ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Bright Raven]

There is no verse in the Bible that defines omniscience, especially as EDF. There is also only 2 references to the word sovereign, so it does not spell out whether it is meticulous or providential (the evidence clearly supports the latter, especially as related to evil= warfare vs blueprint model seen in ministry of Jesus). Defining omniscience and omnipotence as knowing all that is knowable and doing all that is doable is more precise and should be acceptable to both views (since there are things logically not doable by God...self-contradictory, for e.g.).

I'm not impressed.

In God's triune relations before creation, duration/sequence/succession (time) still existed if He is personal with will, intellect, emotions. I could compromise with William Lane Craig's view (atemporal before creation; temporal after creation), but Wolterstorff's case seems stronger (divine temporality before/after).

I'm still not impressed.

Are you a Calvinist.

I'm a sinner saved by grace.
.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not impressed.



I'm still not impressed.


I'm a sinner saved by grace.
.

Being not impressed may mean you are ignorant of the issues?

Are you Calvinistic/determinist in your beliefs or free will theist (Arminian/Open Theist)?

Both claim to be sinners saved by grace but view God and His ways differently.

 

[tetelestai]

Are you Calvinistic/determinist in your beliefs or free will theist (Arminian/Open Theist)

What makes you think these are the only two choices?

 

[Lighthouse]

To show that salvation is available to all.

Everyone at one point has his or her name in the book. Only unbelief gets one's name blotted out.

Talk about begging the question.

tetelestai's god: Salvation is available to all, but you [specifically] won't accept it. I know. I see it. Your name is in the book so you can have hope, but I will blot it out one day.

P.S.
I'm glad you finally admitted that your position is anti-truth.

 

[tetelestai]

Talk about begging the question.

tetelestai's god: Salvation is available to all, but you [specifically] won't accept it. I know. I see it. Your name is in the book so you can have hope, but I will blot it out one day.

P.S.
I'm glad you finally admitted that your position is anti-truth.

As long as you keep limiting God to time, you will never see truth.

God knows before someone is born whether or not they are going to believe or not believe. Yet that particualr person has 100% free volition to believe or not.

Your problem, and the problem with open theists is that you guys make God humanistic.

The only thing that is "anti-truth" is open theism.

 

[Lighthouse]

As long as you keep limiting God to time, you will never see truth.

God knows before someone is born whether or not they are going to believe or not believe. Yet that particualr person has 100% free volition to believe or not.

Your problem, and the problem with open theists is that you guys make God humanistic.

The only thing that is "anti-truth" is open theism.

FYI: I used to believe pretty much as you did.

And then I realized that if it's already settled that they aren't going to believe [how else would God know if it wasn't already settled] then they don't have a choice.

And the OV is not about God being like us, but the fact that we are made in His image.

 

[Bright Raven]

Being not impressed may mean you are ignorant of the issues?

Are you Calvinistic/determinist in your beliefs or free will theist (Arminian/Open Theist)?

Both claim to be sinners saved by grace but view God and His ways differently.

You are the Philosopher /Theologian, Arminian/Open Theist and you don't know? Wow, you should at least know I don't embrace the false philosophy of Open Theism. What's good for you isn't good for me.

Places to go and things to do see you all later.

 

[godrulz]

What makes you think these are the only two choices?

There is a spectrum of beliefs from hyper-Calvinism, Augustinianism, semi-Augustinianism, Molinism, Arminianism, Semi/Pelagianism, Open Theism, Process Throught, etc.

Determinism vs free will theism captures most of them (Molinism is more deterministic than libertarian).

 

[godrulz]

As long as you keep limiting God to time, you will never see truth.

God knows before someone is born whether or not they are going to believe or not believe. Yet that particualr person has 100% free volition to believe or not.

Your problem, and the problem with open theists is that you guys make God humanistic.

The only thing that is "anti-truth" is open theism.

God experiencing duration is not a limitation on God, but a quality of being personal vs impersonal, even in the triune eternal state before creation.

How can God know choices before existence? You are suggesting the future actually exists and the choices are made to be possible objects even before they are made. We are certainly temporal and time is unidirectional. You are saying we actually make the choices before birth? If not, then God is determining and causing our 'choices' so there is no possibility we will choose contrary to what He sees/knows. The future is not yet, non existent. It is not there to be seen. Assuming Einstein's speculative ideas or Platonic philosophical ideas about timelessness is not the same as biblical revelation/evidence. It does not fit common sense either, so don't uncritically accept tradition and beg the question as to what you think a perfect God must be (even if the assumptions go beyond Scripture and logic). SFK cannot be assumed. You certainly cannot explain a mechanism for it. Saying God can do anything is not true either.

If we said that God is ignorant of things that He should know or that He was finite or did not know the past/present exhaustively, you might have a point. It does not humanize God to ascribe to Him things consistent with Scripture and logic instead of tradition influenced by pagan philosophy.

You may want to visit my misunderstanding open theism thread since you like straw men/ad hominem arguments.

 

[godrulz]

You are the Philosopher /Theologian, Arminian/Open Theist and you don't know? Wow, you should at least know I don't embrace the false philosophy of Open Theism. What's good for you isn't good for me.

Places to go and things to do see you all later.

You are either a Moonie, Scientologist, or hyper-Calvinist since you are afraid to be honest about your beliefs.

 

[Bright Raven]

You are either a Moonie, Scientologist, or hyper-Calvinist since you are afraid to be honest about your beliefs.

None of the above. My beliefs are before you in black and white. Yet you require a label? Fear? You had better read 2 Timothy 1:7. If you had a sound mind you would not be embracing Open Theism. Nor would you question the character and attributes of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. You are treading on very thin ice.

 

[godrulz]

:dunce:

 

[Bright Raven]

:dunce:

Well now, that was philosophically and intellectually stimulating. I never though that you would be at a loss for words. God does work in strange and mysterious ways. :chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

2 Cor 4
18: While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Seems to be a contrast between temporal (bound by time) and eternal (not temporary)

Good point, STP.

 

[themuzicman]

No, not defeat, the realization that no matter what is presented to you, you are going to give answers like this:



In Psalm 22:6 Christ says, “But I am a worm.” There are many different Hebrew words for worms, but this is the rarest of them all. This was a special type of worm whose blood was gathered and used in making the crimson dye of the ancient world. This most valuable dye was used for the robes of kings.

Psalm 22:6 pictures Jesus Christ as the worm, crushed on the cross by our sins; and as a result of His being crushed, we now wear the robes of kings. The first six verses of Psalm 22 actually constitute a picture of expiation, but you will never see it because to you it's just a Messianic Psalm, and not prophecy.

And you continue to divert attention from your deficiencies. Given the unusual condition of all of one's bones being out of joint, and the even more unusual condition of emaciation, as a result of crucifixion, where is your evidence that this prophecy was fully fulfilled?

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

It isn't about you and it is not about me. It's about God and His nature. If you would have read the post properly you may have discerned the concern for a brother rather than a smear.

1) It's about the nature of what God created, unless you're going to claim that God is unable to create a universe with a logically unknowable future. Were that the case, then you'd be denying omnipotence.

2) Citing Gal 6 was a clear smear. Paul is clearly talking about sin, and by extension, you're implying that by embracing a biblical view of God, I'm sinning.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Yes or No:

Do you believe God did not know what Adam named the animals?

Oddly asked question. Yes.

Do you believe God did not know where Adam and Eve were hiding?

No.

Do you believe God repents?

In the sense of relenting or changing His mind, yes.

Do you believe God gets angry?

Yes.

Do you believe all of God's prophecies are true?

If, by true, you mean that they come about? Yes.

Do you believe God has exhaustive definitive foreknowledge?

No.

Do you believe God knows all that is knowable? If yes, explain what is "knowable"

"Knowable" is defined by all statements that are definite.

Like I have said before, your definition of omniscience and my definition of omniscience are not the same. So, when you say God is omniscient, it is not the same as when I say God is omniscient. Therefore you cannot state that you (and open theists) agree with me (and settled theists) that God is omniscient.

Actually, you make assumptions about the nature of creation, and then package that in.

This goes the same for many other attributes of God. You guys (open theists) change the definition of the attributes, and then go around saying you are in agreement with settled theists re:God's attributes.

Many theologians now agree with OVTheists on many of these.

You guys can scream "strawman" all you want, but you can't go around saying you believe God is omniscient, when you completely make up the definition of omniscience.

It's not made up. It deals with the meaning of the word, rather than your attempt to package other things that don't belong there.

Which brings me back to "knowable". You guys have determined what is knowable to God and what is not knowable to God. Same as what is logical to God, and what is not logical to God.

So have you.

Muz

 

[Bright Raven]

1) It's about the nature of what God created, unless you're going to claim that God is unable to create a universe with a logically unknowable future. Were that the case, then you'd be denying omnipotence.

I'm saying deal with the character and attributes of God first. Then deal with what He creates. Your claim is that the future unknowable to not only man but God. God knows the future man doesn't.

2) Citing Gal 6 was a clear smear. Paul is clearly talking about sin, and by extension, you're implying that by embracing a biblical view of God, I'm sinning.

Muz

I do not embrace Open Theism as a biblical view of God. Is that not obvious? And yes to me it would be sin to embrace it. Now understand the intent. The Bible doesn't tell me to smear. The Bible says to correct. From my point of view, Open Theists have improperly defined the character and attributes of God.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm saying deal with the character and attributes of God first. Then deal with what He creates. Your claim is that the future unknowable to not only man but God. God knows the future man doesn't.

And then you turn around and address the nature of creation. Whether the future of creation is knowable or not is a function of what God created, not of God's nature, unless you are going to claim that God is unable to create a universe where the future of that universe is not exhaustively and definitely knowable.

Are you making that case, or not?

I do not embrace Open Theism as a biblical view of God. Is that not obvious? And yes to me it would be sin to embrace it. Now understand the intent. The Bible doesn't tell me to smear. The Bible says to correct. From my point of view, Open Theists have improperly defined the character and attributes of God.

So, every theologian, including you, is sinning on an ongoing basis for embracing theology on disputable matters that is incorrect?

Or are you claiming to be inerrant in your theology?

Muz

 

[Bright Raven]

And then you turn around and address the nature of creation. Whether the future of creation is knowable or not is a function of what God created, not of God's nature, unless you are going to claim that God is unable to create a universe where the future of that universe is not exhaustively and definitely knowable.

Are you making that case, or not?

:doh: Comprehension problem? The case has been made by many others beside me. :think: about it. I don't agree with you. Stop whining and get over it. :chuckle:



So, every theologian, including you, is sinning on an ongoing basis for embracing theology on disputable matters that is incorrect?

Your assumption. What does it take for you to understand that I said I don't agree with you about Open Theism?

Or are you claiming to be inerrant in your theology?
Muz

:idea: Sez you.:crackup: