TOL's James Hilston Agrees: Yes, God Can Change!!

[sentientsynth]

AJ,

What source are you using for your transliterations? I'm not sure about the rest of them, but Eph 1:4 is wrong.

Here's why my sources have:

kaqw;ß ejxelevxato hJma'ß ejn aujtw'/ pro; katabolh'ß kovsmou, ei\nai hJma'ß aJgivouß kai; ajmwvmouß katenwvpion aujtou' ejn ajgavph/,


Wait, where did your post go?

 

[fool]

Wait, where did your post go?

I've seen posts go missing before :squint:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

AJ,

What source are you using for your transliterations? I'm not sure about the rest of them, but Eph 1:4 is wrong.

Here's why my sources have:

kaqw;ß ejxelevxato hJma'ß ejn aujtw'/ pro; katabolh'ß kovsmou, ei\nai hJma'ß aJgivouß kai; ajmwvmouß katenwvpion aujtou' ejn ajgavph/,


Wait, where did your post go?

I removed it after I saw your post and went back to check. You were correct, Ephesians 1:4 is "pro" not "apo", I stand corrected.


My Source is the Expositor's Greek Testament.

 

[Poly]

Not according to Open Theism. Open Theists believe that Jesus' will was contrary to the Father's when He prayed in the garden. He was a reluctant participant, not fully willing, according to Open Theists.

That's a lie. I'd say it is a strawman, except that you know better.

Open theists admit, as do most armenians, that Jesus would have loved not to have to go to the cross to save mankind, but when there was no other way, Jesus went willingly.

You've taken upon yourself the role of judge and have presumed to decide, based on humanistic principles and existential tenets whether or not God is good.

I'm basing it on the Scriptural definition of goodness. God's own points. For it is God that says that you should not do evil that good may come of it.

God decreed evil that good would result. E.g. God taunted Satan to attack Job. What do you make of that? Will you judge God as evil because He urged Satan to do evil?

God taunted Satan that Job obeyed him. It was not God that suggested to Satan to attack, as I rememebr the story.

Basically Satan bet God that Job would curse him if God took away His protection. God predicted he wouldn't but Satan didn't believe him. Didn't Satan know God knows the future? If God knows the future exhaustively, wouldn't Satan of all people know that? Is Satan the dumbest gambler that ever lived? That's worse than betting against the Harlem Globetrotters!

BTW --- are you going to answer my question as to how "before" (Eph 1:4) and "from" (Rev. 13:8) are different in the original Greek, or can we let that drop?

:first: POTD

 

[fool]

Here's that particle stuff I was thinking of; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

 

[sentientsynth]

Interesting stuff, fool. Thanks for the linkage.

 

[fool]

Interesting stuff, fool. Thanks for the linkage.

No problem, you can get lost in the myriad of physics stuff.
I don't know if the Quantum Eraser is evidence of a future or a way to change the past, but if you're changing the past you must be in the future blah, blah, blah.
My point is that ones theology should agree with ones science. If there is a demonstratable future then God should know it right? Or is He just along for the ride like the rest of us?

 

[sentientsynth]

No problem, you can get lost in the myriad of physics stuff.
I don't know if the Quantum Eraser is evidence of a future or a way to change the past, but if you're changing the past you must be in the future blah, blah, blah.

:dizzy:

My point is that ones theology should agree with ones science.

That's a sticky point. But valid, nonetheless.

If there is a demonstratable future then God should know it right?

Not according to some. You see, to some, if God knows the future, then it is impossible for a person to act contrary to what God knows will happen, i.e. you cannot do otherwise, i.e. you are a robot. And since the latter is declared true, the former is likewise demanded to be true.

Or is He just along for the ride like the rest of us?

According to some.

 

[fool]

Not according to some. You see, to some, if God knows the future, then it is impossible for a person to act contrary to what God knows will happen, i.e. you cannot do otherwise, i.e. you are a robot. And since the latter is declared true, the former is likewise demanded to be true.

Seems to me that we need to first determine if there is a future and then examine Gods' knowledge of it.
If we don't first buckle down the future's future then as Bob would say "we cannot logicly proceed"

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Not according to Open Theism. Open Theists believe that Jesus' will was contrary to the Father's when He prayed in the garden. He was a reluctant participant, not fully willing, according to Open Theists.

That's a lie. I'd say it is a strawman, except that you know better.

When Jesus said, "Not my will, but thy will be done," were Jesus' will and the Father's will the same?

Open theists admit, as do most armenians, that Jesus would have loved not to have to go to the cross to save mankind, but when there was no other way, Jesus went willingly.

So, according to your view, Jesus had to be coerced into it, right? He had to be persuaded, whether by circumstances or something else. He didn't want to do it, according to your view. For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt 12 40)” ...

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day (Mt 16:21) “...

"The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. (Mt 17: 22,23 Mk 9:31 Lu 9:22) ... "

"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to stavroo him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mt 20:17-19)"

"... the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mk 8:31)."

"... Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mr 10:33,34)"

"... For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation (Lu 17: 24,25)."

"... Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again (Lu 18:31-33)."

"... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (Jn 2:19)"

"... Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me (Jn 7: 33)"

"... Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (Joh 10:17,18)."

"... Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this (Mt 26:11 Mk 14:8 Jn 12:7)."

"... But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart (Jn 15:5,6).”​

Do you see how irrational your view is?

Hilston wrote: You've taken upon yourself the role of judge and have presumed to decide, based on humanistic principles and existential tenets whether or not God is good.

I'm basing it on the Scriptural definition of goodness. God's own points.

"God's own points" are for man. There are no rules that govern God. It is a humanistic theology that takes God's rules and tries to hold Him to them.

For it is God that says that you should not do evil that good may come of it.

He says that to man because man does not have exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge, which is required in order to use evil for good. Man's finite nature does not afford him the insight or foresight to be able to use evil for good. God, however, does, which is why Joseph could tell his brothers that their intended evil was used by God for good.

Hilston wrote: God decreed evil that good would result. E.g. God taunted Satan to attack Job. What do you make of that? Will you judge God as evil because He urged Satan to do evil?

God taunted Satan that Job obeyed him. It was not God that suggested to Satan to attack, as I rememebr the story.

It wasn't Satan's idea. It was God's idea. God asked Satan where he'd been. Satan had been wandering to and fro throughout the earth. God calls Satan's attention to Job: "Have you considered my servant Job?"

Basically Satan bet God that Job would curse him if God took away His protection. God predicted he wouldn't but Satan didn't believe him. Didn't Satan know God knows the future?

Of course Satan knows, just like all Open Theists know, deep-down. But Satan, just like every Open Theist, is in denial. Lucifer is the quintessential Open Theist.

... If God knows the future exhaustively, wouldn't Satan of all people know that?

Yes, but unrighteousness empowers one to suppress the truth.

... Is Satan the dumbest gambler that ever lived? That's worse than betting against the Harlem Globetrotters!

That's what Open Theism does to the mind. It makes you believe stuff like Jesus contradicting the Father and go against His own Words by somehow preferring NOT to go to the stavros.

BTW --- are you going to answer my question as to how "before" (Eph 1:4) and "from" (Rev. 13:8) are different in the original Greek, or can we let that drop?

If you insist. The former is "pro," and the latter is "apo." I don't know what edition of Expositor's you have, but it's wrong. Mine is the Hendrickson's 2002 edition.

Can you at least admit that you got carried away on this one point, or do you care to explain what "different preposition" God is using between Eph 1:4 and Rev 13:8?

Now who got carried away on this one point? Isn't this just semantics, AJ?

Hilston wrote: Why are you people so obsesssed about a point made and dropped by Jeremy Finkenbinder? What is it with you people? You accuse me of digging myself into a hole, but it is you people who will not move on.

Translation: "Why are you people so obsessed with this? Since Jeremy didn't bring this back up I thought I was in the clear. You guys expose me for digging myself into a hole but I'm trying not to draw attention to this and I wish you would just move on.

You're exactly right, Poly. Of course, "pro" and "apo" have identical meanings. What was I thinking? Of course God uses two different words for no reason whatsoever. I must be mad! I really dug myself a hole that time, didn't I? You guys are just too sharp for me. With your cunning intellectual acuity, I was no match for you. So in utter embarrassment and sheer desperation, I'm just hoping you guys will forget this ever came up, because it was starting to make me look stupid. I mean, with ApologeticJedi breaking out the big guns and challenging me on the Greek, that was just way too much to handle. So maybe we can all just pretend it didn't happen so I can continue thinking I'm smarter and more important than I really am.

Hilston wrote: No, it's exactly the opposite. It's nothing so esoteric. I expected Jeremy to see the difference. I expected anyone reading this to see the difference......This is nothing profound.
then later...[Hilston wrote]: Whether you think it's mere semantics or meaningless, inane nitpicking, the fact remains that it is of major theological significance to understand the distinctions between that which was decreed before the foundation of the world and that which was decreed from the foundation of the world.

Major theological significance? No. You were correct the first time. This is nothing profound.

"Nothing profound" referred to the difference between apo and pro (from and before). The theological significance is indeed profound. Have you read the link I posted? If not, then please do all your friends a favor, and spare them any further embarrassment by shutting your pie-hole until you do.

Hilston wrote: If you're not interested, then please drop it before you all, due to your ignorance, make yourselves look like idiots. While it's apparently too late for Koban, I suspect there might be a glimmer of hope for the rest of you.

Hey, I've got a question for you. Why is it that when you were on Bob's show you conducted yourself in a very cordial manner and then you come here and you're back to acting like a jerk?

If you follow carefully, you'll see that I'm very selective (and biblical) about how I conduct myself on TOL. To those who disrespect the debate, I treat them with the contempt and derision they deserve. To those who respect the debate (whether they respect me personally or not), I treat them with respect and cordiality. Search and see, Poly. It was quickly apparent that you were more interested in being insulting than actually engaging the debate, at which point I lumped you in with DoogieDufuss and Kobarf. If you wish to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to rational discourse, I will happily change my demeanor toward you.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally Posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Jim,

I'll start our one on one this afternoon. Thank you for accepting the invitation.

...

I didn't realize I needed to get pre-approved... Sending Knight a private message now...

 

[ApologeticJedi]

When Jesus said, "Not my will, but thy will be done," were Jesus' will and the Father's will the same?

To refresh your memory.

Post #125 I said: "God “set up” His only Son as you say. That God left His Son, with the concurrence of the Son, into the hands of ungodly as is Their free choice. We may never know the indignity that Jesus choose to go through placing his own deity to be personally mocked by the creatures He made, but He was a willing participant.”

Post #131, Hilston quoted above and responded : ”Not according to Open Theism. Open Theists believe that Jesus' will was contrary to the Father's when He prayed in the garden. He was a reluctant participant, not fully willing, according to Open Theists.”

I quoted to remind you that we were talking about Jesus willing participation in the death of the cross. You lied and claimed that Open Thiests believe Jesus was not fully willing. That is not true.

I have already answered your question when I stated, “Open theists admit, as do most armenians, that Jesus would have loved not to have to go to the cross to save mankind, but when there was no other way, Jesus went willingly.”

So, according to your view, Jesus had to be coerced into it, right? He had to be persuaded, whether by circumstances or something else. He didn't want to do it, according to your view.

Apparently you got "coerced" somehow from my statement that "Jesus went willingly"? My view is that Jesus explored another possible method, not a different outcome. When no other method was found, Jesus willingly submitted. The Father could not force or coerce the Son to do it.

For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:...Do you see how irrational your view is?

When you present a straw dummy, it is easy to tear down I suppose. Would you care to debate the Open View, or your characterization of it?


BTW, Jesus did say that he would return within the lifetime of the generation listening to him, and that some apostles would not die until He came back. So just because Jesus predicts something, doesn't mean it came to pass.

He says that to man because man does not have exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge, which is required in order to use evil for good.

Bad argument. Nothing but supposition. There is no scripture to support the idea that having exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge allows one to plan out evil plans for good. That concept is foreign to scriptures.

It wasn't Satan's idea. It was God's idea. God asked Satan where he'd been. Satan had been wandering to and fro throughout the earth. God calls Satan's attention to Job: "Have you considered my servant Job?"

And so? You mean you think it is wrong to call attention to someone? Do you honestly believe it is evil to call attention to someone?

It was Satan that said “But put forth Your hand now, and touch all that he has and he will curse you to your face.” And then God said “All he has is now in your power.” Thus God removed his protectiveness over Job, but the plan was Satan’s.

Of course Satan knows, just like all Open Theists know, deep-down. But Satan, just like every Open Theist, is in denial. Lucifer is the quintessential Open Theist.

Satan is in denial about God's foreknowledge when making a bet? That's your argument? (Incidently, apparently so were David, Moses, Abraham, Hezekiah, and Jeremiah, who also believed that the future was not settled.)

Don’t you find it odd that you think angels might believe God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge, when He really does?

Would an angel be more or less unaware of the extent of God's knowledge than a person?

 

[koban]

Hilston wrote: Not according to Open Theism. Open Theists believe that Jesus' will was contrary to the Father's when He prayed in the garden. He was a reluctant participant, not fully willing, according to Open Theists.

When Jesus said, "Not my will, but thy will be done," were Jesus' will and the Father's will the same?

So, according to your view, Jesus had to be coerced into it, right? He had to be persuaded, whether by circumstances or something else. He didn't want to do it, according to your view. For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt 12 40)” ...

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day (Mt 16:21) “...

"The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. (Mt 17: 22,23 Mk 9:31 Lu 9:22) ... "

"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to stavroo him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mt 20:17-19)"

"... the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mk 8:31)."

"... Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mr 10:33,34)"

"... For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation (Lu 17: 24,25)."

"... Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again (Lu 18:31-33)."

"... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (Jn 2:19)"

"... Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me (Jn 7: 33)"

"... Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (Joh 10:17,18)."

"... Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this (Mt 26:11 Mk 14:8 Jn 12:7)."

"... But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart (Jn 15:5,6).”​

Do you see how irrational your view is?

Hilston wrote: You've taken upon yourself the role of judge and have presumed to decide, based on humanistic principles and existential tenets whether or not God is good.

"God's own points" are for man. There are no rules that govern God. It is a humanistic theology that takes God's rules and tries to hold Him to them.

He says that to man because man does not have exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge, which is required in order to use evil for good. Man's finite nature does not afford him the insight or foresight to be able to use evil for good. God, however, does, which is why Joseph could tell his brothers that their intended evil was used by God for good.

Hilston wrote: God decreed evil that good would result. E.g. God taunted Satan to attack Job. What do you make of that? Will you judge God as evil because He urged Satan to do evil?

It wasn't Satan's idea. It was God's idea. God asked Satan where he'd been. Satan had been wandering to and fro throughout the earth. God calls Satan's attention to Job: "Have you considered my servant Job?"

Of course Satan knows, just like all Open Theists know, deep-down. But Satan, just like every Open Theist, is in denial. Lucifer is the quintessential Open Theist.

Yes, but unrighteousness empowers one to suppress the truth.

That's what Open Theism does to the mind. It makes you believe stuff like Jesus contradicting the Father and go against His own Words by somehow preferring NOT to go to the stavros.

If you insist. The former is "pro," and the latter is "apo." I don't know what edition of Expositor's you have, but it's wrong. Mine is the Hendrickson's 2002 edition.

Now who got carried away on this one point? Isn't this just semantics, AJ?

Hilston wrote: Why are you people so obsesssed about a point made and dropped by Jeremy Finkenbinder? What is it with you people? You accuse me of digging myself into a hole, but it is you people who will not move on.

You're exactly right, Poly. Of course, "pro" and "apo" have identical meanings. What was I thinking? Of course God uses two different words for no reason whatsoever. I must be mad! I really dug myself a hole that time, didn't I? You guys are just too sharp for me. With your cunning intellectual acuity, I was no match for you. So in utter embarrassment and sheer desperation, I'm just hoping you guys will forget this ever came up, because it was starting to make me look stupid. I mean, with ApologeticJedi breaking out the big guns and challenging me on the Greek, that was just way too much to handle. So maybe we can all just pretend it didn't happen so I can continue thinking I'm smarter and more important than I really am.

Hilston wrote: No, it's exactly the opposite. It's nothing so esoteric. I expected Jeremy to see the difference. I expected anyone reading this to see the difference......This is nothing profound.
then later...[Hilston wrote]: Whether you think it's mere semantics or meaningless, inane nitpicking, the fact remains that it is of major theological significance to understand the distinctions between that which was decreed before the foundation of the world and that which was decreed from the foundation of the world.

"Nothing profound" referred to the difference between apo and pro (from and before). The theological significance is indeed profound. Have you read the link I posted? If not, then please do all your friends a favor, and spare them any further embarrassment by shutting your pie-hole until you do.

Hilston wrote: If you're not interested, then please drop it before you all, due to your ignorance, make yourselves look like idiots. While it's apparently too late for Koban, I suspect there might be a glimmer of hope for the rest of you.

If you follow carefully, you'll see that I'm very selective (and biblical) about how I conduct myself on TOL. To those who disrespect the debate, I treat them with the contempt and derision they deserve. To those who respect the debate (whether they respect me personally or not), I treat them with respect and cordiality. Search and see, Poly. It was quickly apparent that you were more interested in being insulting than actually engaging the debate, at which point I lumped you in with DoogieDufuss and Kobarf. If you wish to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to rational discourse, I will happily change my demeanor toward you.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

Sorry Jimmy. There's posters here worthy of engaging in rational debate.

Then there's people like Letsargue, Squeaky and others who, no matter how many times they have their foolishness pointed out to them, deny the obvious and continue on their course.

After studying the "Are You Celebrating Christmas" thread, I came to the conclusion that you were not here to debate, but merely to defend your viewpoint against all arguments. I've further concluded that you are a self promoting psuedo-intellectual that values style over substance.

Like Letsargue and Squeaky, my only interest in reading your drivel is in pointing out your foolishness and mocking you.

:wave2:


BTW - you better watch your 'tude 'round Poly or she'll smack you silly, little man.

 

[koban]

Satan is in denial about God's foreknowledge when making a bet? That's your argument? (Incidently, apparently so were David, Moses, Abraham, Hezekiah, and Jeremiah, who also believed that the future was not settled.)

Don’t you find it odd that you think angels might believe God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge, when He really does?

Would an angel be more or less unaware of the extent of God's knowledge than a person?

Apparently, Jimmy's smarter than Satan, David, Moses, Abraham, Hezekiah, Jeremiah and all the angels put together.

 

[Johnny]

And so? You mean you think it is wrong to call attention to someone? Do you honestly believe it is evil to call attention to someone?

Oh give me a break. Was it not God who gave the final approval and even made the rules?

 

[Hilston]

I quoted to remind you that we were talking about Jesus willing participation in the death of the cross. You lied and claimed that Open Thiests believe Jesus was not fully willing. That is not true.

Then please tell us what you really believe by filling in the blanks below:

Jesus' will was ____(your answer here)_____.
The Father's will was ______(your answer here)______.​

I have already answered your question when I stated, “Open theists admit, as do most armenians, that Jesus would have loved not to have to go to the cross to save mankind, but when there was no other way, Jesus went willingly.”

This is eisegesis. The notion is neither supported by logic nor scripture. Jesus, in the form of man, divested Himself of the vast knowledge that was His before the incarnation, knowledge which the Father still had while Jesus was supposedly trying to find a better way to arrive at the same outcome. Open Theists suggest that rather than trust the Father's will to be best, Jesus was trying to find a better way. After everything He had already said about He and the Father being one, His will being completely submitted to the Father, that He does nothing of His own, but rather according to the will of the Father, etc., Open Theists claim that Jesus was trying to come up with a better plan. Amazing.

Hilston wrote: So, according to your view, Jesus had to be coerced into it, right? He had to be persuaded, whether by circumstances or something else. He didn't want to do it, according to your view.

Apparently you got "coerced" somehow from my statement that "Jesus went willingly"? My view is that Jesus explored another possible method, not a different outcome.

Where do you get this idea? Not from scripture.

When no other method was found, Jesus willingly submitted.

Prior to Jesus submitting, according to your view, Jesus was not convinced that the Father knew what was best, otherwise, He would not have explored other options. This is classic Open Theism.

The Father could not force or coerce the Son to do it.

Would you say that Jesus had to be persuaded to submit willingly to the Father's will?

Hilston wrote:For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:...Do you see how irrational your view is?

When you present a straw dummy, it is easy to tear down I suppose. Would you care to debate the Open View, or your characterization of it?

There's a difference between what the Open View espouses and what the logical conclusion to those espoused beliefs are. Rest assured that if I say something that Open Theists believe that you disagree with, it is because I've taken an Open Theist claim to its logical conclusion. You can call it a straw dummy, and I will show you how it logically follows. You can then attempt to show me how you wiggle out of it. That's how these discussions usually go.

BTW, Jesus did say that he would return within the lifetime of the generation listening to him, and that some apostles would not die until He came back. So just because Jesus predicts something, doesn't mean it came to pass.

It makes sense to trust a God whose future-telling prophecies do not fail and come to pass in precise accordance with His decreed will. When the careful Bible student reads a scripture that seems to contradict the trustworthiness of God, the default assumption should be that God is never wrong, that His Word is inerrant and infallible, that one's understanding is incomplete and that the passage bears further study. The Open Theist assumes that God was in error, the logical conclusion of which is that He cannot be trusted.

Hilston wrote: He says that to man because man does not have exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge, which is required in order to use evil for good.

Bad argument. Nothing but supposition.

It's a bad argument only from the standpoint of humanism, existentialism, and the Open Theist. That's why Open Theists believe God is in error with a lot of His prophecies. They don't see that exhaustive knowledge is required to secure the future. The Settled View, Logic and Scripture recognize that the only way One can know that a planned evil would certainly result in good is if One knows and controls all related circumstances and outcomes.

There is no scripture to support the idea that having exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge allows one to plan out evil plans for good. That concept is foreign to scriptures.

The concept is foreign to the Open-Theist reading of the scriptures, read through Open View lenses. Every time the Bible talks about trusting God, it is in the context of God's immutability and His immutable will, which includes every meticulous quantum-sub-micromanaged detail of the future.

Hilston wrote: It wasn't Satan's idea. It was God's idea. God asked Satan where he'd been. Satan had been wandering to and fro throughout the earth. God calls Satan's attention to Job: "Have you considered my servant Job?"

And so? You mean you think it is wrong to call attention to someone? Do you honestly believe it is evil to call attention to someone?

I don't; but I'm not an Open Theist. This is the Open View's attempt at a legal loophole. On Open View tenets, isn't taunting Satan by calling attention to Job tantamount to taunting an alcoholic with a bottle?

It was Satan that said “But put forth Your hand now, and touch all that he has and he will curse you to your face.” And then God said “All he has is now in your power.” Thus God removed his protectiveness over Job, but the plan was Satan’s.

Are you saying that it wasn't God's plan for Satan to attack Job? Are you saying that God was actually surprised when Satan decided to do evil things to Job?

Hilston wrote: Of course Satan knows, just like all Open Theists know, deep-down. But Satan, just like every Open Theist, is in denial. Lucifer is the quintessential Open Theist.

Satan is in denial about God's foreknowledge when making a bet? That's your argument?

It's not my argument. It's what the text says. Humanists and existentialists have a severe disconnect at the foundation of their reasoning. They have trouble acknowledging that one's nature or character are essential, i.e., of their essence. It is an essential attribute of Lucifer, the proto-existentialist, to be a deceiver and to be self-deceived.

(Incidently, apparently so were David, Moses, Abraham, Hezekiah, and Jeremiah, who also believed that the future was not settled.)

It only appears that way when reading God's Word through Open View lenses.

Don’t you find it odd that you think angels might believe God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge, when He really does?

Fallen angels kick against God's decrees. Elect angels do not.

Would an angel be more or less unaware of the extent of God's knowledge than a person?

Notice what ApologeticJedi has unwittingly betrayed, which I've been saying for quite a while: Open Theism is Luciferian. Adam came to a similar conclusion using similar reasoning. Lucifer is an angel, right? He's shiny, really smart, and he is shiny and has had personal face-time with God. Did I mention how shiny Lucifer is? So should we listen to what he says and model our thinking after his?

Major premise: Lucifer is more aware of the extent of God's knowledge than people.
Minor premise: Lucifer behaves as if the future is open.
Conclusion:The future must be open.

I wonder if it would have taken much for him to convince you to eat some illegal fruit.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Johnny]

BTW, Jesus did say that he would return within the lifetime of the generation listening to him, and that some apostles would not die until He came back. So just because Jesus predicts something, doesn't mean it came to pass.

Jesus prefaced that statement with, "But I tell you the truth". How do you trust this god you've created when he says, "I tell you the truth" and then doesn't follow through? Is this where open theism leads you?

 

[Poly]

If not, then please do all your friends a favor, and spare them any further embarrassment by shutting your pie-hole until you do.

If you follow carefully, you'll see that I'm very selective (and biblical) about how I conduct myself on TOL. To those who disrespect the debate, I treat them with the contempt and derision they deserve. To those who respect the debate (whether they respect me personally or not), I treat them with respect and cordiality. Search and see, Poly. It was quickly apparent that you were more interested in being insulting than actually engaging the debate, at which point I lumped you in with DoogieDufuss and Kobarf. If you wish to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to rational discourse, I will happily change my demeanor toward you.

I've watched you over the years become rude and insulting to some who've done nothing but "conduct themselves in a manner conductive to rational discourse". Granted, there was a time when you seemed less interested in hostility and your attitude and approach was pleasant but it's clear that being rude and offensive now outweighs any desire you have for a cordial discussion.

You also consistantly misrepresent your opponents view. Engaging in any discusion with you, typically means one would have to wade through the deep mire and muck you tend to create by your unfair debate style. I've watched good debates get off track because your opponent must stop and take the time to point out and clear up what you've purposely misconstrued as their arguments and beliefs. Even in responses that you would consider cordial, you tend to respond in such a way that even on the slightest level, you make sure to belittle your opponent. So this "My deameanor is great as long as the person I'm engaging with is as well" is baloney. Because of the way you conduct yourself I've usually ended up not wanting to touch you with a 10 ft pole. You're rude, offensive, and unfair. You tend to dodge questions, reply to responses with something totally off topic and misrepresent the arguments of others. You can't be trusted to give your opponent "respect and cordiality".

No, I don't wish to attempt to engage in rational discourse because one can't trust you to do the same. For me personally, you're not worth the nuisance and frustration. But God bless those who are willing to put up with this garbage and have done so persistantly over the years because they're passionate and zealous to point out truth and defend the Living God.

Hear HIston's latest musical release.

No thanks.

 

[Hilston]

I've watched you over the years become rude and insulting to some who've done nothing but "conduct themselves in a manner conductive to rational discourse".

You really should not make false accusations, Poly. There are years of my posts available for you to prove your allegations. For every rude, insulting and belittling treatment someone received from me, there was a blatant disrespect for the debate that preceded it. Search and see. Prove your accusation, or just shut up.

Granted, there was a time when you seemed less interested in hostility and your attitude and approach was pleasant ...

I've tried to be more like Jesus and Paul in that regard. They wouldn't have put up with your drivel either.

... but it's clear that being rude and offensive now outweighs any desire you have for a cordial discussion.

Have a look at my One-On-One with Knight. Everything was fine until he openly and glaringly disrespected the debate. Have a look at my debate with Stratnerd. Look at every thread I've posted in, and compare how I treat people differently based on how they treat the discussion. If Bob Enyart had disrespected the topic of our discussion, he would have gotten the same treatment, but I expect more of him, just as I expected more of you (but was sadly disappointed). You get what you dish out, Poly (Do you still refuse to acknowledge the difference between apo and pro ~ from and before? If so, then you have no complaint)

You also consistantly misrepresent your opponents view.

Open Theists keep saying this, but when pressed, they either have to admit that I was right, or publicly deny the obvious logical conclusion of their claims.

... Engaging in any discusion with you, typically means one would have to wade through the deep mire and muck you tend to create by your unfair debate style.

Unfair? What's fairness got to do with it? When a person disrespects the debate, they've disqualified themselves from fair treatment.

... I've watched good debates get off track because your opponent must stop and take the time to point out and clear up what you've purposely misconstrued as their arguments and beliefs. ...

No, they get off-track because my opponent disrespects the debate. My One-On-One with Knight is a perfect example.

You're rude, offensive, and unfair.

So were Jesus and Paul.

... You tend to dodge questions, reply to responses with something totally off topic and misrepresent the arguments of others.

Don't just assert, Poly. Prove it.

No, I don't wish to attempt to engage in rational discourse because one can't trust you to do the same.

Search and see. Or just shut up. Your accusations are unfounded. This is quite typical actually. Open Theists are not accustomed to having their feet held to the fire. It's clear that you really don't know what to do when your arguments start crumbling in the face of clear exegesis and sound reasoning. So when it does happen, you pretend to be offended by my manner. I fully expect that. You're human. It comes as no surprise that you would turn this discussion away from the topic, which is obviously embarrassing for your position, and to turn it into a personal matter.

But God bless those who are willing to put up with this garbage and have done so persistantly over the years because they're passionate and zealous to point out truth and defend the Living God.

Did you say "living" God? What does that mean?

Hilston wrote: Hear Hilston's latest musical release.

No thanks.

You really should. It rawks mightily. You don't know what you're missing. It will change your life.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release! (Come on! You know you want to!)

 

[Poly]

You really should not make false accusations, Search and see. Prove your accusation, or just shut up.

Have a look at my One-On-One with Knight. Everything was fine until he openly and glaringly disrespected the debate.

No, they get off-track because my opponent disrespects the debate. My One-On-One with Knight is a perfect example.

Don't just assert, Poly. Prove it.

Search and see. Or just shut up. Your accusations are unfounded.

the following ftaken from the 2nd post by Hilston found in the "One on one" with Knight.

3. Other than specific events that He brings to pass, God leaves the future open (the best label for this belief might Open Theism)

I can think of other labels, but I will keep them to myself. :guitar:

Context

Do NOT tell me to shut up again.