Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The thought never entered my mind. I am a moderator, not a bouncer.:nono:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That is a given. Else you are in the wrong forum.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You asked if Christians have choices. I stated that they can choose to sin or not sin. Is that not an affirmative enough answer? But keep in mind, that unlike you, choices do not belie the openness of the future that you assume. Choices are choosing what you are most inclined to so choose when you choose, unawares of any external influences.
I believe I have said many times that no one can comprehend God. Why do you always misquote me?
If you are going to be coy, at my age I am way too set in my ways to grasp or deal with coyness. I prefer the direct approach.
All Christians and cultists read the Bible, but understand it differently. There is a place to be conversant with a variety of views and heresies in order to better be able to defend and proclaim the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 4).
Without understanding a Calvinist or OT preconceived theology, it is more difficult to embrace or refute a general theological understanding of Scripture. Without this, the tendency is to have a filter and proof text without sound exegesis to support one's conclusions.
patman
Active member
Job did blame God. Job didn't know Satan did these things to him, and he blamed God.
Job 6:4 For the arrows of the Almighty are within me;
My spirit drinks in their poison;
The terrors of God are arrayed against me.
Job 7
20 Have I sinned?
What have I done to You, O watcher of men?
Why have You set me as Your target,
So that I am a burden to myself?[]
21 Why then do You not pardon my transgression,
And take away my iniquity?
For now I will lie down in the dust,
And You will seek me diligently,
But I will no longer be.”
Job 9
16 If I called and He answered me,
I would not believe that He was listening to my voice.
17 For He crushes me with a tempest,
And multiplies my wounds without cause.
18 He will not allow me to catch my breath,
But fills me with bitterness.
That is why Job repented.
Job 42
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”
Job is a key book.
Anyone who believes God ordains ALL things (even the unjust and evil) needs to read Job. Job too said God causes 'evil' to happen, yet he repented because it turned out God didn't do it to Job. God came from heaven asking Job in 100 different ways "Do you know how I work?" followed with a "Because you know so much answer how I do things."
Philetus
New member
Yeah, like enough freedom to make really bad choices ...
Or 11 commandments instead of just the 10 we seem to handle so well ...
Or enough rope to hang our selves ...
Or two verses that seem to contradict each other ... (we seem ready enough for that)
Or the ninety percent of the gray matter that seems to lie dormant in most Christians ...
Or meaningless narrative when we have so many great bible dictionaries ...
And thank God He doesn't give us more opportunities than we are ready to engage in that expresses His love to the least of these...
Thank God He doesn't give us THREE coats when we aren't even willing to give up one of the TWO He has already given us...
And I guess best of all, we can be glad that God doesn't unleash the big beast until we are sure we can handle it ...
And Thank the good Lord He doesn't use plain language to describe himself ... that's one I know we aren't ready for ...
And thank heaven Augustine wasn't twins ...
And thankfully God hasn't given us anymore grace than is absolutely necessary ... God forbid that He would be extravagant in His love for the world .... We are for surey not ready for that one ...
Go easy on us God ... we are only human after all
themuzicman
Well-known member
ROFL... The OPENING ARGUMENT AGAINST OVT IS NOTHING MORE THE FUD! (That's fear, uncertainty and doubt, as though God couldn't remedy those things!)
The second objection is God won't know who is going to be born! ROFL!
Objection three is that God might believe something false about the future.
The forth and fifth objection is that things might not work out like God wanted... (Well, duh! I think the Noah story demonstrates THAT.)
ROFL! And the 6th objection is that he doesn't think that OVTs believe that God can bring things to pass without determining ALL of history first! The author is denying OMNIPOTENCE!
ROFL! And the 7th objection is that the author thinks that it "belittles" God...
ROFL! the 8th objection is an argument from bad consequences.
Part 2:
Objection 1 says that OVTs don't interpret the bible the way the classical theists do...lol (The Cyrus "problem" comes to life... again, a denial of omnipotence by the author)
Objection 2 says that God might not be able to prophesy... lol
Objection 3 thinks that OVT means God can't act to convince certain people to do certain things at certain times.
Objectino 4 is the same as 3
Objection 5 claims that because God doesn't control everything, that we can't be sure that Scripture is inerrant. Of course,this is a denial of God's omnipotence.
Part 3:
Objection1: God wouldn't know whether sin would happen or not! (Duh!)
Of course, the 1Peter 1:19-20 is used, where God the Son is known before creation, and He came to earth. I think there is some imposition on this verse, but even the meaning of "before teh foundatiosn of the earth" would require more discussion.
Objection 2 is that God doesn't have a list of who will be saved. BOth Eph 1:4 and Romans 8:29-30 have been exegeted properly and shown NOT to be a problem.
Objection 3 is that the substitutionary atonement might not be biblical as Calvinists create it. (You mean it might be corporate? Oh my!) ROFL
Objection 4, again, is individual election, and that imposition on 1 Pet 2:24
Objection 5 is that God might not keep his promises... ROFL
Objection 6 is that Christ might not have been crucified.. ROFL
Objection 7 is the same as 6, extended to resurrection
Objection 8 says that people in the OT who believed in God might not have been saved! ROFL (redux of 6 and 7)
Objection 9 is specific to Calvinism... Closely tying animal sacrifice for atonement of sin.
Part 4:
Objection 1 is that the author doesn't think God is all-Wise without being all determining, and that He cannot bring thing about without fixing the game beforehand. ROFL
Objection 2 says that the author doesn't think that God can bring an end to suffering, as per Romans 8:28, again, denying omnipotence.
Objection 3 says that OVTs are arrogant in thinking that they could advise God. A complete falsehood.
Objection 4 says taht God might not be able to bring about our resurrection. Again, denial of omnipotence.
The author then appeals to history, that the church never seriously considered whether God knows the future or not... Probably a good reason to consider it, but not for this author. (I still find it funny that protestants appeal to tradition alone to defend their beliefs.)
The remainder is more FUD, not really worth discussing.
In short, the con to OVT is pretty toothless.
Muz
Philetus
New member
:thumb:
And you guys still talk to AMR like he has done his homework. Great Post, Muz!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have proven two things: (1) you are aware of the issues between the classical and open theist, which was the only point of my post of these two articles; (2) you value rhetoric over cogency in any discourse that disagrees with what you hold to be the truth.:think:
themuzicman
Well-known member
I have neither the time nor space here to deal with every point in the article, especially since they've all been more than adequately answered. If you have specific points that you want clarified, please ask.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us worthy evidence of the fact.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Lon
Well-known member
Go back throught the post. David Koresh preached another gospel. Paul warns about any preaching another gospel. Paul's words carry God's authority.
David Koresh breaks tradition.
David Koresh produced bad fruit (against the scriptures).
In all I gave scriptures and you say 'begs the question.' I believe to ignore scripture is to 'beg the question.' In effect, you are begging the question.
Those scriptures are clear. Do I have to quote every one?
Sound doctrine 'fits' with the rest of scripture.
Accordance or agrees with what scripture teaches.
Spiritual thoughts and Spiritual words are connected. If one or the other is missing, it is false.
Proof is in the pudding. If it claims righteousness, it will taste of righteousness.
Again, the proof is in the pudding. Whatever it sows is the fruit that is produced.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck. "Begging the question" indeed.
David Koresh quoted Paul all the time (or let's assume he did for the sake of argument).
So what? Is your authority tradition or the Scripture? (David might ask.)
That's your opinion. How would you know, in the darkened recesses of your sinful mind, what good fruit is? David would insist that all those who love him are exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit because all those who the Father has given him know his voice and follow him.
Nice! That sounds exactly like something David Koresh might say in answer to any of your arguments concerning Jesus.
What would be the point of doing so? All David would do is insist that you don't understand the passages you are quoting; that your mind has been darkened and cannot understand the things of God.
(THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION LON!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE SO CLOSE AND DON'T SEE IT!)
SOUND doctrine?
OH! LON! Where does that phrase come from? What does the word "sound" mean in the above sentence?
I don't think you see it but you've just undone your entire theological worldview and no longer have any standing upon which to claim that God could possibly exist timelessly.
Well sarcasm or no, you are in fact begging the question by quoting any Scripture to David Koresh because all someone like him would do is quote more right back at you. The whole question in such a debate would be whether your interpretation of Scripture was valid. Your quoting it only assumes the answer to that question before it has been established. That's called begging the question. You assume the answer to the question at hand in order to argue for your position. That doesn't work.
Okay, I'm beginning to feel like you aren't going to tolerate this long enough to see the point on your own (if you don't see it already) and so let me get you off the hook here because I could keep you chasing your tail forever if I wanted to.
You've abandoned sound reason Lon. You openly and even proudly accept within your worldview what is clearly self-contradictory. And as a result you cannot claim to have sound doctrine. Theology is the 'logos' of the 'theos'; the logic of God and if you abandon logic, then you tacitly accept ALL truth claims because you no long have any standing upon which to declare them false.
No two truth claim which contradict each other can both be true at the same time and in the same respect. We accept the Scripture as truth for various reasons but regardless of the reason, if the Scripture is true and some other truth claim contradicts the Scripture then that truth claim is false on the basis of sound reason, (i.e. because of the law of non-contradiction). You have basically been making this argument all along except that you've previously rejected sound reason and so beg the question in doing so, rendering your theological worldview irrational and therefore no more valid than David Koresh's.
You simply must have the courage to reject ideas that are irrational. It doesn't matter how much faith you think it takes to accept an irrationality, it take more to reject it. The acceptance of tradition and "high minded" doctrines which give us a feeling of piety appeal to the flesh. We must remain faithful to Scripture and sound reason and nothing else for doctrines sake. Leave either one and you enter into a theological abyss where folks like David Koresh, Benny Hinn and the like reside.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Philetus
New member
"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's a Calvinist?"
"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's an open theists?"
"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's an Arminian?"
"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck, dummy!"
"If it disagrees with me it's a dumb dead duck because of it's duck nature."
"Proof is in the pudding."
"Proof is in the duck, pudding."
"The pudding is in the duck, dummy."
"Prove it."
"God made the duck."
"Who made the pudding?"
"The duck did, dude."
"Quack!"
"Do ducks duck?"
"Dead ducks don't duck."
"Dead ducks do if God makes um duck."
"Dead ducks still make pudding."
"Prove it."
"If it claims to be a duck, it will taste like a duck."
"Depends on how much pudding and how many ducks."
"They make depends for ducks?"
"No, contingencies, ducky."
"Duck contingencies?"
"We have more ducks in our row than you."
"Dumb ducks."
"Enough pudding has the power to change a duck's taste."
"Ducks don't have taste."
"We are talking about how ducks taste, not duck taste."
"Have you ever even tasted a duck?"
"All ducks taste alike."
"Have you tasted that one?"
"That one isn't dead."
"It's elected."
"Tasty, too."
"Sick."
"Not yet."
"Pudding?"
"Butter."
"Better?"
"Bummer."
"And God repented that He had made ducks!" Philetus 1:77
1500 years later ...
“Roast?”
“Soufflé.”
“Soup!”
“Sigh”
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Philetus
New member
I finally understand what AMR has been trying to prove in this thread.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Philetus
New member
Yep, on a level even a Calvinist can understand.
- Status