User Tag List

Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 202728293031 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 464

Thread: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

  1. #436
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Originally Posted by Rosenritter
    The idea that "God is not really God if he created anyone with free will" is not a biblical concept nor a right conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I disagree. As I've stated, Genesis 3:15 IS biblical. To me? Undoes any 'unbiblical' assertion. I'm getting it 'from' the Bible.
    Would you please explain how you see any relation between Genesis 3:15 and the denial of free will? That seemed like a very random response.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (November 30th, 2018)

  3. #437
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    If man were held in check by distance? How so? How is lightening held in check by speed? Yet God, according to Open Theism, is indeed held in check by linear time.
    Maybe if you are thinking like Orson Wells, or like Dr. Who that time is "wiggly jiggly."

  4. #438
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,082
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 912 Times in 625 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    242640
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Sort of. I'm saying that we are never not in bondage. We are either in bondage to God, or we are in bondage to something else. So, imo, it is never a 'free' will EXCEPT when one might suggest 'free' from God or 'free' from sin and death. The point for me: it is a trade-off of bondage as far as the will is concerned.
    Genesis 3:1 is about the serpent introducing the 'other' will (free). It may be we are talking past one another yet, but I hope this helps.

    Again, in my estimation this doesn't require a 'free' will. A will in bondage is what Paul describes in Romans 7:11-25
    To me, it doesn't sound like Paul is describing his will as 'free.' In fact, it he describes a frustration of not being able to exercise what he actually desires, so much so he cries "Who will save me from this!??"
    This is the same Paul that said, 16 Don't you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. [Rom 6:16 NLT] (I don't usually opt for the New Living Translation, but it helps to wade past the obscurity of "ye yield yourself" in KJV.) And that seems to jive with your reference to Gen 3:1--Satan offered a different "bondage" in your terminology, but that means they were in bondage to God first, and they were able to leave that bondage. That doesn't seem like a type of bondage that I recognize. On the other hand, we can't leave the bondage of sin without the help of Jesus and His sacrifice. And He sets us free. Is it possible that He sets us free to pick the right master? Is it also possible to now pick the wrong one? I'm wondering if that is what the gospel is all about--telling folks they need to pick the right master now that He has set us free from sin and death.


    As an outcome? Romans 8:58 This doesn't mean all is desirable.
    We have to talk about what God desires (wills decretive) and what He allows (wills prescriptive).
    I've read this thru a few times now, and I still don't understand what you mean.

    It 'assumes' God was unaware of the final outcome' to suggest a 'change'. Your assumption is in the proof and thus it is only good for those who assume as you do. I do not. Change never happens like you are believing, in God. It is RATHER our circumstances. Think of it this way: A man meets an immovable rock, the man moves, the opposite direction as a result, not the rock. This is crudely, the largest difference between traditional theology and Open Theism. In Open Theism, the rock is seen as 'interactive' and 'relational' and thus 'moving.' It just isn't the right description for what is going on. Yes, Open Theism wants to make a 'caring' rock instead of an immovable one.
    Actually it only assumes an outcome to suggest a change--not the outcome. "Final" denotes permanence and singularity of outcome. Maybe the rock illustration would be better if the rock were moving in a particular direction, and the man asked it to alter course, but not destination. Intermediate locations would be altered, but the final one remains. There may be some intermediate ones that also stay fixed, but not all.

    God IS relational but man does the changing. The full character of God is at stake and MUST be left untouched by anthropomorphic grasps and understandings. Why? Because they just don't do God justice. It is like saying "Yeah, but that rock felt me!" It is giving a little TOO much credit to the guy colliding with the rock. It was really forgettable.
    You lost this argument when you started talking about a rock. The references to God as a Rock are in relation to His solidness and stability, not to His immovability.

    Bringing it back to what we are talking about: God knows what is best. While He may allow something subpar to His will (sin), it is not His intervention that makes such happen. Hezekiah was going to die. WHY did God tell him that? Simply: So He'd repent. THEN when Hezekiah prays, God responds (and in my bible studied opinion) with what He wanted to happen BY intervening in the first place! Is that then a change? I realize the Open Theist is making "You will die and will not recover" the lynchpin, but as I said, a good many of this don't read it or interpret it the same.
    So God was only able to accomplish His will when the man did something God had to coerce Him to do? That doesn't sound that great to me.

    I'm not seeing "die and not recover" as a lynchpin--only as a truth. If it is not a truth, then how can God say it? And if the opposite is also said as a truth (which it was), then something changed in between. What changed? Not just Hezekiah, but also Hezekiah's outcome.

    If God had to tell Hezekiah that he would die in order that he lives, that doesn't negate the need for God to always tell the truth, according to His character.

    And, btw, it never says Hezekiah (at this time, anyway) was in need of repentance, nor that he did repent, only that he cried out to God.

    If they meant it?
    ??? If you program a robot to carry out your commands, does the robot "mean" to carry out your commands? Are you now instilling the need for a free agency in a robot? I don't really understand how you can talk this way and still argue with me about the necessity of a free will (or free agency, or whatever you want to call it).
    Yeah. Does 'independence' require love to exist? My dog 'loves' me because I take care of him. It IS a programmed response. He will respond to me according to 'my' interaction. We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19 Love isn't love because we chose it. Love is love because we have been loved.
    We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19 Love isn't love because we chose it. Love is love because we have been loved. This is huge. I believe someone who doesn't grasp this is still caught in egocentrism for concepts of love (I am too, but we really have to grasp His love to love like Him). Love: committed to another's highest good.
    We still have to love, which is a willing act/thought. Admittedly we are helpless to love Him without His act of love, but that doesn't mean ours is not an act of love.

    Is he a believer?
    Yes, but he disagrees with me on the rest--mainly based on preconceptions, as far as I can tell.
    We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19 Love isn't love because we chose it. Love is love because we have been loved. This is huge. I believe someone who doesn't grasp this is still caught in egocentrism for concepts of love (I am too, but we really have to grasp His love to love like Him). Love: committed to another's highest good.
    Our love isn't our love if we don't choose it. God's love doesn't require our input. Ours does. God could love every one of those little robots, but they can't love Him. They can't, unless you instill some type of free agency/will in them. That's part of the definition of love.


    If it is funny/strange, I cannot help that. He caused my faith BY giving me what to believe in. Believe, imho, is always otherly unless you are talking about 'cognitive apprehension' instead (another definition of believe that is legitimate). When I use it, I'm talking about trusting and cognitively-holding-as-true that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. It is mine but it was given to me, wasn't it?
    What exactly is the nature of the belief that was given? It might be a gift that allows you to do it (believe), but is the doing of it given? or does the doing of it require some kind of input from you? I say the latter, else it wouldn't be a command: "Believe on the Lord."


    Take it further: Then God lied regardless because Hezekiah did not surely die, if your interpretation is the only one available. Open Theism doesn't take the lying accusation away, it just sidesteps it by clouding the issue, imho. It isn't imho, as well thought out as traditional theology addresses this.
    You can only say this thinking as a settled futurist. And of course, if that's your presupposition, you will have to say it. But the settledness of the future makes the statement a lie. Open theism allows the answer to be "a" at one time and "b" at another (both as future outcomes) and still allow God to be truthful. Their is no Lying accusation, because both were true within their respective time of utterance. That is NOT the case for settled theism. One of those was always true ("b", perhaps), and the other was NEVER true ("a").

    No traditional theist would have even thought God lied. Open Theists came up with this. The problem? "Their" problem imho, didn't go away and didn't get addressed. It seems to me, slight of hand that will work for those who aren't doing inductive Bible study or looking further. For me? Doesn't and cannot work: It is just dodging the question 'they' brought up in the first place.
    Like I said, only with a sly reliance on an open theistic model can a settled theist ever believe that God can say both "a" and "b" are true when "a" and "b" are contradictory.



    Three points: We experience things linearly. What is true linearly (time-wise) is NOT true outside of the linear BUT it is STILL true of the linear. A carrot, for example, is NOT "one inch." It is relationally one-inch AND it is not a lie to say, however, it is one inch. You understand this. You have to then, be careful not to be too black, and white when discussing the inch aspect of a carrot. You know it isn't an inch but you NEVER say someone who gives you a length, they are liars. NEVER. It never comes up but for an Open Theist being pedantically obtuse and missing what is MORE pertinent.

    Let me be careful: To me, spending any time on 'God lied to Hezekiah' in my bible reading, is just a waste of unproductive time. It never enters my mind and is unimportant to entertain for the story. I realize it is paramount to an Open Theist, and that is problematic to me. It is, imho missing the forest for the trees. The story of Hezekiah is about a man and his God and his NEED for His God. John 15:5 is my particular application from ever reading that passage.
    That's because you are refusing (not can't, but won't) see the forest for the trees. Your statement here says it.


    Not sure what you mean. Isaiah came because Hezekiah had shown all his riches to foreigners (bragging is most often not a good thing).
    Hezekiah didn't show treasures to the foreigners until after he was healed of this disease.


    We totally disagree on this point. I believe Open Theism humanizes God and constrains Him to simplistic platitudes (personal conviction not meant to malign anybody).
    You haven't shown that to be the case here.

    An appeal is no bad thing, but I've looked at Open Theism and find it too simplistic to deal rightly with scriptures. To me, it misses a lot of scripture truth about the nature and character of God. I'd challenge any Open Theist to do a serious study with traditional theology concerning the nature and character of God. A systematic theology would be a good start, then reading the scriptures and understanding that character and nature would be of tremendous instruction imho.
    So, you want me to decide what God is like BEFORE I read the scriptures? Can you say that with a straight face?

    It should humble, however. I used to hear "if you were the only one, God would have died for you."

    To me? Looks like a closet-Calvinist rema
    Calvinism has some good points that I agree with. The settledness of the future isn't one of them.


    I realize we are postured here, but that can be a good thing. The better we understand 'why' we are opposed, I think the better we are equipped to look at our own theology and understand both its strengths and flaws. In a way, I am a closet open theist as you suggest but ONLY as God relates to man 'in his environment.' God has to interact in a constrained and linear fashion for us to conceive Him. He is ALL our universe, but we are not all His. I simply disagree that God is 'constricted' in that interaction. He is only as 'wet' as His involvement. When I reach into my fish tank, I'm not all wet and can easily bring all of me to bear on their needs. Even if I came to them 'as' a fish, there'd be other aspects beyond the ability of fish to grasp me. God is not all wet. Again, in a crude (simplistic) way, this is the difference between traditional theology and Open Theism to my mind.

    In Him -Lon
    I hope I'm never a "settled" theologian, at least in this life. I hope I can always be convinced of where I'm wrong, and that these conversations wouldn't just allow me to voice a wrong opinion and make it more concrete (but still wrong) in my mind.

    The thing is, the bible is always expressing things as God relates to man in his environment. A few times we see images of God in His environment, but these don't give us a different view of God than He gives us in the other portions of scripture. Not that I can tell, anyway. So, if God is consistent with what He has revealed to us, then He actually changes the future. One instance is that He created the world--before God created the world, was there ever a point where God did not HAVE to create the world? If you say "no", then you are saying God is bound by His knowledge of the future--He's as much a robot as we are.

  5. #439
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Calvinism has some good points that I agree with. The settledness of the future isn't one of them.

    I hope I'm never a "settled" theologian, at least in this life. I hope I can always be convinced of where I'm wrong, and that these conversations wouldn't just allow me to voice a wrong opinion and make it more concrete (but still wrong) in my mind.

    The thing is, the bible is always expressing things as God relates to man in his environment. A few times we see images of God in His environment, but these don't give us a different view of God than He gives us in the other portions of scripture. Not that I can tell, anyway. So, if God is consistent with what He has revealed to us, then He actually changes the future. One instance is that He created the world--before God created the world, was there ever a point where God did not HAVE to create the world? If you say "no", then you are saying God is bound by His knowledge of the future--He's as much a robot as we are.
    1 Kings 22:19-22 KJV
    (19) And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
    (20) And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
    (21) And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
    (22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

    That's one of those examples of the bible expressing God in his own environment. So this brings forth the question, if the future was a "settled future" then why would God express himself to this king and his prophet with this vision?

    1) If the future was "settled" and these heavenly events are not what occurred, then this vision is beyond misleading, it would be deceitful to the prophet and the king

    2) If the future was "settled" but these are the heavenly events that occurred, then God is misleading both realms of men and angels as to the nature of future events, because he speaks to the angels as if their input has influenced the course of events

    3) This vision reveals the character of God as being such that doesn't need to micromanage ever single detail, who is not afraid to allow his servants to volunteer courses of action. His agents remain loyal while retraining independent will and thought, even those that offer suggestions to God as to how to resolve a problem, and God not only hears them but might also heed the suggestion.

    If God "knew" the future down to the last detail he certainly pretended not to, and if he is operating on the method of deceiving both realms of men and angels, why would he now change this method to a select theological group today, and for what purpose?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (December 8th, 2018)

  7. #440
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,082
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 912 Times in 625 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    242640
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    1 Kings 22:19-22 KJV
    (19) And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
    (20) And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
    (21) And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
    (22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

    That's one of those examples of the bible expressing God in his own environment. So this brings forth the question, if the future was a "settled future" then why would God express himself to this king and his prophet with this vision?

    1) If the future was "settled" and these heavenly events are not what occurred, then this vision is beyond misleading, it would be deceitful to the prophet and the king

    2) If the future was "settled" but these are the heavenly events that occurred, then God is misleading both realms of men and angels as to the nature of future events, because he speaks to the angels as if their input has influenced the course of events

    3) This vision reveals the character of God as being such that doesn't need to micromanage ever single detail, who is not afraid to allow his servants to volunteer courses of action. His agents remain loyal while retraining independent will and thought, even those that offer suggestions to God as to how to resolve a problem, and God not only hears them but might also heed the suggestion.

    If God "knew" the future down to the last detail he certainly pretended not to, and if he is operating on the method of deceiving both realms of men and angels, why would he now change this method to a select theological group today, and for what purpose?
    The interactions between God and Satan in the book of Job are along similar lines.

    [Job 1:6-9, 11 KJV] 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? ... 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

    The interesting thing in this first passage is that Satan had an impression of God that God didn't know how things would work out, otherwise it would have been a sucker's bet. Now, Satan might have been wrong, but if the story means anything at all, at least Satan was not convinced that God's knowledge was exhaustive. on God's part Could Satan, who knew God well, and was able to be in His presence, have that wrong? And God didn't offer His foreknowledge as proof of the outcome--He pointed to Job's character/integrity (Job 2:3).

    The passage also addresses the idea that God knows based on ordaining--there is a hint of it, when Satan says in vs 10: Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

    But Satan didn't think God knew the future exhaustively for that reason either, else he would never have asked God to remove the hedge of protection in order to win the bet.

    Finally, also from Job 2:3, God presents Himself as "movable", rather than immovable. [Job 2:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

    This is not a didactic passage, I suppose, but if it means anything at all, it must be taken as representative of God in His own environment, as you pointed out in the 1 Kings passage. And to say this is not how God interacted with Satan, or that God didn't really say what He said to Satan is a direct blow to the inerrancy and integrity of scripture as a whole, and especially the inspiration of scripture as a whole. I say this because the passage can only come to us in two ways--God revealed the events to a prophet/the author of the book or a man made up the events. There were no human attendees at the meetings of the sons of God. If a man made up the story, and it is wrong, then what parts of the scripture CAN we trust? And how do we know what we can trust?

    And later parts of the book ARE didactic. Do they carry more weight than the earlier parts?

  8. #441
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    The interactions between God and Satan in the book of Job are along similar lines.

    [Job 1:6-9, 11 KJV] 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? ... 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

    The interesting thing in this first passage is that Satan had an impression of God that God didn't know how things would work out, otherwise it would have been a sucker's bet. Now, Satan might have been wrong, but if the story means anything at all, at least Satan was not convinced that God's knowledge was exhaustive. on God's part Could Satan, who knew God well, and was able to be in His presence, have that wrong? And God didn't offer His foreknowledge as proof of the outcome--He pointed to Job's character/integrity (Job 2:3).

    The passage also addresses the idea that God knows based on ordaining--there is a hint of it, when Satan says in vs 10: Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

    But Satan didn't think God knew the future exhaustively for that reason either, else he would never have asked God to remove the hedge of protection in order to win the bet.

    Finally, also from Job 2:3, God presents Himself as "movable", rather than immovable. [Job 2:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

    This is not a didactic passage, I suppose, but if it means anything at all, it must be taken as representative of God in His own environment, as you pointed out in the 1 Kings passage. And to say this is not how God interacted with Satan, or that God didn't really say what He said to Satan is a direct blow to the inerrancy and integrity of scripture as a whole, and especially the inspiration of scripture as a whole. I say this because the passage can only come to us in two ways--God revealed the events to a prophet/the author of the book or a man made up the events. There were no human attendees at the meetings of the sons of God. If a man made up the story, and it is wrong, then what parts of the scripture CAN we trust? And how do we know what we can trust?

    And later parts of the book ARE didactic. Do they carry more weight than the earlier parts?
    ... I was saving Job for the follow-up.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (December 9th, 2018)

  10. #442
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,597
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 4,651 Times in 2,769 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Maybe if you are thinking like Orson Wells, or like Dr. Who that time is "wiggly jiggly."
    I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.
    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..."

  11. #443
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.
    I don't need to take a class to know that the distance between events is called time. Least of all should I need to take philosophy classes to explain away what God has already made plain and revealed in scripture.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (December 16th, 2018)

  13. #444
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,082
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 912 Times in 625 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    242640
    This:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.
    Made me go back to read this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    If man were held in check by distance? How so? How is lightening held in check by speed? Yet God, according to Open Theism, is indeed held in check by linear time.
    What I was trying to figure out is, What were you referring to in that last post (quoted first here)? If "It" is logic and science and well established, what does "It" refer to? Infinity? Infinity is hardly established by science, as I think you say yourself: "'Wiggly Jiggly' is part of the definition and understanding of infinity."

    Mathematics nor science give us any description of "infinite". All they require it in some equations, but nobody has ever offered a description of what "infinity" is. It makes sense to talk of God as "infinite", BECAUSE it (and He) is beyond our grasp, but it makes little sense to define a concept we have no concept of, nor appeal to science for our understanding of it.

    And, reading those two posts made me go back one more to this one:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    The idea that "God is not really God if he created anyone with free will" is not a biblical concept nor a right conclusion.
    I disagree. As I've stated, Genesis 3:15 IS biblical. To me? Undoes any 'unbiblical' assertion. I'm getting it 'from' the Bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Nor the idea that God can't create anyone with a free will and maintain His sovereignty.
    Same as above. These are mere assertions from an embraced presuppositional desire. It is trying to over-inflate ego that I am independent of God John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 Even if you have scriptures that show you have an independent will (meaning from God), explain that. Why do you want or need a will 'independent "from" God's will?"
    I would like to explain what a will independent from God means, and why it is necessary, although I think I've already done this a couple times.

    I define "independent" using the first definition you get when you type in "define independent" in a Google search: 1. free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

    The necessity of this is to keep from blaspheming God by saying He is the author of sin.

    I can expound on those two ideas, but I don't think I need to. They are pretty clear-cut, don't you think?

    But because I can't let well enough alone, I'll expound just a bit on the last idea. If my will is NOT independent from God, meaning (using the definition) my will is not free from His control or is not free from His authority, then my will is His will. And if my will is His will, that means He wants me to want whatever I want. So when I want to steal, kill, rape, or be dishonoring to my parents, for example, it is not ME wanting to do those things, it is God wanting me to do those things and either controlling me to do them or commanding me to do them (according to the definition).

    If God really wants (wills) me to do those things, rather than refrain from those things, He is contradicting His own instructions. If God wills both righteousness and unrighteousness, there is NO such thing as sin. These is no such thing as "unrighteousness", since the very concept is the opposite of God's will. In fact, if God wills me to commit those acts, HE is calling evil good and good evil. There is no relief from this dilemma if God REALLY WANTS/WILLS me to commit "sin".

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (December 18th, 2018)

  15. #445
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    This:

    Made me go back to read this:


    What I was trying to figure out is, What were you referring to in that last post (quoted first here)? If "It" is logic and science and well established, what does "It" refer to? Infinity? Infinity is hardly established by science, as I think you say yourself: "'Wiggly Jiggly' is part of the definition and understanding of infinity."

    Mathematics nor science give us any description of "infinite". All they require it in some equations, but nobody has ever offered a description of what "infinity" is. It makes sense to talk of God as "infinite", BECAUSE it (and He) is beyond our grasp, but it makes little sense to define a concept we have no concept of, nor appeal to science for our understanding of it.
    I was thinking of this reference:


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (December 18th, 2018),JudgeRightly (December 18th, 2018)

  17. #446
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,597
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 4,651 Times in 2,769 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    If God had to tell Hezekiah that he would die in order that he lives, that doesn't negate the need for God to always tell the truth, according to His character.



    You can only say this thinking as a settled futurist. And of course, if that's your presupposition, you will have to say it. But the settledness of the future makes the statement a lie. Open theism allows the answer to be "a" at one time and "b" at another (both as future outcomes) and still allow God to be truthful. Their is no Lying accusation, because both were true within their respective time of utterance. That is NOT the case for settled theism. One of those was always true ("b", perhaps), and the other was NEVER true ("a").

    Like I said, only with a sly reliance on an open theistic model can a settled theist ever believe that God can say both "a" and "b" are true when "a" and "b" are contradictory.

    Calvinism has some good points that I agree with. The settledness of the future isn't one of them.


    I hope I'm never a "settled" theologian, at least in this life. I hope I can always be convinced of where I'm wrong, and that these conversations wouldn't just allow me to voice a wrong opinion and make it more concrete (but still wrong) in my mind.
    I'm addressing quite a bit of this to Rosen as well, but may come back to this. You make a large number of assertions you believe are correct but are wrong. In order to grasp that and be corrected, you'd have to readdress some of your 'truths' that you've built theology upon. You also make a 'I hope I'm never a settled theologian' expression of emotion rather than, imho, clear thought. We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization. I pray for both of you that my comments here are not further cause of that, but I do need to be a bit more blunt to challenge such ideas and mere assertions as if they are correct. They are not. Basic math IS true math, but it can never challenge the veracity of algebraic expression. It is called 'simple' and basic for a reason. The latter is called higher and advanced for a reason. Basic math is good math, but it is not all there is, nor all we need to live and breathe. We need algebraic expression and higher math because our genius population's thoughts are important and not to be discarded nor dismissed. Having proceeded into higher math, I recognize the truth and value of what it provides as well as the overwhelming truth of those expressions. One who cannot comprehend these truths is remiss if they dismiss. That is ignorant/arrogance and a sad state of simpleton affairs. Thankfully, we don't have many that do this purposefully or knowingly, but in conversations like this, it is still express from an position of ignorance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I don't need to take a class to know that the distance between events is called time. Least of all should I need to take philosophy classes to explain away what God has already made plain and revealed in scripture.
    Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. You have a veneer grasp of time. I may not be the go-to for time conversation, but I do know, in fact, your concept of time is stagnant and limited. This will ALWAYS taint your theology until you get this right. It doesn't require a comprehensive grasp, but higher math and a grasp of metaphysical concepts will always trump concrete sequential because concrete sequentials cannot entertain even the concept they aren't correct. Why? Because they only grasp 2+2=4 Such is fine for concrete sequential thinking, but it will never grasp algebraic expressions. These are called 'higher' math for a reason. If one is not capable? Forgivable but wrong nonetheless. If capable, it is a far greater problem. I again without proving it, assert you are wrong if all you understand is basic math and basic time consideration. Again, forgivable, but try not to over-assert from ignorance what you cannot possibly assert. ONLY algebraic expressions can fully express accurately who God is. Basic math cannot do this without constraining God to finite expression. This is what we are talking about here. An Open Theist (as well as Mormons and other cultists) does damage to God's eternal nature by making and insisting only upon basic math expressions, which is what is happening here. It is essential, as far as I understand this debate, that one grasps that this is where it comes from, boiled down: Basic vs Higher mathematics. Essentially, this is the discussion and the problem.

    I'm also not saying all Calvinists understand this, though a good many know why it is necessarily true both as a scriptural-given and knowing that their mathematics teachers are probably right. You 'can' if you decided to, trust those who are able to grasp what you or not OR you can keep asserting in ignorance but it is as bad as a child saying there is no such thing as algebraic expression. He/she is right in his/her own mind and will not be convinced, but ignorance is no virtue of such arrogant-ignorant expression.

    Got Questions tries to explain this and calls all nay-sayers 'foolish' rightly, if a bit harsh. My stance is that it is ignorance and forgivable. Simply said, many cannot comprehend the truth of metaphysical concepts. Others simply have not worked on it, but they 'can' if they work at it, attain to metaphysical facts and observations.

    Got Questions attempts on a number of points to show or prove the points, but I've one other attempt: God has no beginning. What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple. It is why I can, literally, never be just a basic math is all there is, nor open theist, kind of guy. It cannot happen literally because I understand this concept. I'd also go so far as to say anyone that does grasp this, cannot be an Open Theist. It is literally a denial of metaphysical truth that we know to be accurate.
    Last edited by Lon; January 10th, 2019 at 09:00 PM.
    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..."

  18. #447
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,597
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 4,651 Times in 2,769 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I was thinking of this reference:

    Right, I'm saying rather, what you call wibbly wobbly, is merely an expression of your lack of comprehension. I was not embracing your vernacular as correct, but your 'wibbly' being actually your lack, not mine nor any of us that grasp these metaphysical truths and concepts. Again, to me, and I apologize for the condescending tenor: you simply comment on what you do not or cannot comprehend regarding truth. Just because you don't get it does not mean you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That is truly an ignorantly arrogant tragic position. I honestly and humbly ask you to recognize it here. I know I'm greatly challenging open theism as ignorant and arrogant itself and so a good many of you will take offense, but my prayer is that it is all set before the throne of God, and not fodder for anger or hurt expressions. I truly believe Open Theism comes for a good deal of ignorance. At times, in certain Open Theism corners, sadly unearned arrogance as well. The definition of God's eternal nature obscures Open theism as viable theology. Again, I realize these are strong statements, but I'd have to do exactly the same if arguing with a basic-math-is-all-there-is or is-all-is-true, student. Truth must be stated as strongly as the ignorance against it and so I have to posit this rebuttal in the strength of its context. Denying God's eternality (and this IS literally what Open Theism does), must be met as the ignorant problem it is. No theologian that understands God's eternal state can acquiesce Open Theism statements here. It is an impossibility. -Lon
    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. #448
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,597
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 4,651 Times in 2,769 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post



    Would you please explain how you see any relation between Genesis 3:15 and the denial of free will? That seemed like a very random response.
    Nutshell: You have God as the purposeful author of sin, just as any Calvinist you'd accuse. Freewill demands that man is made with the 'gift' to do otherwise: sin. Literally. Perhaps it is our grasp and definition of 'free' will that is the problem. For me, it is literally the thing created that 'allows' man to choose sin. I'm saying that for God to do that, it purposefully gives him a choice to sin and thus is a programmed gift, by God, to go against everything good and decent and right, and choose to do other than God's will. Further? Open Theists tell me that if man doesn't 'choose' love then it is not truly love. That frankly, is a very problematic definition and proposition. Inadvertently, you embrace all of the most extreme Calvinist, that believes God created man to sin. Simply giving him a 'choice' that a roll of the dice would allow man to fall into sin, is every bit as problematic as extreme Calvinism. It is the exact same problem albeit with a few variables of difference, but essentially the same exact problem. You MUST see that you never escaped Calvinism at that point. Genesis 3:5 IS the answer for me: it doesn't give man a 'gift' of self-willed direction, it introduces it as a 'gift' from the serpent: You will not die, you will be 'like' God. He caused it. To me, that is the only biblically sound foundation, else I'm an extreme Calvinist/Open Theist, where God is the purposeful author of the sin condition.
    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..."

  20. #449
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,597
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 4,651 Times in 2,769 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147731

    Timeless non-beginning

    I am finite. I'm not saying I completely understand the timelessness of God. Rather I'm saying I completely understand the certainty that an eternal non-beginning 'is still going forever in the opposite direction' is paramount to a denial that God is or can in any way, whatsoever, allow God to be time-bound. It is a certainty that God is timeless, based on anybody's ability to grasp 'why' it is necessary at that point because it is both logically/mathematically demonstrable and scripturally given that God is eternal and has no beginning (his past 'is still going, forever' if you grasp this). See Hebrews 7:13 Revelation 1:8 Isaiah 40:28 Colossians 1:17 Scripture and logical truth (Greek or not, doesn't matter, it is simply 'guilty by association' as if we need to hate Greek philosophy. We don't. We just don't embrace whenever they were wrong as Christians. Don't listen to such shallow rhetoric. That IS all it is friends, brothers, sisters) is, in my mind the crux, answer, proof, and dividing line of this topic.

    In other words, if anyone does or can grasp that God has no beginning and the fact that that eternal non-beginning necessitates that God has no beginning, then their thinking will break out of Open Theism constructions and recognize that these cannot be biblically or mathematically true.

    For those who have ears to hear and prayers for those who cannot or won't -Lon
    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..."

  21. #450
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I'm addressing quite a bit of this to Rosen as well, but may come back to this. You make a large number of assertions you believe are correct but are wrong. In order to grasp that and be corrected, you'd have to readdress some of your 'truths' that you've built theology upon. You also make a 'I hope I'm never a settled theologian' expression of emotion rather than, imho, clear thought. We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization. I pray for both of you that my comments here are not further cause of that, but I do need to be a bit more blunt to challenge such ideas and mere assertions as if they are correct. They are not. Basic math IS true math, but it can never challenge the veracity of algebraic expression. It is called 'simple' and basic for a reason. The latter is called higher and advanced for a reason. Basic math is good math, but it is not all there is, nor all we need to live and breathe. We need algebraic expression and higher math because our genius population's thoughts are important and not to be discarded nor dismissed. Having proceeded into higher math, I recognize the truth and value of what it provides as well as the overwhelming truth of those expressions. One who cannot comprehend these truths is remiss if they dismiss. That is ignorant/arrogance and a sad state of simpleton affairs. Thankfully, we don't have many that do this purposefully or knowingly, but in conversations like this, it is still express from an position of ignorance:

    Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. You have a veneer grasp of time. I may not be the go-to for time conversation, but I do know, in fact, your concept of time is stagnant and limited. This will ALWAYS taint your theology until you get this right. It doesn't require a comprehensive grasp, but higher math and a grasp of metaphysical concepts will always trump concrete sequential because concrete sequentials cannot entertain even the concept they aren't correct. Why? Because they only grasp 2+2=4 Such is fine for concrete sequential thinking, but it will never grasp algebraic expressions. These are called 'higher' math for a reason. If one is not capable? Forgivable but wrong nonetheless. If capable, it is a far greater problem. I again without proving it, assert you are wrong if all you understand is basic math and basic time consideration. Again, forgivable, but try not to over-assert from ignorance what you cannot possibly assert. ONLY algebraic expressions can fully express accurately who God is. Basic math cannot do this without constraining God to finite expression. This is what we are talking about here. An Open Theist (as well as Mormons and other cultists) does damage to God's eternal nature by making and insisting only upon basic math expressions, which is what is happening here. It is essential, as far as I understand this debate, that one grasps that this is where it comes from, boiled down: Basic vs Higher mathematics. Essentially, this is the discussion and the problem.

    I'm also not saying all Calvinists understand this, though a good many know why it is necessarily true both as a scriptural-given and knowing that their mathematics teachers are probably right. You 'can' if you decided to, trust those who are able to grasp what you or not OR you can keep asserting in ignorance but it is as bad as a child saying there is no such thing as algebraic expression. He/she is right in his/her own mind and will not be convinced, but ignorance is no virtue of such arrogant-ignorant expression.

    Got Questions tries to explain this and calls all nay-sayers 'foolish' rightly, if a bit harsh. My stance is that it is ignorance and forgivable. Simply said, many cannot comprehend the truth of metaphysical concepts. Others simply have not worked on it, but they 'can' if they work at it, attain to metaphysical facts and observations.

    Got Questions attempts on a number of points to show or prove the points, but I've one other attempt: God has no beginning. What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple. It is why I can, literally, never be just a basic math is all there is, nor open theist, kind of guy. It cannot happen literally because I understand this concept. I'd also go so far as to say anyone that does grasp this, cannot be an Open Theist. It is literally a denial of metaphysical truth that we know to be accurate.
    Lon, you did just say this above (quoted below for effect):

    What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple.
    "Still going" is an open time concept. Closed Theology dictates that God is not "still going" forward and has never "gone" forward but always was in both directions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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