How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Unsettler]

To me it seems transparently dishonest. They know the Open Theist has a strong point, so instead of considering it and *gasp* possibly repenting of their classical theism, they essentially appeal to ignorance and avoid conceding a point.

Any advice in how to respond to such cases is greatly appreciated.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you don't mind watching a long stream, this livestream had some good tips on debate tactics when engaging opponents of Open Theism.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've met Chris personally. He's a pretty cool dude, knows his theology well.

 

[Unsettler]

If you don't mind watching a long stream, this livestream had some good tips on debate tactics when engaging opponents of Open Theism.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Thank you for this. I will watch it.

 

[Unsettler]

I've met Chris personally. He's a pretty cool dude, knows his theology well.

I love watching Chris Fisher debate, and I would love to meet him someday if he is ever vacationing down in Florida (where I live). My favorite debate (that I have seen so far) was when Chris and Will teamed up against a couple of Arminians.

 

[Clete]

To me it seems transparently dishonest. They know the Open Theist has a strong point, so instead of considering it and *gasp* possibly repenting of their classical theism, they essentially appeal to ignorance and avoid conceding a point.

Any advice in how to respond to such cases is greatly appreciated.

My advice is to go in knowing that you're not going to get them to move an inch off their doctrine no matter what you say or how you say it.

 

[Nick M]

Frank Turek, who does not rightly divide the word of truth, even sees it. He asks "If it were true, would you change your mind?" And the answer is usually "No" because they already know it is true and are arguing from a false position. They are trying to pull people from the faith. And when they might not know or unsure, they don't want it to be true. I saw this on TOL 10 years ago.

 

[Clete]

Frank Turek, who does not rightly divide the word of truth, even sees it. He asks "If it were true, would you change your mind?" And the answer is usually "No" because they already know it is true and are arguing from a false position. They are trying to pull people from the faith. And when they might not know or unsure, they don't want it to be true. I saw this on TOL 10 years ago.

There is a strong human instinct against standing apart from the crowd. People want to feel like they're normal and that they belong to the "in" crowd. If it isn't an innate instinct, it for sure is drilled into every child's head when they attend almost any school in the civilized world, including most private schools and most especially both public and private Christian schools. Public schools are antithetical to independent thinkers for political reasons while Christian schools are so for religious reasons (i.e. Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic or whatever flavor of school it is will want you to toe their particular doctrinal line).

Open Theism is still in the stage where it is relatively rare and so it is easy to dismiss as a fringe doctrine just as Luther's doctrine was during the 17th century.

 

[Clete]

There was a post on here a moment ago that was attempting to chastise TOL for banning people who disagree with Open Theism, which does not happen and, over the decades that this site has existed, hasn't ever happened to my knowledge. I went to respond to the post and it had been deleted.

I don't know who it was who posted it, but there's a good chance that he'll see this post and so I would just challenge him to show me an example of where any person has ever been banned from TOL because of their belief in Calvinism or Arminianism. Such a person does not exist. From what I have witnessed, the people who get banned from here are those who openly blaspheme God, those who are just flagrantly dishonest, those who maliciously attack people like Bob Enyart and others with personal attacks that have nothing to do with their doctrine, and those who just completely ignore the rules of the site in spite of repeated warnings.

Indeed, the more Calvinists (or other non-open theists) that show up who are at least halfway honest and make genuine attempts to defend their doctrine do nothing at all but make this site better and help TOL accomplish the very mandate that the now deleted post was attempting to shame us into thinking that we ignore. I've said for decades that the best arguments ever made against Calvinism are the arguments Calvinists think they're making in favor of it. They are, without a doubt, their own worst enemy on any debate stage, whether online or otherwise.

As your post said, iron sharpens iron, and so long as it is substantive arguments (i.e. actual iron) that someone who disagrees with us brings, you won't ever see any such person get banned. On the contrary, we relish the opportunity to sharpen our swords on theirs.

 

[Cygnus]

There was a post on here a moment ago that was attempting to chastise TOL for banning people who disagree with Open Theism, which does not happen and, over the decades that this site has existed, hasn't ever happened to my knowledge. I went to respond to the post and it had been deleted.

I will explain my intent in posting that particular post in my closing comments, but I was curious as to the reason why it was deleted?

I don't know who it was who posted it, but there's a good chance that he'll see this post and so I would just challenge him to show me an example of where any person has ever been banned from TOL because of their belief in Calvinism or Arminianism. Such a person does not exist.

The thoughts and intent of the heart, are fully known only by God, and to a lesser extent the person concerned.

Because I am not privy to that information, and I am being somewhat circumspect here, I will not be able to speak freely here and now… but I am more than willing to speak with you directly via a private video call to explain myself fully and at the conclusion of that call I believe you will have cause to re-evaluate your assessment that - “such a person does not exist”

To encourage you to do so I will say the following.

I enjoy reading your posts, even though we are vigorously opposed regards some weighty matters, and we have in fact wrestled with each other on previous occasions, as I have been posting on this forum as long as you have been… you will remember, perhaps, as I explain myself in our impending video call.

Why a video call?… it is the better medium than voice only… your an astute and intelligent man… who understands that much is communicated via facial expressions and gestures etc… it will be a laugh, mixed with seriousness.

If you send me a message via TOL to my inbox here at TOL accepting my offer than I will send you the details whereby we can make arrangements… I’m an extraordinarily transparent person these days…an easy going guy with a slightly intense edge…but I don’t bite.

From what I have witnessed, the people who get banned from here are those who openly blaspheme God, those who are just flagrantly dishonest, those who maliciously attack people like Bob Enyart and others with personal attacks that have nothing to do with their doctrine, and those who just completely ignore the rules of the site in spite of repeated warnings.

I am certainly not a prophet… but I believe you will have some reason to re-evaluate.

Indeed, the more Calvinists (or other non-open theists) that show up who are at least halfway honest and make genuine attempts to defend their doctrine do nothing at all but make this site better and help TOL accomplish the very mandate that the now deleted post was attempting to shame us into thinking that we ignore.

Well said.

I've said for decades that the best arguments ever made against Calvinism are the arguments Calvinists think they're making in favor of it. They are, without a doubt, their own worst enemy on any debate stage, whether online or otherwise.

Not well said (haha)… but you have identified the correct strategy…it’s the same I use… How am I doing?

As your post said, iron sharpens iron, and so long as it is substantive arguments (i.e. actual iron) that someone who disagrees with us brings, you won't ever see any such person get banned. On the contrary, we relish the opportunity to sharpen our swords on theirs.

That’s the combative spirit… contend for the faith once delivered (as each individual understands it to be)… every Spirit born child of God can stand on The Rock…. The LORD Is With Me… Now And Forever.

Now… as to my intent in posting that communication to *name redacted* the other day on TOL.

First on my heart - to encourage TOL members to contend for the faith as they perceive it to be… what more can a person do who believes what they believe… IF you BELIEVE than CONTEND… it will develop your capacity to THINK...because your beliefs WILL be shaken…it’s frightening in some respects and at particular moments…that’s ok…because you WILL sharpen your understanding of scripture…how so?…because The LORD is with me <<<< that “me” (that is YOU)… so contend for the faith once delivered to the saints as you perceive it to be.

Now there is a collateral benefit for me… the more who contend against me the more scalps I take…in that I undermine your confidence in your scriptural support for the open theist doctrine… because I believe it is a serious doctrinal deviation from the truth.

I BELIEVE that to be TRUE…and I am here to CONTEND For The Faith Once Delivered To The Saints…as I perceive it to be.

One aspect of the biblical principle of “iron sharpens iron” is that heresy and contentions of whatever kind within the broad christian community, have the purpose of refining doctrine and exposing error…which in turn has the intended objective of isolating the truth from untruth… 1 Corinthians 11:19

In closing...I hope you are able to perceive, by God's grace, that despite the collateral benefit I derive, as I have stated... my intent was to edify... to reflect, to mirror, the measured ferocity, that I want all those who call upon the name of the LORD to posses, as they contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, as they perceive it to be............. I speak like this to clarify a valid point raised by Nick M, and in doing so, to be gracious to the *person concerned* in my remarks below, understanding within myself, that the strong protect the weak.

Second on my heart - that a certain persons heart would be pricked, and hopefully admonished in someway, and edified in someway, so as to conduct themselves in a more worthy manner... they know who they are... and I know who they are... and the Lord knows who they are.

So…if you want to know who they are…take up my offer for a face to face.

Adios amigo.

PS - people reading this unfortunately have no idea what the deleted post said, which is unfortunate, because they have no point of reference regards the contents of that deleted post, apart from your comments regarding it.... which is a poor substitute for the real thing... the genuine article.
One way that lack of knowledge (on their part) could be mitigated is for you, a member in good standing here, is to make a request for that deleted post to be reinstated?
Now that I have revealed the intent of my heart in making that post public..(and the Spirit is not convicting me of malfeasance as I write this)...I really don't see why that would be unacceptable to TOL ... Do you?

 

[Clete]

I will explain my intent in posting that particular post in my closing comments, but I was curious as to the reason why it was deleted?

I assume that the person who posted it had second thoughts.

The thoughts and intent of the heart, are fully known only by God, and to a lesser extent the person concerned.

Yeah, sure. Whatever. How is that relevant?

Because I am not privy to that information, and I am being somewhat circumspect here, I will not be able to speak freely here and now… but I am more than willing to speak with you directly via a private video call to explain myself fully and at the conclusion of that call I believe you will have cause to re-evaluate your assessment that - “such a person does not exist”

We can speak right here. No one will show up with SUVs and black helicopters. I promise.

To encourage you to do so I will say the following.

I enjoy reading your posts, even though we are vigorously opposed regards some weighty matters, and we have in fact wrestled with each other on previous occasions, as I have been posting on this forum as long as you have been… you will remember, perhaps, as I explain myself in our impending video call.

Why a video call?… it is the better medium than voice only… your an astute and intelligent man… who understands that much is communicated via facial expressions and gestures etc… it will be a laugh, mixed with seriousness.

If you send me a message via TOL to my inbox here at TOL accepting my offer than I will send you the details whereby we can make arrangements… I’m an extraordinarily transparent person these days…an easy going guy with a slightly intense edge…but I don’t bite.

You've so far given me no reason at all why I would be motivated to do such thing.

I am certainly not a prophet… but I believe you will have some reason to re-evaluate.

I very much doubt it.

Well said.

Yes, I know it was well said. Moreover, it is true and has been the consistent practice of those running this site so far as I've been able to tell which is at least as much as you can tell, if not more so.

Not well said (haha)… but you have identified the correct strategy…it’s the same I use… How am I doing?

If it is your intent to convince me to take your accusations seriously, not too well.

That’s the combative spirit… contend for the faith once delivered (as each individual understands it to be)… every Spirit born child of God can stand on The Rock…. The LORD Is With Me… Now And Forever.

The majority of Calvinists who understand what the doctrine actually teaches, are not standing on anything. A very large percentage of them are no more saved than are most Catholics who trust in meritorious works, rituals and purgatory (i.e. their own suffering) for their salvation. Calvinists, who know what they're talking about and are honest with themselves believe that principles like justice cannot be applied to God and that He is arbitrary. Calvary is, thereby, nullified except as the ultimate exercise in needless self-immolating masochism that it is possible to perform. In short, Calvinists (many of them) are trusting in the wrong Jesus.

Now… as to my intent in posting that communication to *name redacted* the other day on TOL.

LOL!

First on my heart - to encourage TOL members to contend for the faith as they perceive it to be… what more can a person do who believes what they believe… IF you BELIEVE than CONTEND… it will develop your capacity to THINK...because your beliefs WILL be shaken…it’s frightening in some respects and at particular moments…that’s ok…because you WILL sharpen your understanding of scripture…how so?…because The LORD is with me <<<< that “me” (that is YOU)… so contend for the faith once delivered to the saints as you perceive it to be.

Anyone who shows up here with that attitude would never get banned. Lately, the only Calvinists I've seen show up here are the ones that cannot keep themselves from being blasphemous and causelessly and personally insulting and ridiculous.

Now there is a collateral benefit for me… the more who contend against me the more scalps I take…in that I undermine your confidence in your scriptural support for the open theist doctrine… because I believe it is a serious doctrinal deviation from the truth.

No one cares what you believe! You believe that God is an arbitrary tyrant that throws babies into Hell for no reason at all other than that He predestined them to be conceived for that purpose. There are people (Christians!) who BELIEVE that the Earth is flat, Cygnus! Your belief is irrelevant. What matters is what you can establish via scripture and sound reason (i.e. It absolutely does have to be BOTH).

I BELIEVE that to be TRUE…and I am here to CONTEND For The Faith Once Delivered To The Saints…as I perceive it to be.

Then do it! Stop belly-aching about people you don't even know getting banned for reasons you admit that you aren't privy to and just make an argument. I'll crush anything you've got to powder just like I probably already have a hundred times before and you, in response, will not be moved one single inch off of your pagan Greek mythological version of God.

One aspect of the biblical principle of “iron sharpens iron” is that heresy and contentions of whatever kind within the broad christian community, have the purpose of refining doctrine and exposing error…which in turn has the intended objective of isolating the truth from untruth… 1 Corinthians 11:19

One might actually say that this is the principle upon which this website was founded. I see no evidence that principle is not being adhered to by those currently running the site. I agree that people get banned more often now than in the past but that has to do with the character quality of people showing up here, not the fact that they're Calvinists.

In closing...I hope you are able to perceive, by God's grace, that despite the collateral benefit I derive, as I have stated... my intent was to edify... to reflect, to mirror, the measured ferocity, that I want all those who call upon the name of the LORD to posses, as they contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, as they perceive it to be............. I speak like this to clarify a valid point raised by Nick M, and in doing so, to be gracious to the *person concerned* in my remarks below, understanding within myself, that the strong protect the weak.

How is it that Calvinists don't notice it when they speak like Open Theists?

Do you or do you not believe that Nick M, or you or any other person on this site, was predestined by God to say precisely what they said from before time began and that they had no alternative but to say it? Do you or do you not believe that every single person who has ever been banned from TOL was predestined by God Himself, to show up here, say something incredibly idiotic so as to get banned just as God had intended from the foundation of the Earth?

Is there anyone more double minded than the Calvinist who lives his life as though free will is real and then gets offended when someone does what the omnipotently sovereign God predestined them to do.

Second on my heart - that a certain persons heart would be pricked, and hopefully admonished in someway, and edified in someway, so as to conduct themselves in a more worthy manner... they know who they are... and I know who they are... and the Lord knows who they are.

The Lord doesn't just know who they are, Cygnus! He predestined their every action, whether in thought, word or deed.

So…if you want to know who they are…take up my offer for a face to face.

I couldn't care less about discussing this with you face to face. Your cloak and dagger tactics are buffoonish.

Adios amigo.

PS - people reading this unfortunately have no idea what the deleted post said, which is unfortunate, because they have no point of reference regards the contents of that deleted post, apart from your comments regarding it.... which is a poor substitute for the real thing... the genuine article.
One way that lack of knowledge (on their part) could be mitigated is for you, a member in good standing here, is to make a request for that deleted post to be reinstated?

I have no such pull and I doubt that it would even be possible. Besides, I'm not convinced that you didn't delete it yourself.

Now that I have revealed the intent of my heart in making that post public..(and the Spirit is not convicting me of malfeasance as I write this)...I really don't see why that would be unacceptable to TOL ... Do you?

That is the wrong question, Cygnus!

Whether it is acceptable to TOL is just a matter of historical trivia. TOL can neither conceive, nor plan, nor to whatever extent they may have planned, move a single finger toward the reinstatement of that post, unless in so far as God permits, nay unless in so far as God commands! Right?

If God didn't want that post deleted, it would still be here, according to YOUR doctrine. So what the heck do you have to complain about?
Then again, surely, you must also believe that you're belly-aching about it was also predestined. What a funny mental marry-go-round you people live on.

 

[Cygnus]

I assume that the person who posted it had second thoughts.

I did not delete my post.
It was deleted.
There was zero communication as to the reason.

We can speak right here. No one will show up with SUVs and black helicopters. I promise.

That is not a viable option for me.

You've so far given me no reason at all why I would be motivated to do such thing.

That's ok with me... my response was sufficient to achieve the purpose I intended.

The majority of Calvinists who understand what the doctrine actually teaches, are not standing on anything. A very large percentage of them are no more saved than are most Catholics who trust in meritorious works, rituals and purgatory (i.e. their own suffering) for their salvation. Calvinists, who know what they're talking about and are honest with themselves believe that principles like justice cannot be applied to God and that He is arbitrary. Calvary is, thereby, nullified except as the ultimate exercise in needless self-immolating masochism that it is possible to perform. In short, Calvinists (many of them) are trusting in the wrong Jesus.

In regards the bolded section above.
Who is going to apply the principles of justice to God? ...in other words... Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?
Job failed in his attempt... Are you the next batter up?

Anyone who shows up here with that attitude would never get banned. Lately, the only Calvinists I've seen show up here are the ones that cannot keep themselves from being blasphemous and causelessly and personally insulting and ridiculous.

Do you have a username to apply that to? .... to whom are you referring?

No one cares what you believe! You believe that God is an arbitrary tyrant that throws babies into Hell for no reason at all other than that He predestined them to be conceived for that purpose. There are people (Christians!) who BELIEVE that the Earth is flat, Cygnus! Your belief is irrelevant. What matters is what you can establish via scripture and sound reason (i.e. It absolutely does have to be BOTH).

In regards the bolded section..... That little detail must have completely slipped my mind...my apologies

Then do it! Stop belly-aching about people you don't even know getting banned for reasons you admit that you aren't privy to and just make an argument. I'll crush anything you've got to powder just like I probably already have a hundred times before and you, in response, will not be moved one single inch off of your pagan Greek mythological version of God.

In regards the bolded section...I have raided this forum on a number of occasions in the past...and never been defeated...by you or anybody else.

Do you or do you not believe that Nick M, or you or any other person on this site, was predestined by God to say precisely what they said from before time began and that they had no alternative but to say it? Do you or do you not believe that every single person who has ever been banned from TOL was predestined by God Himself, to show up here, say something incredibly idiotic so as to get banned just as God had intended from the foundation of the Earth?

In regards the bolded section... They had an alternative...there was a multitude of options (thought) to choose from...but they chose only one.

Is there anyone more double minded than the Calvinist who lives his life as though free will is real and then gets offended when someone does what the omnipotently sovereign God predestined them to do.

Volition is real...that is the source, or cause, of our sense or perception of our personal autonomy.
To experience the emotion of anger on account of the effrontery of another persons exercise of their volition, within the deterministic architecture affirmed by Calvinist...does not correspond to double mindedness or confusion...in that there is a disconnect or incongruence in the mind of the Calvinist...not at all...because I understand that this fluidic dynamic, and what ever it consists of, is the architecture that the immanence of God is conveyed, experientially... God is alive and dynamic and inexhaustibly creative

The Lord doesn't just know who they are, Cygnus! He predestined their every action, whether in thought, word or deed.

Indeed...

I couldn't care less about discussing this with you face to face. Your cloak and dagger tactics are buffoonish.

Your afraid...of the truth...I will reveal
The offer to communicate with you on a personal level privately which I made in response to your challenge to do so, you have refused, and I now withdraw that offer.

Anyways....in regards the *person concerned*...everyone here knows who it is

I have no such pull and I doubt that it would even be possible. Besides, I'm not convinced that you didn't delete it yourself.

In regards the bolded section.... What a useful mechanism of avoidance you have employed...eternally effective yeah?

Whether it is acceptable to TOL is just a matter of historical trivia. TOL can neither conceive, nor plan, nor to whatever extent they may have planned, move a single finger toward the reinstatement of that post, unless in so far as God permits, nay unless in so far as God commands! Right?

Correct...

If God didn't want that post deleted, it would still be here, according to YOUR doctrine. So what the heck do you have to complain about?
Then again, surely, you must also believe that you're belly-aching about it was also predestined. What a funny mental marry-go-round you people live on.

I have achieved the purpose I intended in posting that communication....which is congruent with God's purpose

I look forward to crushing you under my heel



..........

 

[Clete]

I did not delete my post.
It was deleted.
There was zero communication as to the reason.

You aren't going to start crying are you?

For the record. If what Cygnus is claiming is actually true, I would have to say that I saw no reason why the post should be deleted, in and of itself. I would therefore suspect that Cygnus here has a history of showing up for the purpose of impugning the reputation of the site rather than to debate doctrine and so has invited, by his own activity, the deletion of most anything he posts.

That is not a viable option for me.

I'd guess that's because you are a person who has been permanently banned from the site in the past and has found a way to sneak back in and don't want to lose your access.

That's ok with me... my response was sufficient to achieve the purpose I intended.

Liar.

In regards the bolded section above.
Who is going to apply the principles of justice to God? ...in other words... Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

Pretending, for the sake of argument, that this is a valid reply, which it is NOT....

Do you understand the concept of "integrity"?

Please, tell me what integrity is and then tell me whether or not you believe your god has it.

(He WILL NOT answer!)

Job failed in his attempt... Are you the next batter up?

Fool.

Do you have a username to apply that to? .... to whom are you referring?

I do not keep records of who's been banned and had no one in particular in mind. I have participated on this forum for more than twenty years, Cygnus. I've debated individual Calvinists for years at a time. Calvinists simply are not systematically removed from this forum on the basis of being a Calvinist. Debating Calvinism is the primary reason this website was created!

In regards the bolded section..... That little detail must have completely slipped my mind...my apologies

Sarcasm?

If so, it was a lie. Calvinist throw out sound reason in favor of their doctrine at the drop of ANY Calvinist hat.

In regards the bolded section...I have raided this forum on a number of occasions in the past...and never been defeated...by you or anybody else.

Liar.
(You don't get to decide whether you were defeated or not, moron. It hardly even qualifies as being a matter of opinion.)

In regards the bolded section... They had an alternative...there was a multitude of options (thought) to choose from...but they chose only one.

This was either a bald faced lie or you are not a Calvinist.

Volition is real...that is the source, or cause, of our sense or perception of our personal autonomy.

Simply saying it doesn't make it consistent with your doctrine, Cygnus. You can say that you believe two contradictory things but contradictions do not exist in reality and, as such, you WILL be forced to choose which of the two contradictory ideas that you place in abeyance beneath the other.

Calvinists commonly employ such double talk but when pressed, they consistently toss out anything and everything that contradicts the idea that God is immutable. That is their bedrock doctrine.

To experience the emotion of anger on account of the effrontery of another persons exercise of their volition, within the deterministic architecture affirmed by Calvinist...does not correspond to double mindedness or confusion...in that there is a disconnect or incongruence in the mind of the Calvinist...not at all...because I understand that this fluidic dynamic, and what ever it consists of, is the architecture that the immanence of God is conveyed, experientially... God is alive and dynamic and inexhaustibly creative

Saying that it isn't double talk doesn't make it so.

It's so obviously is double talk that even your own denial of it is forced to use double talk to deny that it's double talk! If it weren't so stupid, it would be funny!

Indeed...

Your afraid...of the truth...I will reveal
The offer to communicate with you on a personal level privately which I made in response to your challenge to do so, you have refused, and I now withdraw that offer.

You are a lunatic!

Anyways....in regards the *person concerned*...everyone here knows who it is

Nope.

I haven't the faintest idea who you're talking about.

In regards the bolded section.... What a useful mechanism of avoidance you have employed...eternally effective yeah?

This sentence make no sense.

You do not come off to me as the least bit honest. You are clearly hostile and, by virtue of the length of time I've been here and my doctrinal positions, I am VERY MUCH directly associated with the object of your hostility and there is no evidence other than your own claim to the contrary that anyone deleted the post other than you. I do not pretend that this is any sort of proof that you definitely did delete the post but the point is that you've given me zero reason to trust you. In fact, if anything, you've lied more than once already.

Correct...

LOL!!!!

See what I mean! Calvinists always default to the idea that there is no volition. You can't even make it out of one single post before directly contradicting what you said less than five sentences ago!

How can anyone tolerate such double mindedness within themselves?! I would check myself into an asylum if I detected that I was doing such things.

I have achieved the purpose I intended in posting that communication....which is congruent with God's purpose

A purpose that you haven't articulated - nor will you.

In other words, this is an empty claim intended to delude yourself into thinking you "won". Pathetic.

I look forward to crushing you under my heel



..........

Prove it!

Start a thread defending any Calvinist doctrine you choose. I'll defeat you the same as I've defeated every Calvinists that has ever engage me in a debate on the topic.

Either that or just shut up and go away. No one cares about your personal opinions concerning how this website is run. If you want to debate doctrine then great. Otherwise, you're a waste of everyone's time, including your own.

 

[Cygnus]

Clete - there really is no reason to use such inflammatory language as sampled below - I was asked to reread the rules of this particular forum by Sherman when I asked for his assistance in regaining access to my account after I lost it after posting my first OP and than tried to respond to the first reply but could not...while I understand their concerns and the reasons upon which those concerns are based - I have posted on many christian debate forums under many usernames (the ones that appeal to me at the time of registration) and its a common practice for different faith groups to have a dedicated arena isolated somewhat from the general access areas to mitigate against the bar room brawls that can break out in there...it is my personal policy, and always has been, never to report a post no matter how offence...but I would ask you to reconsider the use of such language...as you can see I do have the ability to string a few words together explaining my thought and you certainly have that ability to....please give consideration to my thoughts here expressed...I will reply to your post above later today.

You aren't going to start crying are you?
Liar.
Fool.
it was a lie.
Liar.
moron.
a bald faced lie
so stupid
You are a lunatic!
you've lied

 

[Cygnus]

Pretending, for the sake of argument, that this is a valid reply, which it is NOT....

Do you understand the concept of "integrity"?

Please, tell me what integrity is and then tell me whether or not you believe your god has it.

(He WILL NOT answer!)

I have answered... with a new thread... entitled... Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

CalvinistGoblin lurks in the shadows...watching...and waiting...

 

[Clete]

Clete - there really is no reason to use such inflammatory language as sampled below

I call it as I see it. If you don't like it, change your behavior.

- I was asked to reread the rules of this particular forum by Sherman when I asked for his assistance in regaining access to my account after I lost it after posting my first OP and than tried to respond to the first reply but could not...while I understand their concerns and the reasons upon which those concerns are based

I couldn't care less.

- I have posted on many christian debate forums under many usernames (the ones that appeal to me at the time of registration) and its a common practice for different faith groups to have a dedicated arena isolated somewhat from the general access areas to mitigate against the bar room brawls that can break out in there...

And as a result, the forums are boring and next to no one posts there that doesn't agree with those who run the site.

it is my personal policy, and always has been, never to report a post no matter how offence...but I would ask you to reconsider the use of such language..

Under no circumstances would I permit the whining of a cry baby who is pretending to be persecuted on a website that I know for a fact does not systematically ban people for being Calvinists to convince me to alter my language at all. If you don't like being called a liar then stop telling lies to people with the brains to detect it when it happens.

Besides, you god predestined me to say every word, he predestined you to be as whining cry baby and for me to respect you about 1/10th as far as I could throw you with one hand.

as you can see I do have the ability to string a few words together explaining my thought and you certainly have that ability to....please give consideration to my thoughts here expressed...I will reply to your post above later today.

You cite your ability to string words together in a post where you intentionally ignored every rule of grammar and punctuation in the English language in a plea for me to give you respect that you have not earned.

Was that supposed to have been a joke?

You aren't going to start crying are you?
Liar.
Fool.
it was a lie.
Liar.
moron.
a bald faced lie
so stupid
You are a lunatic!
you've lied

All true.

I've been doing this stuff for twenty five years, Cygnus. You're as transparent as Scotch tape. You've run out of substance inside of three posts and now want to go back to playing the victim.

Look, either find a thread about some Calvinist topic you're interested in or start one of your own and make an argument that has something to do with your doctrinal beliefs and I will respond with the amount of substance and respect that your presented material deserves. If you don't want to do that then just shut up and go away.

No one believes that you're a victim so you might as well stop whining and belly-aching and just crush us all under your Calvinist heal as you claim to have the ability to do. Let your immense mental prowess be used to exact your revenge for being so brutalized by the tyrannical heretics that run this website by defeating us all in a real debate.

THIS CRY BABY WILL NOT DO IT!!!!

There! I've declared the end from the beginning.

 

[Clete]

I have answered... with a new thread... entitled... Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

Do you really not know how to post a link?

CalvinistGoblin lurks in the shadows...watching...and waiting...

That makes no sense.

 

[Bright Raven]

Do you guys actually believe this? The following is from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Open Theism​

Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will.

While Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the “open,” undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God.

Even though God is all-powerful, allowing Him to do everything that can be done, He cannot create round squares or make 2 +2 = 5 or do anything that is logically impossible. Omniscience is understood in a similar manner. God is all-knowing and can know all that can be known, but He cannot know the contingent future, since that too, is impossible. God knows all the possible ways the world might go at any point in time, but He does not know the one way the world will go, so long as some part of what will happen in the future is contingent. So, Open Theists oppose the claim of the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, that God has “middle knowledge.”

Open Theists believe that Scripture teaches that God wanted to give us the freedom to choose to love or reject Him. In order for each of us to genuinely have a choice for which we are morally responsible, we must have the ability to do otherwise than we do. This is the distinctive necessary condition of what has come to be called libertarian freedom. God may intervene in the created world at any time, and He may determine that we act in ways of His choosing. But He cannot both respect our libertarian freedom and guarantee that we will do specific things freely. Thus, Open Theists believe that God has created a world in which He takes the risk that many of us will reject Him and act in ways opposed to Him, in order to give us the opportunity to freely choose to love and obey Him.

 

[Clete]

Do you guys actually believe this? The following is from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Open Theism​

Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will.

I'm not sure that first sentence makes perfect sense but generally, so far, so good.

While Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the “open,” undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God.

True, except that I would say that the first sentence of this paragraph goes somewhat beyond what the biblical material can support. Biblically, God knows all the truths that can be known THAT HE WANTS TO KNOW and He is able to find out any truth that He desires to, but doesn't already, know.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

​

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”​

Even though God is all-powerful, allowing Him to do everything that can be done, He cannot create round squares or make 2 +2 = 5 or do anything that is logically impossible. Omniscience is understood in a similar manner. God is all-knowing and can know all that can be known, but He cannot know the contingent future, since that too, is impossible.

They got this entirely correct. The God who is Reason (John 1:1) cannot do the irrational.

God knows all the possible ways the world might go at any point in time, but He does not know the one way the world will go, so long as some part of what will happen in the future is contingent.

God is capable of knowing all of the possible ways the world might go, but I very much doubt that He's wasted His time figuring all that minutia out. Why would He? There is no biblical material nor other rational necessity that requires such a belief.

So, Open Theists oppose the claim of the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, that God has “middle knowledge.”

True! Open theists definitely oppose "middle knowledge". If a "choice" is known in advance of it being made, it was not made freely.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

Open Theists believe that Scripture teaches that God wanted to give us the freedom to choose to love or reject Him. In order for each of us to genuinely have a choice for which we are morally responsible, we must have the ability to do otherwise than we do. This is the distinctive necessary condition of what has come to be called libertarian freedom. God may intervene in the created world at any time, and He may determine that we act in ways of His choosing. But He cannot both respect our libertarian freedom and guarantee that we will do specific things freely. Thus, Open Theists believe that God has created a world in which He takes the risk that many of us will reject Him and act in ways opposed to Him, in order to give us the opportunity to freely choose to love and obey Him.

I have no problem with anything said in that paragraph. I'm not a fan of the term "libertarian freedom" because I think it's loaded with too many various things depending on who's using the term but, otherwise, I'd agree with what is said here.


So, in direct answer to your question...

Yes, generally speaking, we really do believe this! More than that, we can establish it biblically and rationally. Indeed, that is THE reason why we really do believe it.

 

[Bright Raven]

Sorry Brother but I Just can't bring myself to believe that God is not a totally all knowing God