themuzicman
Well-known member
The problem is that the biblical support for his argument is his weak point. When you start examining the scriptures to see if what Mr. Religion says is true, you find out that it's not.
Muz
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I find the same to be true for many of your arguments.
themuzicman
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Anyone's theology that doesn't match yours is quickly labeled "eisegesis".
If Muz says it's eisegesis, it must be eisegesis. If Muz says it exegesis, it must
be exegesis. Is that the way it is?
Anyway, back to debating Open Theism...
themuzicman
Well-known member
Hey, anyone can do good exegesis. Most folks around here just want to spout their theology without looking closely at its foundation.
:wazzup:
That may be true but that isn't the point at all. Theology must be both Biblical AND rational. If we insist on presenting purely Biblical arguments then AMR quotes Romans 9 and the debate is over. These debates usually take one of two courses. Either each side trades proof texts back and forth or we debate the rational implications involved. It's usually the later because the difference between the two position has more to do with basic presuppositions than it has to do with the Bible. That is to say, our presuppositions about who God is colors the way we read the Bible and therefore what we understand it to be teaching.
Indeed, this is why the Open View is so strong regardless of which tack is taken. We understand that Sola Scriptura isn't enough and that reason isn't enough either, nor are the two taken together. What is needed is a relationship with the living God. The whole of Open Theism rests on the concept of relationship; on our ability to relate in a meaningful way with our Creator. Relationship is the core issue and while the Scripture and sound reason serve as boundaries for our theology, they are not the foundation, God Himself is.
And so the bottom line is that one should not be surprised when these conversations take on a rational tone rather than a Scriptural one. It could take on either but it doesn't have to and since the core difference has to do with presuppositions it is no surprise that is the rational tone which emerges most often.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Calvinism is deductive and relies on proof texts. We could all use more Scripture in our posts, but we would still translate or interpret them differently. Quick posts without cut and paste Scripture does not mean we all could not pad them with more verses, but your point is well taken.
Yeah, Clete. Relational theism trumps determinism (more worthy of fatalistic Islam). You are also correct to not minimize the potential for a preconceived theology to cloud our biblical interpretation.
Not yet. Let's get done with the first cause first.
Lon
Well-known member
LOL! (sorry, initial reaction) "Most folks around here..." are OV.
Cost for Laughing outloud? Freebie.
And then, the next statement "Let's talk about OV."
Priceless
Most of the people on this web site are not Open View, Lonster.
There are several, yes but we do not make up the majority here or anywhere else or that matter.
Resting in Him,
Clete
That doesn't answer the question.
Is an immutable, impassable God really omnipotent?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I agree with this, for a very simplistic reason.
The first proposition has to do with an infinite Being, and the second proposition has to do with finite creatures.
Finite properties cannot contradict infinite attributes. Two separate truths.
The solution to reconciling finite with infinite, is submission.
The finite must submit all properties (including one's will) to the infinite.
Indeed. If one or the other proposition is denied, or even neglected or ignored, theology tweaks, bends, twists, and becomes error.
Both truths must be upheld.
And I contend that Jesus Christ fulfilled my human responsibilities, under the Law, before God on my behalf; paying my debts of failure and sin, and imputing His righteousness to my account with God, so that I can finish out this life submitting my will to His will without fear; trusting in God's wisdom, not my own.
How often do we read people discussing the infinite wisdom of God? Not often. More often we read people trying to impress others with their puny treasures of finite knowledge . . .trying to "be like God," despite their inescapable creaturely limitations.
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25
God is wiser than me (what an understatement!), and I am only thankful that this finite being has been reconciled, through Christ, with the Sovereign, Infinite God.
I trust and hope He will always overrule my will by His Spirit, guiding me according to the wisdom and will of God; and thereby keeping me accountable in His sight.
"Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Romans 8:27
Nang
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They are contradictory because they say something about the same object, both statements say something about "acts", acts that are "moral" and are "mans".
The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
1. God determines/is responsible for all mans moral and immoral acts.
2. Man is responsible for/determines all his own moral and immoral acts.
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Why is man responsible for his own acts if it isn't because he, himself, determines them? Explain that to me, please.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible.
Of course it is, and I think you know it!!!!
However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Man is responsible for all his moral and immoral acts, because God determines them.
This is what you are saying, and it really makes you look stupid.
--Dave
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They are contradictory because they say something about the same object, both statements say something about "acts", acts that are "moral" and are "mans".
The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
1. God determines/is responsible for all mans moral and immoral acts.
2. Man is responsible for/determines all his own moral and immoral acts.
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Why is man responsible for his own acts if it isn't because he, himself, determines them? Explain that to me, please.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible.
Of course it is, and I think you know it!!!!
However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Man is responsible for all his moral and immoral acts, because God determines them.
This is what you are saying, and it really makes you look stupid.
--Dave
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...
Posted by DFT_Dave
If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Sigh, such is the limitation of my finite language describing infinitudes. There is nothing implying some sequence of time passing in the above.
There is a "sequence of events" not a "sequence of time".
You are trying to find as much to fit your assumption of God's temporality, and then proclaim, "Aha, gotcha!"
Who said my assumption is about "God's temporality"? My assumption is that God does not do everything all at once and therefore he acts sequentially, and that would imply time, which is what is also implied when Strong says, "decree comes before foreknowledge".
As I said earlier, the comment by Strong, if he were making an honest statement would be, "Logically and chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge." But then, again, that is saying there is time in God and eternity.
Clete added, "Indeed, logical sequence is the very definition of chronology." Thanks Clete
Ignore my limitations with the English language; please remember that I do not believe God exists in time. He does not. He created time and can act in the time He created, but God remains outside of time in His existence and is not conditioned by it.
Time is not a created thing and it is not said that God created it, that is your assumption. A timeless God could not act in time and remain timeless--definitions mean nothing to you.
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...
Posted by DFT_Dave
If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Sigh, such is the limitation of my finite language describing infinitudes. There is nothing implying some sequence of time passing in the above.
There is a "sequence of events" not a "sequence of time".
You are trying to find as much to fit your assumption of God's temporality, and then proclaim, "Aha, gotcha!"
Who said my assumption is about "God's temporality"? My assumption is that God does not do everything all at once and therefore he acts sequentially, and that would imply time, which is what is also implied when Strong says, "decree comes before foreknowledge".
As I said earlier, the comment by Strong, if he were making an honest statement would be, "Logically and chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge." But then, again, that is saying there is time in God and eternity.
Clete added, "Indeed, logical sequence is the very definition of chronology." Thanks Clete
Ignore my limitations with the English language; please remember that I do not believe God exists in time. He does not. He created time and can act in the time He created, but God remains outside of time in His existence and is not conditioned by it.
Time is not a created thing and it is not said that God created it, that is your assumption. A timeless God could not act in time and remain timeless--definitions mean nothing to you.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It isn't?
What do days and nights measure?
Surely you know who created days and nights!
Nang
Days and nights are one measure of time. This unique measure of time was created when the universe was made in the beginning of earth history.
Time is more fundamental than its measure. Whether we use sand, sun, watches, drops of water, etc. to measure time or not, time still marches on. Duration/sequence/succession predates creation in the eternal relations of the triune God. Since personal beings experience duration, God experiences an endless duration of time. The sun was a new way to measure duration, but it should not be confused with the creation of time itself (which is not a thing, but a concept of duration, even experienced by the eternal God who is from everlasting to everlasting, not timeless... Ps. 90:2; note the tensed expressions about God's reality Rev. 1:4).
Eternal now simultaneity is a specious philosophical concept not found in Scripture.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, I could spend plenty of time filling my posts with the scriptural proofs, but fortunately, a very good starting point on such an endeavor already exists here. As I have stated in other posts, the link given wholly and completely described the tenets of what I believe. Please select any of the topics shown at this link to see the accompanying relevant scriptural citations. And if you will point me to anything similarly constructed for your doctrine, I would happily devote significant time to review it.
I think, in general, and as Clete notes in a subsequent post, we can dispense with lots of biblical citations when we assume that the audience is reasonably versed in the scriptures and are dealing with the presuppositions behind our interpretations of said verses. When the more gnarly issues arise, that is the time to draw upon scriptures to emphasize a point being made.
themuzicman
Well-known member
You know, it's funny that these same "dead" sinners are walking and lusting in the same sentence. (Eph 2:2)
Muz
- Status