Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Knight
    replied
    Judges 14:4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD — that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

    God says He was seeking an occasion, i.e., God was looking for the right moment to interact. Yet the settled theist is forced to believe that is a lie. After all, according to the settled theist God knows all occasions for all of time and has known eternally when He would move (which by the way is impossible for those who believe God is immutable).

    Just one (more) of hundreds of clear examples.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination

    It doesn't say he didn't know they would do it. In the context, he says I didn't command it, I didn't speak it, I didn't even think that they should do it.
    19:5 does not use the term should. It just says "nor did it come into My mind". As in I never even thought of such a thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • SaulToPaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    See tetelestai? It doesn't matter how clear the evidence against your position is.... guys like STP and AMR will reject it anyway!
    I think you're so focused on the "didn't come into my mind" segment, you lose the context of his point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination

    It doesn't say he didn't know they would do it. In the context, he says I didn't command it, I didn't speak it, I didn't even think that they should do it.
    See tetelestai? It doesn't matter how clear the evidence against your position is.... guys like STP and AMR will reject it anyway!

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    My point is that I believe the “deeper” one is entrenched in a particular doctrine, belief, or denomination, the harder it is. However, if a believer is up to his or her armpits in truth, that would be a good place to be.
    I think that's true. Which is why most people who have never heard either side of the argument are appalled to find out that such a thing as Calvinism actually exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • SaulToPaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    He said it did not come into His mind that they should do it. You are saying that it WAS in His mind that they would do it.

    Bzzzzzz... sorry... can't buy that explanation.

    God meant what He said. He even said it twice so we could know He meant it.
    nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination

    It doesn't say he didn't know they would do it. In the context, he says I didn't command it, I didn't speak it, I didn't even think that they should do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    God didn't command them to do it.
    God didn't say that they should do it.
    God didn't think that they should do it.

    In other words, it was their own idea.

    He said it did not come into His mind that they should do it. You are saying that it WAS in His mind that they would do it.

    Bzzzzzz... sorry... can't buy that explanation.

    God meant what He said. He even said it twice so we could know He meant it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    You must not know Bob very well. Bob is one of the most gracious, friendly guys you will ever meet.
    I read his book (The Plot), and I have watched many of his YouTube videos.

    Yes, he seems like a very gracious and friendly guy. I'm sure he is a great guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    That isn't true. AMR has his own website and own following that would all have to change. AMR has as much if not more invested in his beliefs as I do I. And I am sure he would confirm this for you if you just asked.
    That is what I meant, I shouldn't have placed it after the sentence I did. What I meant was that he is as waist deep in Calvinism as you are in open theism.

    How do you answer a question like that?
    Well speaking of AMR, here is what he once said. I have to paraphrase, so I hope I don’t misrepresent him:

    He said that he does his best to leave his presuppositions at the door in his quest to develop a systematic theology. In his attempt to bridge the gap of implicit doctrine with explicit doctrine he searches for answers by participating in dialogue with “masters” of other doctrines, denominations and beliefs then of his own belief.

    He then went on to say that up to this point he is not convinced by any of the other doctrines and that Calvinism is what he believes is true.

    Now, this is probably what you and me, and most others would say they do. And, TOL is a fantastic place to do this.

    However, the million dollar question is how do we leave these presuppositions at the door? I don’t know how to answer that either. I wish I did.

    My point is that I believe the “deeper” one is entrenched in a particular doctrine, belief, or denomination, the harder it is. However, if a believer is up to his or her armpits in truth, that would be a good place to be.

    It's nothing personal Knight. At this point in my life I don't see open theism as truth, and I know you feel strongly different.

    Leave a comment:


  • SaulToPaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Now...
    Prepare for 18 pounds of theological gobbledygook as a defense by the settled theists.
    God didn't command them to do it.
    God didn't say that they should do it.
    God didn't think that they should do it.

    In other words, it was their own idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    As I have argued earlier, God knows perfectly what to us is the past, present, and future. God, from a lofty height, sees them all laid out before Him equally vividly.
    The above notion is simply not biblical. It may appeal the "theologians" who enjoy imagining such things but it simply isn't biblical.

    There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples that we can read about in God's word that objectively prove that God doesn't stand outside of time looking at all future events as if they were present events.

    Let me give just one such example....
    Jeremiah 19:5 “(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

    Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

    God is clearly saying that there was a time (possibly before creation or at some point after creation) where it had not entered God's mind that people would be burning there own children as a sacrifice to a false idol.

    Now, either:

    A. God does not "see" all events into the future and therefore did not see such an evil being devised.

    or...

    B.
    God is lying and all of this was in fact in God's mind for an eternity past.

    Now...
    Prepare for 18 pounds of theological gobbledygook as a defense by the settled theists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Let’s say you decide to become a Calvinist. From what I can see, you would have to switch churches. Bob Enyart would probably not be involved with TOL anymore.
    You must not know Bob very well. Bob is one of the most gracious, friendly guys you will ever meet.

    You would be kicked out of the “SoS” on TOL, you would have to cancel some of your social group memberships, and all your open theist’s friends would probably try to convince you that you were wrong. In other words, it would be a huge change for you.
    How can you kick me out... of what is mine?

    For me, to become an open theist, I would have to change my sig on TOL, and that’s about it. Minor change for me compared to you.
    Same for AMR, think about how much of a huge change it would be for him to “switch” to an open theist.
    That isn't true. AMR has his own website and own following that would all have to change. AMR has as much if not more invested in his beliefs as I do I. And I am sure he would confirm this for you if you just asked.

    Here is the deal. At least one of you two is dead wrong in your systematic theology.
    And if I am dead wrong and AMR is dead right there isn't anything I can do about it. I was predestined for all eternity to be dead-wrong and there isn't you are AMR or anything else can do about it.

    However... if I am right.... both of you are responsible for disparaging God's character by claiming that He is responsible for sin and wickedness while man can do nothing of himself.

    Open theism rightly credits God for all that is good and man for all that is bad.

    Settled theism wrongly credits God for all that is bad, and wrongly lets man off the hook for being responsible for his own actions. (settled theists claim man is responsible for his own actions but that is a hollow claim because what they really believe is that God is responsible for everything without exception).

    Said in short.. as an open theist I am in a "win win" position, while you as a settled theist is in a "lose lose" situation (i.e., even if you are right what difference would it make?).

    So, again tell me how you are open to the possibility you are wrong?
    Because I am.

    How do you answer a question like that?
    Last edited by Knight; December 26, 2008, 01:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    You are not at all open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and your post is compelling evidence of that.
    Why don’t you tell me how you are open to the possibility that you are wrong?

    Let’s say you decide to become a Calvinist. From what I can see, you would have to switch churches. Bob Enyart would probably not be involved with TOL anymore. You would be kicked out of the “SoS” on TOL, you would have to cancel some of your social group memberships, and all your open theist’s friends would probably try to convince you that you were wrong. In other words, it would be a huge change for you.

    For me, to become an open theist, I would have to change my sig on TOL, and that’s about it. Minor change for me compared to you.

    Same for AMR, think about how much of a huge change it would be for him to “switch” to an open theist.

    Here is the deal. At least one of you two is dead wrong in your systematic theology.

    So, again tell me how you are open to the possibility you are wrong?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    And the exact same could be said about all of those that agree with AMR (even by your own admission).

    HINT: You are doing it again.

    I don't think that was the case but you are free to believe whatever makes you feel good.

    You are not at all open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and your post is compelling evidence of that.
    I agree, bias is bias is bias.

    What we have to do in many of these Royale's and 1on1's is weigh the evidence. It is not cut and dry like a sporting event when we are trying to get to the root of things that can be vague enough to support two differing things. It is not easy traipsing between our choices and culpability and a God who is Sovereign. I believe in the middle, is grace and a genuine relationship with the Creator of the Universe. After several years here, I'm convinced we are both trying to preserve similar things and I applaud OV for trying to balance these scriptures we have from Him.

    The question is, which presents a more consistent and faithful rendering of the texts we have from Him and thus, our debates here are important ones and deeply needed at this particular time of re-examining what is true and what is not. We have become a relative society and in many interviews, we see a relative truth in even 'Christian' thinking. A clash of ideology, in my mind, is an important stance upon solid truth and a rejection of relative thinking invading society.

    We are at a time when these essential truths must be debated and that we walk away with a sense of the imperative and absolute truth of God that cannot be watered, mitigated, or compromised.

    Debates such as this force us to look truth squarely in the eye and that we make adjustments, not that truth make adjustments: Truth cannot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Because if you remember the BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) it didn’t matter what AMR said, everyone who was pro-Enyart said Enyart won the debate, and everyone who was pro-AMR said AMR won the debate.
    And the exact same could be said about all of those that agree with AMR (even by your own admission).

    HINT: You are doing it again.

    It was like a sporting event. Let me try to explain. I have been to many Pittsburgh Steelers games over the last 35 years. However, when the Steelers play the Cleveland Browns, the games are just a little more fun and intense. There are a lot of people from Cleveland who come to the games, and vice versa with the games in Cleveland (the two cities are less than 2 hours apart)

    No matter who wins the game, when the game is over, and people are walking to their cars, if some Steelers fans see people wearing Cleveland jerseys, they yell “Cleveland sucks” even if the Browns just won the game. Likewise, after games the Steelers have won, Cleveland fans yell “Pittsburgh Sucks”

    Unfortunately that is how I saw the BRX thread with AMR and Enyart. It didn’t matter what either guy said, each side was loyal, and pretty much said the other side “sucked”, but in different words.
    I don't think that was the case but you are free to believe whatever makes you feel good.

    That’s not the way it is supposed to be, but for some reason that’s the way it always ends up 99.9% of the time. Today however was different, and it was nice to see the difference.

    Remember Knight, you and Enyart and all the other open theists could be 100% correct, and all of us settled theists wrong. I am open to that possibility. That is why I don’t wear “Settled Theist” authentic jerseys, not even the cheap fake ones.
    You are not at all open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and your post is compelling evidence of that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X