Our Moral God

[Clete]

It be a whole different conversation with me involved. Psalm 139:7,8 for example... However I'm trying to follow this regarding God's Morality? Appreciate a bit of the big picture of the tie-in as I'm lost on this finer point anyone? Please and thank you in advance anyone (not just for Clete but certainly).

Derf is looking for a way to read Genesis 18:20-21 in a manner consistent with the idea that God has perfect, totally complete knowledge of the past and present. I don't see how what he's proposed doesn't contradict itself.

Does that answer your question or were you asking something else?

 

[Lon]

Derf is looking for a way to read Genesis 18:20-21 in a manner consistent with the idea that God has perfect, totally complete knowledge of the past and present. I don't see how what he's proposed doesn't contradict itself.

Does that answer your question or were you asking something else?

Trying to figure out how it fits with His morality (thread). Ty

Perhaps a different thread for discussion: For me, if one omni, all of them by definition and logic but answers a different thread than this one, unless I'm just not making the connection. I'm opposed to a limitation of any kind on God lest He 'has to come down to hear my specific prayer at any given time.' Unless He is omnipresent, then when I'm talking He cannot hear you (sorry for your objection if it comes here, according to Open paradigms where God has no idea what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah). Of course any of us looking in are going to ask this because it looks exactly like the logical supposition and problems such brings to mind. The link above, I think you'll find pleasing and interesting in that a Calvinist agrees with you that 'Word' should be translated 'logic.' I tend to be more in line with William Lane Craig (Logic and order extend from His creative work and are a reflection of His nature, rather than similarly saying "God is Moral." In the article, and mayhap this is where it ties into your morality discussion: God isn't 'subject' to morality and logic, it is rather subject and consistent to Him as Lord of everything. It isn't so much a disagreement, as a way of trying to explain the character and nature of God as 'revealed' to us. Thus, what we use for logic is how 'consistently we' apprehend the logic, morality and nature of God. As I said a few pages back. On the morality issue, I think we tend to agree, but may not agree on how best to explain. The Omni's of God, of course, are another conversation.

Concern yet: does such serve this thread premise? If so, please address what the rest of us who are not Open Theist, are seeing as incredibly problematic if the muse is willing. That is, if it serves the thread, otherwise another time (not pressing, and I've seen attempts at an answer just none that have been memorable/workable for the theology). Thank you for a moment for the interjection regardless of an answer, appreciate the listen. In Him, at your discretion. -Lon

 

[Derf]

Trying to figure out how it fits with His morality (thread). Ty

Perhaps a different thread for discussion: For me, if one omni, all of them by definition and logic but answers a different thread than this one, unless I'm just not making the connection. I'm opposed to a limitation of any kind on God lest He 'has to come down to hear my specific prayer at any given time.' Unless He is omnipresent, then when I'm talking He cannot hear you (sorry for your objection if it comes here, according to Open paradigms where God has no idea what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah). Of course any of us looking in are going to ask this because it looks exactly like the logical supposition and problems such brings to mind. The link above, I think you'll find pleasing and interesting in that a Calvinist agrees with you that 'Word' should be translated 'logic.' I tend to be more in line with William Lane Craig (Logic and order extend from His creative work and are a reflection of His nature, rather than similarly saying "God is Moral." In the article, and mayhap this is where it ties into your morality discussion: God isn't 'subject' to morality and logic, it is rather subject and consistent to Him as Lord of everything. It isn't so much a disagreement, as a way of trying to explain the character and nature of God as 'revealed' to us. Thus, what we use for logic is how 'consistently we' apprehend the logic, morality and nature of God. As I said a few pages back. On the morality issue, I think we tend to agree, but may not agree on how best to explain. The Omni's of God, of course, are another conversation.

Concern yet: does such serve this thread premise? If so, please address what the rest of us who are not Open Theist, are seeing as incredibly problematic if the muse is willing. That is, if it serves the thread, otherwise another time (not pressing, and I've seen attempts at an answer just none that have been memorable/workable for the theology). Thank you for a moment for the interjection regardless of an answer, appreciate the listen. In Him, at your discretion. -Lon

If God has always known every thing we'd ever do, then everything we'll ever do was decided before we existed, so if we are punished for what was decided about us before we existed, God is immoral.

 

[Clete]

Trying to figure out how it fits with His morality (thread). Ty

Perhaps a different thread for discussion: For me, if one omni, all of them by definition and logic but answers a different thread than this one, unless I'm just not making the connection.

Sorry, that sentence does not make sense to me.

I'm opposed to a limitation of any kind on God

You could not hope to maintain such a position rationally.

Is the God of scripture, Vishnu?
Is the God of scripture a murderer?
No?
There's two limitations.

That took me three seconds to think of. There are probably ten billions things that God is not!

Place your allegiance at the feet of reality not your personal desires to believe in a "limitless god", whatever that even means.

lest He 'has to come down to hear my specific prayer at any given time.' Unless He is omnipresent, then when I'm talking He cannot hear you

God doesn't hear your prayers because He's omni anything!

You a mere human being might need to have your ears in the same room as someone speaking in order to hear what they say but God is not a mere human being. God can "hear" you even if you never audibly speak a single word.

(sorry for your objection if it comes here, according to Open paradigms where God has no idea what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah).

Stupid thing to say. Lon, if you don't know what you're talking about just keep your mouth shut, okay!

No open theist anywhere or at any time has ever said that God had no idea what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

You understand that if you are forced to exaggerate some position with which you disagree then you aren't really disagreeing with it, right? Disagreeing with a caricature of Open Theism isn't the same thing as disagreeing with actual Open Theism. It's a form of lying really and the worst kind of lying where you are the primary target of your own lie.

Of course any of us looking in are going to ask this because it looks exactly like the logical supposition and problems such brings to mind. The link above, I think you'll find pleasing and interesting in that a Calvinist agrees with you that 'Word' should be translated 'logic.'

There are lots of people who agree with that because it really is the way it should be translated. I certainly didn't come up with it myself. In fact, I quote a prominent Calvinist in my "Our Moral God" essay where I argue the point.

I tend to be more in line with William Lane Craig (Logic and order extend from His creative work and are a reflection of His nature, rather than similarly saying "God is Moral."

What's the difference?

In the article, and mayhap this is where it ties into your morality discussion: God isn't 'subject' to morality and logic, it is rather subject and consistent to Him as Lord of everything.

Nonsense. Literally, nonsense.

If God is amoral or illogical then how could it make any sense for morality and logic to be subject to him? How can morality be subject to the amoral? How can logic be subject to the irrational?

It isn't so much a disagreement, as a way of trying to explain the character and nature of God as 'revealed' to us. Thus, what we use for logic is how 'consistently we' apprehend the logic, morality and nature of God.

You are contradicting yourself. Logic is consistency! "Consistent" is what the word "true" means!
Further, you are trying to squirm your way around the validity of sound reason and you're trying to use logic to do it! You are literally trying to make a LOGICAL ARGUMENT for why you can't trust our use of logical arguments!

As I said a few pages back. On the morality issue, I think we tend to agree, but may not agree on how best to explain. The Omni's of God, of course, are another conversation.

It isn't really because, if God really exists, then He, like the rest of reality, doesn't contradict Himself. That's all of logic in a single sentence. Reality exists (law of identity) and does not contradict itself (laws of contradiction and excluded middle).

The only question really is where do you get your ideas about God from? Do you get them from scripture and from natural law (i.e. special and general revelation) or do you get them from Aristotle and Socrates? If from the later then the Omni's cannot be logically avoided. If from the former then all of the Omni's, as normally understood, are overstatements and are not consistent with reality (i.e. not true), and need to be modified.

In short, is the bible true or not and what means do you have of deciding the answer to that question other than by use of sound reason? The bible is the source of special revelation and logic is the source of general revelation and sound reason is the means of understanding and applying both.

Concern yet: does such serve this thread premise? If so, please address what the rest of us who are not Open Theist, are seeing as incredibly problematic if the muse is willing. That is, if it serves the thread, otherwise another time (not pressing, and I've seen attempts at an answer just none that have been memorable/workable for the theology). Thank you for a moment for the interjection regardless of an answer, appreciate the listen. In Him, at your discretion. -Lon

So just what, specifically, is it that you find so "incredibly problematic"?

 

[Derf]

I'm opposed to a limitation of any kind on God lest He 'has to come down to hear my specific prayer at any given time.'

Isn't that a limitation on God, that there never be any limitations on God? God has limited Himself in numerous ways:
"I am not a man that I should lie."
"I change not...lest you be consumed."
"He humbled Himself, and became obedient even unto death."


Now, we know about these limitations because the scriptures tell us about them. So let's compare Lon's view of God with scripture:
Lon: "no limitations of any kind on God".
God: "Here is how I have limited myself".

And then let's get back into the conversation of God's omni's, and whether they talk about God the way scripture talks about God.

We aren't saying God couldn't know everything if He wanted to. But He knows that for Him to know everything man will ever do from before creation would require that He determine all things man will do (including every sin they commit) before creation (which is Calvinism). Calvinism is feasible as long as God is responsible for all things, and that's how He knows all things in Calvinism--He determines all things.

The feasibility of Calvinism falls apart when you introduce the concept of man into the creation, because man is a willful creature. God knowing all things before He creates willful creatures means He doesn't really create willful creatures. Which destroys the very basis of Calvinism. This we know because of the logical constraints God exhibits, that He isn't contradictory with Himself.

The bolded text above ties the discussion to the thread title. God can't be moral if He punishes mankind for something He determined mankind to do in the first place.

 

[Clete]

Isn't that a limitation on God, that there never be any limitations on God? God has limited Himself in numerous ways:
"I am not a man that I should lie."
"I change not...lest you be consumed."
"He humbled Himself, and became obedient even unto death."


Now, we know about these limitations because the scriptures tell us about them. So let's compare Lon's view of God with scripture:
Lon: "no limitations of any kind on God".
God: "Here is how I have limited myself".

And then let's get back into the conversation of God's omni's, and whether they talk about God the way scripture talks about God.

We aren't saying God couldn't know everything if He wanted to. But He knows that for Him to know everything man will ever do from before creation would require that He determine all things man will do (including every sin they commit) before creation (which is Calvinism). Calvinism is feasible as long as God is responsible for all things, and that's how He knows all things in Calvinism--He determines all things.

The feasibility of Calvinism falls apart when you introduce the concept of man into the creation, because man is a willful creature. God knowing all things before He creates willful creatures means He doesn't really create willful creatures. Which destroys the very basis of Calvinism. This we know because of the logical constraints God exhibits, that He isn't contradictory with Himself.

The bolded text above ties the discussion to the thread title. God can't be moral if He punishes mankind for something He determined mankind to do in the first place.

The problem for Calvinists is precisely the fact that they do not believe God is responsible for all things.

That is to say that they do and they don't at the same time!

Out of one side of their mouth that say that God is in absolute meticulous control of every event that takes place and out of the other side of their mouth they say that God is just and that man is responsible for his own sin and that we deserve Hell.

When pressed, they always land on the meticulous control side of that dilemma and so I consider their talk about justice to be nothing other than lip service but still, the fact is that their doctrine, as contradictory as it might be, does in fact teach that man is responsible for his own sin.

 

[Gary K]

If God has always known every thing we'd ever do, then everything we'll ever do was decided before we existed, so if we are punished for what was decided about us before we existed, God is immoral.

Jeremiah 23: 23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

God is omnipresent.

The prophecies concerning Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future in specific detail.

 

[Gary K]

If God has always known every thing we'd ever do, then everything we'll ever do was decided before we existed, so if we are punished for what was decided about us before we existed, God is immoral.

Jeremiah 1: 4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

How well did God know Jeremiah? Before He formed him in the womb He knew Jeremiah. The implications of this are staggering. There is no genetic roulette. God had a specific job for Jeremiah to accomplish and He gave Jeremiah the tools to accomplish that task as Jeremiah was forming in his mothers womb.

 

[Clete]

Jeremiah 23: 23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

God is omnipresent.

God is present everywhere He wants to be and nowhere else.

The prophecies concerning Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future in specific detail.

No, they do not demonstrate any such thing. What it demonstrates is God's ability to accomplish that which He sets out to do.

 

[Clete]

Jeremiah 1: 4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

How well did God know Jeremiah? Before He formed him in the womb He knew Jeremiah. The implications of this are staggering. There is no genetic roulette. God had a specific job for Jeremiah to accomplish and He gave Jeremiah the tools to accomplish that task as Jeremiah was forming in his mothers womb.

There were lots of babies being born in those days, Gary. God is perfectly well capable of reading the genetic code which He Himself invented and can know a very great deal about all the babies that have yet to be born and can pick and choose from those who would make excellent candidates for the job He has in mind and then select for himself one that He favors. He can then work with, through, around and in spite of those in the young boy's life to help ensure that he is raised in a manner conducive to the task that God has in mind for him to accomplish.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jeremiah 23: 23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

God is omnipresent.

The prophecies concerning Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future in specific detail.

Is God forced to remain in the location that a child is actively being sodomized?

 

[Gary K]

God is present everywhere He wants to be and nowhere else.


No, they do not demonstrate any such thing. What it demonstrates is God's ability to accomplish that which He sets out to do.

That's not what Jeremiah says. He says no one can hide themselves from Him. You're reading your belief into scripture.

Same with your second comment.

 

[Clete]

That's not what Jeremiah says. He says no one can hide themselves from Him. You're reading your belief into scripture.

No, you are the one reading into scripture!

There isn't any power or means by which a man can hide from God precisely because God is able to be everywhere He wants to be at once!!

Same with your second comment.

What are you even doing here, Gary?

Seriously! What exactly is it that you feel like you're accomplishing?

Are you really so totally incapable of defending your own beliefs that you're instantly argued into silence by the mere fact that I showed up to make the argument?

You're pathetic and you aught to be embarrassed. I know I would be! I literally could not sleep at night if my understanding of my own doctrine was that weak. It would frighten me. I'd be scared that someone had suckered me into believing a total lie!!

 

[Gary K]

No, you are the one reading into scripture!

There isn't any power or means by which a man can hide from God precisely because God is able to be everywhere He wants to be at once!!


What are you even doing here, Gary?

Seriously! What exactly is it that you feel like you're accomplishing?

Are you really so totally incapable of defending your own beliefs that you're instantly argued into silence by the mere fact that I showed up to make the argument?

You're pathetic and you aught to be embarrassed. I know I would be! I literally could not sleep at night if my understanding of my own doctrine was that weak. It would frighten me. I'd be scared that someone had suckered me into believing a total lie!!

FYI, I left to take my wife to work. But it's par for the course. You insult everyone who disagrees with you. I was really happy for you when you changed your behavior for a while, but now you're back to the same old, same old, handing out insults left and right

You have a right to your opinion but it seems you do not think others have that right without you insulting them.

When God says He fills the entire earth and heavens how does that mean He's only in some places? It reminds me of the Calvinist idea that all means some. I see no difference at all in the concepts as entire means all.

 

[Derf]

Jeremiah 23: 23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?

What does it mean to be "a God at hand" vs "a God far off"? If God is "at hand" for the Israelites, because He is their God (and not other peoples' God), doesn't it mean that He is near to His people, but not necessarily near to other peoples?

24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord.

If God is looking for someone, surely he won't be able to hide. Jonah gives us a pixture of that, when he tried to flee on the ship. But does the verse apply to everyone, even those God is not looking for?

Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

This is, perhaps, a stronger statement for for omni-presence. Or does it mean that the Lord is the one that created all the things on the earth, and therefore knows about them? I'm not sure. What does it mean to "fill heaven and earth"?

God is omnipresent.

Yes, that's what we're discussing. Some here are saying God is not omnipresent in the way you are saying. What does it mean to be "omnipresent"? Is God going to be in hell forever with the damned? Is the kind of omnipresence you're talking about supported by scripture?

The prophecies concerning Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future in specific detail.

The prophecies about Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future of Jesus in specific detail. That doesn't mean He knows your future in specific detail. Your future was not prophesied in the bible, except as a child of God or "in Jesus".

Jeremiah 1: 4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

How well did God know Jeremiah? Before He formed him in the womb He knew Jeremiah.

Of course. How would God not know what He was going to form? That makes no sense whatsoever. Did God know what the light would look like before He said "Let there be light"? When the earth was formless and void, and the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters, did God know what He was going to form the earth like? Maybe...but we don't know, since there are no prophecies from before He made the earth.

The implications of this are staggering.

So you're saying that the bible "implies" some things, but doesn't state them explicitly? If not stated explicitly, then we need to be careful what conclusions we draw from "implicit" concepts in the bible.

There is no genetic roulette.

There might be. Nothing you have quote prevents there being some kind of genetic roulette. But let's say you are correct. Does that mean God is purposely causing some babies to be born with Down's or other genetic defects that cause them to be only semi-functional throughout their short lives?

God had a specific job for Jeremiah to accomplish and He gave Jeremiah the tools to accomplish that task as Jeremiah was forming in his mothers womb.

Yes, that is correct. God did that on purpose. But you are comparing that, where God had a specific purpose for Jeremiah, and was forming him on purpose for that purpose, to someone that God planned to have genetic defects...for what purpose? To make sure that his parents are so overstressed with his life-long care that they can hardly bear up under the strain? And that was planned before Adam sinned, even, as if God really wanted those parents to have to deal with that genetic defect in their child from the foundation of the earth. And since diseases are the result of the fall, God must have purposely caused the fall, partly in order to make sure that those parents of the child with the genetic defect would have to go through that heart-ache.

This is a vivid picture of what an immoral God would be like. Why do you think that makes sense? Are the omni's more important that the other characteristics of God, especially when the omni's are implicit, rather than explicit?

For instance, if God knows Jeremiah before He forms Him, because He has a specific purpose for Jeremiah, that is explicit. But if God has a specific purpose for you, or me, or that genetically malformed child, that is implicit. Is it implicit because of what the bible says elsewhere? Or is it implicit only in your theology? If the latter, then you should be questioning your theology, just like I had to.

 

[Gary K]

What does it mean to be "a God at hand" vs "a God far off"? If God is "at hand" for the Israelites, because He is their God (and not other peoples' God), doesn't it mean that He is near to His people, but not necessarily near to other peoples?

If God is looking for someone, surely he won't be able to hide. Jonah gives us a pixture of that, when he tried to flee on the ship. But does the verse apply to everyone, even those God is not looking for?

This is, perhaps, a stronger statement for for omni-presence. Or does it mean that the Lord is the one that created all the things on the earth, and therefore knows about them? I'm not sure. What does it mean to "fill heaven and earth"?

Yes, that's what we're discussing. Some here are saying God is not omnipresent in the way you are saying. What does it mean to be "omnipresent"? Is God going to be in hell forever with the damned? Is the kind of omnipresence you're talking about supported by scripture?

The prophecies about Jesus demonstrate that God knows the future of Jesus in specific detail. That doesn't mean He knows your future in specific detail. Your future was not prophesied in the bible, except as a child of God or "in Jesus".

Of course. How would God not know what He was going to form? That makes no sense whatsoever. Did God know what the light would look like before He said "Let there be light"? When the earth was formless and void, and the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters, did God know what He was going to form the earth like? Maybe...but we don't know, since there are no prophecies from before He made the earth.

So you're saying that the bible "implies" some things, but doesn't state them explicitly? If not stated explicitly, then we need to be careful what conclusions we draw from "implicit" concepts in the bible.

There might be. Nothing you have quote prevents there being some kind of genetic roulette. But let's say you are correct. Does that mean God is purposely causing some babies to be born with Down's or other genetic defects that cause them to be only semi-functional throughout their short lives?

Yes, that is correct. God did that on purpose. But you are comparing that, where God had a specific purpose for Jeremiah, and was forming him on purpose for that purpose, to someone that God planned to have genetic defects...for what purpose? To make sure that his parents are so overstressed with his life-long care that they can hardly bear up under the strain? And that was planned before Adam sinned, even, as if God really wanted those parents to have to deal with that genetic defect in their child from the foundation of the earth. And since diseases are the result of the fall, God must have purposely caused the fall, partly in order to make sure that those parents of the child with the genetic defect would have to go through that heart-ache.

This is a vivid picture of what an immoral God would be like. Why do you think that makes sense? Are the omni's more important that the other characteristics of God, especially when the omni's are implicit, rather than explicit?

For instance, if God knows Jeremiah before He forms Him, because He has a specific purpose for Jeremiah, that is explicit. But if God has a specific purpose for you, or me, or that genetically malformed child, that is implicit. Is it implicit because of what the bible says elsewhere? Or is it implicit only in your theology? If the latter, then you should be questioning your theology, just like I had to.

There is no if in Jeremiah 23: 24.

Yes, God has explicit intentions for everyone He creates.

Jeremiah 18: 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 ¶ Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

There are many conditional prophecies in the Bible such as this one and Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh. That doesn't mean God is hoping things work out His way. He leaves it up to those He prophecied about as to whether they will change or not as we are all free moral agents.

I'm curious why you think a man made idea can define God. He is infinitely greater than we are in every aspect of our being. He created us. He spoke into existence our world and our environment. We can't even imagine how He did that. So why do open theists imagine they can explain everything God can do? It makes no sense no sense to me. To me, it brings God down to the level of humanity. I don't think open theists believe in a God any greater than they are because if they can't understand how God can know everything and be everywhere at once they say God can't do that. That's means the idea is purely human.

 

[Clete]

FYI, I left to take my wife to work. But it's par for the course. You insult everyone who disagrees with you.

I have not insulted you. On the contrary, it was you who insulted me. To which I responded by asked you a serious question which you'd do well to think through and respond to even if that response is never posted on this website.

I was really happy for you when you changed your behavior for a while, but now you're back to the same old, same old, handing out insults left and right

You're over reacting and I don't care whether what I say hurts your feelings. When you're substantive and worthwhile and worthy of respect then that's what you'll get in return from me. If you waste everyone's time then you're aren't going to like me.

You have a right to your opinion but it seems you do not think others have that right without you insulting them.

Don't be a hypocrite, Gary!

And, no one cares about your personal opinions. We are not here to exchange naked, unsupported personal opinions and you don't present your position as opinions anyway but rather you present them as biblical fact and I respond by presenting alternatives that are at least as valid as anything you say and to which you seem completely incapable of responding to with anything other than emotionalism and sarcasm.

When God says He fills the entire earth and heavens how does that mean He's only in some places?

It would be more accurate to say that God may not be in some places, if He so chooses and so, as a general statement, it is true that God fills the Heavens and the Earth. Your position, however, goes beyond what the bible actually teaches, as has been argued here countless times without substantive response.

It reminds me of the Calvinist idea that all means some.

That's a laugh! That isn't a Calvinists idea, that's the English language. The term "All" almost never means "every single one" except in a dictionary. In normal usage, it is most often hyperbole, to one degree or another.

I see no difference at all in the concepts as entire means all.

There is no difference. It is a general statement and as such is hyperbole, at least potentially so.

Clete

 

[Derf]

There is no if in Jeremiah 23: 24.

No, the "if" is 2 verses earlier:
[Jer 23:22 KJV] But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

Those verses are talking about false prophets, who say everything is fine, but do not tell of God's anger and plans to uproot the people of Israel because of their sin. And God says they won't be able to hide from Him.

It isn't talking about everybody in the world, but about how God is dealing with His people.

Yes, God has explicit intentions for everyone He creates.

Please provide a verse that explicitly tells the plans God has for Gary, by name.

Jeremiah 18: 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 ¶ Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

There are many conditional prophecies in the Bible such as this one and Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh. That doesn't mean God is hoping things work out His way. He leaves it up to those He prophecied about as to whether they will change or not as we are all free moral agents.

Which means that God is able to handle whichever decision they make. If they choose life, He gives them life. If they choose death, then they get death. That choice wasn't made before the foundation of the world.

I'm curious why you think a man made idea can define God.

You mean an idea like "omniscience"? Or "omnipresence"? Which man-made idea are you wanting to discuss?

He is infinitely greater than we are in every aspect of our being.

How is that possible? God made us "in His image". But now you are saying that God is "infinitely greater" than His own image??

He created us. He spoke into existence our world and our environment. We can't even imagine how He did that.

What does that have to do with this discussion?

So why do open theists imagine they can explain everything God can do?

?? Can you point to where any open theists have said that?

It makes no sense no sense to me. To me, it brings God down to the level of humanity. I don't think open theists believe in a God any greater than they are because if they can't understand how God can know everything and be everywhere at once they say God can't do that.

Which is nonsense that you didn't get from studying open theism.

That's means the idea is purely human.

Despite our use of scripture, you still say that? We're trying to understand how the bible is describing God, and yet you are saying that we can't understand God, which I think means that you are saying God is not capable of describing Himself in terms we can understand, Which drives me to the conclusion that your view of omniscience is the man-made one, since you have admitted that you can't understand what God wrote about Himself.

 

[Lon]

If God has always known every thing we'd ever do, then everything we'll ever do was decided before we existed, so if we are punished for what was decided about us before we existed, God is immoral.

It is a guessed supposition based on an understanding. I've argued this a number of times on TOL: If I own an Almanac from the future, Lon has absolutely no power over anything that will happen. I was laughing at a joke by Nate Bargatze, He said if he were able to go back into the past, he couldn't prove anything about the future so nobody would believe he was from the future.

True stuff. Knowlege 'may' be power but listen to his point.

 

[Gary K]

No, the "if" is 2 verses earlier:
[Jer 23:22 KJV] But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

Those verses are talking about false prophets, who say everything is fine, but do not tell of God's anger and plans to uproot the people of Israel because of their sin. And God says they won't be able to hide from Him.

It isn't talking about everybody in the world, but about how God is dealing with His people.


Please provide a verse that explicitly tells the plans God has for Gary, by name.

Which means that God is able to handle whichever decision they make. If they choose life, He gives them life. If they choose death, then they get death. That choice wasn't made before the foundation of the world.

You mean an idea like "omniscience"? Or "omnipresence"? Which man-made idea are you wanting to discuss?

How is that possible? God made us "in His image". But now you are saying that God is "infinitely greater" than His own image??

What does that have to do with this discussion?


?? Can you point to where any open theists have said that?

Which is nonsense that you didn't get from studying open theism.

Despite our use of scripture, you still say that? We're trying to understand how the bible is describing God, and yet you are saying that we can't understand God, which I think means that you are saying God is not capable of describing Himself in terms we can understand, Which drives me to the conclusion that your view of omniscience is the man-made one, since you have admitted that you can't understand what God wrote about Himself.

Why do you act as if if/then statements aren't valid reasoning? As a programmer you know very well that they are. If God had a specific task for Jeremiah then He has a specific task for all of us as He treats us all alike. He is no respecter of persons. He loves us all equally. It's up to all of us whether we choose to do the task He has designed us to do. That's something God has been really impressing on my heart for the last year and a half or so.

It's like Paul said, He came to save sinners of whom I am chief.