Well, I got that argument from you so if it's not ok for me it's not ok for you either.
It’s not the same argument and I'm surprised that you don't see that.
Your argument is that my interpretation of scripture is flawed. My argument is that your interpretation of what all humans interpret from experience is flawed.
Both experience and scripture require interpretation in order for them to have meaning in the mind but that doesn't make them the same nor does it make them equal in authority.
We both constantly engage in the work of interpretation, but your interpretations of your experiences are based on a subject that is inherently flawed, my interpretations of God's word are based on a subject that is inherently inerrant.
If you can't see the difference then we truly have a problem.
DR said:
And your 'explaining experiences in the light of what we know from scripture' is exactly what I said before - it is having to explain those experiences away.
No, no.
:nono:
It’s just inviting God's voice back into the discussion of the nature of predestination.
If you want to ask God to be quiet so that you can answer the question based on your interpretation of your own experiences, without the voice of scripture interrupting your little exercise, then you are free to do so, knock yourself out.
That approach is a fool's errand and its not a discussion I consider worth having, but its a free country and there is no law against playing a fool.
DR said:
And anyway your method is no more theocentric than a fly in the air. It is not even bibliocentric, which would be a slightly less conceited way of describing it. It is centered on your interpretation of scripture.
This is subtly ad hominem. Appealing to what the bible says is clearly a more theocentric (or bibliocentric if you like) approach than appealing to experience and anyone can see that.
It’s no more conceited for a Christian to say that the bible is more reliable than our own fallible experiences than it is for a mechanic to say that the designer of the car has a more authoritative opinion on how the car works than a taxi driver.
The superiority of God revealed word to human experience is a basic tenant of Christianity.
DR said:
So your claim amounts to nothing more than that you believe you are closer to God than the next person is. Do us all a favour, please!
You are missing the point.
It has absolutely nothing to do with me. It has to do with the primacy of God’s word. Whether I am closer to God or further from God than another is an irrelevancy.
DR said:
I never said that. I never described openness that way. I made a simple statement that openness theology conforms to everyday experience.
Which entails what?
Does your assertion have any theological significance whatsoever?
Were you just making what you thought was an interesting observation or did you mean to suggest that OV was in some way substantiated by the fact that it (presumably) conforms to everyday experience?
First, I dispute that your observation matters even if it is true precisely because there is a far superior source of theological knowledge. Second, I dispute that your assertion is true in the first place.
DR said:
Again, I never said, nor would I say that my theology was derived from my everyday experiences. So you are the one scraping the barrel here by inventing things that I didn't say. You clearly have no concept of honesty. You have done everything you possibly can do to avoid admitting that my simple statement is in fact true.
This is the second time you have tried to deflect the conversation by calling me dishonest. If you feel that I am not accurately representing your argument then, please, feel free to clarify. I’ve no interested in pushing down straw men. If your observation wasn't meant to mean anything then please stop wasting everyone's time.
The reason I avoid admitting that your simple statement is true is because it isn’t true at all.
It might be true in your eyes but it isn’t true in mine and I have given you examples of cultural groups and subgroups which also would not affirm your OV assumptions here. Why are we all obligated to conform to
your experience?
A slightly less conceited way to articulate your argument would have been to admit that the OV conforms to
your experience.
My response is, so what?
No-one nominated you to speak on behalf of all humanity based on your own interpretations of your own experiences.
DR said:
And I would bet that if you were to do a survey of non-christians who have no interest in whether Calvin was right or wrong and ask them whether their own experiences look more like they are determining their own actions or their own actions are being determined for them from outside themselves, the very large majority would answer the former.
First, since you haven’t actually done this survey we aren’t in any way obligated to take what you “bet” a survey of non-Christians might think. What you "bet" someone
might think is useless to anyone who cares about having a logical discussion based on fact.
Second, we aren’t obligated to give any weight to the theological conclusion of non-Christians reasoning from their own experience anyway. If you had chosen to interact with my reference to 1 Cor 2 you would know why.
Third, I don’t do theology via survey in the first place. I think this is perhaps the worst way to determine what is and is not true about what God has or has not done.
DR said:
Actually, I got the argument from you so it must be ok. If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me. You claimed that your interpretation was guided by the Holy Spirit. You seem to be taking a very hypocritical line here.
No, you didn’t get that argument from me.
I claimed that the Holy Spirit promised to speak to God’s people through God’s word and that while none of us can claim infallibility in our interpretations of the Word of God, the word itself is infallible. I also claimed that no such promise was made regarding human experience. I fail to see how making that observation is “taking a hypocritical line.”
DR said:
In fact, I also said, in the same post
See? I used exactly the same words to describe the relationship of openness theology to everyday experience as I did to its relationship to scripture. And then you launched into a long diatribe about how my use of experience was a flawed argument but you never once used these arguments against my claim that openness conforms to scripture.
Did you even read the second half of my post?
lol ol’ me said:
This is totally wrong. Just look at the way passages get danced around on this thread?
Romans 9 isn’t about salvation despite the following:
“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:21-24 ESV)”
Romans 8 isn’t about predestination we are told, its about already saved individuals. Despite the fact that Paul is clear…
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 ESV)”
Foreknowing (foreordaining) precedes predestination. Predestination precedes calling, calling precedes justifying, and justifying precedes glorifying.
But Openness Theology must rip calling out from the middle and put it before predestination as (according to openness theology) we aren’t predestined until we answer God’s call to salvation.
Therefor openness Theology sees the following as the Ordo Solutis:
Foreknowing (or a misunderstanding of foreknowing and perhaps a downright denial of foreknowing) – calling – justifying – predestining – glorifying.
But perhaps the most stark reality is that Open Theism cannot consistently claim that God passes his own test that was given in Isaiah 40-48. Specifically, God chastises the false gods precisely because they don’t know the future?
“Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Isa 41:21-24 ESV)”
I totally denied that openness conforms to scripture and gave ample scriptural evidence to support that denial.
Instead of addressing these points you have played the “that just your interpretation” game as if that is some clever way of avoiding a substantive conversation about the meaning of these texts.
DR said:
What we have here is a phenomenon called selective deafness.
“Said the pot to the kettle…”
DR said:
Once again, if you can tell where I said that human experience entails an open view, then I would probably agree with you.
So then your assertion that openness conforms to our everyday experience was just an observation that was offered in support of?....what?....nothing in particular?
If you didn’t offer that assertion as a way of substantiating the open view, over and above the settled view, then why bother wasting our time?
DR said:
But the fact is that I never said such a thing, nor would I, so why don't you stop reading into what I said and just deal with the plain statement?
I have dealt with that statement quite adequately, let me reiterate.
You think that openness conforms to everyday experience.
I responded in two ways.
First, you are wrong.
Openness only conforms to
your interpretation of
your own everyday experience.
Not everyone shares your experiences nor your interpretation.
Since you only have your own experiences to evaluate, you are wholly unqualified to speak on behalf of the entire human race when it comes to this matter and therefore your opinion shouldn’t be treated as a truism.
Second, even if you were right, it wouldn’t matter since good theology isn’t built on the shifting sand of human experience in the first place. Good theology is based on God’s revealed word, at least it is for Christians.
