User Tag List

Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2128293031
Results 451 to 454 of 454

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

  1. #451
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,584
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 1,766 Times in 1,408 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    192343
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Right, I'm saying rather, what you call wibbly wobbly... .

    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
    That's not what Open Theism does. Open Theism (at least what I've seen of it) embraces that God is Eternal and always was and will for ever continue to be, not because "he has already existed for ever in the future" but because he simply will exist in the future. These acknowledgments are embraced in the clear language of which we are accept as given to us by God, where God acknowledges that things will happen in the future, or might happen depending on actions not yet decided.

  2. #452
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,584
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 1,766 Times in 1,408 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    192343
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    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.
    Your take on Genesis is that the serpent "gave' man free will that otherwise man did not have? But by extension, who gave the serpent the ability to change man's nature? I don't think you've escaped anything.

    Regardless, evidence of man's ability to choose comes prior to the introduction of the serpent. It's drawn directly from God's commandment. I don't make a commandment of "all apples shall fall down from the tree" if natural law made it impossible for them to do otherwise. A commandment itself is proof that there disobedience is a possibility. Thus, free will is well proved from the inception of the commandment.

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

    Derf (January 11th, 2019)

  4. #453
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    501
    Thanked 862 Times in 598 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    239965
    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.
    I think I made that statement in an expression of humility acknowledging that I doubt I'll fully understand God on this side of the resurrection, and maybe not on the other, either. But perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant I would never want to be a "settled theist". I can assure you that I'm happy to accept the settled theist view and embrace it fully if I'm shown via trustworthy source(s) that it is correct. But a "settled theologian" is one who has determined he is absolutely correct in his theology and there will never be a reason to change it. His theology allows for no errors in his understanding.


    We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization.
    Many Calvinists come across as settled theologians (not just settled theists).

    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.
    I think I can say I know you well enough from your posts to think that you think you have explained these truths sufficiently--that you have taught the higher theological math to us, and we're not getting it. But, like me I'm sure, I expect some of what you are saying does not come across quite like you meant it.

    I appreciate the prayers for my understanding, and I appreciate bluntness, when it is for a specific purpose. I don't think you are being very blunt here. I don't think you have pointed out what the errors are that I'm making, nor the remedy. Talking about basic and higher math does me little good if the answers I'm looking for are found in the application of such math. Show me where my math is wrong. Show me the correct expression. Show me where you get it from. If it appears to come from you, pardon me for saying so, I'll likely reject it as one man's opinion.


    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.
    May I suggest a settled theist does similar damage by assuming full understanding of time and eternity? Perhaps the answer is to only deal in the environment we know about, and not think we can fully understand how God perceives things, except the way He expresses.

    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.
    Do you really think the GotQuestions author understoods fully what he was talking about? Why is his understanding, presumably at least somewhat faulty, more accurate than mine or @Rosenritter's? Is it because it matches more closely with yours? Or is it because it matches more closely with current theory of space-time? I'm quite enamored by current space-time theory. I see it confirmed in my work. But I don't think Einstein had a full grasp of the relationship between time and eternity, any more than the GotQuestions author does.

    Lacking a full understanding of space-time, I'm hard-pressed to cling stubbornly to current theories, no matter how well they are confirmed so far, to explain what even those theories don't claim to explain.

  5. #454
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,584
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 1,766 Times in 1,408 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    192343
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I think I made that statement in an expression of humility acknowledging that I doubt I'll fully understand God on this side of the resurrection, and maybe not on the other, either. But perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant I would never want to be a "settled theist". I can assure you that I'm happy to accept the settled theist view and embrace it fully if I'm shown via trustworthy source(s) that it is correct. But a "settled theologian" is one who has determined he is absolutely correct in his theology and there will never be a reason to change it. His theology allows for no errors in his understanding.


    Many Calvinists come across as settled theologians (not just settled theists).

    I think I can say I know you well enough from your posts to think that you think you have explained these truths sufficiently--that you have taught the higher theological math to us, and we're not getting it. But, like me I'm sure, I expect some of what you are saying does not come across quite like you meant it.

    I appreciate the prayers for my understanding, and I appreciate bluntness, when it is for a specific purpose. I don't think you are being very blunt here. I don't think you have pointed out what the errors are that I'm making, nor the remedy. Talking about basic and higher math does me little good if the answers I'm looking for are found in the application of such math. Show me where my math is wrong. Show me the correct expression. Show me where you get it from. If it appears to come from you, pardon me for saying so, I'll likely reject it as one man's opinion.


    May I suggest a settled theist does similar damage by assuming full understanding of time and eternity? Perhaps the answer is to only deal in the environment we know about, and not think we can fully understand how God perceives things, except the way He expresses.

    Do you really think the GotQuestions author understoods fully what he was talking about? Why is his understanding, presumably at least somewhat faulty, more accurate than mine or @Rosenritter's? Is it because it matches more closely with yours? Or is it because it matches more closely with current theory of space-time? I'm quite enamored by current space-time theory. I see it confirmed in my work. But I don't think Einstein had a full grasp of the relationship between time and eternity, any more than the GotQuestions author does.

    Lacking a full understanding of space-time, I'm hard-pressed to cling stubbornly to current theories, no matter how well they are confirmed so far, to explain what even those theories don't claim to explain.
    God speaks to us in linear terms. He tells us that there was a time when the universe had not yet been spoken, and he relates himself to us in a linear fashion, dealing with us and the results of our actions as they occur. We are condemned from the outset but he is willing to forgive if and when we repent. No one needs "time algebra" to accept God "always existing" ... everyone I know accepts this on simple faith. If there is such a thing as "time algebra" it isn't something God needs us to know or even particularly wants us to be concerned about this side of salvation.

    By means of demonstration, Ask Mr. Religion has a similar closed view of time that Lon does, but he says that we should interact with God and his warnings as if time is in a linear open fashion. Thus, the warnings given in Hebrews 6:4-6 are to be read and acted upon as if they were real, that we as the saints could fall away and not be renewed to repentance. That regardless of our theory of how time might be closed, we should act as if it were open.

    Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV
    (4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
    (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
    (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    So is the driving force behind "time algebra" really about helping us to accept "God is eternal" or more to do as a necessary construction for a greater theory, that the elect were chosen as individuals before they were created? Regardless, we need to act as if time is linear and the future is open.

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

    Derf (January 13th, 2019)

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