You used the word in your first attempt, but I thought you just made a spelling error. There is a difference between two things happening at the same time (coincidal) and two unrelated things that appear related (coincidental). To me it no longer matters whether the philosophers or the gnostics borrowed the attributes of a deistic abstract god from each other or whether they developed them in isolation. Somehow those attributes made it into classical theism, but they didn't get there from the Bible.
Huh, maybe we are both wrong. I can't get coincidal to come up in a dictionary search. Must either be spelling or slang? It appears we meant the same thing but over the wrong word. I acquiesce on this particular.
You are oversimplifying the argument and missing the nuances.
lain:
God's commandments represent His desire for the behavior of men, but He does not force any man to keep His commandments except by means of the consequences of not keeping them. Violations of God's commandments cause effects based on natural laws (natural laws were also created by God). Violations of God's commandments also make man worth God's judgments. God's sovereignty is shown in His issuing laws and judgments, as these are the powers and responsibilities of a sovereign. We need to study the Word of God to find out what He desires for our behaviors and conform to those desires or accept the consequences for rebellion against Him.
Sounds like we agree. Back to respective paradigms...
God also makes contracts with men. Sometimes the contracts are unilateral contracts where only God is responsible for fulfilling the contract, other times men are also responsible for fulfilling part of the contracts or are liable for the consequences for failure to fulfill that are part of the contract (see blessings and curses in Deuteronomy). We need to study the Word of God to find out what contracts we are under and what our responsibilities are according to those contracts.
This too, we are in agreement upon but I'm concerned with suppositions/paradigms for understanding particular passages.
God also makes declarations of His future actions. Some of the declarations that God gives on His future actions are ones that He is unwilling to change (Ezekiel 14:13-14), others are ones that He desires to change if man repents (see Jonah). We need to study the Word of God to find out what His declarations are and whether He can be persuaded to show mercy. If He can be persuaded to show mercy, then we need to persuade Him.
I disagree here. He carries His own counsel over matters and knows much better than we what should be done. He does interact with us according to our
responses, but the resources are fully available before we ask. That is, God doesn't change, we reach to the resources He has available to us (we change).
You must have missed the posts in another thread where I compared God to a grandmaster weiqi player, since chess can be mastered by a computer but weiqi cannot.
:angel:
Interesting, never heard of it. Any fun?
Hilston's comments on the differences between prescriptive will and decretive will are an extreme example of what is wrong with classical theism.
Not sure how, in this short of a response, but thanks for taking the time.
It is
primarily concerned with God's Word.
| 1 Timothy 2
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. |
Okay, I will disagree here but throw my name in as well: We continually need to be careful and acknowledge what agendas we bring to the scriptures.
I will assert, systems of theology tend to have agendas. What we hope for, is that what we discover will move us toward particular ideas, but I, along with you must continue to ask "what agendas/ideas/commitments am I bringing to my scripture reading today?" By implication, we surrender these and ask Him to mold and guide us. I think you are on page with me here and my disagreement is that 'yes' we shouldn't bring in our agendas, but we do and need to be observant of them (also addressed in the last response here).
Future revelation is the main reason that people cannot accept Open Theism.
It is easy to believe that God can say that "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" because He has seen it from before creation or from outside time or because He determined everything that would ever happen in creation down to the quantum level so there can be no deviation that could cause His Word to fail.
It is harder to believe in a God that is able to make that kind of prediction and still have it come to pass in the midst of the turmoil caused by (and despite) the competing wills of men and the adversary who seeks to undermine God's plans.
It is harder. It is harder to read 'You will deny me three times" as anything other than prescience.
Open Theists have a hard time reading the phrases God uses in His Word through the classical theology lens because it makes God sound disingenuous at best.
Not to the majority of us, no. We too distinguish between covenants and promises. The reason these make sense to us is that we disagree on the particular ones. The OV sees many of them in contrast to our understanding.
I've had repeated conversations about this
here here here and
here.
Open Theists and classical theists both seek a reason to believe God's promises. Classical theists find comfort in believing that God has seen what will happen or that God orchestrates everything that happens.
Open Theists find comfort in believing that God's power is so great that He can orchestrate everything that happens, but that He refrains from using it in order to find the "pearls of great price" who are men that choose to love and obey Him despite the turmoil caused by the competing wills of men.
This of course, continues to support the idea of paradigm differences. The above illustrates these in my estimation. Look them both over and ascertain which is which here. Though asserted otherwise, what is the primary concern of the second (OV position)?
