Our Moral God

[Right Divider]

Not to derail, but aren't these conflicting things? 1. That He was immortal (could not die), and 2. That He was mortal (He could die).

If Jesus had a single nature, then YES they would contradict.
Since Jesus has two natures, then NO they do not contradict.

Which was an important point about immutability...if God never changes in any way, then how could He now have a second nature that he didn't have before.

I believe that was Bob's point in that debate with James White about Christ's second nature.
At one point in time, Jesus had a singular nature of deity.
At another point in time, Jesus added a second nature and therefore had the nature of deity as well as the nature of humanity; clearly that is a change.

 

[Right Divider]

You said above that Jesus became a man. Here's a definition of "mortal" from Merriam-Webster:
Human

I was arguing that Jesus did not "become mortal" in reference to His existing deity, but that He added humanity to His person.

Obviously that doesn't mean that all mortal creatures are human, but it does mean that all men are mortal creatures, and that mortality is so much of part of human-ness, or human nature, that the two are synonyms, at least when talking about human creatures.

OK

So, while I agree that he took on a second nature, and that second nature is human, He so took on that second nature that He became "a mortal", which means He became a man, with the possibility that He could die.

Agreed.

So, I would like to reassert that if the Son was at one time immortal, meaning that He could never die, and that was an eternally-held characteristic, then when He became mortal, a man, then He did indeed lay aside at least one of His eternally-held characteristics. This is in keeping with the passage that "He emptied Himself"

I still disagree. None of Jesus' "eternally held characteristics" were "given up" or "changed". He simply added a new nature to His person.

Do you know what "eternally held" means?

 

[Clete]

It means that Jesus did not have a human nature (which includes a human body) before He took on a human nature (which includes a human body).

Jesus did not have a human body before He took one on. Is having a human body part of having a human nature? (Yes, it is).

I go back and forth think that our difference here is semantic in nature. Jury is still out.

As God, could Jesus die? After He took on a human body, He could die. Are these not two natures?

It was more than just His body that died. HE DIED! Jesus died in every way that any other RIGHTEOUS man has ever died. His Spirit was separated from His body (physical death) and He was separated from the Father (spiritual death) and went to the place of the righteous dead (a.k.a Paradise/Abraham's bosom).

Also, Jesus states the He was, " I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." He didn't say that His body was dead, He says that He was dead.

Indeed, but at one time He did NOT have "part of what makes Him, Him"; His human body.

No doubt! We are in agreement here.

I hope you know that I do not argue against that.

Of course! Thus my suspicion that our disagreement may be purely semantic in nature.

BOTH is TWO things. Separate only in the sense that they are TWO THINGS.

So, if you can forgive the crude analogy, if I add eggs to flour to make dough. Do I have two things or just one new thing?

I feel like it's just one new thing.

You seem to be covering your eyes.

No. You and I may not disagree here at all in reality but there are for sure people out there that believe that Christ was this bifurcated being with two separate natures almost - and I say almost - as if there were two people in one body and that the human part of Christ never touched that part of Him which is divine and vise versa. That much I know for sure that I disagree with.

Perhaps we are simply battling semantics here.

Ha! I love it when this sort of thing happens! I've been responding to this post as I read it and didn't know til now that you had said this.

The ONE person Jesus is BOTH (ie., two) things. He is God and man. They are not "separate" in the sense that they are the SAME Jesus.

Agreed except that I'm wondering to what degree they are really two things any longer. It seems to me that they have become One thing in Christ.

I seem to remember Bob Enyart debating James White about this. Bob argued that Jesus took on a second nature (since He was, at one time, not a man).

Yes, and he's mentioned it in at least one of his bible studies as well and even then I wondered just what was meant by that. It seems clear that it could easily be taken too far and have wondered whether I was taking it far enough.

 

[Clete]

It seems that if God (even putting aside the trinity part of the equation for now) became something else while still remaining God, then He must have added something, in this case "man-ness" or "human nature".

I'm not completely sure that you can say "It doesn't take anything from His deity," since there was the "emptying" of Himself.
[Phl 2:6 KJV] [Christ Jesus,] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[Phl 2:7 KJV] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Alternate translation on that last verse:
[Phl 2:7 ESV] but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Somehow that "form of a servant"/"likeness of men" must carry with it some lessening of His greatness/glory in some way:
[Jhn 17:5 ESV] And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

and
[Jhn 17:24 ESV] Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And finally, the transfiguration shows us that the disciples at least weren't seeing His glory as much as we will.
[Mat 17:2 ESV] And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.

[Jhn 1:14 KJV] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It would seem that His glory is the bulk of that which He emptied Himself of but I agree that the human nature was definitely added. The point that I guess I'm making is that once it was added, it didn't remain a separate thing but that it became part of who He is, that His nature (singular) is now that He is the Creator God who has become a man.

 

[Derf]

It would seem that His glory is the bulk of that which He emptied Himself of but I agree that the human nature was definitely added. The point that I guess I'm making is that once it was added, it didn't remain a separate thing but that it became part of who He is, that His nature (singular) is now that He is the Creator God who has become a man.

The other thing He emptied Himself of was the ability to live forever...His immortality. Maybe "ability to live forever" is the wrong way to say it. More like "inability to die, ever".

 

[Derf]

I go back and forth think that our difference here is semantic in nature. Jury is still out.


It was more than just His body that died. HE DIED! Jesus died in every way that any other RIGHTEOUS man has ever died. His Spirit was separated from His body (physical death) and He was separated from the Father (spiritual death) and went to the place of the righteous dead (a.k.a Paradise/Abraham's bosom).

Also, Jesus states the He was, " I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." He didn't say that His body was dead, He says that He was dead.


No doubt! We are in agreement here.


Of course! Thus my suspicion that our disagreement may be purely semantic in nature.


So, if you can forgive the crude analogy, if I add eggs to flour to make dough. Do I have two things or just one new thing?

I feel like it's just one new thing.


No. You and I may not disagree here at all in reality but there are for sure people out there that believe that Christ was this bifurcated being with two separate natures almost - and I say almost - as if there were two people in one body and that the human part of Christ never touched that part of Him which is divine and vise versa. That much I know for sure that I disagree with.


Ha! I love it when this sort of thing happens! I've been responding to this post as I read it and didn't know til now that you had said this.


Agreed except that I'm wondering to what degree they are really two things any longer. It seems to me that they have become One thing in Christ.


Yes, and he's mentioned it in at least one of his bible studies as well and even then I wondered just what was meant by that. It seems clear that it could easily be taken too far and have wondered whether I was taking it far enough.

If the two things have become one in Christ, which makes sense, then you can't really have one of those things in conflict with the other, else He's conflicted.

 

[Clete]

If the two things have become one in Christ, which makes sense, then you can't really have one of those things in conflict with the other, else He's conflicted.

I agree.

 

[Lon]

So, first of all, I just want to say that it did not go unnoticed that you threw in the little ad hominem/guilt by association jab with the mention of Mormons. It's just another pathetic example of you throwing stones at a caricature of Open Theism.

Intent is 3/4. A 'little' isn't even on the docket, but rather a difference and specifically who. If you believe 'like' a Mormon, that sir, is no ad hominem. It is rather a classification, like 'Calvinist' that draws the line in a marker again so it is understood that when you make an argument, at times, it is a minority view, hence it is important whenever anyone says 'Calvinist' to clarify. I'll do so again in the future, as a slam? No sir, just to remark the lines as 'not just Calvinists' by what I drew as what I deemed a necessity. If someone compares me to a Mormon in, lets say, my evangelism endeavors, I'm guilty by association. Let's note rather the commonality and move on? Sanders, for instance, frequents Mormon conventions and correspondence for a reason. It cannot be an ad hominem when the object of comparison is the same, and it is on this front. There are those who would use 'cultists' as a slam, that wasn't where I was headed, but rather to show the larger bin categories of who and who does not accept omnis.

Open Theists do not reject the Omni's per se, we simply modify them from what Classical theists, including both Calvinists and Arminians teach.

Omni means 'all.' A 'classification' to most, means 'not all, but nearly all.' Scripture gives us several omnis (omnipotent = 'almighty'; omniscient = "Lord you know all things"; omnipresent = "where can I go from your presence?). Because there is an unequivocal meaning to 'almighty' there is not modification. Logical argument: Since God says He is almighty, omnipotence requires a full knowledge of all potential powers (omniscience). Since God is 'everywhere' according to David's argument "where can I flee from your presence?", this also indicates logically, that God knows all as well. Another: I argued in Open Theism 2 that foreknowledge isn't like a doctor's prognosis (best guess). The terms literally mean 'knows - beforehand' and indicates EDF. Okay, 'people' have what appears to be a logical problem with 'freedom' and so they rewrite theology (study of God) to reflect their logical misgiving. It begs a man-centered start to building a theological perspective. That be like me trying to do a study on gorillas by relating how they best interact with and reflect men (evolution?). Depending what our goal is, we will develop ideas based on our egocentrism unless it is checked at the door, and essentially that is the problem of Mormon theology (man-centered before theo-centered). Scripture says the man without the Spirit cannot grasp the things of the Spirit. The first rule of theology is "Spiritually discerned" or we will be using fleshly understanding and logic from that perspective and we will short God by not conceiving of Him on His terms, He uses. The main difference between Open Theism and the majority of other theologians is based on "how do we understand the omnis."

You know all this, but for the posterity of thread and any following along (if they are).

Open Theists believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in the follow sense of these terms....

Omnipotent: God is the Creator of all things that exist besides Himself. As such, all power comes from Him. He has delegated real power and the real ability and authority to use that power to others. He retains both the ability and the absolute right to recall that power and authority at His sole discretion and is, therefore, not merely all powerful but is the sovereign power of existence.

Colossians 1:16-20 KJV​

for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Not that we disagree on lots, but what we believe affects our concurrent theology perspectives. Above, 'all things consist' means there can be no delegated power unattached though I agree with you on a basic level (I'm not wholly against Open Theism, just very much disagree on our clarifications): John 15:5 "Without Me you can do nothing (no one thing). In a very real sense, I can agree with your statements above, but we take something a bit different on emphasis. Because a lot of disagreement is over 'emphasis' I read "Adam where art thou?" not as God looking for information He doesn't have, else I'd have to read David as "I can flee from your presence" to be consistent. It is and either/or interpretation and we respectively come to the text causing us to either question whether God knows where Adam is, the Open presumption, or rather see Adam as needing to respond, thus it was more of a "Adam, come here" for the rest of us. It is worth noting that the text, and not Greeks, is what influences the rest of Christendom the most. We simply are 'logicking' between two texts and interpreting scripture based on what we are drawing in an over-arching manner. It has little to do with Greeks, but rather what is driven in an overarching interpretation of key scriptures and what we deem respectively as key.

This is very nearly identical to what most Christians believe! Mostly, in order to depart significantly from this understanding of omnipotence requires one to be "educated" away from it. Fortunately, most churches spend very little time discussing such things in much detail. Typically, the fact that God is omnipotent is merely declared from the pulpit, everyone yells "Amen!" from the pews and the preacher moves on to his next point.

As above, I appreciate what the Open Theist is attempting. They state it simply: "God is relational" and upon that overarching paradigm is every difference in scriptural interpretation. Let's visit, for a moment again, Genesis 3:9 "Where are you, Adam?" It doesn't seem we lose much, at least at a cursory discussion, much on our difference. It is similar with Mid Acts discussions, it isn't that the other mail isn't cherished or read, it is rather what is most appropriate in applications. Functionally, a lot of churches act as Judaized, this doesn't mean 'not saved' but a lot of complications. Because we are created in God's image, there has to be overlap: what we see as anthropomorph theology in Open Theism, yet is worthy of inspection because Open Theists are correct: "God is relational." Our hold-out is that He is also very much above His creation and we believe much more than Open Theists concede.

--Is this still serving the thread? Please reel me in as needed! Respectively, prayerfully, sincerely. -Lon

Where the Open Theist departs from the Classical understanding of omnipotence is when theologians use it to introduce irrational concepts into their theology proper.

As you can see above, it isn't irrational. If you will, it 'could' (and often is) seen as irrational from the Open perspective's portrayal as well. Staying with Genesis 3:9, how 'could' it be possible that God would have to ask where Adam was? Isn't He capable of locating him instantly? Does He have to ask, literally? It seems when pressed, even the Open Theist has to acquiesce that "Where are you Adam?" is not so much about Adam being found (cannot be, if even Open logic is pressed, right?), as Adam needing to own-up to an attempt to hide. You may have a different interpretation answer, but when pressed, even Open Theism has to deal with how far logic can be pushed before it too looks 'irrational.' I hope you can appreciate the conundrum with us on point. It really does go both ways (thank you for the excellent dialogue).

We do not believe that God can go to a place that does not exist, for example.

Right, it isn't a reflection on God, but on the illogical supposition. I agree.

We do not wrestle with stupid conundrums like asking whether God can created an unmovable rock and then move it. It's a stupid question! NO! Of course God could not do any such stupid thing.

The only way I believe you or I can answer is "Your question isn't logical. The only way I can meaningfully address it is to tell you, you need to learn to ask questions that have logical answers." If we answer 'no' or 'yes' we've entered into their faulty thinking and incorrect supposition. We have to tell them clearly: You don't understand the nature of query. That should be your first question: to ask what a good question would look like."

There's a gigantic list of things that God cannot do, perhaps most important among them is the fact that God cannot make someone love Him.

It is a huge supposition. Scripture? Proof set? Where does the assertion come from? Part of this is dealing with the definition of 'love' in the first place. Let me preface: Doesn't God already make us love Him? 1 John 4:10 Now granted I'm on page with your thinking about 'force' to a degree, but sometimes declarative doesn't account for all angles and this one seems a bit too strong as yet to be 'most important' if I can question the veracity. I appreciate your above:

This is very nearly identical to what most Christians believe! Mostly, in order to depart significantly from this understanding of omnipotence requires one to be "educated" away from it.

Clete, I appreciate your teaching heart! We come from very different suppositions (not sure if you've always been an Open Theist at heart). I care to change, if God cares to change me. Discussions like this rendered to Him, can.

If TOL is on the internet for any one thing, it is for discussions like this: the truth will out.

God cannot predestine that someone desires to have a genuine two way loving reciprocal relationship with Him (or with anyone else, for that matter).

"Cannot?"

The limitations Open Theists place on the other omni's are similar....

Omniscient: God knows everything that is knowable - that He desires to know.

It is a 'cursory' definition, I believe. It isn't just 'what He wants to know' but is essential if I understand Colossians 1:16-20 clearly, that He sustains everything that exists, by His very being. This Open paradigm goes against what I know of Colossians 1:16-20 in that nothing 'can' happen apart from God's sustaining power (again, if one believes 'sustains all things' means nothing can move without Him).
John 15:5 Philippians 2:13 Not to the point that we are no longer individual, but rather a look at a dynamic where both are true (why I can appreciate goals of Open Theism, even if not from that paradigm shift). Incidentally, I'll start a thread: What did you believe before you became an Open Theist? Sometimes it helps to see how one wrestled (if he/she wrestled) and what made the changes.

Omnipresent: God is everywhere that exists at once - if He wants to be there.

That isn't omnipresence, however. This definition negates the term and is rather describing unrestricted access. In Genesis 3:9, it yet presents a problem for even Open Theist theology: God did not 'have' to ask Adam where he was to find Him. Would you contend, as an Open Theist, that it is 'how' God found out where Adam was? How did God know Adam was near enough to hear? Was He going around the Garden, perhaps, repeating this until He found Adam? I need to look in the Open Theism section and see if there is a discussion on Genesis 3:9 to get a better handle on this. An Open Theism discussion on Genesis 3:9 is going to be very different than it is for the rest of us!

Everyone seems to want to freak out over the qualifications we place on those two doctrines but it is just an application of omnipotence to those doctrines.

Agree. It is a big deal of course because our suppositions carry the weight of our theology interpretations. With you, I very much appreciate getting into the details. It helps. Thank you.

All we are saying is that no one can force God to do something that He doesn't want to do. He isn't required to watch every single event that happens.

Realize your background assumptions (I'd think you do, but they are important for the difference between us). It has God aloof from His creation, a spectator rather than sustainer of this universe and us. My theology understanding is something inbetween hands-off vs complete control. God does have complete control, but I'm agreeing to an extent with you, we are individuals as evident and logically sound. So while I'm on page to a degree, there is yet a grasp for me that John 15:5 is literally true.

God does not care about which photon of light is leaving off the back side of Polaris nor is He required to sit and watch while people commit gross sin nor is He omni-voyeuristic where He is unable to give people privacy if He so chooses to do so.


Well, if within Omniscience you include exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of the future, as both the Calvinist and Arminians do then....

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

In short, if you believe that we have a real ability to do or to do otherwise - to choose our actions - then the Classical understanding of Omniscience must be modified. Welcome to Open Theism!

Actually, it is a bit like the illogical question: The question and supposition itself is what I question. While I didn't invent philosophy or logic standards, I believe Standford has some leaky presentations. They make assumptions and while they believe they've plugged the holes, they haven't:

Premise: I get an almanac from the future (proposition). Just because I have a tiny bit of omniscience (only what an almanac holds), there is no way that it determines a thing. An almanace simply records. I posit the 'leak' here is Standford thinks of time as a solid and an actuator of events. We all do, we think we 'cannot change our past.' My suggestion is that is wrong thinking. I can undo things, fix relationships. We think of time past as stagnant and that is problematic to logic because it paints something as a black and white reality that isn't. Thanks for giving it at least a spin and test-drive.

You are trying to have it both ways.

Agree, because I don't see time as linear like most do. It becomes stagnant, and I don't believe it is (long discussion but may be worth the trail, its a neat discussion and I think I can prove a couple of my assumptions). Am I still supporting your thread, btw? Please hold me in check!

You want to propose a situation where the future is known but not determined. That is a contradiction on its face.

Not if you see 'events' as never over per say. Appreciate the longer leash on these discussions but I do want to serve your thread and not get too far. I won't always ask, but keep me on track for the thread need and ty. I can rabbit trail with the best of 'em.

If the future is only known unless someone acts to change it then isn't it also known whether that action will be taken? Is the action that changes part of the future not itself part of the future?

Not sure if the above addresses this enough. Let me know and ty.

The fact that such paradoxical nonsense is entirely unavoidable when discussing things like this is strong evidence, if not outright proof, that time does not exist. The past is what used to exist and the future does not yet exist. All that exists, exists now. Reality is perpetually in the present.

Agree, but there is a stigma to 'what has passed' in our minds that drives our ability and willingness to entertain logical parameters. Do any quantum physics/mechanics reading? Be blessed today! In Him

 

[Derf]

@Lon @Clete
Compare Adam's whereabouts with Abel's, chap 4.

 

[Clete]

Intent is 3/4. A 'little' isn't even on the docket, but rather a difference and specifically who. If you believe 'like' a Mormon, that sir, is no ad hominem.

I absolutely is! The Mormons claim to believe in Jesus! They claim themselves to be Christian!

From now on, from this day, until you repent of this utter stupidity, I will refer to you as a Mormon on the basis that you believe "like" a Mormon.

I'll read the rest of your post based entirely on how you respond to the above, Mr. Mormon!

 

[Clete]

@Lon @Clete
Compare Adam's whereabouts with Abel's, chap 4.

What?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What?

He was referring to something Lon said regarding Adam's whereabouts in Genesis 3:9.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is a 'cursory' definition, I believe. It isn't just 'what He wants to know' but is essential if I understand Colossians 1:16-20 clearly, that He sustains everything that exists, by His very being.

Not what the passage says.

This Open paradigm goes against what I know of Colossians 1:16-20 in that nothing 'can' happen apart from God's sustaining power (again, if one believes 'sustains all things' means nothing can move without Him).

The passage says:

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Bible Gateway passage: Colossians 1:16-18 - New King James Version

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the...

www.biblegateway.com

It says nothing about God "sustaining' creation.

John 15:5

Right, without God, we wouldn't exist to do anything.

Not that God specifically controls us to do things.

Philippians 2:13

Read closelier:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2:12-13 - New King James Version

Light Bearers - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

www.biblegateway.com

Paul isn't saying that God is forcing us do the works.

He's saying that God is working IN us, so that we will (verb) and do His good pleasure.

Working on our hearts.... That sounds an awful lot like the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Not to the point that we are no longer individual, but rather a look at a dynamic where both are true (why I can appreciate goals of Open Theism, even if not from that paradigm shift).

I believe CS Lewis put it best:

It is both God's will that we obey Him, AND God's will that we should be free to choose whether to oby or disobey, and that disobedience still falls within His will, not because He programmed us to be disobedient, but because He willed for us to be free.

Realize your background assumptions (I'd think you do, but they are important for the difference between us). It has God aloof from His creation, a spectator rather than sustainer of this universe and us. My theology understanding is something inbetween hands-off vs complete control. God does have complete control, but I'm agreeing to an extent with you, we are individuals as evident and logically sound. So while I'm on page to a degree, there is yet a grasp for me that John 15:5 is literally true.

God is not sovereign in the sense that Calvinists mean it, that being that God controls literally everything.

No, God is sovereign, yes, just as a king who rules over his people is sovereign, yet he does not control everything and everyone within his kingdom. Instead, sovereign just means "in a position of supreme authority over all."

It does not mean "in meticulous control of everything."

 

[Derf]

What?

Did you read it?

[Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper?
If, as some Open Theists say, God asking Adam where he was after he ate of the tree means that God did not know where Adam was, then when God asks Cain where Abel is, it would mean that God did not know that Abel was dead. Yet the next verse tells us God already knew:

[Gen 4:10 KJV] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

And there's one more question that God already knew the answer to: What hast thou done? Both answers are shown to be known by God in the underlined text.

Using God's question to Adam as a way to determine if God doesn't always know something is a poor argument and shouldn't be used by any Open Theist.

 

[Lon]

Yes, that's what I was talking about...an inability. "Is God ABLE to deny Himself?" Paul tells us He CANNOT (defined as "unable" in most dictionaries).

God is the Originator of the entire universe. There is nothing in it that He is restricted from.

All of the translations that I looked up, save one, say "He cannot deny Himself". Cannot means "inability". Here's the one translation, Youngs Literal, that doesn't use "cannot":
[2Ti 2:13 YLT] if we are not stedfast, he remaineth stedfast; to deny himself he is not able.

You are missing my point. God is 'unable' to sin. What we were discussing were definitions and I yet believe 'limitation' carries problematic concerns. Is God 'limited' to only not sinning? Yes, but we'd want to be careful of context because originally, this was about the omni's and a 'limitation' isn't part of an omni definition. Because the desirable attribute is holiness, we don't say "God is limited that He cannot sin" because it isn't necessary. Sure, I agree, God cannot sin. A limitation? It is a bit like saying a full glass is 'limited' to not having air. It becomes an awkward proposition instead of talking about a full glass of water, by example. Similarly, it is awkward to compare God to sin as if 'limitation' is the best descriptor because He is Holiness and the very definition of 'not sin.' For me "limitation" doesn't adequately or correctly discuss the nature of God's holiness. The comparison isn't yin/yang as if sin is anything that appropriately contrasts holiness. Eastern philosophy sees the one as great as the other between good/evil. Christianity sees sin as being destroyed such that it is to be and soon to be become obsolete for an inappropriate comparison.

I'm not sure what all that is supposed to mean. There is a limit to what God can do, given to us in the Bible.

Does God have a 'speed' limit? A limit on His holiness? The problem is a limit is focusing on what "God is not" rather than what "God is." "By Him, everything exists." What is He 'limited' by? By sin? :nono: That isn't a limitation, He exceeds the narrow negative implications of the comparison.

That limit might not be a desirable thing to you, and it might be at God's own will that He cannot do that thing, but it is illustrative of the type of things that God would either limit Himself from, or would be limited by His very character.

It is yet a less than adequate descriptor to say "God is limited from sinning." Yes, true but better and more correct: "Sin has nothing to do with God" (not phrased in a limiting way).

And that goes back to the discussion about the things God doesn't want to look on: sin.

I believe this fulfills one's own sensibility. I asked an Open Theist if God was 'watching' when I was abused. It made the Open Theist uncomfortable because God was with me. He never left me. They were concerned, along with atrocity, that God would not 'follow you into the bathroom' as if God were offended by how He Himself made us. It made no sense. Our sensibilities are no 'limitation' on God. Look at 'limitation' from that perspective: it seems the theologian wants a god that doesn't have to view the most vile wickedness, that they want to make a way for God to be 'limited' from having to do one thing or another. I think the sentiment might be crafted from a good place, but it causes theological damage in the wake that it initially thought it was doing.

 

[Lon]

Not what the passage says.



The passage says:

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Bible Gateway passage: Colossians 1:16-18 - New King James Version

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the...

www.biblegateway.com

It says nothing about God "sustaining' creation.

Sunisteo is where we get 'sustain.' You are literally wrong.

Right, without God, we wouldn't exist to do anything.

Not that God specifically controls us to do things.

Control and sustain aren't synonymous, if that was the hang up.

Read closelier:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2:12-13 - New King James Version

Light Bearers - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

www.biblegateway.com

Paul isn't saying that God is forcing us do the works.

Needs some definitions. What do you mean by 'force?' Example:

2 Corinthians 5:14-19 ​

Love in this case, is a force, that God uses which 'constrains' (one form of force) us.
If God does any force (and He does) then it must be understood that we are certainly forced. The issue is whether that is 'in a good way!'
There is a need for us to understand our culpability, God's ability to interact with us, and how we related in a way that shows relationship with God in love. How we get there can be complicated in our understanding but Paul is clear about the fear and trembling part: That God works in us to will and do His good pleasure. Its a good thing.

He's saying that God is working IN us, so that we will (verb) and do His good pleasure.

Working on our hearts.... That sounds an awful lot like the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Not seeing anything in dispute :idunno:

I believe CS Lewis put it best:

It is both God's will that we obey Him, AND God's will that we should be free to choose whether to oby or disobey, and that disobedience still falls within His will, not because He programmed us to be disobedient, but because He willed for us to be free.

Not sure if we are 'willed to be free.' I love Lewis, don't always agree on every point.

God is not sovereign in the sense that Calvinists mean it, that being that God controls literally everything.

Like 'force,' 'control' needs definition as well. I don't believe 'sustain' means either force (other than being a force) nor 'control' (other than 'sustaining' being a controlled force). It'd mean, I think we agree here.

No, God is sovereign, yes, just as a king who rules over his people is sovereign, yet he does not control everything and everyone within his kingdom. Instead, sovereign just means "in a position of supreme authority over all."

It is more than that: This King upholds the universe and by Him, all consists. Try 'powers' for sustaining as well as 'influences' and 'motivates.' In this sense, "Without Me, you can't do anything" has the idea that Christ is the battery that moves us and God in us, the reason for doing and existing. It is Paul's argument in Romans 9ff, from Jeremiah, that we belong to God. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 You are not your own, you were bought with a price.

It does not mean "in meticulous control of everything."

It can, (2 Corinthians 5:14-19 - the love of Christ 'constrains' (controls) us)but 'meticulous' and 'control' need definition and discussion.
Perhaps 1 Corinthians 4:7-12 It has good talking points we can agree on regarding both God's control and our given ability.
With some Calvinists, you'll get not just meticulous (God is meticulous I'd reckon), but complete control and no independence. I believe with you, that 1 Corinthians 4:7-12 says we have been given ability. "Free-will?" To a degree but I'm not a freewill theist in the sense that in our lives, our being united to Christ is essential for our spirituality. Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's workmanship." There is a need in our theology to acknowledge readily our dependence/interdependence upon Christ for life and Godliness as well as a need for us to recognize God's interdependent design that we function as part of a larger body of believers in Christ 1 Corinthians 12-14 Romans 12:5 "We being many, form one body, and each of us belongs to all the others, one to another."

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sunisteo is where we get 'sustain.'

Uh..... No, it's not.

sustain | Etymology of sustain by etymonline

"provide the necessities of life to;" by early 14c. as "give support to (an effort or… See origin and meaning of sustain.

www.etymonline.com

You are literally wrong.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And NOWHERE in the Bible is "sunistémi" used to mean "sustain."

Because it doesn't mean "sustain." It means:

Strong's g4921 - Lexical: συνίστημι - Transliteration: sunistémi - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: soon-is-tah'-o - Definition: to place together, commend, prove, exhibit; instrans: to stand with; to be composed of, cohere. - Origin: Or (strengthened) sunistano (soon-is-tan'-o), or sunistemi (soon-is'-tay-mee) from sun and histemi (including its collateral forms); to set together, i.e. (by implication) to introduce (favorably), or (figuratively) to exhibit; intransitively, to stand near, or (figuratively) to constitute. - Usage: approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with). - Translated as (count): commending (3), are we commending (1), commends (1), Demonstrates (1), having been composed (1), hold together (1), I commend (1), I prove (1), shows (1), standing with (1), to commend (1), to have been commended (1), we are commending (1), you have proved (1).

The one who is wrong here is you.

 

[Lon]

I absolutely is! The Mormons claim to believe in Jesus! They claim themselves to be Christian!

From now on, from this day, until you repent of this utter stupidity, I will refer to you as a Mormon on the basis that you believe "like" a Mormon.

Have a link? https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2010/01/20/mormon-thought-vs-ope-theism (yes, that David Paulsen LDS and that Clark Pinnock Open Theist)
Important point: Don't be 'stupid' about it. If we hold something actually in common, I'll not be offended but will do the leg work to show that it is either true or false. My comparison was simply to draw a 'correct' line between who believes one thing, and who believes, rightly on the other side, the other thing. You do that and I'll be fine with it.

I'll read the rest of your post based entirely on how you respond to the above, Mr. Mormon!

Note I didn't call you a Mormon, not at all. That said, I apologize for the offense. It 'seems' with things I've read from Sanders, Boyd, and Pinnock, that there is an open dialogue on agreed points with Mormons. I don't really have much in common with Mormons but I have been compared to them in the way I've gone door-to-door in the past. If the comparison is benign, meh, I'm okay with it. "You evangelize like a Mormon!" Okay, guilty, I suppose. It was not my intention to get this kind of traction, nor reaction but I may have walked into something I know nothing about. I wasn't trying for 'guilty by association' so again, I apologize that was the take-away. I've assumed there are some things alike to one another for dialogue to be this open between Open Theists and Mormons from major proponents. If it is problematic, it'd be a shared one the rest of us have with a 'like' position on the omnis' of God.

 

[Derf]

God is the Originator of the entire universe. There is nothing in it that He is restricted from.

You are missing my point. God is 'unable' to sin. What we were discussing were definitions and I yet believe 'limitation' carries problematic concerns. Is God 'limited' to only not sinning? Yes, but we'd want to be careful of context because originally, this was about the omni's and a 'limitation' isn't part of an omni definition. Because the desirable attribute is holiness, we don't say "God is limited that He cannot sin" because it isn't necessary. Sure, I agree, God cannot sin. A limitation? It is a bit like saying a full glass is 'limited' to not having air.

Yet, since we are talking about the character of water in a glass, we don't say, "God infinitely knows about the air in the glass."

It becomes an awkward proposition instead of talking about a full glass of water, by example. Similarly, it is awkward to compare God to sin as if 'limitation' is the best descriptor because He is Holiness and the very definition of 'not sin.' For me "limitation" doesn't adequately or correctly discuss the nature of God's holiness.

Seems like a personal problem, to me.

The comparison isn't yin/yang as if sin is anything that appropriately contrasts holiness. Eastern philosophy sees the one as great as the other between good/evil. Christianity sees sin as being destroyed such that it is to be and soon to be become obsolete for an inappropriate comparison.

Does God have a 'speed' limit? A limit on His holiness? The problem is a limit is focusing on what "God is not" rather than what "God is." "By Him, everything exists."

But the point is that there is a limitation to "everything" when we are talking about "what exists". So when we read "by Him everything exists", we are not allowed to infinitize it to say that "everything exists, including things that don't exist." It's a limitation based on the character of "everything that exists", which is exclusive of "things that do not exist".

What is He 'limited' by? By sin? :nono: That isn't a limitation, He exceeds the narrow negative implications of the comparison.

Again, the point is that God is limited by His character to "goodness". It is a limitation, and one that He Himself iterates: "I am not a man that I should lie." You can say it isn't a limitation, but that's merely an obfuscation about a limitation that God gives us. He is limited to never lying. Is that a bad thing? By no means...we count on God because of His self-imposed limitations. For instance, we believe in the hope of our resurrection, because He cannot lie. We believe in the fact of creation, because God cannot lie.

So "omniscience" has limits. It is limited to knowing things that actually exist, or are firm and settled, but not limited when it comes to things that don't exist, or are not settled. If, then, God decides something is settled, we can be assured (because He cannot lie) that those things are settled. "Lo, I am with you alway, even tot he end of the age." is a settled thing. "Lon will never deny Christ." may not be a settled thing. But even if Lon denies Christ, He cannot deny Himself--you changing your character limits what God can do with you (an obvious limit on God), but it doesn't limit what or who God is.

[Mat 23:37 NKJV] "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 chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

Jesus was limited in what He could do by the unwillingness of Jerusalem. Not because He was unable to gather them against their will, but because He limited Himself to only gathering those who were willing to be gathered.

It is yet a less than adequate descriptor to say "God is limited from sinning." Yes, true but better and more correct: "Sin has nothing to do with God" (not phrased in a limiting way).

Sin has everything to do with God--because He is just. He has limited His responses (in the long term, to account for His patience) to only the just ones, even though He can do the unjust responses (grace). The unjust responses are limited to those who accept His son's sacrifice.

I believe this fulfills one's own sensibility. I asked an Open Theist if God was 'watching' when I was abused. It made the Open Theist uncomfortable because God was with me. He never left me. They were concerned, along with atrocity, that God would not 'follow you into the bathroom' as if God were offended by how He Himself made us.

I don't understand the view that God cannot look on our naked bodies while we're in the shower or going to the bathroom. And I agree with you that He knows when little ones are abused. How He knows, I'll be willing to discuss more, because I'm really not sure. I expect He actually observes everything that happens and that's why He was remorseful about creating man in the first place.
[Gen 6:5 NKJV] Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Not only did He see their wickedness in action, He saw it in the planning. I don't really see how one could say God is somehow missing some incident because He's closing His eyes to its wickedness. Justice only makes sense if the one who is most offended by the sin is actually offended by it.

It made no sense. Our sensibilities are no 'limitation' on God. Look at 'limitation' from that perspective: it seems the theologian wants a god that doesn't have to view the most vile wickedness, that they want to make a way for God to be 'limited' from having to do one thing or another. I think the sentiment might be crafted from a good place, but it causes theological damage in the wake that it initially thought it was doing.

I think I agree with this, but I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of it. I gave the example of Cain murdering Abel, and I don't think He was in the dark about any of it. Since Abel was perceived by some as the one from which Christ would eventually come, and thus Satan would desire to snuff him out, I don't think the seriousness of the sin can be denied, yet God knew what Cain did.

 

[Gary K]

Yet, since we are talking about the character of water in a glass, we don't say, "God infinitely knows about the air in the glass."

Seems like a personal problem, to me.

But the point is that there is a limitation to "everything" when we are talking about "what exists". So when we read "by Him everything exists", we are not allowed to infinitize it to say that "everything exists, including things that don't exist." It's a limitation based on the character of "everything that exists", which is exclusive of "things that do not exist".

Again, the point is that God is limited by His character to "goodness". It is a limitation, and one that He Himself iterates: "I am not a man that I should lie." You can say it isn't a limitation, but that's merely an obfuscation about a limitation that God gives us. He is limited to never lying. Is that a bad thing? By no means...we count on God because of His self-imposed limitations. For instance, we believe in the hope of our resurrection, because He cannot lie. We believe in the fact of creation, because God cannot lie.

So "omniscience" has limits. It is limited to knowing things that actually exist, or are firm and settled, but not limited when it comes to things that don't exist, or are not settled. If, then, God decides something is settled, we can be assured (because He cannot lie) that those things are settled. "Lo, I am with you alway, even tot he end of the age." is a settled thing. "Lon will never deny Christ." may not be a settled thing. But even if Lon denies Christ, He cannot deny Himself--you changing your character limits what God can do with you (an obvious limit on God), but it doesn't limit what or who God is.

[Mat 23:37 NKJV] "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 chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

Jesus was limited in what He could do by the unwillingness of Jerusalem. Not because He was unable to gather them against their will, but because He limited Himself to only gathering those who were willing to be gathered.

Sin has everything to do with God--because He is just. He has limited His responses (in the long term, to account for His patience) to only the just ones, even though He can do the unjust responses (grace). The unjust responses are limited to those who accept His son's sacrifice.

I don't understand the view that God cannot look on our naked bodies while we're in the shower or going to the bathroom. And I agree with you that He knows when little ones are abused. How He knows, I'll be willing to discuss more, because I'm really not sure. I expect He actually observes everything that happens and that's why He was remorseful about creating man in the first place.
[Gen 6:5 NKJV] Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Not only did He see their wickedness in action, He saw it in the planning. I don't really see how one could say God is somehow missing some incident because He's closing His eyes to its wickedness. Justice only makes sense if the one who is most offended by the sin is actually offended by it.

I think I agree with this, but I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of it. I gave the example of Cain murdering Abel, and I don't think He was in the dark about any of it. Since Abel was perceived by some as the one from which Christ would eventually come, and thus Satan would desire to snuff him out, I don't think the seriousness of the sin can be denied, yet God knew what Cain did.

Sorry, but you're wrong. When God speaks what doesn't exist begins to exist. Earth didn't exist until He spoke it into existence.

Also, do you really think an evil God would be a positive addition to the universe? Is that something that is really a limitation, or is that the greatest major positive attribute of God for the universe? You're actually arguing for sin being a positive influence in the universe. You seem to desire God to not be love and to be hateful. Love and hate are polar opposites. To say they aren't is impossible. It's like saying darkness and light are the same thing.

It seems to me you are going to self destructive extremes to defend open theism. Not good, as you are directly contradicting scripture with your assertions.