SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sheesh, Clete...I feel sorry for your employees down at the warehouse.
Do they walk around on pins & needles?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Sheesh, Clete...I feel sorry for your employees down at the warehouse.
Do they walk around on pins & needles?
elected4ever
New member
I never used the term exhaustive foreknowledge and Clete is fighting against the wind. It is to bad that Clete pits himself against God. Clete has molded God into his own image. How dare God know what Clete is up to. Clete's motto seems to be,"Look God, see what I choose to do for you." Clete's theology is self centered and self aggrandizement. He is more interested in what others think of his carnal legalism and morality than being humbled before the God he pretends to serve. Clete knows that God's foreknowledge does not prevent him from doing anything. It is just a pretext to give Clete the opportunity to give himself a supposed carnal, moral standing so he can justify condemning others. He would make a good Roman Catholic Priest.
Last edited:
Philetus
New member
That's two. :sigh:
... Then in your MHO there is such a thing as a 'good' Roman Catholic Priest.?! :crackup:
Irregardless (screech), you are really eaten-up with it aren't you?
Is there anything about the future that God doesn't know?
Philetus
I love 'blithering idiots'! Don't you?
Philetus
New member
Sheesh, Clete...I feel sorry for your employees down at the warehouse.
Do they walk around on pins & needles?
They drive armored fork lifts and wear Jesus proof vests and I'll bet E4e wouldn't last till lunch the first day on the job.
P
Philetus
New member
chicken
Philetus
New member
lee_merrill
New member
So I'm wondering how God knows only a remnant will be saved...
themuzicman
Well-known member
That's not surprise, since your presuppositions rule that out.
However, for anyone who has read this thread, your question has already been answered, and you're looking more and more like the homeless guy holding a sign tht says "the end is near".
Muz
RobE
New member
I did answer the question. I just didn't answer it in a way you could comprehend. Perhaps if you would answer your own question, then I might be able to know in advance what you wish the answer to be.
Here's the question:
Yorzhik: The knowledge of that being wouldn't and couldn't have caused any of the events in its knowledge. I've said this all along (and Clete would agree). So do you know enough about the OV position to understand why we are OV despite saying this?
Here's my answer:
RobE: Yes. We understand why you say this. God's necessary knowledge means that something necessarily causes the action in the future. I agree. The component which seems to elude the o.v. mindset is this: If that cause is your own will, then your will remains free. The only way that your position is satisified is if something other than your will is the cause of the action.
Your objection to my answer was:
"Rob, you just went off on your own tangent." and "So if you ever get on topic I'll try and respond."
Since my answer is 'off topic' perhaps you are able to provide me with the topic through your own answer. So, that being said, why are you determined to adhere to open theism despite believing God's foreknowledge doesn't cause future events?
RobE
New member
I would say that God foreknows free decisions; or, God determines to save some and refuses to save others. Otherwise, maybe all would be saved or none would be saved.
What other viable options are there?
RobE
New member
And anyone who has read your response(that God gives grace to those who will be saved and refuses grace to those who will not be saved- John 6:44) understands that your answer is incompatible with open theism --- despite its being completely compatible with Calvinism. Need I provide your posted responses here?
elected4ever
New member
God does not interfere with free will decisions because God gave man the authority to choose for himself. This in no way prevents God from knowing.
themuzicman
Well-known member
You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said. You've demonstrated that repeatedly.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
I think Open Theism rules it out.
How so? Saying "you've been answered" does not constitute a good argument, sans good arguments.
themuzicman
Well-known member
That's because you don't understand Open Theism, primarily by choice.
Your asking the question doesn't make it a good question, either, especially given the lengths to which others have given you good answers.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
Well, I have been told it's group dynamics, but its not about odds, as Philetus said, that it means "all who will be saved will be saved," but there was no reason to state that, and that God chooses who will be saved and who will not.
I agree with the latter, but this is Calvinism.
Which answer is the correct answer, then?
Thanks--
themuzicman
Well-known member
Given your presupposition that OVT is wrong, discussion with you is not profitable.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
Muz knows my thought processes, and that I have a presupposition, and am not here to really discuss? But no answer is well, no answer.
This I think is the flag of surrender--time to resume my eulogy for the Open View, it would seem.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Time to eulogize the opposition to OVT. The only way you can possibly maintain your opposition to OVT is to presuppose it. Your arguments have all failed.
Muz
lee_merrill
New member
I'm not going to play along with this, Muz, you all have given me three different incompatible answers, and the first two are clearly incorrect, and the last is Calvinism. I also was told that God is supremely able to do what he sets out to do, and in the area of salvation, this also is Calvinism.
So I now close the book on the Open View, this talk about presuppositions is a smoke screen, since these are the "good answers." I agree that Calvinism is a good answer, though...
Blessings,
Lee
- Status