James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Nang]

Sigh.

http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/

AMR

Why are you so against Scripturalism?

This has never become clear to me from your apologetics.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why are you so against Scripturalism?

This has never become clear to me from your apologetics.

What is "Scripturalism" exactly? I genuinely don't know.

 

[Nang]

Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe God is the author of sin. There's just something about Cheung's "so what" response that kind of makes me chuckle because it really leaves the emotional arguments with no answer.

No Christian believes God is the author of sin, but many Christians live by faith and not by human commentators who think to explain such.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If that is true, then -- continuing the analogy -- God is the author of evil.

"author" ... a tricky word left nakedly undefined. :AMR:

In the world of the unfolding drama, who killed Duncan? Macbeth or Shakespeare? Is there not reason for us to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin?

The difference between levels, then, may have moral, as well as metaphysical, significance. It may explain why the biblical writers, who do not hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, do not accuse him of wrongdoing.

The relationship between God and us, of course, is different in some respects from that between an author and his characters. Most significantly, we are real and Macbeth is not. But between God and us there is a vast difference in the kind of reality and in relative status. God is the absolute controller of and authority over nature and history.

God is the lawgiver, and we receive his laws. God is the head of the covenant; we are the servants. God has devised the creation for his own glory; we seek his glory, rather than our own. God makes us as the potter makes pots, for his own purposes. God has many rights and prerogatives we do not. Do these differences not put God in a different moral category as well?

The transcendence of God plays a significant role in biblical responses to the problem of evil. Because God is who he is, the covenant Lord, he is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice. He is the judge, and we are not.

Very often in Scripture, when something happens that calls God’s goodness into question, he pointedly refrains from explaining. Indeed, he often rebukes those people who question him. Job demanded an interview with God, so that he could ask God the reasons for his sufferings (Job 23:1–7; 31:35–37). But when he met God, God asked the questions: “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me” (38:3). The questions mostly revealed Job’s ignorance about God’s creation: if Job does not understand the ways of the animals, how can he presume to call God’s motives into question? Job does not even understand earthly things; how can he presume to debate heavenly things? God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures. :AMR1:

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is "Scripturalism" exactly? I genuinely don't know.

http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/cheungonmt24.htm

AMR

 

[Christian Liberty]

No Christian believes God is the author of sin,

Vincent Cheung does. Which was the entire point of my joke

but many Christians live by faith and not by human commentators who think to explain such.

Well, this is certainly a good thing

 

[Stripe]

What would you say was the first act of evil committed by man in scripture?

Eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"author" ... a tricky word left nakedly undefined.

The analogy was clearly set out and its terms easily understood.

In the world of the unfolding drama, who killed Duncan? Macbeth or Shakespeare? Is there not reason for us to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin?

As a warning within an already fallen reality, sure.

The difference between levels, then, may have moral, as well as metaphysical, significance. It may explain why the biblical writers, who do not hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, do not accuse him of wrongdoing.

Where does the bible say God brought about sin?

God is the absolute controller of and authority over nature and history.

Except when He allows people to make choices, which affect the course of history.

God is the lawgiver, and we receive his laws. God is the head of the covenant; we are the servants. God has devised the creation for his own glory; we seek his glory, rather than our own. God makes us as the potter makes pots, for his own purposes. God has many rights and prerogatives we do not. Do these differences not put God in a different moral category as well? The transcendence of God plays a significant role in biblical responses to the problem of evil. Because God is who he is, the covenant Lord, he is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice. He is the judge, and we are not. Very often in Scripture, when something happens that calls God’s goodness into question, he pointedly refrains from explaining. Indeed, he often rebukes those people who question him. Job demanded an interview with God, so that he could ask God the reasons for his sufferings (Job 23:1–7; 31:35–37). But when he met God, God asked the questions: “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me” (38:3). The questions mostly revealed Job’s ignorance about God’s creation: if Job does not understand the ways of the animals, how can he presume to call God’s motives into question? Job does not even understand earthly things; how can he presume to debate heavenly things? God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures.

Of course. However, none of this makes it necessary to believe that God has set in stone every event.

 

[Tambora]

What would you say was the first act of evil committed by man in scripture?

Eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God created them "good".
So they committed the first act of evil while they were "good".

 

[Stripe]

God created them "good".
So they committed the first act of evil while they were "good".

God created them free.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Of course. However, none of this makes it necessary to believe that God has set in stone every event.

So there are independent molecules bouncing around in the universe? God is just sitting back to see how things play out? Of course God has a contingency plan for any possibility that may come to pass? God just does not know for sure (Probability 1), but given He is omni-competent (really, really, really, good at things), God at least has Ivory Soap percentage assurance, ninety-nine and forty-four, one-hundred percent (99.44%), on what will actually happen?

Proverbs 16:33, notwithstanding, of course.

That niggling 0.56% is going to be a problem if you think about it.

AMR

 

[Tambora]

God created them free.

Exactly.
They were the way they were because that is the way God created them to be.

 

[Stripe]

So there are independent molecules bouncing around in the universe? God is just sitting back to see how things play out? Of course God has a contingency plan for any possibility that may come to pass? God just does not know for sure (Probability 1), but given He is omni-competent (really, really, really, good at things), God at least has Ivory Soap percentage assurance, ninety-nine and forty-four, one-hundred percent (99.44%), on what will actually happen? Proverbs 16:33, notwithstanding, of course. That niggling 0.56% is going to be a problem if you think about it. AMR

And still none of this makes it necessary to believe every event is set in stone.

 

[Lon]

If that is true, then -- continuing the analogy -- God is the author of evil.

AMR answers this last page if I'm unclear at all here. If I historically write about Hitler, it only makes me the author, not a participant. So not the author 'of' but the author certainly. His word stand forever.

 

[Lon]

The point I was getting at is that God does ask w questions.
And God employs the use of "if" many times.

Using your analogy of knowing that Lighthouse would wear a red tie on a certain date; then you would not say "If you choose to wear a red tie".

The same with your daughter that you already know will always choose vanilla ice cream. You would not say "If you choose vanilla ice cream".

In your omniscience, there would be no "if".

For me, correct. For you, there is. It is part of being apart from us and relational to us. God does not have to be human, for instance, to be close to us. I don't 'have to hug Him.' He is apart from us too. If He is our ALL, then that 'means' omni.

 

[Lon]

You didn't lose me on anything.:doh:

And a limitation is certainly not a lacking. On this we agree. God is limited by His own volition and as a byproduct of the limitations of existence. Neither of these mean God is lacking in any respect.

Is there a verse that says specifically that God limits Himself, in your mind? Is it clear?

But does He comprehend that which does not exist?

We are finite, God cannot be finite. Because of that, just because something doesn't exist for us in our finiteness, is no indicator whatsoever it doesn't exist for God.

It is your argument that John traveled through time?

Or a different time travelled to him. There is no question in my mind.

Care to show that with the supposed Scripture you claim states it?

Sure:

Rev 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.
Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

Rev 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

Time for a grammar lesson: there is no apostrophe in the possessive "yours."

'You are' correct. Bad habit, along with it's as well. Unintentional. Thank you.

Now, as for whose reality, the fact of the matter is there is only one reality. Regardless of our ability to fully comprehend that reality there is still only one reality in existence. So, the question remains, does God exist outside of reality? And just to clarify, in hopes you will stop being obfuscatory, does God exist outside of that which He can comprehend?

Both. He is both relational to, yet unbound by, time.
As to only one reality? I disagree. When I'm dreaming, I'm someplace else, yet my body is right there on a mattress.

Predictions based on former events are a non-starter in this discussion.

An impasse? Ok.

And I am 100% with you in that your knowledge does not effect my choice. It is the fact that the knowledge was available, thus negating my being able to choose otherwise.

What if I'm the one who wrote it? I again assert that neither my 'knowledge' nor my 'foreknowledge' of any event removes your choice of a thing. It isn't a logical necessity. I recognize a logical connection, I do not recognize a logical necessity.

Let me lay it out for you: if you had said almanac and you knew I was going to wear a red shirt, because the almanac said so, could I wear a blue shirt?

The almanac only records what was, so yes. It'd just change, rightfully recording what you did, in fact, choose.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is there a verse that says specifically that God limits Himself, in your mind? Is it clear?

There is certainly a passage I can think of wherein God is said to have limited Himself in a manner. Do you know what that verse is?

We are finite, God cannot be finite. Because of that, just because something doesn't exist for us in our finiteness, is no indicator whatsoever it doesn't exist for God.

Can the finite exist beyond its own finiteness?

Or a different time travelled to him. There is no question in my mind.

Not at all important.

Sure:

When quoting a verse don't use the quote function, as it then does not show up automatically when one is responding. Also there is no need to separate Scripture from the rest of your post in that manner. However, if you must then use the "box" code. It works just like the "quote" code but with the word "box" instead.

Like this:

Rev 1:19Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." Rev 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

As for my response to your proposal of time travel this passage in no way indicates that idea at all. It's not implied and cannot be inferred.

'You are' correct. Bad habit, along with it's as well. Unintentional. Thank you.

No problem. Also "traveled" only has one 'l.'

Both. He is both relational to, yet unbound by, time.
As to only one reality? I disagree. When I'm dreaming, I'm someplace else, yet my body is right there on a mattress.

Dreams are not reality.

As for obfuscation I knew you would be unable to stop.

An impasse? Ok.

No. It's just that being able to know what one will do based on knowledge of past interactions colors present knowledge and is not really foreknowledge in the way we are speaking of it.

In further explanation: the fact your children have always chosen the same flavor of ice cream time and again allows you to know they will do so again because they have done so 100 times. This is not the same as if you had known what they would do the very first time. In fact you couldn't have even been sure they would do so the next time, etc. That had to make the same choice several times before you could predict they would continue to choose the same thereafter.

What if I'm the one who wrote it? I again assert that neither my 'knowledge' nor my 'foreknowledge' of any event removes your choice of a thing. It isn't a logical necessity. I recognize a logical connection, I do not recognize a logical necessity.

What allowed you to write it? There is a difference between writing something down because you know it and being the one who made it happen.

And, again, I state that the knowledge itself is not the power behind the removal of choice, but rather that which allowed the knowledge to be gained. Whatever is responsible for the knowledge to be accessible before the fact is that which is responsible for there being no choice to do otherwise.

In most of these arguments that factor is going to be the existence of the future simultaneous with the present from at least the point of view of the outside observer.

The almanac only records what was, so yes. It'd just change, rightfully recording what you did, in fact, choose.

:doh:

Are you now arguing that the future can be exhaustively known yet changed if one chooses other than the choice that was known?

 

[Brother Vinny]

There is certainly a passage I can think of wherein God is said to have limited Himself in a manner. Do you know what that verse is?

2 Tim 2:13

 

[Lon]

There is certainly a passage I can think of wherein God is said to have limited Himself in a manner. Do you know what that verse is?

:think: I could think of several you 'might' use, only relating to the Son in the Flesh. I know of none where the Father is.

2 Tim 2:13

Good verse.

Can the finite exist beyond its own finiteness?

Yes, and does. There is a LOT we don't know about the finite universe.

Not at all important.

It is a collision of different times, come together.

When quoting a verse don't use the quote function, as it then does not show up automatically when one is responding. Also there is no need to separate Scripture from the rest of your post in that manner. However, if you must then use the "box" code. It works just like the "quote" code but with the word "box" instead.

Yessir. I'll try.

As for my response to your proposal of time travel this passage in no way indicates that idea at all. It's not implied and cannot be inferred.

Interesting:

Rev 1:19Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

For me, that's significantly clear.

No problem. Also "traveled" only has one 'l.'

Perhaps. Should I start using a spell-check when I'm talking with you?
(I read brits so will be inconsistent on this particular).

Dreams are not reality.

:think: Then you don't dream? My dreams are real. I 'really' dream.

As for obfuscation I knew you would be unable to stop.

Ofuscate? :nono: I 'directly' disagreed and told you why.

No. It's just that being able to know what one will do based on knowledge of past interactions colors present knowledge and is not really foreknowledge in the way we are speaking of it.

Agreed, but similar logic applies. Since I can show how neither eliminates choice.

In further explanation: the fact your children have always chosen the same flavor of ice cream time and again allows you to know they will do so again because they have done so 100 times. This is not the same as if you had known what they would do the very first time.
In fact you couldn't have even been sure they would do so the next time, etc. That had to make the same choice several times before you could predict they would continue to choose the same thereafter.

I don't believe that matters, it is illustrative is all, of the concept that my knowledge does not affect your choice. I, believe that is clear.

What allowed you to write it? There is a difference between writing something down because you know it and being the one who made it happen.

Where are you heading with this? It looks, to me, like you are lost in details. I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, not even an Almanac. I simply believe it explains well as an analogy why definite foreknowledge doesn't eliminate your choice.

And, again, I state that the knowledge itself is not the power behind the removal of choice, but rather that which allowed the knowledge to be gained. Whatever is responsible for the knowledge to be accessible before the fact is that which is responsible for there being no choice to do otherwise.

In most of these arguments that factor is going to be the existence of the future simultaneous with the present from at least the point of view of the outside observer.

I disagree. Let's say it is you, coming to visit me from the future instead, telling me what you chose. Can you eliminate your own ability to choose? I don't believe you did, you only verified it and validated it.

:doh:

Are you now arguing that the future can be exhaustively known yet changed if one chooses other than the choice that was known?

No, not at all, just using the hypothetical to show why knowledge of a future thing does not negate your choice.

 

[Stripe]

If I historically write about Hitler, it only makes me the author, not a participant.

However, if you write the script of a person's life that he has no choice but to act out, that makes you the author of his every deed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

However, if you write the script of a person's life that he has no choice but to act out, that makes you the author of his every deed.

If you ignore the metaphysical aspects this would be true. Considering them makes for an entirely different situation, especially when finite creatures seek metaphysical equality with their Maker. :AMR:

AMR