How much of my website have you honestly read? Say something truly intelligent, make your case. Give me more than your funny one liners.
--Dave
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
How much of my website have you honestly read? Say something truly intelligent, make your case. Give me more than your funny one liners.
--Dave
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I have read your web site and find nothing on it where you explain how God estimates or evaluates His creature, Dave.
It is all about how the creature Dave believes he and his fellow man should evaluate God.
It is a philosophical exercise attempting to define (and limit) Creator God; based solely on humanistic interpretations and theory.
That is sophistry.
Which makes it illegitimate for you to accuse those who present sound Christian witness and theology according to Holy Scripture, as relying on philosophical premises, when humanism is the very grounds of your own view and arguments.
Nang
Repent means more than changing one's mind. It involves a total change, including behavior, not just thinking. Vine's makes an etymological mistake.
It is also used about God in a non-sin context. If the Bible wanted to indicate that God changes His mind, how else would it do so other than what it says at face value. Making it an anthropomorphism is only to retain a preconceived idea of what God can or cannot do. You leave no way for God to communicate that He can and does change His mind. If God wanted to say He cannot change His mind, He could have communicated that extreme, but He did not.
Nang: Bah...
WandererInFog
New member
If you actually believe that a belief in God existing in some manner outside time and possessing exhaustive foreknowledge originates with Augustine, then you really need to go read more of what the Church Fathers wrote on the subject and back even further to writings coming out of the Second Temple period within Judaism. There was nothing new or innovative in Augustine's writings in this regard.
You are the one who thinks God must be all-controlling to be in control. This is bad parenting and bad governing. We do not underestimate God because of His omnicompetence and ability to govern free moral agents who have a say so. In your view, God is ruling robots and always gets His way.
The chessmaster who responds to contingent moves and wins due to sheer ability is much greater than one who ties up the opponent and makes moves for both sides or one who sees in advance every move so he can plan a perfect game over time.
An omnicausal view of God is actually demonstrating an insecure God as opposed to one who is able to bring His project to pass despite lack of cooperation from every individual. God is secure enough and capable enough to create significant others who may even act contrary to God's will.
Lon
Well-known member
Dave,
It isn't probable (again, honestly not being mean here) that you understand eternal time. I don't even understand eternal non-beginning. This is exactly why I say I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Again, please don't see this as a slam. Yes, it is way frustrating but the problem is that many people (2/3, 3/4) of the populace do not leave concrete for metaphysical (formal). This is no slam against most people on the planet. It is just a fact. All I'm trying to get you to understand is that you guys are stuck in segmented logic that cannot be applied to eternal logic. Eternity profoundly escapes our reasoning ability. When you guys continue to say it is simple, I'm convinced you aren't grasping an important metaphysical point of truth.
It is frustrating trying to show a truth that most of the populace cannot grasp. I'm left asserting it is true, that's the frustration.
This is actually a Oscar Cullmann quote.
This was actually Shaeffer's (you misquoted your own source)
Schaeffer's Antithesis view was adopted from Hegel:
-The God Who is There
This supports a different view of time than merely linear/segment and Schaeffer supported it.
Your quote:
Is not grasping his reasoning at all. It is the same contention I've given you here by myself.
Cullmann's quote:
From the student writing the article:
Yes, Augustines Confessions is the best book on how this synthesis of Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation takes place. Islamic and Jewish scholars did it before him.
--Dave
Ok, that's good. Now give some examples from my website and show us how I have done what you say. You're now a two line critic, keep going soon you'll be making a real contribution.
--Dave
Here are my quotes, who I am quoting appears above the quote. I guess you missed that.
Augustine
"What is time? I do not know."
Einstein
"If matter and its motion disappeared there would
no longer be any space or time."
Oscar Cullmann
"The New Testament knows nothing
of any timeless eternity, or of a God who is beyond
or outside time and not within it."
Francis Schaeffer
" 'In the beginning' is a technical term
stating the fact that at this point of sequence there is a creation
out of nothing. Before this there was a personal
existence--love and communication."
Opponents of Augustine
“If it was the eternal will of God that
the creation should come to be, why, then, is not the
creation itself also from eternity?"
"What is time? I do not know."
Einstein
"If matter and its motion disappeared there would
no longer be any space or time."
Oscar Cullmann
"The New Testament knows nothing
of any timeless eternity, or of a God who is beyond
or outside time and not within it."
Francis Schaeffer
" 'In the beginning' is a technical term
stating the fact that at this point of sequence there is a creation
out of nothing. Before this there was a personal
existence--love and communication."
Opponents of Augustine
“If it was the eternal will of God that
the creation should come to be, why, then, is not the
creation itself also from eternity?"
Hegel took the idea of synthesis one step further. A thesis has an antithesis, a compromise produces a synthesis, which is what Augustine produced. Hegel said the synthesis becomes a new thesis which has an antithesis and from which we can form another new synthesis. This is the dialectic methodology and marks the end of absolute truth as Schaeffer points out in Escape from Reason. Schaeffer absolutely disagrees with Hegel
I don't mind you quoting me but I do mind you misquoting me.
Cullman points out what the Bible literally says despite what ever other conclusions he draws from it.
I don't think most people find "eternal timelessness" a difficult concept to understand. What they find difficult is that it's not what the Bible says about God.
I don't find you to be mean as much as I find you dazed and confused as anyone would be with what you believe.
Concerning Augustine on time he wrote:
"And I confess to thee, O Lord, that I am still ignorant as to what time is. And again I confess to thee, O Lord, that I know that I am speaking all these things in time, and that I have already spoken of time a long time, and that "very long" is not long except when measured by the duration of time. How, then, do I know this, when I do not know what time is?" --Augustine from his Confessions.
I'll let others judge for themselves if I grasp Augustine or not.
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html
--Dave
No Dave, it would not mean God tells a lie. An analogy to light might help you see.
When sunlight falls on a blue dress, blue is the only color seen; when on a bright red shirt, only red. A yellow object shows only yellow, etc. How can one beam of light suddenly be a different color every time it strikes a different spot? The differences occur because a ray of white light contains all the colors of the spectrum (album cover of Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon"), and whenever it strikes an opaque object some colors are absorbed while others are reflected.
The blue dress is blue because it absorbs the reds and yellows; it reflects only the blue we see. The red shirt absorbs yellows, blue-greens, and blues, reflecting its specific shade of red. If a dress absorbed no color, it would reflect the entire contents of the white light and would obviously be white.
Even though each object shows its own color, the entire visible spectrum is still present in the white light shining upon it. The difference is not in the light but in the selective absorption of the object. Likewise, God’s essence might manifest certain characteristics in one situation but others in a different situation.
The Lord Jesus Christ displays His awesome omnipotence as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10)
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Hi Dave,
I only read the section on salvation, the five "conditions" of salvation I found very troubling.
Luckily, everyday Christians engaged in the practice of their faith by reading the Bible, attending the church of their choice and walking their individual pathways with Christ don't, generally, read the kind of nitpicking ongoing I can top you kind of rhetoric which is displayed on this thread. You are all, apparently, terribly erudite. What fun you all seem to be having. As for me, Joshua says a lot! bybee
Lon
Well-known member
K, usually author follows quote, but I see what you did.
I know what Augustine said. Where did I misquote you? It'd help if you cited your sources as I do especially concerning Schaeffer. He may have been wrong on this particular point, but I'd like to see your quotes that support your position on him.
Let me try yet again, so that at least it stands for the record:
An eternal non-beginning is greatly troubling to your concepts, whether you acquiesce it or not. Every metaphysical (formal operational) thinker will agree with this truth. They may take a variance upon it, but they will not, cannot change it from being a truth.
The truth again: God cannot possibly be constrained to duration and sequence (time and its concepts) as we are. As GodRulz is so fond of saying, it is like 'square-circle.' It is trying to understand God from finite parameters against infinite/eternal considerations. It cannot be done.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
My apologies, I did not mean to be 'terribly' erudite but I grant that it is at this particular point as an accurate observation.
I'll try to bring it back down to brass tacks for my part. I didn't mean to leave anyone behind but some of this is tough to convey and I think important.
:think:
Well, let's see. You asked what OVers do with that verse. So who do you think "we" is? You really aren't very smart, are you?
:dunce::duh:
I know this.
And? Your point? You're not telling me anything I don't know.
God's character cannot change. With that I agree. But if we can change our minds, why can't God? Not only that, but God can change our minds. Yet you want me to beleive that He cannot change His own?
God says He changes His mind. Yet He says He does not change His mind as man changes their mind.
You jump through hoops better than my cat.
:blabla:
100 is average, from what I understand. And while I do not know mine exactly it is closer to yours than it is to average.
Seeing as how I'm a very talented artist and poet I'm fairly certain you're way off about how I think.
And 2+2=4 is not complicated. So not everything is. Time is not complicated, either.
I never said Einstein was an idiot.
Do what? My comment had nothing to do with foreknowledge. It was about present knowledge. I was right, you are an idiot.
Yes, God knows me that well. So what?
You're problem is that you are trying to solve basic math using Calculus.
"God never had a beginning." Sounds pretty simple to me.
You're definitely off on that. This was not a physical human trait. So it does not qualify as a anthropomorphism. And even if it is an anthropopathism, just saying that it is does not explain why He said it. It does not answer the question I asked.
you just got done telling me it's more complicated than I know, and then you go and try to simplify to the fullest extent possible. And it just seems to me that you're trying to dumb it down so that you can try to understand it.
This is another problem with the "high IQ" crowd. Not only do they think everything is too complicated for the average person to understand it, they think a great many things are too complicated for even them to understand, so they never try.
You suffer from the same problem as someone who was always told they were stupid growing up.
You can't prove that it is impossible, can you?
And you're not trying very hard to explain this to me either.
P.S.
I used to believe the same thing you do, regarding this.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I am the one. I believe Godly control of the universe and all living things is an either/or power. God either is powerful enough to absolutely control all things that exist or God is not powerful at all.
And of course, any God lacking total power, is no God at all.
That is the kind of "God" Open Theists have invented. Open Theists believe in a Non-God.
A God that is powerless to control what He has made. A God that is incapable of fulfilling His own purposes. A God that has no clue what will come of what He has brought into being and put into motion.
What is? Being God who controls without being totally controlling? That is your argument. Are you declaring that God is a bad Father and unable to govern His creation? Of course you are! That is the logical conclusion of all Open Theists. God is not a good God, but a faulty God that does not totally control or parent or govern well at all.
Well, if those are not your reasons for underestimating God, what are your reasons for underestimating God?
In my view, God rules over all and always gets His way:
"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Psalm 115:3
It is the "robots" accusation that is erroneous.
There you go again! God is much greater than any "chessmaster." God is not playing games. He is a God of Purpose. The existance and future He has provided mankind is not a matter of chance, and was founded on certain divine goals. (Like bringing all glory to His Name!)
Only Deists believe God began things, and then just tinkers around (plays) with His creation, once in a while. You think much more like a Deist than you do a Theist, and every once in a while you show yourself.
Oh . . .so through God's weaknesses, He becomes strong?
Your glib blasphemies amaze me . . .
Nothing and no one acts contrary to God's will. Wicked, reprobates may act contrary to God's essence and God's Law, but it is God's revealed will to eliminate them permanently from His presence.
And God's will be done.
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Dave fills a web page full of references to God's Holy Word, and then adds his personal commentary, which manages to contradict the Scriptures quoted by his issuance of a totally false theodicy; resulting in producing only blasphemy and insults against the Almighty Creator. For he claims:
"God and Evil
Many people are skeptical about God's existence because of the evil in the world. They wonder, "Why did a perfect and holy God create imperfect and sinful humans?"
The answer is that we are not imperfect creations nor were we created sinful. We are simply finite (limited) and free. God warns us of the terrible consequences of sin, but he doesn't want us to be mere robots, with no will of our own, so he will not force us to do what is right.
Others ask, "Why did God create a world that he knew from the start was going to become so evil that he would have to destroy most of mankind in a great flood and ultimately in a fiery hell?"
The answer to that question is in Genesis 6:5-6. It says, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great ...and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
God regretted creating man because he did not know what man was going to do with the freedom he had given him. God did not know what man would do because the future of man is open and not fixed or predetermined by God.
The future of the world does not exist for God to see because he created the world finite, therefore he limited it to exist in present time only. God knew that man could sin but not that he would sin."
(Emphasis, mine.)
This is one of the sorriest and most disgusting things I have ever seen put in print about the Lord God.
. . . And I can see why Godrulz identifies with this fella, who apparently also denies the complete corruption of the human race due to Adam's original sin. . .
Quite troubling, indeed.
Nang
Godrulz is an open theist, and this is what you said about him:
Is Godrulz part of your "we"?
Jesse Morrell is an open theist, is he part of your "we"?