ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

My use of the term [dork] is equivalent in meaning to the word fatuous.

Equivalent? How can a noun be equivalent to an adjective? I'm a "fatuous"? That's brilliant.

:loser:

AATGD, OC,
:j

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, we have all had a bit of fun with the last few posts, nothing wrong with a little levity to break some of the ice that has built up around the brim.

However, let's not get too far off topic as I think this thread is worth keeping on track.

I would like to thank everyone for their participation on this thread.

Now... let's get back on track.

 

[Hilston]

I gave Jim another chance at the request of a good friend and now I'm done.

I hope Clete's good friend has a good and friendly talk with him and will kindly explain how he blew it*.

:wave2:

:j

*All according to God's immutable decrees, of course.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Come on Jim.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your question.

I know you've already answered this question, but would you do it again please.

Why does the antinomy which Clete presents not exist in reality?

Because there is no contradiction. God is sovereign; man is responsible. There is no contradiction. God is immutable in His essence, but mutable in His actions. There is no contradiction.

Here is what Clete wrote:

Further, you agree that the author of that article makes qualifications all over the place and pretend like I'm too stupid to notice that fact and then you completely gloss over the fact that he comes right out and says that the issue of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility presents an antinomy, which means you completely missed the point of my having presented the article!

No one cares that the writer calls this an antinomy except Clete. My point has ever been that Calvinists qualify immutability and simplicity. Period. Whether or not they call it an antinomy is beside the point. Clete thinks he's found some chink in my armor by going after Calvinistic antinomy claims. I couldn't care less. He can declare until the cows come home, all blue in the face, that Calvinists appeal to antinomy. I will agree with him. They certainly do. But it doesn't negate the bald misrepresentation of Open Theists that continue to this day, despite all the quotes that belie their specious claims.

... The fact that the article is chocker block full of so called "qualifications" goes to my argument that your insistence that these men very narrowly focusing their comments on everything about God except His manifestations is falsified by the fact that these men see and accept the fact that their positions are contradictory.

That's so totally non sequitur as to render logic incomprehensible. Just because Calvinists view immutability or simplicity as contradictory to other premises does not negate the fact that Open Theists, as a matter of course and deliberate strategic distortion, mischaracterize their opponents' view of these doctrines.

... They see the contradiction and right it off as an antinomy.

So what? Open Theists still misrepresent Calvinism. It would be nice, for once, to agree with Open Theists about where Calvinism is wrong. But since Open Theists are so distracted by pinning beliefs on Calvinists that they don't even hold, we can't get past square one. I disagree with Calvinists because of what they believe. Open Theists disagree with Calvinists for imaginary beliefs.

Please let me know if you wish to have further clarification. Perhaps a more specific question would help me to provide the kind of response you're looking for.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Come on Jim.

Don't you mean "Come on Clete"? Have you read his posts?!

I'm willing to ignore him. He has to learn self control. If you're going to let him spray his anti-Hilston excrement all over the place with impunity and expect me to keep quiet about it, you're just going to have to ban me. Why don't you advise him to put me on his ignore list? What does it say about a person who says he can't tolerate me, yet refuses to put me on his ignore list? Seriously, Eric. Is Clete so beyond reprimand and correction that I have to be the one to play nice?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree, you should both just ignore each other.

 

[patman]

If God foresaw that he would be sorry he made man, would he really have made man? Or is it that he really wasn't sorry he made man.​

Yes, to achieve a greater, glorious purpose.

....

God was really sorry. What 'twist' are you speaking of?

Maybe you are able to show me what I don't see as occuring.

Does God really love those who are going to hell rob?

He is sacrificing them at the sake of us according to you. And he knew it all this time. He knew his creation would lead to person x going to hell. And he is able to do anything, so he knew how to make creation where person x was saved by his own freewill by his future knowledge.

So is this picture of God loving to you?

 

[RobE]

Jim, Rob do you guys realize you look very much alike?

Come to think of it, I have never seen the two of you together at the same time. :think:

If I was Jim I wouldn't take this kind of insult. :chuckle:

As a point of trivia my name is Jim as well.

James Robert Mauldin

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If I was Jim I wouldn't take this kind of insult. :chuckle:

As a point of trivia my name is Jim as well.

James Robert Mauldin

:ha: self deprecating humor, I love it.

 

[RobE]

NO NO NO!!!
They do not say that there is a "perceived antinomy"!!! They insist that two concepts that they can clearly see contradict one another are nonetheless TOTALLY ACCURATE AND TRUE!!! When that sort of thing happens they call it an antinomy. Something that only APPEARS to be a contradiction WOULD NOT BE AN ANTINOMY!!! If the contradiction is real then the term antinomy does not apply. Get it?


You're wrong. People who accept the concepts of Calvinism DO NOT DENY that the concepts contradict one another. They very simply do not deny it. They simply accept it and make no attempt whatsoever to reconcile the idea in a rational way because they do not believe that any such reconciliation is possible. The term they attach to such things is "antinomy". If the contradiction did not exist there would be no need for the term in the first place.

I stand corrected. According to Hilston's response you are correct. I've always rejected Calvinism based upon their five tenets and haven't looked far beyond that.

No one cares that the writer calls this an antinomy except Clete. My point has ever been that Calvinists qualify immutability and simplicity. Period. Whether or not they call it an antinomy is beside the point. Clete thinks he's found some chink in my armor by going after Calvinistic antinomy claims. I couldn't care less. He can declare until the cows come home, all blue in the face, that Calvinists appeal to antinomy. I will agree with him. They certainly do.

So Hilston agrees with your analysis and says it doesn't represent his own position.

He goes on to say....

It would be nice, for once, to agree with Open Theists about where Calvinism is wrong.​

....and to this I would resoundingly agree!

Clete: If contingencies exist then the two may or may not be contradictory in which case the entire line of reasoning would be erronious. In other words, my statement assumes that the contradiction between A and B is a real one.

Rob: Is the assumption correct or is the entire line of reasoning erronious?​

I think I've led some to believe that I care what Calvinists think. My main purpose is to decipher what we as a group think. The assumption of Calvinist's are a matter outside of my concern. Maybe I should have asked this instead --- Does the antinomy exist in fact or not? If it does not then is the entire line of reasoning erronious?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your question.

Because there is no contradiction. God is sovereign; man is responsible. There is no contradiction. God is immutable in His essence, but mutable in His actions. There is no contradiction.

Are you able to elaborate on this more than a little? Man is responsible for what? Are God's action different than His essence or are they the same as Eckhardt presumes? Why would o.v. people believe differently?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Does God really love those who are going to hell rob?

Yes.

He is sacrificing them at the sake of us according to you.

He is allowing us eternal life despite knowing some will reject Grace.

And he knew it all this time.

Yes.

He knew his creation would lead to person x going to hell.

Yes.

And he is able to do anything, so he knew how to make creation where person x was saved by his own freewill by his future knowledge.

Yes. God knew how to make creation where person x would be saved while person y was lost; and he knew how to make creation where person x would be lost while person y was saved. All caused by free will of course. What He logically couldn't create was a world where free will wouldn't cause some to be doomed. As a just God I believe that God created the first world which His perfect intellect devised so that those He saw as being saved- would be; despite the reprobate. For if He changed His mind in that moment those which 'would be' His 'would be' no more. As for those imperfect vessels who reject Him, they won't even be remembered even though at one time He loved them sufficiently to create them. They rejected God who made them and destroyed themselves.

So is this picture of God loving to you?

Loving, Perfect, and Just.

Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

This would be One Of Those Threads, apparently, for discussing all topics.

I agree, you should both just ignore each other.

Note: no rebuke here for Clete. One does get a little weary of the carte blanche for Open Theists here. One reason I have been a bit absent here, of late.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE TOLLERATE THIS JERK?!!!

One L in “tolerate,” Clete.

Doesn't the story of Jonah and others like it show that there are wills in play besides God's? Jonah's will was not to go to Nineveh. God's will was that Jonah go to Nineveh. God "pushed" and "prodded" Jonah to influence His will so that Jonah would do God's will (go to Nineveh). If God had the only "will" in play why not just decree that Jonah go to Nineveh in the first place? Why not skip all the giant fish stuff? Or better yet, why not decree that Nineveh not be an evil city and then Jonah wouldn't have had to go in the first place, or better yet why not decree that Adam not sin etc., etc., etc. ?

That's a good question, but similarly, why would God "bind all men over to disobedience, so he may have mercy on them all"? (Rom. 11)

Notice God says "lean not on your own understanding", this is a reference to our will when it is NOT in line with His will.

Unless at times, by the Lord’s decision we choose to disobey him.

I would like to discuss “man’s will and God’s will” and would therefore open a thread on this topic.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Equivalent? How can a noun be equivalent to an adjective? I'm a "fatuous"? That's brilliant.

:loser:

AATGD, OC,
:j

No you are fatuous and therefore a dork.


Dork

noun
1. a dull stupid fatuous person
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

 

[Clete]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your question.

Because there is no contradiction. God is sovereign; man is responsible. There is no contradiction. God is immutable in His essence, but mutable in His actions. There is no contradiction.

"There is no contradiction...there is no contradiction...there is no contradiction."

Who is Jim trying to convince? :think:

No one cares that the writer calls this an antinomy except Clete.

This is an admition that the point has been ignored by Jim and that my claims concerning his near complete unresponsiveness are entirely true.

I don't care at all about Calvinism’s love of antinomy. I reject the whole concept of antinomy as irrational but that isn't at all the point. The point is that if Calvinists only apply the concept of immutability to God's essence (as Open Theists do) then they would have no need for the concept of antinomy. It is precisely their appeal to antinomy concerning such issues as God's sovereignty v.s. man's responsibility and God's immutability and God's simplicity v.s. God's interaction with man, as well as any other Biblical idea that contradicts their precious quantitative attributes of God that belies Jim's insistence that they are so careful to apply such doctrines as immutability only to God's essence. Again, if that were the case, antinomy would not even be a word.

My point has ever been that Calvinists qualify immutability and simplicity. Period.

And the damn is breached!
Jim here implicitly admits that he clearly sees that these same men who qualify their comments on immutability also see a need to appeal to antinomy. I wonder how long it will be before he admits the same need in his own theological world view? One thing's for sure, it won't be before he make some attempt to answer the questions I have posed on this thread, which up til now have gone completely ignored.

Whether or not they call it an antinomy is beside the point. Clete thinks he's found some chink in my armor by going after Calvinistic antinomy claims. I couldn't care less. He can declare until the cows come home, all blue in the face, that Calvinists appeal to antinomy. I will agree with him. They certainly do. But it doesn't negate the bald misrepresentation of Open Theists that continue to this day, despite all the quotes that belie their specious claims.

Thank you Jim for conceding the debate (such as it was). Your position that these people narrowly focus their remarks about immutability on God's essence cannot survive your admittion that they appeal to antinomy. If their comments were so narrowly focused they would proclaim in unison with you that "there is no contradiction!". But they don't; they instead declare the obvious contradiction as an antinomy and elevate God above logic and divorce themselves from rational discourse all in order to preserve their worshiped and adored stone idol god who cannot move or be moved by anything including love.

That's so totally non sequitur as to render logic incomprehensible. Just because Calvinists view immutability or simplicity as contradictory to other premises does not negate the fact that Open Theists, as a matter of course and deliberate strategic distortion, mischaracterize their opponents' view of these doctrines.

On the contrary! Their appeal to antinomy is proof that we do not misrepresent their views. Calvinists really do believe that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. I've even quoted them as saying just exactly that! It's all because they put a premium on God's quantitative attributes and sacrifice His qualitative attributes on the alter of immutability by the flaim of antinomy.

So what? Open Theists still misrepresent Calvinism. It would be nice, for once, to agree with Open Theists about where Calvinism is wrong. But since Open Theists are so distracted by pinning beliefs on Calvinists that they don't even hold, we can't get past square one. I disagree with Calvinists because of what they believe. Open Theists disagree with Calvinists for imaginary beliefs.

This is Jim's never diminishing claim but he has yet to prove it. And what's more is that he has set his position up in his own mind in such a way that for him it is unfalsifiable. Whenever a quote from Augustine or some other author who is speaking on any of these issues says something that contradicts Jim's claim, Jim blows it off by saying that the quote only proves that the author was a "fallible human being".

But whether Jim wishes to acknowledge it or not, as I said, the Calvinists appeal to antinomy, not to mention the direct quotes that I and others have provided from them, is proof that they do in fact believe these things as we are presenting them.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

I just want everyone here to know that each time Jim says this "Trusting the Rock" line, he commits another intentional lie. This habit came about during his one on one with Acts9-12out where Jeremy pleaded with Jim to stop worshiping a rock (lower case r). Jim twisted the point and responded to it as though Jeremy had used the Biblical analogy knowing that this is not what Jeremy meant. It is a blasphemous lie for Jim to use the term "Rock" in the sense that he does. What he worships is a stone idol, which is immutably deaf, dumb and dead.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Was my reply to your question clear? Do you need me to further explain anything?

I missed Rob's earlier post, so I'm responding to it by editing this post.

Are you able to elaborate on this more than a little? Man is responsible for what? Are God's action different than His essence or are they the same as Eckhardt presumes? Why would o.v. people believe differently?

Rob

Each man is responsible for his own actions. By "responsible" is meant "held accountable." Not merely being the one who performs the action, but being held culpable for said action.

God's actions are not essential and cannot be equated with His eternal essence. God's actions are therefore different from His essence. I don't know Eckhardt or his position on divine immutability.

OV people believe differently because they want to tear God down (i.e. denigrate His essence) and to raise themselves up (i.e. elevate themselves to demigods). In order to facilitate this strategem, the have become existentialists. They either assail or dismiss God's essential attributes. Some refuse to even acknowledge the concept for the sake of discussion, as we've seen here many times.

Keep asking questions if necessary. As long as you're willing to understand, I am willing to help.

Jim

 

[Clete]

Each man is responsible for his own actions. By "responsible" is meant "held accountable." Not merely being the one who performs the action, but being held culpable for said action.

Notice two things.

1. Jim believes we are too stupid to know what the word "responsible" means.

2. According to Jim's theology man's actions are not originated in himself but in God. Remember what he said earlier.... "God is the author of sin."

God's actions are not essential and cannot be equated with His eternal essence.

But they are yet part of Him as a person's character is defined by their actions. Thus God is not simple (He has parts) and His action are imperfect according to the logic that says that only that which is imperfect can suffer change.

God's actions are therefore different from His essence. I don't know Eckhardt or his position on divine immutability.

As though that matters. Jim knows full well that Eckhardt would almost certainly agree that God's actions are not the same as His essence. Jim also knows that Eckhardt would affirm divine simplicity and Jim knows that Eckhardt would not even try to reconcile the obvious contradiction and immediately appeal to antinomy as the ultimate theological trump card.

OV people believe differently because they want to tear God down (i.e. denigrate His essence) and to raise themselves up (i.e. elevate themselves to demigods).

An intentional and outrageous lie. Jim is a liar. That much we can know for certain.

In order to facilitate this strategem, the have become existentialists.

This is also untrue although I wouldn't count this as an intentional lie as I think he actually believes this nonsense. It is a classic throwing mud tactic reminiscent of political T.V. ads. He is praying on your likely ignorance as to the nature of existentialism. It sounds really, really bad and Jim wants to create an emotional reaction that says "OH MY! Not existentialism! EEEK!!"

Do not be fooled by this clever misdirection. I am not an existentialist nor do I know anyone who is. I'm sure there are things about the nature of reality that the existentialist have right and therefore share some ideas in common with a Biblical worldview but a broken clock is right twice a day.

If you want a terribly incomplete thumbnail sketch of what existentialism is, click the following link...

Existentialism

They either assail or dismiss God's essential attributes.

Jim means that we either assail or dismiss his wacky and seriously convoluted and irrational idea about God's essential attributes.

Some refuse to even acknowledge the concept for the sake of discussion, as we've seen here many times.

Someone should make Jim produce evidence for such a claim.

God's essential attributes are as follows...
God is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, Loving

His power, presence (size), knowledge and all His other quantitative attributes take a back seat to these qualitative attributes and are in fact founded upon them according to the Scripture.

Psalm 89:13 You have a mighty arm;
Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand.
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 97:1 The LORD reigns;
Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad!

2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

Keep asking questions if necessary. As long as you're willing to understand, I am willing to help.

For "willing to understand" read "willing to not hold my feet too close to the fire about all these wild claims that I'm making without substantiation and to tolerate my cryptic use of the English language and my intentional lies and blatant misrepresentations of my opponents views."

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

God's essential attributes are as follows...
God is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, Loving

His power, presence (size), knowledge and all His other quantitative attributes take a back seat to these qualitative attributes and are in fact founded upon them according to the Scripture.

Psalm 89:13 You have a mighty arm;
Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand.
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 97:1 The LORD reigns;
Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad!

2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

Well, sir Clete, you left out

• Righteous
• Just
• Merciful
• Truthful

And also "strong" does not seem to be stated to be somehow dependent on these, nor does it seem to be a secondary attribute somehow. You see, to be loving without being strong would mean God cannot always help us (this the Open View it seems would affirm in the warfare worldview), to be strong without being loving would mean God may be unwilling to help when he could, to be both loving and strong without being holy would mean that God would resort to means that he should not, and if God is loving and strong and holy and not merciful, why then, there is no hope for us.

All these attributes are therefore essential.

Psalm 62:11-12 One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's a good question, but similarly, why would God "bind all men over to disobedience, so he may have mercy on them all"? (Rom. 11)

Well... I asked my question first.