ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

Is this not considered rude and against TOL rules?

(Sorry I stepped on your important post to Patman, AMR. It was unintentional.)



Nang

Ask Knight, not me.

 

[Nang]

Well, the large print sure is easy to read by my old eyes late at night, sitting here under the stars on the pool deck.

Enjoying a fine cigar?

 

[patman]

Having taught in universities and elsewhere for many years a teacher soon learns that there are those that are not teachable. Thus, educational triage is the rule-(1)leave those that are not going to learn to themselves, (2)teach those that would fail otherwise, and (3)the rest can learn by themselves no matter what the teacher is up to in the classroom.

You assume facts that are not in evidence, Patman. If I were as you assume, you would not be reading these very words. As I have stated, I have a set of rules for engagement and I try to stick to them. So far I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I agree. Some people are unteachable. Tell ya what, AMR. We'll talk when you deem me worthy.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Enjoying a fine cigar?

Indeed!

 

[Philetus]

What's new and exciting in this thread?

zip

 

[Philetus]

If God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat from the tree, why did He tell them not to?

If God is in meticulous control of every detail in creation, why does He tell us anything?

 

[Philetus]

It's up something, though.

:thumb:
Your ability to grasp the simple obvious truth of a matter never ceases to amaze me.

How does he read?

How does he light cigars?

Philetus

 

[themuzicman]

Try

I believe this is VanTil:

“In order to emphasize the sharp contrast between the popular contention that, if God were truly sovereign and ultimately in control, genuine human freedom would be destroyed, and the biblical perspective, a little fish story may be helpful. One day it occurred to this fish as he swam in the vast ocean with water all around him, on every side, that this water was hemming him in, cramping his style, limiting his freedom and his opportunity to fulfill the full potentialities of his “fishness.” So he swam over near the shore, and he huffed and he puffed and he threw himself up on the beach. And he shouted out: “I’m free at last!” But you and I know what was really the case. Almost with that very shout he was not free but dead! The water all around him had not been limiting his freedom as a fish or making it impossible for him to fulfill all the potentialities of his fishness. On the contrary, that water was the very element in which he lived and moved and had his being as a fish. It was the necessary and perfect environment in which to fulfill his fishness.”

This is actually an excellent example for Open Theism. You are correct that freedom allows the creature to harm themselves.

However, the alternative is that God goes about throwing ALL the fish up on the beach, and then picking a few to throw back, and then insisting that they love Him for "saving" them.

In fact, the omnipotence of God, as is traditionally understood, must be redefined by open theists, since God’s efforts are sometimes defeated. Here we find that God’s omniscience is no longer the comprising an exhaustive knowledge of the future, or even an exhaustive knowledge of His comprehensive decree.

Straw man. Omnipotence isn't redefined. The definition of Omniscience isn't redefined, either, although the scope of "knowable" changes.

How God uses these things becomes more biblical, but that's another story.

8. We must insist, as open theists that, if open theism is true, all other theological doctrines, e.g., Arminianism, Calvinism, are false. Therefore the arguments for Calvinism and Arminianism must be disproved.

ROFL! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

9. We must insist, as open theists, that the hermeneutics of open theism are very different from the hermeneutics of classical theism. With open theism, the biblical patterns of promises from God and their fulfillment are crippled or destroyed. We initially see in the scriptures historical events that appear to occur with no orchestration, indeed, numerous contingencies and reversals take place. Yet, as we look deeper, observing where events are leading and where events originated, we undoubtedly see God’s orchestrations to fulfill the promises originally made. Yet, only the process and the present moment are seen by the open theist. The present processes, in the shadow of past promises and their future fulfillments are not seen. This is because only the particular moment and not its relationship to others are only seen.

Straw man. This is simply inaccurate.

10. We must insist, as open theists, that “theology” of open theism is in fact based upon philosophy, and not upon biblical theology.

Again, this is simply not true. Open View Theism is a VERY biblical view of Scripture, not leaning on Greek Pagan Philosophy for it's view of God, but leaning on what God says about Himself in His Word.

to

Not much to say, here. Unless you're Catholic, you're in the same boat.

keep

Carefully consider what you and other open theists are saying: Your God can be wounded; God's own creation may afflict Him; God is regularly frustrated when His creatures thwart His plans; God is bitterly disappointed when His will is stymied—as it is often. The God of the open theist is in the hands of angry sinners since only their kind of God is capable of love, tenderness, or affections. Open theists will claim that the classical theist's God is detached, apathetic, and has no sensitivity. Don't confuse what some hyper-Calvinists may state, claiming that the optatives ascribed to God's expressions are meaningless since they are all anthropomorphisms.

We all like to think of God in our own human terms

Again, a straw man. The fact that God expresses feelings in Scripture without any indication of an anthropomorphism related is undeniable. You list several. The fact that you poo-poo what Scripture clearly says indicates more about your theology than OVT.

The fact that God has emotions and responds to His creation doesn't make Him human, nor does it mean that OVT try to make God into a super human.

up

This was your poor attempt to defend God "foreordaining" sin while remaining "righteous"

While on the topic, and in anticipation of some objections, God leaves a person to his own nature, knowing that the person will sin. But the motive which God has in permitting sin and the motive which man has in committing sin are radically different. This is because God, being perfectly holy, wills righteously those things which men do wickedly.

Of course, you fail to mention that this person's nature is also foreordained by God, such that they do exactly what God "foreordained" them to do. To be honest, you fail to deal with the obvious logical problem of the incompatibility between EDF and LFW, and fall back into the very thing you're trying to climb out of.

And of course, there's the obvious howler:

By foreordination, I mean that God predisposes all that is to come to pass and the conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan. These events may come to pass via the free actions of moral agents (both saved and lost) or via God's causative acts.

Both arguments, if either were valid, would disprove both the foreknowledge and foreordination I described above. But we have clear biblical warrants for both doctrines I have described and no biblical warrants for the two arguments above.

Of course, you don't provide these, probably because you know that a simple exegesis will demonstrate your assertions to be false.

with

This refers back to the previous post and all its logical errors.

things,

The “God is Love” (1 John 1:48) mantra of open theism is a classic example of the fallacy of adopting an interpretive center in biblical hermeneutics. This is the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. To interpret obscure passages in light of such “a clear text” may seem reasonable on the surface, but it robs other passages of their distinctive contributions to the broad revelation of Scripture.

This is a strawman, as OVT doesn't build around this one center, but around God's nature as a whole. The reason this comes up is that this particular concept is virtually ignored by Calvinists, and ultimately reinterpreted to fit meticulous sovereignty.

including

real

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.​

This is not individual election, in spite of your assumption. "Us" is corporate. Further, there is no need to understand 'predestined' in any sense other than post-salvation. You impose on these verses, rather than exegete them.

sound

No exegesis here.

biblical

Those who have sinned without the law will also perish without law. It does not say “will be judged without law” but will also perish without law. They will be judged according to whatever revelation the Lord gave them, and, failing to live up to that revelation, they will perish.

Those who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law, and if they have not obeyed it, they too will perish. The law demands total obedience.

ROFL! What a joke! You say that "perish" doesn't mean judge, and then you say that they WILL be judged and perish! What a maroon.

Verses 14 and 15 are a parenthesis, looking back to verse 12a. In verse 14 Paul explains that while the law was not given to the Gentiles, they have an internal knowledge of right and wrong. They know instinctively that it is wrong to lie, murder, etc. The only commandment the Gentila would not know intuitively is the one concerning the Sabbath; which is more ceremonial than moral. Hence the Gentiles, who do not have the law, are a law unto themselves. They form their own code of right and wrong behavior from their moral instincts.

Verse 15:

The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts. Now it is not the law which is written on their hearts, but the work of the law. The work that the law was designed to do for the Israelites is seen in some measure in the Gentiles. Gentiles also know that certain acts are wrong. Their consciences confirms this instinctive knowledge. Their thoughts are constantly deciding the right or wrong of their actions, accusing or excusing, forbidding or allowing.

Here, you ignore Scripture. Verse 14 CLEARLY says that when the DO the works of the law, they demonstrate knowledge of the law. You skirt right around that, because you don't want to have to admit that Gentiles do works that conform to the law.

BAD exegesis, this time.

rigorous

What I mean is that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is extensive but not necessarily intensive.

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned," 1 Corinthians 2:14

While I agree that man can do nothing to merit his own salvation, your exegesis stinks. You see, in Chapter three, Paul chides the Corinthians for still being unable to grasp these same spiritual things. (vv3:1-3)

So, the "spiritual things" of 1 Cor 2:14 cannot refer to the gospel.

Again, poor exegesis.

exegesis

Q.E.D.

Your straw men and bad exegesis continue into Bob's thread. TO be honest, you're so arrogant about your own beliefs, you fail to see the plank in your own eye.

As the small sampling of evidence (from hundreds) clearly shows, your statement that I have not actually addressed unsettled theism is either made to be divisive or because you are just are too lazy to keep up.

Like I said to you many months ago when you persisted in showing your lack of depth via muzegesis:

Well, if this is the best you can do, you probably ought to give this up, because you're not doing yourself or your systematic theology any good.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

There are many that sincerely believe this or that, but sincerity is never the test of the validity of one's belief. Sincere people around the world have constructed idols from their beliefs and go off worshiping them. There are many herein that eschew any sort of appeal to the masters that have preceded us, thinking that they are able to discern complex doctrines by simply reading the Scriptures, or wrongly assuming anything men have written outside of the Scriptures is unworthy of study or consideration. Very few persons can lay claim to a solitary achievement of mastery of the complexities of doctrine--that is why we read the texts of those few while checking them against the Word of God.

The study of God, theology, is every Christian's calling in order that we may prove out our beliefs, be ready to defend them, and not bring shame to God. I am fortunate to be blessed to have a calling that actually pays me to study the Scriptures. Despite what you may think by my writing style, such a calling is humbling. The fact that my words are lengthy and often tedious comes from an appreciation for the need to be precise when dealing with sacred topics. There are no unneeded words in the Scriptures, nor should there be entropy in discussions about them.

Looked at from another direction, if our view of God is wrong, no amount of good works can erase the idolatry we have erected in our heart. So, both go together: faith (theology) and praxis (life). One guides, corrects, and balances the other. What if our faith is in something we have imagined? What if we have created an intellectual idol? Theology is the guarantor, the check point, and the touchstone, that our faith is legitimate.

I’ve never heard it more accurately portrayed. A new all time low. Let me tell you what I hear being said in the above quote.

"The true test of the validity of one’s belief lies in being fortunate enough to have somebody actually pay for one’s study. So we read (very selectively) the few and use lengthy words to make sure our next check is secure and back-up to get it so we still look humble. There are no unneeded words in scripture … they are all profitable. We just have to make sure we never say anything that disagrees with our paymasters system lest they suspect entropy and dock us or cut our tenure. That way even if we are wrong about God we still get money for it because our practice is consistent with our faith. That makes everything (including our idolatry) legitimate."​

A wise teacher once said, "Never underestimate the power of preconceived theologies."
It has also been said one should never waste time trying to convince someone of something that he is paid to disagree with.

I could be wrong (then again nobody is paying me to spout the party line) but I think it’s time for Christendom to die.
Philetus

 

[Lon]

I’ve never heard it more accurately portrayed. A new all time low. Let me tell you what I hear being said in the above quote.

"The true test of the validity of one’s belief lies in being fortunate enough to have somebody actually pay for one’s study. So we read (very selectively) the few and use lengthy words to make sure our next check is secure and back-up to get it so we still look humble. There are no unneeded words in scripture … they are all profitable. We just have to make sure we never say anything that disagrees with our paymasters system lest they suspect entropy and dock us or cut our tenure. That way even if we are wrong about God we still get money for it because our practice is consistent with our faith. That makes everything (including our idolatry) legitimate."​

A wise teacher once said, "Never underestimate the power of preconceived theologies."
It has also been said one should never waste time trying to convince someone of something that he is paid to disagree with.

I could be wrong (then again nobody is paying me to spout the party line) but I think it’s time for Christendom to die.
Philetus

If that is what you heard, you weren't listening. Vitriol isn't discussion after all. It is just vitriol. That is low, but it isn't a new all-time low. At least not here. Suspend the humorous rhetoric is my suggestion. It gets in the way of proper and meaningful discussion. I'm about honoring God and discussing His truths, not slamming OV or purporters of OV.

I see problems with OV theology. If God's grace allows, I'd like to continue to expose those problems and have meaningful discussion for His glory. Perhaps I cannot dissuade, I wish to plant doubt that leaves one in the hands of God for answers.

 

[themuzicman]

The question for opponents of OVT seems to be "Can you deal with the subject matter and stay away from straw men and your own presuppositions?"

Muz

 

[Philetus]

If that is what you heard, you weren't listening. Vitriol isn't discussion after all. It is just vitriol. That is low, but it isn't a new all-time low. At least not here. Suspend the humorous rhetoric is my suggestion. It gets in the way of proper and meaningful discussion. I'm about honoring God and discussing His truths, not slamming OV or purporters of OV.

I see problems with OV theology. If God's grace allows, I'd like to continue to expose those problems and have meaningful discussion for His glory. Perhaps I cannot dissuade, I wish to plant doubt that leaves one in the hands of God for answers.

I'm listening. Closely. And I'm not buying your mushy sentiments for a second.

It isn’t vitriol. In fact I’m not in the least angry. It is very effective in keeping me on AMR’s ignore list which also precludes discussion with him. You haven’t said anything in your last 12 post since Oct 3rd that indicate you even know what OV is or why you are here. Neither grace nor God’s glory have anything to do with this thread, oh-holier-than-thou.

What you see is problems with your own view that OV raises and you can’t seem to deal with them. At least you haven’t done anything except tell me to be nice. You aren’t planting doubt you merely have doubts that you can’t seem to articulate or face. You can take my humorous rhetoric and stick it up your suggestion box where you and AMR might read them in the light of his cigar.

I would love to talk about Open Theism, but ever since AMR got on this thread everybody who disagrees with him seems to be the topic of conversation.
When in Rome …. prepare to be slammed. Debate, dissuade or get off line and go pray for us.

 

[RobE]

The gift of freewill, the uncertain future hide the evil to come, and perfect creation shows God had no desire nor intentions for evil.

Alas, you still fail to comprehend that God allows evil in either of our views. My view says that He allowed it before creation, yours that He allows it within creation. It's been a long journey for both of us and we are still at the beginning.

I'm sure you understand the problem of evil is God's allowance, but apparently see fail to see its application towards your position.

 

[RobE]

The question for opponents of OVT seems to be "Can you deal with the subject matter and stay away from straw men and your own presuppositions?"

Muz

Perhaps the use of straw men is because of the old addage - "Fight fire with fire!".

How else does one fight a delusion or fantasy?

 

[Clete]

Perhaps the use of straw men is because of the old addage - "Fight fire with fire!".

Rob,

Why do you feel it necessary to resort to lying in order to defend your beliefs?

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Why do you feel it necessary to resort to lying in order to defend your beliefs?

When I spread a deception, I know that I'm doing it. Are you able to say the same?

 

[RobE]

Message deleted due to techinical problems.

 

[patman]

Alas, you still fail to comprehend that God allows evil in either of our views. My view says that He allowed it before creation, yours that He allows it within creation. It's been a long journey for both of us and we are still at the beginning.

I'm sure you understand the problem of evil is God's allowance, but apparently see fail to see its application towards your position.

The problem of evil goes something like this:

If God is loving, why is there evil.

You can say it your way, why does he allow it. Whatever.

There exists an apparent contradiction between the evil that exists and the love of God.

That problem is magnified when the future is known or even planned because now God created this world knowing it would be evil.

Remove the foreknowledge of evil and that is taken care of(only answered by the Open View). Now we might also have a problem with God understanding of the likely hood that evil would occur, even though he didn't actually foresee how it happened. That problem is solved by the plan for the cross.

Now we are left with why evil is allowed. That problem is answered by the requirement for freedom within the love for the person. For a person to be loved, the must be free to choose whether or no to love. That allows for a loving creator to allow evil, because not allowing for evil is forcing.

 

[Nang]

The problem of evil goes something like this:

If God is loving, why is there evil.

There is evil, because evil is the consequence of sin.

Why is there sin?

Because creatures do not love their Maker; do not believe their Maker; do not obey their Maker.

You can say it your way, why does he allow it.

The consequences of sin (evils) are the wages of sin.

For example: Death is an evil. Death is the consequence of sinning against God.

Whatever.

There exists an apparent contradiction between the evil that exists and the love of God.

Not at all. Evil consequences are judgments from God, and Godly justice is wise and good.

The remedy for evil is grace, that remits sin, and bestows faith and repentance from sin.

Grace is established in God's love.

That problem is magnified when the future is known or even planned because now God created this world knowing it would be evil.

No, God created this world knowing men would fall short of His glory and sin. God chose to create, anyway. Are you saying God should not have created the world and all people in it?

Remove the foreknowledge of evil and that is taken care of(only answered by the Open View).

What is taken care of? Are you saying God's foreknowledge caused sin and evil consequences?

Now we might also have a problem with God understanding of the likely hood that evil would occur, even though he didn't actually foresee how it happened. That problem is solved by the plan for the cross.

Why would the Father plan on sacrificing His Son, on chance?

Now we are left with why evil is allowed. That problem is answered by the requirement for freedom within the love for the person.

If any person was going to overcome evil with love, it should have been Adam, who was created upright and good. But even this innocent man did not possess enough love for God to be faithful to God. How much less so, his offspring who are totally corrupted by sin. They (all mankind) are incapable of loving God.

Thus the need for the Savior, who did love God.

We believers only acquire a love for God, because God first loved us. (I John 4:19)

IOW's the will of man does not cause love of God. The love of God enables man to willing love Him through the gift of new spiritual hearts.

For a person to be loved, the must be free to choose whether or no to love.

Corrupted sinners, sons of Adam, are only inclined by nature to hate God. They harbor no spirit of God; thus, they are bereft of love for God. This is theologically called "enmity," which is a curse from God as punishment for original sin. Enmity is another evil.

That allows for a loving creator to allow evil, because not allowing for evil is forcing.

God does not "force" His love on sinners.

God supplies His love to sinners, so that they may be rescued from bondage to sin and evil; from death and darkness; from hateful enmity against God to reciprocal love of God.

Your post does not speak against evil. It speaks against the love of God.

Nang

 

[RobE]

The problem of evil goes something like this:

If God is loving, why is there evil.

You can say it your way, why does he allow it. Whatever.

Thanks.

There exists an apparent contradiction between the evil that exists and the love of God.

There isn't a contradiction between the evil which exists and the love of God. God allows it to exist because of His love. It would harm the wheat if the tares were removed.

That problem is magnified when the future is known or even planned because now God created this world knowing it would be evil.

The world is not evil. It's good. Evil exists within the world, but so does good. How does foreknowledge make the problem worse?

Remove the foreknowledge of evil and that is taken care of(only answered by the Open View).

How so, if evil still exists when God is able to stop it?

Now we might also have a problem with God understanding of the likely hood that evil would occur, even though he didn't actually foresee how it happened. That problem is solved by the plan for the cross.

Just as it is solved with the existence of foreknowledge. I would say the Cross was the whole point of creation in this sense.

Now we are left with why evil is allowed. That problem is answered by the requirement for freedom within the love for the person. For a person to be loved, the must be free to choose whether or no to love. That allows for a loving creator to allow evil, because not allowing for evil is forcing.

So when God foresaw that evil would come into the world there was a moment of decision. He had to decide to allow evil or not to allow evil. He, as we know, decided to allow evil for the sake of those who would be His; despite the outcome for those who would reject Him.

This is nice, but if you would highlight the part that open theism overcomes exclusively, I would be happy to speak directly to that.

Your Friend,
Rob