ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Mystery]

I second that.

Done.

 

[Mystery]

Clete, if you go back thorugh all the muck, could you look at This post?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does this mean that I will be able to have a conversation with someone else without always being told what creed or pre-established theological position I hold or don't hold, without a jot or tittle of biblical evidence to support it?

I'm all about that. :thumb:

Just ignore any post you don't like.

It's really easy, I do it all the time.

 

[Mystery]

Just ignore any post you don't like.

It's really easy, I do it all the time.

Okay, you are right.

In the big scheme of things, it's far better that I am here telling people the message of Christ then to not be here at all and them being barraged with another gospel. I'm going to have to trust that people can see through all the garbage that some people expel. I've just seen very little evidence of that so far, but my getting upset about it is not going to change anything, except that people will not listen to me either.

 

[Mystery]

Clete, when you get a chance...

Here

 

[Clete]

Mystery,

Thanks for pointing out your post too me. I had overlooked it. I've been so short on time lately, its been hard to keep up. And in the interest of saving time I'm only going to respond to the last portion of your post. It isn't that I am ignore the other part, its just that I really am short on time and this last section represents the most substantive progress in the conversation...

In responding to this post, an idea came to mind.

I know that we both have about the same view of "time", and that it is not a thing. Time exists, because God is active, and there has never been a time when God has been inactive. It's a which came first scenerio, and obviously we know that God is the first and the last. Are you pouring the same meaning into righteousness as you are into the time scenerio? Are you saying that righteousness exists because God exists, and that there has never been a time when God was not active? You see the same thing can be applied to light. There has never been a time when God's light has not shined in the darkness.

Therefore the question remains, is righteousness the substance of His nature, just as light is, or is it more like time, and exists because He is active.

You might choose the latter, but I am more inclined to believe that righteousness is related to His being than to His activity.

Certainly both are worth further consideration.

:think:

I too have been thinking that this whole issue is a "which came first" issue, and that was the point I was making when I said...

"Also, on that point, you said earlier that God was righteous before He had ever acted, or something along those lines. I was wondering when you thought that was? Has not God always been in perpetual relationship with the members of the Trinity? Has not God the Father always loved the Son and Spirit and acted in a way consistent with the nurturing of those relationships? When was the time before God acted righteously? There was no such time!"​

Put simply, my firm belief is that neither came first. There is no "first" for a being which has always existed and so if that point is kept clearly in view, there should be no difficulty in merging you view on this issue with mine. They are not in contradiction to one another since God has never been outside a reciprocal love relationship. It is both true that God's righteous actions flow from His nature and that He is righteous because He acts in the best interests of others.

I have to admit that while I can see how what I just said might very well be true, I am feeling/fighting the urge to reject it. I'm very much an "either/or" sort of person and this "both/and" stuff drives me a little crazy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Just ignore any post you don't like.

It's really easy, I do it all the time.

:thumb:
It's become really easy on this thread.

:shut:

When did E4E learn to spell?

 

[Town Heretic]

God is a personal being and the ultimate free moral agent. His metaphysics (ontolology/stuff/substance) should not be confused with His personal and moral attributes (the latter does have a volitional component). Philosphical discussions in this area are complex. Omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, triune, omnipresence are not volitional. Holiness, faithfulness, goodness, mercy, etc. are volitional. We are in the image of God, so our free will is a reflection of God as personal (will, intellect, emotions). We should not blur the distinction between being and volition.

No need to get into an epistemology contest is there? No my lexicon is larger than yours sort of nonsense. Right.

So who argued that God being all powerful, all knowing, etc. is a matter of choice? But I take your declaration that holiness, faithfulness, goodness, etc. are volitional as pure conjecture, having no greater value than my assertion that they are not. And while we should never confuse being with action (and who did, exactly?) I would argue that to act as though the later is not entirely dependent on the former is more than irrational, it's daft.

If in perfection God is goodness itself, not merely good, then His every act will necessarily be good and cannot be otherwise. No blurring, no obfuscation, no need for Latin or polysyllabic terminology.

So God, being perfectly good is not free to do evil. God being perfectly just cannot act unjustly--and so on. His perfect nature restrains His choice. We on the other hand can choose between the two precisely because we have imperfect natures.

I'm not suggesting that the ability to make an inferior choice is a worthwhile ability, only that it distinguishes us from God in a way that makes 'free will' a useful descriptive.

 

[godrulz]

It sounds like you are implying that choice is a defect of an imperfect nature. In fact, freedom and choice preexisted man and is an aspect of who God is and what He does.

The end result is the same: God is perfectly good and holy whether by a causative nature or by His choice to always, unconditionally conform to what His intelligence knows to be right, good, holy, true. Freedom and choice is not a dirty word. God's ultimate will and intellect are the basis for the Imago Dei in man. This is perfection, not imperfection. Given God's commitment to living intelligently no matter what, there is no risk that God would ever be less than perfect, good, holy, loving, faithful, etc.

The nature vs nurture principle is another can of worms. I believe free will theism trumps determinism in any form.

I hate to say it again, but I would defend Lex Rex over Rex Lex.

 

[themuzicman]

The whole point of all that was to show why I believe God is just in causing people to sin (or do things He originally said not to do). Among other things, understanding with empathy.

IT certainly exposes your POV. Very clearly. Clearly unscriptural.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

No need to get into an epistemology contest is there? No my lexicon is larger than yours sort of nonsense. Right.

So who argued that God being all powerful, all knowing, etc. is a matter of choice? But I take your declaration that holiness, faithfulness, goodness, etc. are volitional as pure conjecture, having no greater value than my assertion that they are not. And while we should never confuse being with action (and who did, exactly?) I would argue that to act as though the later is not entirely dependent on the former is more than irrational, it's daft.

If in perfection God is goodness itself, not merely good, then His every act will necessarily be good and cannot be otherwise. No blurring, no obfuscation, no need for Latin or polysyllabic terminology.

So God, being perfectly good is not free to do evil. God being perfectly just cannot act unjustly--and so on. His perfect nature restrains His choice. We on the other hand can choose between the two precisely because we have imperfect natures.

I'm not suggesting that the ability to make an inferior choice is a worthwhile ability, only that it distinguishes us from God in a way that makes 'free will' a useful descriptive.

Can't begin to even appreciate the Calvinist's position that human beings have no say so in doing anything other than what their 'nature' or God dictates. Choice is not always between a single 'good' and all other possibilities being 'imperfect' choices even for God.

I think the above point that it isn't either/or but both/and is a safe bet. It is as inappropriate to try to know the mind of God in all matters as it is to deny reality and the witness of scripture that is clear that in some things God changes His mind/position without compromising His holiness/righteousness. The illustration of parenting and allowing (even granting permission to) a child to do other than good judgment suggests (and Lee Merrill's proof text) was right on target.

God is perfectly free to do anything God wants to do. He is often portrayed as doing so in the Jewish scriptures; working and reworking to get people to behave. In the Christian scriptures it is a much different story; God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. It isn't just a matter of behavior modification, but a story of transformation. I think much of the debate can be eliminated by making this distinction. The cross changes everything! God doesn't repay evil for evil. The resurrection of Jesus and the hope it brings to mankind changes EVERYTHING!

 

[Town Heretic]

It sounds like you are implying that choice is a defect of an imperfect nature. In fact, freedom and choice preexisted man and is an aspect of who God is and what He does.

The end result is the same: God is perfectly good and holy whether by a causative nature or by His choice to always, unconditionally conform to what His intelligence knows to be right, good, holy, true. Freedom and choice is not a dirty word. God's ultimate will and intellect are the basis for the Imago Dei in man. This is perfection, not imperfection. Given God's commitment to living intelligently no matter what, there is no risk that God would ever be less than perfect, good, holy, loving, faithful, etc.

The nature vs nurture principle is another can of worms. I believe free will theism trumps determinism in any form.

I hate to say it again, but I would defend Lex Rex over Rex Lex.

Well, at least we see each other somewhat more clearly...I do approach most choice as a natural consequence of imperfection but I can see that it is possible to have a number of choices of equal moral or neutral value. That aside, I would say it very much matters if God chooses or is bound by His nature. If the later then we may rely on Him in all things; if the former we can only hope for constancy.

On your last, I would suggest that no choice is necessary, that the Law and the King are indistinguishable. To posit that God cannot act contrary to His nature is not to create a separate entity or condition acting upon God, but rather to recognize the inviolate nature of God.

This I believe is an important distinction.

 

[elected4ever]

Well, at least we see each other somewhat more clearly...I do approach most choice as a natural consequence of imperfection but I can see that it is possible to have a number of choices of equal moral or neutral value. That aside, I would say it very much matters if God chooses or is bound by His nature. If the later then we may rely on Him in all things; if the former we can only hope for constancy.

On your last, I would suggest that no choice is necessary, that the Law and the King are indistinguishable. To posit that God cannot act contrary to His nature is not to create a separate entity or condition acting upon God, but rather to recognize the inviolate nature of God.

This I believe is an important distinction.

:up:

 

[godrulz]

Well, at least we see each other somewhat more clearly...I do approach most choice as a natural consequence of imperfection but I can see that it is possible to have a number of choices of equal moral or neutral value. That aside, I would say it very much matters if God chooses or is bound by His nature. If the later then we may rely on Him in all things; if the former we can only hope for constancy.

On your last, I would suggest that no choice is necessary, that the Law and the King are indistinguishable. To posit that God cannot act contrary to His nature is not to create a separate entity or condition acting upon God, but rather to recognize the inviolate nature of God.

This I believe is an important distinction.

God makes a myriad of perfect choices. Jesus made many choices. Choices can be vice, virtue, or neutral (apple vs orange). They can be moral or mundane.

God with inability to be free reduces Him to a deterministic robot. Contingencies, responsiveness, volition, intelligence, creativity, etc. are signs of personal perfection, not imperfection. Given God's track record for trillions of years and given His infinite intelligence and ability and great character, we do not need to doubt consistency even if He makes choices rather than having a causative, coercive nature and no true will and freedom.

Closed theists accuse Open Theists of making God in our image. In fact, the closed theist underestimates God's abilities and choices and character because they look at Him through our imperfect perspective and think determinism would protect us from a good God ever becoming evil or puny man every undermining God's rule in the end.

 

[Philetus]

God makes a myriad of perfect choices. Jesus made many choices. Choices can be vice, virtue, or neutral (apple vs orange). They can be moral or mundane.

God with inability to be free reduces Him to a deterministic robot. Contingencies, responsiveness, volition, intelligence, creativity, etc. are signs of personal perfection, not imperfection. Given God's track record for trillions of years and given His infinite intelligence and ability and great character, we do not need to doubt consistency even if He makes choices rather than having a causative, coercive nature and no true will and freedom.

Closed theists accuse Open Theists of making God in our image. In fact, the closed theist underestimates God's abilities and choices and character because they look at Him through our imperfect perspective and think determinism would protect us from a good God ever becoming evil or puny man every undermining God's rule in the end.

Beyond brilliant; simply the truth!

The closed theists attempts to keeps God at a distance when He is forever drawing near.

 

[Mystery]

This is not a "closed theist" "open theist" debate, and for anyone to think it is, has absolutely not a clue who God is.

 

[elected4ever]

Beyond brilliant; simply the truth!

The closed theists attempts to keeps God at a distance when He is forever drawing near.

These are two purely stupid comment. You should know what you are talking about before you say stuff like that. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

 

[godrulz]

This is not a "closed theist" "open theist" debate, and for anyone to think it is, has absolutely not a clue who God is.

We are talking about the attributes, character, ways of God. This is germane (closely related) to the open vs closed debate.

I agree that this narrow topic of nature vs volition is a more general theological, philosophical debate with roots in Aquinas, Anselm, Greek philosophy, etc.

Sorry for making an exception to our mandate to ignore each other, but others can benefit from both of our brilliant insights, n'est-ce pas?

What is the thread about? OT!

Since your conversion to Mid-Acts (via the Plot?), you should also be OT friendly now, n'est-ce pas? Quoi, tu n'est pas d'argent? Moi non plus!

 

[godrulz]

These are two purely stupid comment. You should know what you are talking about before you say stuff like that. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

Hyper-sovereignty, meticulous control CT does emphasize transcendence over immanence. Process thought is at the other extreme emphasizing immanence. OT rightly emphasizes transcendence and immanence, the biblical balance.

If you are interested in a membership to my 'fan club', my president, Philetus, will be happy to sell you a membership, life time if you prefer (you get a senior's discount with that one).

 

[elected4ever]

Hyper-sovereignty, meticulous control CT does emphasize transcendence over immanence. Process thought is at the other extreme emphasizing immanence. OT rightly emphasizes transcendence and immanence, the biblical balance.

If you are interested in a membership to my 'fan club', my president, Philetus, will be happy to sell you a membership, life time if you prefer (you get a senior's discount with that one).

Nay, I'll pass on your offer. I reject a double the minded God that you prefer. If Philetus is the president of the club then perhaps I gave him to much credit.:down: