ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lighthouse]

A God with an increasing IQ how quaint.

Apparently you don't know what IQ is. An increase in knowledge is not an increase in IQ.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Apparently you don't know what IQ is. An increase in knowledge is not an increase in IQ.

picky picky you got the point.

 

[Lon]

Look Lon, I have no interest in discussing anything with you at all, until such time as you repent of the blatantly intentional dishonest manner in which you deal with these issues. You are a complete waste of time.

That, however, does not preclude me from calling a spade and spade.

I don't give a rip what the context was nor how the line by line conversation went. Under no circumstances nor in any context whatsoever, are you in any way omniscient under the biblically accurate and logically sound Open View definition of that term, nor are you even capable of being so!

There are therefore two and only two options. You either spoke without understanding a thing about the Open View understanding of omniscience, which I very much doubt, or you lied!

Which is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

For the record, and because of your lame, ilaudable, ridiculous vitriol, I have no desire to discuss debate topics of concern with you. Your demeanor, mean-spirited candor and wrong headedness are obstacles: None of your business until such a time as these are addressed appropriately between us in PM.

 

[godrulz]

WW III?

I don't think Lon is lying or that Clete is congenial. I do think Lon is getting too philosophical and missing the forest for the tree.

 

[Clete]

WW III?

I don't think Lon is lying or that Clete is congenial. I do think Lon is getting too philosophical and missing the forest for the tree.

If you don't think he's lying, do you think he just stupid then?

Or is it that you really think that his point about being omniscient himself according to the Open View definition of the term was a good point?

You're too nice, godrulz! These people that you don't know from Adam get on this web forum and you assume that they are all your friends, that they are all partners with you in Christ, no matter how insane, assinine, are stupid the things they say are or how embarrassed you aught to be for them. This, I'm sure is the same type of response Lon is used to getting from people around him because he plays the part of the intellectual quite well. He sounds thoughtful and he never says anything really blatantly offensive and so he's really easy to respect and look up to in spite of the fact that most of what he says is meaningless nonsense that's designed more to make him sound thoughtful and intellectual than anything else.
You aren't doing him any favors, godrulz. When someone says something stupid, especially when it insults not only your own theology but the very attributes of God, which you claim to believe in, its time to stop being nice and start pointing out stupidity and calling it what it is.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

For the record, and because of your lame, ilaudable, ridiculous vitriol, I have no desire to discuss debate topics of concern with you. Your demeanor, mean-spirited candor and wrong headedness are obstacles: None of your business until such a time as these are addressed appropriately between us in PM.

"ilaudable" is not a word, Lon.

If you want to though big, mostly unused words around to make a point about my wrong "headedness" (also not a word), you might want to use a spell checker.

In the mean time, I will call a spade a spade whenever and wherever I see fit. If you don't want to be the subject of such observations I suggest you stop being a spade.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

WW III?

I don't think Lon is lying or that Clete is congenial. I do think Lon is getting too philosophical and missing the forest for the tree.

Ever feel like:

"Tell Clete, I don't care to discuss this with Him."

"Tell Lon, He cannot use a dictionary."

You are caught in a middle-man scenario?

Too philosophical, I'd rather be, but perhaps I can wrest this down to brass tacks.

The OV definition of Omniscience is "Knowing all that is knowable."
In the short run, the definition could even be usable for the classic understanding but it is nefarious for what it might allow to the contrary.

It allows for stipulation and restraints upon the 'omni' understanding so that all is not All. It is disqualifying for the definition of omni in other words.
That isn't too philosophical, but a logical assessment concerning the definition. It isn't a good one. Once 'qualifiers' shade the truth of what 'all' means, it can be further shaded to where even I, according to the OV parameter, would be able to use it for my personal omniscience (knowing all that is logically knowable to me).

The problem is that I can apply the OV definition this way. Because of that, I'd suggest working over the definition again. It needs to be stated in a way that I cannot use it to say "I'm omniscient." As it stands, I think it inaccurate to what Open Theists are trying to convey specifically because of it being applicable to me as being able to attain it. If it is not clarified, in the future, Mormons who state "As God is, I can become" will be able to join the OV denominations. At that point, in order to distance from those particular sects of OVers, you will necessarily have to write a treatise for what this definition does and does not mean. I believe it would be better to be proactive rather than retrospect.

 

[Lon]

Clete, put them into a google search. I did misspell illaudable (Mozilla doesn't recognize it).

 

[Clete]

The OV definition of Omniscience is "Knowing all that is knowable."
In the short run, the definition could even be usable for the classic understanding but it is nefarious for what it might allow to the contrary.

It allows for stipulation and restraints upon the 'omni' understanding so that all is not All. It is disqualifying for the definition of omni in other words.
That isn't too philosophical, but a logical assessment concerning the definition. It isn't a good one. Once 'qualifiers' shade the truth of what 'all' means, it can be further shaded to where even I, according to the OV parameter, would be able to use it for my personal omniscience (knowing all that is logically knowable to me).

The problem is that I can apply the OV definition this way. Because of that, I'd suggest working over the definition again. It needs to be stated in a way that I cannot use it to say "I'm omniscient." As it stands, I think it inaccurate to what Open Theists are trying to convey specifically because of it being applicable to me as being able to attain it. If it is not clarified, in the future, Mormons who state "As God is, I can become" will be able to join the OV denominations. At that point, in order to distance from those particular sects of OVers, you will necessarily have to write a treatise for what this definition does and does not mean. I believe it would be better to be proactive rather than retrospect.

Lon,

Okay, here's my cold, unemotional and fact based response to what you just said. This is what I would say to anyone I was talking to in any context under any circumstances that said what you just said.


YOU ARE STUPID!!!


No other response is warranted. All other responses would be a waste of time. If you cannot figure it out on your own, no explanation will help! My neighbor's dog is smart enough to know that what you've said here is completely ridiculous nonsense and that discussing Open Theism is simply beyond your faculties. Either that or you knew that what you just said was utterly ridiculous when you said it, which makes you a bald faced liar and even then no explaination would be helpful.

I'm totally serious, Lon! Your take on the Open View understanding of omniscience is simply bizarre and is anything but "a logical assessment concerning the definition" and I have a hard time believing that you actually think otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

ETS-article, Wellum, Stephen J

Not only is God omniscient, he is necessarily omniscient-it is impossible that his omniscience collapse, fail, or even waver. He is, as philosophers nowadays often say, omniscient in every possible world. That is to say, he is actually omniscient, and there is no possible, complete and coherent story about any way things could have gone (no "possible world") in which God lacks this degree of cognitive excellence. -P.2

...God...[according to OT] is ignorant of vast stretches of forthcoming history since, as William Craig rightly contends, "even a single significant human choice could turn history in a different direction, and subsequent events would, as time goes on, be increasingly different from his expectations. At best, God can be said to have a good idea of what will happen only in the very near future."56 And if God is ignorant of vast stretches of forthcoming history, then how can any of the predictive prophecies in Scripture be anything less than mere probabilities? -P.9

...f one denies that God is able to know future contingents, then how does one explain how God can know that these prophecies will truly come to pass? Would it not be more consistent to affirm that God possibly has or might err on these matters? [Which OVer' do affirm] But if one were to admit that, then how would one also affirm that Scripture is an infallible and inerrant revelation on all areas that it touches, including the prophetic realm? As Hasker [Open Theist] asks, "if God does not know what the future will be like, how can he tell us what it will be like?"-P.10

A high view of Scripture [inerrancy] requires that unless God is able to foresee and know everything that will happen, then he cannot guarantee that predictive passages of Scripture will be an infallible and inerrant revelation of his will. -P.11

I see no explanation forthcoming as to how open theists are able to affirm that God can guarantee that what he predicts will in fact come true. -P.12

[O]pen theism must seriously reconsider their proposal on the relationship between divine sovereignty-omniscience and human freedom, because it leads to insurmountable problems for a high view of Scripture.
[O]pen theists should not be surprised that other evangelicals find their views unacceptable and outside the limits of evangelical theology. Evangelicals are willing to think through theological matters time and time again in light of Scripture. But when proposals arise that have implications that undermine the very basis for an authoritative and inerrant Bible [EDF], it should come as no surprise that many evangelicals will find these proposals problematic, unwarranted, and unbiblical.-P.13

[T]o say "God is omniscient" does not merely assert a necessity de dicto, i.e. God knows all true propositions and none that are false, but also a necessity de re, i.e. God has perfect personal knowledge of all things. In other words, "not only is omniscience necessary for divinity, divinity is a necessary or essential property of any individual who has it ... the property of being God is best thought of as a necessary or essential property. An individual who is God does not just happen to have that status. It is not a property he could have done without.... Omniscience is thus not only a necessary condition of deity, it is a necessary or essential property for any individual who is God. No literally divine person is even possibly vulnerable to ignorance.-P.14

ETS article, Helseth, Paul Kjoss

[M]ost open theists simply assume what many of the most incisive Christian minds have rejected throughout the history of the Church, namely that genuine human freedom necessitates the autonomy of the will -P.3

The flexibility resides in the varied legitimate interpretations of the word "all". Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what is included in the "all" set. They may reasonably disagree until we, ourselves, come to know all things. -Mormon thread post (Google Open Theism and Mormonism).

The Mormons here like and acknowledge the OV wording: "All that is knowable (they are talking about it there)." They are desirous to be mainstream and hopeful with dialogue in that direction with OVer's.
If they like it, doesn't that mean anything to you about your definition?

They don't like ours.

Time will tell who has been 'stupid' and who has been intelligent in this discussion. I do side with some 'stupid' people with 'stupid' doctorate positions so I don't feel alone. An OV definition of omniscience is nothing of the sort and relative in imprecision so that it not just diminishes, but greatly diminishes the attributes of God in potentiality. A problematic potentiality in careless imprecision is nothing to be proud of let alone vehemently defend.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

Okay, here's my cold, unemotional and fact based response to what you just said. This is what I would say to anyone I was talking to in any context under any circumstances that said what you just said.


YOU ARE STUPID!!!


No other response is warranted. All other responses would be a waste of time. If you cannot figure it out on your own, no explanation will help! My neighbor's dog is smart enough to know that what you've said here is completely ridiculous nonsense and that discussing Open Theism is simply beyond your faculties. Either that or you knew that what you just said was utterly ridiculous when you said it, which makes you a bald faced liar and even then no explaination would be helpful.

I'm totally serious, Lon! Your take on the Open View understanding of omniscience is simply bizarre and is anything but "a logical assessment concerning the definition" and I have a hard time believing that you actually think otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

GodRulz, this was addressed to you. I'm not sure how Clete got confused here. I've never thought he was stupid, just mean-spirited.

My only comment to him was to learn to Google.

 

[godrulz]

If you don't think he's lying, do you think he just stupid then?

Or is it that you really think that his point about being omniscient himself according to the Open View definition of the term was a good point?

You're too nice, godrulz! These people that you don't know from Adam get on this web forum and you assume that they are all your friends, that they are all partners with you in Christ, no matter how insane, assinine, are stupid the things they say are or how embarrassed you aught to be for them. This, I'm sure is the same type of response Lon is used to getting from people around him because he plays the part of the intellectual quite well. He sounds thoughtful and he never says anything really blatantly offensive and so he's really easy to respect and look up to in spite of the fact that most of what he says is meaningless nonsense that's designed more to make him sound thoughtful and intellectual than anything else.
You aren't doing him any favors, godrulz. When someone says something stupid, especially when it insults not only your own theology but the very attributes of God, which you claim to believe in, its time to stop being nice and start pointing out stupidity and calling it what it is.


Resting in Him,
Clete

To be honest, I rarely read his protracted posts, so it would not be fair for me to judge dogmatically without doing so.

Many people of opposing theological views are very intelligent, but often wrong or deceived. I think Calvinists are inconsistent and go to great lengths to prop up their views.

I still am not willing to make Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Open Theism a salvific issue. They want to do that against Open Theists and we protest that we are within the pales of classical theism vs heresy.

I doubt Lon is stupid, lying, or a hater of Jesus. I have problems with his beliefs and logic, so I tend to take them with a grain of salt and not dissect them constantly.

Our fellowship in Christ and love/unity should be paramount as long as we do not compromise essential truth (Deity of Christ, resurrection, Word of God, salvation, etc.). I would not make eternal now vs endless time, foreknowledge/free will issues, etc. the heaven-hell questions.

ETS are wrongly assuming Calvinism is orthodoxy. Their treatment of the Open Theists has been unfair and out of ignorance. It is a matter of time and they will be banning Arminians.

 

[Clete]

GodRulz, this was addressed to you. I'm not sure how Clete got confused here. I've never thought he was stupid, just mean-spirited.

My only comment to him was to learn to Google.

Your post was addressed to godrulz but mine was addressed to you.


Notice I'm no longer addressing you in the third person.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you don't think he's lying, do you think he just stupid then?

Or is it that you really think that his point about being omniscient himself according to the Open View definition of the term was a good point?

You're too nice, godrulz! These people that you don't know from Adam get on this web forum and you assume that they are all your friends, that they are all partners with you in Christ, no matter how insane, assinine, are stupid the things they say are or how embarrassed you aught to be for them. This, I'm sure is the same type of response Lon is used to getting from people around him because he plays the part of the intellectual quite well. He sounds thoughtful and he never says anything really blatantly offensive and so he's really easy to respect and look up to in spite of the fact that most of what he says is meaningless nonsense that's designed more to make him sound thoughtful and intellectual than anything else.
You aren't doing him any favors, godrulz. When someone says something stupid, especially when it insults not only your own theology but the very attributes of God, which you claim to believe in, its time to stop being nice and start pointing out stupidity and calling it what it is.


Resting in Him,
Clete

You're assuming that godrulz is partnered with you in Christ.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

The Mormons here like and acknowledge the OV wording: "All that is knowable (they are talking about it there)." They are desirous to be mainstream and hopeful with dialogue in that direction with OVer's.
If they like it, doesn't that mean anything to you about your definition?

They don't like ours.

Just to set the record straight, there is no "official" LDS position on this matter. Many LDS Christians believe that God does indeed know the future absolutely and perfectly and that He sees the future as clearly and as accurately as He sees the past. Conversely, many LDS Christians believe that God's omniscience means that He knows all that is knowable and that the idea of an absolutely knowable future is as logically possible as a square circle. Similarly, there are LDS Christians who believe God transcends time and there are those who believe He is within time. But nearly 100% will say that their views/opinions aren't set in concrete and could be wrong, that the issue isn't very important relative to many other gospel topics, and that one's opinion on the matter has no effect on one's salvation.

This is one of those topics that an LDS Sunday School teacher should avoid unless he or she is done with the lesson and is willing to turn the rest of the lesson time into a "here's MY view" discussion.

 

[Lon]

Just to set the record straight, there is no "official" LDS position on this matter. Many LDS Christians believe that God does indeed know the future absolutely and perfectly and that He sees the future as clearly and as accurately as He sees the past. Conversely, many LDS Christians believe that God's omniscience means that He knows all that is knowable and that the idea of an absolutely knowable future is as logically possible as a square circle. Similarly, there are LDS Christians who believe God transcends time and there are those who believe He is within time. But nearly 100% will say that their views/opinions aren't set in concrete and could be wrong, that the issue isn't very important relative to many other gospel topics, and that one's opinion on the matter has no effect on one's salvation.

This is one of those topics that an LDS Sunday School teacher should avoid unless he or she is done with the lesson and is willing to turn the rest of the lesson time into a "here's MY view" discussion.

I do agree, it is rather that a few are talking and Pinnock with them. The golden plates, Moroni, etc. are obstacles, for both sides, but opponents of the OV are correct that with vague theological propositions of truth, there is certainly a precedence for Pinnock to be in discussion with the LDS.

If I were in a church, with a leader I greatly loved, and these types of vagueness's started appearing where our paradigms of truth start to blur. I'd leave that church in a heartbeat.
My Methodist upbringing is similar: In the late 70's, early 80's they actually began to debate whether or not homosexuals could hold the office of clergy. At the turn of the decade, this decision was affirmed. It was then I left.

Once orthodoxy is shucked, the truth is relative to the beholder. Joseph Smith died with a gun in his hands. Jesus died commanding the sword to be dropped and graciously restored an ear. If it doesn't all line up exactly right, it isn't. It is either all right or it is all wrong. While I have friends who are Mormon and very much love them, I believe a doctrine that compromises is one that does not really hold truth as utmost and imperative.

Rom 10:2 For I can testify that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth.

Joh 3:21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.

Joh 4:23 But a time is coming — and now is here — when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.

Psa 119:2 How blessed are those who observe his statutes (truths) and seek him with all their heart

 

[eveningsky339]

In regards to Open Theism, here is something I've been thinking about lately...

Open Theists claim the Calvinist God is evil because he allows evil to occur for the greater good. But at the same time, Open Theists claim that their God simply sits back and allows evil to happen for no reason.

Which God is more evil? Hard to say.

 

[Lon]

I have problems with his beliefs and logic, so I tend to take them with a grain of salt and not dissect them constantly.

Of course this is the case, but alternatively, I read every word you ever post to me. Why? Because it is the right thing to do in discussing things of eternal consequence. This is and always was AMR's frustration with you. I'm frustrated, but I am trying to uphold a long history of standard. I cannot believe God would allow this kind of theology to exist among the vast majority of His people without a major intervention. Even Open Theism barely registers on the map. Most Christians have never heard of it. This does not seem, at least to me, to be a major correction from God, from men, yes, but I do not see Him behind your movement pressing the matter and so I suppose that He is pleased with the majority view of His children. I uphold His Sovereignty as paramount for such an assessment (there is a suppositional drive to this assessment).

Our fellowship in Christ and love/unity should be paramount as long as we do not compromise essential truth (Deity of Christ, resurrection, Word of God, salvation, etc.). I would not make eternal now vs endless time, foreknowledge/free will issues, etc. the heaven-hell questions.

I believe this is true also, but I do see danger signs in the road ahead for OV and I do herald them, purposefully. Clete is calling me 'stupid' for yelling "Global Warming." I understand there is possibility that I am over-stating and exaggerating, but I do see a real danger in the vagueness of specific OV redefinitions and unclarity in terms. Muz said this was due to OV being worked out as an infant theology. I hope he's right. Clete just shoots messengers whether they have a legitimate beef or not. He is all over this forum calling people stupid, arguments ridiculous, or warnings, delusions. He's become cynical in his old age.

ETS are wrongly assuming Calvinism is orthodoxy. Their treatment of the Open Theists has been unfair and out of ignorance. It is a matter of time and they will be banning Arminians.

I don't think that'll happen. Even if you guys do not understand my logic, do see it as a reflection of the academic community I represent in assessing the OV. We are seeing it as dangerous and unlike the Arminian, denying and rewriting God's attributes. The ETS has always been ecumenical toward all of protestantism and even on certain terms with the EO and RC.

Even if you do not understand why, you should see that for some reason (Boyd hasn't figure this out either ¶4), we are alarmed by assertions made by the OV against our beliefs. Intentionally or not, it is attacking the core and belief of who we see God as being.

 

[Clete]

In regards to Open Theism, here is something I've been thinking about lately...

Open Theists claim the Calvinist God is evil because he allows evil to occur for the greater good. But at the same time, Open Theists claim that their God simply sits back and allows evil to happen for no reason.

Which God is more evil? Hard to say.

No, you don't get it.

Calvin's god doesn't simply allow evil, he ordained evil, purposefully predestined it to happen and then infallibly caused it to happen just as he had ordained. He then holds those he caused to commit evil responsible for the evil that they could not have prevented themselves from committing.

Further, Open Theism does not teach that God allows evil for no reason. God allows evil for a very good reason! Love is not possible without hate being a real possibility. If God refused to allow evil to occur or made the world in such a way that it could not occur then He would, by doing so, wrest love of its meaning.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[tetelestai]

Love is not possible without hate being a real possibility.

Hi Clete:

I agree with you that Calvinism (supralapsarianism & infralapsarianism) makes God responsible for sin, which is a blasphemous thought.

As a settled theist, I find error in your statement that love is not possible without hate, although I'm not sure your statement is a settled vs. open theist issue.

Since you appear to have an astute knowledge of philosophy, isn’t your statement based on the “Hegelian Fallacy”? Wasn’t it Hegel who said, "For every thesis there must be an antithesis and when you put them together you have synthesis?"

While the Hegelian Fallacy may be true in philosophy, I believe that in the Bible, both the thesis and the antithesis are true only if both are stated. Therefore, it cannot be assumed, it must be stated. While you may believe implicitly that your statement is Biblical, explicitly it does not hold up.

What would make you think that love is not possible without hate with God?