ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Right. That's why I said, we'll use your definition.
Not only can "libertarian free will" not hold, but no will whatsoever.
I read the link.
Because a hypothetical helps us understand an idea. And we should be willing to admit that if God changed the physical world... it would be changed. The fact that you would prefer not to entertain the obvious is telling.
Whoa whoa whoa, let's stop right there. Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not decreed? How do you square those two?
No matter when Adam sinned? You act like Adam didn't exist in reality. Like he didn't exist in the physical world. Somehow the actions of a man from whence all other men cascade down is outside of God's provincial control and somehow that won't affect the rest of God's decrees?
You must understand that I have considered what you are saying, and that these are legitimate questions.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are we going to go down this path once more?
Yorzhik, Do you just start replying as soon as you see a post instead of continuing to read and ponder the entire post you are replying to beforehand? I told you I don't like hypothetical games with Scripture topics, yet I indulged you anyway. Are you just baiting me? Telling, indeed.
Careful now. I know how many language lawyers are reading these posts. I purposefully crafted my statement. If you re-read, you will see that I show that while God did not decree Adam's sin, God most certainly decreed to allow man to sin through man's own self-determination.
Don't assume thusly:
If God foreknew Adam would sin, then Adam cannot refrain from sinning.
This is a common misunderstanding by those who do not fully understand the Reformed faith.
The assumption above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Adam's moral free agency. When properly applying the doctrines, the correct statement would read:
Necessarily, if God foreknew Adam would sin, then Adam does not refrain from sinning.
Hence, we state that
The actions of self-determining agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.
Your question was related to the hypothetical if Adam had sinned later than he did. As I replied, it does not matter when Adam sinned, but only that Adam did sin. The results are the same. Our natures are the same. The unregenerate can only sin more or sin less. The regenerated can choose to sin or not to sin. What else are you looking for in my answer? Please elaborate.
No, as explained above you were not a careful reader of my post. There is not a single charmed quark in the universe that is outside of the providential control of God.
What is your answer to your hypothetical question?
(Note: answer your own question up front when asking me something. You will still get my answer and it will save us both some time going round and round.)
You say God being unable to make other than perfect choices reduces Him. I’d say that if God can make imperfect decisions then His judgment and by extension He must be imperfect and that it is your stance that reduces or limits God and likens Him to Zeus, Odin, Saturn, or any other version of God wherein He becomes a superman, rather than a perfect being.
You say we can rely on the track record of God, but that He is not bound by an inviolate, perfect nature. I say that if God can change nothing is certain except uncertainty and that is all we can or should rely on.
Lastly, you argue that those who presuppose God's perfection underestimate Him while those who hold up an image of Him as a powerful model of potential inconstancy do not...It's hard to know how to respond.
If God is free to choose evil He cannot be perfectly good. If God is not perfectly good the body might as well begin to decompose. Morality becomes relative, at least potentially, and nothing, neither grace nor salvation nor eternity is assured us.
But of course you're free to make that choice and maybe that's all we can agree on between us.
God is personal vs impersonal. This means He has will, intellect, and emotions. Raw 'being' is pagan philosophy, not the revelation of the Living God.
We are also personal being in the image of God. We have will, intellect, emotions. We are like God in this way, but unlike God in the areas of being eternal/uncreated, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, triune.
God loves and we can love. This does not make us God or God a mere man. We can reflect His character (fruit of the Spirit), but not in the same degree of perfection. This does not deify us or humanize Him. It is simply part of being in the image of God vs a rock or robot.
We are also personal being in the image of God. We have will, intellect, emotions. We are like God in this way, but unlike God in the areas of being eternal/uncreated, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, triune.
God loves and we can love. This does not make us God or God a mere man. We can reflect His character (fruit of the Spirit), but not in the same degree of perfection. This does not deify us or humanize Him. It is simply part of being in the image of God vs a rock or robot.
You have this habit of making declarations that seem to assume a counter position to positions that I haven't held...Interesting, but odd. God is personal? Who said otherwise? God has a will? Absolutely--a perfect one. We are like and unlike God in many ways? You don't say.
But raw being? Pagan? Me? I've already answered you with examples that refute this position and offered evidence that your stance much more readily conforms to pagan ideas about God. And your ‘degree of perfection’ makes as little sense to me as someone being a little pregnant. We imperfectly reflect the perfect, which is God. Perfection is an absolute value, not a progression of graduated value toward some potential absolute.
And your insistence on viewing perfection as a determinist driven, robotic nightmare strikes me as more than vaguely phobic and irrational.
As I earlier suspected we will have to agree to disagree and I leave the issue here.
elected4ever
New member
That means I win and am right:king: and you lose and are wrong.:loser:
What, in your view, constitutes a perfect being and why?
You are overlooking the fact that God's "track record" is of infinite duration. The term "track record" can be somewhat confusing because we don't tend to think of them in terms of infinitely long periods of time but that's what we are talking about when we apply such a term to the Christian God. God's track record has, throughout eternity past, been perfectly consistent and thus your "nothing is certain but uncertainty" conclusion is quite unfounded. On the contrary, God's character has proven to be the immovable rock upon which all knowledge and, as the Bible puts it, "the full assurance of understanding" is founded.
I agree. Are you sure that godrulz said this?
Why?
Not a problem since God is indeed perfectly good.
A description of God, by the way, which would have no meaning if God did not choose to be so.
I've already established that this conclusion is unsupported but with this statement you've actually taken it a step further by having now directly employed an irrational form of argument. Its called the appeal to consequences/fear fallacy. It happens when an argument rests solely on the consequences of a proposition when those consequences have not been established. It's fallacious because the consequences of a proposition don't have anything to do with whether or not that proposition is true or not. I reject, and in fact have refuted the veracity of your supposed consequences anyway, but even if that weren't the case, your argument would still be invalid.
Why do you believe godrulz, and by extension yourself, capable of something that God is incapable of?
Is it your contention that having the ability to choose is an inherent flaw of some kind?
In your latest post on this thread you wrote...
Who cares how it strikes you? Did godrulz, or anyone else for that matter, consult you on how it would strike your particular sensibilities before adopting their theological positions? I sort of doubt it. If God cannot choose then in what way is He any different, in the context of being righteous, than the vacuum cleaner in my closet? I plug in my vacuum cleaner and flip the switch and it reliably and with perfect consistency starts sucking the dirt out of my carpet. Should I praise my vacuum cleaner for a job well done? Should I thank it for not being tired today and for having never once complained about the jobs I ask it to perform or for sitting quietly and without complaint for days on end in a dark closet with nothing to do but sit there?
You also sarcastically responded to godrulz having stated in refutation of your position that God has a will but while you acknowledge God has a will, you failed to respond to the point godrulz made by having brought that up. That point being that to say someone has a will is only just another way of saying that they choose their actions.
I have more to say but I'm out of time. This will have to do for now.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
It means you are alone. That's all.
Yes.
God has declared me righteous, not by anything I have done. You should know that, Clete. It's salvation 101.
People do wrong because they are unrighteous, and those who commit righteousness do so because they are righteous. They are not either because of what they do. They do what they do because of what they are.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I'm sure the people of Armenia will be appalled to hear this.
Muz
Muz
I have wondered if the Northern lights were purposeful, or a byproduct of creation.
themuzicman
Well-known member
God has declared me righteous, not by anything I have done. You should know that, Clete. It's salvation 101.
People do wrong because they are unrighteous, and those who commit righteousness do so because they are righteous. They are not either because of what they do. They do what they do because of what they are.
People are unrighteous because they sin.
People become righteous when they believe. See Abraham in Romans 4.
Muz
Mystery
New member
I know what you mean, I've always been amazed how God knew to put a river right where they were going to build a dam.
Crazy stuff!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You're hilarious, Mystery man.
Even when you're not trying to be funny, you crack me up!
Mystery
New member
What is this?
- Status