Open Theism

[Grandma Carolyn]

Can someone share some scriptures with me that support Open Theism?

Ever since I have read about it from different NazNetters I have thought it best fit my views of God and his relationship with us in giving us freedom to make choices in our lives.

**GC**

[Marsha Lynn]

GE 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."


If God had everything planned from the start and knew exactly what was going to happen, why did he do something that he knew he would later regret?

EX 32:9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

EX 32:11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, `It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: `I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

God is portrayed as changing his mind twice in this passage. He decided to forget his relationship with the Israelites, except for Moses and his family. Then, in response to Moses' prayer, he decided to keep on putting up with that unruly crowd.

Either these passages misrepresent the character of God or every happening on earth was not cast in stone from the day of creation as many teach, but is being worked out "on the fly", and our prayers make a difference.

Marsha

[Grandma Carolyn]

Thank you, Marsha.

**GC**

[Michael R. Gentry]

Isn't it great to know that God never changes!!! He will always be a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness ... an so many other wonderful qualities.

However, isn't it also great to know that God does on occasion change His mind? :)



Hmmmm, does that show feminine qualities of God? :D
God is a great God, isn't she?


I know, I'll get in trouble with the ladies; but I enjoy living on the edge! hehehe.

[Gina Stevenson]

... you've ever lived, eh ... other than ...

"ON the EDGE !?"

:D

[Michael R. Gentry]

Of course not!:p

[Hans Deventer]

Carolyn,

First, it has to do with how we read Scripture. John Sanders wrote that there
can be no "humanly speaking" about God. For that would mean we have some
higher revelation than the Scriptures by which we can determine this. But we
have none! All we have are the Scrptures themselves. So there is no
"anthropomorphism".

Second, we have to decide whether to take our view of God from pagan ideas
(Plato, Aristotle etc) or from the Scriptures. Is God as the most perfect
being therefore unable of change, simply because Plato thought so? Because he
thought that any change from perfection must be a change for the worst?

If you got these answered, we can go about reading the Scriptures.


GE 18:22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
GE 18:26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of
Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
GE 18:27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the
number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole
city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
GE 18:29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
GE 18:30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
GE 18:31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the
Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
GE 18:32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just
once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
GE 18:33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and
Abraham returned home.

GE 22:9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
GE 22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to
him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

EX 32:9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
EX 32:11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he
said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, `It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: `I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance
forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the
disaster he had threatened.

1SA 15:34 Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in
Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again,
though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2KI 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death.
The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD
says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not
recover."
2KI 20:2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3
"Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with
wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
2KI 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD
came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, `This is
what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer
and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up
to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will
deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend
this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

JER 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I
not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the
hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time
I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and
destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will
relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another
time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the
good I had intended to do for it.

JNH 3:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."
JNH 3:3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." 5 The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.
JNH 3:6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his
throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down
in the dust. 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
"By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let
them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let
everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their
violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish."
JNH 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil
ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had
threatened.

We see that God reacts to people and what they do. Sometimes in a positive
way, sometimes in a negative way. He changes His plans to destroy Israel
because of Moses' plea. He regrets having chosen Saul because of his
disobedience. In Jeremiah, He explains the principle. And again in Jonah, the
principle is applied.

[Grandma Carolyn]

Thanks Hans, I appreciate your taking time to share these scriptures.


**GC**

[Billy Cox]

...from two primary groups:

Calvinists - They have pitched their tent and built their village on the absolute sovereignty and omniscience of God. They will defend those ideas to the death. God regretting creation (Noah story)? hogwash...he knew all along what would happen and his so-called sadness is just a literary device. (their argument, not mine)

Nazarene Calvinists - See item above. They're more troublesome since they wouldn't know the difference between Calvinism and a bowl of noodles.

[Bruce Carriker]

I would recommend Most Moved Mover (Clark Pinnock, Paternoster Press) to anyone who is interested in open theism.

Pinnock has been declared by R.C. Sproul to be a heretic. Sproul goes so far as to say that he could not have fellowship with Pinnock. Hey! Anybody that Sproul feels that way about can't be all wrong, huh? This link should take you to a Pinnock interview.

http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/Pinnock.asp

[Doug Kitchen]

I would recommend Most Moved Mover (Clark Pinnock, Paternoster Press) to anyone who is interested in open theism.

Pinnock has been declared by R.C. Sproul to be a heretic. Sproul goes so far as to say that he could not have fellowship with Pinnock. Hey! Anybody that Sproul feels that way about can't be all wrong, huh? This link should take you to a Pinnock interview.

http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/Pinnock.asp


I noticed a couple of interesting things in that interview -

Wesleyan-Arminian's apparently are not evangelicals??
And if ETS thinks Pinnock is heretical, what do they think of Wesleyan-Arminians?

Doug

[Bruce Carriker]

I don't see anywhere that the interview suggests that Wesleyan-Arminians aren't evangelicals. In fact, Randy Maddox, a Wesleyan-Arminian, is mentioned as an example of a "non-ETS" evangelical.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that when Pinnock says ETS is "a peculiar group of very conservative evangelicals", that's interview-speak for "hardcore, 5-point Calvinists". Don't know that for a fact, but that's what I'm guessiing. If I'm correct, then the answer to your second question is simply, "They think we're heretics."

[Hans Deventer]

I would recommend Most Moved Mover (Clark Pinnock, Paternoster Press) to anyone who is interested in open theism.

It's a good book, but more an update on the discussion, answering objections, than a thorough exposition of the view. So it kind of depends on what you're looking for.

[Doug Kitchen]

I don't see anywhere that the interview suggests that Wesleyan-Arminians aren't evangelicals. In fact, Randy Maddox, a Wesleyan-Arminian, is mentioned as an example of a "non-ETS" evangelical.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that when Pinnock says ETS is "a peculiar group of very conservative evangelicals", that's interview-speak for "hardcore, 5-point Calvinists". Don't know that for a fact, but that's what I'm guessiing. If I'm correct, then the answer to your second question is simply, "They think we're heretics."

Thanks for the clarification - I couldn't read the whole article in detail but now I skimmed more of it. I still feel like an outsider in the whole q/a. W-A's are mentioned throughout, yet Pinnock talks like open theism is "new".

Now I know why some of my presbyterian friends have so many bonfires in their church yards - I'll have to watch my back. ;)

Doug

[Bruce Carriker]

Any time your Presbyterian friends start building fires, that's your cue to excuse yourself.

[Ian Gentles]

Open theism I will never accept.
OK there are verses that seem to support it, and verses that dont!
I certainly done beleive in a fatalistic form of Hiper-Calvanism, nor do I accept that evangelical calvanists are fatalistic!
God gives us some control, this was His plan in Genesis. We are responsible beings, hence comming judment.
But our freedom exists under the umbarello of God's complete sovreignty..He is God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

[Bruce Carriker]

Ian,
If I understand your response, you believe that open theism somehow negates or minimizes God's sovreignty. How does open theism deny that God is, in your words, "...God, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords!"?

[Ian Gentles]

I would say, without writing over much, that God is not God if He dosent know all things, past present and future.

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a view of God that is quite so Calvinistic. The logical conclusion to your statement is that everything is predetermined, free will really isn't - it only appears to be, and prayer makes no difference, it's merely a cathartic exercise for our own benefit.

[Ian Gentles]

We always seem to jump a mile at the "Calvanistic" word. Remember John Wesley was ordained into a reformed church of England, and Thirty-Nine articles he would have agreed too were calvanistic. Also Arminius saw himeself as a Calvanist, though modifying its teaching as pertained to his denomination at that time. Also, Calvin himself wasnt responsible for calvanistic doctrine as we have it today.
Does pray change things?...maybe not enough! But we need to look at lack of answers to prayer under another thread.
What I dont hold to is, I can change God's mind over all. I cant, but can intercede before His Sovreign throne! Maybe in His Sovreignty are allowed different options? eg I pray rightly and with a pure heart I receive, and dont and I dont receive!? Here lies as I have said a whole other discussion. I beleive God stirs up His people to prayer according to His will. Without the Holy Spirit truely prompting us, we go through the motions.
Open Theism seem to much like man making God's agendas, where He is in controll of all things, including our motivation. If He pours out His Holy Spirit upon me I'm definate my praying will become more fruitfull.

[Hans Deventer]

We always seem to jump a mile at the "Calvanistic" word. Remember John Wesley was ordained into a reformed church of England, and Thirty-Nine articles he would have agreed too were calvanistic.

Not as far as I know. The Church of England never became a true Calvinistic church, despite attempts in that direction.

Also Arminius saw himeself as a Calvinist,

True. He studied under Beza.


Also, Calvin himself wasnt responsible for calvanistic doctrine as we have it today.
Also true. Though he did lay the foundation of it and he is to blame for large parts of it.
First of all, the judicial approach. Let's face it, who would want a lawyer to define your theology?
Second, by putting God's sovereignty above all, which is simply unbiblical. (for all clarity, not the sovereignity, but the putting it above anything else)

What I dont hold to is, I can change God's mind over all.

I do. The Bible says that at least both Moses and Hizkiah did so, and they were mere man. To me it is no longer a point of discusion that God indeed allows people to make Him change His mind. But, mind you, the answer could also have been "no"! Because God decides, and not us. Therefore, we can never ever make Him follow our agenda. That is impossible. We can only use the room He grants us. But the decision was, is and always will be solely up to Him.

[Bruce Carriker]

Thanks, Hans. If I were to add anything more at this point, it would simply be a rehash of what you just said.

[Grandma Carolyn]

Thanks, Hans. If I were to add anything more at this point, it would simply be a rehash of what you just said.

It is logical to me that there are often many choices that we can choose to take and each choice we take will have different outcomes or different consequences.

For example for every action there is a reaction.

Now, I can believe that God knows all the possibilities or consequences to a road or action that we choose to take. If we are not given choices, what is free will?

If I am understanding this correctly it is in the results of the choices or our decision in making a choice that God walks with us through the road that we have chosen to walk.

Isn't this where we can seek God's guidance (as He has promised us) to help and to guide us to make our choices. There may a best choice for me to make, but if I miss it, than with God's help and guidance I can make it through a less best choice.

The way that I understand Open Theism and our relationship with God is that it helps me to visualize His helping others in their lives when I interceed for them.

I am thinking about my teenage granddaughters or other loved ones whom I see making choices that concern me for their lives and their walk with Him. As I interceed for them, no matter what they have chosen, I can still pray for them and believe that God in His prevenient grace is there to help them with their lives and their relationship with Him.

Knowing what I know about my relationship, my experiences with my walk with the Lord and His faithfulness to me down through my life, I believe that a life in walking with the Lord is the best place to be in this world.

Open Theism just helps put my concepts of God in a way, that I can comprehend Him and His relationship with us into perspective, that really means we can have a personal relationship with Him that truly is a personal relationship.

Still learning.

**GC**

[Bruce Carriker]

Carolyn,
What you expressed comes very close to how I understand Open Theism, and you said it much better than I might have.

[Barbara Moulton]

Open Theism just helps put my concepts of God in a way, that I can comprehend Him and His relationship with us into perspective, that really means we can have a personal relationship with Him that truly is a personal relationship.**GC**

EXACTLY!!!!

That's why I embraced it so fully. My daily walk, everthing I choose to do has taken on a great signfigance. Because I am working with God to create the future.

How much more personal can you get than creating something with someone else?

Blessings!

Barbara

[Ian Gentles]

I remember my old college principal saying, "There will be heretics in Heaven, after all you folks hope to be there!" LOL :fav18

[Ian Gentles]

Scott, has the church a position on open theism?
No I am not desireing it be outlawed, or accepted as general doctrine, or am I seeking to open a can of worms! I just wondered if there was an official position of any sort?

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, has the church a position on open theism?
No I am not desireing it be outlawed, or accepted as general doctrine, or am I seeking to open a can of worms! I just wondered if there was an official position of any sort?

Praise God, we DON'T have an official position on Open Theism, unlike for instance the Southern Baptists.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

No official position that I know of. However, I think it is a reasonable result of believing God gives people free will.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic, Drury's column on "binding and loosing"?

Scott, has the church a position on open theism?
No I am not desireing it be outlawed, or accepted as general doctrine, or am I seeking to open a can of worms! I just wondered if there was an official position of any sort?

[Ian Gentles]

No official position that I know of. However, I think it is a reasonable result of believing God gives people free will.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic, Drury's column on "binding and loosing"?

I think it is very balanced and did enjoy it Scott. I was hopeing for more thoughtfull posts on that thread.:fav18

[Pete Vecchi]

Do you know what I need before I can get into this discussion? I need a good, working definition of "Open Theism."

[Hans Deventer]

Do you know what I need before I can get into this discussion? I need a good, working definition of "Open Theism."

Pete, perhaps this article from www.opentheism.info might help

summary of openness theology

According to openness theology, the triune God of love has, in almighty power, created all that is and is sovereign over all. In freedom God decided to create beings capable of experiencing his love. In creating us the divine intention was that we would come to experience the triune love and respond to it with love of our own and freely come to collaborate with God towards the achievement of his goals. We believe love is the primary characteristic of God because the triune Godhead has eternally loved even prior to any creation. Divine holiness and justice are aspects of the divine love towards creatures, expressions of God's loving concern for us. Love takes many forms-it can even be experienced as wrath when the lover sees the beloved destroying herself and others.

Second, God has, in sovereign freedom, decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions. God elicits our free collaboration in his plans. Hence, God can be influenced by what we do and God truly responds to what we do. God genuinely interacts and enters into dynamic give-and-take relationships with us. That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time. God, at least since creation, experiences duration.[1] God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal.

Third, the only wise God has chosen to exercise general rather than meticulous providence, allowing space for us to operate and for God to be creative and resourceful in working with us. It was solely God's decision not to control every detail that happens in our lives. Moreover, God has flexible strategies. Though the divine nature does not change, God reacts to contingencies, even adjusting his plans, if necessary, to take into account the decisions of his free creatures. God is endlessly resourceful and wise in working towards the fulfillment of his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. Usually, however, God elicits human cooperation such that it is both God and humanity who decide what the future shall be. God's plan is not a detailed script or blueprint, but a broad intention that allows for a variety of options regarding precisely how these goals may be reached. What God and people do in history matters. If the Hebrew midwives had feared Pharaoh rather than God and killed the baby boys, then God would have responded accordingly and a different story would have emerged. What people do and whether they come to trust God makes a difference concerning what God does-God does not fake the story of human history.

Fourth, God has granted us the type of freedom (libertarian) necessary for a truly personal relationship of love to develop. Again, this was God's decision, not ours. Despite the fact that we have abused our freedom by turning away from the divine love, God remains faithful to his intentions for creation and this faithful love was manifested most fully in the life and work of Jesus.

Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created. The content of divine omniscience has been debated in the Christian tradition; between Thomism and Molinism for example. In the openness debate the focus is on the nature of the future: is it fully knowable, fully unknowable or partially knowable and partially unknowable? We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the "future" is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.

This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do.

Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal and the view of foreknowledge receives the most attention. However, the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
- Dr. John Sanders

[Pete Vecchi]

Thanks for the info, Hans

[BobHunt]

about the thread about Holiness or Sanctification. I was listening to Moody today, and as they were talking, the question suddenly popped up in my mind, "Who says that a person couldnt come to the Lord, and meet ALL the conditions for him to be sanctified and saved at once?" I know this goes along with another churchs doctrine. And, can it also be that some have found this grace, and are enjoying it, but dont know what to call it?
Are there going to be other people in Heaven besides Nazarenes?or Wesleyans? I am seeing more and more that a denominational name is just a handle, that may mean something to us, but what means something to God is a relationship! And who am I to judge if someone will make it or not?
I am thinking about all the people like John Knox a Calvinist, yet the queen feared his prayers more than the armies of England. I think he might make it to Heaven, what do you say? I think of John Calvin, he definitely knew more about the Lord than I do. And how about so many others who werent Wesleyan-Armenian? Can we say, that because they didnt hit an altar twice, that their doctrine was wrong and they were a heretic?
Where do you draw the line? Only God knows.

[Barb Bouldrey]

The key is the relationship. You are correct. No matter what denomination.
I have known many sanctified, holiness Baptist,Cahtolic, Christian Church and pentacostal pastors and friends(and other denominations, too) in my life. None of them talk about "two trips" but talk about Jesus as Lord of their lives. And, they live it.

One of our Baptist pastor friends came to visit with John and was so thrilled because his already-saved son came home from teen camp professing that he made Jesus "Lord of his life" at camp. Hey, this Baptist boy got sanctified!

Just this last Sunday, my husband who is 100% supportive of Nazarene doctrine said, "Can you get both saved and sanctified in the same prayer time? YES! But it is still two works. First, I get God. Then God gets me."

We have no right to judge anyone inside or outside of our denomination. That is God's job.

But we do have a right to stand up and proclaim what we believe as biblical truth. We also should be able to see evidence of sanctification in the lives of those who live it...whether they are Nazarene or not.

When we were kids, almost all Nazarene preachers preached "two trips"...two times of conviction followed by going to the altar. You do not hear it preached that way...as an absolute...most places today.

I believe Mother Theresa lived a holy, sanctified life. I believe Corrie Ten Boom lived a sanctified life. I believe Billy Graham is a wonderful holy man. I imagine John Calvin, Dwight Moody and others were sanctified, too.

We have to look beyond the name of the church. Matter of fact, we need to be MORE concerned about the lack of holy living within the doors of the church.

Barb

[Barbara Moulton]

When we were kids, almost all Nazarene preachers preached "two trips"...two times of conviction followed by going to the altar. You do not hear it preached that way...as an absolute...most places today.


I have come to know many wonderful Christian people who could not point to even "one trip" let alone two.

I have a good Presbyterian friend who is one of my volunteer chaplains. The spirit of Christ and His compassion flow from this woman and she has blessed me many many times with her life. Is she saved? Most definitely? Is she sanctified? Well the fruit of the spirit that she exhibits gives evidence to me that she is.

But she would use neither of these two terms in describing her spiritual walk. And she has never "been to the altar".

[BobHunt]

that I heard on Moody today is this (and I dont know if this was covered on the last thread we had) but somewhere in the scriptures God said "I am God and I change not" means that He is not learning anything new therefore, (which I assume they meant He already knows all, therefore nothing is new to Him).
The part of this explaination that was so humbling yet a blessing to me was, that if He does not change, then that He is the very same God that called The Apostle Paul to preach is the very same God who called me and you to preach! The very same God who called the 12 is the very same God who calls us to spread the Good News! And the very same God who gave Paul the grace to stand even with the thorn in his side will give us the grace to face whatever we have to!
Im sorry, I just realized I posted this on the wrong board.

[Barbara Moulton]

that I heard on Moody today is this (and I dont know if this was covered on the last thread we had) but somewhere in the scriptures God said "I am God and I change not" means that He is not learning anything new therefore, (which I assume they meant He already knows all, therefore nothing is new to Him).
The part of this explaination that was so humbling yet a blessing to me was, that if He does not change, then that He is the very same God that called The Apostle Paul to preach is the very same God who called me and you to preach! The very same God who called the 12 is the very same God who calls us to spread the Good News! And the very same God who gave Paul the grace to stand even with the thorn in his side will give us the grace to face whatever we have to!
Im sorry, I just realized I posted this on the wrong board.

Micah 3:6-7.

6"I am GOD-yes, I AM. I haven't changed. And because I haven't changed, you, the descendants of Jacob, haven't been destroyed. 7You have a long history of ignoring my commands. You haven't done a thing I've told you. Return to me so I can return to you," says GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies.

What is interesting is that the verse after he says He hasn't changed, He seems to plead with His people to return to Him so that He can return to them. In other words, what He will do is conditional on what the people will do...which is part of Open Theism.

Of course, translations differ. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of Hebrew could tell if God says He doesn't change or that He hasn't changed.

Having said that, I believe that the nature of God does not change, even if His plans do.

[Bruce Carriker]

How did we get here again? :)

[Grandma Carolyn]

...from two primary groups:

Calvinists - They have pitched their tent and built their village on the absolute sovereignty and omniscience of God. They will defend those ideas to the death. God regretting creation (Noah story)? hogwash...he knew all along what would happen and his so-called sadness is just a literary device. (their argument, not mine)

Nazarene Calvinists - See item above. They're more troublesome since they wouldn't know the difference between Calvinism and a bowl of noodles.

I've been re-reading the replies in this thread and Billy Cox your reply is very funny. It made me LOL! :) I'm glad you are a NazNetter. You've been a great one for many years now.
gc :)

[Billy Cox]

Thanks. Sometimes I surprise even myself.

[Randy Wise]

If God had everything planned from the start and knew exactly what was going to happen, why did he do something that he knew he would later regret?


Marsha

We don't know how much God knows would be the only true answer. But if God knew the outcome of man from the beginning as in rev 21 that might have justified the pain in God's mind in getting to that outcome. Just a thought

Randy

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It does not necessarily, always, mean two trips to the altar. Sometimes it is a process in your spirtual life that eventually involves being totally surrended to the Holy Spirit ruling and reigning in your life. But, It does not happen over night. When it does happen, you know that you have had a great spiritual experience, but you may not know that there are those that have a term for what happens to a person at this time.
But, my husband says that if we turn from God, and later come back to him, we have to come all the way back to the experience we had before we turned from God. We know those steps already, and we know what has to be done, for us to be what we know we have to be to be where God is satisfied with out recommittment to Him. Does that make any sense to any of you.

[Ryan Scott]

As someone who has repeatedly been told that his theology was in fact open theology, I recently decided to take a closer look at it. I was given the following general statements:

1. God’s primary characteristic is love.
2. Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does.
3. Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation.
4. God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others.
5. Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships.
6. God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging.
7. God created all nondivine things.
8. God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling.
9. Creatures are called to act in loving ways that please God and make the world a better place.
10. The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God.
11. God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions.
12. Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time.


Frankly, I don't like to think of my theology as any "kind" at all, but I can't say I can argue with those points above. I don't like the wording of #10 and I certainly don't like the way Pinnock explains what he believes. So I'm not sure where I stand. I think the basic principles above are good points for discussion and can provide worthwhile checks to some of the leaning that current popular theology has taken on, but I'm not sure they have to be set in stone anywhere.

I view my theology as Wesleyan. I come from a Wesleyan background and found my theology on my best effort to synthesize Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. That's about all I can ask of anyone else.

[Hans Deventer]

For people who are interested in the subject, the 2003 volumes of the Wesleyan Theological Journal are now online and in the Fall 2003 John Sanders has an article on "“Open Theism”: A Radical Revision Or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?" See http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/36-40/WTJ%2038-2-c.pdf page 69-102

It is quite a scholarly article but certainly a thorough discussion on the various positions regarding

EDF—exhaustive definite foreknowledge
PK—present knowledge
SF—simple foreknowledge
CSF—complete simple foreknowledge
ISF—incremental simple foreknowledge

It also compares classical theism and freewill theism. These comparisons are interesting as well:

Classical Theism:

A. God is timeless (no before or after for God, only an eternal present).
B. Pure act: God has no potentiality for change in any respect.
C. Simple: God is not composed of parts for then God would be dependent
upon them. We must think of each of the divine attributes in an
identical way.
D. Immutable: God does not change in any respect including thoughts,
will, or emotions. The divine plan is unchanging.
E. Impassible: God cannot be affected by creatures. God never responds
or reacts to what we do. Our prayers never affect God, rather God
uses our prayers to effect what he desires to bring about through our
prayers. There are no reciprocal (give-and-take) relations between
God and creatures for, as pure act, God cannot receive anything from
creatures. God is closed to us.
F. Specific sovereignty: Only what God specifically ordains to occur
actually happens. Nothing happens unless it has been specifically
ordained by God to happen as part of his meticulous plan. Proponents
of this view typically affirm “compatibilistic” freedom for humans in
which you are free so long as you act on your desires, but your
desires are determined.
G. God has a meticulous blueprint for everything that happens in history.
H. God exercises meticulous providence so that the divine will cannot
fail or be thwarted in any detail. God never takes risks. In soteriology
this leads to the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible
grace.
I. God is omniscient (knows all that is knowable).
J. God has exhaustive and definite foreknowledge (EDF). God knows
the future because God actively determines what the future will be,
not because God passively previsions the future.

Freewill Theism

A. God is eternal (either God is atemporal or temporally everlasting).
B. Rejects pure actuality because God does receive our prayers and
worship.
C. Rejects divine simplicity.
D. Immutable: the character of God does not change, but God can have
changing plans, thoughts and emotions.
E. Rejects divine impassibility. God can be affected by creatures. God
responds or reacts to what we do. This is especially seen in the doctrine
of conditional election. Moreover, our prayers may affect God.
F. General sovereignty. God ordains the structures of creation (our
boundaries) and allows for human freewill (libertarian freedom).
Sometimes God acts to ensure that specific things happen and may
override human freedom, if necessary, to carry this out.
G. God does not have a meticulous blueprint for everything that
happens.
H. God does not exercise meticulous providence. The divine will can be
thwarted for some things so God takes risks.
I. God is omniscient (knows all that is knowable).
J. Freewill theists disagree about whether God has exhaustive, definite
foreknowledge. That is, they differ as to what is knowable (e.g., are
counterfactuals of freedom knowable? Does the future exist and, if
so, is it knowable?). Yet, even those freewill theists who claim that
God has exhaustive, definite foreknowledge disagree with classical
theists as to how God has such knowledge. Freewill theists reject the
notion that God knows it because he determines it.

Recommended reading!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

God's nature is Love, but it still has times that He is a God of judgement.
It seems to me that He sometimes allows things to come our way, to try to get through to us, and "beg" us, so to speak, to come back to Him, so He can be our God--or come to Him, so He can be our God of love and mercy.
He can also be an angry God, that is angry over the way, some disregard the price His son paid for our salvation. My thoughts.

[Barbara Moulton]

I think the basic principles above are good points for discussion and can provide worthwhile checks to some of the leaning that current popular theology has taken on, but I'm not sure they have to be set in stone anywhere.

LOL! The very nature of open theism would imply that no...they don't have to be set in stone.

I think that everyone who has embraced the idea of God's openess would state their beliefs in a slightly different way.

:)

[Ian Gentles]

about the thread about Holiness or Sanctification. I was listening to Moody today, and as they were talking, the question suddenly popped up in my mind, "Who says that a person couldnt come to the Lord, and meet ALL the conditions for him to be sanctified and saved at once?" I know this goes along with another churchs doctrine. And, can it also be that some have found this grace, and are enjoying it, but dont know what to call it?
Are there going to be other people in Heaven besides Nazarenes?or Wesleyans? I am seeing more and more that a denominational name is just a handle, that may mean something to us, but what means something to God is a relationship! And who am I to judge if someone will make it or not?
I am thinking about all the people like John Knox a Calvinist, yet the queen feared his prayers more than the armies of England. I think he might make it to Heaven, what do you say? I think of John Calvin, he definitely knew more about the Lord than I do. And how about so many others who werent Wesleyan-Armenian? Can we say, that because they didnt hit an altar twice, that their doctrine was wrong and they were a heretic?
Where do you draw the line? Only God knows.

John Knox definatly made it to Heaves, as did Calvin, we can learn a lot from them.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Roy Richardson]

It's a good book, but more an update on the discussion, answering objections, than a thorough exposition of the view. So it kind of depends on what you're looking for.

"God of the Possible (http://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0354920-7763874?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194458959&sr=8-1)" is one I had to read in seminary earlier this year. Powerful treatise on the topic.

[Dennis Bratcher]

What is interesting is that the verse after he says He hasn't changed, He seems to plead with His people to return to Him so that He can return to them. In other words, what He will do is conditional on what the people will do...which is part of Open Theism.

Of course, translations differ. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of Hebrew could tell if God says He doesn't change or that He hasn't changed.

Having said that, I believe that the nature of God does not change, even if His plans do.

This is one of the most common mistakes in interpreting Scripture, taking an idea from one language and culture (ancient Hebrew) and assuming a meaning from another language and culture (modern English). The assumed meaning in applying this verse to the immutability of God is that the term “change” implies some ontological or absolute character trait or describes what used to be called an “attribute” of God. That assumes a background in Greek philosophy, which indeed in the basis for many concepts in English through Latin derived from Greek.

However, the word in Hebrew (shanah) does not have that background or meaning. The word used in Hebrew here implies a much more temporal kind of changing. It is used for changing clothes (Jer 52:33) or changing expressions or visage (Eccl 8:1). A form of this word is the word for “seasons” and another is the term for “year” (it is the shanah part of Rosh Hashanah, “beginning of the year,” Jewish New Year.

In this context, Malachi in all four chapters is addressing the faithlessness of the people in the imagery of covenant, in which God has committed to this people as their God and called them to be His people. Chapter 3 begins with a covenant statement and concludes talking about the difference between those who serve God and those who do not.

In this context, “I do not change” using this Hebrew term is not an ontological statement about the attributes of God as defined by Greek philosophy, nor does it relate to what God does or does not know, nor does it imply that God never changes his mind in response to human decision.

Rather, it is a statement of the faithfulness of God to his covenant. Even though the people have failed in that covenant relationship from the beginning and continually, God has remained committed to this people in spite of themselves. God does not arbitrarily change in his dealing with His people like one changes clothes. He does not even change like the seasons, blowing hot one time and cold another. There is a stability to God’s dealing with his people even though they have been fickle and inconsistent from the beginning. Mal 3:6-7 is a statement about the faithfulness of God’s grace not about whether or not he changes on some absolute level.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Bob Carabbio]

Don't personally know of any which don't depend primarily on STARTING OUT with a Preteristic mindset, and trying to find verses that COULD support it - if it really existed.

All the the supposed "proofs" fit just as nicely into the more common "omnicience" mindset, and appear to be only a futile effort to define an undefinable - how CAN God have "Sovereignty" - a purpose and a plan, and at the same time not violate our "free will"?

Kind of like the doctrines of the "Trinity" utterly fail to provide any real understanding of the ACTUAL composition of God Himself.

Personally Since there are MANY "mysteries" in the Word, I don't mind one more, y'all.

[Dennis Bratcher]

how CAN God have "Sovereignty" - a purpose and a plan, and at the same time not violate our "free will"?

Actually, there is a significant difference between “purpose” and “plan,” at least in how we conceptualize those ideas in English.

The concept of “plan” immediately evokes something like building plans, a blueprint, or even a marked route on a roadmap, in which everything is already drawn out and fixed. What follows is the building of what is already planned, or driving the course that has already been plotted. It is simply the outworking of what has already been decided beforehand.

The concept of “purpose,” on the other hand, has to do with intention, objective, or goal. It says nothing about whether or not the goal will be achieved nor does it suggest anything about the route to the goal. This seems to be mostly what the Bible is talking about when it refers to the “will” of God. It is not that the will of God is a plan, but that it is a purpose.

Our well known holiness verse, 1 Thess 4:13, (although traditionally misused) reflects this:

4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4:4 that each one of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor . . .

It is not that God has planned that this will be so (and therefore it will be so), but that he purposes or intends for it to be so, which requires faithfulness and response from people for it to be accomplished. There are many other examples in Scripture.

This suggests that talking about a “plan” of God is misleading; it is probably better to talk about the purposes of God. This may seem like a small matter, but it has tremendous implications, for example, in talking to people about decision making in life. It is one thing to try to find the single plan of God for one’s life (like who God has chosen for a person to marry!). It is quite another to live toward the purposes of God for one’s life, while knowing that they are various ways to achieve that goal. That places a different emphasis on decision making, and yet brings a lot of spiritual freedom, especially for young people.

(A really good book on this, actually written two conservative Southern Baptists, is Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View, by Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Barbara Moulton]

This suggests that talking about a “plan” of God is misleading; it is probably better to talk about the purposes of God. This may seem like a small matter, but it has tremendous implications, for example, in talking to people about decision making in life. It is one thing to try to find the single plan of God for one’s life (like who God has chosen for a person to marry!). It is quite another to live toward the purposes of God for one’s life, while knowing that they are various ways to achieve that goal. That places a different emphasis on decision making, and yet brings a lot of spiritual freedom, especially for young people.



Dennis, in the light of this, could you comment on the question I raised in my post on October 27. Short version of that question is:

If my mom had married someone else, then the me that is me physically would never have existed.

But what about my soul...my spirit..the part of me that will live forever?

Does it only exist because of the choice my mom made, to marry my dad?

[Ian Gentles]

I would definatly say yes Barbara...you were predestined ;)

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis, in the light of this, could you comment on the question I raised in my post on October 27. Short version of that question is:

If my mom had married someone else, then the me that is me physically would never have existed.

But what about my soul...my spirit..the part of me that will live forever?

Does it only exist because of the choice my mom made, to marry my dad?

First, we have to admit that this is speculation, working out the logical implications far beyond anything addressed in Scripture. And we also have to admit that we have a lot more information with which to undertake those speculations than did biblical writers or even the early Church.

There are two pieces to this. In Jewish mysticism, there is the concept of the Guf, or “treasury of souls.” The idea is that all souls that would ever exist were created at Creation and stored until they would be needed to put into a body. Of course this is a very dualist way of conceptualizing humans. The Church at times flirted with this concept, but eventually rejected it while struggling with how to express the concept. Some held that the soul, the immaterial part of humanity, was a product of human generation passed genetically (called traducianism). However, the majority view came to be that souls were created at the time they were placed within a body (the abortion debates were not yet on the horizon, so they did not distinguish between conception and birth).

All of this deals with the soul in substantial categories, treating it as a “thing” although immaterial. It was only later with the advent of rationalism and empiricism that the Church began to talk about the soul in more psychological categories rather than in terms of “substance.” Today, most reject dualistic conceptions of humans and see the “soul” as that aspect of humans that are capable of relationship with God. For many, “soul” is a linguistic construct to describe a feature of human beings that is not a substance but is rather a capacity that human beings have (there is still a lot of debate about the precise nature of what we call “soul”).

If true, this suggests that our “soul” is directly related to who we are as a human being. Few today, including Roman Catholics, would posit a “soul” existing apart from a specific physical human being. It is a way to describe human beings as different from animals and capable of relationship with God.

The second piece is what we know of genetics and biology today. We know that physically human beings are a product of two sets of chromosomes, and that much of what a human being is physically is related to DNA (although there is a growing body of research that tells us that external physical factors like diet or even stress or trauma can turn on or off certain sequences of DNA and that these changes are passed on genetically).

That means on a biological level that every person is the “accident” (in the sense of “random result”) of the combination of chromosomes. So any particular person is the unique product of a certain set of chromosomes combined in a specific way, depending on which genes on the DNA strand are turned off or on.

So, biologically, if your mother and father had not gotten together, you would not exist. You exist because of that particular combination of genetic material (it is important, as I noted in another thread, to deal with the world as it is and interpret backward, and not assume that how things are is the only way it could have been, which assumes a certain determinism working from the past forward).

That then suggests that if our “soul” is a function of who we are as a human being, then if we do not exist, there is no soul remaining that needs to find a home somewhere. The reason we “live forever” is because of God and his gift of eternal life, not because of some inherent quality of us that we call “soul.”

A semi-short answer for a very complicated topic. Does this help any?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Barbara Moulton]

That then suggests that if our “soul” is a function of who we are as a human being, then if we do not exist, there is no soul remaining that needs to find a home somewhere. The reason we “live forever” is because of God and his gift of eternal life, not because of some inherent quality of us that we call “soul.”

A semi-short answer for a very complicated topic. Does this help any?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

Yes...it helps.

There is this idea that I have often heard expressed that Christ, while hanging on the cross, looked down through the ages and saw all the souls for whom He was dying. That He saw me. Yet we all only existed in potential. He really didn't see me.

God knew me once I was in my mother's womb. Before that time He only knew the potential of me.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Concerning the soul-This is something that I have thought of often. Not that I have scripture to support my thoughts. When God created us, He breathed His breath into us, and we became a living soul. If we, as a Christian dies, we will be raised with eternal life, and will continue to live with Him thoughout eternity.
If, we reject Him, we will totally be separated from Him, for eternity. My thought is, that we will no longer have His breath in us, that makes us, completely, alive, and something of Him, breathed into us. We will then exist, eternally, separated from God, but still have our senses of touch, etc. Am I totally, crazy? But, this is something I have "cooked up", in my mind over the years.
Also, I have wondered what color the fire will be in hell, since I think of helll as having fire. Could it be a color, that causes darkness? This may be an element of hell, that we cannot compare with our human thoughts.
And, in hell, will we know as we are known? This need to be on another forum, I think.

[Ian Gentles]

I would say Barabara, that God knew us before time began.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Scott Hilton]

Hell gets thrown into the lake of fire, according to scripture......

[Barbara Moulton]

I would say Barabara, that God knew us before time began.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com


That's the common perception. But if I accept that, doesn't that mean that my mom really only had the illusion of choice when she married my dad?

If God already knew that I would be then that means He knew with certainty that not only my mom and dad would marry but all of my ancestors would marry.

[Douglas Carlson]

There's also that quote that feminists love - - "I am not a man that I should lie." (God)
I do react a bit edgy when people say "She". I know very well that God transcends gender.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Yes...it helps.

There is this idea that I have often heard expressed that Christ, while hanging on the cross, looked down through the ages and saw all the souls for whom He was dying. That He saw me. Yet we all only existed in potential. He really didn't see me.

God knew me once I was in my mother's womb. Before that time He only knew the potential of me.

Yes.

Unfortunately, our tradition has been plagued by a lot of sappy sentimentalism that often borders on heresy passed off as sound theology. No wonder so many today struggle with talking about God and believing in grace.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ian Gentles]

Yep, guess so

[Alex Bowman]

But if I accept that, doesn't that mean that my mom really only had the illusion of choice when she married my dad?


I would say that is a common conception. If a person believes that God exist out of time, meaning He is eternal and not constrained by time, then God knowing the future and making it happen, predestination, is not the same thing. Think about it like this, if you are going to have a muffin for breakfast tomorrow then you are going to have a muffin. The only way to not have a muffin is to choose something else or nothing at all. If God saw at the beginning of time that your mom was going to marry your dad, the only reason He say that was because the decisions of all involved led up to that point. Your mom could have decided to not marry your dad at the last moment but God would have see that because that was what she was going to choose.

This is only true if God is outside of time's control.

[Douglas Carlson]

I've heard (and participated in) struggles over God's perfect vs. permissive will. I do believe time has meaning to us but not to God (1000 yrs is as a day etc). Using 4000 BC as a creation date, we're just starting the 7th(read Sabbath) millenium. I think we can make ourselves neurotic with the possibilities. I just finished teaching 2nd Timothy. Chapter 3 makes the point - Keep reminding them not to get into quarrels, and by the way, don't you do it either. I don't think God cares whether I have a bran or a corn muffin. Maybe I'll have an english muffin but not tell Him.

[Hans Deventer]

I've heard (and participated in) struggles over God's perfect vs. permissive will. I do believe time has meaning to us but not to God (1000 yrs is as a day etc).

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3)

So what does the statement mean? It means that God is patient. It would be quite stretch to conclude from this verse that Peter was talking about God being "above time".

And, btw, if God will wait for "everyone to come to repentance" He will NEVER keep his promise, for there will always be people on earth who still need to "come to repentance".

The best thing to say from this verse is indeed that God is patient. Anything else runs into big problems.

[Ian Gentles]

Would be nice to get God to change things in our lives, but thats a matter of prayer, being answered or not.

[Barbara Moulton]

Would be nice to get God to change things in our lives, but thats a matter of prayer, being answered or not.


God has rarely (if ever) directly changed anything in my life. But He does change me in response to my prayers and then I can change things.

[Hans Deventer]

God has rarely (if ever) directly changed anything in my life. But He does change me in response to my prayers and then I can change things.

So, understanding we are to "Be merciful, just as our Father is merciful", we are not change anything in people's lives but instead try to change them, in order for them to change things for themselves?

How would that relate to illness?

[Barbara Moulton]

So, understanding we are to "Be merciful, just as our Father is merciful", we are not change anything in people's lives but instead try to change them, in order for them to change things for themselves?

I am not sure how you got this out of what I said.

I was talking about my personal relationship with God. That when I pray about something, I rarely find that God answers by intervening directly. Rather, through the process of prayer and surrender, He guides me into understanding so that I can change. Change my way of thinking. Change my attitude. Change my mindset. And its amazing then, how often the "answer to my prayer" is then staring right at me.

When it comes to my realationship with others, I would have to say that long term answers to their problems are not usually going to be found in me changing anything in their lives.

And I can't change anyone either.

But I can journey with them and perhaps God can use me in their lives.


How would that relate to illness?

I don't understand how illness enters into this. If someone is sick I can't change that and I can't change them. But I can draw alongside of them and be with them through that illness.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems to me that God allows some things happens to us, so that we can be His hand extended, to others that are experiencing basically the sameg we experienced.

Right now, I am in touch with a young woman that I have never met. A couple of weeks ago, she and her husband lost a bably girl. She writes to me in the mail and on email, as if Dwayne and I have meant so much to them for years. Her inlaws were stationed here, and seemed to love us, and the church so much--when her husband and sister were very small. So, I think they have built us up, possibly more than we should be built up.
But, back to what I was saying--We have lost a child also. I know what she is going through now, and some of the thing, she is probably thinking.

At the third church Dwayne pastored, he insisted that I go with him, and tell a lady about my daddy leaving us and mother when I was 15. I did not want to. I had never told it in his other pastorates. But, her husband of many years, had left, and he insisted that I tell her, because I had been there, from the child's point of view.

I undertand people that have emotional break downs after a tragedy, have been in tragic accidents and left in pain for life...have come close to dying with cancer.

I understand what it is like to lose a daddy, grandmother and baby in a years times.
that was my second time to lose daddy.

I could go on, but won't. Stop and think of things you have been through, that may be things you could help others in, because you have been there.
I don't know what all God knew when He was on the cross, but apparently, He can keep close taps on ;us, and has ways to mold us into what He wants us to be for Him and others, if we only yield ourselves to His control.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Gen. 6:6, "And the Lord was sorry He had made man on the earth..."

Gen. 22:12, "For now I know that you fear God..."

Exod. 4:9, "...if they will not believe..."

Exod. 13:17, "...Lest the people change their minds..."

Exod. 16:4, "to test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction."

Exod. 32:14, "...the Lord changed His mind..."

Num. 14:11, "How long will this people spurn Me?"

Deut. 8:2, God tests people to know what is in their hearts

Deut. 9:13-14, "Let Me alone that I may destroy them"
Deut. 9:18-20, "but the Lord listened to me that time also"

Deut. 13:1-3, "God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord"

1 Sam. 2:29-30, "...I did indeed say...but now the Lord declares..."

1 Sam. 15:10, 35, "I regret that I have made Saul king..."

Sometimes God changes His mind, or regrets things.

[Hans Deventer]

I am not sure how you got this out of what I said.

Well, I think we should be like our Father, right? If so, we ought to be merciful. Now what does that mean? How is God merciful? You wrote about how God relates to you when you pray.
That's the line of thinking that got me to ask that question.

[Barbara Moulton]

Well, I think we should be like our Father, right? If so, we ought to be merciful. Now what does that mean? How is God merciful? You wrote about how God relates to you when you pray.
That's the line of thinking that got me to ask that question.

I guess I never thought of showing mercy as trying to change people :) That's where I got confused.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess I never thought of showing mercy as trying to change people :) That's where I got confused.

Well, that is my very point! If God does not act upon prayer but by changing people in stead of circumstances, than apparently, that is mercy, right?