. Since you believe God did not ordain that Susan Smith kill her kids, or Scott Petersen kill her wife, then logically you must reject the traditional teaching of Psalms 139. The days in Psalms 139 referring to the womb makes perfect sense, since the womb is the context after all. :) David is bragging about God’s wonderful works of our time in the womb, that the words written in the book mentioned (God has many books!) is also regarding our time in the womb. 

If the Calvanist position is that God wirtes things down, and then makes everything work out that way, then I disagree with that.

Its equally possible, that God just knew everything that would happen and wrote it down. How does that violate his integrity?

Why do you believe it wasn’t God’s idea? Why else would he ask, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'. I believe this is one of many examples of God working through history.

I admitted that that passage supports your position to a degree. I said it wasn't his idea because he asked a question, and then took someone else's idea and implemented it. Unless you think he put the thoughts into the spirit that spoke up, which is kind of pointless.

But can’t you see how this is logically inconsistent with God’s attributes? Even above you don’t accept that God ordained all the murders that ever took place. God is Sovereign and can control everything He wants to control. Do you truly think God wants to control and even know every detail of the process of human waste as it travels through the sewer system?

Oh, he puts up with far worse than that:

ISA 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

1CO 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be!
1CO 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, "The two will become one flesh."
1CO 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Lets also not forget that God made:

2CO 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I don't really know what in many ways is disgusting to God, but if he can handle making his son "sin" on our behalf, then the sewer system is not much of a problem.

God has every right to turn away and not look at filth of any kind. I completely agree with the Open View position that God knows all things knowable that he chooses to know and believe it is very scriptural. For example:

[b]And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom  and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
- Gen 18:19-21

Is it really fair to chalk this off as another anthropomorphism? I submit God chose to completely turn away and not peer upon the utter filth and wickedness going on there.  Ironically, I submit the Calvinist position that God can't do this, limits God's soveriegnty. I say God can do what every He wants, He's God after al! :)

This is a good point, but there are a few things to consider:

1) There is no record of the Lord every going there, only the two angles
2) If he never went there, then when he said "I will go", it could have been a reference to the angels that went to learn.

If God knows everything knowable, including the hearts of men, He would know how they would respond. So I don’t see why this requires God to peer into the future to find out what would happen, instead of peering into the hearts of men to know how they will respond. Which is harder for God to do?

OK, but as I understand it, the open view says that he doesn't know everything that's knowable, so how could he know the hearts of men, and everything that would consequently work out?

It just doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong on this......

What am I missing here?

Which one brings Him more glory?

Honestly, I think that is a very dangerous question that I'm not willing to take on. I can only trust scipture and believe that God is glorified by us living our lives as he wants it, and coming to a full knowled of our Lord and Savior. Trying to develop theology based on someones opinion about what glorifies him the most sounds pretty risky.

In Christ,

Terry

#46 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 06:42 PM

Fred,

You know after thinking about this a little more, the OV, to me has one truely serious problem with it. Maybe its covered in the debate, but if not, I would like for you to think about it, myabe you already have.

Its seems to me as if the Gospel itself is at stake. If God did not know everything that would happen in the future, then how could Christ have paid for those sins on the cross for all time? I hate to post such a long passage of scripture, but after reading it, I think the whole passage is worth considering.

HEB 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
HEB 9:25 nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own.
HEB 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
HEB 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
HEB 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
HEB 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.
HEB 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
HEB 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
HEB 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
HEB 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, But a body Thou hast prepared for Me;
HEB 10:6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure.
HEB 10:7 "Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (In the roll of the book it is written of Me) To do Thy will, O God.'"
HEB 10:8 After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law),
HEB 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Thy will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
HEB 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
HEB 10:11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
HEB 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

Christ paid the price for all sins for all time when he was on the cross. Its beyond me to think how that God doesn't know everything that will happen, and be able to do that.

Also, Heb 9:26 is a good verse for arguing against death existing before Adam's sin.

In Christ,

Terry

#47 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 August 2005 - 10:00 PM

Its equally possible, that God just knew everything that would happen and wrote it down. How does that violate his integrity?


I don’t think that would violate his integrity at all. But here is the problem. The passage states the following:

Ps 139:16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

I truly don’t have a problem with God knowing everything that would happen and then wrote it down. But the part I underlined is in there and needs some splainin’. :) If the days here are the days of our lives (soap opera music in background), then God fashioned (ordained) all our actions, including how we die (which then gets into all the problems previously mentioned; i.e. all murders were ordained). It makes more sense that God would fashion us in our womb, our DNA, everything that makes us human. I just looked at the King James, and I think it states it best:

Ps 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

The good ole King James comes through again. :)

BTW, it occurred to me that if God ordained our days to the very last, then he would have had to erase and re-type in King Hezekiah’s date with the reaper (2 Kings 20). God told him he was sick and very near death, and Hezekiah’ prayed for healing and got an extra 15 years (15 bad years, I might add, which in itself is perhaps another argument for the Open View). So since Hezekiah’s entry in this book had already been written, did God go back in time and correct it? Because it says the entry was written, “when as yet there was none of them”.

I think all these painful mind-confounding problems go away if the context of days is in the womb, as the KJV version above seems to state.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I don't really know what in many ways is disgusting to God, but if he can handle making his son "sin" on our behalf, then the sewer system is not much of a problem.


Agreed! :) But I hope you see my point with the Sodom example: God can choose to be where he wants to be. No need to be in a sewer if He doesn’t want to, or in the lake of fire, for that matter.

OK, but as I understand it, the open view says that he doesn't know everything that's knowable, so how could he know the hearts of men, and everything that would consequently work out?

It just doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong on this......

What am I missing here?


You do have a misunderstanding of the Open View, but no worries, it’s pretty common! I hear more vitriol (I'm not saying you are doing this) against the Open View than most other doctrines, and I find that often it is based on a misunderstanding. I'm usually playing the role of OV defender, even though I haven't actively advocated it. Someone almost always brings it up and says how bad it is, and I find myself saying, "have you really considered their arguments? I'ts not as far-fetched as you think, it's just that we've been taught something so counter for a long time". Over time views then soften on it, and now I have a semi-Calvinist friend seriously pondering it. I think what helps me, is that I was Catholic and accepted most of their doctrines for 30 years. I've become accustomed to being proven wrong by scripture, and I think it has helped me look at scripture more carefully without peer-pressure or traditional teaching getting in the way. But, on the other hand I am mindful of the fact I'm a fallen person in a fallen creation, and I could be totally oblivious to my own bias.

The Open View is probably best summed up this way: God knows everything knowable, that he wants to know. Since the future doesn’t exist (according to the Open View), then God does not know the future any more than He knows who the tooth fairy is. So all future prophesied events were made to happen by God. “Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass . I have purposed it; I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:11). The Open View proponents claim it paints a more accurate picture of a Living God personally interacting in our history. There is more to the OV, such as some of God's attributes are more important than others, such as Love is greater than knowledge. But the future bit pretty much sums it up.

BTW, while there are no verses I am aware of that falsify the Open View, I am also unaware of any verses that falsify the commonly held belief that God “sees” into the future. This is the only reason I can think of right now as to why I am not completely sold on the Open View. So I do still think it is reasonable God sees the future, though I’m troubled by the notion that He would therefore be outside of time, since there are verses that on the surface run counter to this, and because it is known to be a Pagan Greek philosophy.

Which one brings Him more glory?

Honestly, I think that is a very dangerous question that I'm not willing to take on…Trying to develop theology based on someones opinion about what glorifies him the most sounds pretty risky. 


Hmm, I certainly would hope no Open View proponent would try to build a doctrine on this! :) But I do think it’s a fair question to reflect on, and it does after all pertain to God’s glory. It’s OK to speculate and muse on certain things. Where we have to be careful is that we can’t build doctrines on them. BTW, just tonight I tripped over some stone tablets in my backyard, I think I’ll start a new religion. :)

In Christ,
Fred

#48 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 10:28 PM

HEB 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

HEB 10:11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;


11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

HEB 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,


12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Just doing a comparison with KJV.

--------------------------------

Hebrews 9:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called "might" receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Why is the word "might" used in a promise? Because God keeps His promise, man often breaks what is required to recieve what is promised to him. Thus becoming a goat.

#49 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 11:30 PM

I made a picture of how this might be better understood.

Posted Image

Regardless of where we are at, after accepting Christ. We will always be in God's hands. But it is only through Christ (new convenant) we are truly saved. A better way to put is: Being in God's hands, you have two covenant choices. The new covenant is what you have to accept before you are in God's hands. But once you there, the old covenant, a part of God, is there also. For God cannot change, even though the old covenant is no longer in effect.

#50 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2005 - 07:42 PM

Why is the word "might" used in a promise? Because God keeps His promise, man often breaks what is required to recieve what is promised to him. Thus becoming a goat.


This is an interesting verse, and while my greek is not what it was a few years ago, there are a few things worth looking at.

In this case, might recieve comes from the aorist subjunctive of lambano wich means recieve.

In the the aorist tense, the subjunctive mood expresses type of action, with the time of action relative to the action of the main verb.

What I'm fairly sure its not, is a 3rd class probable condition, i.e. maybe they will, or maybe they wont. It seems to be more of the result of a purpose clause

IMO:

"they which are called "might" receive the promise of eternal inheritance. "

is emphasizing the point in time, divorced from time, that the called recieve their eternal inheritance. Its expressing the result of the purpose clause "in order that". Switching back to the NAS

HEB 9:15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

IOW, might here is not a subjunctive of possiblity, but represents the final result of the death of Christ that those who are called "may" receive eternal life.

May can be a statement of reality:

MAT 13:24 ¶ He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

In Christ,

Terry
P.S. I don't know whay the KJV is so different from the NAS, but there is nothing magical about the KJV, so I don't have a problem switching around sometimes. I should also say that quite frequently, the KJV is more accurate, but in a at least one case its translated "incorrectly" to say the least.

#51 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2005 - 11:27 PM

People, when they translate the word of God, sometimes put their own opinions on what they think something means. This in turn makes you believe what they believe. I find that even though the KJV is confusing, your not getting so much of what one person thinks, or has an idea something is.

Example: The NIV puts suttle wording in the first few verses of the bible that opens the door more to OEC, and the Gap theory. Was that someone inserting their idea of how creation happened? Of course it was.

Change a word here and there, leave a word out, here and there. You soon have a mild change in translation that supports another view about God. There is a reason God allowed His word to be confusing.

It is so when you really want to know the truth, and pray about it, etc... When God shows you, you know that what you recieved is the factual truth. But when you read several transltion to understand something, who are you relying on more to find truth? God, or man?

To undrerstand, what I wanted to know. I found myself having to pray for knowledge. It took me longer to do it this way, but when knowledge comes, and I now know I don't have to question it.

Example: When I was given the knowledge about salvation, I had prayed for it. It was not something I just thought up. I truly did not understand alot of what was being said on eternal security. Now I do understand, and only have about a 1% doubt. Not so much doubt in losing salvation, but doubt that I still don't understand the full workings of it, and how it meshes with the rest of God's word.

Why do I believe what I said about losing salvation to be true?

1) The way the knowledge came to me. It was not my idea, it unfolded while I was typing it. And it all clicked. I'm not educated enough in that area to think something up like that about God's word, and make it click.

2) Also, what I wrote, answered several questions that were unanswered for me. And God's word did not contridict itself in that area, from what I understood.

So why is the KJV harder to understand? God wants you to search "Him" out for the answers that never leaves doubt, but only gives wisdom.

#52 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2005 - 04:45 AM

Posted Image


According to God's word. This is how judgement will work at the saved throne.

The Great White Throne Judgement:

Rev. 20:
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

"White throne" is only mentioned once. This judgement takes place after the thousand years is up.

Rev. 20:
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
----------------------------
Side note: Revelation 20:5:
This is where the arguement is about those who believe there is no pre-rapture to the trubulation. The reason it says: first resurrection (after the thousand years), is because it's the first resurrection after the earth was made new (recreated). The word "new" means it's "all" considered new, and this was the reason the earth was destroyed in the first place. So it could all be new.

So there are two first resurrections.
1) With the old earth and old creation (the one we live in now).
2) With the future earth and recreation (for the thousand years Christ will rule and reign).

And this verse proves it:
Isaiah 65
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

So any resurrections after the recreation, is considered new because the former earth shall not be remembered. :)
--------------------------------

And this judgement is different from the one in that picture. For the one in the picture takes place before the tribulation starts. The church rapture.

So the question is again: who are the goats, if they are not what I explained? For God just does not call people names, unless the name fits, and has truth and wisdom to teach us with.

#53 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

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

Posted 17 May 2009 - 11:15 AM

Interesting topic,
without opening this up to an endless debate to our detriment I believe God's eternality may be misunderstood. It is very difficult to comprehend God's attributes due to our finite minds.
When God reveals Himself as eternal, or everlasting to everlasting, He is using words or concepts that we are aware of, (time and measurements) to reveal a truth about Himself.
Time implies change and the impossibility to change or interact with the past or future.
Because God has always existed, He is in what we would call "all points of time" at "all times". In other words, every point of what we call "time" are instantaneous to God, He is in the future, past and present right now.
Is anyone still here?...LOL sorry if this is confusing!!
Because God is in all time, He can control outcomes, no matter what we do.
Someone has compared it to a real life experience with a master chess player. There were about 10 chess boards set up on a street corner with ten different players playing this master. This guy just went up and down the row, from board to board playing, and beating each player, and pretty easily I might add.
It didn't matter what moves the players made, the master already knew the next move he was going to make.
In God's Sovereignty, he controls the outcomes apart from whether we were obedient or not, yet, we are accountable for our actions.
Another problem I believe is interpreting certain verses where it seems as though our salvation is at stake.
Take for instance, post #14, where David's repentance was discussed.
I don't believe that Predestination has anything to do with our individual actions, it has to do with the outcome of our lives (being conformed to the likeness of Christ) regardless of the steps we take to get there.
Something else to think about...free will; as I understand the Bible, we are either under the dominion and blinded by Satan, or under the Lordship of Christ; so I don't believe our wills are necessarily "free", although I do understand what we mean by free.

Don't take my views here without checking the Word yourself!! although the concept of eternality isn't explained in Scripture.

Chip

#54 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 April 2010 - 02:13 PM

I think the last thing you said sums it up best:

Don't take my views here without checking the Word yourself!! although the concept of eternality isn't explained in Scripture.

View Post


LOL Chip! :lol: :lol: You don’t want people to accept your views without first checking scripture, a place you then admit doesn’t explain the view you just presented!

(from the pre-destination thread)If God knows with 100% accuracy what people WILL do before they do it, such as Peter's tri-denial of Christ, then how is this not foreknowledge??


Do you think it is unreasonable to assume that God could know Peter’s thoughts, and because of this know with certainty that Peter would deny him not only three times, but hundreds of times in a row if allowed the opportunity?

Because God has always existed, He is in what we would call "all points of time" at "all times". In other words, every point of what we call "time" are instantaneous to God, He is in the future, past and present right now.


As Chip already admits, there is not a single verse to support this claim, yet I estimate 80% of Christians believe as Chip does. Because God has always existed does not mean He is in the past right now seeing among other things, his Son die. Is time travel back in time ever mentioned in the Bible? Is time travel forward in time ever mentioned in the Bible? A prophecy or vision is not the same thing as leaping into the future seeing the actual events unfold. This is stuff of secular science fiction. The latest Star Trek movie was awesome! Best of ‘em all! But I have to let the cat out of the bag. It’s not real folks. :) Marty didn’t really get to tangle with Biff in different flows of time, DeLorean’s can only travel on the road (real Biff actor is a devout Christian BTW). It’s Hollywood, not reality. Consider what the “wisdom of the world” (1 Cor 1:20-21) teaches, among other things:

Old Earth

Evolution

Fate (how many times do you hear this in movies?)

Time Travel

God Outside of Time (with its roots in Greek Pagan philosophy)


I don't believe that Predestination has anything to do with our individual actions, it has to do with the outcome of our lives (being conformed to the likeness of Christ)


Wow! If you just focus on that last part that you are 100% correct on, that believers were pre-destined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, your journey from the dark side of individual pre-destination will be complete! :) You no longer have to scratch your head at verses such as this one:

Matt 23:37 How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings , but you were not willing!

Fred

#55 Guest_michaelf_*

Guest_michaelf_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2010 - 05:11 AM

If you want something to chew on regarding the judgment spoken of in Matthew, ask yourself a couple of questions:

Does God have a Right Hand?
If not, what has God's "Right hand" referred to elsewhere in Scripture?

If that is what God's right hand is, what would God's left hand, presented as an opposite of sorts, mean?

#56 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 August 2011 - 01:58 PM

[quote] name='michaelf' timestamp='1279195892' post='58705']
If you want something to chew on regarding the judgment spoken of in Matthew, ask yourself a couple of questions:

Does God have a Right Hand?
If not, what has God's "Right hand" referred to elsewhere in Scripture?

If that is what God's right hand is, what would God's left hand, presented as an opposite of sorts, mean?
[/quote]

michaelif, as a matter of fact He does. And a left one too. And both have nail holes in them.

TeeJay

#57 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

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

Posted 03 September 2011 - 04:51 AM

I have a question for Openness believers who also subscribe to free will, without getting into a debate.Just a simple answer would do. I was told that Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, because Jesus knew what was in Judas' heart and the same for Peter's denial three times.
John 6:64 tells us that Jesus knew "from the beginning" WHO would betray Him. Also look at Psalm 41:9.
Q: How is it then, that Judas had no chance to change his mind or heart from whenever "the beginning" was until the actual event. Same with Peter (although the statement came much closer here to the actual event).

#58 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:10 AM

[quote] name='chipwag64' timestamp='1315050717' post='74733']
I have a question for Openness believers who also subscribe to free will, without getting into a debate.Just a simple answer would do. I was told that Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, because Jesus knew what was in Judas' heart and the same for Peter's denial three times.
John 6:64 tells us that Jesus knew "from the beginning" WHO would betray Him. Also look at Psalm 41:9.
Q: How is it then, that Judas had no chance to change his mind or heart from whenever "the beginning" was until the actual event. Same with Peter (although the statement came much closer here to the actual event).
[/quote]


Chip,

I think you're correct that Jesus could "know what was in Judas' heart at that moment in time. And knowing Judas' heart, Jesus could, with "some certainty" predict what Judas would do. But we must ask ourselves: Could Judas have changed his heart and repented? I answer with a resounding YES! If Jesus forced Judas to sin, the Jesus would have been the Author of Judas' sin and not Jesus. But the Bible says that "God is not the author of sin." Ditto for Peter. Peter was a bit of a boaster but before he received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, Peter was a bit of a leaky vessel. So, I contend that while Jesus, who is God and can know our hearts, can predict what Judas and Peter would do with close certainty, did not know with ABSOLUTE certainty that Peter and Judas would not repent. God prophesied that He would destroy Neneveh in 40 days. But Neneveh repented and God repented of the destruction that He said He would do. Did God say to Neneveh: "What did you do that for? You ruined My whole prophecy and made Jonah look bad." No. God was happy that He did not have to destroy Neneveh. It was Jonah who was disappointed that he was not going to see a fire-works show.

Would Jesus have been disappointed if Peter and Judas had repented? No. He would have heaped praises and rewards on them.

TeeJay

#59 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

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

Posted 17 September 2011 - 06:10 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.

#60 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 September 2011 - 08:28 AM

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

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

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.

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

So while I am totally convinced that God knows what constitutes a persons 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users