RobE
New member
I find truth to be fleeting and arguments which are reductions to absurdity more acceptable here.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I find truth to be fleeting and arguments which are reductions to absurdity more acceptable here.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Oh, oh . . .
patman
Active member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
AMR, I thought he answered your questions fully.
I have not been very active on this thread. But every time I asked you a question, you somehow never answer... not even on AoS.
http://www.artofsmack.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I asked
Patman said:
You said :
Ask Mr. Religion said:
How did I mock you?
Ask Mr. Religion said:
To which I said
patman said:
And you proceeded to talk to "everyone else," but you never answered poor patman's posts, so I asked you to answer.
Ask Mr. Religion said:
So what gives? Why won't you answer anything I have put forth?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I answered many of your questions, Patman. But, as you stated, being precise is not something you like. For example let's look at the following exchange, specifically the boldface items:
PM:
God "test" people when he already knows the answers?
A test is to get answers.
AMR:
Yes, God knows the answers, but do you? The testing, is to prove to you and the witnesses that your faith is real. (two paragraphs of content deleted, boldface added)
PM:
I thought that would be your answer.....OK, do you believe there is an answer to everything?
The phrase, "but do you" means "but does the person being tested". You state you thought that would be my answer. Fine. What in the world you are asking next is indecipherable in the context of that thread:
"OK, do you believe there is an answer to everything?"
Be precise and cogent; you will find many, including myself, willing to converse. As soon as a party declares victory, resorts to sarcasm, etc., I am no longer obliged to continue the conversation.
So when you go around writing things like this...
"I disagree with his {AMR} ideas, like you do, because the simplest question can dismantle them" (italics mine)
...you can hardly expect me to expend any effort on you.
patman
Active member
AMR, your head is so far up in the clouds, you cannot even relate or understand the simplest one line question in the world.
The simple questions came from 'the californians' that you failed miserably to answer. Somewhere on cloud 9 you got it in your head that I have it out for you. Why wouldn't I want to reach out to you? Your website answers questions for people all over the country! yet you don't even see what damage your answers might cause.
And when someone like me tries to talk to you, you just plug up your ears and turn off the monitor, all the while building me up in your head to be some kind of devil. Do the mean eyes on my avatar make you think I am mean? Or will you think that innocent question is an attempted murder against your rep? Apparently you are really concerned with your rep.......
My question to you was:
OK, do you believe there is an answer to everything?
I am not talking about for God. I am talking about for us.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No there are no answers for everything on this or the other side of the grave. Even in our glory in eternity we will never possess all truths for to do so would mean we have become like God.
patman
Active member
What do you make of this?
Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Proverbs 2:6
For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
Today, if someone is seeking an answer for why suffering exists, and the problem of evil, is that particular question answerable for a person?
Last edited:
It is the glory of a king to search out a matter- Proverbs
"God is not a power-hoarding deity" - John Sanders
"...covenant of noncoercion.../quality of freedom" Gregory Boyd "...beyond the parameters of the gift of freedom God has given, God may intervene as He sees fit..."
This is by His sovereign choice. Man, not God, gave names to all the animals. Hmmm.
"God is not a power-hoarding deity" - John Sanders
"...covenant of noncoercion.../quality of freedom" Gregory Boyd "...beyond the parameters of the gift of freedom God has given, God may intervene as He sees fit..."
This is by His sovereign choice. Man, not God, gave names to all the animals. Hmmm.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Context is everything.
Earlier in this sermon Jesus had given the disciples a model prayer (Matthew 6:9-13). Now Christ assured the disciples that God welcomes prayer, and urged them to come to Him continuously and persistently. This is emphasized by the present tenses in the verbs: “keep on asking”; “keep on seeking”; “keep on knocking” (Matthew 7:7). Why? Because your Father in heaven (Matthew 7:11) delights in giving good gifts (cf. James 1:17) to those who persist in prayer. (Luke substitutes “the Holy Spirit” for “good gifts,” Luke 11:13.) No decent father would give his son… a stone instead of a round loaf of bread (which looked like a stone), or a snake instead of a similar-appearing fish. If an earthly father, with his sinful (evil) nature, delights to do right materially for his children, it makes sense that the righteous, heavenly Father will much more reward His children spiritually for their persistence. (See also Luke 11:9-13.)
There are no unanswered prayers of the righteous. The answer we get may not be the answer we like, but it will always be the right answer, even when the answer is "no". See here for my favorite sermon illustration on this topic.
I believe the Scriptures provide sufficient explanations for the suffering in this world. See here.
Moreover, praying about the theodicy can only yield one answer: God has a morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil. We know evil really exists. We know there is no evil in God, that God is good, that God is not the author of sin, and God is completely sovereign. Therefore we know that God ordained the existence of evil through secondary causes for a reason that can only be for good. What those reasons fully are we may not know until we are in eternity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do tell us God ordains evil so that His divine purposes may prevail and bring glory to His name (e.g., Genesis 50:20).
Instead of wresting with the theodicy, since everything falls under God’s sovereign control, believers should not be arguing from God’s sovereignty against the evil that men do, but rather they should be arguing that men are responsible for their evil actions and desires under God’s sovereignty.
With a completely sovereign God, there are no senseless acts of evil. Fully knowing and believing that God is sovereign should cause believers peace and confidence, even in the face of horrors like abortion, knowing that while men mean it for evil, God means it for good, and that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).
I don’t like the evil done to me or around me. I wail at God daily about the evil and suffering that crosses paths with my life. Inevitably, the Scriptures supply my answers. For, in the final analysis, I am supremely comforted that God is in complete control, has a plan, and His plan cannot possibly be thwarted by the very same kind of creatures that bring about the evil I wail about.
patman
Active member
I knew that one verse wouldn't show that God gives us answers, so I went back and posted a few more on that post. Sorry I wasn't fast enough for you to address those too.
I actually agree with you on some of your post. I don't think we can get ALL the answers because we are simply not deep enough to understand the vast complexities of the universe. But we can get an idea, and God can give us wisdom if we seek it from him. Even though, obviously, there are more aspects to the sermon on the mount, Jesus is trying to tell us to rely on God for our needs.
Our needs sometimes are in the form of finding information and wisdom. I think there is a strong need for an answer to the problem of evil.
The problem of Evil is one that open theism addresses quite nicely, and one that Calvinism brings up more frequently. I get that you are not bothered by your answer/thoughts, and I get that a person's opinion of an answer is not what makes it right or wrong. But your answer doesn't address the problem. You seem to know that.
Even if you say God doesn't directly cause evil, he can through secondary sources. Of corse that begs the question, "Why cause evil through secondary sources?"
I always liked the analogy of a man throwing a rock and hitting another man killing him. It wasn't actually the man who hit the other man, it was the rock. Yet no reasonable person would say the rock did it, relieving the thrower of the rock of guilt.
You do not have to critique my analogy, but the thought behind it should be addressed. Even if God uses secondary sources to cause evil, isn't it true that by extension God is causing evil?
So there still exists a problem, even with your answer. By shifting the doer of evil away from God, God is still in control of the evil by controlling the secondary causes. You said he did this for good reasons, but that brings up the problem of God (though secondary causes) causing evil that good may come of it.
Was there no other way to bring good about? For an all powerful God who controls everything, surely his goodness and love could find another way to bring about good, even without causing evil via secondary causes?
Do you see what I was telling the californian? The unanswerable questions keep coming. Yet it seems that scripture lends hope that there is an answer to these "why" questions....
It may be hard for you to see why these are problems, because you are comfortable with your views. You said, "I am supremely comforted that God is in complete control, has a plan, and His plan cannot possibly be thwarted by the very same kind of creatures that bring about the evil I wail about."
I agree we cannot thwart him, but because he loves we can influence him to change his mind.
Your verse ref in Gen is something I do not see the same way you do. "God meant it(the evil) for good," doesn't tell me he caused it, it tells me he used it.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I beg to differ. Some "solutions" are akin to tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Unsettled theism's solution is to dilute the sovereignty of God, making Him subject to the wills of His creatures. That is not a solution, but an egalitarian rationalization of what man thinks God should be like, not what God told us He is like.
Let's forget the rock analogy, as it ignores one important operative principle that is in play, that is, the first cause and the second are sentient beings. Continuing...
No, it does not beg the question. I have not stated that God causes evil through secondary sources. You are making incorrect assumptions based upon a desire to make a point or two instead of remaining objective. Continuing...
God is not the author of sin. The Scriptures are clear on this point. They are also clear that man sins of his own self-determined will. These two points are not in dispute. What you are disputing is God's sovereignty.
God's decrees imply the necessity of an event. Rather than repeat myself, please review this.
As above and in the linked discussion, recall that God is not the author of evil. I don't speculate on what God could have done. Such speculation is the playground of those who would like to rationalize a notion of God according to humanistic thinking. I only know what God did in fact do and remain focused on that reality.
Yes, this is the unsettled theist's position, which, unlike your assertion, would have all orthodox persons believe that a sovereign God can be thwarted by His creatures. Or that, contrary to Scripture, God really doesn't know what we need before we ask Him. See here.
Again, God is not the author of evil. The verse clearly demonstrates the principle of God's sovereignty and man's evil will. For example, J. Piper explains:
"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God."
themuzicman
Well-known member
Mr. Religion said:
When will you dump this straw man and actually address Open Theism?
Muz
Giving man free will is within His sovereignty. It does not threaten His rule since He is not finite like we are. He voluntarily chose to create significant others with a say-so. An individual can undermine God's purposes for their lives (hence sin, evil, and hell itself), but they cannot undermine His global project for Himself, man, and the universe.
I agree that AMR rejects a straw man caricature of the open view and fails to appreciate how biblical it is due to his settled theism filter. Give me relational theism any day, not because we want to make God in our image, but because that is how God has revealed Himself and His ways.
patman
Active member
AMR,
I know scripture teaches God is not the author of sin. And I know you try to reconcile this by the secondary causes theory. Thanks for being the only calvinist and S.V.er I've met on TOL who believes this, and tries to remove the sin away from the ordainer.
What I am trying to show you is that the theory is not very sound.
If I talk my brother into killing my sister, and he does it, we are both guilty. If I set up a man to be sold into slavery by making his brothers jealous of him, I am then a tempter. Even though I did only put things in motion, other people did the evil, it is I who am guilty.
God didn't cause any of the things that happened to Joseph to happen, instead he had a plan to make this righteous man a king and along the way people tried to stop it, but God turned things around. See the difference, They did evil, but God did the good with it.
This fits scripture.
I know you think Open Theism brings up a problem by saying God is "thwarted" by man. But Open Theism is based on scripture that says God will change his mind and is willing to do so if people change.
It is his will that none perish. Yet you present a God who uses secondary causes to bring about evil that causes people to perish.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your analogy ignores the fact that you are not God. Let's stay focused on God and His revelations to form doctrine. You continue to use human rationalizations for the mind of God. The Scriptures are clear, God is completely sovereign and He holds man responsible for his actions. Trying to reconcile the two in humanistic terms is futile. But when we stop defining God in our image and accept our creaturehood, there is nothing to discuss. God has not been unclear- He is completely sovereign. The sovereignty of God is clearly in evidence in the Scriptures: Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 33:14-15; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 135:6; Psalms 139:16; Psalms 141:6; Psalms 148:8; Proverbs 16:1; Proverbs 16:33; Proverbs 20:24; Proverbs 21:1; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:11; Galatians 1:15; Jeremiah 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:7.
You offer nothing in support of the exegesis given in my previous response. You are simply relying upon more humanism, reading into the verses and not out of them.
More of the same. More opinions but nothing in response to my commentary previously pointed to you. I doubt you even bothered to read it.
Again, you merely make the same imprecise, incorrect, and unsupported, statement. Try reading and directly responding to my comments in this thread, otherwise we are back to the original trigger of our conversation--you are not precise, seek only to offer homilies and have not shown yourself worthy of any effort to engage sincerely.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Try taking your nose out of books and reading The Book. All you do is illustrate the philosopher's views of God using the rhetoric of the unholy PBS trinity.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When will you dig in, read, and offer something in response worth addressing? For you to say that my answers to tens of questions on the topic, posed by one of the resident leaders of the TOL unsettled theism community, is not addressing the topic is most telling of your sincerity. Shoo fly, don't bother me.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I have read several of your posts, and I find them to be of the same quality drivel as you post here: You make unsupported assertions about Open Theism, build straw men, and then burn them.
To be honest, after a few, I got bored with the same old meaningless drivel you spit out.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
To be just. To be fair.
Adam and Eve were created under the Law of God. God revealed to them what the Law and commands were. God revealed to them exactly what the consequences would be when they disobeyed His commands.
(Note: God never gave Adam an "if" . . .God gave Adam a "when." [Gen. 3:5])
Reading through the O.T. of the many judgments from God against sinful persons and sinful nations, one sees God always gives fair warnings of what their wicked actions will bring upon themselves.
And it is this God-given knowledge that makes all men inexcusable for their evil deeds. (Romans 1:18, 19)
Nang
- Status