ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

When we choose the wrong thing and disobey God's Word, who should be thanked? God? Or ourselves?

Thirty-Six Dollar Activation Fee,
Rob

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Godrulz and Muz

Godrulz:

Praiseworthy and blameworthy in any given choice (virtue vs vice) rest with the individual. We thank God for the freedom to live for Self or for Him (we are not pawns or robots) even if it means that many shipwreck their lives.

Do you thank God for anything that has to deal directly with your will? For example, have you ever thanked God that you chose Him and put your faith in Him? Or do you get all the credit for that?

We obey in the power of His Spirit, but it is not apart from us.

What does it mean to "obey in the power of His Spirit"?

A contextual study of obedience in the OT and NT does not present a picture of God obeying for us.

I'm not claiming it does.

We do not boast in self-righteousness, but our motive is within our volition and cognition.

Please explain what you mean by this.

If it is not, you would have to blame God for lack of spiritual growth or damnation in any given life.

"Blame God"? How could an infinite Being to be blamed or held accountable for anything? It's not possible.

We have responsibility/accountability because of our 'imago Dei' will and intellect.

What do you mean by "'imago Dei' will and intellect"?

Exhaustive sovereignty is not defensible. Providential, relational sovereignty is the biblical model that resonates with the nature of divine-human love, relationship, and freedom.

Why couldn't God be exhaustively sovereign AND preserve human love, relationship and freedom?

An unbeliever is able to respond to the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

What is your view of Rom 8:7?

Jesus said the dead would hear His voice.

How do dead ears hear?

Muz

I wrote: Having obeyed God's word, who gets credit?

If there were any who obeyed God'd word, they would.

To what do they attribute their obedience?
I wrote: Do you believe the unbeliever is a slave to sin? Or do you believe the unbeliever is free to choose to submit to God's word?

They are a slave to sin in that they are bound to the consequences of sin, yes.

Slaves to the consequences? Is there no bondage to sin apart from the consequences? What was Paul talking about in Rom 7:17?

Federal Reserve Note,
Jim

 

[themuzicman]

So you're saying that free will is gone if there is only one choice available. Can you name an uncoerced instance where only one choice is available?

Not that I can think of

How about an instance which is coerced where only one choice is available?

I program a robot to say, "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger" whenever I push the red button. I am coercing the robot's choice.

That's a very simple but accurate view of determinism.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Muz

I wrote: Having obeyed God's word, who gets credit?
To what do they attribute their obedience?

Probably their God given conscience.

I wrote: Do you believe the unbeliever is a slave to sin? Or do you believe the unbeliever is free to choose to submit to God's word?
Slaves to the consequences? Is there no bondage to sin apart from the consequences? What was Paul talking about in Rom 7:17?

14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I [would] like to [do], but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want [to do], I agree with the Law, [confessing] that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good [is] not.

...

22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul, as the rest of us, are in conflict for epistimological and ethical control of ourselves. Our conscience and the spirit warring for the good, but our sinful ways of life warring for sin.

I usually refer to this as the conflict of worldviews. One worldview is that of the world, sinful and selfish, and one is that of the spirit, loving and righteous. The process of sanctification is to put away the old worldview and put on the new. However, whenever we operate out of the old worldview and we sin, we are slaves to the (in this case temporal) consequences of sin.

Michael

 

[Hilston]

Hi Michael,

Muzicman writes:

I program a robot to say, "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger" whenever I push the red button. I am coercing the robot's choice.

That's a very simple but accurate view of determinism.

Who taught you this view? Do you know a single determinist that says this? If not, then why are you saying they believe this?

Paul, as the rest of us, are in conflict for epistimological and ethical control of ourselves. Our conscience and the spirit warring for the good, but our sinful ways of life warring for sin.

You're obviously clueless. Epistemology has nothing to do with Romans 7. Ethical control? Who ever heard of such a thing.

I usually refer to this as the conflict of worldviews.

Usually? It sounds to me like this is the first time you've ever read the passage. Epistemology? Ethical control? Dude, stop making stuff up. You might impress people who don't know any better and are too lazy to open a dictionary, but among those who understand these things, tossing around disconnected philosophical terms only exposes you as a poseur.

One worldview is that of the world, sinful and selfish, and one is that of the spirit, loving and righteous.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The process of sanctification is to put away the old worldview and put on the new.

Oh, I see. So it's not Paul who sins, but an "old worldview."

Stop wasting my time, Michael. Until you demonstrate that you understand the issues in this discussion, you should be asking questions, not making bald conjecture on subjects you don't have a clue about.

 

[themuzicman]

If you can't comprehend someting, it's better to ask questions than to insult the person speaking.

Michael

 

[godrulz]

If you can't comprehend someting, it's better to ask questions than to insult the person speaking.

Michael

Integrity, maturity, and wisdom is in short supply in our generation.

 

[Hilston]

If you can't comprehend someting, it's better to ask questions than to insult the person speaking.

Michael

You determined the kind of response you would get from me when you chose to blow smoke instead of engage the discussion. The only appropriate reply was insult. Poseurs are asking to be insulted. This is biblical. You should check it out. The Bible is full of this sort of language.

Next.

 

[koban]

You determined the kind of response you would get from me when you chose to blow smoke instead of engage the discussion. The only appropriate reply was insult. Poseurs are asking to be insulted. This is biblical. You should check it out. The Bible is full of this sort of language.

Next.

Geez Jimbo - you being a pretentious jerk over on this thread too?


:darwinsm:





(btw - you finally get tired of those gay little signature lines?)

 

[themuzicman]

You determined the kind of response you would get from me when you chose to blow smoke instead of engage the discussion. The only appropriate reply was insult. Poseurs are asking to be insulted. This is biblical. You should check it out. The Bible is full of this sort of language.

Next.

So, engaging Romans 7 from an epistimological and ethical perspective, rather than an ontological one, is invalid?

Michael

 

[Hilston]

So, engaging Romans 7 from an epistimological and ethical perspective, rather than an ontological one, is invalid?

What do you mean?

 

[themuzicman]

What do you mean?

In metaphysics, there are three major categories:

1) Ontological, which deals with the state of being.

2) Epistimological which deals with knowing.

3) Ethical, which deals with actions.


Many reformed folk that I engage tend to read Paul's use of flesh and spirit and sin and such as ontological, or related to the state of one's being, as though the fall made some kind of "being level" change to the created nature of man, and that regeneration somehow undoes part of the ontological change. Now, one of the major questions that arise from this positioni is this: "Who had the power to change man's creating being from 'good' to 'evil', and did that being do so?" I think the answers are obviousl and problematic.

However, if we look at the problem of sin from an epistomological perspective that results in an ethical problem, then there's a different way to look at flesh, spirit, sin, salvation and such, that seems to fit how the bible reads more clearly.

Let's go back to the garden. What was the tree called? The tree of the KNOWLEDGE{/i] of good and evil. Does that sound like an ontological or epistimological reference? (Epistimological, of course.) Thus, upon eating of the tree, their eyes were opened (again epistimological), and they knew good and evil (still epistimological.) This was a major shift in their worldview, since they now knew good and evil, knew selfishness and separation from God, and were going to be judged by it, and a major ethical issue. Their works (sin) had condemned them to death.

Worse yet, our knowledge of good and evil causes a huge conflit within us, wanting to justify ourselves by doing good, and yet condemning ourselves when we do evil. (See Romans 2 for Paul's discussion of Gentiles who do not have the law.)

Fast foward to Paul. "Sin" within Paul is the old worldview of selfishness and sin, knowing good and evil, the one that he does not wish any longer to be, where as upon our salvation, faith presents us with a worldview that is not dominated by condemnation for sin and right and wrong, but by love for God and love for others. This is the good he wishes to do, but "sin, the old worldview, is what he does.

The other option for Romans 7 (and I think this is somewhat in question among scholars) is that Paul is still referring to the unregenerate man in this part of Romans 7, and the struggle between the knowledge of good and the desire to do evil is what is described, and then resolved in 8:1. Either way, the epistimological and ethical route makes a lot more sense.

Still doubt me? Fast forward to Romans 12:1. "Therefore, brothers, in view of God's mercy, do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Both terms are very epistimological, the first being the thinking of the world, the second the transformation of the epistimological organ that God provided for us. Look at verse 2: "then you will know what the will of God is..." Transformation of the mind bring about knowledge of God's will, and epistimological change, which then can result in good ethical change.

Now, what is our salvation? No, it's not knowledge. Our salvation is the result of the propitiating sacrifice Christ made on the cross. We must place our faith in Him to receive salvation. Then, as a result of our faith, that new worldview can begin to take hold in our lives, which is what Paul is addressing in Romans (probably) 7 and 12.

Michael

 

[Clete]

In metaphysics, there are three major categories:

1) Ontological, which deals with the state of being.

2) Epistimological which deals with knowing.

3) Ethical, which deals with actions.


Many reformed folk that I engage tend to read Paul's use of flesh and spirit and sin and such as ontological, or related to the state of one's being, as though the fall made some kind of "being level" change to the created nature of man, and that regeneration somehow undoes part of the ontological change. Now, one of the major questions that arise from this positioni is this: "Who had the power to change man's creating being from 'good' to 'evil', and did that being do so?" I think the answers are obviousl and problematic.

However, if we look at the problem of sin from an epistomological perspective that results in an ethical problem, then there's a different way to look at flesh, spirit, sin, salvation and such, that seems to fit how the bible reads more clearly.

Let's go back to the garden. What was the tree called? The tree of the KNOWLEDGE{/i] of good and evil. Does that sound like an ontological or epistimological reference? (Epistimological, of course.) Thus, upon eating of the tree, their eyes were opened (again epistimological), and they knew good and evil (still epistimological.) This was a major shift in their worldview, since they now knew good and evil, knew selfishness and separation from God, and were going to be judged by it, and a major ethical issue. Their works (sin) had condemned them to death.

Worse yet, our knowledge of good and evil causes a huge conflit within us, wanting to justify ourselves by doing good, and yet condemning ourselves when we do evil. (See Romans 2 for Paul's discussion of Gentiles who do not have the law.)

Fast foward to Paul. "Sin" within Paul is the old worldview of selfishness and sin, knowing good and evil, the one that he does not wish any longer to be, where as upon our salvation, faith presents us with a worldview that is not dominated by condemnation for sin and right and wrong, but by love for God and love for others. This is the good he wishes to do, but "sin, the old worldview, is what he does.

The other option for Romans 7 (and I think this is somewhat in question among scholars) is that Paul is still referring to the unregenerate man in this part of Romans 7, and the struggle between the knowledge of good and the desire to do evil is what is described, and then resolved in 8:1. Either way, the epistimological and ethical route makes a lot more sense.

Still doubt me? Fast forward to Romans 12:1. "Therefore, brothers, in view of God's mercy, do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Both terms are very epistimological, the first being the thinking of the world, the second the transformation of the epistimological organ that God provided for us. Look at verse 2: "then you will know what the will of God is..." Transformation of the mind bring about knowledge of God's will, and epistimological change, which then can result in good ethical change.

Now, what is our salvation? No, it's not knowledge. Our salvation is the result of the propitiating sacrifice Christ made on the cross. We must place our faith in Him to receive salvation. Then, as a result of our faith, that new worldview can begin to take hold in our lives, which is what Paul is addressing in Romans (probably) 7 and 12.

Michael

POTD! :first:

 

[koban]

POTD! :first:

Oh, sure!

Ignore mine! :sibbie:

 

[godrulz]

On the subscriber's thread by Clete, some suggest that salvation is ontological.

Sin is not a substance (ontological/metaphysics). If one thinks that it is, it will lead to wrong assumptions about salvation and the nature of being 'born again'.

Salvation is not metaphysical; it is in the realm of morals (as understood by theologians/philosophers). Salvation is relational, a reciprocal, restored love relationship between Creator and creature.

 

[Vaquero45]

You determined the kind of response you would get from me when you chose to blow smoke instead of engage the discussion. The only appropriate reply was insult. Poseurs are asking to be insulted. This is biblical. You should check it out. The Bible is full of this sort of language.

Next.

:doh:

Jim, would you like to rephrase that?

 

[RobE]

Reply to Michael

Reply to Michael

Rob: So you're saying that free will is gone if there is only one choice available. Can you name an uncoerced instance where only one choice is available?

Michael: Not that I can think of​

Try thinking harder.

Rob: How about an instance which is coerced where only one choice is available?

Michael: I program a robot to say, "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger" whenever I push the red button. I am coercing the robot's choice. That's a very simple but accurate view of determinism.​

Simple, but inaccurate view of determinism. Let me try another approach.

Can you name an event that wasn't determined before it actually occurred?

Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Rob: So you're saying that free will is gone if there is only one choice available. Can you name an uncoerced instance where only one choice is available?

Michael: Not that I can think of​

Try thinking harder.

Um...

Rob: How about an instance which is coerced where only one choice is available?

Michael: I program a robot to say, "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger" whenever I push the red button. I am coercing the robot's choice. That's a very simple but accurate view of determinism.​

Simple, but inaccurate view of determinism. Let me try another approach.

Can you name an event that wasn't determined before it actually occurred?

Rob

Eve's decision to eat the fruit.

Michael

 

[RobE]

Geez Jimbo - you being a pretentious jerk over on this thread too?
:darwinsm:
(btw - you finally get tired of those gay little signature lines?)

How did you quit pretending?

20 years and counting,
Rob, member of JA local 1243

 

[Clete]

On the subscriber's thread by Clete, some suggest that salvation is ontological.

Sin is not a substance (ontological/metaphysics). If one thinks that it is, it will lead to wrong assumptions about salvation and the nature of being 'born again'.

Salvation is not metaphysical; it is in the realm of morals (as understood by theologians/philosophers). Salvation is relational, a reciprocal, restored love relationship between Creator and creature.

Do you suppose its possible that themizicman's point had more to do with sanctification rather than salvation?

Just a thought. Perhaps Muz would like to expound further on the issue.