Then Lighthouse clarified his above statment with the following statement:
Based on the above statments, could you then please explain how your belief in libertarian free will had anything to do with your salvation?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Then Lighthouse clarified his above statment with the following statement:
Based on the above statments, could you then please explain how your belief in libertarian free will had anything to do with your salvation?
Who said I believe in Libertarian Free Will?
I was talking to AMR, not you. And the thin excuse I referred to was his suggestion that you hadn't answered because I replaced some of your meaningless personal attacks with "blah blah blah". I just didn't buy that as a good excuse not to explain your accusations against God.
You responded but you didn't answer. Again, please explain how you are not accusing God of rape? Your statement clearly makes that very accusation and you still refuse to even address it.
It dwells right here on this forum. Look:
And again here:
Will you continue to refuse to address this? And insult everyone's intelligence by pretending it doesn't even exist?
I'm trying but you refuse to address your continued accusation that God ordains and controls rapists and molesters, yet is somehow not responsible for that.
You do know what the words "ordain" and "control" mean don't you?
Now you're starting to tick me off. Don't patronize me, you blasphemer. You know very well what you have said and your continued failure and resistance to address what is clearly an accusation of evil toward God is exactly what I'm getting ticked off about.
Well provide the biblical answers then! How many times do I have to ask, demand and pound the table here exactly? You accuse God of ordaining and controlling rapists and molesters yet claim He is not responsible for ordaining them nor controlling them. Why won't you address this? How can you not see, even if your intent is pure, that you've given occasion for others to accuse God? I can only assume your intent is not pure and you are in fact accusing God yourself!
Since you make fun of compatable free will, I assumed you were a proponent of libertarian free will, as all other open theists seem to be.
Am I wrong?
If you do not believe in libertarian or compatable free will, could you please explain what you do believe?
I believe we all have a will of our own. And by definition those wills are free. Period.
Now, free is defined as having options. And if what we will do can be known for certain, then we have no options. And no options means no freedom.
Such as our salvation. Those who are saved do not have the option of becoming unsaved. So we are not free to throw away our salvation.
But we do have the option of acting according to the Spirit, or according to the flesh. However, we do not have the option of removing the Holy Spirit from control of our spirit. He is not on control of our flesh, so acting according to the flesh does not remove Him from control of anything.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My point is strictly with the use of a function entitled, "Quote", and your corruption of that function's intent. You could easily have added your "blah blahs" outside a portion of the quoted text, thus making it clear that you are editing and not directly quoting. I did not read any "blah blah"s in Nang's original post. Such misuse of the Quote function leads to confusion and is just contrary to the original intent of the software designer's reason for creating a "Quote" feature.
Carry on.
AMR
Are you really so stupid that you could not understand she was editing?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here is the simple answer.
By God's foreordination I mean that God foreordains all that is to come to pass according to His eternal plan. God's ultimate plan is that His will shall be glorified. But note that I have just defined foreordination using the word "foreordains". That is not quite helpful is it? So let's be more precise and define foreordination without using the word itself. By foreordination, I mean that God predisposes all that is to come to pass and the conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan. These events may come to pass via the free actions of moral agents (both saved and lost) or via God's causative acts.
By God's foreknowledge, I mean God knows always and at all times everything which is to come to pass. Why does God know this? God foreknows what is to come to pass because, as stated above, God has prearranged the happening of what is to come to pass through the actions of free moral agents. Thus we say that God foreknows because He has foreordained. This last statement makes sense when we observe that when we say, “I know what I am going to do,” it is evident that we have already determined to do so, and that our knowledge does not precede our determination, but follows the determining and is based upon the determining. To admit foreknowledge carries foreordination with it.
The Scriptures speak of God’s perfect knowledge: Job 37:16, that He looks into man’s hearts, 1 Samuel 2:3; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 1 Chronicles 28:17; Ps. 139:1-4; Jeremiah 17:10, that God observes our ways, Deuteronomy 2:7; Job 23:10, Job 24:23, Job 31:4; Psalms 1:6; Psalms 94:9-11; Psalms 104:24; Psalms 119:168, Psalms 139:1-4; Psalms 139:15-16, that God knows the place of their habitation, Psalms 33:13, and the days of our lives, Psalms 37:18, Proverbs 8:22-23; Proverbs 8:27-30; Proverbs 15:3; Isaiah 40:13-14; Isaiah 40:27-28; Isaiah 41:22-23; Isaiah 41:25-27; Isaiah 42:8-9; Isaiah 43:11-12; Isaiah 44:7-8; Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:18-21; Isaiah 46:10-11; Isaiah 48:3-7; Romans 11:33-36; Romans 16:27; Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20.
The above is important because I have witnessed how many confuse the terms and concepts behind them. Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.
From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:
Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)
The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:
The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)
In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.
Bottom line, MC, don't confuse ordaining with direct causation.
AMR
Nang
TOL Subscriber
After repeating my words in quotes, you say this? This does not reflect my words at all. Your summary twists what I have said.
I will repeat with some embellishment, for the benefit of others, what I believe, even if you will not accept my words:
God is the first cause of all things. He has ordained all that has happened, and He sovereignly controls all His creation.
At the same time, God purposefully created man in His image, which means man was made a moral agent who is therefore responsible to function volitionally in subjection to the will of God.
We know this, because Jesus Christ exemplified the Perfect Man, who lived sinlessly, by submitting His will to the will of the Father.
No other man has ever done so because of the original rebellion of Adam . . .who Scripture attributes as being the cause of sin and death in this world. Romans 5:12
So what is revealed in Holy Scripture is a primary cause (Creator God) and secondary cause (creatures).
God caused man.
Man caused sin.
Now . . . if you really want to learn sound theology, I suggest you concentrate on the revealed merits and earthly performance of Jesus Christ and the exemplary righteousness He displayed in this world, rather than questioning God about temporally allowing the actions of rapists and murderers.
One must have faith that God has good reasons . . .
And that God will deal with sin, death, the devil, and all wicked men, according to His just wrath, on that Day.
Nang
He thinks he is a free will theist (biblical), yet is a practical determinist? Is this to avoid personal responsibility for his sinful struggles that he admits to (defense mechanism/rationalization)?
I italicized "Libertarian" for a reason. Maybe you should try reading my response to tetelestai's next question...:think:When did you become a closet Calvinist/determinist?
LFW is redundant. It is the only kind of true free will. Compatibilism is compromise and incoherent.
You are being inconsistent to think we have free will, yet cannot reject Christ. You are dropping libertarian to retain OSAS, not because it is philosophically or theologically defensible to do so.
We are either robots or not. You cannot be free in some choices and caused/coerced in other choices (if we are to be free)..
:vomit: Is your name Marie? You can't have your cake and eat it too. LFW is a cop out to get around the Nature of God's omniscience. You know it and I know it. If I may ask; what were your thoughts before Sanders and Boyd. Did you deny His omniscience at that time also?
Did it ever occur to you that I may just be screwing around with tetelestai, because he's being stubborn?
The real problem is those who say God's omniscience is something other than what He says it is.
Lighthouse
This leads to the question; Is God in control? If He is what does it say about His omniscience?
This leads to the question; Is God in control? If He is what does it say about His omniscience?
Who is Marie?
My view of omniscience is consistent with LFW. If both are true, no problem. Your rejection of LFW leads to a wrong view of omniscience. I am being consistent, not believing one wrong thing leading to another wrong thing like you.
I discovered Sanders and Boyd by way of confirmation AFTER I had adopted Open Theism views on omniscience/eternity, etc.
I would say Gordon Olson's 'The Truth Shall Set You Free' or Winkie Pratney was more influential. Clark Pinnock was more familiar to me, but I like Sanders and Boyd lately (though I disagree with some key views that they hold... Boyd and theistic evolution, views on the after life, etc.).
In the end, I trust my views are based on Scripture and godly philosophy, not the writings of men that are helpful, but not authoritative.
No it doesn't. Where? How else can I interpret what you clearly said? Especially when you refuse to engage when confronted about it!
Then God doesn't control all His creation. Men are able to do as they will, even in contradiction to God's will. Yes? Otherwise you cannot claim God is not responsible for an act of rape or molestation because He is in control of it.
Either He actively controls rapist and molesters, causing them to do evil, or He does not and the sin is entirely theirs. You can't have it both ways! Your attempt to do so has blasphemed against God in accusing him of the most vile sins!
I'm not questioning God on any such thing. I'm questioning you on your statement. Why do you always try to obscure the issue? How is that possibly a honest tact? And if you're dishonest, why should I or anyone else accept anything you say?
I do. Where did I suggest I didn't? Again you obfuscate, pretending I'm off somewhere railing at God that rapists and molesters exist. I'm railing at you for claiming He actively controls them while trying to hide your accusation behind assurances that this somehow doesn't mean He's responsible.
If I misunderstand your accusation somehow, then you should be willing to explain where I'm wrong without my having to call you out repeatedly over many days. You should have offered your explanation right up front and certainly not discredit yourself with attacks on my faith instead.
Well, I don't know why you feel compelled to explain someone else's reasoning but fine. Can you support Nang's accusation that God controls all creation, including rapists and molesters?