ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Sorry I haven't been around... I was on vacation last week, and while I took my computer, I didn't have a lot of time to post online.

I took my wife and 4 of the kid to the Rocky Mountains. We visited Yellowstone, Archways National Park, Canyonlands "Island in the Sky" National Park. and Gunnison National Park. The beauty and majesty of each was awe inspiring.

I got to thinking about how each formation, while similar to others, had its own unique features that made each beautiful in its own way, which only brought into focus God's great omnipotence and His creative genius. By only using the laws and forces of nature, God is constantly painting a beautiful picture in the rocks and trees around us, as though God continues to create beauty for His creation to marvel over.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Oh brother... spare us your garbage Nang, you are lucky you haven't been permanently banned, you monumental moron!

You have offered little more than childish, meaningless posts to these threads. I can see why Clete gets so frustrated with you morons. I have been frustrated myself with settled viewers in the past with their impenetrable obfuscation, deception, and flat out lies. I have been down literally every road with the settled viewers... I have devoted mountains of time to carefully responding to their questions, I have had "One on One's" any time one of you have requested it, and I have even made private agreements at the request of my debate partner regarding what I wouldn't do in the debate only to have my opponent break the agreement himself at his first opportunity. Pathetic!!

Sorry Nang but if anything is dead it's Calvinism and the settled view. It's funny, 10 years ago Calvinists were a dime a dozen here on TOL, now almost nobody will admit to the label and the one's that do have redefined the theology so much it almost looks like the open view!

Thanks for understanding my frustration Knight but I must admit that my comments concerning SOTK (and his horse) were uncalled for on my part. I apologize both to SOTK and to you. I should not have allowed these guys (AMR in particular) to get me that upset.

 

[Philetus]

Knight,

Thanks for turning the compost pile over. Think we will ever get back to actually talking about Open Theism on this thread? I have my doubts.

Philetus

 

[Clete]

The utter destruction of the Settled View.

And if you feel Dr. Lamerson of D. James Kennedy's Knox Seminary wasn't a qualified enough opponent help us find a better one! We have an open offer (pun intended) for any well-known, published author or theologian/debater that would like to debate Bob in a part II let us know!!!

We have tried to come up with an opponent ourselves and have yet to get anyone to agree to the debate. Yet if any of you have connections and could help "grease the wheels" by all means lets get it going! :up:

Perhaps AMR would consider pitting one of his "numerous published professional theologians", with which he apparently has some considerable pull, against Bob Enyart instead of someone like me whom he knows would never be taken seriously regardless of how polite the conversation.

A Battle Royale X Mark II would be great but if the time constraints of a Battle Royale are more than AMR's boys are willing to commit too, then perhaps something a bit more casual would be more acceptable. Maybe just a simple exchange of letters (i.e. posts) similar to that which is presented in "Does God Have a Future?: A Debate on Divine Providence" by Christopher A. Hall & John Sanders. Its somewhat surprising that Chris Hall would have allowed that book to be published, actually. Perhaps AMR could even pitch such a debate as an opportunity to undo some of the damage done by what many consider to be a crushing blow that is dealt to Classical Theism by Sanders in that book. TOL is, after all, the largest of all theology debate forums on the internet. The debate would get quite a lot of exposure over the internet and would most likely be published in one form or another as well.

What say ye, AMR? Instead of simply attempting to humiliate a hack like me, how about you put your boys up against another professional with some real debating skills?

 

[Lighthouse]

With you present? :darwinsm:

Would you like to take a stab at my question?

 

[Evoken]

Think we will ever get back to actually talking about Open Theism on this thread?

Well, the thread is certainly "open" for you to talk about it.


Evo

 

[godrulz]

GR, I will make the same proposal to you. I don't think you or I need worry about my having to edit anything from your posts as a moderator, but I will extend the same offer as I made for Clete. What say ye?

I welcome intelligent dialogue. Truth does not run from error. We can learn from one another. I am not sure I am up to the task. I do not have the time or energy to get into things at a doctoral level. I would probably just reaffirm principles and hope to clarify misunderstandings on both sides. I do not have a big axe to grind nor do I just want to win or lose a debate. I want to learn and see light, not heat.

I think Clete would be better for the challenge, but not if he does not like the parameters.

I'll leave things in your hands for the next step, if any. I am going away until tomorrow night (out of town), so excuse my absence.

Perhaps some other OT would like to walk into the lion's den?

 

[themuzicman]

Hmm...

Intelligent dialogue...
Calvinist rhetoric...
Intelligent dialogue...
Calvinist rhetoric...

Gee, that sounds like the pattern of most of this thread.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Hmm...

Intelligent dialogue...
Calvinist rhetoric...
Intelligent dialogue...
Calvinist rhetoric...

Gee, that sounds like the pattern of most of this thread.

Muz

Would you be interested in Mr. R's forum debate?

 

[Clete]

New thread!

Impassibility or Passion?

I invite ANYONE, who thinks they are capable of engaging in cogent dialog to participate in this new thread. AMR, Nang, SOTK, Lonster, whomever. We'll see how long being civil with each other can last - seriously.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Evoken]

I welcome intelligent dialogue. Truth does not run from error. We can learn from one another. I am not sure I am up to the task. I do not have the time or energy to get into things at a doctoral level. I would probably just reaffirm principles and hope to clarify misunderstandings on both sides. I do not have a big axe to grind nor do I just want to win or lose a debate. I want to learn and see light, not heat.

It is both pleasing and refreshing to see this attitude from you godrulz. I already gave you positive reputation for another post showing a similar attitude in this thread (with regards to AMR's proposal), so I can't rep you again for this one. I share your sentiments.


Evo

 

[Nang]

It is both pleasing and refreshing to see this attitude from you godrulz. I already gave you positive reputation for another post showing a similar attitude in this thread (with regards to AMR's proposal), so I can't rep you again for this one. I share your sentiments.


Evo

I agree with Evoken, Godrulz.

You have evidenced a good spirit in your most recent posts, which has caused me to regret reacting to your denial of original sin, too judgmentally, too soon.

My apologies.

Perhaps someday the doctrine of Original Sin, or denials thereof, might be discussed. (There are many doctrines that I would enjoy seeing discussed amongst contributors here.)

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

I know you would like me to keep things simple, but when talking about eternity, some complexity in the discussion is required. I will do my best for you.

I had a feeling it was beyond your ability. Too bad, simplicity is often evidence of accuracy.

Yes, God was free and is the only true free Agent in existence.

Do you believe God is still free?

Can God create something new right now? (assuming He wanted to?)

Can God, write a new song?

This means simply that God is not in time. That is, for God, there is no past and no future. God possesses the whole of his life at once:

So you believe that Christ is still suffering on the cross?

And when Christ said.... "it is finished" you believe it isn't really finished? :think:

it is not lived successively. As such, even the notion of simultaneity must be abandoned when referring to God because the very concept implies time.

Utter poppycock!

And completely unbiblical to boot. The Bible is filled cover to cover with examples of God living sequentially. From Gen 1 to Revelation 22:21 you cannot escape God's rational, sequentially character.

It's all so silly! God says He created and then He rested. According to Calvinism God is still creating! According to Calvinism God can't rest on the 7th day.

God being out of time is a Calvinist invention.

Having said this, let me be clear in noting that God also sees events in time and can and does act in time. God created time and rules over time, using it for his own purposes and glory. But God’s experience of time nothing like mankind experiences time. God’s does not experience a patient endurance through eons of endless duration, instead God has a qualitatively different experience of time than we do. For example, see Ps. 90:2; Ps. 90:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 45:21; Isa. 46:9-10; Gal. 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31

While on the topic of God's decrees, let me also note that I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian ("subsequent to the fall") confessional view of God’s decrees:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

In the infralapsarian view of the decrees, we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

Translation = you want your cake and you want to eat it as well.

You can't have it both ways AMR. God either determined that man would sin or He didn't, it can't be both ways.

In the end I think it's safe to say you need to alter your list. It should go more like this...

Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label : 1. Election is a sovereign predetermined act of God, through which He DID NOT determine who shall be made righteous. (the decision was never made, it just always was) 2. The elective decree always existed in eternity. (God was not free to alter this decree)

 

[themuzicman]

Would you be interested in Mr. R's forum debate?

If it were to conclude before the end of August, sure.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If it were to conclude before the end of August, sure.

Judging by your performance at christnet.theology (assuming that was you) I don't think it would work out very well.

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps someday the doctrine of Original Sin, or denials thereof, might be discussed. (There are many doctrines that I would enjoy seeing discussed amongst contributors here.)

Nang

We have got into original sin on other threads. I feel it is more Augustinian-Catholic, than explicitly biblical. Rest assured that I believe that all men are condemned sinners in need of a sinless Savior and that we cannot save ourselves. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work (Eph. 2:8-10).

Most of my fellow Protestant Evangelicals would not agree with me on this issue. My influence to reconsider this issue (I once uncritically accepted o s because my Pentecostal college taught it like Reformed schools would) was from Finney's Systematic Theology and Moral Government teaching :shocked:

 

[godrulz]

If it were to conclude before the end of August, sure.

Muz

Can the rest of us watch, Mr. Religion?

Maybe we could have a tag team with the main writer and the other one doing minor clarifications or supplements?

What was wrong with muz on the other forum? He seems well spoken to me (I did not read the content).

 

[Clete]

Judging by your performance at christnet.theology (assuming that was you) I don't think it would work out very well.

So what?

You didn't think it was going to work out very well with me either, did you?

Not that I'm going to begrudge you the right to decline. Far be it from me to play the hypocrite. Your taking every advantage of my refusal to participate under your terms is precisely what led to my blowing my stack yesterday. A little consistency on your part would really be nice to see though.

 

[themuzicman]

I think Mr. Religion is trying to squirm out of this.

Are we talking a formal debate, with limited rounds and such?

Exactly what proposal are we going to use, and who has the affirmative?


Muz

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Why are we trying to move to another forum?

TOL is the best forum on the internet and we are all already here.

AMR, we have a strict policy against such requests.