ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

dale

New member
Asked and answered here, as previously noted.:plain:

"An omnipotent God cannot create morally free agents (angels and humans) that are incapable of choosing to sin. Thus, before the Fall in Eden mankind possessed the ability not to sin and the ability to sin. After the Fall the ability of mankind changed, in that mankind possessed only the inability not to sin."

The unregenerate cannot seek salvific goodness. That is not to say the unregenerate cannot do some moral good, by virtue of God's common grace. Hence, the lost are not utterly depraved, but are totally depraved.
Please forgive me, I'm somewhat a simple man.

I was under the impression that man couldn't freely choose because "we can only choose according to our strongest inclinations of the moment" Are you saying before the fall man wasn't affected by that and he could indeed choose contrary to his "...strongest inclinations of the moment"?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Has anyone here actually done a positive case for OVT without doing so in response to Calvinist attacks?

Muz

Yes! I've started numerous threads where the opening post was little more than a rational argument for the open view some of which started from entirely different directions.

I've asked questions such as "Is God Really Good?" and argued from there that the Open View is the only position that is possibly true. I've made similar arguments by asking the question "Does God Have a Sense of Humor?". I've made arguments based on the definition of "freedom", the definition of "justice", etc, etc, etc. DFTDave has made many possitive arguments as well, as has Turbo and Knight and I'm sure many others as well. The positive argument for the Open View has indeed been made many times on this forum, not the least of which was Battle Royale X where Dr. Lamerson spent the entire debate on the defensive.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Thanks for stopping by, Knight. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Why won't you respond to his arguments?

When he points out when you've contradicted yourself, you just ignore him as though no response means he didn't make the argument.

I really do not understand you AMR. You have got to be the laziest Calvinist I've ever seen. You simply will not make an argument. You'll spend all day making one truth claim after another but refuse to defend those claims when they are challenged. You wonder why people get aggravated but jump at the chance to use their frustration, which you brought on, as an excuse not to engage the debate that you hadn't ever engaged in the first place.

:bang: :bang: :bang:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Yet you seem sure that He cannot write a new song. :idunno:

If we cannot comprehend God (as you assert) why are you so sure God cannot do something so fundamentally simple as create a new song???

Yes. Err should I say.... :duh:

If God is not free enough to write a new song, then clearly I am more free than God is.... according to you that is.

Your God cannot:
- design
- create
- imagine
- move
- feel
- nor be touched

Your God is not free, instead he is locked in eternity.... as immobile as any other false idol.

You seem to be missing something here.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
Col 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him — all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers — all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.

If all things come from God, how could anything be really 'new?'
Since all things come from Him, what possible thing doesn't He know?

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

If every 'thing' comes from God, originates from Him, how can there be anything new? For something 'new' to come, where would it come from?
Understanding that even this troubles your own logic, it should be understood that our own logic has massive constraints for being able to apprehend.

We have knowledge of who God is within our parameters soley because of His revelation. We do not understand God at all naturally through our constrained parameters EXCEPT as we share any of those attributes with Him and even these are limited. We understand love for instance, but without revelation, agape' is a love only understood by the revelation of Christ. In effect, there is no possible way to apprehend a character trait of God unless He purposefully reveals Himself through our context.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Please forgive me, I'm somewhat a simple man.

I was under the impression that man couldn't freely choose because "we can only choose according to our strongest inclinations of the moment" Are you saying before the fall man wasn't affected by that and he could indeed choose contrary to his "...strongest inclinations of the moment"?

the two are not tying together for me here. What specifically are you asking?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Why won't you respond to his arguments?

When he points out when you've contradicted yourself, you just ignore him as though no response means he didn't make the argument.

I really do not understand you AMR. You have got to be the laziest Calvinist I've ever seen. You simply will not make an argument. You'll spend all day making one truth claim after another but refuse to defend those claims when they are challenged. You wonder why people get aggravated but jump at the chance to use their frustration, which you brought on, as an excuse not to engage the debate that you hadn't ever engaged in the first place.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

baiting? flippancy?

Read his next 3 posts.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
baiting? flippancy?

Read his next 3 posts.

Are you saying that I am baiting him and being flippant or that Knight is?

Either way, I would say with confidence that such behavior is brought on by the evident fact that AMR is not engaging the debate! Knight's responses, as well as mine, are in accordance with AMR's own posts. It is AMR who is setting the tone here, not Knight or myself. I guarantee you that if AMR engaged the debate so would Knight. As it is, there's nothing to engage! We've made our arguments and AMR has failed to respond. What else is there to do but to assume that AMR isn't here to debate?

Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. In response to the questions you asked Knight, hopefully the following question will cause you to see the error in your thinking...

Does sin come from God?
 

Evoken

New member
I've asked questions such as "Is God Really Good?" and argued from there that the Open View is the only position that is possibly true. I've made similar arguments by asking the question "Does God Have a Sense of Humor?".

How about asking the question "Can the God of Open Theism be the first mover?"


Evo
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Please forgive me, I'm somewhat a simple man.
Anyone who starts out with these sort of "I am just a poor ole' country boy" proclamations is to be carefully watched.:)

I was under the impression that man couldn't freely choose because "we can only choose according to our strongest inclinations of the moment" Are you saying before the fall man wasn't affected by that and he could indeed choose contrary to his "...strongest inclinations of the moment"?
First, some background.

Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.

Calvinism, as well as other views, teaches that God’s predestining decree was made before the Fall, and in light of the Fall. This is important because the Calvinistic view of predestination always accentuates the gracious character of God’s redemption. When God predestines people to salvation God is predestinating people to be saved whom He knows really need to be saved. They need to be saved because they are sinners in Adam, not because God forced them to be sinners.

To be perfectly clear, God knew before the Fall that there would be a Fall and God took action to redeem some, His elect. God ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that God chose to coerce it. God's predestinating grace is gracious precisely because He chooses to save people whom He knows in advance will be spiritually dead.

Before the fall, Adam was free--more free than we have ever been. Adam was created with God's grace in a state of positive holiness, and was also immortal in the sense that he was not subject to the law of death. But Adam was only at the beginning of his existence and did not yet possess the highest privileges that were in store for mankind. Adam was not yet raised above the possibility of erring, sinning, and dying. He was not yet in possession of the highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fulness. The image of God in the man Adam was still limited by the possibility of man's sinning against God, changing from good to evil, and becoming subject to the power of death. The promise of life in the covenant of works was a promise of the removal of all the limitations of life to which Adam was still subject, and of the raising of his life to the highest degree of perfection. When Paul says in Rom. 7:10 that the commandment was unto life, he means life in the fullest sense of the word. The principle of the covenant of works was: the man that does these things shall live thereby; and this principle is reiterated time and again in Scripture, Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,20; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12. The great question that had to be settled by Adam was, whether man would obey God implicitly or follow the guidance of his own judgment.It was a test of pure obedience. Adam had to show his willingness to submit his will to the will of his God with implicit obedience.

Adam could sin or choose to not sin. Adam, who had absolutely no claim on God, and who could only establish a claim by meeting the condition of the covenant of works, cut himself loose from God and acted as if he possesed certain rights as over against God. The idea that the command of God was really an infringement on the rights of man seems to have been already present in the mind of Eve when, in answer to the question of Satan, she added the words, "Neither shall you touch it," (Gen. 3:3). Eve evidently wanted to stress the fact that God's command had been unreasonable.
Adam disobeyed and chose to sin...which was what he willfully and with full foreknowledge that his actions were contrary to what God had personally told him.

Adam's willful disobedience threw all of his progeny into a state of sin, breaking the covenant of works that God had established with Him--said progeny now being unable to not sin. The lost therefore can only choose to their own inclinations, being inclined to sin less or to sin more. This is unlike the regenerate, who can choose to sin or not to sin, but again, both choices made according to their own inclinations. Only now, the regenerate can be inclined towards God's purposes and righteousness, and hence enjoy a freedom the lost can never claim, a freedom to be the kind of creature God expects them to be.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Are you saying that I am baiting him and being flippant or that Knight is?

Either way, I would say with confidence that such behavior is brought on by the evident fact that AMR is not engaging the debate! Knight's responses, as well as mine, are in accordance with AMR's own posts. It is AMR who is setting the tone here, not Knight or myself. I guarantee you that if AMR engaged the debate so would Knight. As it is, there's nothing to engage! We've made our arguments and AMR has failed to respond. What else is there to do but to assume that AMR isn't here to debate?

Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. In response to the questions you asked Knight, hopefully the following question will cause you to see the error in your thinking...

Does sin come from God?

How so? I'm trying to understand your question. Sin is the only thing I know of outside of His character, nature, and essence. It isn't a thing as much as it is a condition of being outside of His presence and purposes. A song takes on a different meaning altogether and must proceed either from Him or sin. God being God, would not write a song that didn't proceed from His essence. In effect, how could it be 'new?'

And of course I was talking about Knight's 'neener neener's'
I see them more out of impatience from Knight in waiting for response from AMR.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
How so? I'm trying to understand your question. Sin is the only thing I know of outside of His character, nature, and essence. It isn't a thing as much as it is a condition of being outside of His presence and purposes. A song takes on a different meaning altogether and must proceed either from Him or sin. God being God, would not write a song that didn't proceed from His essence. In effect, how could it be 'new?'
You said all things proceed from God and thus for God nothing is new. Now you say that sin does not proceed from God and so I presume then you would agree that at some point sin was a new thing even for God, right?

As for a new song, songs are new, not in that no one has ever heard a song before but because that particular song had never existed before. By you reasoning it would follow that Beethoven never wrote a new song because he would have had no means to write his music from anywhere other than his own essence, right? I mean Beethoven's music was an expression of himself, was it not? The music certainly wasn't pulled out of someone else's brain. The music was his and he was completely familiar with everything about it. He knew what notes where, what they sounded like, how to arrange them in a pleasing way, how to use note to stir the emotions, how to play the instruments that made the music, how to conduct the orchestra and to coach them on getting the piece exactly the way he wanted it, etc, etc, etc. And yet, in spite of his utterly intimate knowledge of the music, the first time he heard it, it was new to him in a vary significant way, was it not?

How is it possible that people can believe ourselves to be more creative than God?

And of course I was talking about Knight's 'neener neener's'
I see them more out of impatience from Knight in waiting for response from AMR.
Which, as I said, was brought on primarily by AMR's lack or substantive response.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yet you seem sure that He cannot write a new song.

If we cannot comprehend God (as you assert) why are you so sure God cannot do something so fundamentally simple as create a new song???
I believe I have been saying we cannot comprehend God fully. We can know many things about God from His special and general revelations. Moreover, I explained the rationale for why nothing can be "new" to God, given its temporal associations. Your comment is basically, "am I really, really sure?" Indeed I am.
If God is not free enough to write a new song, then clearly I am more free than God is.... according to you that is.
No you are not. Nothing you can do, of your own free will is outside of God's providential control or knowledge. You make the same claim as Adam.
 

Lon

Well-known member
You said all things proceed from God and thus for God nothing is new. Now you say that sin does not proceed from God and so I presume then you would agree that at some point sin was a new thing even for God, right?
Wasn't God's plan from the beginning clear about His Son? If it was 'new' how would there have been a plan?
As for a new song, songs are new, not in that no one has ever heard a song before but because that particular song had never existed before. By you reasoning it would follow that Beethoven never wrote a new song because he would have had no means to write his music from anywhere other than his own essence, right? I mean Beethoven's music was an expression of himself, was it not? The music certainly wasn't pulled out of someone else's brain. The music was his and he was completely familiar with everything about it. He knew what notes where, what they sounded like, how to arrange them in a pleasing way, how to use note to stir the emotions, how to play the instruments that made the music, how to conduct the orchestra and to coach them on getting the piece exactly the way he wanted it, etc, etc, etc. And yet, in spite of his utterly intimate knowledge of the music, the first time he heard it, it was new to him in a vary significant way, was it not?

How is it possible that people can believe ourselves to be more creative than God?

That is the problem actually. Everything stems from God (btw Beethoven, excellent). So the powers, energies, every thing comes from God. Things are new to us. For Beethoven, it was new. We experience growth, change, etc. within our environment because things are 'new' to us. We haven't experienced everything, we don't know everything. We are finite. So you are looking at the question from finite. Also, I'm on the same page there with you, I just recognize that finite is different from infinite simply by His revelation.
Which, as I said, was brought on primarily by AMR's lack or substantive response.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lonster,

Would you please learn how to properly use the quote feature? It isn't that hard. Don't be lazy!

Lonster said:
Wasn't God's plan from the beginning clear about His Son? If it was 'new' how would there have been a plan?
Why do you put the word new in quotes? And how it is possible that you completely missed the point about Beethoven? Let me try again.

Music was not new to Beethoven when he wrote the Moonlight Sonata but the Moonlight Sonata was! The Moonlight Sonata hadn't existed before he wrote it and thus it was new to God too! Music was not new and the concept of songs wasn't new either but that PARTICULAR song was!

The point is that there is more than one way to use the word new and you are intentionally using it in a quite different way than Knight and I are and you are therefore making a category error in your reasoning. Just because God planned for how He would respond to sin doesn't mean that when Lucifer fell, it wasn't new. It was new in that it had never happened before and it DID NOT originate in nor proceed from God. While the concept of sin was known to God in that He understood that His creatures had the ability to reject Him, the actual sin itself didn't exist until it happened and thus was new, by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

dale

New member
Anyone who starts out with these sort of "I am just a poor ole' country boy" proclamations is to be carefully watched.:)

I only said that because after I asked a question, you responded with

Asked and answered here, as previously noted.:plain:

I was actually apologizing for you having to answer again because I wasn't able to understand your previous answer.

It's pretty funny that you think I'm to be "carefully watched"

I'll do my best with your newest reply... thanks
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I only said that because after I asked a question, you responded with



I was actually apologizing for you having to answer again because I wasn't able to understand your previous answer.

It's pretty funny that you think I'm to be "carefully watched"

I'll do my best with your newest reply... thanks

I can't even believe that he linked to that post anyway! That was the post where AMR said that what was true to him was all he really cared about and that sound reason didn't really count for much when trying to refute what was true to him.

How is one supposed to have any meaningful discourse with a person who takes such a stance? Nothing you could ever say could possibly persuade him that he's gotten anything wrong! His whole worldview is one gigantic unfalsifiable jumble of what is true to AMR. :kookoo:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top