ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lighthouse]

Is this some sort of trick question?

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, gods, and objects or abstract concepts.

Since the deer already has eyes, what would be the point of refering to this as an anthropomorphism?

Now if the deer was trying to eat an ear of corn, but kept dropping it, and you said "that deer is all thumbs", that would be an anthropomorphism.

"all thumbs" is beyond that, actually, because humans aren't even that, in actuality. Just thought I'd get that out of the way.

Now, to the point of my question. You answered correctly. You even got to the heart of the issue. Deers have eyes. So to mention a deer's eyes is not an anthropomorphism. So, if God does have emotions it is not an anthropopathism to say that God loves, or hates, or is jealous.

Also, anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are figures of speech that humans use in reference to things that are not human. We don't use them in reference to ourselves, and those things that are not humans certainly don't use them in reference to themselves. Except, according to settled theologians, God. We obviously see God call Himself jealous. And we see Him say He is angry. Which is my point. God uses these terms to describe Himself. And you say that He doesn't mean it. Only because you believe He is impassable [except for love:squint:] without any support from the Bible. You beg the question.

You ask why we can believe there are anthropomorphisms and not anthropopathisms in reference to God, I ask why must it be that we are wrong?

Not sure how he does it, the Bible just calls it foreknowledge...

Any theories?

Also, did you see my post where I offered the possible ways He could have this foreknowledge?

I'm going to shame you here. My IQ is 150. If I'm a dupe, idiot, moron, whatever and your IQ is lower? "Do the math."
Your insults give me a chuckle and now everyone else too. The idiot comment doesn't bother me respectively.

Is it lower?

Also, your IQ doesn't stop you from being a moron, or an idiot. There are plenty of people with high IQs, even higher than yours, who have believed, and done, some extraordinarily stupid things. Even Einstein is guilty of assuming too much. He thought that some things must be very complicated, and so he came up with theories to explain them. But he had no basis for the hypotheses to begin with. At least evolution had a basis. The existence of animals not found in early fossil records, the non-existence of animals that were found, etc. The theory of relativity, at least as it relates to time, had no basis. No reason to believe that time was a dimension. It was merely an assumption based on the idea that it must be complicated.

I know "I have to go down and see if what I'm hearing is true." THINK for crying out loud. Where would He have 'heard?' You guys are very 2-dimensional thinkers on these things. Learn to really think and contemplate a thing. As I said, this is the one and major flaw of OV imo. You guys just don't think past the objections. You turn your ear deaf and your eyes blind to objections. This is why the majority reject your position. I highly suspect Enyart of miscommunication when he says 'the brightest' on his radio show. You guys can't even read past a paragraph.

I know where He heard. it says in the text, nitwit. This is your fatal flaw, Lon. You assume that we haven't done the research, without even asking.

Do you even know what the immediate ramifications of God not knowing if what He had heard was true are? Do you know what that means about God's relationship with His people, at that time?

Let me give you a lesson:
God's people were crying out to Him about Sodom and Gomorrah. God did not know if their cries were the truth. Now, we've talked about how this means that God had not looked upon Sodom and Gomorrah. But it als means that He had not looked into the hearts and minds of His people, to see if they were telling the truth.:think:

This doesn't surprise me in the least, whatsoever. I mean you and Nick can't even read a one minute (or less) post. When 3-5 paragraphs is 'too long' we all know where you stand and your academic prowess.

:doh:

Just because I don't like reading your arrogant posts doesn't mean I can't read posts that long. Sometimes I don't have time to read them, but that's another issue. And to illustrate my point, Granite's posts are usually shorter than yours. At least the ones I have actually read. And yet they are far more arrogant, much of the time. He is on my ignore list because of this. You are not. Post length has nothing to do with it.

And what? God can have EDF and you still have moral culpability. There is no more 'and.'

I never said otherwise. Also, your ignornace is showing, again. Predestination would be the problem. If God had predestined it, then I would not be culpable. Just having the foreknowledge doesn't make Him culpable. So, in other words, I agree with you. The purpose of my use of the term, "and," was to say, "so what."

Show me. To say it is circular clearly reveals your one or two dimensional thinking. It is impossible whether I'm the one asserting it, proving it, or not. It is just a fact of impossibility whether you see it or not.
Here, I also proved it.

No, it isn't. There is nothing impossible about it. And whatever happened to your pet verse about nothing being impossible with God?

'And' it is not only probable, but logical, again whether you want to agree or not.

It is not logical that God cannot have reached this point if He has always existed [infinitely into the past].

Fine.

Have at it.

Lon

:e4e:

 

[tetelestai]

1. Something is eternal and has no beginning. Something has always existed because it’s impossible for anything to come into existence from absolutely nothing.

2. Whatever is eternal is the cause for the existence of what is not eternal and has a beginning.

Do you believe that after salvation a believer has eternal life, or everlasting life?

 

[godrulz]

But He still 'initiated' that. We cannot escape first-cause.

God caused creation, but that does not mean He logically causes my choices.

What is the first cause of evil entering the universe?! If God is omnicausal or deterministic, did He desire, intend, and introduce evil? Just because He created Lucifer does not mean He creates Satan.

Did God cause the Fall in any way? Creating innocent man does not mean He caused them to rebel.

If God did cause the first instance of evil, how is this not contrary to His holy character? If God did not cause it, then why do you hold to an omnicausal, deterministic theology?!

 

[godrulz]

He was an ordained Presbyterian minister and seminary graduate.

How is that "not a theologian per se?"



The problem I have with this is the lack of EDF of course. Any definite foreknowledge is not foreknowledge really, but determinism.

Example: Tomorrow I will wear the blue shirt.
My foreknowledge is due to my predetermination and dedication to seeing that come about. This is one way definite foreknowledge can come about and many Calvinists agree. I agree, but it isn't the only way in my understanding and simply will not work for "Exhaustive" unless we go the double-pred route. I don't.

I do not know other ways DF works but again, once we understand the truth that God cannot be seen logically as constrained to our time-line, it is much easier to acquiesce that there are things God may know that we cannot figure out. Time consideration is also a part of our dynamic/static discussion. He is both dynamic and static. He is both relational to and apart from our perception and constraints in time (He cannot logically be seen as constrained, relational, yes, but impossible for Him to be constrained).

More on your second sentence. I missed it here. Apologies.

Eternal now does not actually make sense with simple foreknowledge or free will. It implies the future is settled, contrary to free will. Open Theism is more consistent in affirming free will and endless time vs timelessness.

Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage since God could not change the known future even if He wanted to. Determinism underestimates His omnicompetence. God can and does respond in real space-time due to His ability, not decree or SFK.

If you believe in unconditional election, this leads to limited atonement and double predestination (unconditional reprobation).

I think you should either become a consistent Calvinist, not-so-bad Arminian, or Open Theist (best). My attempts to be moderate or mediate eventually failed.

I wonder if my IQ would be above 100. Is there a definitive online test?

 

[godrulz]

I see your point here and agree there is a problem but I believe the cross is the remedy for it. In otherwords, without the cross, I concede the point that we couldn't morally choose to 'not sin.'

As to genetics, I do believe there has to be something genetic. Our bodies were designed to live forever without sickness, old age, and disease. Because we die, I believe there has to be something genetically altered by sin.
Because Romans 1 tells us 'all creation groans,' and we a part of creation, I have to understand that sin carries physical ailments and consequences.

Mr. IQ. Death is a consequence of the Fall and relates to physical depravity. This is in the realm of metaphysics/being.

Sin is in the philosophical realm (you probably know more phil. than I do...secular or not) or 'morals' (not morality). It is volitional, not genetic. The body is not sinful, but what we do with it. There is weakness, not causation, with our bodies. Physical death is a consequence of the Fall and is genetic (even Jesus and believers die). Moral depravity (spiritual/eternal death/separation) relates to moral depravity which is volitional, not substance/genetic/metaphysics.

 

[godrulz]

No, I don't dismiss the possibility of foreknowledge apart from determinism, that is you. You say whatever He determines is foreknown so that it is partial don't you? I say that it is absolutely within logic to say He is not constrained by time as we know it. Relational to, but unconstrained.

As to being vapid about an eternal now, maybe it isn't 'lively' enough for you but it is forceful and to be reckoned with and you'd rather ignore it.
Again, it would be impossible for Him to ever get to now if His duration is exactly as ours. "Eternal" non-beginning would never get to this point. He'd still be an eternity in the past with an eternity of time (never) before He'd get to now. This logic blows holes in everything you believe and you know it. Meh, "Vapid." If you'd address it logically, you'd not say such things. It doesn't prove EDF but it makes it's likelihood tangible so that I can agree with STP here that it isn't necessary to know how as to proving it plausible and rejecting a supposed logical disclaimer.

Mathematically, there is not a problem with infinite neg and pos numbers.

<-------------------------now-------------------->

Along this endless duration, God creates, incarnates, experiences 2008, returns, etc.

J.R. Lucas (IQ 500?) in 'A Treatise on Time and Space' talks about instants vs intervals, Zeno's paradox, etc. He concludes that God is not 'eternal now', but experiences an endless duration of time, a requirement of being personal (sequence/succession...think/act/feel).

You are not playing mind games that the arrow will never reach the target because of infinitely smaller intervals?

 

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul
If God is able to see the decision between the two vehicles as if it has already happened, how does that make the actual decision less than free?

If God is able to change the past....

Good luck...even God cannot change the fixed past (nor can He know the not yet future as a certainty, by His sovereign choice to create free moral agents).

Don't listen to Einstein...the past, present, and future are fundamentally different. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present.

A (dynamic) vs B (static) theory of time....endless time, not timelessness. I guess this really is an important, fundamental issue. Sanders, Boyd, Hasker, Wolterstorff, Holy Spirit, etc. would be help in this area.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are not playing mind games that the arrow will never reach the target because of infinitely smaller intervals?

That's another stupid thing Einstein came up with.

 

[godrulz]

That's another stupid thing Einstein came up with.

Let's make a list of stupid Einstein things. We can get him:banned:

I think the arrow thing predates him by centuries...Zeno's Paradox.


Einstein did blur the distinction between past/present/future, a rookie mistake.

I guess he did not have an IQ greater than Lon's 150?

 

[tetelestai]

Can an open theist explain 1 Samuel 15:29 to me?

(NASB) “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

“for He is not a man that He should change His mind” This is pretty clear to me, it says: God is not a man; therefore God will not change His mind.

?????????

 

[DFT_Dave]

Do you believe that after salvation a believer has eternal life, or everlasting life?

Is this the only response that you can come up with to my post?

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Can an open theist explain 1 Samuel 15:29 to me?

(NASB) “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

“for He is not a man that He should change His mind” This is pretty clear to me, it says: God is not a man; therefore God will not change His mind.

?????????

This is actually a common OT passage. Read the whole chapter. It contains both truths. In one verse, it says God changed his mind, and in another verse, it says that He won't change His mind. This is like Malachi's proof text for immutability.

God does not change His mind in a capricious, fickle way like men do. In some cases, God will change His mind in response to repentance or prayer (Hezekiah; Jonah). In other cases, they could beg all they wanted to: God will not change His intentions/mind, but will send promised judgment (wiser in that case).

So, it is will not vs cannot. God is personal and we are in His image. In some cases, God will change His mind (Hezekiah). In other cases, he changes his mind (regrets making Saul king because he turned bad). In some cases, God would be unrighteous to not change His mind. He is not in a fatalistically fixed box, but is responsive and dynamic adapting to changing contingencies with wisdom.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Can an open theist explain 1 Samuel 15:29 to me?

(NASB) “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

“for He is not a man that He should change His mind” This is pretty clear to me, it says: God is not a man; therefore God will not change His mind.

?????????

I Samuel 15

10The word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11“I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry; and he cried to the LORD all night.

24And Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.” 26And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27As Samuel turned to go away, Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.”

The context of this verse is clear. God "repented" that he had made Saul king. Samuel tells Saul that God has rejected him as king and he will not "repent" of this decision.

This verse does not say that God never repents of any decision he has made as is clear from verse 11.

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Can an open theist explain 1 Samuel 15:29 to me?

(NASB) “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

“for He is not a man that He should change His mind” This is pretty clear to me, it says: God is not a man; therefore God will not change His mind.

?????????

Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.
And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.
And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.
And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Then he said, I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD thy God.
So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the LORD.
Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul.
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
-1 Samuel 15:10-35


That's what we do. We read the entire context. And, just so you know, the Hebrew also uses the same word in all three verses.

 

[godrulz]

Bottom line is that God changes His mind sometimes, but not other times. It is always consistent with His character, and not fickle like humans. Both e.g. are in the passage, so this is the danger of proof texting one motif and ignoring the other (cf. knowing future and immutability....God knows some vs all of the future and changes in some ways, but not in other ways).

OVT stands up to biblical, philosophical, and logical scrutiny.

Trust me, I can see Alaska from my house and have an IQ of 100, almost as much as Lon's.

 

[Lon]

First of all we are talking about God's nature not the nature of an atom. Atoms internally and intrinsically are always in movement. A car engine is not the same thing as the car it is sitting in. A car engine cannot be running and not running at the same time.

You have broken the rule of identity, that is how we define something. In your argument you identified a car as the same thing as the engine.

Hi Dave,
Totally disagree. A car is not a car without the engine, it is 'part' of a car,
hence: 'parting out.'

This is the same with God as well as you and I. There are things about us that do not change (eye color, IQ) and things that obviously do.

Even OV says God is both static (immutable) and dynamic (moving, relational). We just disagree on which is which. Don't overblow the Calvinist/OV debate, please. You are way overgeneralizing.

A timeless God is "intrinsically" timeless or he is not timeless in his relationship to the world. Timelessness means no-time, no sequence of activity, no before and after, no past and no future, which is the opposite of what time means. No argument can be made for or against God's nature, one way or the other, unless this understanding of the identity or definition of the words time and timelessness are accepted by both parties in this debate.

Again, unless, as I stated, He is both which OV agrees He is. Come on, Dave. Please.

Biblically speaking, that there was a time in God's eternal past when he existed before he created the world. There was a time in God's eternity that the creation of the world was in his future.

But if God is active and timeless, that is dynamic and static, then he does everything all at once and eternally, and then the world he interacts with would also be eternal. God did not start nor has ever stopped creating the world or anything else he does. It seems differently to us who are finite and bound by time, but not the way it is for God who is infinite and timeless, is the way Calvin put it.

A timeless God; one who does, thinks, and feels, everything all at once and eternally, is not free, neither are we, and all is machine.

--Dave

Both and, not either or. Again, I assume that God's existence is very much different than our own both for the logical reasoning and because He conveys Himself as beyond us and our imaginings. Like I said, an atom is both static and active depending on which part we are looking at. God is both.

In Him

Lon

 

[Lon]

God caused creation, but that does not mean He logically causes my choices.

What is the first cause of evil entering the universe?! If God is omnicausal or deterministic, did He desire, intend, and introduce evil? Just because He created Lucifer does not mean He creates Satan.

Did God cause the Fall in any way? Creating innocent man does not mean He caused them to rebel.

If God did cause the first instance of evil, how is this not contrary to His holy character? If God did not cause it, then why do you hold to an omnicausal, deterministic theology?!

I think I see the problem, dunno but lets see.

First cause doesn't mean culpability, it just means first cause.

If someone builds two roads, and someone comes behind and makes a dirt road between them, the first builder is not at fault for the gravel tearing up his road nor is he required to fix it for free. He is first cause in that the other couldn't have built a road between two that didn't exist.

 

[Lon]

Mr. IQ. Death is a consequence of the Fall and relates to physical depravity. This is in the realm of metaphysics/being.

Sin is in the philosophical realm (you probably know more phil. than I do...secular or not) or 'morals' (not morality). It is volitional, not genetic. The body is not sinful, but what we do with it. There is weakness, not causation, with our bodies. Physical death is a consequence of the Fall and is genetic (even Jesus and believers die). Moral depravity (spiritual/eternal death/separation) relates to moral depravity which is volitional, not substance/genetic/metaphysics.

Yes, but this also effects our physical bodies ala Paul's "This is why some of you 'sleep' (die early)."

How is it that we sin if we are not predisposed to sin? I've read this thinking from you before but would really like to hear your thinking behind all of this in some detail. I don't think it an OV vs other's position so I'm intrigued and may learn something.

 

[Lon]

Eternal now does not actually make sense with simple foreknowledge or free will. It implies the future is settled, contrary to free will. Open Theism is more consistent in affirming free will and endless time vs timelessness.

Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage since God could not change the known future even if He wanted to. Determinism underestimates His omnicompetence. God can and does respond in real space-time due to His ability, not decree or SFK.

If you believe in unconditional election, this leads to limited atonement and double predestination (unconditional reprobation).

I think you should either become a consistent Calvinist, not-so-bad Arminian, or Open Theist (best). My attempts to be moderate or mediate eventually failed.

I wonder if my IQ would be above 100. Is there a definitive online test?

Try this one

IQ is not that big of a thing, I just post mine to combat the 'idiot' remarks and why I chuckle at them. Lighthouse is correct. Even Einstein was notoriously forgetful (made mistakes like the rest of us).

I still disagree that election 'must' lead to double-pred. You said it rightly: "it implies." This is only one avenue of logical consequence. Stay open to other avenues for investigating this.

Limited atonement, yes, on one hand I believe it is. Scripture alludes to this fact. Christ is both the Cornerstone and Stumbling-block respectively. I do not emphasize one truth without exploring the ramifications of the other. Christ's blood is effectual for all, but the outcome is the dividing of sheep and goats. It is effectual for declaring the sheep righteous and condemning the goats.

 

[Lon]

Mathematically, there is not a problem with infinite neg and pos numbers.

<-------------------------now-------------------->

Along this endless duration, God creates, incarnates, experiences 2008, returns, etc.

J.R. Lucas (IQ 500?) in 'A Treatise on Time and Space' talks about instants vs intervals, Zeno's paradox, etc. He concludes that God is not 'eternal now', but experiences an endless duration of time, a requirement of being personal (sequence/succession...think/act/feel).

You are not playing mind games that the arrow will never reach the target because of infinitely smaller intervals?

You are correct with Lighthouse, it wasn't Einstein.

I've said this to you before and you've forgotten. Lucas and Zeno dealt within time infrastructures for their proofs. In other words, they are stuck in time for analyzing what is outside of it. Your arguments from them are dealing with time. You mistakenly apply those truths and proofs to something outside of the consideration. In other words, you are using a finite proof (a time segment consideration) and trying to apply it to the infinite (eternal non-segment).