ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lon]

Logic was a subject of Greek Philosophy not a product of it. Without logic Aristotle could not have figured anything out about sound reason.

But merely proving that something is rationally sound isn't enough; it must also be Biblical.


YEAH! That's the whole point! The reformers broke from Rome (i.e. the Catholic church) not Greece (i.e. Aristotle). Open Theism seeks to finish the job and get back to a truly Biblical perspective about who God is and how He relates to His creation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

If it is getting back to a Biblical theology, how far? I mean since the commentaries for the Torah support Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc. What do you have to go back to?

Just a very good and perplexing question.

 

[baloney]

Dave, some problems I have with your opening statement that I want you to clarify.

1. You say on one hand God is eternal while man is temporal, so by that statement you are saying God is distinct from time. Do you agree? If not, what is your view of eternal.

2. How is having foreknowledge of something necessarily causal? If I watch a game on TV and see the outcome, how does watching the game as a spectator affect the outcome of the game? How would it be any different if I saw the game in the future instead of the present.

3.The statement "free will does not control the consequences of our choices" If we choose to accept Christ which is a free will decision, doesn't that choice affect us being saved which is a consequence of the choice?

Since God created us and everything out of no previous material, but God's pure power, wouldn't God's power have to keep us in existence in the present and does that power of God interfere with our free will decisions in the present?

On the same note, since God's power created our free will nature, does that same power interfere with our free will decisions(as well as God having to know what our decisions are and setting up the consequences of the decisions)?

Wouldn't God have to construct the future to at least some extent? Since humans only participate in existence we have to experience existence to make choices, doesn't there have to be an always distant horizon of existence for us to make choices and decide what these choices might do for us in the future?

An analogy is us being a ship sailing on a sea of existence. There must always be a horizon to sail into or like the old sailors believed, we would sail right off the edge of the world (or existence in our analogy).

That's enough for now.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not so fast, God does give man the ability to cause his own action but it does not follow that God does not know the action. God's foreknowledge is not the cause of the action. Man's ability to choose causes the action.God's response to the choice made is known to God and to man. God' reaction to the action is a predetermined response.

If man is finite he can not produce future activity for God to see or know.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, some problems I have with your opening statement that I want you to clarify.

1. You say on one hand God is eternal while man is temporal, so by that statement you are saying God is distinct from time. Do you agree? If not, what is your view of eternal.

I already said I was open view.

2. How is having foreknowledge of something necessarily causal? If I watch a game on TV and see the outcome, how does watching the game as a spectator affect the outcome of the game? How would it be any different if I saw the game in the future instead of the present.

Finite man cannot produce future activity, you cannot watch what does not exist.

3.The statement "free will does not control the consequences of our choices" If we choose to accept Christ which is a free will decision, doesn't that choice affect us being saved which is a consequence of the choice?

Read the rest of the statement.

Since God created us and everything out of no previous material, but God's pure power, wouldn't God's power have to keep us in existence in the present and does that power of God interfere with our free will decisions in the present?

Not if God gives us the ability to make our own decisions as I said.

On the same note, since God's power created our free will nature, does that same power interfere with our free will decisions(as well as God having to know what our decisions our and setting up the consequences of the decisions)?

How old are you? Did you finish high school yet?

Wouldn't God have to construct the future to at least some extent? Since humans only participate in existence we have to experience existence to make choices, doesn't there have to be an always distant horizon of existence for us to make choices and decide what these choices might do for us in the future?

This statement makes no sense at all.

An analogy is us being a ship sailing on a sea of existence. There must always be a horizon to sail into or like the old sailors believed, we would sail right off the edge of the world (or existence in our analogy).

That's enough for now.

I am amazed by your inability to comprehend what I have written. As I said before you don't really respond to what I have said before or now, and much of what you say here makes no sense to me, you ask questions which are already answered.

 

[elected4ever]

If man is finite he can not produce future activity for God to see or know.

Our not knowing does not limit God's knowledge. I think we can agree on that. The next thing is our perception of time. It does not follow that God is limited to our Perception. We are in God's time. For example, to us a day is a twenty-four hour period and that is determined by measurement of created things. What is God's time measured by? We are given an analogy that one day is as a thousand years. We may not be talking about the same thing when we say our time and God's time. God can enter our time but we cannot enter his.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Our not knowing does not limit God's knowledge. I think we can agree on that. The next thing is our perception of time. It does not follow that God is limited to our Perception. We are in God's time. For example, to us a day is a twenty-four hour period and that is determined by measurement of created things. What is God's time measured by? We are given an analogy that one day is as a thousand years. When it is passed We may not be talking about the same thing when we say our time and God's time. God can enter our time but we cannot enter his.

As I said, God has no knowledge of what does not exist, I was not talking about our knowledge. If we are finite then by definition we are limited to present activity only, and I want a yes or a no from you on this. Only if God creates the activity for us can it become known to him before we do it, right? Your stuck in contradiction if you believe future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The problem has never been how can God know the future if he has granted us free will, the problem has always been, how can God know the future if he created us finite?

It does't matter if you say God is infinite or timeless, you have to regard the world as finite if you accept it Biblically, or the world is eternal.

 

[baloney]

So by your own statement God is not temporal and therefore transcends time. By being outside time God can see the future.

Finite man watching a present activity is not causal it does not produce the activity. God watching a present activity is not causal it does not produce the activity.

I read the statement and its self-contradictory. Answer my question. Is it our free will choice to accept Christ?

God's pure power gives us the free will ability and his power has to keep it intact.

Answer the question, Dave instead getting personal and emotional.

 

[Lon]

As I said, God has no knowledge of what does not exist, I was not talking about our knowledge. If we are finite then by definition we are limited to present activity only, and I want a yes or a no from you on this. Only if God creates the activity for us can it become known to him before we do it, right? Your stuck in contradiction if you believe future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable.

The problem is that it doesn't, in fact, exist to us. Our logic is tied to this limitation. It however has nothing to do with God. We are the finite, limited beings. He is infinite (which means He reaches to and beyond where, what, and when we go. Infinite means already there, and surpasses. Infinite by definition has no boundaries, none. So when you ask, "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?"
You've already exceeded your limitation. You cannot know. We recognize faulty logic when we see it. It is an illogical question that hits the ceiling of our logic ability. We are finite, but He's infinite. The question cannot be answered, but more importantly, it cannot be denied or affirmed one way or the other. It is either recognized as philosophically ludicrous, or it is the ceiling of our logical apprehension. Either way, it points to a God who is infinite and gives boundaries in our logical ability we can recognize and appreciate. We are only 'so' smart.

 

[godrulz]

Augustine used an allegorical hermeneutic much of the time. Combined with undue influence from philosophy, his commentaries on the Bible are not very helpful (though he was a Christian giant in his day).

 

[baloney]

Not bad, Lonster. And the only we know of actual infinity is through analogical thinking we know what infinite is. Infinite is the opposite whatever that actually is.

 

[baloney]

Maybe in the evangelical world there are two camps. Catholics, orthodox and most Prostestants have no problem accepting both free will and the omnicience of God.

Are there views not acceptable?

 

[DFT_Dave]

So by your own statement God is not temporal and therefore transcends time. By being outside time God can see the future.

Finite man watching a present activity is not causal it does not produce the activity. God watching a present activity is not causal it does not produce the activity.

I read the statement and its self-contradictory. Answer my question. Is it our free will choice to accept Christ?

God's pure power gives us the free will ability and his power has to keep it intact.

Answer the question, Dave instead getting personal and emotional.

This is the only emotion I get from your posts :rotfl:

 

[DFT_Dave]

The problem is that it doesn't, in fact, exist to us. Our logic is tied to this limitation. It however has nothing to do with God. We are the finite, limited beings. He is infinite (which means He reaches to and beyond where, what, and when we go. Infinite means already there, and surpasses. Infinite by definition has no boundaries, none. So when you ask, "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?"
You've already exceeded your limitation. You cannot know. We recognize faulty logic when we see it. It is an illogical question that hits the ceiling of our logic ability. We are finite, but He's infinite. The question cannot be answered, but more importantly, it cannot be denied or affirmed one way or the other. It is either recognized as philosophically ludicrous, or it is the ceiling of our logical apprehension. Either way, it points to a God who is infinite and gives boundaries in our logical ability we can recognize and appreciate. We are only 'so' smart.

It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.

 

[baloney]

Lonster, forget it. Remember your dealing with creationists here who believe that dinosaurs, unicorns and humans lived humbly in the garden of Eden and T-rex didn't fit on Noah's ark.

These guys are going to lecture you on concepts like time and say they are using reasoning?

Dave, quit spewing Enyart's statements and think what you are saying.

 

[baloney]

Dave, are you going on the bus to see the creationist museum?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, are you going on the bus to see the creationist museum?

Ask Lonster if he's going before you ask me.

 

[baloney]

All that's been shown here is that the whole Protestant Reformation comes from the Greek philosophers and their concepts.

If you try fiddling with their concepts, then your whole Reformation would unravel.

Clete, so you believe if science or sound reasoning tells us one thing about nature or history, then if that view doesn't jive with Scripture then it's wrong?

 

[Philetus]

Free refills!
More butter?
Is this an interadmission, or is it over?
There be no sequel, Johnny Boy?

 

[Clete]

All that's been shown here is that the whole Protestant Reformation comes from the Greek philosophers and their concepts.

If you try fiddling with their concepts, then your whole Reformation would unravel.

That isn't what has been shown here at all.


Is this your idea of sound reasoning? If so, you have a lot to learn.

Greek Philosophy had infiltrated the church long before the reformation and it remains to this day. What the reformation was about was separating from certain false doctrines which the Catholic church has implemented without Biblical support. The reformation was quite successful in separating itself from Rome but it made no effort to separate itself from the Greeks. The reformers loved the Greeks and it never occurred to them to investigate those beliefs Biblically. And Greek philosophy had nothing to do with why the reformation happened. But to expect them to correct 1400 years of errors in a single generation is unreasonable in the extreme. Its enough and quite remarkable that they came as far as they did. Open Theism seeks to complete their efforts by saying, bravo for having come as far as you did Mr. Luther, recovering Biblical ground from the heretics in Rome, but there is more ground to be recovered from the Greeks!

Clete, so you believe if science or sound reasoning tells us one thing about nature or history, then if that view doesn't jive with Scripture then it's wrong?

If it contradicts Scripture then yes, it is wrong but my comment was made in reference to theology, not science. All DOCTRINE must be both Biblical and of sound reason. And I was also thinking that just because something is rational doesn't mean it is true. The irrational is always false but not necessarily the other way around. Thus rationality, by itself, is insufficient except as a way of falsifying truth claims. The only exception to that is when you have rationally falsified all possible truth claims but one. In that case you have established the truth because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

If I might do so without being insulting, which is certainly not my intention, I would recommend reading The BIG Questions: Philosophy for Everyone by Nils Ch Rauhut. It's really great for helping people get a firm grasp of just how logic works, what it can do, and what it can't and why.

Dave, quit spewing Enyart's statements and think what you are saying.

I don't recall ever having seen Dave quote anything from Bob Enyart. Stop demonstrating your lack of emotional control over your hatred of Bob Enyart and respond to the arguments that have been made, if you can, or else be a man and concede the point.

Resting in Him,
Clete