ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

LH who? I know you aren't talking about me. But you might want to make that clear for other people who don't know me well enough to know you aren't referring to me.

You are LH, the one who has a tendency to misunderstand and misrepresent our position on this.

Is it American Thanksgiving today? Seems quiet around here.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are LH, the one who has a tendency to misunderstand and misrepresent our position on this.

Salvation does not need to be earned, so how about you stop lying.

Is it American Thanksgiving today? Seems quiet around here.

Yes.

 

[godrulz]

Salvation does not need to be earned, so how about you stop lying.


Yes.

Correct, one cannot earn a free gift. However, when we talk about loving obedience after salvation, you wrongly think we are talking about legalistic obedience to earn salvation (you are the one lying about our views).

 

[Lon]

You are LH, the one who has a tendency to misunderstand and misrepresent our position on this.

Is it American Thanksgiving today? Seems quiet around here.

Yes he does and yes it is.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave: I am not saying that time for God is something that is outside of him, or along side of him, nor all around him. I am not saying that God moves sequentially from one thought, one emotion, nor one activity to another one. If this were so then, I would agree with you, the problem of "infinite regress" would apply.

Lon: This much is clear, we are in agreement. :thumb:

This point I'm following as well, but not connecting it well to our discussion where ultimately we are talking about EDF or not. I've always this in mind with our discussion because we together should be able to see our point of departure (where it actually happens). In understanding, I think we can disagree and yet consider one another in the faith. I think (only a guess at this time) that the majority of those labelling OV a cult is mostly over an unwillingness to discuss these issues intelligently, honestly, and without the 'Greek influence' accusation and rhetoric.' It is similar to the RC in dealing with Protestants I think. They took a hard stand and softened it after discussions.

All my debate experiences, other then here, were face to face, see pic from Washington Square Park in New York City. I always had to show respect to everyone, but if any one made a dumb statement or irrational comment there was plenty of support from others standing there listening.

Dave: I'm saying that God freely thinks, feels, does whatever he wants, as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Its not about numbers, numerals, math, etc. the issue is God either does, thinks, and feels everything possible all at once or he does not. But that does not mean he can only do, think, or feel one thing at a time. If God does not do, think, or feel everything all at once then time for him is "internal"; this thought, feeling or act, before that, thought, feeling, or act, or better, these thoughts, feelings, or acts, before those thoughts, feelings, or acts.

Lon: It is still a bit constrained here to 'succession' on only a linear consideration. With God, especially as He is relational, it is more multi-directional and less durative in my consideration.

The opposite of duration (duration being "eternal time") is no duration which is "eternal timelessness", multi-directional is not the same thing as non-durational. God loved us yesterday, loves us today, and will love us tomorrow; this is "relational" and is "durational". God's love is multi-directional and durational.

Lon: Even with a certain predictability, there is absolute foreknowing element in even an OV parameter. Again, I think an eternal future is not only a good guess with assurance but is absolute. He is saying He and we with Him will have an eternal (both everlasting durative and quality). To say this, He already contains all the information needed to actualize the statement. I.E. according to OV, even if He did not know every thing we are going to do, in an eternal consideration is more or less a pip than lack of certain foreknowledge of what will transpire (through determination of what is to come or some other means such as God's self-contained knowledge of what will come).

I'm not sure what you mean here. It almost seems that you agree with us, you say, "I think an eternal future is not only a good guess with assurance but is absolute." In a "timeless" eternity there is no future nor anything that is past, correct? In an eternity of time there is a past and a future.

Dave: Now I hope that you would tell me, if you agree with this or not. Do you believe that God does everything all at once or not?

Lon: I think it a difficult proposition for assessment. Since all proceeds from Him, even our freewill carries an element of incredibly predictable outcome as we can only express what we are given to do. We have physical, spiritual, and logical constraints that we cannot eshew even under sin. So in that, God knows what we can and cannot do in any given situation though it seem limitless to us at the time of choosing. It is kind of like watching sports. Pretty much, whatever we see, has all been seen before. In racing, it is the car wreck, the bumps, the engine seizure, and the ultimate winner. In football, it is any number of plays we've seen before either a run or a toss. It is interesting, despite the predictability, that we find them entertaining. They are all locked into a pretty predictable scenario. I'm horrible with movies. I can pretty well guess what is going to happen in them so that my wife sometimes doesn't like to watch them with me but I still enjoy them never-the-less.

Looks here like you are closer to us then to a completely timeless eternity, which is the bases for absolute foreknowledge of all future events and actions.

Lon: I cannot help with this predictability but imagine God with something very near EDF if not exactly that as an exponential of my own understanding. If I find people this predictable, I cannot fathom that it precludes their choices but I'm also not as bothered by Skinnerarian and Pavlovian ideas of philosophy. Some people hate these ideas (man is a machine and reliably predictable). I don't wholeheartedly agree with them, but I also am open to their studies and analysis. Some Calvinists would undoubtedly wholeheartedly agree with these men. I rather see a need of necessity to be a compatiblist as I see truths of our individuality and culpability in opposition.

I completely agree with you here, "individuality" and "culpability" are certainly in opposition to B. F. Skinner, Augustine, and John Calvin. We are not mere dogs, machines, nor born "totally depraved".

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Dave: We were given airmiles and might take a trip for our anniversary next year. Would you recommend coming to New York? What is there to do and see? Any scenery nearby? Is it a safe city for tourists? My wife is in a wheelchair. Do you have to buy tickets long in advance (Broadway, etc.)?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave: We were given airmiles and might take a trip for our anniversary next year. Would you recommend coming to New York? What is there to do and see? Any scenery nearby? Is it a safe city for tourists? My wife is in a wheelchair. Do you have to buy tickets long in advance (Broadway, etc.)?

Not to far in advance. I'll give you a tour. We'll have to see what the new prez does before we will know if it will be safe here next year. It is right now and will be as long as we have troops over there.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Not to far in advance. I'll give you a tour. We'll have to see what the new prez does before we will know if it will be safe here next year. It is right now and will be as long as we have troops over there.

--Dave

If you were Canadian and could go anywhere in the continental U.S., where would you go (assuming you did not live in NY).

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you were Canadian and could go anywhere in the continental U.S., where would you go (assuming you did not live in NY).

Back to Canada, or maybe Phoenix. Where do you live?

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Back to Canada, or maybe Phoenix. Where do you live?

--Dave

Edmonton, Alberta (above Montana).

 

[Lon]

All my debate experiences, other then here, were face to face, see pic from Washington Square Park in New York City. I always had to show respect to everyone, but if any one made a dumb statement or irrational comment there was plenty of support from others standing there listening.

That is true of all debates. We tend to follow stronger debaters unfortunately (because they can be wrong, just better debaters).

The opposite of duration (duration being "eternal time") is no duration which is "eternal timelessness", multi-directional is not the same thing as non-durational. God loved us yesterday, loves us today, and will love us tomorrow; this is "relational" and is "durational". God's love is multi-directional and durational.

Again, I'm not certain I have to answer this question too specifically and my compatible nature on things tends to be a hard pill for OVer's to swallow logically. It is a hard call when we are talking about God and speculating. I tend NOT to lean as heavily on my logic but try to have faith with things of Him whether a thing is indepthly explained or not, and it really has more to do with trusting Him over myself, not an anti-intellectual approach to the topic. I just don't want to overstep my bounds and say God 'must' be this way or that when the basis of saying so is purely my intellect that is asserting. In other words, without specific revelation, I'm more careful but there are things we see clearly and by intellect, that are musts like a tri-une view.

I'm not sure what you mean here. It almost seems that you agree with us, you say, "I think an eternal future is not only a good guess with assurance but is absolute." In a "timeless" eternity there is no future nor anything that is past, correct? In an eternity of time there is a past and a future.

I think I just say in a way that it can be acquiesced, but it is more of saying that certain logical ends, even with OV, must point strongly to more than just predicting and guessing on God's part and that whatever that is, it, in my mind and as best as I can logically draw conclusion, resembles the classic definition of EDF even as OV is opposed to the idea.

Looks here like you are closer to us then to a completely timeless eternity, which is the bases for absolute foreknowledge of all future events and actions.

Again, only because I see Him relational to us but I'm embracing a counter-intuitive model and saying He's both. It is a logical problem, but it doesn't presume as much to say what He can or cannot, does or doesn't do. I'd rather be in the dark than presumptive, asserting, or wrong. Better not to say until or if I ever know. I have my guesses and logical reasoning for where I am swayed but I'm much less dogmatic on things that are speculative at best. If scripture is silent on an issue like EDF, I think it is true, but I'm only staunch because OV is staunch on the opposite end of the discussion. I believe in EDF but it isn't something that I want to argue against but if the alternative is a God who guesses and can make mistakes, that isn't something I can acquiesce. It is problematic and needs much further discussion.

I completely agree with you here, "individuality" and "culpability" are certainly in opposition to B. F. Skinner, Augustine, and John Calvin. We are not mere dogs, machines, nor born "totally depraved".

--Dave

Except that I'm a compatiblist? I see truths of both sides *(Noam Chomsky) but lean with J. E. R. Staddon on the compatible approach. Skinner himself hated negative reinforcement and always pushed positive.
I'm not sure if it is a problem with you, but it is for most OVer's. They don't like it when their alternating views seem in conflict. To me, that is polarizing because on most issues, we all tend toward the mediating position. Because of this, I'm much more confrontational with extremes in faith as OV necessarily is on these considerations.

 

[eveningsky339]

"Eternal timelessness" is a product of a lack of knowledge regarding the nature of time. The Church Fathers were correct in stating that God is outside of time, but incorrect in explaining how.

God has access to an infinite number of timelines which intersect our single timeline at an infinite number of points. The notion of more than one timeline is supported by string theory and quantum physics. Quantum physics has also shown, with support from experimentation, that time is a part of this four-dimensional universe.

In light of this, a view of God as bound by time would be pantheistic.

I also reject Open Theism on the basis of gut instinct and my discomfort with the notion that God is, frankly, just as clueless as the rest of us in regards to the future.

 

[eveningsky339]

Is it American Thanksgiving today? Seems quiet around here.

So much turkey... :rip:

 

[tetelestai]

Back to Canada, or maybe Phoenix. Where do you live?

--Dave

I think you should go to Phoenix too Godrulz. That way you could vist Ask Mr. Religion. :box:

 

[nicholsmom]

It is a hard call when we are talking about God and speculating. I tend NOT to lean as heavily on my logic but try to have faith with things of Him whether a thing is indepthly explained or not, and it really has more to do with trusting Him over myself, not an anti-intellectual approach to the topic. I just don't want to overstep my bounds and say God 'must' be this way or that when the basis of saying so is purely my intellect that is asserting. In other words, without specific revelation, I'm more careful but there are things we see clearly and by intellect, that are musts like a tri-une view.

Just so, and beautifully said to boot

And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of God and man.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

- Proverbs 3:4-6​

 

[Lighthouse]

Correct, one cannot earn a free gift. However, when we talk about loving obedience after salvation, you wrongly think we are talking about legalistic obedience to earn salvation (you are the one lying about our views).

I used to believe salvation could be lost. And when I believed that I believed that it only ever took one sin, and that one must repent of every sin if they wanted to go to Heaven when they died.

You say you do not believe that, but then turn around and say that one who lives in persistent disobedience loses their salvation. Make up your mind.

Yes he does and yes it is.

You believe in eternal security, moron. Nobody misrepresents your view, saying that you believe one must be obedient to any rules in order to maintain salvation. Least of all me. Twit.

 

[godrulz]

"Eternal timelessness" is a product of a lack of knowledge regarding the nature of time. The Church Fathers were correct in stating that God is outside of time, but incorrect in explaining how.

God has access to an infinite number of timelines which intersect our single timeline at an infinite number of points. The notion of more than one timeline is supported by string theory and quantum physics. Quantum physics has also shown, with support from experimentation, that time is a part of this four-dimensional universe.

In light of this, a view of God as bound by time would be pantheistic.

I also reject Open Theism on the basis of gut instinct and my discomfort with the notion that God is, frankly, just as clueless as the rest of us in regards to the future.

God knows much more about the future than man does because of His intelligence/ability and perfect knowledge of the past and present.

Sting theory is highly controversial. Issues of time and eternity are more philosophical than scientific (or pseudo-scientific in the case of your speculations about timelines).

 

[godrulz]

I think you should go to Phoenix too Godrulz. That way you could vist Ask Mr. Religion. :box:

Good reason to avoid Phoenix. I was there years ago for a Tommy Barnett church growth conference at Phoenix First Assembly. It was great, but just a big city. Something like the hole in the ground, the Grand Canyon, or something like that (we have big holes in Canada, I think).

 

[godrulz]

I used to believe salvation could be lost. And when I believed that I believed that it only ever took one sin, and that one must repent of every sin if they wanted to go to Heaven when they died.

You say you do not believe that, but then turn around and say that one who lives in persistent disobedience loses their salvation. Make up your mind.


You believe in eternal security, moron. Nobody misrepresents your view, saying that you believe one must be obedient to any rules in order to maintain salvation. Least of all me. Twit.

The issue is godly faith vs godless unbelief, not works. Peristent disobedience is not fleshly sins, but GODLESS disobedience and GODLESS unbelief (antithesis of saving faith and godly obedience because He lives in and through us).

Calvinists also misunderstand Arminian rejection of OSAS/POTS, so it does not surprise me. Pity you are in the determinist vs free will camp.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sting theory is highly controversial. Issues of time and eternity are more philosophical than scientific (or pseudo-scientific in the case of your speculations about timelines).

I actually heard an explanation of string theory on a TV show recently that I couldn't find a problem with. It was a rerun of an episode of the original CSI, from last season. I don't recall the title of the episode, but it was the one with the homeless lady dressed in foil who was claiming aliens were abducting her on a regular basis.