ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

We all agree the test is invalid.....

The problem is Muz's so called test has the requirement that 'a' and '~a' are valid simultaneously. My response was that its impossible to demonstrate doing '~a' whether a is known or not.

I will respond to your earlier post tonight. I'm at work and I don't have time to think things through here.

Why? Because I am unable to demonstrate not doing something. If I demonstrate it, I have to do it(and not do it).

I forgot. The given in both test is that A=What I will do.

 

[RobE]

You have yet to define what this would demonstrate, as it does not demonstrate LFW.

It would demonstrate that your test is valid. If you are unable to do so, then part of your test is invalid.

 

[themuzicman]

I forgot. The given in both test is that A=What I will do.

That's incorrect.

In my test, A=Posting 'superfluous' in the next post. Your doing this is only foreknown. It in no way causes you to do that, and in the presence of LFW, doesn't define what you will do at all. It simply makes a statement of what is definitely foreknown.

In your test, you don't define "what I will do." You just demand that I do and not do the same thing at the same time, which, of course, is not LFW.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

It would demonstrate that your test is valid. If you are unable to do so, then part of your test is invalid.

I don't need anything to demonstrate that my test is valid. It stands as valid on its own. It embraces EDF and LFW as properly defined, and success and failure are also clearly defined based upon your choices. It needs nothing more.

Muz

 

[RobE]

On the contrary. Even you must decide which to have take precedence over the other when decided how to interpret several passages of Scripture. You have no choice.

I can see why someone might say this. Sometimes one attribute might be used over another instead of all attributes being used simultaneously. God might love, then relate, then know, then etc., etc., etc.,

His vengefulness IS merciful! This again entirely misses the point.

Which is a great example of what AMR 'claimed'/argued. Every act is loving, merciful, knowledgeable, powerful, etc.,,,,, This wouldn't need one to take precedence over another.

The point is not to say that God is less powerful than He is righteous but that when forced to do so, one interprets the Bible with preference to His quality rather than His quantity.

I'm not sure I understand this quality/quantity thing. I haven't read about it when reading the Doctors of the Church, but Bob discussed it extensively in the debate with Lamerson. Are you sure this isn't a way to describe, categorize, and subjegate certain attributes? For instance - What are God's quantities? What are God's qualities?

I would say(even though I'm not sure persons have 'quantities') that his quantities are eternal, all-encompassing, loving, merciful, etc.....

And his qualities are eternal, loving, merciful, etc.....

What distinguishes a quantity from a quality?

An example is any one of the several passages where God plainly states that He repents (i.e. changes His mind). You have a choice to make. Do you take the passage to mean what it says and preserve God's righteousness or do you turn the passage into a figure of speech in order to preserve His immutability?

I think I would attempt to interpret according to His immutable righteousness or His righteous immutability. In other word I would accept His merciful vengence(His vengefulness IS merciful!) as a given. I could try to break it apart, but as you pointed out. That would be an error in interpretation.

There are many such examples of when one is forced to make such choices. The Settled View believer chooses the later, every time. Every time Rob! You can insist all day long that you make no such choice but the fact is that you do exactly that. You simply have no alternative.

I will agree that everyone reads scripture from their own perspective and that's why we differ over the meaning. For instance "....nor the Son, but only the Father knows....". My focus would be that the Father knows and yours would be that its an analogy. I would argue that it says the Father knows so let's take it literally, but you would come to a different conclusion.

Further, the Bible itself does so, stating in more than one place that God's authority is established upon His righteousness. Does that mean that God is more righteous than He is in a position of highest authority? No! It merely means that His righteousness is foundational to that authority and thus takes precedence over it.

I'm not sure that this says anything about precedence. Are there other scriptures where one of God's attributes/qualities/quantities? takes precedence over another?

 

[lee_merrill]

Genesis 3 is a change of mind as is the story of Hezekiah (unless you say God believes error or spoke a lie).

Or there was an implied condition, like with the Ninevites.

I Samuel 15 also shows how God changes His mind in some cases, but not in others (both examples in the chapter).

Unless there is an implied condition! Like with the Ninevites.

For God not to change His mind at times would leave Him as a liar.

Unless, there are implied conditions.

You see, I have a universal solvent for Open Theist proof texts, now we agree that there was an implied condition in the case of Jonah.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lighthouse]

I couldn't have said it any better myself. :nono: :thumb:

That wasn't an answer. It was a bunch of non-answers. Which is something Rob's good at. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe God cannot sin?

 

[Clete]

I can see why someone might say this. Sometimes one attribute might be used over another instead of all attributes being used simultaneously. God might love, then relate, then know, then etc., etc., etc.,



Which is a great example of what AMR 'claimed'/argued. Every act is loving, merciful, knowledgeable, powerful, etc.,,,,, This wouldn't need one to take precedence over another.

He made no such argument. Making claims is not the same as making arguments. Besides all such claims are not even in dispute and thus do not respond to the point being made.

I'm not sure I understand this quality/quantity thing. I haven't read about it when reading the Doctors of the Church, but Bob discussed it extensively in the debate with Lamerson. Are you sure this isn't a way to describe, categorize, and subjegate certain attributes? For instance - What are God's quantities? What are God's qualities?

I would say(even though I'm not sure persons have 'quantities') that his quantities are eternal, all-encompassing, loving, merciful, etc.....

And his qualities are eternal, loving, merciful, etc.....

What distinguishes a quantity from a quality?

You can't possibly be this stupid!

A quantity has to do with how much of something there is.
A quality has to do with how good something is.

:dunce::duh:

So we are more concerned with how just God's judgments are than we with how big God is or how much authority He has, or how much He can lift with His right arm or even how much knowledge God has. To put it in strictly human terms, you can be the strongest, most intelligent supreme court judge on the bench but what makes you a quality person has to do with what you do with that intelligence, strength and authority. You can be extremely powerful and still be wicked, you can be amazingly intelligent and hate your brother, you can sit on the king's thrown and have a heart of stone. Thus attributes of quantity DO NOT SPEAK to one's quality as a person. And if this is true of man, how much more so with God? Of course God is the ultimate authority and is infinitely powerful and knows all things (that He wants to know) but if God is not just then He is not worthy to be praised, not worthy of worship, not worthy to sit on the thrown of our hearts. If God is not just He is only just the biggest bully in existence.

I think I would attempt to interpret according to His immutable righteousness or His righteous immutability. In other word I would accept His merciful vengence(His vengefulness IS merciful!) as a given. I could try to break it apart, but as you pointed out. That would be an error in interpretation.

Impossible to do Rob! If God changes His mind then He is not immutable. If you want to preserve God's immutability then you have to make passages that say He changes His mind mean something other than what they say, which is exactly what you do.

Thus the Open View and the Settled view have two separate sets of proof texts. Each says the other's set are figures of speech while maintaining that their own passages say what they mean. And it is this exact issue of qualitative vs quantitative attributes that define the two sets of verses. The Settled View reads passages that say God changes His mind, or doesn't know something in advance or whatever, and says that they are figurative in order to maintain God's omni attributes at the expense of His justice and righteousness. While the Open View does the opposite in order to preserve God's righteousness, personhood, justice, etc. over things like how much God knows and how much control He has over every detail of history.

This is the primary difference, hermeneuticly speaking, netween the open and settled view.

I will agree that everyone reads scripture from their own perspective and that's why we differ over the meaning. For instance "....nor the Son, but only the Father knows....". My focus would be that the Father knows and yours would be that its an analogy.

An analogy?
I think Jesus meant precisely what it sounds like He said.

I would argue that it says the Father knows so let's take it literally, but you would come to a different conclusion.

No I wouldn't Rob. Please stop trying to read my mind. You suck at it.

I'm not sure that this says anything about precedence.

You're not sure?
What the Hell does that mean?
What do you mean you're not sure? Does the foundation not precede the building? Is not the foundation that which the structure is built upon?
What else could it be saying?

Are there other scriptures where one of God's attributes/qualities/quantities? takes precedence over another?

Who cares if there is or not? How many examples do you need to convince you? Two? Four? Twenty Seven?

The fact is that the Bible says in more than one place that God's authority (a non-qualitative attribute as discussed above) is founded upon His righteousness.

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.

Proverbs 12:3 A man is not established by wickedness, But the root of the righteous cannot be moved.

Proverbs 14:19 The evil will bow before the good, And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness.

Proverbs 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, And his throne will be established in righteousness.

Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.

Isaiah 16:5 In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth, in the tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness.​

And there are many more! The Bible over and over and over again places righteousness over authority. Authority is quantitative, righteousness is qualitative! How much clearer do you need for it to be than that? It should be patently obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the Bible anyway. It takes many long years of indoctrination to lose sight of such an obvious and intuitive truth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

That's incorrect.

In my test, A=Posting 'superfluous' in the next post. Your doing this is only foreknown. It in no way causes you to do that, and in the presence of LFW, doesn't define what you will do at all. It simply makes a statement of what is definitely foreknown.

In your test, you don't define "what I will do." You just demand that I do and not do the same thing at the same time, which, of course, is not LFW.

Muz

Muz,

I'm sorry but this post just made no sense to me at all.

Could you please explain to me what the heck you two are talking about?

In LFW, a and ~a are both what I might do, are they not? Neither of them is what I will do at all until I actually do it. Isn't that the whole point of LFW? There is no "what I will do" but only "what I might choose to do".

Making an argument against LFW by discussing "what I will do" begs the question, does it not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Muz,

I'm sorry but this post just made no sense to me at all.

Could you please explain to me what the heck you two are talking about?

In LFW, a and ~a are both what I might do, are they not? Neither of them is what I will do at all until I actually do it. Isn't that the whole point of LFW? There is no "what I will do" but only "what I might choose to do".

Making an argument against LFW by discussing "what I will do" begs the question, does it not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Open Theism is dead :dead:

. . . as evidenced by the decline and demise and absence of their apologists.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Robe makes a good and valid - none the less totally meaningless and for that reason idiotic - point. No matter what you do you didn't do otherwise, which is the very same as the inverse saying that Everything we do is otherwise than what we didn't do. The stupidity in all that is that it has absolutely no practical application in reality (past, present or eventual future) or any meaning in anyone’s theology, not even his own.

Trying to debate Robe is like trying to have a one-on-one with Legion.

Nang:
Open Theism is dead

. . . as evidenced by the decline and demise and absence of their apologists.

I haven’t seen you getting into it with Robe. Maybe you could explain his view so we could all understand it. What do you say, Nang. Be a sport. Clue us in. In fact, where did all the settled viewers go since Robe showed up and took this thread down the rabbit hole?

LEE:
Unless, there are implied conditions.

You see, I have a universal solvent for Open Theist proof texts, now we agree that there was an implied condition in the case of Jonah.

Blessings,
Lee

No, what you have is a solvent for erasing what you don't want to see in scripture. I'll bet you use the black-spray-paint method for marking your bible. You just spray-paint the parts that don't fit your preconceived notions of God.

Implied or explicit, what is the difference? Who are you to assume that your reading of scripture is inerrant; that you can even know when the conditions exist or not by just reading your pet texts through your classical-rose-colored-glasses? God doesn’t owe you or anyone an explanation or footnote in every verse that announces His intentions as to whether He follows through or changes His mind based on the actions and/or decisions of those He loves and pursues. Who are you to presume (in the face of natural revelation and an alternative reading of scripture that has proven to be consistent) that God hasn’t created an order of existence that has at least ONE universal condition built into it: the condition of reciprocal relationships that underlie everything in the universe … and that without direct intervention on His part the whole thing would eventually dissolve in total futility into death and decay and further that His direct intervention is not coercive but relational; entirely and perfectly conditional in every sense?

And before you even ask the question I’ll answer it. Open Theism doesn’t presume or assume … it reads All scripture and doesn’t compartmentalize or restrict God to situational attributes but recognizes that God is a living, dynamic, relational, loving, whole and holy being that issues a universal and conditional invitation to relationship by grace through faith that surpasses any intention, demand, command or summons He has or might issue with or without stated conditions and without ever compromising His person or His integrity.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

You can't possibly be this stupid!

Can he possibly be otherwise?

Clete,
I sure am glad you asked the question: "What the heck are you two talking about?" because I was beginning to get worried that the future had come and gone and I had missed it.:dizzy:

 

[Nang]

I haven’t seen you getting into it with Robe.

Is there reason I should?

where did all the settled viewers go since Robe showed up and took this thread down the rabbit hole?

The more accurate question should be, "Where did all the 'unsettled theists' go?" since RobE and Lee and AMR and MichaelT and Lon and Evoken (and yes, Nang), showed up?

Open Theism is dead . . . :dead:

Nang

 

[godrulz]

We're not dead yet (?Monty Python).

We have only just begun (some lame song writer).

 

[RobE]

I haven't read about it when reading the Doctors of the Church, but Bob discussed it extensively in the debate with Lamerson. Are you sure this isn't a way to describe, categorize, and subjegate certain attributes?

You can't possibly be this stupid!

A quantity has to do with how much of something there is.
A quality has to do with how good something is.

:dunce::duh:

Well, when speaking of the creator His quantity is ALL. He is all love, all powerful, etc.....

Wouldn't all His attributes be expressed with quantity(according to your definition) as well as, quality? The term 'all' being the quantity and whatever follows is the quality.

Are you sure this isn't a way to describe, categorize, and subjegate certain attributes?​

Impossible to do Rob! If God changes His mind then He is not immutable.

We've already discussed this in the thread titled 'a discussion between Clete and Hilston'.

I believe that a change of mind does not necessitate a change of essence. Is God able to sin or change His mind? In my opinion the answer is 'yes', but He is unwilling to do so.

Thus the Open View and the Settled view have two separate sets of proof texts. Each says the other's set are figures of speech while maintaining that their own passages say what they mean. And it is this exact issue of qualitative vs quantitative attributes that define the two sets of verses.

This is true to a point, but my observation is that it's a matter of inclusivism and exclusivism. As far as the 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' issue - it would seem that the arguments proceed down these lines because God's attributes are central to the discussion with some of the parties wanting to eliminate certain attributes in favor of others.

The Settled View reads passages that say God changes His mind, or doesn't know something in advance or whatever, and says that they are figurative in order to maintain God's omni attributes at the expense of His justice and righteousness.

If we maintain God's attributes(omni, all) how does this thwart His justice and righteousness. I fail to see that saying God is all righteousness or completely just takes away from anything else(or all powerful and completely knowing).

While the Open View does the opposite in order to preserve God's righteousness, personhood, justice, etc. over things like how much God knows and how much control He has over every detail of history.

It seems to me that they methodology employed reduces God's attributes from 'all' to 'some' for no justifiable reason. As Christians aren't we able to maintain all of God's attributes on an equal basis or must we conclude that some of His attributes are less honorable than others?

An analogy?
I think Jesus meant precisely what it sounds like He said.
No I wouldn't Rob. Please stop trying to read my mind. You suck at it.

I'm glad to hear it.

You're not sure?
What the Hell does that mean?
What do you mean you're not sure? Does the foundation not precede the building? Is not the foundation that which the structure is built upon?
What else could it be saying?

It means I'm not sure. The foundation is what the structure is built upon. The foundation is an integral part of the building. Without the foundation the building wouldn't exist. But there's more to the building than the foundation. There's the walls, roof, etc.... Without any of these there is no building at all or the building is vastly different than it would be with them.

The fact is that the Bible says in more than one place that God's authority (a non-qualitative attribute as discussed above) is founded upon His righteousness.

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.

Proverbs 12:3 A man is not established by wickedness, But the root of the righteous cannot be moved.

Proverbs 14:19 The evil will bow before the good, And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness.

Proverbs 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, And his throne will be established in righteousness.

Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.

Isaiah 16:5 In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth, in the tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness.​

But both righteousness and authority are integral parts of God's essence.

And there are many more! The Bible over and over and over again places righteousness over authority. Authority is quantitative, righteousness is qualitative! How much clearer do you need for it to be than that? It should be patently obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the Bible anyway. It takes many long years of indoctrination to lose sight of such an obvious and intuitive truth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I understand what you're saying. It's similar to:

1 Corinthians 13:13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

Love is the greatest of these attributes according to the scripture. But what is love with hope or faith? Aren't hope and faith foundational to love, just as righteousness is foundational to God's authority? In otherwords, aren't these three integral to each other; just as all of God's attributes are integral to His nature/essence?

Hope or faith might stand alone just as righteousness does.

Love, however, is inclusive(requires) of hope and faith; just as, God's authority is inclusive(requires) of His righteousness. Now, according to this scripture, the attribute which stands upon the foundation is greater than the foundational attribute. The foundation is not the construct but is integral and necessary for the construct to exist.

I'm still not sure I'm conveying this correctly.

Anyway, I'll think it over and elaborate in the next post.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Muz,

I'm sorry but this post just made no sense to me at all.

Could you please explain to me what the heck you two are talking about?

In LFW, a and ~a are both what I might do, are they not? Neither of them is what I will do at all until I actually do it. Isn't that the whole point of LFW? There is no "what I will do" but only "what I might choose to do".

Making an argument against LFW by discussing "what I will do" begs the question, does it not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

RobE is making the assertion that "I will do what I will do", trying to make the point that I can only do A or ~A at time Z, and then claiming that because "what I will do" is A, then I cannot do ~A.

The problem is that "A" is undefined in his test. It shifts based upon my future unknown choice. That's why the test is invalid: There's no standard to say whether I did otherwise or not.

You are, of course, correct in how you express your opposition, as well, maybe better than what I have.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Is there reason I should?

Nope! Just don't taunt us for not getting into it with him either; as if that is somehow a judgment against Open Theism. Muz seems the only glutton for punishment among all of us. Makes you kinda miss the old name calling …. kinda. At least you knew who if not what people were talking about.

The more accurate question should be, "Where did all the 'unsettled theists' go?" since RobE and Lee and AMR and MichaelT and Lon and Evoken (and yes, Nang), showed up?

Open Theism is dead . . . :dead:

Nang

Now there is a statement we can all get into.
We are right here with you Nang, reading, wondering if we will ever talk about Open Theism again.:chuckle:

Open Theism dead? I don't think so! ... It may get a little homicidal at times, but hang in there ... I don't think this thread is much of a test to judge the last theology standing. :execute:

GR:
We have only just begun (some lame song writer).

:jawdrop:
The Carpenters were Open Theists? Who would have guessed?:chuckle:

Philetus

 

[Clete]

RobE,

I am intentionally ignoring all but the below quoted portion of your post because it was all entirely unresponsive and obfuscatory. Why do you respond to the points I've made and ignore the arguments which support them? Are you trying to waste my time? Is that it?
I'm going to make the same argument again, only in an abbreviated fashion and you will either respond to it directly or I will understand that you have conceded the debate.

I understand what you're saying. It's similar to:

1 Corinthians 13:13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

Love is the greatest of these attributes according to the scripture. But what is love with hope or faith? Aren't hope and faith foundational to love, just as righteousness is foundational to God's authority? In otherwords, aren't these three integral to each other; just as all of God's attributes are integral to His nature/essence?

Hope or faith might stand alone just as righteousness does.

Love, however, is inclusive(requires) of hope and faith; just as, God's authority is inclusive(requires) of His righteousness. Now, according to this scripture, the attribute which stands upon the foundation is greater than the foundational attribute. The foundation is not the construct but is integral and necessary for the construct to exist.

I'm still not sure I'm conveying this correctly.

Anyway, I'll think it over and elaborate in the next post.

Thanks,
Rob

Don't bother elaborating on it, it isn't the same topic.

What I want you to acknowledge is that I have shown with clear examples that one can have authority, strength and knowledge without being a good person. That's the main point I want you to focus on Rob! Forget everything else I've said for now and focus exclusively on that single point. Since you seem incapable of anything more complex than that, we'll take this one baby step at a time.

Do you acknowledge that the amount of authority, strength and knowledge a person has does not speak to the quality of that person; that a person can have more authority than anyone he knows, be the world's strongest man, and know more stuff than anyone else around and still remain the most evil guy on the planet?

DON'T ELABORATE! Just answer the question, "Yes, Clete I acknowledge that authority, strength and knowledge is not what makes someone a quality person." or "No, I will not acknowledge that a person who is more powerful than someone else isn't also better than that other person."

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

RobE,

I am intentionally ignoring all but the below quoted portion of your post because it was all entirely unresponsive and obfuscatory. Why do you respond to the points I've made and ignore the arguments which support them? Are you trying to waste my time? Is that it?
I'm going to make the same argument again, only in an abbreviated fashion and you will either respond to it directly or I will understand that you have conceded the debate.


Don't bother elaborating on it, it isn't the same topic.

What I want you to acknowledge is that I have shown with clear examples that one can have authority, strength and knowledge without being a good person. That's the main point I want you to focus on Rob! Forget everything else I've said for now and focus exclusively on that single point. Since you seem incapable of anything more complex than that, we'll take this one baby step at a time.

Do you acknowledge that the amount of authority, strength and knowledge a person has does not speak to the quality of that person; that a person can have more authority than anyone he knows, be the world's strongest man, and know more stuff than anyone else around and still remain the most evil guy on the planet?

DON'T ELABORATE! Just answer the question, "Yes, Clete I acknowledge that authority, strength and knowledge is not what makes someone a quality person." or "No, I will not acknowledge that a person who is more powerful than someone else isn't also better than that other person."

Resting in Him,
Clete

This is Rob's MO... He moves the conversation from a point where he loses to a different topic, where he thinks he's right.

Muz

 

[Clete]

RobE is making the assertion that "I will do what I will do", trying to make the point that I can only do A or ~A at time Z, and then claiming that because "what I will do" is A, then I cannot do ~A.

The problem is that "A" is undefined in his test. It shifts based upon my future unknown choice. That's why the test is invalid: There's no standard to say whether I did otherwise or not.

You are, of course, correct in how you express your opposition, as well, maybe better than what I have.

Muz

Oh, good! I'm very glad to see was are still on the same side of things here. I had so completely lost the context of your conversation with Rob that I couldn't tell for sure which side you were arguing!

Well, aside from the fact that you were arguing against RobE, which is, of course, a very good sign!

Thanks for the clarification. I should be able to follow the conversation with a great deal more enjoyment now. :thumb: