ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
sentientsynth
New member
But the question remains, Dr. Brumley, Why don't you believe that time was created?Dr. Brumley said:
True. But only with sufficiently high dosages of LSD.Sozo said:
SS
Philetus
New member
seekinganswers said:
Seekinganswers,
Who are you arguing with, Michael? You just made a dozen statements that tell me what I think and believe and then unleashed a torent of double talk to refute what you made up.
I look forward to hearing Jim's comments on my post responsding to his questions. At least he makes sense, even with all the bad manners and wrong theology.
Just puke and get over it, Michael. But, do get over it.
Peace and Longsuffering,
Philetus
Who are you arguing with, Michael? You just made a dozen statements that tell me what I think and believe and then unleashed a torent of double talk to refute what you made up.
I look forward to hearing Jim's comments on my post responsding to his questions. At least he makes sense, even with all the bad manners and wrong theology.
Just puke and get over it, Michael. But, do get over it.
Peace and Longsuffering,
Philetus
sentientsynth
New member
Posted by Sozo at 7:48 PM.Sozo said:
Posted by Sozo at 9:08 PM.Sozo said:
Between these two posts by Sozo a total of 80 minutes passed. This, ladies and gentlemen, is time. These two events did not occur simultaneously.
| -----------X--------------- |
The mangitude of X is appoximately 2.5 inches. The two terminal lines do not occur at the same points. This, ladies and gentlemen, is space.
If you can't understand this, then you have no business taking part in debate. Sozo is a moron.
SS
sentientsynth
New member
Space does not exist?
Time does not exist?
I'm not going to waste any further energy debating such non-sense. If individuals are going to deny the very ncecessary preconditions for their spatiotemporal existence, then reasoning with such individuals is beyond the ability of a mere man.
Show you Biblically that time is a created thing? I already have.
Perhaps someone else will come along who is willing to concede such minor points as the existence of space-time. I'm not willing to waste any more SPACE or TIME on Dr. Brumley or Sozo.
SS
Time does not exist?
I'm not going to waste any further energy debating such non-sense. If individuals are going to deny the very ncecessary preconditions for their spatiotemporal existence, then reasoning with such individuals is beyond the ability of a mere man.
Show you Biblically that time is a created thing? I already have.
Perhaps someone else will come along who is willing to concede such minor points as the existence of space-time. I'm not willing to waste any more SPACE or TIME on Dr. Brumley or Sozo.
SS
Philetus, you're not getting this for some reason. I believe God answers prayers. I believe God does things for people who ask. It makes sense in my view. I don't see how it makes sense in yours. So please indulge me, and everyone else reading this who would really like to know: How does the Open Theist conception of God make sense of prayer. Can you pray for someone's salvation? No, because that would involve God mucking around with someone's free will. Do you believe God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible? Yes? If so, then what are you praying for? What are you asking Him to do, and how does the Open View conception of God make sense of it?Philetus said:
Wrong on both counts, Philetus. The determinist view requires God's involvement precisely because God decreed His own involvement. God is NOT restricted to a small niche of the universe precisely because He holds the entire thing together, down to the subatomic level. God is immanent; God is transcendent. In the Open View, God is neither, when taking that Luciferian theology to its logical conclusion.Philetus said:
It is obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's Google time, Philetus. Please go do some research; bone up on the topics at hand, then come back so we can have an intelligent discussion, as opposed to one of desperate ignorance.Philetus said:
Where did you get that? Bob Hill?Philetus said:
Clueless.Philetus said:
Really? Then what did God show John in the Revelation? A movie? A filmstrip? A flash animation, complete with sound effects and interactive clickable menus? This is the inevitable irrationality that Open Theism leads to. Denial of time. Denial of the future. Denial of space. Denial of logic. Denial of knowledge. Denial of one's Hope. Denial of the God of scripture.Philetus said:
No, God decreed in advance. That's the point of predestination; to declare and mark out in advance, preceding the actual determined events.Philetus said:
To make sure? He is steering every detail in full and unflagging accordance with His meticulously determined decrees.Philetus said:
Have you forgotten your view, Philetus. It is the "Open View," remember? That means God is NOT greater than our hearts. Men act contrary to God's ultimate plan all the time.Philetus said:
You're forgetting yourself, Philetus. The Open-View God is completely limited. He cannot overrride a man's will. He cannot mess around with people's desires. His hands are tied. He's doing everything He can, but failing miserably, as every day, scores of souls plummet into Hell, and He can not do Thing One about it. Show me that I'm wrong. Prove to me that your view can make sense of this Super Failure that you call the God of Open Theism.Philetus said:
Sorry, but on your view, this simply cannot be true. God is a prisoner to man's will. Man is a free-will bully to God, and God is powerless, lest He violate His "priority attributes" of being relational, personal, loving, living and good.Philetus said:
On the Open View, what's the point? He can't do anything.Philetus said:
What does faith do? Is it like a bribe? If you lay enough faith on the table, God the Miracle Monkey snaps to attention? And to do what? Watch as the souls of those He loves and longs to save plunge into the abyss into everlasting torment and condemnation?Philetus said:
Balder
New member
Barring Universalism, the other option is no better: God, fully capable of saving everyone, instead makes some (or many) people specifically as vessels for his wrath and intentionally sends huge numbers of sentient beings to a fate of eternal conscious torment in a place he specifically designed for that purpose.Hilston said:
sentientsynth
New member
Post #2439 sure is a big waste of SPACE.
sentientsynth-
You have shown nothing from Scripture to prove that time, or space, were created.
You have shown nothing from Scripture to prove that time, or space, were created.
lee_merrill
New member
Actually, he made some quite telling points, the lack of refutation would it seems, also indicate that.drbrumley said:Sure thing Hilston.
Open Theists indeed seem to try and have it both ways, with God omnipotent and also unable in various ways, with God invincible, and yet he can lose and have to change his plan...
Blessings,
Lee
None of us have ever said God can lose. And omnipotence does not mean able to do things that have been made impossible, by God Himself. He cannot make a square circle.:duh:lee_merrill said:
seekinganswers
New member
Philetus said:
The similarity I find between the two views is not grounded in the scriptures or in Christ (because both groups use distinct proof-texts and have very different views of Christ; they are not united in the scriptures and in christology). The similarity I find is grounded in the questions they ask: how does God know the future, and how does one understand "evil"? Both views understand the future as events that are to take place and both give evil an ontological reality. As I have been telling you before, such assumptions cannot be found in the scriptures. Within the scriptures the future is not about events but is about telos (purpose, goal, or culmination); evil is not a reality in itself, but is the absence of reality (the corruption of good). It is the fact that your questions are grounded in these false assumptions that I reject both views.
The scriptures present time as enclosed by God (who is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end). This is not to say that the beginning and end are events that God either has known or foresees (it is not through some ability to observe the Creation and know what will come about based on an extensive ability to "read the signs" that God is the "end" [telos] of Creation). As I have been saying, the beginning is Christ, and the end (purpose, the driving force) is the Spirit. The rosh (head) that is the "beginning" (another translation of rosh) is not a point in time, it is a person of the Godhead, the very word spoken by the Father, by whom God creates all things ("Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life and that life was the light of men. The light shines into the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."). The Spirit is the purpose of the Creation, that life giving breath of God that fills all Creatures. The Spirit is the culmination of all Creation, in life. God infiltrates the void, making space for life by God's Word, and through God's Word God also sends God's Spirit into the world to bring fourth life in the space that was made for it. God is both beginning and end (purpose) and both are wrapped up in the will of the Father, the three being one in the Godhead. God has revealed Godself from the beginning in the Word, in the Spirit and in the Father. The trinity is the God that is revealed to us in the Creation (not just the Father).
The very narrative of that first chapter of Genesis is as much a story of our today as it is a story of the past. It is the word that underlies the Creation, that tells us the full story. And in chapter two we begin the details of that story in the toledot of the Heavens and the Earth (the genealogy of the Heavens and the earth). It is only in chapter two that the events begin. The theme of Creation is set in chapter one. God moves the Creation from chaos to rest [i.e. worship], from disorder to order, from absence of life to life, from beginning to telos. The initial passage of scripture, the "table of contents", if you will, for what follows is this very first chapter. And in this chapter the beginning meets the end (the head meets the telos). It has nothing to do with events! God knows the future in the Creation in God's power to give life and to sustain life. Knowledge is not an observational action (which by nature is passive). Knowledge is active.
To know, for God, is to drive the events for his purpose and good pleasure. Those who believe that what they do influences God's actions really don't know the power of God. How can that which is Created and that which is utterly contingent upon God for life drive the very one who gives life and sustains life? How can anyone drive the actions of God? Does God sit back waiting for us to act in the Creation on our own before God responds, or does God act regardless of our own action? Does God not show grace to the humans in the garden after they had disobeyed him? Is this not evidence enough that from the beginning God had called us friends? Does God's question to the humans who hide their shame before God not present the most profound grace that one can encounter in the scriptures (Where are you? Did you eat from the tree?). All God asks for is for them to be laid bare before him once again, for the clothing they had sought out to hide their shame was insufficient. God knew the answer to the questions he asked the humans in the garden. He would not have called out to them had he not known that they were there. He would not have asked the question regarding the tree had he not already known that they had taken from it and eaten what had been forbidden to them. Even before we had the parable of the lost son in Luke here in Genesis was the image of the Father who stood waiting for his children to return to him.
This is a very different story from what is told by the Open Theists or the Calvinists. The overarching theme for the Calvinists and the Open Theists is this: God Created the heavens and the earth, humans fell, God preserved humans after the fall through the law (for God must destroy sin in force; if someone comes before God in sin, God by his nature must be just and destroy sin); God through Christ offers proper atonement for sin; humans can now enter into salvation through Christ's atonement for their sins by his blood; the "old" Creation must be destroyed and those few who are saved go to God in heaven. It is a story as old as the Reformation, and entirely anthropocentric, when the protestants began to emphasize justification and atonement in Paul over rectification and regeneration. The protestants emphasized personal faith and atonement (justification); Paul in his letters emphasizes ekklesia and grace.
This is where we are very much at odds. It is the narrative at our foundation that is fundamentally different. If we are to find agreement, we will have to start with this narrative.
Peace,
Michael
- Status