ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
*
Yes what makes faith in God's word rational is the certainty we have that God is indeed the Author of it. We also have experienced it by recieving the result of believing it [sometimes in extreme adversity] and have PROVED to our complete satisfaction that it is true.
God says "My rationality is not your rationality, as the heavens are higher than the earth so is My rationality higher than yours....let the unrighteous man forsake his thoughts"
Paul exhorts us not to exercise our minds but to renew our minds, having presented our very selves a living sacrifice to God which is our reasonable service that we may know what is that good and perfect will of God.
The mind of the flesh is at emnity with God, I am aware of this as I read God word and purposely subject my mind in order to recieve the faith that is operative with God's word.
I notice that in order for people to challenge God's word about predestination for example they must first change it to some other term like "determinism."
*
"We live, we move, we have our being in Him" [Paul was preaching to people as yet unsaved] it doesn't matter whether we are playing hockey or at meeting.
Hockey is applied science that is predetermined, the side which applies the science more expertly will win, taking other scientific matters such as physical fitness [and if somebody doesn't whack me across the ankle with a hockey stick] all is according to predetermined science.
I do not believe God takes His eyes off from us for a moment, He is in the NOW and not remote. This is what makes sin so awful, that it is in the full sight of God. Even sin is predetermined science MISapplied, how awful then is sin? The crucifixion was applied science predetermined but when sin was complete [He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might be the righteousness of God] God looked away from the sin in it's most mature form and death occurred.
Hockey is played in real time and not micromanaged by God. He watches the game unfold. He can predict the winner proximally, but He cannot and does not foresee it from eternity past (or the players are puppets and are not the ones actualizes the potential future into the fixed past through the present). God does not 'see' the game as finished before the players are even in existence to actually play, make mistakes, get injured, have random bounces, etc. Your view is incoherent.
patman
Active member
I know you don't want to diminish God's good name. When Jesus became flesh he was obviously "trapped" by your own definition and was still Almighty God. I am not conceding that sequential events makes one "trapped," I am just pointing out that we both can agree on one time where God was "trapped" in by existing in a universe where events run sequentially.
If that is such a bad thing, why did Jesus humble himself?
Lon, events aren't just objects in motion. A thought is an event. A song stuck in your head is an event. Your spirit longing for love is an event. Emotions are events.
God, who was always loving, who never rests, etc., was always engaged in events. Since thinking is an event: if he is able to think forward, backwards, or with great dyslexia the parts of the thought still made up an event and happened.
Can we get out a stopwatch and say "OK God square root of 2894375987981723 GO!!" and actually expect to measure the speed of his thoughts? No. Our ability to measure the speed is irrelevant - because God can measure himself. But at the very least we know that thoughts are happening in Him.
We also know they were always happening. We know he planned salvation before he ever created this physical realm. "Planned" is en event. He didn't need to get out pencil and paper. Just used his mighty mind.
Therefore, because a simple thought is an event, and God was always able to think, thus an event is a part of God's nature and doesn't need to be created.
I think what we do is wrongly in the first place is to even attempt to rationalize God, I think He jumps the fence...He is spirit and that is beyond our ability as much as eternity is beyond our ability, if it were possible the God of our rationality would become an idol. The attempt to rationalize Him is an attempt to bring Him down to our size and that is what we do, we look at ourselves who are limited creatures with limited capabilities and we think God is like us.
God is spirit and is UNlimited by anything, eternity embraces the future as well as past and present, I say not only God knows the future but He IS the future, past, present and future are IN Him nor is there anything outside of Him.
Unlimited in knowledge and unlimited in power, limitless in all His attributes.
Sin is outside of God but He has all knowledge of it, when sin reached it fulness in Christ God turned away and death was the result. When sin once again reaches it's fulness in Antichrist God will instantly destroy it.
God is omnipotent, yet He cannot create a rock too heavy to lift (incoherent logical contradiction, not a limitation of an omnipotent God). If you do not see this point, you will fail to appreciate that there are things an omnipotent God cannot do or know.
Explain to me round squares and married bachelors while you are at it.
Explain to me round squares and married bachelors while you are at it.
This to me is where OvT leads to William, I just am surprised [very surprised given your thoughts on other matters] that you even entertain these ideas...oh well :sigh:
Most atheists and virtually all Christian theists, philosophers, thinkers agree that an omnipotent God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift nor round squares. You are among an ignorant minority of Christians/theists/atheists who deny the logical problem here (it is a stupid question, not a limitation on God).
Virtually all Calvinists (you are Calvinistic on many points) and Arminians and Open Theists would agree with me on the gist of it and denounce your view as indefensible (I take it to its logical conclusions, unlike most others...what is evident for omnipotence also applies to omniscience in relation to the future; there are some things undoable/unknowable by God).
I see you could not answer me, but reverted to ad hominem. While you are explaining married bachelors, can you also explain how and why God would know where Alice in Wonderland is and what she is doing right now in space/time? What is happening in Narnia and what would God say about what Aslan is doing right now? If He can't, does this mean He is not omniscient?!
Lon
Well-known member
Php 2:5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,
Php 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
Php 2:8 He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
— even death on a cross!
Yes, at one time, He was willingly constrained (though He could have summoned a legion of angels - Love was His constraint, not time/duration). He still retained perfect foreknowledge to my assessment, but that's hokey to an OVer.
We have finite created brains that absolutely, of necessity must think sequentially because information is built from what is known to what is unknown for us. God has no such thing as a physical brain. Your scenarios continue to reflect poorly, that you think God a man. Yet again: If God moves outside of Himself, something else is greater than Him. Tell me, where would He move to?
Please tell me what you believe is greater than God that He must move inside of?
No OVer has tackled the question to date.
Whatever moves within God is completely known. You seem to think God must decide to love us. His, is all love will ever be because Love is His nature, not the other way around (God is love but love isn't God).
He doesn't have to sequentially think of whether to love us or not, it is eternally decided because perfect love is His nature. He applies it to us sequentially, but no, He doesn't have to deliberate about His love, it is perfect and constant, requires nothing sequential but in its application to His finite creatures.
You continue to argue as if you've got Him capsulized and this is horrible and dangerous theology for any of us.
patman
Active member
No, Lon. I made it clear that God could think in ways unknown to us - you are just attacking my viewpoint so you don't have to think about it. It doesn't matter HOW he plans, thinks, loves, etc... the ONLY thing that maters is these are EVENTS. Events, that were happening well before he ever created anything.
I also didn't say God decided to love us... I am not going to set the record straight on everything. But anyway, LOVE is an action among other things. God's makeup of love, which has always been there - unchanged in God - shows that he was doing something before creation.
"If God moves outside of Himself, something else is greater than Him." makes no since. Can you explain after you address the point that God engaged in events existed before creation? I know you have been addressing that, but you only address it by distorting things when these things are clear.
*
I have seen these questions posed before so I know they are not from you which makes it easier for me to say that in my opinion they are silly, they are the last throw of the dice of a bankrupt argument...throw in a couple of nonsensical and unanswerable questions to flummox the opposition. In short bullshine to baffle brains. They have nothing to do with knowledge of any kind, they are what you might call unknowledge,
God created the world by wisdom, in fact wisdom [or knowledge or science] is the first of His creation...these questions do not pertain to wisdom but to folly and God did not create by folly.
Greetings Assuranceagent,
My apologies for having not responded earlier, I only just now noticed your post!
Your response to my question indicates to me that you do not understand the question, or more precisely put, you do not understand the term "rational".
I am not asking whether some dim witted ding bat on the street who wouldn't know a skillful thought if one jumped out from behind a fire hydrant and screamed "BOO!" can intuitively understand the basic principles of the Christian faith.
Indeed, it is precise that sort of human cattle, those people who do not actively think their way through life, that God says the message of the gospel won't make any sense too.
What I'm talking about is sound reason, the sort of reason that results in the objective understanding of reality. That which says that A is A, that existence exists, that reality is real, that the truth is true and cannot be otherwise.
So to take your examples one by one...
The infinity of the Divine This concept is too vague to say whether it is rational or not. It depends on your definition of "infinity" and "the divine" but to address it specifically is not necessary. The point here is simply that whatever concept this phrase names in your mind, if that concept is irrational then it is not true! And, in whatever sense that phrase can be used to name a concept that is true, that concept is rational, which is to say that it is both self-consistent and consistent with reality.
The Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is often accused of being irrational and there are versions of the doctrine that are irrational. Those versions that are irrational are all false but the basic doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational at all. It is only when people begin adding to what the Bible actually teaches that they get into trouble in a rational sense. The Bible teaches that there is one God. It also teaches that there are three persons extant within the singular God. But there is nothing irrational in that. The law of contradiction states that two truth claims that are contradictory cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that God is both singular and plural in the same sense but rather that in one sense God is singular and in another sense God is plural. The Bible does not explain to us all the details about the precise nature of the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit but only that the relationship exists.
The Incarnation. I can't understand how the incarnation could be taken to be irrational in any sense whatsoever. There is simply nothing self-contradictory about God becoming a man. Man, as such, is not inherently evil (i.e. Man was created good). If you're wondering how God could be born of a woman and not inherit the sin nature, that's possible because the sin nature passes through the father not the mother and, of course, Jesus had no earthly father.
The Resurrection. Here also, I see nothing irrational at all here. Jesus said that He had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. He did so. One might wonder how a dead man can take up his life again but that would stem from a misunderstand of what it means to be dead. To be dead does not mean one no longer exists. To be physically dead means that your spirit has left your body. To be spiritually dead means that your spirit is separated from God the Father. When Jesus died on the cross He was separated from His physical body and went to "paradise" (i.e. Abraham's Bosom) which was the place of the righteous dead who were not yet able to ascend into heaven because up to that point their sins had not yet been atoned for and were thus required to be separated from God the Father. Thus Jesus died in every sense that any other righteous person had ever died, His ability to be resurrected not withstanding.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Indeed I do and yes it is entirely rational. There are only so many roads left to a man when he abdicates the proper use of his thinking mind.
In other words, all I need to know is that you reject sound reason as an absolute. That's why I started with asking you a question and not with anything else. I had only read a single post of yours prior to having asked the question and so while I suspected what your answer would be, I did not assume anything, I asked you directly. It is only when you answered me that I can know the rest. And yes, I used the word "know" and I meant it.
This comment contradicts your entire worldview and you don't even know it. More of your swimming outside of water.
You state the absolute "Your post is foolish" but reject the only thing your mind can use to postulate any absolute - reason.
In actual fact, you FEEL that my post is foolish. If you knew it to be so, you'd jump at any chance to make an argument to that effect but you can't make any such argument without using reason which based on your own stated position I could defeat by simply saying "well that's just human reasoning" or "that's just logic".
And you end with a simple and blatant lie. I've done nothing but make very simple and straight forward arguments supporting my every supposition, which you have no way to answer because of the premise of your worldview. Your reaction is therefore not born of intelligence and wisdom but of the only recess left in your mind, emotion. You feel your way through your entire life. Things are true for you because you feel them not because they make any sense or because there in any connection between your feeling and reality. You feel that I am a fool, You feel that I am arrogant, you feel that your god exists, you feel that he loves you, you feel that you are saved, you feel, you feel, you feel.
What I feel comes as a product of my thinking mind and what I feel right now is pity for you because I KNOW that there is no escape from the prison you've locked your own mind into because you refuse to acknowledge neither your procession of the key nor your need to use it.
The man who doesn't know he's lost will make no attempt to regain his bearings.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Folks . . . this is sick talk.
Hatefulness.
Edited to add: In his posts, Clete obviously attributes salvation to be the result of some exercise of humanistic reasoning superiority that surpasses that of inferior and unreasoning "human cattle."
Beware, folks. The Word of God can be logically understood by even ungodly men.
It is faith in the Word of God, that alone separates the godly from the ungodly.
Godly men do not grasp the truths of God, due to any human superiority, but simply by being regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.
IOW's . . . Clete is not intellectually superior to any other human being. And it is insulting for him to insinuate otherwise, in the name of being logical. What a joke!
Nang
Last edited:
Both those who accept predestination and those who reject it accept God as the author of Scripture.
It is not scripture that I reject as irrational, it is your interpretation of it.
This is seriously a stupid thing to say. Your experience tells you one thing, an atheists experience tells him another. Whose experience is more valid? Which, on the basis of the experience itself, is right and which is wrong and how would you be able to know it?
Liar! God never said any such thing.
That's your idiotic interpretation and an intentional mangling of the passage.
There is only one reality, Totton and therefore only one "rationality".
The alternative is to accept that you can know nothing at all.
AMEN!!! One of my favorite verses in the entire Bible!
He didn't tell us to renew our feelings, our impressions or our experiences.
You split reality into two halves, the reality for God and the reality for everyone else which leaves you incapable of knowing anything most especially what is that good and perfect will of the alternate reality god you worship.
The mind of the flesh?
Where did you read about that?
Chapter and verse please.
Which mind do you use? The mind of the flesh or the other mind that you seem to think you have? Hmm?
The Bible teaches that we have the mind of Christ! It never teaches that there is the mind of the flesh. On the contrary it specifically teaches that the flesh wars against our mind, which I quoted you in my previous post. Here it is again with fuller context, in case you've forgotten...
Romans 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, , and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, , and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
You notice in error. The doctrine of predestination as taught by the average church (especially any Calvinist church) is flatly, plainly, and totally false - period.
It can be proven to be false in about two seconds by anyone who has a functioning mind and who cares to be honest. (Neither you nor Nang qualify.)
What I have noticed is that those who want to argue in favor of the doctrine of predestination as taught by the average church is that they must redefine the term "justice" in such a way as to make it compatible with, if not outright synonymous with the term "arbitrary". Same goes for the term "love".
In other words, the contradiction is obvious enough, even to the Calvinist, that the proponents of the doctrine of predestination intuitively see the need to alter the definition of common words or else be forced to abandon their favorite doctrine. Even the Calvinist can't escape their own inherently rational nature. They can choose to be irrational but they cannot avoid the necessity of choosing nor the consequences of their choice. They (i.e. you) are thus without excuse. It is their own mental wrangling that convicts them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
O.K.
Here is your chance.
You have not 2 seconds to prove predestination to be false, but 2 hours.
I eagerly await to see what you can produce.
Nang
Beware, folks. Nang is an idiot.
I never suggested that ungodly men CAN'T logically understand the word of God, only that most of them don't.
It is Nang's doctrine that teaches that "unregenerate" (i.e. ungodly) people can't understand God, not mine.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I did it already but you missed it, you blithering idiot. :rotfl:
Like is said, you're not qualified!
This is the last time I'll be directly responding to anything Nang says. I make it a matter of policy to not give the INTENTIONALLY irrational the luxury of my time nor the effort of my mind.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Not so, according to my post #2835, where I said, "Beware, folks. The Word of God can be logically understood by even ungodly men."
Thing is, God's word being logical and reasonable is often understood by ungodly men . . . but ungodly men are not given faith to BELIEVE God's reasonable and logical words.
Nang