ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

They cannot save themselves.

No one can. We all deserve justice, not mercy, nor grace.

You cannot have it both ways. Face your faith like a man, both the good and the bad. God has predestined everybody or He hasn't. God has ordained everything or He hasn't. Calvinism allows no other alternative. Remember, the Westminster Confession that you hold to be true states clearly that God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Did He or didn't He?

Thanks for telling me what I believe and teach. Ahem. Study more; learn the distinctions between predestination and foreordination.

Edit - You are correct that Sproul does not claim to believe in double predestination. My bad.

O.K.

 

[Nang]

Nang: I think you have Ostrich syndrome. Your theology does not resonate with reality. It is indefensible.

Thank you for sharing your honest opinion of my witness, GR.

I will forever remember it . . .

Nang

 

[godrulz]

AMR:

The sky is blue. Today is Sept. 11/2007.

Do these assertions stand or do I have to give a dissertation in defense of them to keep you happy?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nang: I think you have Ostrich syndrome. Your theology does not resonate with reality. It is indefensible.

Of course, coming from someone who does not have a single defensive bone in his body, you just as well have asked Nang to marry you. Alas, she is already taken.

Assert on, fella.

 

[godrulz]

No one can. We all deserve justice, not mercy, nor grace.

Thanks for telling me what I believe and teach. Ahem. Study more; learn the distinctions between predestination and foreordination.

O.K.

Sounds like mere assertions. Doctorate dissertation please. You cannot have a double standard and make a statement without defending it in detail (every time the subject comes up, day or night, one person or 1000 people). You may want to quit your day job, hippo-crit.

 

[godrulz]

Of course, coming from someone who does not have a single defensive bone in his body, you just as well have asked Nang to marry you. Alas, she is already taken.

Assert on, fella.

Do you realize your assertion about predestination vs foreordination will likely vary from 10 other people, including in your own Calvinistic circles?

Refresh our memories. How do you distinguish the two? Your decretal views are not necessarily biblical views.

My wife is right. We are all so mat-ure here. :noid:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR:

The sky is blue. Today is Sept. 11/2007.

Do these assertions stand or do I have to give a dissertation in defense of them to keep you happy?

That's the spirit, GR!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sounds like mere assertions. Doctorate dissertation please. You cannot have a double standard and make a statement without defending it in detail (every time the subject comes up, day or night, one person or 1000 people). You may want to quit your day job, hippo-crit.

On the contrary, I can assert what I have defended and provide the defense. One dissertation defense coming right up - start here. Be sure to begin with the beginning links shown.

Therein lies the difference between you and I. Your answer to your own question would be, "I don't know where to look in all of my 18,000 posts, but I know that I have defended this somewhere along the way."

EDIT:
See above for discussion of your question posed here and also see here.

I can do this all day. Too bad you cannot, for you have never posted a comprehensive defense of anything you assert herein. You are stagnant, GR. Get up off your duff, dust off some books, and fire up the word processor. Get crackin!

 

[themuzicman]

Before I spend the time responding, Muz, I want to make sure that this is your position. Perhaps some of your unsettled theism brethren will PM you and let you know where this is inevitably headed.

I don't have time for your naive, simpleton ways, Mr. Religion. If you have a point, make it.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Do you realize your assertion about predestination vs foreordination will likely vary from 10 other people, including in your own Calvinistic circles?

Refresh our memories. How do you distinguish the two? Your decretal views are not necessarily biblical views.

My wife is right. We are all so mat-ure here. :noid:

It’s almost ironical GR. Your wife and mine share much in common.

 

[RobE]

Here we go again....

Here we go again....

(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source[/indent]

The tired old arguments.....

Does God foresee what we will do or what we can do?

The mixing of terms causes quite of bit of confusion for open theists.

They have a problem seeing it when you point it out.:doh:

Too much wikipedia maybe...even stanford has been affected.

:hammer:

 

[godrulz]

up off your duff, dust off some books, and fire up the word processor. Get crackin!

I'll never reach 1 million posts before I die if I have to do this. I will also have to quit my job to write long posts that everyone but you will ignore. No thx.

If I am reasoning with a JW or Mormon (life or death) expect more substance than trying to duplicate what has been said about Open Theism vs Calvinism in print or on the internet.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No one can. We all deserve justice, not mercy, nor grace.

Thanks for telling me what I believe and teach. Ahem. Study more; learn the distinctions between predestination and foreordination.

O.K.

I am disappointed in you. You copped out and totally avoided addressing any of my points. I submit you are unable to address them in any meaningful manor.

 

[themuzicman]

And this surprises you, given his other participation in this thread?

Muz

 

[CabinetMaker]

And this surprises you, given his other participation in this thread?

Muz

Not really.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The tired old arguments.....

Does God foresee what we will do or what we can do?

The mixing of terms causes quite of bit of confusion for open theists.

They have a problem seeing it when you point it out.:doh:

Too much wikipedia maybe...even stanford has been affected.

:hammer:

Yup. And then there is this and this and this.

 

[themuzicman]

Assuming t ranges over time, the problem can be constructed thusly,
1. If the past is infinite, then God delayed, at t, creating until t + n. (P)
2. If God, at t, delayed creating until t + n, He must have possessed a good reason for so doing. (P)
3. If the past is infinite, God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (P)
4. Therefore, if the past is infinite, God, at t, must have possessed a good reason for delaying creating until t + n. (HS,1,2)
5. The past is infinite.(P)
6. Therefore, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n.(M-P,4,5)
7. Therefore, God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (MP,3,5)
8. Therefore, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n, and God cannot have had a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n . (Conj.,6,7)
9. Therefore, if the past is infinite, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n, and God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (CP,5-8)
10. Therefore, the past is not infinite. (RAA,9) (note: RAA = Reductio Ad Absurdum)

1) There's no basis for saying that God delayed creating.
2) There's no basis for saying that God has a good reason to not create at any given time.
3) This assumes that God is bound by time, rather than in control of it.

Muz

 

[Clete]

I said, "I can only trust that what He says is true even when it appears to be a contradiction."

Appears is the key word. Many times we have atheists posting things that say this contradicts that. Usually it is something taken out of context by them to prove a pet point of their own making. Sometimes it requires a little bit more digging to understand what is going on which ultimately reveals the contradiction is nothing more than a lack of understanding.

That is the case here. I lack a complete understanding of how God can have precise foreknowledge while we have free will. It is a lack of understanding by me, not a contradiction in God. I honestly believe it is because God is not bound by time the way we are. He has a perspective that we are utterly unable to grasp. Our reference frame is just to limited.

It would be like going back to give Moses a GPS to help him through the desert and trying to explain to him how it worked. Moses would utterly lack any of the knowledge that would help him truly understand how that fairly simple device works. Moses frame of reference is to limited.

If the "appearance" of contradiction is due to a systemic failure in your ability to understand then how can you tell the difference between an apparent contradiction and a real one? Don't they both appear the same?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

If the "appearance" of contradiction is due to a systemic failure in your ability to understand then how can you tell the difference between an apparent contradiction and a real one? Don't they both appear the same?

Resting in Him,
Clete

In this case, no. The Bible does say that God knows the future. It does not say how He knows it. My attempts to explain His foreknowledge results in an apparent contradiction.

 

[godrulz]

In this case, no. The Bible does say that God knows the future. It does not say how He knows it. My attempts to explain His foreknowledge results in an apparent contradiction.

Chapter? Verse?

How does He know the future? He knows it as possible, not actual, unless He predetermines to settle somethings in advance by His ability.

Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but indefensible.

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge would be possible if God predetermined and brought to pass everything (omnicausal). Since this would make God responsible for heinous evil, we must jettison EDF (i.e. Open Theism is able to affirm free will, predestination/foreknowledge of some vs all things, and omniscience, knowing all that is logically possible to know).