ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[SaulToPaul 2]

Interesting. I got the quote from Olson's book on myths about Arminianism that Calvinists propagate. Anglicans can be Arminian or Calvinistic without being Arminian or Calvinists per se (they are usually more Calvinistic). His ideas are Arminian or Open Theist and he attends an Anglican church. His views may not represent mainstream Anglican views (of which there is a spectrum of beliefs).

:dizzy: another labelpalooza

 

[godrulz]

:dizzy: another labelpalooza

Talented, huh?


How do you talk about specific people who are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, males, females, children, etc.? You are calling the kettle black, jack.

 

[tetelestai]

The biggest reason to accept OVT and reject some traditional concepts is secondarily related to undue philosophical influence, but the primary strength is a biblical, exegetical one.

This may be true, but I disagree based on my own experience.

The instant a “non-open theist” uses scripture to show God has EDF, the open theist always goes down the Greek philosophy/Augustine road first. Use of scripture by the OVT is secondary.

 

[godrulz]

This may be true, but I disagree based on my own experience.

The instant a “non-open theist” uses scripture to show God has EDF, the open theist always goes down the Greek philosophy/Augustine road first. Use of scripture by the OVT is secondary.

Stereotypical...

The EDF issue is not so much Greek philosophy as a logical, philosophical issue. Forget about Greeks and Augustine (though he is guilty of trying to combine pagan philosophy and theology with bad outcome) and focus on the issue on its own merits.

I think Witt summarizes it well. Perhaps quote that post and comment on it?

There is not a proof text or argument from pagan philosophy or Augustine to decide this issue. There are logical and philosophical issues that can support one view vs another view. I see how EDF is not logically compatible with LFW. Molinists claim t reconcile EDF and free will with middle knowledge. I believe this assumption can be refuted with sound thinking. Likewise, I think simple FK is begging the question and cannot be proven, just assumed (and somewhat because we uncritically accept Augustine and others on this). Predestination/omnicausality is a credible explanation for how it is possible to have EDF, but it comes at the expense of LFW (compatibilism is not really free will, but soft determinism).

I believe it can be demonstrated that OVT is the best way to explain the evidence. Mutually exclusive views cannot be equally right. Don't give up because we can demonstrate strengths and weaknesses of various views and narrow it down to the most plausible view.

 

[Lighthouse]

Part of open theism's propaganda is to convince everyone that traditional Orthodox teachings were influenced by Greek philosophers, therefore the OVT claims traditional Orthodox teachings are incorrect.

Let’s look at Acts 17:28:

(Acts 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul was in Athens, Greece when he said this. Paul states that what the Greek philosophers have written regarding man having a soul separate from a physical body is true. Paul exclaims “as certain also of your own poets have said.”

This is Paul referring to Greek philosophers and confirming that the Greek philosophers were correct in what they wrote about the human soul. The teaching of a soul seperate from the physical body is in contrast to humanism, sceintism, and physicalism. The Greek philosophers believed in dualism, which is the correct view of the human soul and physical body.

So, before you let the open theists convince you that everything the Greek philosophers said is false, remember that Paul said otherwise, and agreed with the Greek philosophers re: the human soul.

This does not mean that everything the Greek philosophers said is true, but it points out that some things the Greek philosphers said about God were true, even though the open theists attmept to discredit everything by the Greek philosophers.

Nobody ever said that the Greeks were always wrong. We don't even think Calvin was always wrong. Most of us anyway.

 

[tetelestai]

Nobody ever said that the Greeks were always wrong. We don't even think Calvin was always wrong. Most of us anyway.

That's good, but as I said earlier, the first road the OVT takes is the Greek Philosophy / Augustine one. Just look what you did when asked about God's omniscience; (he even asked for a scriptural reference).

I was raised to believe in a God whose knowledge spanned all of time - past, present and future. Was my belief biblical? Is God omniscient?

Scriptural references welcome.

No, it was not Biblical. It was Augustinian, and his train of thought came from Platonic and Aristotelean philosophy.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Allowing is not willing.

But of course this coincides with your view of a lesser God than the sovereign God of Scripture. From your comment He might as well be an absentee landlord.

Once more, and read slowly this time: God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Think about it and it may just come to you. I pray it does.

AMR

 

[godrulz]

But of course this coincides with your view of a lesser God than the sovereign God of Scripture. From your comment He might as well be an absentee landlord.

Once more, and read slowly this time: God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Think about it and it may just come to you. I pray it does.

AMR

Mumbo jumbo...evil is contrary to God's will. He does not desire nor intend it. I fully affirm the sovereign God of Scripture. Your problem is that you beg the question and wrongly think this must be the omnicausal, meticulous control (God is in control without being controlling, Mr. AMR) of Calvinism. A providential, biblical view of God's sovereignty (responsive) is not a lesser god like finite godism or Mormonism. Don't insult my intelligence or lower your credibility more (understand OVT, not the caricature of it in anti-literature; don't be like juvenile Hilston in your stoopings).

OVT is not Deism nor Process Thought. Grab a brain.

 

[Ktoyou]

man is free in the sense that God does not coerce man to choose against his will

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I fully affirm the sovereign God of Scripture.

No you do not. Your statement is nothing more than what a Mormon would claim. You have simply redefined the word "sovereign", not revealing it to anyone until asked, and then appropriated the language of orthodoxy. It is a common tactic of the fringes. Kind of like Olestra. It tastes almost like the real thing.

 

[godrulz]

No you do not. Your statement is nothing more than what a Mormon would claim. You have simply redefined the word "sovereign", not revealing it to anyone until asked, and then appropriated the language of orthodoxy. It is a common tactic of the fringes. Kind of like Olestra. It tastes almost like the real thing.[/COLOR]

I have always been front about my understanding of sovereignty. You arrogantly assume your flawed view of sovereignty is the only possible view that is plausible. Calvinists are an arrogant bunch. I do not see your view in Scripture, so I reject it. You object if I put Calvinism and Mormonism in the same post, yet you turn around and do the same:doh:

I am not your cup of tea. Feel free to ignore me. I am not going away until I die or TOL closes down. Back to the ivory tower for you.:readthis:

 

[Lighthouse]

That's good, but as I said earlier, the first road the OVT takes is the Greek Philosophy / Augustine one. Just look what you did when asked about God's omniscience; (he even asked for a scriptural reference).

What of it?

 

[tetelestai]

What of it?

Your fellow open theist buddy Godrulz claims that OVT stresses scripture first, Greek philosophy second when confronted with proEDF people such as myself.

I disagree with him, and claim that every OVT that I have ever discussed EDF with always stressed Greek philosophy / Augustine first, and usually nothing else. (such as you did in your post to CardinalSin).

My point is this: Can an OVT come up with any other argument against EDF besides the Greek Philosophy / Augustine one?

 

[penofareadywriter]

What is the point? That God causes all that happens? Yes, He does. That some would then shake their fist at God for this is telling, in that they fail to grasp that God wills righteously what man does wickedly. The fact that we cannot always fully understand (on this side of the grave) why God wills what He wills, is no excuse to disbelieve it, for it clear that Scripture teaches it. We have no Scriptural warrant to go off crafting some humanistic version of God, who is somehow at the mercy of fully autonomous creatures, as does the open theist.

But never fear, in a few minutes godrulz will be along with some boilerplate statements and assertions to the contrary, thus making my point even more obvious. :squint:

AMR

Ya... I just disagree man. Thanks for you thoughts though!:turbo:

 

[penofareadywriter]

What is the point? That God causes all that happens? Yes, He does. That some would then shake their fist at God for this is telling, in that they fail to grasp that God wills righteously what man does wickedly. The fact that we cannot always fully understand (on this side of the grave) why God wills what He wills, is no excuse to disbelieve it, for it clear that Scripture teaches it. We have no Scriptural warrant to go off crafting some humanistic version of God, who is somehow at the mercy of fully autonomous creatures, as does the open theist.

But never fear, in a few minutes godrulz will be along with some boilerplate statements and assertions to the contrary, thus making my point even more obvious. :squint:

AMR

Lamentations 3:33
"For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men." Just thought I would throgh that out there.

 

[penofareadywriter]

But of course this coincides with your view of a lesser God than the sovereign God of Scripture. From your comment He might as well be an absentee landlord.

Once more, and read slowly this time: God wills righteously what men do wickedly. Think about it and it may just come to you. I pray it does.

AMR

I"m all about TENTIONS in the Bible(The Trinity, The Incarnation, ect...)... but I'm not about CONTRADICTIONS(God wills righteously what men do wickedly, ect..) Show me an EXPLICIT text that says this. Or even a motif that is CLEAR in scripture(Wills vs USES). I have one that says the OPPOSITE! Lamentations 3:33
"For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men."

 

[penofareadywriter]

man is free in the sense that God does not coerce man to choose against his will

AMEN Sister!:jump:

 

[Clete]

My point is this: Can an OVT come up with any other argument against EDF besides the Greek Philosophy / Augustine one?

You've been around here long enough to know that we can and have done so often.

The Greek Philosophy argument is an excellent one though!

The point being this: Can the Settled View come up with a refutation of the argument against EDF presented by the OVT?

The answer is an obvious, "NO!"

If they could have they would have by now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

No you do not. Your statement is nothing more than what a Mormon would claim. You have simply redefined the word "sovereign", not revealing it to anyone until asked, and then appropriated the language of orthodoxy. It is a common tactic of the fringes. Kind of like Olestra. It tastes almost like the real thing.[/COLOR]

It is you and your "orthodoxy" that have redefined the word "sovereign". The word means what it means. And the only context in which it means that God is in meticulous control of everything that happens is Calvinist/Augustinian doctrine.

The Bible doesn't define the word that way but your doctrine does. You then attempt to argue the veracity of both your doctrine and of the definition of "soveriegn" that your doctrine uses by citing orthodoxy which is only just another word for your own doctrine. Nice bit of circular reasoning/question begging there AMR.

I have news for you AMR. No one who doesn't hold to your version of orthodoxy gives a damn about what it teaches and they certainly do not accept it as any sort of doctrinal authority. Indeed, the founder of your doctrine had a great many people die during his life time defending the idea that doctrinal truth doesn't descend from orthodoxy but from Scripture. And so perhaps you could establish your orthodoxy Biblically or perhaps you could just stick a sock in it since we all know that you are either entirely incapable of, or are simply not interested in, doing any such thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

'Before the ages' conveys the idea of eternity before Gen. 1:1 and is not a technical statement on time vs eternity (timelessness or endless time).

I can't agree with this statement as I understand your statement. There is no such thing as timelessness. Just because we cannot measure eternity does not mean that eternity is timeless. Time has always been and will always be even after the earth is destroyed. All eternity means to me is unmeasured time. We, as humans, just happen to occupy this little amount of eternity. Timelessness and endless time are oxymoron s. Endless time is eternity while timelessness is the absence of eternity.