themuzicman
Well-known member
Lacking the Scriptural and logical foundation from which to actually support his view, E4E runs away.. again.
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Lacking the Scriptural and logical foundation from which to actually support his view, E4E runs away.. again.
Muz
Does he think God predestined him to lose this argument?
themuzicman
Well-known member
elected4ever
New member
:idea: You think God predestined you not to have one?:rotfl:
No. Why would you say that?
elected4ever
New member
You are without the foundation to stand on. You reject the most basic truth so why should i run. I just let you condemn yourself without objection.:execute:
themuzicman
Well-known member
You were exposed in an obvious logical contradiction. You have zero credibility to say this.
Muz
Because he was preprogrammed to know on that day. There is no learning involved. Just programming.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This is such a common error and unacceptable accusation made against Calvinism.
Only the philosophical concept of fatalism is formed bereft of any epistemological basis.
Calvinism is a theology that incorporates and stands upon the strongest form of epistemology.
elected4ever
New member
And what would that be?
:squint:
How is it that you say him being preordained negates the process that brought him there? If someone is preordained to be born on a particular day, I'm pretty sure his mother would remember "the process!"
The puppet analogy is flawed and limited. It wrongly assumes that we are like puppets rather than free moral agents. Even in determinism, I am not sure the analogy is being fair in all aspects (compatibilism talks about our choices being influenced by desires we cannot chose).
That's why I like to view the issue in the two following possibilities.....
- The Settled View - All events for all of time have been settled (determined) in advance.
- The Open View - Not all events have been settled (determined) in advance.
If you don't view the disagreement in the above way dozens of tricky, confusing, unnecessarily distracting sub-arguments arise. (i.e., compatibilism)
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How do you see compatibilism obviated by your statement for the settled view above?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Its o.k. Lighthouse,
Just raise your hand if you don't understand what I am talking about.
Nang
In a truly settled past, present and future, compatibilism is an illusion.
Calvinists like to throw out the word compatibilism like some sort of spot remover. They think that by merely uttering the word it will make their contradictory, unbiblical theology sound reasonable.
How can 2+4 equal 4 and also equal 5 at the same time??? Compatibilism!!!
:doh:
Wow!!! Compatibilism!! It's brilliant! It's easy to use! And it's lemony scented!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Never mind. :dizzy:
Without going into exhaustive detail, my inclination is that incompatibilistic, libertarian freedom will win the day over confusing compatibilism. If you tweak hyper-sovereignty, you can retain genuine freedom. If you retain hyper-sovereignty, you must water-down genuine freedom. The way to have our cake and eat it to (not to mention resolve the sovereignty vs free will tension) is to have a right understanding of sovereignty and freedom. The two motif theme (God settles some vs all of history) also is part of the solution.
I still maintain that an omnicompetent God simply does not need to be omnicausal to be sovereign over the universe (He could have been a settled God/method, but the evidence is that He chose otherwise to preserve love, relationship, and freedom..is that a bad thing? No. Is it risk-free? No. Will there be victory in the end? Yes).
- Status