User Tag List

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 303

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

  1. #16
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    690
    Thanked 7,104 Times in 3,783 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by NarrowWay
    In Sam's section "On the Psalms being written before Plato", Sam writes,
    "This cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God as to what we will say. The writer goes on to say in Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” It seems clear that for God to know all of the days of our lives before we are even formed he must know all that will happen to us under any circumstance."
    I'd like to thank Dr. Lamerson for helping to solidify my understanding and confidence in the OV position. Consider the following analogy.

    I go out and build a homemade lawnmower in my garage. Before I built it, I ordained it to be a lawnmower. I knew before it was even created that it would mow my lawn. I knew it's inner workings and the overall projected lifespan of my project mower. I also knew it's needs before it even ran out of gas. I knew that oil was critical to it's survival. All of these things I took into consideration before even beginning to create the mower. Could I have built a go-cart instead, certainly. What about a tiller? Conceivably, I could even build a space shuttle with the right materials, knowledge, and space.

    This is a rather simplistic analogy, but multiply the wisdom and knowledge of our Living God. How much more could He do with DNA and living cells? Wouldn't he know how his creation would perform, what it would do, how long it would last? What about it's performance? I ordained my mower to cut grass. What if someone stuck their hand underneath the housing? I didn't create a finger mower. But it became one because it was used incorrectly. The instructions weren't followed. The warning label was ignored and because of it; something outside of my design entered into the equation. Did I know that this could happen? Yes. Was that my intention for the mower when I set out to create it? No. But it was a risk I was willing to take because I chose to create a mower. Did God want us to disobey and enter into sin? No. He created us for His enjoyment and His fellowship. He also created a plan should such a thing happen. He pre-planned for the event...Christ's sacrifice. Just as I had a plan should someone cut their fingers off in the mower, I'd put the fingers in an ice chest, administer first aid, and take the person to the hospital. God is wise enough and clever enough to take all possibilities into consideration.
    POTD!

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. #17
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    I'm a transplant -- from East Tennessee to the High [Mojave] Desert in California.
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173

    Redefining the Attributes of God

    Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

    And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

    M. K. Nawojski

  3. #18
    Patron Saint of SMACK Delmar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    7,613
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 871 Times in 725 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    751545
    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

    And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

    M. K. Nawojski
    Does the term made in his image ring a bell?

  4. #19
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,007
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 8,758 Times in 5,751 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147843
    In regard to the three denials of Peter Bob Enyart said:

    Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?

    If the Lord God set up the circumstances that lead to Peter denying the Lord three times and causing him to sin,then the Lord was indeed "tempting" Peter to sin.But the Scriptures reveal that the Lord will do no such thing:

    "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed"(Jms.1:13,14).

    The Greek word translated "tempt" is "peirazo",and it means "to try or test one's faith,virtue,character,by inticement to sin; hence acc.to the context i.q. 'to solict to sin,to tempt' :Jas. i.13 sq."("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; August 14th, 2005 at 12:26 PM.

  5. #20
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    David22

    Quote Originally Posted by RightIdea
    Amen, a very nice analogy to support the Open View.

    I am new to theology online, so this is my first response. I liked the lawn mower analogy as well. But I was wondering, am I missing something? If God can do anything (all powerful), why did sin enter the picture? Couldn't he have come up with a plan to do away with sin and the crucifixion of Jesus?
    David22

  6. #21
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1037
    Quote Originally Posted by David22
    I am new to theology online, so this is my first response. I liked the lawn mower analogy as well. But I was wondering, am I missing something? If God can do anything (all powerful), why did sin enter the picture? Couldn't he have come up with a plan to do away with sin and the crucifixion of Jesus?
    David22
    Not if He wanted to create being that were capable of truly loving Him, because love must be volitional.

  7. #22
    Awww, shucks! NarrowWay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    92
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204
    David22,

    What would give God greater glory, making a creature that had no choice but to choose Him all the time, or a creature that could choose Him freely? With the first choice, the outcome is inevitable. By creating a creature that could only choose Him is cheap. I can program my own computer to tell me it loves me each time it boots up. Does it mean anything? Not really.
    Let's take it one step further. Does God create a creature that has no choice but to reject Him? If you take the settled view then you would have to answer, yes. However, imagine the happiness of a Creator, that gives His creation the ability to choose or reject Him; for the creature to TRULY love Him. Why would a God that creates the creature to only have the ability to choose Him, be happy at all? It wouldn't be a surprise would it? You almost get a picture of that type of God as a child sitting at a table having an imaginary tea party with made up guests playing out some type of soap opera script with the characters' fate already defined. I almost feel sorry for that type of God. However, if we have a God that is active in our lives and He lives and is touched when we are disobedient, not because he "programmed" us that way, but because He wants us to act the right way, the ways that He has told us is right. A God that is comfortable enough with His power and His abilities to create a creature that can choose is by far a greater God than one who micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures.

    I'm not sure if I answered your question directly, but I hope that by showing the contrasting position between the Open View and the Settled View, it may shed light on the answer. By allowing for the choice, God, in His preparations, prepared for the occasion that someone would choose to disobey. By doing so, it even further proves His love for us in that He didn't want for the creature that chose to disobey, to have to remain in that condition of broken relationship... unless it wanted to. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve," has so much more meaning when you actually have a choice.
    Mt 7:14 - Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  8. #23
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    I can create a screensaver on my computer that says, "Jim is God! Praise Him!" and bask in that all day long.

    And it wouldn't mean a gosh dilly darned thing...
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  9. #24
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    74377

    Does anyone realize that Bob has described...

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus...
    MK, will you let me finish that sentence: By "discarding the Settled View attributes of the OMNIs and the IMs, Bob has described the... Nativity.

    As to:

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.
    M. K. Nawojski
    The "made in His image" quote by Deardelmar is perfect... well, in His "likeness" would be perfect. But also, from the Battle Royale VII, Does God Exist?, Post Game Show, my response to Taoist is worth thinking through when making the kind of argument you posited.

    Taoist wrote, "Pastor Enyart believes in a God who is (a) the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, (b) existing eternally, (c) powerful, (d) wise and knowledgeable, (e) personal, (f) loving, and (g) just. Of the good pastor’s seven attributes, the last five could describe any good mortal ruler, and are anything but unique to a divinity. The first two are impossible to ascertain by natural, mortal beings…"

    Bob Replied: "Any Mortal: I will show below that apart from God’s existence, Taoist could not claim that these 'last five could describe any good mortal ruler.' But first, notice the form of Taoist’s argument: In principle, I reject as irrelevant anything in a description of God that could also be descriptive of men. Imagine if we were debating whether the moon really exists or if it’s just a phantom in the sky, and I offered that the moon has mass as evidenced by its pull on the oceans, and Taoist shoots back: 'Well, the Earth has mass also, so I reject that part of the definition.'"

    Thanks for your thoughts! -Bob
    Last edited by Bob Enyart; August 18th, 2005 at 02:06 PM. Reason: fix font (I'm becoming a font expert these days!)
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  10. #25
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Parel, It is my observation that with any disagreement, but importantly on debates over the most vital matters, the argumentation can crescendo to where the truth is staring both sides in the face. And if that moment passes, the debate will degenerate into comparatively unimportant matters. (For BRX: It is denying some of the most basic truths of the Incarnation vs. Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?) Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask Zakath). If your position is correct, and you hope to instruct and demonstrate the truth, then you should seize the moment and point it out, and just bear the criticism.

    Once it became obvious that Sam was sticking with his position which denied some of the basic truths of the Incarnation, it was crucial to declare victory, because most readers would probably not perceive what had just happened. I’m sorry that I flaunted my position in the way that I put it; if I could edit my post, I would tone that down; Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend; so I worked through most of the next two nights (I am a very slow writer, and really need all of my opponents time to catch up on his remaining questions), and well, sleep deprivation lowers my inhibitions, so that while I fully stand by my assessment, I wish I could tone down the bragging.

    And the reason I pointed out Sam’s credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of God’s nature, but it’s the theologians, the authors, the senior pastors, the professors, the standard-bearers. The argument that the attributes of goodness, etc. take precedence over power, etc. is so utterly true on the face of it. Yet a Calvinist resists such fundamental truth, because he intuitively sees that it will undermine his theology. For THIS IS THE ULTIMATE HERMENEUTIC for deciding between the Calvinist ordination of evil, and God’s creation of human will. (The matters of God being in or out of time, and exhaustive foreknowledge, are mere symptoms of the human philosophical idea of utter immutability.) For Calvinist theology originates in and depends upon the primacy of the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, over the attributes that Christ retained as a man. Of God’s attributes, Sam “rejects… that one is more important or takes precedence over another,” which claim lost him the debate, partly for being therefore theologically unqualified to judge the more complex matters of truth and righteousness that flow from an understanding of God’s nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of God’s attributes, Sam denies that He does the same (although it is utterly obvious). For the Calvinist has elevated the wrong attributes, influenced by Calvin, who couldn’t agree more with Augustine, who bragged about importing Greek philosophy (primarily utter immutability) into Christian theology. Thus Sam argues that all attributes are equal, but the Settled View (including Arminians) has accepted conclusions that result from exaggerating God’s immutability and knowledge. As an aside, thankfully, the Arminian Settled Viewers do stop short of accepting the additional Calvinist elevation of power (control, sovereignty) over His being relational.

    Once you prove that God’s attributes do have a divine order of priority, through the Incarnation, that relationship, righteousness and love take precedence over omniscience and omnipotence, etc., and your opponent rejects that, he has lost, and you have won. Let Sam admit that God’s being relational, good, and loving take precedence over power and knowledge, and then together we can begin to go through the relevant passages with this hermeneutic, and then all can see that the declaration of victory was made at the right moment.

    -Bob
    This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false. This is true of both sides.Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false.You have set up a false primes and expect us to defend it.

    Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  11. #26
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    690
    Thanked 7,104 Times in 3,783 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147777

    Red Herring

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

    And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

    M. K. Nawojski
    This is a terrific example of the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam fallacy or an "appeal to consequences" fallacy. in which the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

    It is a type of Red Herring and can take either of two forms.

    1.(Belief in) p leads to good consequences.
    (Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.)
    Therefore, p is true.

    2. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
    (Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
    Therefore, p is false.

    Of course Mawojski's argument has taken the latter form. It is a fallacy of logic because it confuses the consequences of a logical conclusion with evidence for the truth of that conclusion.

    Wouldn't you agree with Bob and I that we would should do (and/or believe) right and risk the consequences!

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  12. #27
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    74377

    Huh?

    Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:

    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false... [Of course (unless a logic error accidentally got you back to the truth).] Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. [E4E, could you please quote me on that?] How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false. [I agree, that would be inane.] You have set up a false premise and expect us to defend it. [Huh?]
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  13. #28
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    I'm a transplant -- from East Tennessee to the High [Mojave] Desert in California.
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by deardelmar
    Does the term made in his image ring a bell?
    Yes, the phrase “made in His image” does ring a bell . . . but thanks much for the kind Christian charity which prompted you to verify that fact by courteously drawing the phrase to my attention.

    I’m also familiar with the fall of Adam, through which his mind, heart, soul, and spirit were corrupted -- and through which all his unfortunate offspring came to be cast in HIS OWN vicious, rebellious, depraved image. As Paul says in I Cor. 15:49, “ . . . we have borne the image of the earthy . . . . “

    Are you familiar with these portions of Scripture?

    Psa. 50:16-21: “But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. . . . Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. . . . These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes [emphasis mine].”

    Isa. 40:12-26: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. TO WHOM THEN WILL YE LIKEN GOD? OR WHAT LIKENESS WILL YE COMPARE UNTO HIM? . . . Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. TO WHOM THEN WILL YE LIKEN ME, OR SHALL I BE EQUAL? SAITH THE HOLY ONE. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth [emphasis mine].”

    Isa. 46:1-13: “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle. . . . They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden, but themselves are gone into captivity. Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you. TO WHOM WILL YE LIKEN ME, AND MAKE ME EQUAL, AND COMPARE ME, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE? . . . Remember the former things of old: for I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE; I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it [emphasis mine]. . . .”

    Gal. 6:3: “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.”

    And one final verse, which -- interestingly enough! -- references the OV attribute of “living,” which Mr. Enyart has been emphasizing in the current debate:

    Heb. 10:31: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

    M. K. Nawojski
    http://twilight-tales.com

  14. #29
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    Amen, M.K.! Awesome scriptures to support the Open View.
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  15. #30
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    Choose you this day....

    Quote Originally Posted by NarrowWay
    David22,

    What would give God greater glory, making a creature that had no choice but to choose Him all the time, or a creature that could choose Him freely? With the first choice, the outcome is inevitable. By creating a creature that could only choose Him is cheap. I can program my own computer to tell me it loves me each time it boots up. Does it mean anything? Not really.
    Let's take it one step further. Does God create a creature that has no choice but to reject Him? If you take the settled view then you would have to answer, yes. However, imagine the happiness of a Creator, that gives His creation the ability to choose or reject Him; for the creature to TRULY love Him. Why would a God that creates the creature to only have the ability to choose Him, be happy at all? It wouldn't be a surprise would it? You almost get a picture of that type of God as a child sitting at a table having an imaginary tea party with made up guests playing out some type of soap opera script with the characters' fate already defined. I almost feel sorry for that type of God. However, if we have a God that is active in our lives and He lives and is touched when we are disobedient, not because he "programmed" us that way, but because He wants us to act the right way, the ways that He has told us is right. A God that is comfortable enough with His power and His abilities to create a creature that can choose is by far a greater God than one who micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures.

    I'm not sure if I answered your question directly, but I hope that by showing the contrasting position between the Open View and the Settled View, it may shed light on the answer. By allowing for the choice, God, in His preparations, prepared for the occasion that someone would choose to disobey. By doing so, it even further proves His love for us in that He didn't want for the creature that chose to disobey, to have to remain in that condition of broken relationship... unless it wanted to. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve," has so much more meaning when you actually have a choice.
    Thank you for your response. The settled view is saying that "God micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures" But when you read the Bible, it is so contrary to scripture! How can anyone continue to believe in the settled view? Isn't it clear, as Bob stated that, the settled view is based on Greek mythology.

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