ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Knight]

If Delmar was joking, then make him remove the "private" year-long threat.

For you see, I am not so "retarded" that I find warning threats to be funny.

Nang

I was joking!!!

Not Delmar.

I WAS JOKING!!!!!

When I said... "Therefore you should thank Delmar for sparing your life. "

Why do I even bother?

[Knight]

...Knight's usual sad attempts at being clever to curry favor with the hoi polloi.

God ordained my "sad attempts" take it up with Him.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God ordained my "sad attempts" take it up with Him.

Indeed He did. And He holds you responsible, too.

[Nang]

I was joking!!!

Not Delmar.

I WAS JOKING!!!!!

When I said... "Therefore you should thank Delmar for sparing your life. "

Why do I even bother?

All joking aside, Knight, if you do not demand Delmar remove his threats against me, I will hold you personally responsible for the unreasonable and wicked tactics used against those who oppose your OT views.

Nang

[Knight]

Indeed He did. And He holds you responsible, too.

So let me get this straight.....

He ordains all that I do.

He gets mad at me for doing exactly what He ordained me to do.

[Knight]

All joking aside, Knight, if you do not demand Delmar remove his threats against me, I will hold you personally responsible for the unreasonable and wicked tactics used against those who oppose your OT views.

Nang

All joking aside... you are a unnecessary distraction.

[Ktoyou]

All joking aside, Knight, if you do not demand Delmar remove his threats against me, I will hold you personally responsible for the unreasonable and wicked tactics used against those who oppose your OT views.

Nang

You must be a goofball, why not drop it! Just forget about it. All you are doing is making the thread hard to follow.

[Stripe]

OK .. I have a point to retell, hopefully clearly, but before that I have to get some housekeeping out of the way ...

nang

I asked AMR if he trusted God because what other reason could you have to trust God other than if you thought God had a choice in what he did in the future.

I think Lighthouse, or someone, made a similar point. I am genuinely interested in how that question could be answered if one believed God could never change.

Thanks for responding helpfully, Clete.

[Ktoyou]

I have been trying to follow this thread. I do know something about the debate, but I am not sure where I fit in? I know that AMR and I have some commonalities, but we have differences. The Methodist church as more Armenian than I am, but I have never agreed with the Calvin Presbyterianism ether. I think my lost spot evolves around my own priority on the Anglican Church.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So let me get this straight.....

He ordains all that I do.

He gets mad at me for doing exactly what He ordained me to do.

Ask Pharoah. God knows your deepest inclinations.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have been trying to follow this thread. I do know something about the debate, but I am not sure where I fit in? I know that AMR and I have some commonalities, but we have differences. The Methodist church as more Armenian than I am, but I have never agreed with the Calvin Presbyterianism ether. I think my lost spot evolves around my own priority on the Anglican Church.

Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian all affirm the atemporality and orthodox definitions of omnipotence, and omniscience.

I guess you will have to look over the following and determine which resonate or do not with you:

Open Theism Tenets
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions
2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational
3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen
4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated
5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center


"1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires the highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make." (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)

[Stripe]

Open Theism Tenets
1. God is vulnerable, open to the failure of at least some of His intentions

When people repent of doing evil that is not failure for God or the repentant.

2. God is not immutable as traditionally understood, i.e., He changes His mind in ways that are more relational

Correct.

3. God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen

When people repent of doing evil any mistake is irrelevant.

4. God is not omnipotent as traditionally understood; His efforts are sometimes defeated

Defeated is a strong word. God changed his mind so you might say he defeated himself.

5. The attributes of God must be redefined with Love at the center

Love is the greatest thing that exists.

"1. God not only created the world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.

Right.

2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot exercise total control.

Right.

3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results.

Because he wants us to use that freedom to love.

4. God always desires the highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.

Right.

5. God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although He may at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make." (Src: David Basinger in Pinnock’s The Openness of God)

Right.

Are those really OT tenets?

[Stripe]

I believe God is sovereign. If he decides to condemn a person to hell, destroy a city or nation or take any action that might upset people then I believe he has that power and authority and right. I believe he is capable of listening to people and changing his mind based on request or supplication. I believe he is also capable of ignoring all demands and acting as he sees fit. I trust God because I think his decisions will always be good and right. Even if I don't like them much at the time. I find it contradictory in the extreme to claim trust in a god who already knows exactly what is going to happen in every situation. I don't like the thought of a God who knew what we would do and created us anyway. The idea that he knew some would, or he created some, to accept him does not justify (in my mind) the damnation of all the rest.

Naturally that I don't like it is not proof that God is not soverignly acting in exactly this manner, but I will not express faith or trust in such a being. I find it unpalatable to hear that others do.

[Clete]

I believe God is sovereign. If he decides to condemn a person to hell, destroy a city or nation or take any action that might upset people then I believe he has that power and authority and right. I believe he is capable of listening to people and changing his mind based on request or supplication. I believe he is also capable of ignoring all demands and acting as he sees fit. I trust God because I think his decisions will always be good and right. Even if I don't like them much at the time. I find it contradictory in the extreme to claim trust in a god who already knows exactly what is going to happen in every situation. I don't like the thought of a God who knew what we would do and created us anyway. The idea that he knew some would, or he created some, to accept him does not justify (in my mind) the damnation of all the rest.

Naturally that I don't like it is not proof that God is not soverignly acting in exactly this manner, but I will not express faith or trust in such a being. I find it unpalatable to hear that others do.

I love that fact that you used the word "justify" in your comments but the parenthetical "(in my mind)" was unnecessary. Justice is the whole point and it just so happens that justice is not a matter of personal opinion. Justice is a concept with a very specific meaning and God has created us with an innate/intuitive understanding of what justice is. Of course, our flesh is fallen and so we can suppress this knowledge of God and everyone actually does exactly that but the point is that the fact that you don't like the idea of an arbitrary God speaks well of you ability to think clearly as God intended.

The Calvinist error, in fact, has everything to do with the two issues you bring up, that of sovereignty (power/authority) and justice (i.e. righteousness). The Calvinist attempts to make these attributes of God equal and as a result diminishes God's righteousness, which the Bible teaches is the foundation of His authority. This clear differentiation of God's quantitative attributes from His qualitative attributes is perhaps the most important hermeneutical difference between the open and settled views.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Stripe]

I love that fact that you used the word "justify" in your comments but the parenthetical "(in my mind)" was unnecessary. Justice is the whole point and it just so happens that justice is not a matter of personal opinion. Justice is a concept with a very specific meaning and God has created us with an innate/intuitive understanding of what justice is. Of course, our flesh is fallen and so we can suppress this knowledge of God and everyone actually does exactly that but the point is that the fact that you don't like the idea of an arbitrary God speaks well of you ability to think clearly as God intended.

My ability to think clearly is largely thanks to people like you on this site being concerned enough about the small and important things. RE the parentheses - I should just go with what I believe and stop justifying my use of the word justify.

The Calvinist error, in fact, has everything to do with the two issues you bring up, that of sovereignty (power/authority) and justice (i.e. righteousness). The Calvinist attempts to make these attributes of God equal and as a result diminishes God's righteousness, which the Bible teaches is the foundation of His authority. This clear differentiation of God's quantitative attributes from His qualitative attributes is perhaps the most important hermeneutical difference between the open and settled views.Resting in Him,Clete

Absolutely. And also love. If love were diminished then God would be utterly justified in leaving us to our fate. God must have priorities when it comes to his treatment of us or we'd be space junk...