ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[elected4ever]

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

Clete, I think I can agree here but I would like to clarify the term "sovereign". To me sovereign is nothing more than self rule. God is sovereign but so is man. If your view is different then I would like to hear it.

 

[godrulz]

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?

http://www.amazon.com/Openness-God-Challenge-Traditional-Understanding/dp/0830818529

This seminal work deals with the biblical, philosophical, historical, theological, practical arguments for Open Theism. Some of these issues are not resolved by proof texts, but by godly philosophy and paradigms (free will vs determinism, endless time vs timelessness, etc.).

Most OVTs (apart from your limited experience with TOL amateurs) build a biblical case (two motifs: some of future is open/unsettled and other aspects are settled; God changing His mind; etc.) first and foremost. We then give philosophical and logical (modal logic, for e.g.) to show why EDF and LFW are incompatible. To mention the undue pagan philosophical influences on some areas of classical views is valid, but not the primary basis for or against any given view. I am reading 'Beyond the Bounds' that AMR recommended. OVTs do have to be careful with how far we push this argument. Millard Erickson's book was balanced and fair on the subject of philosphical influence on OVT and his traditional view (he still came to the wrong conclusion at the end of the book).

 

[godrulz]

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.

I agree with the endless time view and say the timeless view is incoherent. I was just listing the possible views, but disagreeing with the traditional view. I was not aware you reject 'eternal now' timelessness.

 

[Clete]

Clete, I think I can agree here but I would like to clarify the term "sovereign". To me sovereign is nothing more than self rule. God is sovereign but so is man. If your view is different then I would like to hear it.

The word 'sovereign' means "highest authority".

The king of a nation, for example, is the sovereign of that nation. But no one thinks that a nation's king controls every detail of every event that occurs within that nations borders. Just because one of the king's subjects disobeys and does something the king did not command nor ordain does not remove him from his throne nor from his position of authority in that nation. Also, from a legal perspective, there can be no appeal above the king, no ruling that can supersede his edict or judgment.

But God is the King of kings and ultimate ruler over all that exists. Thus God is the highest authority that exists or that can exist and He is therefore sovereign, by definition.

Does that help?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

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.

Who are you and what have you done with e4e?!!

Do you reject the notion that God exists outside of time then?

 

[elected4ever]

I agree with the endless time view and say the timeless view is incoherent. I was just listing the possible views, but disagreeing with the traditional view. I was not aware you reject 'eternal now' timelessness.

I have always had that view.It is my ability to express that view that has been sharpened a bit.

 

[elected4ever]

The word 'sovereign' means "highest authority".

The king of a nation, for example, is the sovereign of that nation. But no one thinks that a nation's king controls every detail of every event that occurs within that nations borders. Just because one of the king's subjects disobeys and does something the king did not command nor ordain does not remove him from his throne nor from his position of authority in that nation. Also, from a legal perspective, there can be no appeal above the king, no ruling that can supersede his edict or judgment.

But God is the King of kings and ultimate ruler over all that exists. Thus God is the highest authority that exists or that can exist and He is therefore sovereign, by definition.

Does that help?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure that, "highest authority", explaines the whole concept of sovereignty. Mine may not ether. Even in Calvinism God is the highest authority. I would hope you may rethink that part. In Calvinism the sovereignty of God is paramount to a fault. That fault being that man is not sovereign, even to the extent that man has no free will.

 

[elected4ever]

Who are you and what have you done with e4e?!!

Do you reject the notion that God exists outside of time then?

Just a kinder, more genteel :e4e:

 

[godrulz]

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure that, "highest authority", explaines the whole concept of sovereignty. Mine may not ether. Even in Calvinism God is the highest authority. I would hope you may rethink that part. In Calvinism the sovereignty of God is paramount to a fault. That fault being that man is not sovereign, even to the extent that man has no free will.

By His sovereign choice, He gives man significant freedom, even to the point of not always having His own perfect way (hell, holocaust, etc.). This does not threaten His throne since He has ultimate say. A voluntary restraint of omnipotence does not mean God is not all-powerful. Choosing to macro vs micromanage, to govern providentially vs meticulously (tight control; omnicausal), is not a threat to sovereignty, but demonstrates His love and desire for relationship vs mechanistic robotics. This is not a risk free model, but is the biblical one.

 

[Clete]

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure that, "highest authority", explaines the whole concept of sovereignty. Mine may not ether. Even in Calvinism God is the highest authority. I would hope you may rethink that part. In Calvinism the sovereignty of God is paramount to a fault. That fault being that man is not sovereign, even to the extent that man has no free will.

I don't deny that Calvinists acknowledge God to be the highest authority but that is not what they are saying when they use the word 'sovereign' in reference to Him. What they are saying is that He controls every event that happens no matter how trivial or important.

The Calvinist concept of Divine Sovereignty is akin to the omni attributes.

Where is God? God is everywhere: Divine Omnipresence.
What does God know: God knows everything: Divine Omniscience.
What can God do? God can do anything. Divine Omnipotence.
What does God control. God controls everything. Divine Sovereignty.

This IS what they mean when they use the term. The fact that they also believe that God is the highest authority is really irrelevant to the point. Even if they used the word 'sovereign' to convey the idea that God is the highest authority, they would, by default, be convey more information than that unless they spent some effort to narrow the focus of their comment to the specific context, which they would pretty much never do because they would never feel the need.

And even if some Calvinist somewhere might use the term correctly, the point here is that AMR certainly did not and then accused godrulz of redefining the word when in fact it was he who had done so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

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?

No. What I first said was that it was not Biblical. I went to the Bible first. Then I mentioned Greek Philosophy.

And I have mentioned, many times, the various stories in the Bible that show God is not outside of time and does not stick His nose into everything.

 

[tetelestai]

No. What I first said was that it was not Biblical. I went to the Bible first. Then I mentioned Greek Philosophy.

You're right, I was wrong.

 

[Nang]

I don't deny that Calvinists acknowledge God to be the highest authority but that is not what they are saying when they use the word 'sovereign' in reference to Him.

We aren't?

What they are saying is that He controls every event that happens no matter how trivial or important.

YOU are the one who insists on confusing "authority" with "control."

God, in His absolute, sovereign "authority" has given men made in His image, secondary causal abilities . . .which He in His wisdom and good pleasure, controls; in that God brings good out of creaturely mistakes and sinful choices.

The Calvinist concept of Divine Sovereignty is akin to the omni attributes.

Where is God? God is everywhere: Divine Omnipresence.
What does God know: God knows everything: Divine Omniscience.
What can God do? God can do anything. Divine Omnipotence.
What does God control. God controls everything. Divine Sovereignty.

Such is the very definition of God.

To deny the omni-attributes of God, is to deny the essence and Being of God.

This IS what they mean when they use the term. The fact that they also believe that God is the highest authority is really irrelevant to the point.

So say you, but who are you?

Even if they used the word 'sovereign' to convey the idea that God is the highest authority, they would, by default, be convey more information than that unless they spent some effort to narrow the focus of their comment to the specific context, which they would pretty much never do because they would never feel the need.

Bah. . .what a bunch of empty words . . .signifying nothing . . .

And even if some Calvinist somewhere might use the term correctly, the point here is that AMR certainly did not and then accused godrulz of redefining the word when in fact it was he who had done so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Who are you to determine whether the term is used correctly or not, when you misinterpret and misrepresent the Calvinist view, while failing to present a view of your own that will withstand the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

You are not advancing, are you Clete?

Nang

 

[voltaire]

it seems many open viewers misrepresent calvinist beliefs. whether its ignorance or intentional is hard to tell. im not a calvinist btw, but they are correct on a lot of things.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

it seems many open viewers misrepresent calvinist beliefs. whether its ignorance or intentional is hard to tell. im not a calvinist btw, but they are correct on a lot of things.

Maybe we need an "Ask a Calvinist" thread where those that claim the label "Calvinist" can answer questions.

Barring such a thread, a person could start by visiting the TOL Reformed Theology social group for some basic concepts of Calvinism. Would certainly cut down on the number of posts where the less informed like to tell me what I believe instead of just asking me. :think:

AMR

 

[godrulz]

You're right, I was wrong.

Hail, humble one.

Honestly, if our position is not firstly argued from Scripture, it is weak. However, Scripture does not resolve all the issues in this debate, so we have to consider godly reasoning, philosophy, speculation in formulating an understanding of some areas (the Bible is not a systematic theology book, but a narrative of God's relationship with man).

God can be in control without controlling everything. It is contradictory for Nang and others to say we have choice, but God controls it...cmon. We are not puppets and God is not a puppet master. Determinism is not the biblical model of God's rule.

 

[Nang]

God can be in control without controlling everything.

Only if you deny His absolute sovereignty, which I do not recommend. It will not stand you well, on Judgment Day.

BTW . . .to Tetelestai . . .

Remember our private discussion about theologies and views that introduce new views and theories that have never been taught in the churches for almost 2000 years of historical Christianity?

Open Theism is another one of those new-fangled religions, that was unknown to the O.T. saints or the early and historical N.T. church of Jesus Christ.

It is invalid on those grounds, if no other grounds.

Nang

 

[elected4ever]

I don't deny that Calvinists acknowledge God to be the highest authority but that is not what they are saying when they use the word 'sovereign' in reference to Him. What they are saying is that He controls every event that happens no matter how trivial or important.

The Calvinist concept of Divine Sovereignty is akin to the omni attributes.

Where is God? God is everywhere: Divine Omnipresence.
What does God know: God knows everything: Divine Omniscience.
What can God do? God can do anything. Divine Omnipotence.
What does God control. God controls everything. Divine Sovereignty.

This IS what they mean when they use the term. The fact that they also believe that God is the highest authority is really irrelevant to the point. Even if they used the word 'sovereign' to convey the idea that God is the highest authority, they would, by default, be convey more information than that unless they spent some effort to narrow the focus of their comment to the specific context, which they would pretty much never do because they would never feel the need.

And even if some Calvinist somewhere might use the term correctly, the point here is that AMR certainly did not and then accused godrulz of redefining the word when in fact it was he who had done so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me ask you a question, Clete. Do you believe that where ever You are God is? Do you believe that whatever you suffer God suffers with you? I believe that God is not ignorant of what happens to His children. That is really what is being said but not well said. That is what happens when we let theological professors define things for us.

There is much of what you and I believe that we accept because of some supposed authority told us. We, not having studied the scripture at the time for ourselves rely on these supposed theologians for our understanding. After all didn't they study under the masters in a school somewhere.

Some things God revels to us that is contrary to our original belief but at a time when through experience and suffering we gain the knowledge in God's time for our growth. Some things we were not prepared to accept or understand even though we might wont to.

God is in the business of raising his children and we should not be insulting to our brothers and sisters. It is easy to fall into that trap. You and I have insulted each other enough to know that is true. I cannot clam innocence for myself and I hope you don't. Lets be careful not to injure the weak ones for whom Christ died. I am trying and I hope you can tell the difference.

 

[elected4ever]

Only if you deny His absolute sovereignty, which I do not recommend. It will not stand you well, on Judgment Day.

Nang, you know better than that. Never once has the scripture ever said that me our anyone else has to believe your way to be saved and if a wrongly held theological position is held by one of the Children of God it will not incur judgment in the sense that punishment well be dealt out in heaven.

Whether we like it our not as lone as we are on this planet and in these bodies the things of God must pass through this carnal filter. There is only one thing that saves us and that is by making the choice to believe that Jesus is God's Son and believing the testimony God gave of Him.

 

[godrulz]

Only if you deny His absolute sovereignty, which I do not recommend. It will not stand you well, on Judgment Day.

BTW . . .to Tetelestai . . .

Remember our private discussion about theologies and views that introduce new views and theories that have never been taught in the churches for almost 2000 years of historical Christianity?

Open Theism is another one of those new-fangled religions, that was unknown to the O.T. saints or the early and historical N.T. church of Jesus Christ.

It is invalid on those grounds, if no other grounds.

Nang

Denying hyper-Calvinistic meticulous, tight, omnicausal control as sovereignty is NOT tantamount to denying a balanced, biblical view of providential sovereignty (macro vs micro manage). You simply beg the question, but wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.