User Tag List

Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 469

Thread: A Question for Open Theists

  1. #76
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Why has the conversation moved so far away from what you opened with?

    Just have the conversation.
    All of this actually pertains to the opening, for DR assumes the Reformed understanding of those verses are flawed by an insertion of presuppositions, man-made that is, into the text. He doesn't think he has any in the way he reads the texts. However, while we all have them, what we start from (i.e., our foundational framework of interpretation) is what ultimately dictates which one has the correct presuppositions. I come to the Scriptures in a God-centered approach, clearly visible by a plain reading of the text; I believe the open theist comes to the Scriptures with a man-centered approach.

    His failure to call a spade a spade along with his fallacious accusations and presumptions are truly what is choking the conversation.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  2. #77
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    All of this actually pertains to the opening, for DR assumes the Reformed understanding of those verses are flawed by an insertion of presuppositions, man-made that is, into the text. He doesn't think he has any in the way he reads the texts. However, while we all have them, what we start from (i.e., our foundational framework of interpretation) is what ultimately dictates which one has the correct presuppositions. I come to the Scriptures in a God-centered approach, clearly visible by a plain reading of the text; I believe the open theist comes to the Scriptures with a man-centered approach.

    His failure to call a spade a spade along with his fallacious accusations and presumptions are truly what is choking the conversation.
    This is all way too uncharitable and completely unnecessary. OP was answered concisely by a few of us. You've not addressed any of the subsequent issues under the mantras that were espoused.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    LoneStar (October 5th, 2016),Tambora (May 16th, 2016)

  4. #78
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    This is all way too uncharitable and completely unnecessary. OP was answered concisely by a few of us. You've not addressed any of the subsequent issues under the mantras that were espoused.
    The cavalier response to those texts were inadequate. Why do you think the 'scholarly' open theists have not addressed those texts?

    If my attitude has come off uncharitable, I do apologize. It would have been nice if you stated the same toward DR when he made his posts of an attacking nature toward my schooling, which he affirmed.

    Let's be fair on both sides.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  5. #79
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,664
    Thanks
    2,730
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,542 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2064674
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If God offered an atheist chocolate or vanilla ice cream and predicted to the man what he would choose, what do you think would happen?
    By definition, predictions are probabilistic, therefore the outcome is not certain until it happens, no matter if a very, very, very, smart being so predicted the outcome.

    Probablility 0.9999999... is not certainty, but merely good guesswork.

    God knows all possible objects of knowledge because He is God; He knows all actual objects of knowledge because He is their cause.

    A refresher:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...35#post1535835

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  6. #80
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    150
    And a most clear refresher that is! Excellent AMR.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  7. #81
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    The cavalier response to those texts were inadequate.
    I doubt it.
    Why do you think the 'scholarly' open theists have not addressed those texts?
    They have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    By definition, predictions are probabilistic, therefore the outcome is not certain until it happens, no matter if a very, very, very, smart being so predicted the outcome.

    Probablility 0.9999999... is not certainty, but merely good guesswork.

    God knows all possible objects of knowledge because He is God; He knows all actual objects of knowledge because He is their cause.

    A refresher:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...35#post1535835

    AMR
    So not everything is set in stone? Men could potentially choose to do something that God has not foreseen?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    LoneStar (October 5th, 2016),Tambora (May 16th, 2016)

  9. #82
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,861
    Thanks
    1,434
    Thanked 2,908 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1490889
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    So not everything is set in stone? Men could potentially choose to do something that God has not foreseen?
    I think you missed the BEQ = Bob Enyart's Question? AMR said "no" in response.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. #83
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I think you missed the BEQ = Bob Enyart's Question? AMR said "no" in response.
    Well then color me confused.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    LoneStar (October 5th, 2016),Tambora (May 16th, 2016)

  12. #84
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451545
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post

    It shows.
    Well, we all have different ministries in the body. I think it mean of you to denigrate me because I don't happen to have the ministry that you think you have. I have also seen Calvinist 'pastoral' activity at work, with being told that one's divorce was the will of God and that good would come of it or to young people that God had the exact right partner for them and making them doubt if their boyfriend or girlfriend was the right one or not and searching for signs of God's will in random everyday events so as to be sure one is on the right track. Any or all of which you might contest but I'm afraid this is what happens.

    You are again guilty of special pleading and is why I had earlier decided to end the conversation. You act as if you do theology in a vacuum. You seem to think your approach is not influenced by “your own presuppositions and choices” and try to hold me guilty of the same thing. It just makes you look arrogant.
    ...

    Can’t you see the hypocrisy in this statement? Again, you are guilty of special pleading.

    I really just want you to answer the questions I posted in my previous post. Do that first, then you can humor me with your rainmaker method.
    I can't be special pleading when you are making a straw man. For the second time: I have not said and I do not claim that I am without presuppositions. What I do claim is that each passage should speak for itself in its own context. And that adducing other passages outside the proper context leads to unpredictable results. In my experience those results are little more than the presuppositions and predilections of the person writing the systematic theology dressed up with Biblical authority and oftentimes disingenuous to boot. This is not special pleading. To argue that each passage should stand on its own two feet is not special pleading. It's pleading for the integrity of the Bible because it's letting the Bible speak for itself.

    And it seems to me, that even though I have only advanced some very basic and undeveloped ideas along these lines, you are doing everything possible to avoid confronting them, resorting to straw men because you even at this basic level have no argument. Your previous argument amounts to 'because you are not a pastor, I must be right'.

    By the way, I have read a couple of your links and will read more. However, I don't want to get into a debate over homosexuality.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  13. #85
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Just to be clear: It's not OK to be gay.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    LoneStar (October 5th, 2016),Tambora (May 16th, 2016)

  15. #86
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Well, we all have different ministries in the body. I think it mean of you to denigrate me because I don't happen to have the ministry that you think you have. I have also seen Calvinist 'pastoral' activity at work, with being told that one's divorce was the will of God and that good would come of it or to young people that God had the exact right partner for them and making them doubt if their boyfriend or girlfriend was the right one or not and searching for signs of God's will in random everyday events so as to be sure one is on the right track. Any or all of which you might contest but I'm afraid this is what happens.
    Romans 11:36 – “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”

    I can't be special pleading when you are making a straw man. For the second time: I have not said and I do not claim that I am without presuppositions. What I do claim is that each passage should speak for itself in its own context. And that adducing other passages outside the proper context leads to unpredictable results. In my experience those results are little more than the presuppositions and predilections of the person writing the systematic theology dressed up with Biblical authority and oftentimes disingenuous to boot. This is not special pleading. To argue that each passage should stand on its own two feet is not special pleading. It's pleading for the integrity of the Bible because it's letting the Bible speak for itself.
    But that is the point! You argue against me that how I interpret the Scriptures is flawed because of presuppositions, which you say fails to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, broad-stroking the Reformed tradition. But as I explain what systematic theology is, which is presenting the truths of Scripture in a clear, self-consistent manner (which is what you claim to do), you argue against this approach, though you seek to do the same. So how about finding the flaw in my approach.

    Your experience does not dictate what is right and true. That is fallacious. Have you read every systematic theology out there? I think you make that smoke screen because you don’t like what you read. And I can already see that you take issue with what the Bible says regarding homosexuality, not wanting to debate about it (which is fine), further confirming my assumption that you reject what the Bible clearly teaches because what has been consistently understood and taught in Christian orthodoxy doesn’t comport with your interpretation, regardless of the historic, unified belief on this matter.
    You still have not answered my question about your creed and what makes JWs and Mormons different, for they too believe the same.

    And it seems to me, that even though I have only advanced some very basic and undeveloped ideas along these lines, you are doing everything possible to avoid confronting them, resorting to straw men because you even at this basic level have no argument. Your previous argument amounts to 'because you are not a pastor, I must be right'.
    Again, your concepts are nothing new. You position yourself as a Biblicist, assuming that your understanding of Scripture is original. I have confronted your ideas but you have failed to respond to many of my questions. I ask about your involvement in ministry because being on the front lines with people needing to be ministered through the Word of God, not lectured in a theoretical and abstract manner, is important for these discussions. I don’t mean to say you are not right if you are not a pastor. It just helps me get a better understanding of your position.

    By the way, I have read a couple of your links and will read more. However, I don't want to get into a debate over homosexuality.
    That is fine.

    This will be last response for a while. I will be gone all day and surgery early tomorrow.
    Last edited by BrianJOrr; February 26th, 2015 at 05:26 PM.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  16. #87
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451545
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    But that is the point! You argue against me that how I interpret the Scriptures is flawed because of presuppositions, which you say fails to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, broad-stroking the Reformed tradition.
    Brian, this is not what I said. If you'd care to respond to what I did say then we can move on from there.

    But as I explain what systematic theology is, which is presenting the truths of Scripture in a clear, self-consistent manner (which is what you claim to do), you argue against this approach, though you seek to do the same. So how about finding the flaw in my approach.
    As I have said before, the flaw in the reformed approach is the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. I showed many flaws in that approach in my 1-1 with Lon. The scripture is indeed self-consistent. But such self-consistency is inherent. It does not need you or a 'systematic' theology to explain it.

    Your experience does not dictate what is right and true.
    But if you start off with a wrong principle, then everything you do is bound to be wrong. Or, if it is right it is only by luck. If you seriously think that my experience is wrong then tell me which passages in the 1-1 I had were argued wrongly and why.

    And I can already see that you take issue with what the Bible says regarding homosexuality, not wanting to debate about it (which is fine), further confirming my assumption that you reject what the Bible clearly teaches because what has been consistently understood and taught in Christian orthodoxy doesn’t comport with your interpretation, regardless of the historic, unified belief on this matter.
    You have no idea what you are talking about. You took 2 plus 2, assumed that I meant 7 plus 18, then applied complex number geometry, integrated and did a Fourrier transform. Getting the right answer is bound to be hopeless.

    You still have not answered my question about your creed and what makes JWs and Mormons different, for they too believe the same.
    If there is anything in my creed that you take exception to, please free to specify it. As I previously said (why don't you ever read what I write?) your creeds are intended to be divisive. Your creeds will distinguish between you, JWs and Mormons. Don't expect mine to. Don't apply your standards to me. I warned you about this at the beginning. I warned you how radical openness theology is. But still you refuse to acknowledge this, still fighting the same old tired battles.

    Again, your concepts are nothing new. You position yourself as a Biblicist, assuming that your understanding of Scripture is original. I have confronted your ideas but you have failed to respond to many of my questions.
    Which questions? The ones where you couldn't take what I said at face value and so had to ask if I meant what I said, the ones where as a matter of fact you did not confront my clear statements at all, the ones you just ignored?

    I ask about your involvement in ministry because being on the front lines with people needing to be ministered through the Word of God, not lectured in a theoretical and abstract manner, is important for these discussions. I don’t mean to say you are not right if you are not a pastor. It just helps me get a better understanding of your position.
    So in one paragraph you manage to contradict yourself twice. I was right. What you mean is that because you are a pastor, you must be right. You think your job is more important than someone else's or you think that you are more important than someone who isn't in full time Christian ministry. And you have never heard of other pastors who disagree with you. You assume that all pastors agree with you because you can't imagine how anything else could be so important. Because you are on 'the front lines'. Gosh, you must be especially honoured. Hey look guys, Brian Orr is on the front lines, it's red carpet time! And you think that anyone who isn't a pastor is 'lecturing' to everyone else in the congregation, 'theoretical' and 'abstract'. And of course such people are not 'on the front lines' like you are. I got it. Thanks. I understand now.

    Hope you recover well from your op.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  17. #88
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    150
    Desert Reign,

    Thanks for your interaction on this topic. It's been quite helpful for me.
    —Romans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  18. #89
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,861
    Thanks
    1,434
    Thanked 2,908 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1490889
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    God doesn't do things in perfect wisdom wastefully. He knew that bringing about the four plagues (as Desert Reign notes), would bring about Pharaohs response (necessarily).
    See Sander's "The God Who Risks." As far as he and Open Theism is concerned, God lovingly imperializes man's freewill and responds to it as "a master chess player" (their words to me in explaining this). He and they argue, that if it were not so, man could have but an illusion of freewill, which would malign the character of God. Thus, freewill is the impetus for the denial of omniscience. All of God's Omni's are redefined, along with an accusation that Greek philosophy has invaded the church, rather than seeing scriptural support.

    As such, I hope the verse given (among others) gives them great pause with that assertion. The Omni's are necessarily biblical, imo.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  19. #90
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,861
    Thanks
    1,434
    Thanked 2,908 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1490889
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post

    As I have said before, the flaw in the reformed approach is the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. I showed many flaws in that approach in my 1-1 with Lon. The scripture is indeed self-consistent. But such self-consistency is inherent. It does not need you or a 'systematic' theology to explain it.
    One-on-One You over-estimate.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us