Reply to Clete's post #220:
Hilston wrote: Once again, you've missed the point. The Open Theist God has a problem. God wants to save more than He can, because of His stipulated standards. The determinist view has no such problem.
Mt. 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Hilston wrote: It's not weakness I'm implying. It is incoherence. How could a God who wants all men to be saved and to come to the saving knowledge of Christ sit by and watch scores of people plummet into hell?
Hilston wrote: Statistically, He is losing big-time (hence the term, Big Loser), and any economist, statistician or gambler would suggest He cut His losses and end it all right now. The "God Who Risks" is betting against the house, and He loses big every single day.
Hilston wrote: I already knew that is what you think. It's Open View arrogance. I've seen it before. Open Theists just can't fathom the possibility that their view could be wrong, so they blithely dismiss it. If you really thought it was possible to be wrong, you'd stop at nothing to find out, much like I've stopped at nothing to investigate Open Theism. But you don't really care, do you?
Hilston wrote: While appreciate your kind remarks, and I sincerely desire to have a cordial and respectful discussion with you, your exit interview with Zman made me re-think even wanting to talk to you on the phone. Something told me that I was seeing my future.
Coming from you, this doesn't mean much, Clete. You're the reigning champion of overreaction.
You really need to go back and read that. Knight started it. I answered in kind, quite cogently. You said nothing to Knight for his emotional stink bomb. Double standard, Clete. That's what stinks.
We all do it, Clete. It's quite effective. You and Knight both have done it to the point of being disgusting.
You're still missing the point. I was called unchristian and unfriendly for it. But when Open Theists do it, they get a pass.
The double standard is never intentional. But the blindness to it is deliberate. That's what needs to be exposed.
I see no apology forthcoming. In PMs, he has been utterly defiant.
You're a good friend, Clete. You're giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's interesting that when Knight called me a friend and said he expected more from me, I wasn't afforded the same friendly courtesy.
No one claims otherwise. You clearly don't know what anthropopathism means, or at least how it applies.
Agreed, but do you realize that saying "he was really upset" is to verbally describe God's anger in an anthropopathic way?
Both are figurative, Clete.
You just don't get it. To say God is encouraged is also an anthropopathic description. The figure is not based on the difference between grief and encouragement but rather between human feelings and Divine feelings. You should already know this, Clete. How long have you been debating this? That's what I find so annoying. After all this time (20+ years as a Calvinist?) just don't know what you're talking about, but you go on and on as if you do.
Of course not. That should tell you one of two things: Either (a) you don't understand the argument of your opponent, or (b) your opponent is an imbecile. You've conceded that I'm not an imbecile, so that leaves (a).
Lots of people say this, Clete. Why haven't you learned this stuff on your own? Why do you have to be shamed into this? How long have you been debating so-called Calvinists and you still don't know this stuff?
Presuppositionalism is the biblical form of debate. I rarely venture outside of it. Whenever I do wander, I always get popped, so I try to avoid that. Since it's one of my favorite subjects, it's highly unlikely that you didn't get a response from me. It's probably more like you didn't understand the response, which is more than likely because it isn't an easy concept to grasp right off the bat. That's not due to any failure or deficit of scriptural apologetics, but rather to the pervasive and ubiquitous use of unbiblical apologetics in Christendom.
So then it's NOT an overstatement to say that God wants to save more than He can?
Hilston wrote: Once again, you've missed the point. The Open Theist God has a problem. God wants to save more than He can, because of His stipulated standards. The determinist view has no such problem.
You wouldn't have a problem with that? Justified means "right." Are you saying that God would be right for sending every last person to Hell for no other reason than it was according to what "He wished"?
Not according to scripture. It's all or nothing with God. There are no acceptable losses. He will save every single one He loves, without exception.
Mt. 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Open Theists like to talk about some innate sense of justice. Doesn't that innate thing tell you there's something wrong when God's highest creation, by the vast majority, prefers Satan to God? Doesn't your innate sense of score-keeping tell you that God is a Big Loser if His own special pinnacle creation, by the vast majority, doesn't want anything to do with Him?
On the contrary, no one is condemned for the sins of their ancestors. They pay for their own sins and no one else's. The idea of inheriting the guilt of Adam's original sin is unbiblical.
On your view, that would be the case. On my view, there are zero losses.
Nice stink bomb.
So be it.
Hilston wrote: It's not weakness I'm implying. It is incoherence. How could a God who wants all men to be saved and to come to the saving knowledge of Christ sit by and watch scores of people plummet into hell?
That's what I'm talking about. My God is joyful. There is joy in heaven. My God is not subject to mood swings, or an emotional victim of the actions of others. He is in control of His own state of mind, not psychologically tossed to and fro by actions of finite men. There is no sorrow in the Third Heaven. No grief. What you call a "needless tragedy" is God's doing, according to your view, Clete. He could stop it all today and prevent scores and scores of people from plunging into hell, but He doesn't? Why?
Hilston wrote: Statistically, He is losing big-time (hence the term, Big Loser), and any economist, statistician or gambler would suggest He cut His losses and end it all right now. The "God Who Risks" is betting against the house, and He loses big every single day.
You've begged the very question. My view is coherent. Yours relegates your thinking to the kind of response you just offered above: "It's a matter of perspective, I suppose." Doesn't your innate ability to keep score tell you that the God of Open Theism is a Big Loser? And that His loss grows exponentially with the population and mortality rates of the human race?
You've begged the question again, Clete. You're assuming you have perfect understanding of the passage. You've committed a logical fallacy.
Hilston wrote: I already knew that is what you think. It's Open View arrogance. I've seen it before. Open Theists just can't fathom the possibility that their view could be wrong, so they blithely dismiss it. If you really thought it was possible to be wrong, you'd stop at nothing to find out, much like I've stopped at nothing to investigate Open Theism. But you don't really care, do you?
That's the difference between you and me. I don't wait around for someone to show me. I'll even put up with deliberate obfuscation and evasion to try to get answers to my questions. As to your question, I've led many horses to water, Clete. So your question is misdirected.
You've missed the point entirely. The point is that you give every indication that you don't really care. If swordsman gave similar indications, sure, say whatever you want to him and refuse to answer his disingenuous questions (were that the case).
I haven't complained about the use of TULIP, so I'm not sure why you're making this argument. My complaint is that you guys don't understand what you're critiquing and you just don't seem to care.
Then you should be pretty skilled at refuting them by now. What is baffling to me is that you spent 20+ years as a Calvinist and you still don't know this stuff. You must've gone to the same church as Poly.
Then this is even worse. You can give the definition off the top of your head, but when it comes to actually applying it to the text, your brain shuts off. Why do you go around accusing Calvinists of saying God felt the opposite emotion conveyed in the scriptures in question?
If you want to use Sproul, that's fine. I don't presume to define Calvinism; I let history do that. My point is you don't care. That's my complaint.
Did you understand what he taught on the subject? To test your understanding, ask yourself this: Do you find it surprising that Sproul teaches that that immutability refers to God's character and being, not his actions [Character of God, R.C. Sproul]? If it does surprise you, then you did not understand Sproul's teaching.
Nope. I'm suggesting that your Open Theism lenses and blinders prevent you from understanding anything more than you've already decided in advance.
Hilston wrote: While appreciate your kind remarks, and I sincerely desire to have a cordial and respectful discussion with you, your exit interview with Zman made me re-think even wanting to talk to you on the phone. Something told me that I was seeing my future.
He stated his beliefs, Clete, and you went ballistic. This isn't a church, Clete, where you have to take responsibility for what others teach. This is a public forum where debate is encouraged. Your public trashing of Zman served only to discourage debate.
Good grief, Clete. No wonder you're so uptight. If I made it my mission to protect the TOL skeptics from false teaching, I wouldn't have time to breathe.
You know what, Clete, those words sicken me. If I didn't know you at all and didn't care about you, I wouldn't give a fig. But when I see the ugly side of people I like, it sickens me.
I would, despite the warnings going off in my head.
