ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[tetelestai]

Sci fi speculation.

You beg the question by assuming God has EDF. This is highly debatable. EDF is possible if determinism is true, but determinism is not true. God knows some of the future. Weather men and insurance guys also predict future things fairly accurately. Satan can predict things and be right. None of this supports EDF. The point OVT is making is that there are biblical and logical arguments against EDF. I can agree with the proof texts that show God knows some of the future. You wrongly extrapolate these as proof that He knows all the future. I also can accept the unsettled verses or ones that would show the future is not fixed/foreknown, but you must ignore them or rationalize them away as figurative because they do not fit a preconceived theology.

I went to a Biblical Astronomy seminar the other night at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh, PA.

I found it interesting that the constellations all show prophecy.

Without getting into all the details, let me ask you this:

Let’s say these stars were created by God whenever it is you believe God created stars. Since the stars have not moved since, how is it that the stars could prophesize events in human history before Adam and Eve even partook of the fruit? How does this fit with the OV belief that God changes His mind?

 

[Lighthouse]

From Wikipedia:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists).

And it's a ridiculously stupid idea.

Not to mention the word isn't even recognized by my Firefox dictionary. So I assume the same would be true of my MS Word dictionary.

So it's a made up word, used to justify an unreasonable belief. You might as well have said "snardblott^TM."

 

[DFT_Dave]

Challenge again, for the umpteenth time: Use temporal terms to explain an eternal past and non-beginning.

I totally expect that you know it cannot be done and therefore my statements stand: If God cannot be expressed with our terms, He is logically beyond them and we are finite in our abilities. In the OV, it has been noted that God is constrained to human capacity. The flip side of this is that man over-elevates himself in His own estimation and mind, thinking he can grasp something beyond himself. I suppose the extra 50 points on my IQ score help me to actually know what and not, I'm capable of grasping where others are in denial.

"Oh no, God could not possibly escape my limited comprehension. He couldn't possibly be bigger than i imagine. It cannot possibly be a fact that an eternal past is beyond our language."

I don't mean to make any of you into simpletons with this, but I'm frustrated with lack of address, pure assertion, hot air sandwiches, and insubstantial address.

It is really simple: Admit that God is beyond your ken and that your logic only takes you so far and not a step further. Redeem yourselves.

After posts #965, #971, #984 and #985, I concluded this:

By your own admission, you're faith is irrational, you say :

"I see Him relational to us but I'm embracing a counter-intuitive model and saying He's both. It is a logical problem..."

"I tend NOT to lean as heavily on my logic..."

"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."

"I'd rather be in the dark..."

When you say, "I see truths of both sides", what you really mean is, you see truth in contradiction, which is irrational. That's why what you are saying is a "hard pill to swallow". OV is not a "hard pill" to swallow because it is rational; our faith in God is consistent with scripture and makes sense with freewill. You think you’re taking the intellectual "high ground" with your position, I see it as a pseudo-intellectual "no ground" or an "anti-rational low ground". I'm not saying you, or anyone who takes the position you advocate are not smart, all of you have just accepted a view that is irrational, and as a result, you cannot be reasoned with.

If you want God to be beyond your kin, fine with me; but don't try to convince me or anybody else that what we believe about him is beyond our kin when you have no way to prove we are wrong. You can't use reason to explain to us why your concept of God is beyond reason. As you said, "Here is my assertion: Whatever God has left unclear, He meant to leave unclear. Instead of reinventing a whole new theology why not learn to do what the rest of us do? Trust Him and take the apparent contradictions into that trust."

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

I went to a Biblical Astronomy seminar the other night at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh, PA.

I found it interesting that the constellations all show prophecy.

Without getting into all the details, let me ask you this:

Let’s say these stars were created by God whenever it is you believe God created stars. Since the stars have not moved since, how is it that the stars could prophesize events in human history before Adam and Eve even partook of the fruit? How does this fit with the OV belief that God changes His mind?

Same way all prophecy does.:dunce::duh:

 

[Pam Baldwin]

It was Muz who said it, not me.

Okay...it seemed from this statement that you agreed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Will Calvinists ever take the Word of God seriously?

tetelestai:
That's what I say, and will open theists ever take it seriously also?

I was being facetious to Muz. I was letting HIM know that there are people who “could” believe that HE is not taking the word of God seriously due to HIS subscribing to the open view.

It is a ridicules statement to say that those who do not agree with you are not taking the word of God serious. I truly don’t believe that those who have a different walk with God are not taking God serious. Again, it was an attempt to make MUZ realize that the pot should not call the kettle black.

Other than STP, I think I am the only other one in this thread who is not a Calvinist or open theist. Therefore, I don’t expect much agreement with my walk with God, but I still stand by my statement re: essentials.

I agree that it would be a ridiculous statement.....and I'm glad that you didn't mean that.

 

[tetelestai]

Behind every counterfeit there lies a genuine.

Thx for supporting my speaking in tongues

Godrulz, Godrulz, Godrulz:

Genuine tongues ceased in the first century. Counterfeit tongues continues today.

 

[godrulz]

I went to a Biblical Astronomy seminar the other night at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh, PA.

I found it interesting that the constellations all show prophecy.

Without getting into all the details, let me ask you this:

Let’s say these stars were created by God whenever it is you believe God created stars. Since the stars have not moved since, how is it that the stars could prophesize events in human history before Adam and Eve even partook of the fruit? How does this fit with the OV belief that God changes His mind?

If God cannot change His mind, the verses that say He can are not apt metaphors or they are patently false. God can change His mind and we can take those verses at face value. A timeless God would not grieve, but God grieves, so He is not timeless.

God uses conditionals. Does God hold out false hope, supporting your fixed future view, or does God invite people to change, showing the future is not yet settled. We make the choices. Until contingent choices are made, they are uncertain. Simple foreknowledge, middle knowledge, or determinism can all be refuted.

Who is the prophecy author and how much was his book? People fell for the Bible Code and got all excited about the secret things supposedly in the Bible and proof of prophecy. This has been debunked as false. I am willing to bet that we can debunk this guy's star theory (I thought stars do move or shift?) about prophecy. WHich prophecies was He talking about. Are we talking Nostradamus type stuff? Give us an e.g. or two. Don't accept it uncritically. Point us to a website. You are starting to get desperate to look for obscure things to disprove Open Theism. Just stick to the biblical record. You will have to do mental gymnastics with the text to disprove OVT.

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz, Godrulz, Godrulz:

Genuine tongues ceased in the first century. Counterfeit tongues continues today.

Tete tete tete

Genuine and counterfeit tongues have co-existed for centuries. There is no exegetical argument for cessationism. Hundreds of millions do not speak in counterfeit tongues today. Your preconceived theology cannot be demonstrated from Scripture nor anecdote. I dare you to try.

 

[themuzicman]

Your welcome to your opinion, but the bottom line is that open theism drags God down to a level that is not God’s.

Actually, OVT raises God to be who He says He is in Scripture by taking what God says about Himself seriously, rather than screaming anthropomorphism at every place that disagrees with a Greek philosophical view of God.

Yes, there are anthropomorphisms, but these are found when the exegetical context suggests an anthropomorphism. "It disagrees with my theology" isn't sufficient basis for making this claim.

So, which are you going to choose? Greek philosophical view, which requires ignoring the clear text of Scripture, or the OVT view, which embraces the God of the bible as He describes Himself?

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Actually, OVT raises God to be who He says He is in Scripture by taking what God says about Himself seriously, rather than screaming anthropomorphism at every place that disagrees with a Greek philosophical view of God.

Yes, there are anthropomorphisms, but these are found when the exegetical context suggests an anthropomorphism. "It disagrees with my theology" isn't sufficient basis for making this claim.

So, which are you going to choose? Greek philosophical view, which requires ignoring the clear text of Scripture, or the OVT view, which embraces the God of the bible as He describes Himself?

Muz

Here we go again.

It is the open theists who have the Greek influence.

The idea of a finite God is straight from Plato and Aristotle. If you're looking at the idea that a supreme being cannot know the future, that comes directly from Aristotle.

Open theism IS a philosophy, not to mention the influence of Greek philosophers.

P.S. It’s anthropopathisms that we disagree about, not anthropomorphisms.

 

[themuzicman]

Here we go again.

It is the open theists who have the Greek influence.

The idea of a finite God is straight from Plato and Aristotle. If you're looking at the idea that a supreme being cannot know the future, that comes directly from Aristotle.

Umm... the Greek philosophical (Aristotle/Plato) view of God is that he is immutable and impassible in every respect. This is clearly the Augustinian view, which he inherited from his Greek philosophy background.

The OVT view is that God is only immutable in His character, and not impassible at all.

Now, Reformed theologians have, under the pressure of their own invalid position, begun to give up the idea that God is impassible, and thus giving up utter immutability, as well, but that's increasingly a result of the fact that, at least on this point, OVT is correct.

Open theism IS a philosophy, not to mention the influence of Greek philosophers.

That's just silly. Go read most moved mover by Pinnock. While he isn't always on the mark with theology, the identification of the source of the Augustinian description of God is right on.

P.S. It’s anthropopathisms that we disagree about, not anthropomorphisms.

Either way, OVTs are the ones who make every effort to be biblical about them.

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Who is the prophecy author and how much was his book? People fell for the Bible Code and got all excited about the secret things supposedly in the Bible and proof of prophecy. This has been debunked as false. I am willing to bet that we can debunk this guy's star theory (I thought stars do move or shift?) about prophecy. WHich prophecies was He talking about. Are we talking Nostradamus type stuff? Give us an e.g. or two. Don't accept it uncritically. Point us to a website. You are starting to get desperate to look for obscure things to disprove Open Theism. Just stick to the biblical record. You will have to do mental gymnastics with the text to disprove OVT.

The guys name was Robert Scott Wadsworth. The seminar was free; there were no books, dvd’s, etc. for sale. There was a basket at the table in the rear of the room. The person who gave the introduction said that anyone wishing to give a “tithe” to help pay for the costs of the seminar was welcome to do so. Mr. Wadsworth did mention that his books were for sale on amazon. His website is HERE

I admit that Biblical astronomy is something new to me, so therefore I don’t know much about it. However the following verses, and what I learned at the seminar do convince me that God did prophesize with the stars.

(Gen 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

(Psalms 19: 1-3)
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

 

[tetelestai]

The OVT view is that God is only immutable in His character, and not impassible at all.

Only by an act of self-limitation by God.

This is the only premise you can base your open view theology on. Show me where in the Bible God “self-limited” Himself?

 

[bybee]

limits...

limits...

Only by an act of self-limitation by God.

This is the only premise you can base your open view theology on. Show me where in the Bible God “self-limited” Himself?

It's not there because we wouldn't be able to understand the answer. We have been given the ability to know God through our bodies, minds and spirits. Because we have limits, our ability to comprehend is limited. BUT, we have enough God-given ability to see which side of our bread is buttered. We can know enough about God to love and serve Him and we are free enough to choose. All of the debating about "this or that" scriptural meaning is all well and good but I question how eficacious it is in winning souls to Christ? peace bybee

 

[themuzicman]

Only by an act of self-limitation by God.

Umm... No.. this is God. If anything, immutability and impassibility would limit God.

This is the only premise you can base your open view theology on. Show me where in the Bible God “self-limited” Himself?

I never claimed that God "self-limited" Himself.

Michael

 

[tetelestai]

It's not there because we wouldn't be able to understand the answer.

It's not there because it's not true!

Here is what IS "there":

(Hebrews 6:17-18) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

(James 1:17) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

(Malachi 3:6 6) For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

(Numbers 23:19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

(1 Samuel 15: 29)And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

 

[tetelestai]

The OVT view is that God is only immutable in His character, and not impassible at all.

If God is immutable, then he is impassible, since passibility implies change.

 

[themuzicman]

If God is immutable, then he is impassible, since passibility implies change.

Which is why OVT limts this to character only. God does change in His emotions and relationships and some of His decisions. Again, based upon Scripture (Num 23:19, Gen 6:6, Jonah, etc.)

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Which is why OVT limts this to character only. God does change in His emotions and relationships and some of His decisions. Again, based upon Scripture (Num 23:19, Gen 6:6, Jonah, etc.)

Muz

Somehow you think God’s immutability and impassability deny God’s ability to relate to the world.

Just because God is immutable and impassable, does not mean that God is immobile. An immutable and impassable God created and sustains the creatures He created. An immutable and impassable God sustains creatures that change, and God engages with them.

The fact that God does not change, and that God is not subject to fluctuating passions, mood swings, temper tantrums, etc tells us that His “engagedness” with the world is constant.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

........so, we don't need to study ?


And yes, I actually do agree with Lighthouse , the Word is in our hearts....but only from study and learning.

Lighthouse....did you finish reading my post??