ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

Clete,

Should you agree to my proposal, you are free to post here at TOL your unedited versions of any posts you make or receive from my mailing list in response. That way everyone can see if I am a man of my word and only editing the kind of vitriol you demonstrate above. As an example, had you posted the first sentence above to the mailing list, only the word "hypocrite" would have been edited out. This sentence:
"Had you made such on offer when you first arrived I would have jumped at the idea, and probably would have regretted having done so judging by your dishonest and hypocritical behavior since then."

Would have appeared as
"Had you made such on offer when you first arrived I would have jumped at the idea, and probably would have regretted having done so judging by your .... behavior since then."

These edits get made by me with any member of the mailing list I moderate. Very few stoop to these levels, but there are some that get carried away. In over the ten years of the list's existence, only one person has been banned.

As you can see, your points get made, albeit without the hate-mongering. In fact, as demonstrated, you can dispense with these words in any forum and still get your points across with the added advantage of appearing less juvenile.

Again, I ask if you want a forum that will give you a chance to showcase your theological skills "to prove" all the claims you have been making here at TOL. This will be my last offer to you.

By the way, by definition, all open theists are risk takers, Clete.

AMR,

I will not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES allow you to edit one of my posts.

 

[Nang]

I have debated several people on several different forums and have defeated them all without exception.


Where?

Please reference.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Screw you and the horse you came in on.

You're d*** right it doesn't, you stupid hypocrite!

Please go continue feeling content with your fat head in the sand.

No doubt this will not even get so much as a wink from the mods, unlike much less caustic commentary from the non-Clete's here.

 

[Nang]

No doubt this will not even get so much as a wink from the mods, unlike much less caustic commentary from the non-Clete's here.

I would like to be caustic and comment, but I repented.

Plus I received an infraction for repenting, so . . .

Other "non-Clete's" will have to speak up caustically in my place.

Nang
:angel:

Edited to add: I would be really interested to know what the "pro-Cletes" think of their coward spokesman.

 

[Evoken]

AMR,

I will not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES allow you to edit one of my posts.

He is unable to edit the ones you post here, so there shouldn't be a problem. If he edits the ones that appear on his list in any unfair manner, we can compare with your posts here to see what was edited out.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have debated several people on several different forums and have defeated them all without exception.

Why not step up to the big leagues then? Don't be the poor guy on the docks, whining, "I coulda been a contender."

AMR knew when he made the proposal that there was no way in Hell that I would agree to allow him to edit my posts. His proposal therefore amounts to a lie.

This is your only means of rationalizing your decision. You know how shaky this rationalization is, too. I believe I have made way too many posts telling you and others how much I dislike the personalizations included in any discussion of God's sacred topics.

Screw you and the horse you came in on.

This is new, even for you, Clete. Please apologize and ask forgiveness from one of your Christian brothers.

Do you really think I give a rip what you think?

Ah, but you do, why else would you blow a gasket like you have in this post?

If AMR could be trusted, I'd jump at the chance but he can't and so I won't. If anyone is scared it is him. He won't trust me to debate anyone unless he can edit my posts in advance.

Like Knight says, "my list my rules". I have bent over backwards to accommodate you.

Not only has the criterion been changed inside of a single post but by the criteria given in the original proposal I can guarantee you that had I said something remotely like this during the debate, the entire thing would have been considered "sarcastic" and removed.

You are grasping at straws, vainly trying to rationalize your decision. Nothing you said makes sense. I clearly told you what I would do, and gave you the chance to prove me wrong by posting your unedited versions on TOL. That way you can make me out to be the liar you accuse me to be...or demonstrate that I am a man of my word. Don't you see that I would be hyper-vigilent knowing that so many eyes would be watching my actions? You just don't get it at all.

In addition to that he has repeatedly been every bit as insulting toward me as I have been toward him (more so if you ask me) and thus further demonstrates his hypocrisy.

I will grant you that I have turned a sarcastic eye towards you on TOL from time to time. The difference is that I don't resort to pejoratives to make my points. Please point to a single post I have made anywhere to any person wherein I used the words "liar", "hypocrite", "screw", "stupid", "mindless idiot", "fat head", etc. You cannot. I just remembered, I believe I have called you a whiner.

You're d*** right it doesn't, you stupid hypocrite!

Substituted or redacted text for curses is still curses. Please remember that when your children reach their teens.

...you mindless idiot....fat head in the sand.

Just the sort of things that cannot be used in a discussion with the likes of Tiessen, Sanders, Platinga, Hasker, Olson, Ware, and more. I am trying to prevent you from embarrassing not only yourself, but every open theist on the planet.

 

[Clete]

You are a liar.

Good-bye AMR.

 

[Clete]

Now that that stupidity is over....

Would anyone like to attempt to disprove Open Theism here on this forum or not?

 

[Nang]

Now that that stupidity is over....

Would anyone like to attempt to disprove Open Theism here on this forum or not?

Clete,

In just the last 36 hours, you have done more to disprove Open Theism on this forum, than any of your opponents could have hoped to have accomplished in 36 years of argument.

You totally blew it all by yourself, dude . . .

Open Theism is dead.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You are a liar.

Good-bye AMR.

So is your answer to my proposal a "no" or a "yes"?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would anyone like to attempt to disprove Open Theism here on this forum...

...and be defeated without question readthis: <-see link) by Clete?

 

[SOTK]

I have debated several people on several different forums and have defeated them all without exception.

"Saying it doesn't make it so".

AMR knew when he made the proposal that there was no way in Hell that I would agree to allow him to edit my posts. His proposal therefore amounts to a lie. With my counter proposal, at least Knight could be trusted to keep his word.

So, you are now a mind reader?

Screw you and the horse you came in on.

:darwinsm:

I love watching you lose it.

Do you really think I give a rip what you think?

You sound like the juvenile delinquents I work with. They say this all the time when confronted on their behavior. One just stated this tonight when acting out in her cell. You remind me of her. As I stated to her, of course you care, otherwise I wouldn't be seeing this poor behavior out of you.

If AMR could be trusted, I'd jump at the chance but he can't and so I won't. If anyone is scared it is him. He won't trust me to debate anyone unless he can edit my posts in advance.

:yawn:

Thanks for proving yourself to be as stupid as I suspected you to be.

Again, :darwinsm:

I guess the future isn't open, because you're predictable.

This is a lie.

Even within the short context of this ridiculous proposal of his, he has proven himself to be two faced and a liar.

Original proposal...

"...anytime your posts include sarcasm or flippant commentary, those specific words will be edited out while leaving the substance of your remarks intact."​

on his very next post...

"You did not read my offer carefully. I won't edit anything from your posts except your usual pejorative words like "fool", "liar", etc. I am sure it will only take you a few posts to the mailing list before you start including these words, so I want you to know that this type of language won't make it through to the list. In other words, you will have to carry on cogent and meaningful conversations without the name calling. So, you have my word that your points and commentary will not be sanitized other than what I have stated above. Frankly this is for your own good. As I have intimated many times with you, no learned person will suffer through vitriolic comments--they will only dismiss the person making them as simply unworthy of their time or consideration."​

Not only has the criterion been changed inside of a single post but by the criteria given in the original proposal I can guarantee you that had I said something remotely like this during the debate, the entire thing would have been considered "sarcastic" and removed.

AMR, as has been true from the very first day he arrived here has shown an inability to remain within his own stated boundaries and is therefore a hypocrite.

You have failed to prove anything here (at least in my opinion).

In addition to that he has repeatedly been every bit as insulting toward me as I have been toward him (more so if you ask me) and thus further demonstrates his hypocrisy.

I don't find anything which AMR has stated about you to be insulting. I find it accurate.

You're d*** right it doesn't, you stupid hypocrite!

You are awesome, Clete! Just easy to predict!

Yes well that was the idea of making the proposal in the first place, you mindless idiot. But unfortunately for you, saying really doesn't make it so. Not that you care anything about that. Please go continue feeling content with your fat head in the sand.

:darwinsm:

 

[SOTK]

Now that that stupidity is over....

Would anyone like to attempt to disprove Open Theism here on this forum or not?

With you present? :darwinsm:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sounds like Mr. Religion is being reasonable. We have seen the action on TOL, so going to his elite forum sounds like a golden opportunity.

GR, I will make the same proposal to you. I don't think you or I need worry about my having to edit anything from your posts as a moderator, but I will extend the same offer as I made for Clete. What say ye?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Uh... what is this "offer"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete,

In just the last 36 hours, you have done more to disprove Open Theism on this forum, than any of your opponents could have hoped to have accomplished in 36 years of argument.

You totally blew it all by yourself, dude . . .

Open Theism is dead.

Nang

Oh brother... spare us your garbage Nang, you are lucky you haven't been permanently banned, you monumental moron!

You have offered little more than childish, meaningless posts to these threads. I can see why Clete gets so frustrated with you morons. I have been frustrated myself with settled viewers in the past with their impenetrable obfuscation, deception, and flat out lies. I have been down literally every road with the settled viewers... I have devoted mountains of time to carefully responding to their questions, I have had "One on One's" any time one of you have requested it, and I have even made private agreements at the request of my debate partner regarding what I wouldn't do in the debate only to have my opponent break the agreement himself at his first opportunity. Pathetic!!

Sorry Nang but if anything is dead it's Calvinism and the settled view. It's funny, 10 years ago Calvinists were a dime a dozen here on TOL, now almost nobody will admit to the label and the one's that do have redefined the theology so much it almost looks like the open view!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The utter destruction of the Settled View.

And if you feel Dr. Lamerson of D. James Kennedy's Knox Seminary wasn't a qualified enough opponent help us find a better one! We have an open offer (pun intended) for any well-known, published author or theologian/debater that would like to debate Bob in a part II let us know!!!

We have tried to come up with an opponent ourselves and have yet to get anyone to agree to the debate. Yet if any of you have connections and could help "grease the wheels" by all means lets get it going! :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

AMR, I have a question...

Mr. Religion, earlier in this thread you wrote.....

Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label :

1. Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines who shall be made righteous.
2. The elective decree was made in eternity.

Assuming that God's act of election was free (as you say) and was made in eternity (as you say), that insinuates that: A. God is free and B. God made a decision that was unmade prior to it being made.

Therefore... the question is....

Was there a time prior to when God made His elective decree?

Asked another way....

Was there a time when the elect had not been chosen yet?

I wonder if you could answer that question(s) in a simple, easy to follow, non-obfuscated fashion. :think: (you will have to forgive me, I am a simple man and I am not a theologian)

Thank you in advance for your time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Mr. Religion, earlier in this thread you wrote.....Assuming that God's act of election was free (as you say) and was made in eternity (as you say), that insinuates that: A. God is free and B. God made a decision that was unmade prior to it being made.

Knight,

I know you would like me to keep things simple, but when talking about eternity, some complexity in the discussion is required. I will do my best for you.

Yes, God was free and is the only true free Agent in existence.

The assumption you made about the word "made" (!) does not follow what I said. When I say "God made a decision" or "God decides this or that" I am forced to resort to using words having temporal meaning because we have no other ways of describing what God is doing (and even the word "doing" is loaded temporally!) That is why I included the extra qualifier "in eternity". There is no "before" or "after" in eternity. That is, there is no passage of time in eternity, which is the whole, perfect, and simultaneous possession of endless life.

This means simply that God is not in time. That is, for God, there is no past and no future. God possesses the whole of his life at once: it is not lived successively. As such, even the notion of simultaneity must be abandoned when referring to God because the very concept implies time. In other words, God timelessly exists and He is neither earlier nor later nor simultaneous with any event of time. He exists timelessly. Therefore, the whole of eternity is eternally simultaneous with the actual occurrence of every event in time. In other words, from the eternal viewpoint of God everything that has ever happened, is happening, and ever will happen is actually happening timelessly.

Hence God exists outside the bounds of time, without beginning or end. God experiences no succession of moments in His being. God sees all of time “equally vividly”. God created the universe, yet there has never been a moment in God’s mind that the universe did not always exist. From God’s perspective, any extremely long period of time is as if it just happened. Moreover any very short period of time, e.g., one day, seems to God to last forever: it never ceases to be “present” in His consciousness. This is what I mean when stating that God sees the past, present, and future "equally vividly".

Therefore... the question is....
Was there a time prior to when God made His elective decree?

Asked another way....

Was there a time when the elect had not been chosen yet?

I wonder if you could answer that question(s) in a simple, easy to follow, non-obfuscated fashion. (you will have to forgive me, I am a simple man and I am not a theologian)

The answer from what I have described above is no, there was never "a time" when the elect had not been chosen by God. God's decrees, made in eternity, are equally as vivid to God as if He had made them in what we would know as "now" or what we would know as "in an infinite time past".

Having said this, let me be clear in noting that God also sees events in time and can and does act in time. God created time and rules over time, using it for his own purposes and glory. But God’s experience of time nothing like mankind experiences time. God’s does not experience a patient endurance through eons of endless duration, instead God has a qualitatively different experience of time than we do. For example, see Ps. 90:2; Ps. 90:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 45:21; Isa. 46:9-10; Gal. 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31

While on the topic of God's decrees, let me also note that I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian ("subsequent to the fall") confessional view of God’s decrees:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

In the infralapsarian view of the decrees, we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

 

[Delmar]

Knight,

I know you would like me to keep things simple, but when talking about eternity, some complexity in the discussion is required. I will do my best for you.

Yes, God was free and is the only true free Agent in existence.

The assumption you made about the word "made" (!) does not follow what I said. When I say "God made a decision" or "God decides this or that" I am forced to resort to using words having temporal meaning because we have no other ways of describing what God is doing (and even the word "doing" is loaded temporally!) That is why I included the extra qualifier "in eternity". There is no "before" or "after" in eternity. That is, there is no passage of time in eternity, which is the whole, perfect, and simultaneous possession of endless life.

This means simply that God is not in time. That is, for God, there is no past and no future. God possesses the whole of his life at once: it is not lived successively. As such, even the notion of simultaneity must be abandoned when referring to God because the very concept implies time. In other words, God timelessly exists and He is neither earlier nor later nor simultaneous with any event of time. He exists timelessly. Therefore, the whole of eternity is eternally simultaneous with the actual occurrence of every event in time. In other words, from the eternal viewpoint of God everything that has ever happened, is happening, and ever will happen is actually happening timelessly.

Hence God exists outside the bounds of time, without beginning or end. God experiences no succession of moments in His being. God sees all of time “equally vividly”. God created the universe, yet there has never been a moment in God’s mind that the universe did not always exist. From God’s perspective, any extremely long period of time is as if it just happened. Moreover any very short period of time, e.g., one day, seems to God to last forever: it never ceases to be “present” in His consciousness. This is what I mean when stating that God sees the past, present, and future "equally vividly".

The answer from what I have described above is no, there was never "a time" when the elect had not been chosen by God. God's decrees, made in eternity, are equally as vivid to God as if He had made them in what we would know as "now" or what we would know as "in an infinite time past".

Having said this, let me be clear in noting that God also sees events in time and can and does act in time. God created time and rules over time, using it for his own purposes and glory. But God’s experience of time nothing like mankind experiences time. God’s does not experience a patient endurance through eons of endless duration, instead God has a qualitatively different experience of time than we do. For example, see Ps. 90:2; Ps. 90:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; John 8:58; Ex. 3:14; Isa. 45:21; Isa. 46:9-10; Gal. 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31

While on the topic of God's decrees, let me also note that I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian ("subsequent to the fall") confessional view of God’s decrees:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

In the infralapsarian view of the decrees, we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

I always wonder how the "God outside of time"believers came to this conclusion. It certainly isn't spelled out in scripture.