ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Aimey]

it sounds to me as though chatmaggot is making logical summary
of the totality of mr.religion's theology.

the fact that it does not seem to be very logical or reflect well on the
reader's impression of the god created by such a theology is not his problem.

 

[Evoken]

I'm certainly able to come to consensus since I don't see any point in 'straining over a gnat' to distinguish the two views. It's the Molinists and Thomists which insist it is more than a matter of perception.

The issues are certainly more than skin deep. There is a reason for the centuries old impasse

Synergism. What is the official stance of the Church? Monergism or Synergism?

While I think that both terms even when used together fail to encompass the Catholic view of grace, for the sake of this discussion we can use them. While some fellow Catholics say that the stance of The Church is synergism, I think this is probably done more as a reaction against Hyper-Calvinism and it's insistence in monergism to the exclusion of anything else. I actually believe that what is consistent with the teaching of The Church is a combination of both. Our view is monergistic with regards to God's grace and synergistic with regards to our cooperation with grace. However, we do not believe neither in faith + works nor that God does 50% of the process of salvation and that we do the other 50%. Rather, our ability to cooperate as well as our cooperation itself comes from the grace of God and not out of our own power. And it is in this last point where I think Molinism is problematic.

This is true if we ignore the fact that creation exists and continues to do so through His actions. Person X acts according to person X's God given nature in a given set of circumstances(decreed to exist by God); then X's consent to grace does indeed come from Him and not autonomously and independently from Our Lord.

In other words, God's seperately decreed acts......

man{monergistic act}
grace(environment, stimuli){monergistic act})

.....work synergistically to produce a greater outcome! It isn't man's actions at all, but God's which produce this greater outcome.

The problem I see with this view is that you seem to define grace as a set circumstances and not as something supernatural which is caused by God that enlightens and excites the soul of man and that is actually infused into it. Neither of the two monergistic elements that you have here is God as the cause of grace. The role of God here seems to be that he just set up a stage where he determined the outcome and then sort of let it run on it's own. What I stated above about synergism and monergism has in mind God as the cause of supernatural grace and man's ability to cooperate with said grace after being enlightened by God. Thus, I believe that what I said in my previous post, that the power of grace is diluted and that the movement of creatures is autonomous in this view (and here I am referring to not just that God determined how the creature would move but that no movement can take place apart from God as it's first cause) still holds. I also think this view is less intimate as far as our relationship with God goes as it seems to gravitate (at least slightly) towards deism. I wonder how you would fit prayer into this scheme.

What I'm saying is that synergism exists within monergism. If Thomists and Calvinists wish to focus on monergism soley, then it makes sense to view the world from a predestinate point of view; but this avoids the complexity and subtlety which is apparent within creation.

I cannot speak for Calvinists here, but Thomist do accept synergism we just give "primacy" to the monergistic aspect when it comes to grace.

I believe Molinists would agree that those two type of knowledge are sufficient, and that scientia media is in fact unnecessary. Scientia media, however, does allow us a method for discussing the area which bridges possibility and actuality within God's knowledge.
Possibility------->(Scientia Media or Choice)-------->Actuality
This is where the Molinist makes the same human error. These events did not occur linearly! For God: actuality, the decision, and possibility occured simultaneously. So it is correct to say, "God foreknows because what He decrees"; and, it's just as correct to say, "God decrees because of what He foreknows."

Well if you think scientia media is unnecessary then you have moved one step towards Thomism

That said, Molinists do conceive scientia media as real as the other two types of knowledge and don't see it only as s simple method for discussing things. After all, it is by this that they seek to preserve human liberty and their teachings on grace. Of course, you are not obliged to hold to the exact views of Molinism even within Catholicism. There are views such as Syncretism which try to combine elements from the different systems. Not that I find the view coherent myself, but it is there and is a legitimate option.

The answer is: The Grace provided is not coercive in nature, so the salutary act is completely free while the Grace provided remains sufficient to its purpose. This balance is hard to describe and theodicy remains a problem in all views. My personal belief is that the law retains the power to convict the natural man. The first man you speak of is less damaged by his environment than the second even if outwardly it might appear otherwise. God provides special graces to some such as Saul and Abram, in order to perform a 'special' work in them for the entire human race. The application of grace is according to God's desire alone. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that God is free in distributing grace to whomever he wills. However, I notice that you do not distinguish between sufficient and efficacious grace here. Given that you seem to define grace as a set of circumstances (per the above) I would ask in what sense do you conceive the salutary act to be completely free and that the grace is not "coercive". If by this you mean that God provides sufficient grace and that man by his own power makes this grace efficacious with his consent without any further help from God, then this is indeed the Molinist position. The Thomistic view says that God provides sufficient grace to man and that if not resisted man receives by God's mercy through sufficient grace the efficacious grace from God which infallibly leads him freely (without doing injury to free will) to the performance of the salutary act. While I admit that there is an element of mystery of the relationship between grace and freedom which is difficult to explain and that forces us to hold certain truths in tension, I find the Thomistic view of grace to be more consistent with Scripture and the overall teachings of The Church than the Molinist conception. I'll try and explain why.

The Council of Orange held in 529 A.D. to address the Pelagian heresy erected some canons that The Church still holds as dogmatic today. They made a strong emphasis on the necessity of grace for the performance of any supernatural good. Here are some of them:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,...

CANON 6. If anyone [...] does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought...

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.​

Note the emphasis on the absolute necessity of grace in order for fallen man to will and dol any supernatural good. From the above canons some key teachings of The Church follow (adapted from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp. 226-227 and 229):

1) "There is a supernatural intervention of God in the soul which precedes the free act of the will."
2) "There is a supernatural influence of God in the soul which coincides in time with the free act of will."
3) "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God is absolutely necessary."

So, not only does God provides grace before our act as to inspire us to will to do good (1) but he also provides another grace for the performance of the good that we will to do (2). And this is not just for one salutary act, such as having faith, but for every salutary act (3). So, God doesn't just provides us with grace and then awaits our response or gives us grace so that we may by our own powers make use of it. Rather, our response and cooperation with grace is itself effected by the grace of God which carries our will freely to the performance of the salutary act. This is why the Scripture affirms: "without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5) and "Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God." (2 Corinthians 3:5). We need the grace of God both to will and to accomplish (Philippians 2:13).

Another teaching of The Church that must be taken into consideration is: "Fallen man cannot redeem himself". Among other things what this means is that in the state of fallen nature man can do only that which is proportionate to his nature and a salutary act, being supernatural in nature, exceeds the capacity of mans fallen nature and for its performance man needs a special help from God, as St. Thomas maintains (ST IIa q.109 a.2). This help from God is not just something that helps us do more or less better as if it were only a help from him that we can use by ourselves to act (See: Canons II & III, Session VI of Trent), rather, as the canons of Orange above express, our very act is the product of this help from God.

Thus, from this it follows that efficacious grace is efficacious in itself and not due to our consent, as is the contention of Molinism. Because our consent itself is effected by the power of grace and it being of a supernatural nature exceeds the power of fallen nature and must have a supernatural cause. Likewise, if grace were made efficacious by our consent, we would have some good which did not come from God that would distinguish ourselves and by which we could boast, contrary to the affirmations of Scripture: "For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) and "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17).

Under this view, a man would be better than the other by his own power without receiving any further help from God, contrary to the principle of predilection laid down by St. Thomas: "For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things...no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another." (ST I q.20 a.3). Which as the above verses demonstrate (and others such as John 6:44, 1 Corinthians 15:10, John 3:27) is a Scriptural principle.

I would answer theodicy just as you would. God gives His gifts according to God's own desire. Is this just?

He is certainly just in giving grace to whom he wills and withholding it as well as grace is a free gift that cannot be merited by man, so God doesn't owns it to anyone. Thus we cannot say that God is unjust in giving grace to one and not to the other as it is not something we have a right to.

Just as AMR will affirm. Positive reprobation is being rejected by most Christians. The problem only occurs when synergism is rejected as invalid. I think I explained my position on this above.

Synergism is admitted, and certainly cannot be denied. It is just a matter of what exactly is meant by it. As I said, I think both the monergistic and synergistic labels fail to capture the whole Catholic view. However, I think that your view that synergism exists within monergism is probably on the right track. By it I take it to mean that the grace of God supports and accompanies the entire supernatural act of man in such away that what is done by man is the product of God's grace (both the will to do good and the act itself per the above) and his resistance would be solely of his own doing.

This is turning into a pretty good dialogue. It's nice not getting the one line responses from the 'ots' in response to hours of work. Thanks.

Indeed, it has been quite an enjoyable exchange I know what you mean about the one line responses (read: assertions) some like to make in response to people's posts. I think it only shows and lack of respect and consideration for the work of others.


Evo

 

[godrulz]

Not only won't you extend the courtesy of a quote to whom you are replying (Lon), but you won't even read and respond directly to his thoughtful post. Instead you paste you usual reply whenever you see the word 'eternity' used. You frequently claim it is childish to ignore others. Yet you think 'ignore' merely means not seeing one's post on the screen. Do you not see that it is you who truly ignores?

Shut up.

My post immediately followed his and I do not need to quote his long post with a brief reply for people to follow the thread. There is no disrespect, just efficiency. I read his post and we have bantered before about this. I summarize an alternate view to remind people equally capable, godly believes are dialoguing about 4 views. Many uncritically accept 'eternal now' as I once did. I believe there are more biblical views, so I recommend people who are interested study all views. Do I have to do here here here here to all our old discussions on the topic? This thread is OT, not just eternity views.

If I answered every lon, rob, amr post in detail (why not criticize others for not doing so?), it would often get ignored and would be the same running in circles. These guys (maybe not amr) can be frustrating, like talking to a wall. They can be challenged and refuted, but they act like they are deaf and dumb and also say the same things over and over demanding answers to the same questions that several have answered, but not to their liking.

Why are you a bully? Were you bullied as a kid? Do you see Knight or anyone engaging every post in great detail? I am a prolific poster, but I will do so as my interest and time allows. At some point, with some people, I skim and move on because I have nothing new to say that I have not already said. For someone who puts me on ignore (who knows what you miss?) or does not answer many of my posts, you are a nervy hypocrite to always bleat about my choices.:bang:

 

[godrulz]

The issues are certainly more than skin deep. There is a reason for the centuries old impasse




While I think that both terms even when used together fail to encompass the Catholic view of grace, for the sake of this discussion we can use them. While some fellow Catholics say that the stance of The Church is synergism, I think this is probably done more as a reaction against Hyper-Calvinism and it's insistence in monergism to the exclusion of anything else. I actually believe that what is consistent with the teaching of The Church is a combination of both. Our view is monergistic with regards to God's grace and synergistic with regards to our cooperation with grace. However, we do not believe neither in faith + works nor that God does 50% of the process of salvation and that we do the other 50%. Rather, our ability to cooperate as well as our cooperation itself comes from the grace of God and not out of our own power. And it is in this last point where I think Molinism is problematic.




The problem I see with this view is that you seem to define grace as a set circumstances and not as something supernatural which is caused by God that enlightens and excites the soul of man and that is actually infused into it. Neither of the two monergistic elements that you have here is God as the cause of grace. The role of God here seems to be that he just set up a stage where he determined the outcome and then sort of let it run on it's own. What I stated above about synergism and monergism has in mind God as the cause of supernatural grace and man's ability to cooperate with said grace after being enlightened by God. Thus, I believe that what I said in my previous post, that the power of grace is diluted and that the movement of creatures is autonomous in this view (and here I am referring to not just that God determined how the creature would move but that no movement can take place apart from God as it's first cause) still holds. I also think this view is less intimate as far as our relationship with God goes as it seems to gravitate (at least slightly) towards deism. I wonder how you would fit prayer into this scheme.




I cannot speak for Calvinists here, but Thomist do accept synergism we just give "primacy" to the monergistic aspect when it comes to grace.




Well if you think scientia media is unnecessary then you have moved one step towards Thomism

That said, Molinists do conceive scientia media as real as the other two types of knowledge and don't see it only as s simple method for discussing things. After all, it is by this that they seek to preserve human liberty and their teachings on grace. Of course, you are not obliged to hold to the exact views of Molinism even within Catholicism. There are views such as Syncretism which try to combine elements from the different systems. Not that I find the view coherent myself, but it is there and is a legitimate option.




I agree that God is free in distributing grace to whomever he wills. However, I notice that you do not distinguish between sufficient and efficacious grace here. Given that you seem to define grace as a set of circumstances (per the above) I would ask in what sense do you conceive the salutary act to be completely free and that the grace is not "coercive". If by this you mean that God provides sufficient grace and that man by his own power makes this grace efficacious with his consent without any further help from God, then this is indeed the Molinist position. The Thomistic view says that God provides sufficient grace to man and that if not resisted man receives by God's mercy through sufficient grace the efficacious grace from God which infallibly leads him freely (without doing injury to free will) to the performance of the salutary act. While I admit that there is an element of mystery of the relationship between grace and freedom which is difficult to explain and that forces us to hold certain truths in tension, I find the Thomistic view of grace to be more consistent with Scripture and the overall teachings of The Church than the Molinist conception. I'll try and explain why.

The Council of Orange held in 529 A.D. to address the Pelagian heresy erected some canons that The Church still holds as dogmatic today. They made a strong emphasis on the necessity of grace for the performance of any supernatural good. Here are some of them:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,...

CANON 6. If anyone [...] does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought...

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.​

Note the emphasis on the absolute necessity of grace in order for fallen man to will and dol any supernatural good. From the above canons some key teachings of The Church follow (adapted from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp. 226-227 and 229):

1) "There is a supernatural intervention of God in the soul which precedes the free act of the will."
2) "There is a supernatural influence of God in the soul which coincides in time with the free act of will."
3) "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God is absolutely necessary."

So, not only does God provides grace before our act as to inspire us to will to do good (1) but he also provides another grace for the performance of the good that we will to do (2). And this is not just for one salutary act, such as having faith, but for every salutary act (3). So, God doesn't just provides us with grace and then awaits our response or gives us grace so that we may by our own powers make use of it. Rather, our response and cooperation with grace is itself effected by the grace of God which carries our will freely to the performance of the salutary act. This is why the Scripture affirms: "without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5) and "Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God." (2 Corinthians 3:5). We need the grace of God both to will and to accomplish (Philippians 2:13).

Another teaching of The Church that must be taken into consideration is: "Fallen man cannot redeem himself". Among other things what this means is that in the state of fallen nature man can do only that which is proportionate to his nature and a salutary act, being supernatural in nature, exceeds the capacity of mans fallen nature and for its performance man needs a special help from God, as St. Thomas maintains (ST IIa q.109 a.2). This help from God is not just something that helps us do more or less better as if it were only a help from him that we can use by ourselves to act (See: Canons II & III, Session VI of Trent), rather, as the canons of Orange above express, our very act is the product of this help from God.

Thus, from this it follows that efficacious grace is efficacious in itself and not due to our consent, as is the contention of Molinism. Because our consent itself is effected by the power of grace and it being of a supernatural nature exceeds the power of fallen nature and must have a supernatural cause. Likewise, if grace were made efficacious by our consent, we would have some good which did not come from God that would distinguish ourselves and by which we could boast, contrary to the affirmations of Scripture: "For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) and "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17).

Under this view, a man would be better than the other by his own power without receiving any further help from God, contrary to the principle of predilection laid down by St. Thomas: "For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things...no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another." (ST I q.20 a.3). Which as the above verses demonstrate (and others such as John 6:44, 1 Corinthians 15:10, John 3:27) is a Scriptural principle.




He is certainly just in giving grace to whom he wills and withholding it as well as grace is a free gift that cannot be merited by man, so God doesn't owns it to anyone. Thus we cannot say that God is unjust in giving grace to one and not to the other as it is not something we have a right to.




Synergism is admitted, and certainly cannot be denied. It is just a matter of what exactly is meant by it. As I said, I think both the monergistic and synergistic labels fail to capture the whole Catholic view. However, I think that your view that synergism exists within monergism is probably on the right track. By it I take it to mean that the grace of God supports and accompanies the entire supernatural act of man in such away that what is done by man is the product of God's grace (both the will to do good and the act itself per the above) and his resistance would be solely of his own doing.




Indeed, it has been quite an enjoyable exchange I know what you mean about the one line responses (read: assertions) some like to make in response to people's posts. I think it only shows and lack of respect and consideration for the work of others.


Evo

Look. I can quote a long post. I'm too tired to answer every detail, but I could give some comments. I don't want to steal AMR's thunder, so go for it. You apparently have more time and brains than I do. If you do not do it, that must prove that you are a jerk who cannot answer the post in detail.

 

[godrulz]

This is what our attitude should be from a mature, intelligent, humble Open Theist (Sanders) and Calvinist (Chris Hall) in "Does God have a future" debate:

"Many evangelical institutions only allow professors to teach doctrine, not to do theology. One prominent evangelical historian has told me that most of the brightest evangelical minds of the past 30 years have gone into philosophy instead of theology because they see what the gatekeepers of evangelica orthodoxy do to those who question the status quo (i.e. afraid of losing their jobs). Presently, evangelicalism is witnessing the resurgence of a fundamentalist spirit- a meanness of heart and drawing of narrow doctrinal boundaries. This saddens me greatly, for I do not find such messengers 'bearers of good news'. If we are going to overcome the scandal of the evangelical mind, we are going to have to stand up to these individuals, point out their unseemly tactics, and practice the dialogical virtues (see Jay Wood of Wheaton College)."


Nicholas Wolterstorff (shares my view of time/eternity) recites the following weekly to his students (the Calvinist like it):

"Thou must not take cheap shots. Thou must not sit in judgment until thou hast done thy best to understand. Thou must earn thy right to disagree. Thou must conduct thyself as if Plato or Augustine, Clement or Tertullian, were sitting across the table- the point being that is is much more difficult (I don't say impossible) to dishonor someone to his face."

"While some of the topics we have discussed are easy to comprehend, others are extremely difficult. We hope that, at least, our readers now understand that this issue is not a simple one with an open-and-shut case for one side (rulz- Sanders won the day in my mind and Clete's mind). Anyone who believes this matter is simple and easily settled has not understood the problems. Putting forth a few biblical proof texts does not end the discussion, for people on different sides of this debate are seriously engaged with Scripture. It is fine to come to a conclusion on this matter and take a position, but please do not think those people STUPID who take a different view."

Mystery and Beloved57 will not get this. I believe most others do understand this as we strive together to do theology with excellence.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I skim and move on because I have nothing new to say that I have not already said.

It would be just too easy to respond to this. :chew:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Look. I can quote a long post.

You know how to quote a long post? You quote just a few lines. That way everyone knows who you are responding to. That was my point earlier. But you were in robo-post mode and did not bother to understand it. Carry on.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Mystery and Beloved57 will not get this. I believe most others do understand this as we strive together to do theology with excellence.

When you are ready to actually "do theology", please let me know.

 

[godrulz]

When you are ready to actually "do theology", please let me know.

God is not a platonic 'eternal now' divine simultaneity.

He expressly has tensed expressions used about Him. There is before and after, even for God. He is from everlasting to everlasting, experiencing endless time/duration. He is not timeless (show me the proof text for that one).

Do I have to ramble on and on (I pointed you to a book length treatment of this and a summary article) in order for you to think there is truth value in statements? Muslims and Mormons can drone on and on with false views. Length or detail is not the norm in biblical statements.


John 1:1 is packed with info. Books could be written about it, but are not necessary to accept the truth value of a sentence or two.

Where is mystery? I need a break from AMR.

AMR: you still have not credibly answered how you ended up with a plagiarized quote from Hodge passing it off as your own. The source you claimed to use does not seem to line up with Hodge, so you have not explained anything.

You want to attack my integrity and credibility in an arrogant manner? Let's here your defense that you seemed to have ignored hoping it will go away? Are you an academic fraud?

 

[chatmaggot]

I don't know what point you are making, other than restarting something that has been well worn in this (read from the linked post forward) thread. Nothing in what you have cobbled together is contradictory--other than your own misunderstanding of what I said.

That Adam could not do otherwise does not rob Adam of his self-determination. When Adam decided to take a bite, he did so of his own volition. Yes, he really, really, wanted to do as he did. That the circumstances were such that he could nothing other than what he was inclined to do, is the essence of compatibilism. You want Adam to have the ability "to do otherwise", to have libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference. No such freedom exists on this earth as long as God is our sovereign ruler.

Rather than pick at snippets of what I write (and persons wonder why I have to be so precise :think, why not spend time reviewing the posts in the thread linked above and formulating some responses in that thread using the full measure of the discussion by all parties therein?

I know that not everyone reads every thread. I was simply pulling thoughts from multiple threads in order to create better view. Perhaps those that read this thread were not aware of your thoughts on Adam's inability to do otherwise or your statement about how you never denied that man has a choice.

I thought it was relevant since you stated that:

I don't know why God permits you to do as you do.

That seemed odd that on one hand you state that God orchestrates everything (around the person and within the person) so that what man wants is what God wanted them to want (and determined them to want)...but on the other hand you imply that God permits man to do something...almost as if man chose to do something.

 

[godrulz]

I may desire something and be strongly inclined to want something, but that does not mean I have to act on those impulses (one can use their will to resist temptation and can be sexually pure, despite strong desires to lust; one can become a drunkard or glutton or not, regardless of desires).

Desires are influential, not causative. They do not negate genuine contingency, being able to chose habitually or exceptionally. Desires are not causative, so are not predictable with certainty until the possible choices become actualized and certain.

Compatibilism does not explain anything, but tries to water down the implications of God being omnicausal in light of self-evident free will. The will, not desires, are the root of moral and mundane choice. We don't have to act according to our wrong desires. Why would a holy God give Hitler desires to kill Jews and then hold him responsible for something he supposedly could not help?

 

[Nang]

Why would a holy God give Hitler desires to kill Jews and then hold him responsible for something he supposedly could not help?

Hitler was an instrument of judgment in the hands of Sovereign God? An instrument already condemned for his willful unbelief and sins?

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Hitler was an instrument of judgment in the hands of Sovereign God? An instrument already condemned for his willful unbelief and sins?

Nang

The people who saved many Jews during the war are instruments in the hands of God, even though they were not Christians.

Hitler was demon possessed and an instrument in the hands of the enemy. He opposed God; he did not do God's will. I know the times God used evil nations to discipline Israel, but then judged them, but this is not parallel. Hitler is heinous evil, not righteous judgment.

Your blueprint model impugns the character of God. The gospels (Jesus is God) reveals a warfare model, which reflects reality and God's revelation.

You need a paradigm shift away from a preconceived theology to a biblical one.

This is why the sovereign God has put you in my life. Be quiet and listen:sam:

 

[Nang]

The people who saved many Jews during the war are instruments in the hands of God, even though they were not Christians.

I agree. All earthly charity is under the control of Sovereign God.

Hitler was demon possessed and an instrument in the hands of the enemy.

Who do you believe was the "enemy?" All ungodly enemies are under the control of Sovereign God.

He opposed God; he did not do God's will.

Sovereign God utilized Hitlers unbelief, for Sovereign God controls all unbelieving, wicked men.

I know the times God used evil nations to discipline Israel, but then judged them, but this is not parallel. Hitler is heinous evil, not righteous judgment.

All evil and all calamities are judgment from God against ungodly men. All judgments are controlled by Sovereign God.

Your blueprint model impugns the character of God.

Only in your mind. But Sovereign God controls your mind, too.

The gospels (Jesus is God) reveals a warfare model, which reflects reality and God's revelation.

You need a paradigm shift away from a preconceived theology to a biblical one.

This is why the sovereign God has put you in my life. Be quiet and listen:sam:

Sovereign God controls my postings . . . not godrulz.

His will be done.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Nang is under the clutches of mind control...iRobot.

Can people not think ungodly thoughts without God being responsible for them? Can you not type with your creativity without blaming God. You are not a sock puppet. Some people and some angelic beings do things contrary to God's will. Your hyper-sovereignty view makes God responsible for evil and you responsible for nothing.

Loving sovereignty is not about control, but about relationship. Have you not read the Bible? His will is not always done; that is why things are such a mess and God must intervene to redeem. Things are not the way God intended. He does not delight in the rape and murder of children nor does He cause it. Delaying justice is not denying it.

Cults use mind control; God uses love-control. He is providential, not omnicausal, in His sovereignty. Man is in the image of God, not the image of a cult leader.

 

[godrulz]

more Sanders/Hall wisdom:

"...we share a number of commitments. We believe that any theological proposal must fit well with Scripture...Both of us believe that we should seek to preserve the insights produced by the Christian communion over the centuries while at the same time recognizing that theology is produced by humans and should be open to reform. We need not fear examining issues from various perspectives (except mystery, my nemesis). If our position is true it will hold up. If it is only partially true or even false, we want to know that so we can make the necessary changes. Also, we affirm that the process of debating proposed reforms takes time, decades or more, and so we should be wary of those who want to cut off discussion (ETS- rulz). Moreover, we see constructive theological debate as a sign of vitality, not decline, in evangelicalism. In fact, it is absolutely essential if we are to overcome what Mark Noll has called 'the scandal of the evangelical mind."


Please do not expect me to resolve these issues by myself in a few posts. If I had to read 4 views on God and time to understand the issues to make an informed conclusion, don't expect me to always spoon feed people to keep them from wrestling with detailed information from the sources (pro and con).

 

[Lon]

Shut up.

My post immediately followed his and I do not need to quote his long post with a brief reply for people to follow the thread. There is no disrespect, just efficiency. I read his post and we have bantered before about this. I summarize an alternate view to remind people equally capable, godly believes are dialoguing about 4 views. Many uncritically accept 'eternal now' as I once did. I believe there are more biblical views, so I recommend people who are interested study all views. Do I have to do here here here here to all our old discussions on the topic? This thread is OT, not just eternity views.

If I answered every lon, rob, amr post in detail (why not criticize others for not doing so?), it would often get ignored and would be the same running in circles. These guys (maybe not amr) can be frustrating, like talking to a wall. They can be challenged and refuted, but they act like they are deaf and dumb and also say the same things over and over demanding answers to the same questions that several have answered, but not to their liking.

Why are you a bully? Were you bullied as a kid? Do you see Knight or anyone engaging every post in great detail? I am a prolific poster, but I will do so as my interest and time allows. At some point, with some people, I skim and move on because I have nothing new to say that I have not already said. For someone who puts me on ignore (who knows what you miss?) or does not answer many of my posts, you are a nervy hypocrite to always bleat about my choices.:bang:

I act like I'm deaf? You missed the point I made and simply restated one of your authors. It isn't valid. He was proved wrong in my address and it is you that ignored the proof and acted deaf. I proved unequivocally that God cannot experience sequential movement as we do. If you would read and understand what I wrote you'd recognize there is and can ever only be one truthful position on an eternal past. That is the reason you got slammed, not for any other reason. It was not only compelling, it should have been the end of the discussion.

 

[Lon]

God is not a platonic 'eternal now' divine simultaneity.

He expressly has tensed expressions used about Him. There is before and after, even for God. He is from everlasting to everlasting, experiencing endless time/duration. He is not timeless (show me the proof text for that one).

Do I have to ramble on and on (I pointed you to a book length treatment of this and a summary article) in order for you to think there is truth value in statements? Muslims and Mormons can drone on and on with false views. Length or detail is not the norm in biblical statements.


John 1:1 is packed with info. Books could be written about it, but are not necessary to accept the truth value of a sentence or two.

Where is mystery? I need a break from AMR.

AMR: you still have not credibly answered how you ended up with a plagiarized quote from Hodge passing it off as your own. The source you claimed to use does not seem to line up with Hodge, so you have not explained anything.

You want to attack my integrity and credibility in an arrogant manner? Let's here your defense that you seemed to have ignored hoping it will go away? Are you an academic fraud?

If you keep bringing this up, you will need to prove your post by typing in and laying side by side the exact copy plagerized. It has to be literally and virtually the same wording to be a plagerism. I seriously doubt anything other than a few coincidal remarks.

 

[RobE]

If I answered every lon, rob, amr post in detail (why not criticize others for not doing so?), it would often get ignored and would be the same running in circles. These guys (maybe not amr) can be frustrating, like talking to a wall. They can be challenged and refuted, but they act like they are deaf and dumb and also say the same things over and over demanding answers to the same questions that several have answered, but not to their liking.

I think you're missing the process. There hasn't been a challenge to my question except for Muz running for John 6:44 and Clete suggesting that knowing isn't really knowing. Just statement of conclusion without argument is what you provide to Lee and I. If you argue against the question then you should assume that someone is going to challenge your argument. Each point must be addressed. If you are able to provide a format for answering the question I'm all ears. I hate the circular nature of this thread. Are you able to provide a format where we are able to move forward answering each question and counter question?

As far as refutation, I'm more than willing to look at any post(s) which you believe have achieved this and use it as a starting point.

 

[Bob Hill]

In John 6:45 it says, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Then He said in verse 47, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me has everlasting life."

In Christ,
Bob Hill