1 John 1:5 Proves Open Theism - Jacques More

God is light and in Him is no darkness at all 1 John 1:5
This means that evil was not in God and He knew not evil before the Creation: evil and its practise is at the root of what God has been learning since Creation: a proof positive of Open Theism.

For a good exegeis of a passage that proves open theism I recommend this video "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ki7PKOSQsI


If you would like to know more about Jacques More and his writings go to www.jarom.net

Category:

Education

Tags:

• God's
• knowledge
• open
• theism
• Calvinism
• omniscience
• Jacques
• More
• Arminianism
• 1John
• 1:5
• James
• 1:17
• free
• will
• predestination
• salvation
• bible
• teaching
• doctrine
• reformed
• Calvin
• choice

[lieberR1]

Please explain to me how you jump through hoops and rings of fire in order to understand Isaiah 10:5-19. 

[gracetruthguy]

Hi lieberR1,

Context is everything. A text out of context is a pretext.

You appear to believe as Calvin:

God decided and planned for everything to happen.

In that belief you are incapable of seeing the places where God responds in relation to activity unplanned by Him.

So, let me ask you this.

If God planned for everything then how do you read this?

"which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5

Something explicit that God says He did NOT plan.

[lieberR1]

@gracetruthguy

Are you going to respond to Isaiah 10:5-19?

Your out of context in Jeremiah 19:5. Of course it didn't enter God's heart (which is the correct translation) because God is holy. He never commanded such things, these actions where of man's heart not God's. But God permitted it for His purposes.

I'm sure God has several reason for me reading this. I hope the things i wrote He uses to dissuade any who may be fooled by your unbiblical teachings of God.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi lieberR1,

My apologies. You do appear to have tried to respond to my comment on Jeremiah 19:5

However, you appear to differ from Calvin. He makes it plain God planned for everything that happens. You merely say He permits these evil things. His not planning this event as explicit in Jeremiah 19:5 makes it clear that Calvin speaks against scripture.

So are you following Calvin or not?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi lieberR1,

There is a world of difference between God using a nation that is already wicked as a tool to punish other nations AND God intending or making that nation to be wicked in the 1st place.

This is Paul's point in Romans 9:22-23 in that ONLY IN THE GREEK can you see by his use of 2 different verbs God is not into making people wicked so he can use them, but in their being wicked he THEN uses them for His purposes in the nations.

That is the context of this passage.

[rkg62976]

By this proper definition of responsibility, any biblical Christian can rightly state that God is not responsible for anything. God is not responsible even for His own creation. Why?

1) Because God does not need to give a response to any creature for what He does.

2) Because there is no higher authority to whom the Triune God must give a response.

Therefore, God is not responsible for His own creation: He simple spoke, and it WAS...and it was VERY GOOD ;)

[rkg62976]

The fact that God predestines an innumerable amount of undeserving sinners to eternal life with Christ, in no way takes anything from man's responsibility before God.

Responsibility:

1) implies "the giving of a response" (generally with regard to some broken law);

2) implies an higher authority to whom to give a response. Since God is the highest authority, every creature owes obedience to Him and His Law.

This is a proper definition, and is in a different category than predestination.

[rkg62976]

@fractalfires "We only say that the future is open enough to allow us to be justly held accountable for our actions..." In fact, absolute predestination does not take away from man's accountability, or responsibility before God.

Usually when synergists attempt to use this type of argumentation it is because they don't have an appropriate definition of "responsibility".

[rkg62976]

@fractalfires I was confused. I thought you would actually know what a "straw man argument" was.

If you want a serious dialogue, fine. Otherwise, don't bother responding.

[rkg62976]

@fractalfires And since your argument rests upon refuting a naturalistic/materialistic determinism, which Calvinist also refute, then it is illogical (a "straw man", really). ;)

[rkg62976]

@fractalfires "I disagree with you about my logic. It is just fine. God is not a puppeteer".

I agree, God is not a puppeteer. The problem in charging Calvinists with somehow saying that 'God is a puppeteer" is that, again, the logic is flawed.

1) Puppets are inanimate objects, controlled by inanimate strings; human beings are psychological beings, not puppets.

You are simply refuting materialistic, or "naturalistic" determinism; not divine determinism, to which Calvinists hold.

[rkg62976]

@fractalfires "A God who foresees multiple foreseeable outcomes knows MORE than a god who absolutely foresees only one possible future." Here's where your logic fails: in the former instance, God "knows" absolutely nothing with certainty. In other words, there exists "potentiality" in God's knowledge. In the latter, God knows one future, absolutely (no potential for "learning anything"). And, He knows this ONE future, not because He foresees it, but because He DECREES it.

Simple enough?