Er, no, not me, but the hundreds of biblical scholars that came before me. Go read the reference I gave and dig a little deeper. Or else become a Mormon since it suits you to assign anthromorphisms as literal.
Then you admit your theology hangs on the distinctions? Such a thin thread to base your version of God upon, no?
I admitted to no such thing and you know it. On the contrary, I said that the discussion was probably very much worth the read.
The needs of my family will forever trump the needs of any and everyone one else. My first duty is to my own family, not to you, this website, anyone on this website or anyone else on the planet. If your priorities are different than that, then you are worse than an unbeliever.
Let's see, of the 259 posts I have made, please cite innumerable numbers that I have copied and pasted. I believe I have referenced the ones that I have so pasted. I also believe you will find the numbers to be less than, say, 5% of my posts. Moreover, you will find them to be credible scholars, and not your favorite quotation whipping person, Enyart.
Trying to separate Calvinism from the Reformed movement is not warranted. I am a reformed theologian who happens to believe the Calvinistic doctrines defined in the Westminster Confession. Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. Millions have believed the traditional reformed perspectives. Thousands may claim to be open theists, not millions.
Our discussion has nothing to do with non-believers. I assume we both believe, so let’s stay on point. Hundreds of years and millions of believers should serve as a warning to proceed with caution and carefully when attempting to cast off a system of beliefs. To simply state, in effect, “well they could all be wrong” is to ignore the realities of the situation.
How do you justify this statement? Is it only Calvinists you see disagreeing with open theism? I don’t think you have surveyed the theological space sufficiently. My point is that if open theism is some new revelation, previously hidden for hundreds of years, now being unfolded then we should be witnessing a revival of global proportions. We are not. What we see are pockets of believers here and there, no centralization or no attempts to define the tenets of the open theist faith.
True enough. But observe the spread of the reformed doctrines globally as evidence of the truth of the doctrines.
Yet we have Richard Rice, publishing probably the earliest treatment of open theism in 1979, and in nearly thirty years open theism remains on the fringes of Protestant theism. Nine years after Luther refused to recant at the Diet of Worms, nearly all of Germany became Lutherans. Two years after Calvin’s Institutes were published Calvinism expanded into France and spread through parts of Germany, the Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. It also predominated in the theology of the Anglican Church in England after 1558, only two short years following the appearance of the Institutes. So how is it you know “for sure” this entire establishment is in error?
For one thing, these theological journals and publications are where we can examine and test our own understandings against those of others, some of whom have spent years going deep into the scriptures. Theology and practice are separable only verbally and are inseparable for salvation. There are two basic questions in life: “who is Jesus?” and “who is God?” We all know how easy it is to create pictures and images in our minds, which turn out not to have any basis in reality. This is especially easy when dealing with something transcendent (like God) or seemingly paradoxical (like Jesus): there has to be some outside foundation against which we can check our interior life, so that we do not create some sort of idols or false ideas...and then go worshipping them.
I don’t think you appreciate the degree of change open theism imposes on traditional Protestant doctrine. Just to claim that anyone who assumes the future is unsettled misses the significance of the baggage that must accompany such an assumption. The doctrine of God requires special attention because it forms the framework within which all other doctrines are developed. As I discussed above, not only is the doctrine of God foundational to theology, or the way a person believes, it is also foundational to the practical aspects of Christian life, the way one acts.
I appeal to centuries of study of the scriptures, scrutiny by the faithful, and the results of these beliefs in the world around us. Would false teachings yield so much good? No one can deny the good coming out of the body of Christ.
This is the most dangerous of modern Christian reconstructionist delusions. The God of Isaias, who cries "Behold me! Behold me!" to nations that do not call upon his name, does not disappear for centuries and hide from the world. How many Christians do we have here that do not belong to any denomination because they feel they have some peculiar insight every other kind of Christian in the world lacks? How many who belong to a new, small, and isolated church that nevertheless purports itself to be getting right all the things other churches all over the world have always done wrong?
My point is that knowledge without relationship is nothing. Which is also God point in the verse I sited.
That the Church Fathers used the language of their culture to discuss as well as is possible what is beyond words (a transcendent being), doesn't make their discussion wrong, nor does it make them lovers of Greek philosophy by any means. Moreover, I have already pointed out to you elsewhere that open theism’s doctrine of open futures is based upon Aristotle. So you end up with open theists like Boyd, writing in God of the Possible, pp. 103-106, that he finds it helpful when counseling someone who has experienced a great tragedy to say that God was as surprised as everyone else at what happened. Boyd thinks this makes God kinder and gentler and more trustworthy. I seriously beg to differ. Now you may simply reject Boyd’s thinking as unrepresentative of open theism. In fact, you have done as much when I have cited other statements from open theists, such as Pinnock. But you don’t get to possess the open theist forest without owning the trees, no matter how vehemently you protest to the contrary.
I don’t think you do. I have been discussing the topic at length in this thread. For the record, God’s perfections and attributes are unchangeable. They do not increase, or decrease in number, quality or power. God does act and feel emotions, and He acts and feels differently in response to different situations.
Let’s stay focused, we are not talking about things, but a spiritual being, God. Open theism holds that there are things that God does not know until free agents act. God then knows something new. He has acquired new information. He therefore has changed.
God never has nor will have experienced/possessed any of these things. This is gibberish, exhibits a complete lack of understanding of the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead, and comes dangerously close to Arianism. The human nature and body of Christ suffered and endured all of these things. The divine nature did not. It is generally admitted that the word “person” is but an imperfect expression of the idea of the one God, three persons conceptualization. In common parlance it denotes a separate rational and moral individual, possessed of self-consciousness, and conscious of his identity amid all changes. Experience teaches that where you have a person, you also have a distinct individual essence. Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized.
Let’s stay focused, we are not talking about things, but a spiritual being, God. A rock is a rock, even when you split it in half. God is a not a rock. So, again, what it your rebuttal? Please describe the qualitatively neutral “changes” that can occur with God, especially with respect to His limited foreknowledge.
1. If anything exists in the universe it is contingent.
You are confusing the essential nature of God with some misunderstandings of the Godhead. In God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one.
I have affirmed that immutability means God’s character and all His attributes do not change. You seem to want to limit immutability to God’s character alone, yet they (character and attributes) are inseparable.
My son is graduating from college in December. Gheez. Read more here.
This is completely off topic, but...
[url]http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1465264&postcount=802[/url]