User Tag List

Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1825262728
Results 406 to 412 of 412

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

  1. #406
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,544
    Thanks
    2,580
    Thanked 4,582 Times in 2,728 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147725
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Wills are free. If they're not free, they're not wills.
    John 15:5 I have to disagree
    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..."

  2. #407
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,544
    Thanks
    2,580
    Thanked 4,582 Times in 2,728 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147725
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Except you are pointing to God's own description of Himself and His justice and saying "you are wrong." Lon, that makes you wrong.
    I'm disagreeing with what YOU think it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    And may I offer a suggestion? If you have problems understanding God's nature of love and justice in the Old Testament... instead of assigning an inferior (contradictory) standard to God that disagrees with his own description of Himself, be willing to consider that the perceived difficulty may be due to other assumptions that you might be wrongly holding as non-negotiable. Perhaps give one of those examples and see how someone else might answer it otherwise?
    Examples: "Get behind me Satan!" and "Do not give the dogs what belongs to the children."

    After? Destroying infants? Etc. I don't believe your version of justice will adequately address these.
    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..."

  3. #408
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,386
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 10,650 Times in 7,762 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    John 15:5 I have to disagree
    That verse doesn't say wills can be not free.
    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.

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

    glorydaz (November 18th, 2018),JudgeRightly (November 18th, 2018),Tambora (November 18th, 2018)

  5. #409
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,514
    Thanks
    820
    Thanked 1,534 Times in 1,205 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    John 15:5 I have to disagree
    ... how does that passage relate to "If the will is not free it isn't actually will?" It looks like you're reading something else into that passage completely otherwise from the theme and context...

  6. #410
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,514
    Thanks
    820
    Thanked 1,534 Times in 1,205 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I'm disagreeing with what YOU think it is.
    You were disagreeing with the quote from Ezekiel where God says that he has no pleasure in destroying the wicked, that his ways are equal in that if the wicked shall change to good he shall be judged by the change, and if the good shall change to wicked he shall also be judged by the change.

    That is a fair and consistent method of judgment that is easily understood by humanity as being fair and consistent. Most of humanity, at least... it does conflict with the Calvinist predestination concept (why would that passage and many more like it even exist if that were true?)

    Originally Posted by Rosenritter
    And may I offer a suggestion? If you have problems understanding God's nature of love and justice in the Old Testament... instead of assigning an inferior (contradictory) standard to God that disagrees with his own description of Himself, be willing to consider that the perceived difficulty may be due to other assumptions that you might be wrongly holding as non-negotiable. Perhaps give one of those examples and see how someone else might answer it otherwise?
    Examples: "Get behind me Satan!" and "Do not give the dogs what belongs to the children."

    Those are examples of ... seemingly contradictory examples of God's nature? Why?

    After? Destroying infants? Etc. I don't believe your version of justice will adequately address these.
    Challenge accepted. Would you explain each of your three points? The nature of this question is identifying what assumption(s) are actually influencing someone else's perspective.

    1. "Get behind me Satan"
    1.1 did you mean Matthew 16:23 or Luke 4:8 (Which, or both?)
    1.2 Also... why might either of these pose difficulty?

    2. "Do not give the dogs what belongs to the children" Matthew 15:56, Mark 7:27.
    2.1 What is the nature of the proposed difficulty? Is it the instance of the word "dogs" or that Jesus did give the children's bread to the "dogs?"

    3. "Destroying infants"
    2.1 Where? Genesis 6:17? Exodus 12:29? 2 Samuel 12:18? Is it any of these or others that you are thinking of?
    2.2. Is there a reason that you limited your example to infants?
    2.3. I cannot think of any instance where an infant was judged. Can you explain why you choose death of an infant as a potential difficulty for the perception of justice?

    Please feel free to elaborate on each of your challenges; I cannot (should not) have to guess at your assumptions. Let's see if they melt away or not?

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

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday)

  8. #411
    Over 1500 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,825
    Thanks
    1,265
    Thanked 929 Times in 533 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    392439
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    John 15:5 I have to disagree
    Joh 15:5 Whoever abides in me and I in him

    abiding is a choice, or did I miss your point ?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to way 2 go For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday)

  10. #412
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,879
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 844 Times in 584 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    233328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Romans 7:17
    "IF" I'm at all responsible for my will, instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, then I don't believe I am or can be saved 2 Corinthians 5:17 1 Corinthians 6:19,20 Christ's work has stepped in and eradicated the consequences of my will and has redeemed all ensuing consequences of 'my will' making it null and void and Hiswill of the only consequence. I'm not exactly swallowed up in Christ's identity, there is still a Lon in existence. Saying that, however, the only thing I really know of the Apostle Paul is what He did in Christ and for Christ. I know nothing else of 'his' will but rather "HIS" will regarding the Apostle.
    That applies well to you who are submissive to His will. But how does that apply to those that aren't. Is it the case that God's will is that people fight against His will? Isn't that exactly what free-will proponents are getting at--that God has for a time decided not to enforce His preferred (preceptive) will, in order that He will make something good come out of letting humans have their way. I think that the purpose is that the two wills (God's and man's) will be joined, and the only way that is a win for man or God is if man submits to God, which is a willful act. Man has a choice whether to do so or not. Eventually, God will sovereignly act against those that refuse to submit, so that he can be joined with those who are left.

    It's just a tautology to say that God has a permissive will that matches everything that happens--of course that's true, but it is of little value, imo. I'm not so sure about a decretal will, established from before the foundation of the world, that matches everything that happens.

    The gospel is simple but NOT simplistic. I have to entirely disagree here. It cost the Lord Jesus Christ His life. That wasn't/isn't "easy to explain" imho. Simple love? Yes but not simplistic. I disagree.
    My use of "simplistic" wasn't the best, nor the most pure of the meanings. Sorry for the confusion. But the dictionary I saw offered "simple" as a definition for "simplistic".

    My inclination is to skip this, but my will is of little consequence. God will have His way and you and I will but follow it to the end and hopefully learn having gone through such discussion. I'm a little and insignificant person on my own John 15:5
    Agree. Rather, it all depends upon the Cross, no?
    Are you insignificant if God loves you? If God's son died for you? While I agree that compared to God/Jesus we are and always will be insignificant. But His actions (including the one where the Son become an insignificant man) show the significance He has elevated us to in His eyes, and even before that, from the first thought of "Let us make man in our image."

    You just said it: 'not much I can do...' In the world God is the Mover and Shaker, you and I but for a few Billy Graham's here, and a Ravi Zacharias there, aren't seen. "Our" will is all for not in such a grand scheme (and rightly so). RATHER it is 'if' we espoused His will that anything at all matters. Honestly, that is my desire in life, to know Him and make HIM known. I'm of no consequence other than having the blessing of being His. NOBODY NEEDS Lon. They NEED Jesus. Lon's will ONLY counts when it is following the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.
    "Counts"? What does that mean? If hell was created for the devil and his angels, surely the devil's will "counts" even if it is completely antithetical to God's.

    Which isn't far from my understanding. We aren't free in this respect in agreement. It really is His will or not-His-will. Only His will counts for anything, not just 'counts' but amounts to anything. All else is to be wiped out. Us? Wood hay and stubble BUT for what He has rendered in us. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
    The fact that wood hay and stubble exist to be burned tells us that there is something besides God's will being done, just as the Lord's prayer tells us: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."


    Not quite: His permissive will is done, not that it is thwarted, thus 'conflict' isn't the right question. It is neither in conflict nor exactly the same. I'm not God so going even this far is a bit too far in speculation. I'm simply not God, and simply understand where 'my' prowess ends, His hasn't even been touched yet (as I've been trying to convey here in thread to Rosen as well). An illustration: I've gone further in mathematics than a few, BUT I've not gone into quantum mechanics or even higher physics. I'm aware thus, that I'm above my 'basic math' peers and below my higher math peers. I can carry a conversation only so far AND mathematicians are only able to describe consequently, how far they themselves have gone in math. There are levels to the 'apprehension' of truth. Mathematic truths do not change, apprehension of them is limited to every finite man's "ability" to grasp.

    Conversely, I truly believe the things of God are truths that are varied in apprehension and ability to comprehend. Here, I believe a simple conflict between God's decretive and prescriptive will is insufficient assessment. Rather, God's prescriptive will is remedial: It is all aimed at bringing back those redeemed to a true state of redemption. Thus one will of God is given to us irrevocable and the other is given to a developing people as they need for God's overall plan. It isn't thus in conflict, but rather in stage "there to here and not yet the final desire."
    I think I wrote my comment poorly, and you rightly corrected it in your reply. "Decretal will" and "permissive will" are synonymous, at least in referring to what actually happens. I was attempting to point out that decretal and preceptive are in conflict. But I don't think there is great disagreement that God allows some things here and now that won't ever be allowed again. And it is for some purpose that He allows things now that won't be later. That's probably where the "permissive" idea came from, and though used synonymously, the two ideas--decreed vs permitted--only translate to glory for God if he didn't plan everything that happens before the earth began. Surely He is to be glorified for planning the answer/solution to sin, but hardly for planning the sin itself.





    Here Enyart makes a rookie mistake and says that the Omni's are philosophical rather than Biblical. Such IS an admission that not only are they 'less important' but deemed 'unbiblical.' At one time I confronted that notion with 'almighty' being a biblical given but not redaction has ever been presented. Open Theists do not believe the biblical Omni's, are biblical. It is very important to recognize where you agree or depart with them upon this important point of doctrinal issue regarding the very character of God. It is essential that biblical definitions be adhered to. Heresy, according to Protestants, is a 'departure from the clear teaching of scriptures.' A departure from "God almighty" for instance, is a departure from being anything Christian/biblical.
    I could be wrong, but it didn't seem like "omnipotence" was the main target. And in another of his missives (sorry I couldn't find it again for a reference) he specifically said impassibility was impossible for someone who has taken on a human nature for the rest of eternity.

    It is actually a comparison/illustration that undoes your argument: Your house warms you better 'by design' than willy-nilly no rhyme or reason. The same is true of love. You CAN point to better forms of it AND because it conforms to preset standards of God. Your 'choosing otherwise' sentiment is perhaps said for a nice sentimental reason, but reason itself is the better and more appropriate and accurate descriptor, and love explained well and given with guidelines and directives is the appropriate and better expression of love. It may 'seem' cold and calculated, but I disagree serendipity is the preference OR better definition of love. Moreover, it is why, you don't get an unthinking tie every father's day.
    Who is talking about willy-nilly love? I'm saying your definition of love is rather unimpressive, and my house fits the bill. Surely love is more than that. But that was Bob's point, if I understood it correctly--that love as an attribute of God is more accurate than impassibility, and more biblical. And more what God has actually said about Himself, which is part of what started this conversation (didactic vs narrative scripture).


    Nope. You can't win an argument upon a technicality. You can ask for clarification 'if' you don't get it, but is this really true? Did you not get that I was saying. God is not subservient to the future, rather it, is subservient to God as necessary. There is nothing outside of God BUT God is infinite. Thus it is more often a 'both/and' consideration. Open Theists often make it an either/or without understanding this is not that limited (speaking from the Calvinist thought and perspective, and I think with biblical understanding) but rather more inclusive in understanding. God is BOTH relational to AND unrestricted by time (Not sure if that is followed by another's logical understanding whenever I try to explain or simply state it).
    Yes. It is just where we were/are in the discussion as it progresses (might be a lost point here, I have a hard time following some of these stringed thoughts but having read back, I think I'm still following and answering cogently).
    Is not "Would you like to rephrase?" asking for clarification?

    But what does "unrestricted by time" mean? Is it the same as "impassible"? "Unrestricted" seems like it would allow for God to be eternal without being "impassible". But "relational" and "impassible" are not very compatible with each other.


    Er, wasn't my 'belief' simply the product of all that Christ did, however? 1 Corinthians 4:7 For whatever amount we appreciate one another, I'm fine with the observations. I don't 'think' this is Arminian, but I'm okay if you think so for the time being (Arminians believe in 'works'). -In Him
    I don't see how "belief" is the product of all He did, unless all people are believing now.


    Imho, opening up the contingent, which I too believe is implied and thus deduced from the passage (though I think it has to be reasoned from that scripture as necessary conclusion), explains that 'the pot is going to boil over' and "you are going to die. You will not recover..." Isaiah 38:1
    We 'can' read from the passage "you are going to die." We need to be careful however when we read "you will not recover" that we don't see it as necessarily a prophetic utterance apart from the information. In otherwords, that we read 'you will die, I mean by that you aren't going to recover from this illness" should be read as news regarding current events/information. There is no preemptive problem with it, that Hezekiah should not have asked God to heal him. At least, from both Isaiah and 2 Kings 20, we are not left to assume that.
    Except that God wasn't talking about current events/information. He was talking about the future. If God cannot be trusted to speak truth when He talks about the future, what can he be trusted with? Our whole hope for salvation is that we will be resurrected in the future, as we have been told by God. Despair comes from a lack of that hope, because God said "surely you will die". The whole salvation message is that God has changed our future from death to life. He spoke that we would die. He speaks that we will now live. And something major changed in between those two pronouncements.



    I disagree on this ground: 4a + 5 ≠ 9 I'm convinced, and so are you, that 9 isn't even a part of this equation and cannot EXCEPT that a = 1 AND it is wholly unreasonable to expect that a can ONLY stand for that. The equation itself is NOT in fact, a lie. It is rather 'an equation.' If we simplify God's communication to anything less than an equation, we've simply done the exact same mistake in scripture that we incorrectly demand of an algebraic equation: That it be simplistic without causing further needed contemplation. This we cannot do. It is wrong to expect such a simplistic answer of this scripture as far as I understand communication, as well. Language is NOWHERE near as exacting (most times with the exception of scriptures such as "God is love")!
    I'm having difficulty understanding your point. The thing that bothers my with your comparison is that you are calling a statement of inequality an "equation". It is the very opposite of an equation, because the two sides are not equal. But it is an accurate statement, due to the "≠". You are saying mathematics is precise, while language isn't as much. But mathematics is transmitted through the language of mathematics, and if we call an inequality an equation, we are creating confusion.

    This is my complaint with Calvinism--they look at the words of the bible and say, "those words don't mean what they say, they mean the opposite. This is detrimental to our understanding of truth. If we say, "a lie is when you purposefully tell someone something false", and "a lie is morally wrong", and then we say, "God purposefully told Hezekiah something that was false", and "it was not a lie nor was it morally wrong." We either must admit we aren't speaking in the same language, or we must admit we are introducing confusion.

    If we say that everything God told Hezekiah was true, then there is no choice but to admit that Hezekiah's future changed in between the two statements. I don't know that I can put that in equation form, but I can try.
    Hez + a' days = death, (where a' days << 15 years)
    Hez + 15 years = death

    You can see that in a mathematical world, where math is constant and precise, a' days would have to equal 15 years, which is a contradiction with "a' days << 15 years". In math, that means something is wrong with the premises, just as it does in logic. We're not talking about a mathematical world, but a world where things happen and people and God interact--where there are many variables. I'm suggesting, of course, that the language is just as precise as it needs to be, and the language is the means by which God and we communicate ideas. God communicated an idea to Hezekiah that is clear--Hezekiah, at least, was very aware of its meaning. His death was only a few heartbeats away, until he prayed and God heard his prayers and varied Hezekiah's future.



    Not exactly. It is kind of like 4a + 5 = The answer can change but not the proposition. Furthermore, the proposition has only one answer (future proposition is always a difficult discussion and proposition, the value for a is known to only one until it is solved, then we all know it (unless we got it wrong).
    But again, you have not given an equation. You given a partial proposition this time. There's not even enough information to solve for a. You ASSUME that the giver of the partial statement has a value in mind for the right side, but that is totally an assumption. The information just isn't there to make a full statement. And because it isn't a full statement/proposition, there is no truth value. That is NOT the case for God's pronouncements on Hezekiah. They were testable propositions.

    But I've likely missed your point, so may I ask what you would equate the variable "a" to in your statements? Is that the time Hezekiah will live, known only to God? Some factor that needs to be included in determining how long Hezekiah will live? Whatever the case, God gave Hezekiah the end result, and then allowed it to change (changed it Himself).



    EXCEPT it is God's way of bringing about HIS plans. His interacting accomplishes those purposes. I think you are arguing for significance but John 15:5 IS that significance. Philippians 1:20
    God's way is to say something that isn't true as if it is true? Really? I hadn't noticed that about God's way ever before.

    And Hezekiah helps to explain some of the meaning of John 15:5. Hezekiah would not exist without God, that is true. But Hezekiah couldn't displease God at God's pleasure. If all Hezekiah did was at God's pleasure, ala Is 46:10, then displeasure is part of God's pleasure. Which means, I'm sure you see, that God is the author of sin in your reading of John 15:5.

    You cannot throw out the idea that it is logical and understandable. Rather, you throw out the idea that YOUR ideas are, as they sit, logical and understood correctly all the time. It is rather, entertaining the thought "I might be wrong about this particular passage." Also, as we are faithful to God, and as I said, seeking 'His' will, we cannot help but be molded and conformed to His logical, understandable, and truthful (logic and truth should agree, but sometimes the one who 'thinks' he is logical, is not) image. In Him
    Except that it isn't my ideas that we are talking about. We are talking about a conversation between two people in the distant past. We think we have a correctly translated version of their conversation. In the conversation, there is no mincing of words, but God is very direct in His pronouncements, which are easy to understand. And they are contradictory.

    I appreciate your use of mathematics, especially the addition of a variable that affects the outcome. This is all I've been saying with the Hezekiah story--there was a variable that applied to the length of his life. And if there really is a variability of the length of anyone's life, then at least in this one thing, God had NOT ordained the outcome from the foundation of the earth.

    So, I'm agreeing with you here, but are you in agreement with yourself?

    Lon, you have been more than patient through this exchange. I hope we can continue, but if we don't have more exchange between now and Thursday, have a happy and thankful Thanksgiving.
    Derf

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