BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[Ecumenicist]

I do not know what Arminianism is. I thought you guys said I was a Calvinist? :bang:

Nope, you're a rock solid Arminian. Welcome!

Its a subtle point that makes the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. A
Calvinist might say that since God had the knowledge of evil, and since God has the
power to prevent evil, then God must have ordained evil to His greater purpose.

There's lots of scripture to support this viewpoint as well, here's one example.

Psalm 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:

i.e. the wicked serve as the sword of the Lord, the wicked are ordained as such to
serve as the sword of the Lord.

Dave

 

[elected4ever]

Nope, you're a rock solid Arminian. Welcome!

Its a subtle point that makes the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. A
Calvinist might say that since God had the knowledge of evil, and since God has the
power to prevent evil, then God must have ordained evil to His greater purpose.

There's lots of scripture to support this viewpoint as well, here's one example.

Psalm 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:

i.e. the wicked serve as the sword of the Lord, the wicked are ordained as such to
serve as the sword of the Lord.

Dave

This God being outside of time thing that you guys keep talking about I don't understand. You speak as if God is unconnected to the real world.To me, time is measured eternity. Sense time is part of eternity, How is God outside of it? Time is to give man a point of reference. God works and relates with man in time because of man's limited understanding of things outside of his points of reference. That makes God very active in time. What is meant when you say that God is outside of time?

 

[RightIdea]

Well, the vast majority of people who hold your view regarding God's foreknowledge hold that God exists "outside of time," so to speak, or in the "eternal now," that God views all of time simultaneously rather than experiencing it in order.

In fact, the only of the four views that believes God is eternally temporal (in time) is the Open View, which says that God knows some of the future - namely that part which He has unconditionally foreordained, and He sees the rest of the future exactly as it is - namely that it is open and uncertain, not settled, not "written in stone," so to speak. Thus, God views much (but not all) of the future as possibilities, not as certainties.

 

[Yorzhik]

Wanted? No. But ordained? Yes.

God didn't want it but ordained it? Do you even realize what you are saying here? You are saying that God, Christianity, and the bible don't matter. Not to us anyway. The most this can mean is that God ordained that we would care about something that didn't matter to us in any way.

So the obvious question is... what does "ordain" mean?

 

[Z Man]

God didn't want it but ordained it? Do you even realize what you are saying here?

I thought I explained myself pretty well on this matter?

Did Christ want to die on the cross? No. Was it ordained by God that He do it anyways? Yes. Did you really want to spank your child for misbehaving? No. But was it necessary for a better cause in the end? Yes.​

You are saying that God, Christianity, and the bible don't matter. Not to us anyway. The most this can mean is that God ordained that we would care about something that didn't matter to us in any way.

What?

So the obvious question is... what does "ordain" mean?

or·dain
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

- To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
- To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained.

 

[Z Man]

In fact, the only of the four views that believes God is eternally temporal (in time) is the Open View, which says that God knows some of the future - namely that part which He has unconditionally foreordained, and He sees the rest of the future exactly as it is - namely that it is open and uncertain, not settled, not "written in stone," so to speak. Thus, God views much (but not all) of the future as possibilities, not as certainties.

Those who believe in the Open View want their cake and to eat it too. You say you believe in freewill, and that God does not know the future. But then you also believe that He does know some of the future; that which He has foreordained. Now how in the world can God do that without infringing upon someone's freewill?

You can't have it both ways. Either God knows the future, or He doesn't. Either we have complete freewill, or we don't. Which is it?

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Have you read any of Bob's posts in the Battle Royale?

 

[RightIdea]

Apparently not. Indeed, Z-Man's last post betrays that he apparently doesn't even understand the issues at work here. Glaring ignorance.

 

[Clete]

Clete,
Thanks for the explanation earlier, much appreciated. On another note about your last post (573) that I think bares some attention.

I just received an email from a brother in the Lord who I bare knew, but we had one personal discussion about the open view. He is against the open view rather adamantly, but during our brief conversation, I don’t believe he got anything about the open view correct.

Frankly, I am tired of people attacking and supposedly debunking what they do not even understand. This friend gave me some info about a meeting where they were teaching against the open view. I wrote back and asked if there would be an opportunity to respond because my experience has shown me that those against the view do one thing very well. They get the view all wrong.

Now, I can accept some ignorance and misunderstanding, perhaps some extra mistakes being made because many people really dislike the view and thus don’t even want to entertain what it’s all about, but my personal experience is that the opponents to the Open View get it wrong over 90% of the time! I am not exaggerating.

Typically open view proponents are forced into the role of teacher while the so-called debate/discussion is going on.

This has been my typical experience as well. Most people who disagree with the Open View (not all but most), do not understand what it teaches at all.

BTW, MAN, Bob's last post was ,,, outstanding! Imagine that, God the Son actually emptied Himself of certain aspects of His divine abilities/attributes.

But, I think I see that Sam should have a response against that... How about you?

If he does not or if he concedes the point, he loses the debate (as Bob has already pointed out).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Apparently not. Indeed, Z-Man's last post betrays that he apparently doesn't even understand the issues at work here. Glaring ignorance.

More likely, WILLFULL ignorance.

 

[Z Man]

Z Man,

Have you read any of Bob's posts in the Battle Royale?

Is Bob your spokesman now?

 

[RightIdea]

Z, this thread is a discussion of the DEBATE. So, if you're not even reading the debate (as appears to be the case), then you're off topic.

'Nuff said.

 

[Clete]

Is Bob your spokesman now?

I'll take that as a "no"?

The point was that if you had read his posts you would know that your argument is a straw man and doesn't hold water. This is the BR X discussion forum, you know. It's not unreasonable to assume that those participating have actually read the material being discussed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Z, this thread is a discussion of the DEBATE. So, if you're not even reading the debate (as appears to be the case), then you're off topic.

'Nuff said.

:chuckle:
Great minds think alike! :thumb:

 

[Z Man]

I've read his posts guys. If you would of paid attention to my earlier posts, you would've known that. I've already made my comments on Bob's irrational, unnecessary, and hopelessly avoiding-the-topic posts in the Critique thread.

 

[RightIdea]

:chuckle:
Great minds think alike! :thumb:

Yeah, but what's our excuse? LOL

 

[RightIdea]

How on God's green earth can you accuse Bob of being off topic? :rotfl:

Let's see... he has directly or indirectly refuted all of SLam's points, he has set forth a distinctly and provably superior hermeneutic, he has put forth evidence of the pagan origins of classical theism, and demonstrated how the Open View's explanation of divine foreknowledge shows greater glory to God than the settled view does.

Sure looks to me like he's on topic! :up:

 

[elected4ever]

Well, the vast majority of people who hold your view regarding God's foreknowledge hold that God exists "outside of time," so to speak, or in the "eternal now," that God views all of time simultaneously rather than experiencing it in order.

Before the earth was God made a plan. God in real time is experiencing the plan. A builder will make plans but does not experience the building of the building until construction begins. So it is with God. He made the plan and is now in the process of executing the plan. I think where you and I differ is the detail of God's plan. Where you see the execution of God's plan subject to unforeseen problems where adjustments have to be made I see a complete and perfect plan being executed. All things known before the fact and no correction necessary.

In fact, the only of the four views that believes God is eternally temporal (in time) is the Open View, which says that God knows some of the future - namely that part which He has unconditionally foreordained, and He sees the rest of the future exactly as it is - namely that it is open and uncertain, not settled, not "written in stone," so to speak. Thus, God views much (but not all) of the future as possibilities, not as certainties.

This view is flawed at its very core. It requires that God be fallible in the design of the plan and in its execution. In order for your view to be true God must be assigned the fallibility of man. This calls into question God's character and reliability. God must become less than what he is, Absolute perfection. Such a concept more defines God in myth than in truth.

 

[Z Man]

How on God's green earth can you accuse Bob of being off topic? :rotfl:

Let's see... he has directly or indirectly refuted all of SLam's points, he has set forth a distinctly and provably superior hermeneutic, he has put forth evidence of the pagan origins of classical theism, and demonstrated how the Open View's explanation of divine foreknowledge shows greater glory to God than the settled view does.

Sure looks to me like he's on topic! :up:

I could of sworn the debate was, 'Does God Know Our Entire Future'....

 

[Rimi]

Did God make the choice for you or did you make the choice? When God knew your choice has no relevance in your ability to make it.

If God knew it before it came to be, then there was no choice. It was laid out from the beginning. Thinking that God can only know the knowable isn't taking Him off His throne at all. It's acknowledging His divine degree that we have free will. Free to turn left or right. Free to love or hate.