Is messing with him like 'lying'?:bowser:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Is messing with him like 'lying'?:bowser:
God can be providentially in control without being all-controlling, omnicausal, meticulous/tightly controlling.
The issue of the nature of creation/future vs omniscience is the crux. Is the future partially settled/unsettled and known as such (possible/contingent) or is it fully settled (exhaustive definite foreknowledge would then be true, but free will would not be...determinism).
Their deterministic/decretal views are fatally problematic to a sound doctrine of God/theodicy.
Control of what? That must first be established for the discourse to be honest and to the point.
All I did was ask him a question. If he assumed that his previous assumption was wrong merely because he did not know the answer, how is that my fault?
Well, AMR's claim that Nang meant God knew men (including rapists and molesters) would do evil (including rape and molestation) makes sense. Don't know why Nang felt it wiser to pretend I'm accusing
God rather than explain it. Don't get why they feel using the word "ordain" for something other than what it's commonly understood to mean, either.
Still, I'll wait for an explanation on how I've misunderstood the word "control" before I decide whether Calvinism has indeed led them to blasphemy. It certainly seems that way and I can't imagine how it isn't.
In all honestly, I can only assume from what I've been given so far that Calvinism requires them to accept God literally ordains and controls rapists but their conscience requires them to backpedal from that position as much as they can while still presenting it. The fact Nang resorted to this...
...rather than simply answer my accusation is rather telling, I think.
You'd think a theology that leads you to accusing God of evil would cause you some pause...
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes. In fact, that is all men are willing to do. All men sin and oppose God's will, whether they are rapists, murderers, molesters, or not.
God ordained to bring salvation to creatures, who He knew would ALL be sinners, before He created the world. God restrains the evil in this world ("controls"), in order to save many from their sins, in and through His Christ.
God is not the cause of sin. Man is the cause of sin.
Which statement do you disagree with?
The rapist's sin is entirely his. All sinners are controlled by their Maker.
Which statement do you disagree with?
Which is not reality? . . .there are wicked men who rape . . .Almighty God controls His creation. Which do you believe is false?
God has told us in His Word who is responsible for causing sin and death. Not me. God.
Do you not believe God?
God says man caused sin.
I say man caused sin.
Who do you say caused sin?
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes. In fact, that is all men are willing to do. All men sin and oppose God's will, whether they are rapists, murderers, molesters, or not.
God ordained to bring salvation to creatures, who He knew would ALL be sinners, before He created the world. God restrains the evil in this world ("controls"), in order to save many from their sins, in and through His Christ.
God is not the cause of sin. Man is the cause of sin.
Which statement do you disagree with?
The rapist's sin is entirely his. All sinners are controlled by their Maker.
Which statement do you disagree with?
Which is not reality? . . .there are wicked men who rape . . .Almighty God controls His creation. Which do you believe is false?
God has told us in His Word who is responsible for causing sin and death. Not me. God.
Do you not believe God?
God says man caused sin.
I say man caused sin.
Who do you say caused sin?
God says He is sovereign over His creation.
I say God is sovereign over His creation.
Who do you say is in sovereign control over God's creation?
Neither.
The second, by virtue of the first. If God controls all sinners then He is responsible for their sin. They're tools and nothing more.
That God controls all His creation. Because if this is true then He is responsible for the sins men commit.
Why are you pretending you don't get this, Nang? It should be obvious why this makes no sense. Perhaps it makes sense to you but are you so kooky that you can't see it doesn't make sense to anyone else? Why do you continue to refuse to address this?
God created man. Man sins. God thus caused sin and death, through His creation of man. This is how man is still responsible for his sin. I get that. Just as if I created a child and that child sinned, I would be responsible for creating that person but not for their sin. Not a difficult concept, Nang.
What is difficult is this: Will you now explain to me, after the umpteenth time asking you, your assertion that God controls sinners even as they sin? Because that is what you have said. If that isn't what you meant then I'm going to ask you why you didn't explain that way back two pages ago on this thread.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Mary,
Just so you know, Nang isn't interesting in the complete and obvious inconsistency in her theology, especially when it comes to free will and her view of God's sovereignty. Her strategy is to just keep spouting the same obvious logical inconsistencies, in the hopes that you will give up and she'll feel justified in what she said.
Muz
Just so you know, Nang isn't interesting in the complete and obvious inconsistency in her theology, especially when it comes to free will and her view of God's sovereignty. Her strategy is to just keep spouting the same obvious logical inconsistencies, in the hopes that you will give up and she'll feel justified in what she said.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Your question isn't purely a "yes" or "no" question. The answer is "God has sufficient control to accomplish His will, and sufficiently not in control to allow men to have true free will." (Yes and no?) 
Muz
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God is in control providentially, not meticulously. His will is not done in every detail (rape, murder, suffering, starving, etc.), but He will triumph over evil in the end.
He is omnicompetent, not omnicausal.
I did not ask about His will. Does He allow rape, murder, suffering etc.?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God is omnicausal, in that He is the first cause of all things, which includes establishing secondary causes. Man, who has been given secondary causal agency and human responsibilities before God, making man accountable to God, can never act in any way (good or bad) that would diminish the full attributes of God.
God is in control of all things; patiently enduring with the wickedness of men, who have been prepared for destruction. (Romans 9:22)
You people speak as if rapists and murderers are getting away with their sins. They are not. They will face the wrath of God and be cast into Hell for their actions.
Which is part of God's will and God's purpose. God will eliminate all sin, death, the devil, and wicked men.
Just because Judgment Day has not yet occurred does not mean God is not in control over evil, and letting sin reach its full measure.
AMR has given thorough answer as to divine foreknowledge and foreordination, with sufficient Scriptures. I wonder if any of you even read the verses he presented. I doubt it, for it seems truth or the deeper things of God is not sought in this place.
Vile assertions are more fun and easier made . . .
Nang
I get it, too. You're obviously a liar and like most liars the thought of defending your lies strikes fear in your heart.
Go ahead and run away then, blasphemer. And thank your false god that the law doesn't deal with blasphemy as it should.
:shocked: :whip:
:execute:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I harbor no fears in my heart, Mary.
I am not running away, Mary.
My God is not a false God, Mary, and His Law certainly deals with blasphemy as His holiness demands.
You are spiritually not in touch, Mary . . .
So sorry.
Nang
You're a loon, aren'tcha? :squint:
Lon
Well-known member
Your question isn't purely a "yes" or "no" question. The answer is "God has sufficient control to accomplish His will, and sufficiently not in control to allow men to have true free will." (Yes and no?)
Muz
Foreknowledge drives it further to a theological conclusion.
God allows and thus foreordains where as in the OV, God allows, and sort of/kind of foreordains, but it is a moment by moment consideration so that foreordination is rather omnicasual and unknown.
We both try to explain the same thing but have different parameters for getting to that theological conclusion. I believe both must necessarily come to a compatible explanation and this shouldn't be the hanging point between us as we all hang on the same problems. I do feel that saying "I don't know exactly" is admitting our finite limitations in a way that glorifies Him. I believe a few OVer's actually grasp their limitations but it seems a great many others cannot see the compatiblist needs and restraints of the OV position that are rival to the [o]rthodox position.
He allows it despite it being contrary to His will. He does not desire, decree, nor intend it. A hyper-sovereignty, compatibilistic freedom concept is the problem re: theodicy. Since God judges these evils and Jesus opposed them, it is not His will (if it was, we should be passive about evil, unlike Jesus and the Church).