Bob Enyart - Open Theism - Biblical Events Not Happening?

[Yorzhik]

Lonster; what happened? You started out answering questions fairly directly, and now you've switched to mostly obfuscating and nit-picking. If you don't want to defend what you believe, then please, by all means, don't think God needs help.

So Satan was not created by God originally as a angel of light? If Satan was created by God, then he is just another part of God's foreknowledge, no different from humans in their ability to throw "ifs" into God's plans.

This is relevant to the topic. Would you agree it's true?

Because you keep saying things as if the Open View were true, but you claim to be explaining exhaustive foreknowledge. Either you didn't mean what you said in your explanation, or you didn't understand what you were trying to explain.

Do you even understand that when you put an "if" into your account, that you started arguing for the Open View?

So God can make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Correct?

It's a reasonable question. It's easy to answer. Look, I can do it... [Yorzhik clears throat]... "no". See? it isn't that hard, but you won't answer because for being what you call a stupid question, it is at the foundation of what you believe and answering directly would expose your own conscience. Stupid questions don't do that much; your assessment is wrong.

I realize that is a big sentence, so all we really need to know from you, in a direct and clear manner: Is exhaustive foreknowledge true? Does logic exist? Do you realize you cannot have an "if" in what you are saying and also be talking about the Settled View/Exhaustive Foreknowledge?

There are some good philosophical arguments why it would need to be true from other aspects we know about Him (Omnipotence, Eternality, and Omnipresent). These make a united stance in favor of Exhaustive foreknowledge, but at this point, I'm only prepared to expound "Future Knowledge." I believe God has this without question.

Thanks for the straight answer. The bolded part needs more explanation. Perhaps this would help: when given the choice between doing something loving, or fulfilling prophecy, what does God prefer to do? God tells us directly in the bible.

Do you mean we cannot judge God and if, for instance, God were to throw all the Christians into eternal torment you'd have no problem with that because God did it?

Yes. While it may be troubling, whatever God does is right by His very nature and our very nature. We are the created things. God 'owns' us. He can do whatever He likes with what He owns.

Why would it be troubling? Could you describe the trouble you'd have with God knowing that what He was doing was right? You realize you are saying you are judging God here?

If you include an "if" in your account, then the story includes a contingency that is not settled. Does the "if" exist in your statement? It does. But there are no "ifs" in the Settled View (unless you don't understand the Settled View/exhaustive foreknowledge, or if you think God-can-do-something-illogical-because-God-does-it). If there is an "if" in the story of Jonah and exhaustive foreknowledge is true and logic exists, then the person responsible is the person that had God tell Jonah to go to Nineveh and the story that God had put in His Word was from His perspective which included an "if".

This isn't that hard to answer. You don't need to wait for someone else to come along, you have your own God-given mind.

Now, I realize the implication of this would cause a lot of grief in your worldview and how your relationship with God works. I know it not because I'm prideful about the power of the Open View, but because I had to go through the depression and pain myself of re-aligning my relationship with God. It's like giving your friend a sweater every birthday, and they thank you every time, but then later you find out they don't like sweaters but their love for you was greater than their love for some temporal object. You'd feel bad about giving them all those sweaters, but then you would later feel good about giving them something they actually liked.

 

[Lon]

Hello again Yz.

Lonster; what happened? You started out answering questions fairly directly, and now you've switched to mostly obfuscating and nit-picking. If you don't want to defend what you believe, then please, by all means, don't think God needs help.
I don't believe I have. I've just tried to steer you back toward pertinent questions. I'll elucidate as I respond...

This is relevant to the topic. Would you agree it's true?
Not really, we extrapolate a lot in that consideration, therefore it becomes philosophical where it is hard to prove anything. The scriptures are better for searching truth, because it is what 'God tells us.'


Do you even understand that when you put an "if" into your account, that you started arguing for the Open View?
I appreciate that, but I do not believe you'd be able to consider me an Open Theist, just that some of my theology would coincide with your's.


It's a reasonable question. It's easy to answer. Look, I can do it... [Yorzhik clears throat]... "no". See? it isn't that hard, but you won't answer because for being what you call a stupid question, it is at the foundation of what you believe and answering directly would expose your own conscience. Stupid questions don't do that much; your assessment is wrong.
I disagree. It is like asking if I can be purple or believe that unicorns really exist as monkeys. The question is absurd to me.

Thanks for the straight answer. The bolded part needs more explanation. Perhaps this would help: when given the choice between doing something loving, or fulfilling prophecy, what does God prefer to do? God tells us directly in the bible.

As I said before right after that, I'd need to do some prep work, and I don't have the time for this at the moment. I'll try to find the time, but for now, Enyart's debate with Cook covered this idea briefly.
Why would it be troubling? Could you describe the trouble you'd have with God knowing that what He was doing was right? You realize you are saying you are judging God here?
Yes, "The God of Calvinism is a vile....."

This isn't that hard to answer. You don't need to wait for someone else to come along, you have your own God-given mind.

Now, I realize the implication of this would cause a lot of grief in your worldview and how your relationship with God works. I know it not because I'm prideful about the power of the Open View, but because I had to go through the depression and pain myself of re-aligning my relationship with God. It's like giving your friend a sweater every birthday, and they thank you every time, but then later you find out they don't like sweaters but their love for you was greater than their love for some temporal object. You'd feel bad about giving them all those sweaters, but then you would later feel good about giving them something they actually liked.

Commonalities do not make agreement in doctrinal position. I have a lot in common with JW's and LSD, but in no way can be considered either, no matter how much they'd like me to be. It just isn't true. I'm not OV.

In Him

Lonnie

 

[Yorzhik]

I have a lot in common with JW's and LSD

I know it's a typo, but "LSD"... sorry, I had to laugh.

 

[godrulz]

I know it's a typo, but "LSD"... sorry, I had to laugh.

Remember the Star Trek movie where Kirk on earth told the modern guys that Spock was so weird because he had too much LDS? That is funny, a poke at Mormons.

 

[Lon]

LOL. Darn, you picked up on my lysdexia and peach sproblem.

 

[Lon]

Hello Yorzhik

Hello Yorzhik

I appreciated the humor (thanks for the correction).

Was that the only thing that struck you?

In Him,

Lon

 

[Yorzhik]

No, but I don't have a lot of time to post. I'll answer a bit later.

 

[Lon]

No, but I don't have a lot of time to post. I'll answer a bit later.

Good deal. See you on the rebound.

Blessings in Him

Lonnie

(I felt like John Lennon there for a minute or two trying to explain the picture my son drew of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, ironic that years later Paul McCartney admitted that it was a fabrication. Honestly, it was a slip of the fingers LDS, LDS, LDS, LDS, LDS, LDS....Can I have another piece of chalk? Is it okay to erase the homework from the second board so I can finish my 1000 sentences? Do I have to copy the dictionary after this? How long do I get before I get recess detention?)

 

[Yorzhik]

Lonster; what happened? You started out answering questions fairly directly, and now you've switched to mostly obfuscating and nit-picking. If you don't want to defend what you believe, then please, by all means, don't think God needs help.

I don't believe I have. I've just tried to steer you back toward pertinent questions. I'll elucidate as I respond...

But you didn't elucidate. You don't answer questions directly. You keep couching things in terms of complex or difficult or agreeable and then blowing them off. How do you live with your beliefs when you cannot discuss them? Again, by all means, don't keep discussing things you cannot defend. Just go and learn how to defend them and come back later. Tag team with someone who knows and then answer. Just please stop with the obfuscation and nit-picking.

This is relevant to the topic. Would you agree it's true?

Not really, we extrapolate a lot in that consideration, therefore it becomes philosophical where it is hard to prove anything. The scriptures are better for searching truth, because it is what 'God tells us.'

You say nothing here. No answers, nothing on topic, no elucidation.

Do you even understand that when you put an "if" into your account, that you started arguing for the Open View?

I appreciate that, but I do not believe you'd be able to consider me an Open Theist, just that some of my theology would coincide with your's.

You say nothing here. No answers, nothing on topic, no elucidation. You appreciate something and then blow me off.

It's a reasonable question. It's easy to answer. Look, I can do it... [Yorzhik clears throat]... "no". See? it isn't that hard, but you won't answer because for being what you call a stupid question, it is at the foundation of what you believe and answering directly would expose your own conscience. Stupid questions don't do that much; your assessment is wrong.

I disagree. It is like asking if I can be purple or believe that unicorns really exist as monkeys. The question is absurd to me.

No, it's not like talking nonsense. But you say nothing here. No answers, nothing on topic, no elucidation.

I'm not OV.

We know. But I cannot be sure except that you claim it. So far your behavior and statements have been TOTALLY OV. I'm not sure you know what you believe... it's all a blur to you.

 

[Lon]

Hello again Yz.

Lonster; what happened? You started out answering questions fairly directly, and now you've switched to mostly obfuscating and nit-picking. If you don't want to defend what you believe, then please, by all means, don't think God needs help.
I don't believe I have. I've just tried to steer you back toward pertinent questions. I'll elucidate as I respond...

This is relevant to the topic. Would you agree it's true?
Not really, we extrapolate a lot in that consideration, therefore it becomes philosophical where it is hard to prove anything. The scriptures are better for searching truth, because it is what 'God tells us.'
This is elucidation: I asked to get you back on a course with questions that I could address. I was answering specific questions because you were asking specific question. Here I am answering broad general questions because these are broad and general questions you are asking.

Do you even understand that when you put an "if" into your account, that you started arguing for the Open View?
I appreciate that, but I do not believe you'd be able to consider me an Open Theist, just that some of my theology would coincide with your's.
I get the "You are already an open theist" all the time in here, but the problem is that I believe in future foreknowledge and a God who transcends our capacity to grasp time. Time actually 'isn't' anything to me but a measurement, and I believe progression is meaningless. It isn't quantity I believe that makes any difference, it is quality. This is my view. While I do believe numbers can be important, I believe our concept of time is greatly affected by our fallen nature and the values we place there are backwards. I've always believed that after this time on earth, we will not experience the sensation of time at all. It will rather be perfection. I believe our struggle with sin and the dilemma of mortality it causes creates a dramatic dynamic. I believe the concept of succession of time (or at least our emphasis and understanding value of it)is actually a result of sin. I know I'm very much alone in this view, but it is something I've always thought and believed. I don't believe time has the same value or meaning to God. I believe God is outside of it specifically because I believe sin constrains us to a values pattern.

It's a reasonable question. It's easy to answer. Look, I can do it... [Yorzhik clears throat]... "no". See? it isn't that hard, but you won't answer because for being what you call a stupid question, it is at the foundation of what you believe and answering directly would expose your own conscience. Stupid questions don't do that much; your assessment is wrong.
I disagree. It is like asking if I can be purple or believe that unicorns really exist as monkeys. The question is absurd to me.
It was in philosophy class that I decided it was a stupid question. Asking something that makes no sense with the question mark at the end doesn't make a meaningful question. Now if it is your question and you value it, I apologize. I wrestled with that question for almost 2 years before I figured out that the way it is phrased actually makes a logical fallacy. So, while it was an easy question for you, I went back and forth into the madness of it. So after being deeply troubled with it, I came to a philosophy text that explained that a question can be asked in such a way that it is impossible to answer because it has a faulty perception in the way it can be answered. At any rate, I'll answer it for you. "Yes, God can make a rock He cannot pick up."

Commonalities do not make agreement in doctrinal position. I have a lot in common with JW's and LDS', but in no way can be considered either, no matter how much they'd like me to be. It just isn't true. I'm not OV.
I'm more Calvinist at this point. I just took one of those tests to see where I stand. Protestant 75%, then Calvinist73%, then Wesylian53%, then Semi-NeoOrthodox20%, then NeoOrthodox 12%and finally liberal at the bottom of the list. I don't believe the test included OV, and I don't believe I'd score high. I believe in extensive future foreknowledge and that God transcends our perception of time.
You seemed to be bothered by these posts so I've tried to turn that around for my part.

In Christ

Lonnie

 

[ApologeticJedi]

It was shortened from 9 years to 7. 9 is the Biblical number of judgment. Jesus knew man would not make it those last 2 years of great tribulation, so He shortened it to 7.

How fascinating, so when was it 9 years? I thought I read Daniel to say it was 7 years.

This is the best response I have seen! :thumb: I might add that the reason God can make such unconditional promises, is that He is already in the future, and not limited by our human timeline.

Who says a timeline is a "human" thing? It was God that stopped on the seventh day as I recall.

Should we treat "love" or "righteousness" the same way and say that God is not loving or righteous because those are human concepts?

 

[Yorzhik]

Hello again Yz.

Hi. When you say things like:

I asked to get you back on a course with questions that I could address.

Throw me a bone? What questions?

I was answering specific questions because you were asking specific question. Here I am answering broad general questions because these are broad and general questions you are asking.

This is too vague, and so far any attempt to get you to be more specific with anything has been met with obfuscation.

I get the "You are already an open theist" all the time in here

No. We have never said that, at least not either Clete or me I don't think. We've said you say things that are OV. At least when you explain something you use the OV explanation. I'm sure you are positive that you are Settled View. Since they are contradictory it just means your explanations don't make sense. Here's an analogy: there are 2 ways to fix a widget, either by freezing or boiling. Some people prefer the freezing method and others prefer boiling. Both sides have their reasons why they think the one way is better than another. You say, "I like the freezing method, because when you reach the boiling point it fixes widgets better than getting them cold." That's exactly how your explanations are.

but the problem is that I believe in future foreknowledge and a God who transcends our capacity to grasp time. Time actually 'isn't' anything to me but a measurement, and I believe progression is meaningless. It isn't quantity I believe that makes any difference, it is quality. This is my view. While I do believe numbers can be important, I believe our concept of time is greatly affected by our fallen nature and the values we place there are backwards. I've always believed that after this time on earth, we will not experience the sensation of time at all. It will rather be perfection. I believe our struggle with sin and the dilemma of mortality it causes creates a dramatic dynamic. I believe the concept of succession of time (or at least our emphasis and understanding value of it)is actually a result of sin. I know I'm very much alone in this view, but it is something I've always thought and believed. I don't believe time has the same value or meaning to God. I believe God is outside of it specifically because I believe sin constrains us to a values pattern.

This makes perfect sense in light of allowing... eh... whatever.

It was in philosophy class that I decided it was a stupid question. Asking something that makes no sense with the question mark at the end doesn't make a meaningful question. Now if it is your question and you value it, I apologize. I wrestled with that question for almost 2 years before I figured out that the way it is phrased actually makes a logical fallacy. So, while it was an easy question for you, I went back and forth into the madness of it. So after being deeply troubled with it, I came to a philosophy text that explained that a question can be asked in such a way that it is impossible to answer because it has a faulty perception in the way it can be answered. At any rate, I'll answer it for you. "Yes, God can make a rock He cannot pick up."

"Yes..."? Okay. Such a long way to say "yes". Are you sure? I mean you really spent a lot of ink just to say "yes". You might check to see if you're sure. Or you might just be joking with me. I can't tell. Could you tell me if your "yes" is serious or not?

You seemed to be bothered by these posts so I've tried to turn that around for my part.

Bothered? Yeah, sure, a bit. But at this point I'm also sure you are convinced that you are making sense. And as long as you believe you are making sense with gibberish, there's no... eh... whatever.

 

[Lon]

.... you believe you are making sense with gibberish, there's no... eh... whatever.

Alright, last time I tell you a theory of mine.

So back to the subject at hand:

1) I'm sorry but maybe we should quite at this point. I'm obviously not speaking your language, and you are not speaking mine. The gibberish cracks get you nothing, not even a consolation prize.

2) Here is my contention: It is actually you that started this. I went back over your very first "This is not making sense" post and then I went back and reread mine. I think you didn't read very well.

3) your tone has taken a decided turn, kind of like the opposite of your conversation in here with the guy just before me. So at this point I'm dropping discussion.

Blessings in Him

 

[Yorzhik]

Alright, last time I tell you a theory of mine.

So back to the subject at hand:

1) I'm sorry but maybe we should quite at this point. I'm obviously not speaking your language, and you are not speaking mine. The gibberish cracks get you nothing, not even a consolation prize.

Does gibberish exist? If it does, what is it?

2) Here is my contention: It is actually you that started this. I went back over your very first "This is not making sense" post and then I went back and reread mine. I think you didn't read very well.

Yes, I started this. And the first time you didn't make sense and I said so, you were telling a story about the Settled View and the story was full of contingencies. That doesn't make sense.

3) your tone has taken a decided turn, kind of like the opposite of your conversation in here with the guy just before me. So at this point I'm dropping discussion.

Blessings in Him

No, I'm not turning. My attitude with the person before is the same as with you.