ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
RobE
New member
I don't know what it's definition is. Whether the world, you, nature, or God does is a different story. I'm sure we'll all know shortly.:chuckle:
themuzicman
Well-known member
RobE
New member
Well, I think I'll look at the past and judge from that. After all the past is set in stone, right? It's impossible to change the past in either of our views, so I'll look to see if you did what you did. When I look, I should be able to tell immediately if you did other than what you did. Just as you would judge your test. You would look into the past and see if I used and didn't use the word "superfluous" at the same time.
A fair way to judge, don't you think? Maybe you have something else in mind which requires the use of gravy, kittens, or maybe reading tea leaves.
themuzicman
Well-known member
You'd have to establish that the past is in the same condition as the future, first.
Hey, it's your test. I provided the standard for the test for what I proposed, and even named specifically what you needed to do or not do (in this case not use 'superfluous' while maintaining the truth of the assumed EDF.)
So, you need to provide us with a standard of what the outcome will look like or not look like. What you've provided is too vague.
Muz
RobE
New member
I'm not claiming that it is. You asked me how I would judge and I answered the question which had nothing to do with the conditional relationship between what will be your future and what I will examine which is past.
And I'm providing you the opportunity to demonstrate without restrictions.
The standard is simply that you do other than what you will do.
The standard for your test was simply do other than what you will do and, btw, God has foreseen you foredoing it.
Same test less restrictions. No one has foreseen it, now demonstrate your ability.
Well, it would appear it would require you to demonstrate doing something and not doing it at the same time: let's say use the word 'superfluous' and not use the word 'superfluous' at the same time. That would prove that you were able to do otherwise. Sound familiar? It doesn't matter who knows it or if it's even known.
Let's examine your test at this point:
your ability to do otherwise(not using the word superfluous)
In other words your test requires us to use the word superfluous and not use it at the same time. According to you, the definition of LFW doesn't require that both are done simultaneously, but you require it within your test already assuming that LFW is false if foreknowledge is present. The test proves nothing since it doesnt' disqualify even your own definition of free will if we are unable to demonstrate what you ask. It's impossible to demonstrate what you ask, even for you, without the requirement of foreknowledge it's impossible.
Maybe you would like to use this as a standard? Or we could say use the word "the" and don't use the word "the" in your next post. It doesn't really matter. Demonstrate away!!!
We're waiting.
Do you believe God can sin, then?
If this isn't proof that RobE is a lying jackass nothing ever will be.
Good bye Rob. I hope you die in your blissful ignorance.
Talking about straw man caricatures. OT affirms the great truths of God as Father, King, leader, sovereign, omniscient, eternal, omnipotent, etc. It also recognizes that God sovereignly chose to not have a risk-free universe by giving us genuine vs illusory freedom. The existence of evil supports this self-evident truth.
God is omnicompetent. Do not underestimate him and lower him to grandma status (absurd, showing your lack of understanding and credibility).
The fixed past and its certain knowledge is fundamentally different than the potential, partially unsettled/open future (known as possible vs certain; presentism vs eternalism).
RobE
New member
Jackass, yes. Liar, no.
RobE
New member
According to open theism.....
Does God hope for the best?
Is He capable of overcoming unknown problems which arise?
Did He have an alternate plan for redemption if Adam fell?
Is He there for us no matter what?
Was your father a godly man?
Is He capable of overcoming unknown problems which arise?
Did He have an alternate plan for redemption if Adam fell?
Is He there for us no matter what?
Was your father a godly man?
My words were probably too harsh, but at the moment that's what I felt. I should temper my feelings better. Next I'll be calling everyone idiot or liar and that would be completely inappropriate.
Of course, open theists believe God is powerful, knowledgeable, etc.,,,,,,,,, but those aren't his greatest qualities(o.v.) are they?
Rob
RobE
New member
Was Jesus truly tempted in the wilderness? Was Jesus a man? Are men able to sin?
The scriptures explicitly state that God is unable(can't) sin. My belief, is that righteousness is defined through the rejection and unwillingness to sin. I'm not sure this applies to God as it does to man though.
My, unofficial personal, belief is that God can sin, but won't. It may well be that God can't sin, period. In fact, as Lee will tell you, the scripture is translated as 'God can't' sin. It my well be that my position on righteousness is incomplete or malformed in its definition.
Agape4Robin
Member
I couldn't have said it any better myself. :nono: :thumb:
lee_merrill
New member
I see some points went--unaddressed.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Recall also Cyrus:
Isaiah 44:28 ... who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say [note a free choice here] of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'
Isaiah 45:1 "This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut..."
How could God foreknow these choices too?
How could God know there would even be someone named Cyrus who would be king? What if all the kings and queens chose freely to name their boys Nabinidius or Orvacius?
And this verse only means spoken prayers? Then God has time to construct an answer? Surely not...
Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...
Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
Blessings,
Lee
It certainly is, proginosko is a perfectly good word, applied to God knowing ahead of time (Rom. 8:29, Rom. 11:2, 1 Pt. 1:2) speaking of salvation, of foreknowing his people Israel, and not just knowing a group, but the people themselves, as similarly here:Lon said:
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Recall also Cyrus:
Isaiah 44:28 ... who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say [note a free choice here] of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'
Isaiah 45:1 "This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut..."
How could God foreknow these choices too?
How could God know there would even be someone named Cyrus who would be king? What if all the kings and queens chose freely to name their boys Nabinidius or Orvacius?
This is rather sad. This verse is certainly not saying God is quick and nimble. An answer also implies an answer to the prayer, not like an answering of the phone (I say this lest this tack be taken).This verse implies God knows the request, and has planned the answer, and it is both done and ready.
And this verse only means spoken prayers? Then God has time to construct an answer? Surely not...
Then where are your interpretations in the commentaries? This has all the air of an expedient.
Then how about those in Revelation, some of whom will repent, some of whom will not? How can this be proximal knowledge? And saying it's groups--doesn't solve the knot.
Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...
Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
This (alas) is not a verse--why do Open Theists inveigh against philosophy as doctrine, and then give us ... their philosophy?
Blessings,
Lee
Some issues are not explicitly revealed or resolved in Scripture, so we can use godly reasoning/philosophy/logic to ascertain probable views. The exact nature of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ is not explicit, though the fact is evident. The exact nature of an eternal God's relationship to time is not resolved, so we look at Scripture and consider evidences from sound thinking.
God is able to respond to changing contingencies without having trillions of years to think about what He will do as we pray. As a paramedic or parent, I can apply my experience and ability quickly to deal with issues. An omnicompetent God does not need to sweat about things far in advance in order to respond to them in real time.
Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage for God and becomes absurd when one thinks about it (e.g. if God knows I will get killed if I drive today, and warns me not to drive so I am not killed, then His foreknowledge was actually wrong; God can protect me or let me die in real time...the issue is not settled before I am born in reality).
God is able to respond to changing contingencies without having trillions of years to think about what He will do as we pray. As a paramedic or parent, I can apply my experience and ability quickly to deal with issues. An omnicompetent God does not need to sweat about things far in advance in order to respond to them in real time.
Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage for God and becomes absurd when one thinks about it (e.g. if God knows I will get killed if I drive today, and warns me not to drive so I am not killed, then His foreknowledge was actually wrong; God can protect me or let me die in real time...the issue is not settled before I am born in reality).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:down:
Not amongst me and my Christian friends . . .
There is no question. Sin has no part with God; Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit!
Nang
Yes, God is holy, righteous, sinless, as is Jesus (God-Man).
The impeccability of Christ is an academic debate, whether you are aware of the intricacies or not.
I remember in Bible College the second year students talking about this when I was just starting as a new Christian. They were talking about whether Jesus could 'sing' or not. I thought this was odd that Jesus might not be able to sing?! I got my ears cleaned and found out they were talking about sinning, not singing.
Will not is not cannot (cf. I Jn.). Jesus was fully man and temptation was not illusory. Sin is volitional. Jesus had a human will. Do the math.
Bottom line: Jesus never sinned and will never sin, so the debate is academic.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Jesus never "willed to sin" because of His holy nature, so the debate is pure nonsense.
- Status