Philetus
New member
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Attention Deficit Disorder
:hammer: :bang: :rain: :dead: :hammer::bang: :bang: :bang:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Attention Deficit Disorder
:hammer: :bang: :rain: :dead: :hammer::bang: :bang: :bang:
The mere fact that you had to even say this goes to show the straws at which they must grasp in order to maintain their irrational and unbiblical worldview.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Exercise of moral agency must be examined according to the circumstances and nature of the individual agent.
For example: Adam's circumstances in the garden prior to the fall, and his human nature with which he responded to the commands of God under the Law . . .were different than the circumstances and inherited natures of his natural offspring. When contemplating exercise of moral agency, one must distinguish between the human condition, as it was prior to the fall, and and it is after the fall.
Adam was created good, upright, and innocent of sin. God gifted him with a conscious mind, communicated with him through the medium of the spoken word, and moral ability to volitionally subject himself to God's Law.
Adam rebelled against God. Adam disbelieved God's command and broke God's Law. Adam exercised his moral agency wrongly. Adam had no freedom to do so, and thus Adam was served with the sentence of death for his crime. Committing a crime and breaking the Law is not a rightful or "free" choice, ever. However, you free-willers consistently teach Adam had this right to choose either one way or the other, but you are wrong. Adam was not morally free to offend God, ever . . .even in his upright condition.
Since Adam's offense, all his offspring, have lost the ability to exercise their moral agency in obedience to God's Law. Adam corrupted the human nature, and all men are born as slaves held in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Although they are each and every one born in the image of God, possessing consciousness of right and wrong (the Law of God), and remain willful by nature, they cannot exercise their moral agency to serve God. They are only willing to serve their true master, the devil, who holds them enslaved. And yet, you free-willers consistently teach that any sinner can obtain salvation, strictly through exercising their will-power and making the righteous choice to believe and obey God. That is a fallacy.
The fallen issue of the fallen Adam, remain helplessly fallen, and are only inclined to serve themselves and evil. They have no love for God, nor Godly spirit within them, with which they can generate the faith that alones pleases God. Unless God takes mercy upon such a son of man, and gifts that sinner with the faith of Jesus Christ, through regeneration and conversion by His Holy Spirit to new life . . .no sinner on this earth would be saved according to human decision or choice. Scripture plainly teaches this in both the O.T. and the N.T.:
"God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one." Psalm 53:2&3
"There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12
The sons of Adam make choices daily, but none of their choices are lawful. None of their choices accord with the holiness and will of God. For none of their choices are done in faith and thanksgiving to God . . .but rather, are self-centered, self-serving, prideful, tainted, unfaithful, ungodly, rebellious, unbelieving and therefore, sinful choices.
And this is what you define as "Libertarian Free Will?" What liberty and freedom do you see here?
When a sinner receives favor in the eyes of God, and is rescued from bondage and enslavement to serving sin, death, and the devil, through the power of the Holy Spirit who gives faith to believe and grants new hearts that repent from sin, the moral agency of man is freed to again have the capacity to love and obey God. A born again Christian has a new freedom to willfully serve the things of God. A Christian has been freed to make choices and decisions to walk in the will and word (Law) of God because of the spiritual resurrection and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who anoints the sons of God and abides with them all.
However, this restored ability to make righteous, spiritual, obedient choices is still not "free" in the sense that the Christian can do otherwise. It is impossible for a genuine Christian to continue making carnal, self-serving, choices. Such, who practice sin, while professing faith in Jesus Christ, are hypocrites and liars.
Man being created under the Law, has always been responsible under that Law. Before the fall, after the fall, and after conversion to faith in Jesus Christ.
The Law of God is eternal, and every man is responsible to live and make his choices according to that Law. No, the Christian is not saved by following the Law (for sin makes this impossible), but the Christian is responsible to live the sanctified life in holiness and in harmony with God's will, words, and Law.
This does not define "Libertarian Free Will" either, for the Christian is not "free" to break God's law, any more than Adam was, or as any other sinner in the world is "free" to continue in their offenses against God.
The eternal and moral Law of God is synonomous with the Word of God, which Jesus said would never "pass away." The Law of God and Word of God holds all men responsible, forever. Even in glory, men will not be "free" to willfully function in opposition to God's will, word, and Law.
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Matthew 24:35
This is the mark of the Godly Sovereign; as typified in earthly fashion by the prophet Daniel:
"Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law . . ." Daniel 6:8
If the decrees of earthly kings cannot be changed, and the responsible subjection of their servants cannot be altered . . .so much more is this truth applied to all mankind, created by Sovereign God. No subject is ever "free" to oppose his Sovereign King.
So when I deny the reality of "free" will, this is what I mean. . .
I, as a Calvinist, do not deny the God-given, volitional nature of man. I simply do not believe that the moral agency (will) of man is ever "free" to function apart from, or in opposition to, the sovereign will of God.
Nang
Last edited:
RobE
New member
No.
Wrong again. You repeated yourself over and over again until I gave you the desired answer. That's all.
And this is the question - Why does righteousness take precedence over authority in your thinking? Please don't keep stating it as a fact without at least some proof.
Thanks for letting me know I've lost and what is the foundation of the hermeneutic, precisely please?
This is a claim. What attributes are foundational to(and therefore should take precedence to, according to your thinking) God's sovereignty?
Ok. Are you saying that according to open theism all of God's attributes find their foundation within His righteousness? If true, then what proof do you offer that righteousness takes precedence over all the other attributes?
RobE
New member
Ok. I cut and pasted it from this post......Click Here to read your own words.
Do you see any conflict from these statements that you made and the following statement that you made?
Originally Posted by MUZ
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.
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.
__________________________________
Logically, LFW says that agent A at time Z may do A or ~A. -Muz
Rob - Even though the proof of LFW's truth requires EDF to substantiate it?
Muz: LFW doesn't require EDF to validate that it is logical. We simply do not have a scientific method of testing it. That would be because LFW isn't repeatable, and science requires the ability to create or observe conditions in a repeatable fashion.
Let's examine my challenge:
Originally Posted by RobE
Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.
Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.
Let's examine your proof again(4+):
I am agent A, Z is 11am this morning, and 'A' is going to Wendy's to buy lunch. (Assume it is 9am this morning, for the sake of this example.)
Am I able to do 'A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
Am I able to do '~A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
In fact, at 11am this morning, I went to Little Caesars to get a slice of pizza and some bread with sauce.
Thus, I freely chose to do '~A.'
Thus, it is shown logically that LFW is consistent.
Am I able to do 'A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
Am I able to do '~A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
In fact, at 11am this morning, I went to Little Caesars to get a slice of pizza and some bread with sauce.
Thus, I freely chose to do '~A.'
Thus, it is shown logically that LFW is consistent.
My objections:
I objected that the premise was false because you didn't go to Wendys invalidating the premise.
I objected that you stated you would go to Wendys to prove you were able to do ~A. Since this assumed foreknowledge against my challenge and your statement.
I objected that if you truly meant that you 'might go to Wendys' that it invalidated the premise based upon your own reasoning.....
Muz said:
Is the above statement of yours true or false?
Rob
Finally!
Not necessarily THE desired answer, just an answer that is relevant to the question as asked. Don't make the same mistake that others here have made and forget that everything you've said is still here to be read by all.
You've already conceded it as fact! And the Bible says it takes precedence and so it does - period! I don't have to know precisely why to know factually that it is indeed the case.
I have possited with some credibility that it is because an absolutely horrible person can have a very great deal of authority but the that is not true of righteousness. Righteousness speaks to the quality of a person and that's what God is most concerned with. He is not impressed with someone's position of authority or how many followers a person might have. God is interested in whether or not one loves God and loves their neighbor.
If you think you can come up with a better reason as to why righteousness take precedence over authority I'd love to hear it.
That was said more for the benefit of those who might be reading this who's eyes have likely glazed over and might have missed what was really happening when you conceded the central point of the debate.
I've already stated that as clearly as I know how in the previous post. This, of course, is not intended to be a text book on the Open View and I am hardly qualified to offer any sort of technical definition beyond the one I have already offered.
All of the qualitative attributes. God is personal, dynamic, relational, wise, righteous, and loving. There may be others as well.
And this is not merely a claim. It is ubiquitous throughout Calvinist writings in particular (Calvinism and Arminianism are only two versions of the same thing, Calvinism being the more rationally consistent of the two). Here's a quote from today written by Ask Mr. Religion. It's an ideal example of the Calvinist arbitrarily placing of God's sovereignty, their self proclaimed bedrock doctrine, over God's righteousness....
I edited out AMR's lip service to free will because it wasn't relevant to the point I am making but you can click the link beside his name if you want to read the whole post.
Now which do you think requires this qualification that AMR has stated here, the Biblical text or AMR's theology? The text doesn't say a word about Adam's conformity to God's will but rather the reverse! In fact there is absolutely no way that you get AMR's theology from reading anything in Genesis chapter 3 (or any other chapter for that matter). And what's more if Adam could not have done otherwise God is unjust for having punished Adam for his rebellion.
And don't go off attempting to debate what AMR has said here Rob. I know you can't help but be distracted by every example someone tries to give, but just try to stay focused on what we are talking about here. That being the Settled View's placing of God's authority over and above everything else, including justice as exemplified in the above quotation.
You conceded that righteousness takes precedence over authority while still questioning why.
You've conceded that a primary difference between how the open view and the settled view interprets Scripture has to do with our keeping this precedence in place while the settled view does not.
I have further demonstrated (and you've conceded) that I have Biblical reason to give righteousness precedence over authority.
And so now its your turn.
On what Biblical basis do you place God's authority on equal or higher standing to His righteousness?
Non-sequitor.
I never made any such claim.
I would say that God's righteousness (i.e. His love, justice, etc) is the most important of all His attributes but I would not say righteousness if the foundation of all of His attributes. The fact that God is a person, for example is not founded upon the fact that He is righteous. God could not be righteous if He were not a person and so if anything it is the other way around but that takes us off the subject once again.
Let me try for the hundredth time to get this though your head. We are not talking about ranking in precise detail each and every one of God's attributes. You keep trying to turn it into that but its a red herring argument on your part. What we are debating here is which is more important, the reach of a man's arm or the quality of his character?
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
Where, when, how?
Certainly you aren't using the proof texts you used earlier to prove this! Again where, when, how does the Bible establish precedence between righteousness and any other attribute of God?
As a reminder here's the verses....
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.
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 your proof is?
Can a horrible person also have a measure of righteousness within him? Or can a 'good person' enter the kingdom through his own righteousness?
The great commandments.
I never said or thought that it did. I think that righteousness and authority are integrated into the person in different amounts. In the case of God that amount is 'all'.
Well my eyes must have been glazed over because I have missed the victory itself. Unless it was uncontested.
Rob said:
Clete said:
How about knowledgeable?
Someone should let them know so they'll quit arguing.
I find that I...am....unable.......to......answer......this.....without debating what AMR has said. So I'll pass.
I would like a link and explanation of how I managed to multi-task like this(my wife will be amazed). I didn't concede any such thing.
Again, I missed it. (don't confuse denseness with idiocy)
I hate to say it, but I haven't seen the demonstration.
Thanks.
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.
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.
The foundation adds strength to the structure. God's authority is strengthened by its foundation of righteousness. This doesn't mean that righteousness is more important than the authority or power; it means that it is a necessary integral part to complete authority and power within the Godhead. An entity is able to contain authority, power, or righteousness without the other two; but when combined these attributes together makes each individual attribute greater in some way.
And I would agree, as previously stated.
I'm trying to discover if there is any rule for precedence within attributes. For instance does righteousness take precedence over knowledge? If so, why? Because I'm trying to find out if you consider knowledge(the reach of a man's arm) or righteousness(quality as defined by you) the greater and why? This question is central to me understanding what the rules of precedence within open theism are. I'm not asking for precise details on each and every attributes, just these two. Thanks. You chose to rank righteousness and authority for your example.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This is Clete's M.O. Rob . . .declaring victory despite independent views from his own.
Of course you didn't.
But this is how Clete works:
1. He manipulates the argument, by telling his opponents how they should answer.
2. When they do not acquiesce to his manipulations and scripted demands of how the debate should proceed, he calls you an idiot for not following his script.
3. He declares you have conceded the argument by not following his script.
4. When you resist his manipulations, and refuse to concede, he gets hysterical and says he hates you!
My husband spotted his tactics, and refused to go along on another web site. Clete made a fool of himself by reacting emotionally and so hatefully, posts were necessarily deleted.
IOW's, nothing has changed, so don't let him tell you what how you should argue your own beliefs.
A very fair and appropriate question.
How do you answer, Clete?
Nang
Rob conceded the very point he denies conceding in the very post in which he denies conceding it!
And his question, in spite of the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion, has already been responded too.
I don't know what sort of fantasy world you two are living in but I'm not interested in having the same conversation all over again. You can pretend like the last two or three days of posts didn't happen but they are all still here for people to read and I am content to let them stand on their own.
Resting in Him,
Clete
And his question, in spite of the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion, has already been responded too.
I don't know what sort of fantasy world you two are living in but I'm not interested in having the same conversation all over again. You can pretend like the last two or three days of posts didn't happen but they are all still here for people to read and I am content to let them stand on their own.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
Perhaps, but that wasn't where I was going.
Choice can be very constrained and for our topic moreso. The following of inclination is how AMR puts it. Adam had a choice but it was merely a constraint of two possibilities: God or sin.
The man without Christ may choose to buy the modest shirt, but the value for such isn't meaningful to the context of our discussion by itself. The only value in such a discussion is eternal consequences of that selection. Fundamentally this is the crux of every decision made. "Whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."
It is about one choice always with this constraint. When we are standing before the bema seat, only that which was done for Him will remain. The rest is burned dross. If nothing but that choice matters, it is clear such discussions about the meaningless triviality is about the color of the ashes before they are blown away and disappear. Free will is not the focal point of our discussion, but rather constrained will to only this one choice: what survives and what is destroyed. "Therefore lay up your treasures in heaven where thieves and fire cannot destroy."
Lon
RobE
New member
Ok. Just a couple more questions, please. You claim that righteousness takes precedence over authority because righteousness is qualitative and authority is quantitative as defined by you.
My question is: What makes a qualitative attribute take precedence over a quantitative attribute? What's your scriptural proof? If it's the verses you quoted then consider this: What makes God righteous in your view? It's the fact that He rejects evil, isn't it. So then couldn't it be said that God's knowledge(of good and evil in this case) is foundational to His righteousness; and, according to your thinking, takes precedence over His righteousness? I'm sure that you would say that God's knowledge is 'quantitative' since you don't have to be knowledgeable to be a 'good person' as you and I have agreed.
I have been wanting to ask this question, but your sudden victory and my ensuing humiliation caught me off guard.
RobE
New member
:shut: :shut:
I have had several 'discussions' with Clete and they have all gone almost the same way. I think that he spends a lot of time on forums and tries to get from A to Z in the shortest possible time. For instance,
1. Clete, "Let's take it one step at a time, step one is to answer this question.",
1a. "you didn't answer the question right. This time answer it 'yes' or 'no' or we're going to get nowhere.
1b. "you still didn't answer the question with 'yes' or 'no'.
1c. "your next response must be 'yes' or 'no' otherwise the discussion is over.
1b. "you still didn't answer the question with 'yes' or 'no'.
1c. "your next response must be 'yes' or 'no' otherwise the discussion is over.
2. Rob, "No."
3. Clete, "Yea! I won!"
4. Rob - :noway:
I tend to ignore the claims of victory on the part of Clete because the proof of victory ususally remains a secret.
A great example is the discussion I'm having with Muz. Half of the time, he's been arguing with his own statements. I must give credit to Muz though; because he is willing to explain his own thinking and position on every point. At least he makes the effort.
See, a discussion, from my perspective has more than one person's thoughts in it. I say a, you respond to a and say b, I say c, etc.... If I say a and the response is "that's irrelevant.", then my next question would be "why". The next response would be "why do you insist on going down rabbit holes?". Muz doesn't do this. He actually answers the questions and statements. Nice, huh?
Thanks for the support,
Rob
Philetus
New member
They reduce grace to mere coercion with a 'positive' outcome for only themselves. Irresistible? My foot!
To maintain 'limited atonement' they exaggerate and distort the divine use of power. To settle the future they deny freedom of choice. And by reducing the mundane of our existence to colored ash they erase the importance of our discipleship in the world. They only 'evangelize' not that it makes any difference, but because God has not given them anything better to do. And perhaps worst of all, they eliminate relationship from love.
Choice isn't choice without freedom to choose. And life isn't life as defined by Calvin.
I am not the one who defined the words quality and quantity and you conceded that a person need not be a quality person to have authority.
Asked and answered.
The whole Bible!
No that isn't a joke. The quality of a man's (and especially God's) character is a central theme of the Bible.
The fact that He acts in the best interests of others.
That would be a tautologous definition of righteousness.
This might just be the pinnacle of your stupidity on TOL, Rob! It's not even worth a response.
This is not what I have agreed too. What I have agreed to is that knowledge is not what makes you a quality person. That is to say that a person who knows more than I do is not by virtue of that knowledge better than I am.
Look Rob, I can't help it if you concede the question being debated. When you do such things you can expect me to declare victory. I'm not here to be your buddy, I'm here to defeat you in debates when you decide to participate substantively which is next to never in your case but when the opportunity presents itself I relish the thought of exposing your error.I have been wanting to ask this question, but your sudden victory and my ensuing humiliation caught me off guard.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
I conceded a person need not have the quality of 'goodness' to have authority. In the sense we were speaking of this is correct. But an unrighteous person might have a 'good' quality such as the quality of being knowledgeable, powerful, etc.....
There is more than one sense of the word 'good' here. There's good as in righteous which is what you have insisted that I respond to and there is good as in favorable or valued.
Isn't it good to be knowledgeable, powerful, etc..... even though those are not required for 'goodness'?
The latter definition would maintain that one quality isn't better than the next. With respect to 'goodness' as in righteousness; of course only personal qualities which bolster righteousness would apply.
This doesn't answer the question of where your proof is that righteousness take precedence over authority as a good quality, though. Because when we examine it quantitatively(which is required to establish precedence) it uses the term 'good' as in which is better, not as which is more righteous.
We're probably debating different issues again. I'm debating what proof is there that establishes one attribute takes precedence over the other?
What are you debating?
- Status