ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Labelpalooza IV. :dizzy:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Can you imagine godrulz's running commentary, imposed upon his wife, as he watches the evening news? It must be a hoot!
. . . Poor woman.
Nang
I stopped reading Jim's post after the above quoted sentence. If he wishes for people to read his posts he should make at least some attempt to be brief. I know that I don't always succeed at doing so myself, and in fact my previous post might be considered an example of that by some, but at least I try not to glaze EVERYONE'S eyes over.
Besides, my bet is that the above quotation probably serves to boil the argument down to its barest essentials anyway.
In short, Jim attributes to me and to all Open Theists that which Scripture itself attributes to God. As one of the simplest and most profound songs has taught us since we were all children, "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so." God wrote the Bible, not me! And it is the Bible that declares God just, it is the Bible that declares God to be true (i.e. consistent), and loving, not me! Open Theists simply take God at His word that He is loving, just, personal, rational and relational. It is on that basis that I can know that God is NOT unjust (i.e. arbitrary), capricious, inconsistent and static! If not for the revelation of God, present in both Scripture and in His creation, I could know none of these things. Is it really that surprising that I insist that God cannot be unjust since I accept it at face value when the Bible declares the opposite? Why then should it be so surprising that I reject a doctrine that leads inexorably to the conclusion that God is arbitrary and responsible for evil?
Does Jim deny that God is loving and just?
If not, then by what standard is God meaningfully loving and just other than the one given us in Scripture, namely God's own demonstrated character (i.e. the way He has acted toward us and the rest of creation)?
Does to love not mean to act in another's best interests?
Does to be just not mean to act in a manner consistent with the tenants of righteousness?
Or is it that Jim believes that such concepts as love and justice are meaningless to God? Jim has repeatedly stated on this website and elsewhere that God is arbitrary. The Open Theist insists that one cannot be both arbitrary and just. But we do not do so ARBITRARILY or because of any such ridiculous thing as humanism or because we're in league with Satan or because we are emulating Eden's Serpent nor because we took dictation from demons while formulating our doctrine but simply because of the definition of the words "just" and "arbitrary". A thing cannot be both itself and its own negation at the same time and in the same way.
God is just (i.e. righteous) only so long as He remains consistent with the current description of Himself. This is true because truth and justice are self-consistent (i.e. rational/non-contradictory) and thus inconsistency is a litmus test for unrighteousness. Only the unrighteous can be inconsistent. Only lies can be self-contradictory. But, if God is arbitrary, then He cannot be just because being arbitrary means (in this context) to be capricious and unreasonable and thus inherently inconsistent! Even if arbitrary action isn't entirely random per se, it, by definition, has no inherent connection to its antecedent and thus cannot be consistent with itself except by mere happenstance. An arbitrary judge is therefore unjust by definition and thus since the Bible declares Christ to be THE Righteous Judge of all creation, we can know that God is not arbitrary and that Jim's god is anti-Christ.
A just judge meters out punishment that is consistent with the severity of the crime, does he not? (It's "an eye for an eye", not "an eye for a grape fruit"). Is it just for a judge to simply make up the punishment off the top of his head? If not, why not? If that's the way God does it, and to be godly is to be just then why is it considered unjust for us to act in a way consistent with the way Jim claims God Himself to be? Are we not to emulate God? Is not God's own character the standard of righteousness? Jim wants to complain that he cannot trust a God that hasn't gotten a sneak peak into the future but how can anyone trust a God that is arbitrary? How does Jim know that his god won't arbitrarily decide to go back in time and change the gospel last week without telling us about it? If his god were to do that, could Jim rightly complain? Not according to his own stated doctrine he couldn't. In fact, that might as well be the exact situation people who die in unbelief are in because they could not have believed under any circumstances because Jim's god hadn't arbitrarily declared them winners of the grand cosmic salvation lottery.
In closing, the choice is really simple. You can choose to believe in the God of Scripture, who is loving and just. Or you can choose to believe in Jim's god of arbitrary capriciousness.
Jim will insist that you can't choose; that his bully god of capricious arbitrage has already chosen for you and that you are entirely incapable of resistance, in which case why would you give a rip which of us is right?
(The answer is, you wouldn't unless Jim's god had predestined you to in which case you would care but you still can't choose between the two options and you can't choose not to care either. :dizzy: )
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You are comparing God the Judge with human judges, tainted with sin and totally depraved. Is that a good comparison?
Plus, the arbitrary act of election was performed by the Father, who has given all authority and powers of judgment to His Son. So the accusation of arbitrariness in election has nothing to do with Christ's judging the works of men.
The works of men will prove that either they are outside of Christ and prepared for destruction, or that they were elect to be represented in Christ, and their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life to be predestined to glory . . .by the choice of the Father before the foundation of the world.
Nang
Hilston said:
It's not. It is my view that I'm explaining. Not yours. I impose it on no one.
It is an irrational assertion, especially given the oft repeated claim of Open Theists that God's prophesies are known to fail.
Again, I have not imposed a presupposition. I have explained the logic (guaranteed outcomes require exhaustive foreknowledge), and I have shown the illogic of the Open View (the claim that exhaustive foreknowledge is not required, and the claim that God has uttered prophecies that have failed).
Hilston said:
Of course. It illustrates the point. We could have discussed Novikov, Fermi, Hawking, Forward, Einstein and Stahlhofen, but why bring up Transversal Time Dilation when a simple reference to Charles Dickens will suffice?
Hilston said:
You're going to have to explain what you mean by "imposing presuppositions," because so far you're 0 for 2. The only presuppositions I've "imposed" so far (more like "assumed") is that you understand the English language and that you have a feel for basic logic. I'm starting to have doubts on both counts.
Except for the fact that God gets it wrong sometimes, according to the Open View; that God is "surprised," and that things happen that never even entered God's mind. Knowing all possible courses of the future didn't guarantee much at all in those cases.
Now who is imposing? You tell me I don't understand OVT (and so far you haven't demonstrated it), then turn right around and completely botch the view of your opponent. I could borrow a phrase and say "pot, kettle, black," but there's only one black vessel here, and it's not me.
Mere assertion. You can keep saying this until you're blue (or black) in the face, and it isn't going to make it true. Show how I've dumbed down OVT, muz. Don't just assert. As far as I and others can tell, I'm exposing the inconsistencies and illogic of OVT, taking OV tenets to their logical conclusions, and no one has yet to correct me.
Hilston said:
Where are you getting this, muz? I'm not telling God what He can or can't do. I'm showing the irrationality of the OVT conception of God, and where that conception leads. It is the Open View that posits that God could change His mind and not fulfill His promises. The Settled View posits that God is immutable, and will never go against His decreed purpose, working all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). Do you not believe that God is free to stop loving if He wanted to? Isn't it an Open View belief that God is free to become evil if He wanted to? If not, then I apologize. Please set me straight if I'm wrong about this.
Hilston said:
Perhaps you're off the Open View reservation on this one, muz. Bob Enyart believes that Jesus could have chosen not to be executed. Do you agree with Mr. Enyart?
Hilston said:
I'm convinced that you're either trying to say something else and using the wrong words, or you don't know what you're talking about. Let me break down my previous statements: "On the Open View's assumptions, there are no guarantees," means, given the claims of Open Theists, that God doesn't know the future and sometimes gets it wrong, the logical conclusion is: There are no guarantees. I have not imposed any presupposition upon you except the understanding of language and the application of logic. If you still disagree with the statement, then you either do not understand English, or your logical faculties have been compromised, or both.
"Fixed the game beforehand" is a pejorative from the Open View lexicon. The biblical and Settled View is that God has decreed all things in advance, not for the purpose of "rigging the game," but because God is God. And as such, God is very God-like, in that He cannot make a plan that will not come to pass. It is the essential nature of being God, and God cannot NOT be God, and God cannot NOT know all things without exception, including the future. Note that I am not imposing this view upon you; I am merely explaining the logic and the language of the biblical/Settled View.
See what I mean? No guarantees. I say this not because Open Theists will admit to it, but because it is the logical conclusion of a doctrine that says God doesn't know exactly "how He is going to get there" and that God sometimes gets it wrong.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about biblical things here. The Bible describes God's promises and a detailed future. The biblical meaning of Hope is the forward looking assurance and belief in a sure and certain thing, a guaranteed outcome. If God can change His mind, if Jesus could have refused the cross (as Bob Enyart believes), and if God utter prophecies that fail, then there are no guarantees. I’m not imposing this view on you; I'm merely explaining the logic in light of OVT claims.
Hilston said:
Justice and love are God's nature, yes. But the Settled View says that God's nature is essential, not by choice. And as such, God cannot change His mind about being loving or being just, as that would constitute a denial of Himself, which the scriptures say God cannot do. Whereas the Open Theist believes that God has the freedom to stop loving, if He so chose; that God has the freedom to not be just, if He so chose; and has the freedom to not go to the cross, if He so chose. On the Open View, these things are not essential, but only chosen (for now, so far). He could change His mind and become evil, according to Open Theists. Do you not agree with Bob Enyart on this?
Hilston said:
You're asking me for examples after your repeated baseless assertions? Fine, here you go: Look at Clete's post above. It betrays a mindset that judges God.
See what I mean? "God is just only so long," that is, until Clete sees God do something wrong, such as ceasing to be "consistent with the current description of Himself." As soon as God is inconsistent, that is when Clete will judge Him.Clete said:
Here's another concrete example:
In my radio debate with Bob Enyart, he stated that he believes Jesus could have refused to go to the cross: "He could have said, 'No; I'm going to pray to my Father to save me." I made the point to Mr. Enyart that Jesus could not have the desire to go against the Father's will. But, Enyart responds, criticizing those who believe that Jesus' death was inevitable and inexorable, saying that Jesus could have chosen to go against the Father's will if He wanted to. Thus, Enyart suggests that Jesus could have sinned against the Father. This is Luciferian at it core and it is a subtle (to some, not to me) attack on the very essence of God. Mr. Enyart says of Jesus going to the cross, "There was another possibility, that He could have called upon legions of angels to save Him." He goes on to say, "If God the Son objected to the Father, had sinned against the Father, that would bring the rebellion in the Godhead." Can you see how Mr. Enyart is putting God in the dock? No one who firmly grasps the concept of God's essential attributes would ever pose the question.
I said to Bob Enyart: "God doesn't have the 'alternative' to not be what He essentially is. God is not free to oppose His own nature.
To my utter amazement, Enyart responded, "I would describe that as putting God in a box." Incredible! The Open Theists take obviously figurative language of the Bible and interpret it literally, and they take obviously nonfigurative language of the Bible and interpret it figuratively.
Later Enyart says, "Jesus Christ could have turned against His Father." In Enyart's view, all of those Old Testament saints who looked forward with Hope to the redemptive death of the suffering servant according to Isaiah's prophecy, it was a real possibility that Jesus would not have fulfilled that prophecy.
When I cited the scripture that says God is unable to deny Himself, pointing out the emphatic wording of the Greek, that God is absolutely without the power to deny Himself, here is how Bob Enyart answered: "That's a figure of speech." He qualifies the verse by saying that God cannot deny Himself and remain righteous. And of course, Mr. Enyart must distort the scripture to have that meaning, otherwise he undermines his thesis that God can change His mind, even about dying for the salvation of men.
I went on to cite Hebrews 6 that says it is impossible for God to lie, pointing out the Greek wording that emphasizes that God is without the power to do so. Mr. Enyart's response was that it only means that God cannot lie and remain righteous, adding a qualifier that neither the text itself, nor the context connotes. This is an example of how the Open Theism tail wags the Biblical dog. And of course, Mr. Enyart must twist the scripture to have that meaning, otherwise he undermines his thesis that God can change His mind, even about dying for the salvation of men.
So there's your concrete example. Do you agree with Clete and Bob Enyart?
Hilston said:
Of course no one can actually do that. It speaks of a mindset. It is exactly what Lucifer taunted Adam and Eve to do, and when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it is exactly the mindset they demonstrated. And they were judged for it.
There is no twisting required. It is the logical conclusion of Open View tenets. Go ahead and show otherwise. You would be the first.
Oh, you mean I've put God in a box? The Bible says God is unable to oppose Himself, working all things according to the counsel of His will. The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie. If there's a box that God is in, it is called His essential nature, and He fully acknowledges this in His word.
God says that. He cannot oppose His own decrees. He has decreed the existence of the universe and has guaranteed the full fruition of His promises. God can be trusted to keep His word and to fulfill His promises. The Open Theist, if they follow Bob Enyart, and follow his teachings to their logical conclusions, cannot rationally say this with any surety.
Hilston said:
Please start somewhere. I'm eager to find someone who can show that the conclusions don't follow the premises. So far, you've only made bald unsupported assertions.
Hilston said:
God made His plans, and He brings them to fruition. Your assumption that the plan somehow negates their execution is patently absurd.
Hilston said:
What is? That Christ's death was not sufficient?
I don’t think you know what a presupposition is. Individual election and irresistible grace are not presuppositions. They are conclusions based on certain premises, but not presuppositions.
I make no demands of God whatsoever. God says to trust Him. God says He will not let His Word fail. Those are guarantees that God Himself gives; nothing that is demanded by men.
Hilston said:
Where are you getting this? Not once have I imposed these on your view. If anything, I've shown how they do not comport with your view at all!
That is not a "presupposition imposed" on your view. That is a logical conclusion of your view, which requires man to give God the go-ahead to save him.
Embracing a distortion of what God says about Himself, as Adam and Eve did in the Garden, does indeed come from Lucifer. Think about it. What did Lucifer do? He took God's words and distorted them in precisely the same way that Open Theism does. And that's not imposing a presupposition. It's drawing out the logical conclusion. And instead of answering with "LOL! Are you serious?" why don't you show the readers how the conclusions I've stated do not follow from their OpenView premises.
It is absolutely humanistic. Would you like to see some concrete proof? I have it in abundance.
As I stated above, I make no demands of God whatsoever. God says to trust Him. God says He will not let His Word fail. Those are guarantees that God Himself gives; nothing that is demanded by men.
Lock your car,
Hilston
Hi Clete:
Was God arbitrary when He chose Abraham?
Was God arbitrary when He choose each of the 12 disciples?
Was God arbitrary when He chose Paul?
I don't think God is arbitrary, but to our finite minds, He sure can appear to be arbitrary.
You are using the term in a different context.
I actually think that the answer is "no" to at least some of these questions but the point is that when you are talking about whether or not God is just and in that context you declare Him arbitrary, you are stating something that is clearly contradictory, not to mention unbiblical. God cannot be both just and arbitrary at the same time and in the same way.
Can God be arbitrary in some way that doesn't have anything to do with His justice? Yeah! Sure He can! He can choose from two morally equal choices in a completely arbitrary way if He wants to. But what He cannot do, for example, would be to punish someone for a sin they didn't commit or reward someone for evil and still be just. God CANNOT do that! Not because of some weakness on His part but simply because it cannot be done. It's contradictory, irrational and in all other ways impossible. Just as a three dimensional object cannot be spherically sharp cornered, a judge cannot be arbitrarily just.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You missed the point. Read it again.
Let's look at Paul, formally Saul.
Saul literally was murdering Christians (Kingdom Believers for all you MAD’s)
Then God chooses him to be the point man for the Gospel of Christ.
There is nothing fair about this, and appears to us as arbitrary.
Was Saul/Paul rewarded for doing evil?
The fact that he wasn't struck dead wasn't fair. I'm not talking about mercy, I'm talking about being arbitrary vs. just. It is difficult for me to believe that you do not understand the difference.
And as far as Saul is concerned, you can tell by the many parallels between him and the other Saul, the first King of Israel that God's selection was not random. But I almost didn't bother posting that because it misses the point. Whether Saul had repented or not, God would still have managed to establish the Body of Christ without him and God certainly would not have punished Saul for some sin he hadn't committed or punished him for sins he had committed in some haphazard, arbitrary fashion that had nothing to do with the principles that God Himself has taught us in His own word. Jim, on the other hand, would have you believe that God could have decided to send people to Hell for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all! Jim believes that God is allowed to punish whomever He wants for whatever reason no matter whether that reason has anything to do with reality or not. According to Jim, God could, for example, decide to punish you for my sin, or to send you to Heaven because of the sin of your neighbor. Whatever! God is God, He can do whatever He wants for whatever reason no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent it is with everything anyone understands to be justice or righteousness. In short, Jim believes that God could be completely inconsistent with His previous behavior and He would still be just. In Jim's mind, righteousness is simply whatever God happens to do and that it just as easily could have been something altogether different than it is right now.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Clete . . .I would never dare to call you a liar, but I simply refuse to believe you fail to read Hilston's entire posts.
You just say things like this, in order to make your opinions seem superior to his, sending the message that you cannot be bothered to know Hilston's opinions.
Isn't that kinda jerky (i.e. "disingenuous") on your part? . . .
Nang
Well, I didn't. I did not read past the sentence I quoted, nor do I intend to.
You're stupid.
I've read so many of Jim's pedantic bloviated posts that I almost know what he's going to say before he says it.
I don't have any problem being a jerk to people I despise without having to disguise it.
Right now, I'm actually trying very hard to be pleasant and substantive. I haven't even allowed your mind-wrenching stupidity upset me tonight.
Clete still doesn't know what he is talking about (Part I)
Only in the neologistic world of Open Theism could the words "just" and "arbitrary" have opposite meanings. Since it seems to be a prevailing theme in Clete's posts, let's first consider the word "arbitrary." Go ahead, look it up. It comes from the word "arbiter," which means "judge." Next, let's have a look at the word "justice." Look that one up, too. Notice that the noun form refers to a "magistrate" or "judge."
Not only are the words NOT opposites, but they are clearly very closely related in meaning and application. Yet the delusion-addled mind of the Open Theist (i.e. Clete) wants us all to believe that the concepts are "mutually exclusive," and "polar opposites," and that "justice is not arbitrary, by definition" (as stated elsewhere by Clete).
When Clete goes on like this about "arbitrary" and "justice" being mutually exclusive, note how he pounds his pulpit and raises the decibel level, but dogmatism and volume do not make his inanities any more true. By now, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that Clete, despite his vociferous attempts at appearing knowledgeable on this subject, truly does not know what he is talking about.
As Clete has repeatedly demonstrated, the Open Theist believes that God is subject to some overarching standard of righteousness that governs His behavior. They believe that God is regarded as existentially righteous because finite man humanistically judges Him to be, not because God is immutably righteous in His essence. Consider very carefully the following, as it demonstrate the arbitrariness of God and the inability of the Open View to account for it:
The Open Theist is hard-pressed to understand how God could order the execution of a man who merely picked up sticks and not be arbitrary. If God is not arbitrary, as the Open Theist claims, then are we to assume that there exists some grand standard of righteousness to which God refers that tells Him it is unrighteous to pick up sticks on Saturday? And if that's true, then why does God instruct Paul to prohibit the observance of Sabbaths altogether in Colossians 2:16? This is the failure of the existentialist humanistic concept of God that Open Theists promulgate.
No, the words arbitrary and justice are not opposites. They are family, and well-nigh synonymous.
Turkish domestic blend since 1913,
Hilston
Clete said:
Clete said:
Clete said:
The irony, people! The IRONY!!! (see below)Clete said:
Only in the neologistic world of Open Theism could the words "just" and "arbitrary" have opposite meanings. Since it seems to be a prevailing theme in Clete's posts, let's first consider the word "arbitrary." Go ahead, look it up. It comes from the word "arbiter," which means "judge." Next, let's have a look at the word "justice." Look that one up, too. Notice that the noun form refers to a "magistrate" or "judge."
Not only are the words NOT opposites, but they are clearly very closely related in meaning and application. Yet the delusion-addled mind of the Open Theist (i.e. Clete) wants us all to believe that the concepts are "mutually exclusive," and "polar opposites," and that "justice is not arbitrary, by definition" (as stated elsewhere by Clete).
When Clete goes on like this about "arbitrary" and "justice" being mutually exclusive, note how he pounds his pulpit and raises the decibel level, but dogmatism and volume do not make his inanities any more true. By now, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that Clete, despite his vociferous attempts at appearing knowledgeable on this subject, truly does not know what he is talking about.
As Clete has repeatedly demonstrated, the Open Theist believes that God is subject to some overarching standard of righteousness that governs His behavior. They believe that God is regarded as existentially righteous because finite man humanistically judges Him to be, not because God is immutably righteous in His essence. Consider very carefully the following, as it demonstrate the arbitrariness of God and the inability of the Open View to account for it:
The Open Theist is hard-pressed to understand how God could order the execution of a man who merely picked up sticks and not be arbitrary. If God is not arbitrary, as the Open Theist claims, then are we to assume that there exists some grand standard of righteousness to which God refers that tells Him it is unrighteous to pick up sticks on Saturday? And if that's true, then why does God instruct Paul to prohibit the observance of Sabbaths altogether in Colossians 2:16? This is the failure of the existentialist humanistic concept of God that Open Theists promulgate.
No, the words arbitrary and justice are not opposites. They are family, and well-nigh synonymous.
Turkish domestic blend since 1913,
Hilston
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:rotfl:
Someone should save this quote from Clete for a sig line . . .I am saving it for future fun!
Nang
You need my special de-coder ring. It even sounds crazy to me, over the top. Sorry.
She just calls me an idiot and tells me to shut up. She is too busy watching your Fox network for me to get a word in.
These are not decrees in eternity past and not involving causation relating to individual salvation (including Paul). They relate to mission and the calling could have been rejected in salvation or service by any of these individuals. It is not parallel to TULIP.
At least he is honest. Clete and Nang are similar in that you do not want to scorn them...they do not suffer fools gladly.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, Hilston, I suppose you need to be educated in the art of discussion and debate.
When you say:
You are doing two things. First, you are expressing the presupposition that the only was God can accomplish this is through exhaustive and definite foreknowledge.
However, you are also demanding that we accept your presupposition as true (without any foundation for making such a demand) because you demand that we accept that the statement you have made is true.
Thus you are attempting to impose this on us, because you demand that we accept your presuppositions in order to have a discussion.
If I do not accept your presupposition (and I do not, as you have not provided a basis for doing so), and you are unwilling to accept that my position does not embrace your presupposition, and you are unwilling to engage in discussion at that level, then discussion and debate is not possible.
(No, your declaration that something is somehow irrational isn't sufficient. Again, what you consider rational is still based upon your presuppositions. You either need to provide a scriptural or logical reason to accept your presupposition, or demonstrate from my presuppositions how I am illogical or unscriptural. However, you do none of these.)
All that will ensue is you will continue to argue from your presuppositions, and I will continue to identify the presuppositions that I have scriptural or logical basis for denying.
So, until you are able to grasp the concepts of dialogue and debate, there is simply no point in having a discussion with you. You demonstrate nothing other than your own presuppositions, and you fail to provide any reason for anyone to accept them.
Muz
When you say:
You are doing two things. First, you are expressing the presupposition that the only was God can accomplish this is through exhaustive and definite foreknowledge.
However, you are also demanding that we accept your presupposition as true (without any foundation for making such a demand) because you demand that we accept that the statement you have made is true.
Thus you are attempting to impose this on us, because you demand that we accept your presuppositions in order to have a discussion.
If I do not accept your presupposition (and I do not, as you have not provided a basis for doing so), and you are unwilling to accept that my position does not embrace your presupposition, and you are unwilling to engage in discussion at that level, then discussion and debate is not possible.
(No, your declaration that something is somehow irrational isn't sufficient. Again, what you consider rational is still based upon your presuppositions. You either need to provide a scriptural or logical reason to accept your presupposition, or demonstrate from my presuppositions how I am illogical or unscriptural. However, you do none of these.)
All that will ensue is you will continue to argue from your presuppositions, and I will continue to identify the presuppositions that I have scriptural or logical basis for denying.
So, until you are able to grasp the concepts of dialogue and debate, there is simply no point in having a discussion with you. You demonstrate nothing other than your own presuppositions, and you fail to provide any reason for anyone to accept them.
Muz