Why can't we do more or less whatever we want?

[durangodawood]

To say that God didn’t know something is heresy.

The Bible says it. At least NIV and ASV translations.

"Now I know". Its pretty straightforward.

 

[Hammster]

The Bible says it. At least NIV and ASV translations.

"Now I know". Its pretty straightforward.

To say that God didn’t know something is heresy.

 

[Mink61]

It reads like a choice.

Genesis 22:12

God didnt know which one Abe would choose. Could have gone one way. Could have gone the other. Not even God knew.

God knew. The angel sent to Abraham didn't know.

 

[durangodawood]

God knew. The angel sent to Abraham didn't know.

It seems obvious that the angel is speaking for Jehovah through the whole chapter.

God - not the angel - was doing the test of Abraham. The angel was just doing the speaking.

Further on:
And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, 17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.

The basic way it reads to me is God tests Abraham to see if Abraham will trust Him. In fact its the only way I can make sense of it. There's no testing of things you already know. Test implies an unknown outcome.

 

[durangodawood]

To say that God didn’t know something is heresy.

Does doctrine come out of Bible, or vice versa?

 

[Hammster]

Does doctrine come out of Bible, or vice versa?

Out of the Bible. Open theism is Hersey.

 

[durangodawood]

Out of the Bible. Open theism is Hersey.

Ok. Im just reporting here what I read in the Bible: God did a test.

(As for me personally, I dont care what anyone labels "heresy" as I dont feel a need for any particular doctrine to be correct).

 

[Hammster]

Ok. Im just reporting here what I read in the Bible: God did a test.

(As for me personally, I dont care what anyone labels "heresy" as I dont feel a need for any particular doctrine to be correct).

That’s sad.

 

[durangodawood]

That’s sad.

Being honest with myself about what I see and read is not sad at all.

 

[durangodawood]

That’s sad.

What's truly sad is a world frozen in every respect into a foregone conclusion, in which you have no actual agency whatsoever. You might as well not even exist in such a world.

 

[Hammster]

Being honest with myself about what I see and read is not sad at all.

It is because you’ve put yourself as an authority and have ignored centuries of great men who’ve come before you. You have no checks or balances. You could hold to Arianism and think it’s okay because you don’t care what anyone labels as heresy.

 

[durangodawood]

It is because you’ve put yourself as an authority and have ignored centuries of great men who’ve come before you. You have no checks or balances. You could hold to Arianism and think it’s okay because you don’t care what anyone labels as heresy.

If the text led me to Arianism, then yes, Id probably hold to it. But I dont see that.

In Genesis I do read God testing to see if Abe will be loyal.

I also read of God's great reset in the time of Noah, which makes no sense at all if He knew in advance this outcome. It says "God saw how corrupt the earth had become." Thats the way you describe new knowledge coming to you.

Seems to me the ancient Hebrews felt they were on a sort of Journey with God, together moving into the future. Not playing out a script. Thats how it plainly reads to me. I dont think the ancient Hebrews felt the need to cater to the Greek style philosophizing that came much later.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ok. Im just reporting here what I read in the Bible: God did a test.

(As for me personally, I dont care what anyone labels "heresy" as I dont feel a need for any particular doctrine to be correct).

I call it argumentum ad label-em fallacy. Placing a label on something (e.g., heresy) doesn't mean you automatically win.

 

[Hammster]

If the text led me to Arianism, then yes, Id probably hold to it. But I dont see that.

In Genesis I do read God testing to see if Abe will be loyal.

I also read of God's great reset in the time of Noah, which makes no sense at all if He knew in advance this outcome. It says "God saw how corrupt the earth had become." Thats the way you describe new knowledge coming to you.

Seems to me the ancient Hebrews felt they were on a sort of Journey with God, together moving into the future. Not playing out a script. Thats how it plainly reads to me. I dont think the ancient Hebrews felt the need to cater to the Greek style philosophizing that came much later.

It’s led you to Open Theism.

 

[Hammster]

I call it argumentum ad label-em fallacy. Placing a label on something (e.g., heresy) doesn't mean you automatically win.

Describing something that has been established is more than placing a label. It’s using the label accurately.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Describing something that has been established is more than placing a label. It’s using the label accurately.

A label isn't an argument. Saying that a label is established isn't an argument.

 

[durangodawood]

It’s led you to Open Theism.

Yes I think thats generally correct. Its what the Bible seems to say about God and His relation to creation.

 

[durangodawood]

I call it argumentum ad label-em fallacy. Placing a label on something (e.g., heresy) doesn't mean you automatically win.

I cant decide if he's trying to convince me Im wrong, or just kindly informing me of what heresy I seem to subscribe to.

Ive shown in the text where I find God to have a certain character. No amount of labels can make me un-read that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I cant decide if he's trying to convince me Im wrong, or just kindly informing me of what heresy I seem to subscribe to.

Ive shown in the text where I find God to have a certain character. No amount of labels can make me un-read that.

Exactly. It's in the text; what is the argument that we should read it differently.