ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I read this before joining. Indeed, it is not an open theism statement. Why not? What prevents this from being more explicit?

Similarly, the DBC statement or PK's church statement leave much, er, open. Why not shout the open theism aspects from the rooftops? :D

To see how a church should be laying everything out on the table, compare the above statements to this one or especially this one.
That's laughable coming from you.

You want us to be more specific in our statement of faith yet you refuse to answer the simple questions. (one of many examples) :rotfl:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I never seen the subject changed as quickly as an OVer can change it. So don't crow to loudly:dizzy:
:sigh:

e4e if you think I, or any other OV'ers have dodged questions or changed the subject just let me know. Do you have a question you want me to answer? If so, just ask it!
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It is my opinion that the core problem of the OV, is that it proves to be illogical. One cannot hold the premise that God's nature does not change, and then conclude that God changes His mind, His choices, prophecies, or even historical events under His control, etc. That breaks the law of non-contradiction, as do most of the OV teachings. Their logic forces the only premise they can rationally hold, and that is that God is variable, unknowing, and often wrong.



Nang

We make choices all the time without changing our human nature. A personal God can think, act, feel (all presuppose change/time) without ceasing to be God. His eternal, uncreated spirit does not change to frog or tree just because He has a new thought, feeling, or action. As possible objects of knowledge move from possible to actual, God's perfect knowledge reflects this. It is possible that I will kill myself today. Since I did not, God knows that I did not. If I would have, God would have known it also. A contingent event may or may not happen. There is an element of unsettledness or we live in a deterministic matrix. Our daily choices are an illusion and God is a hoodwinker.

If God adds 15 years to Hezekiah's life in response to prayer (and He did, despite having said he was a dead duck...is God a liar or did He change His mind?), this does not change the fact that He is eternal, spirit, triune, holy, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.

Even classical theologians are starting to affirm weak vs strong immutability. God changes in some ways, but not in others ways. He is not a changeless, impersonal, Platonic blob, but the Living, dynamic, personal God. A being who cannot change is imperfect and less than a created being who can change as contingencies change. Change does not have to be for better or worse. It is simply an aspect of being alive, not dead.

God is triune. We say that He is 3, yet 1, and 1, yet 3. This is not a contradiction anymore than God changing His mind contradicts this not changing His essential being. God is 3 in some ways, but 1 in other ways (nature vs personal distinction). No contradiction, so ignore the JWs. Likewise, God can see history unfold contingently without having His essential nature become less than Deity or perfect.
 

elected4ever

New member
:sigh:

e4e if you think I, or any other OV'ers have dodged questions or changed the subject just let me know. Do you have a question you want me to answer? If so, just ask it!
Naw, just jerking your chain. I'm board. Every one seems to be tired of cookie cutter church.
 

amosman

New member
Open View? Or Settled View? Let's see? How can God relate to man? Not on His level that's for sure. It must be on our level. Which would mean He at times would almost seem human even though He is God. He may at times appear to not know the future but at other times He does.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's laughable coming from you.

You want us to be more specific in our statement of faith yet you refuse to answer the simple questions. (one of many examples)
How speaking about doctrinal statements for the forum or churches is applicable to a question posted here is indicative of your irrational tactics, Knight.

You asked:
Do we have a choice?

Do you believe that a Christian can do anything BUT live in harmony with God's will?

Sorry, I actually did not see this one. My bad. Nevertheless, I have answered that question at least six times in this and other forums. But ONE MORE TIME just for little 'ole you: Only the regenerate (the truly saved) have choices. They can choose to sin or to not sin. By "not sin", I mean the regenerate are willfully able to seek after God's righteousness, that is to obey God. The regenerate will feel the guilt of their sins, repent, and seek the forgiveness of God, which they will be granted.

I have a question for you. (You can count the actual number of questions I have explicitly asked herein on less than two hands.)

Is there any question I have ever answered (that you have actually read) that has given you pause enough to think that I just might be correct? I don't care what the specifics were, and given your short-term memory issues, I doubt you would even recall. I just wonder if you are too busy formulating a response before you have even taken the time to ponder anything you may read ("ready-fire-aim").

I mean this sincerely when I say that you and perhaps Muz, are the only two avowed open theists within TOL in whom I have seen hints of a willingness to consider that what you believe can be challenged and changed. It is too bad that you both hide behind a persona that prefers personalization of any discussion versus civil discourse. I understand that you have a "rep" within TOL to maintain, but doing so at the expense of growing in one's faith and knowledge seems such a waste.

You wrote:
If, after he responds, and I am satisfied with his response maybe we can open this up for discussion. Thanks!

Satisfied?
 

Philetus

New member
Open View? Or Settled View? Let's see? How can God relate to man? Not on His level that's for sure. It must be on our level. Which would mean He at times would almost seem human even though He is God. He may at times appear to not know the future but at other times He does.

Just pulling the wool over our eyes?
 

amosman

New member
Did God permit Satan to test Job? Yes. Did Job blame God? No. Can't this reasoning be applied to all situations?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Frankly, anyone posting to this thread ought to be required to certify that they have read discussions of the pros and cons of open theism. Would certainly make the progress here much more effective.

Two papers I use on a forum I moderate and ask others to read before posting anything are:

Pro: View attachment 11603
Con: View attachment 11602
:think:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
How speaking about doctrinal statements for the forum or churches is applicable to a question posted here is indicative of your irrational tactics, Knight.

You asked:
Do we have a choice?

Do you believe that a Christian can do anything BUT live in harmony with God's will?

Sorry, I actually did not see this one. My bad. Nevertheless, I have answered that question at least six times in this and other forums. But ONE MORE TIME just for little 'ole you: Only the regenerate (the truly saved) have choices. They can choose to sin or to not sin. By "not sin", I mean the regenerate are willfully able to seek after God's righteousness, that is to obey God. The regenerate will feel the guilt of their sins, repent, and seek the forgiveness of God, which they will be granted.
Uh... is that a yes or no? Or what? It almost sounds like you think the future must be open, open enough for the regenerate to be able to make their own (unsettled) choices.

I have a question for you. (You can count the actual number of questions I have explicitly asked herein on less than two hands.)

Is there any question I have ever answered (that you have actually read) that has given you pause enough to think that I just might be correct?
No, but I still read your posts anyways (the shorter ones). I usually don't read the long ones because these aren't the only threads I am involved in, so I must choose my battles and limit my time in any one particular thread.

I mean this sincerely when I say that you and perhaps Muz, are the only two avowed open theists within TOL in whom I have seen hints of a willingness to consider that what you believe can be challenged and changed. It is too bad that you both hide behind a persona that prefers personalization of any discussion versus civil discourse. I understand that you have a "rep" within TOL to maintain, but doing so at the expense of growing in one's faith and knowledge seems such a waste.
How seriously can I take you when one of your strongest arguments is that nobody can comprehend God yet you are just certain I must be wrong and you must be right! :idunno:

AMR, it should also be noted that I tried to befriend you a few weeks back and you acted like a junior high school girl so I sorta gave up trying with you.

I would gladly give you another shot if I thought you were seriously trying to dialog.

You wrote:
If, after he responds, and I am satisfied with his response maybe we can open this up for discussion. Thanks!

Satisfied?
Not really, because once again you didn't directly answer the question.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Frankly, anyone posting to this thread ought to be required to certify that they have read discussions of the pros and cons of open theism. Would certainly make the progress here much more effective.

Two papers I use on a forum I moderate and ask others to read before posting anything are:

Pro: View attachment 11603
Con: View attachment 11602
:think:
This isn't "that" forum, please don't try to moderate TOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top