Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[STONE]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?

Originally posted by Knight
I would assert that God indeed has control over His own faculties. Is that what you are asking?

Yes.
This point illustrates that the duration in a sequence of events (e.g. thoughts) is under the control and originated by God.

You continue... Time exists because God exists.

And in relation to us.... God can begin an "age" or end and "age" which is what the Alpha and Omega verses speak to.

So you are saying..."I am the Beginning and the Ending" = "I make the beginning and the ending"?

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by STONE

Now consider this:

Deardelmar has said if God didn't exist, then neither would time.

Could one also say if time didn't exist, then neither would God?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

no, that's a logical fallacy i believe.

Correct.
Why is this so?

 

[godrulz]

Airy:

Are there any websites or links with your ideas? Is there information about you and your publications on the internet? How can we evaluate your teaching if you are evasive? Your credibility and influence diminishes the more vague you get. You also are not responding to many valid points brought up by several people here. Your pontification without interaction is not well received.

 

[AiryStottel]

Yes...I'm busy...busy....busy...many things to do such as finalize my mansucript on Christ's teachings....just about ready for publication.

Which is why I shall be brief.

God's infinite mercy is limitless. Period. Exclamation point! To you who live and think in the temporal world, let me try to explain as Jesus tried to explain to his ignorant apostles.

Since you are of the earth, let me use earthly terms to explain infinite mercy. Just as the sun beats down on the hot sands of the desert, God's justice reigns upon creation in the same way. God's mercy would be similar to rain, which cools the body and parches one's thirst. If you refuse to drink the water that God sends, you are refusing his mercy and will die of dehydration. If you refuse the spirit that God sends you, God's grace if you will, you will sufer the effects of God's infinite justice. You do not diminish or increase God's mercy or justice by your actions to receive or reject God's mercy. There is nothing contradictory about God being Infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice simulataneously. It's a paradox, a beautiful paradox, but it is not contradictory, UNLESS, you are of the earth and not of Heaven.

On the subject of pure act. If God were not pure act, God would not be God. If God is moving, was moved, or is even capable of moving, the question then arises as to who moved God. Then whoever moved God, would be the Prime Mover, and you see, where that road leads to. Consequently, God is not now, never was, and never will be in potentiality....and that is not just with respect to God's immutability. It is with respect to ALL of God's attributes, including knowledge. God's knowledge is infinite, and you cannot increase or decrease what is infinite.

Those of you who resort to name calling, e.g., "airyhead", etc., remind me of what Eisenhower once said: "Those people who use four letter words, show their level of intelligence because their vocablulary is very limited" or words to that effect. When I hear the name calling, I simpy consider the source. 'nuff said on that.

If I didn't answer some posts, it's because they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread ....open-ended theology, or as I like to say "if you like hell, you'll love open-ended theology even more".

Airy

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

Since you are of the earth, let me use earthly terms to explain infinite mercy.

Yep, definately Freak! Freakazoid

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

Yes...I'm busy...busy....busy...many things to do such as finalize my mansucript on Christ's teachings....just about ready for publication.

Oh... the horror of it all.

On the subject of pure act. If God were not pure act, God would not be God. If God is moving, was moved, or is even capable of moving, the question then arises as to who moved God. Then whoever moved God, would be the Prime Mover, and you see, where that road leads to. Consequently, God is not now, never was, and never will be in potentiality....and that is not just with respect to God's immutability.

I see, so God is an inanimate object?

Those of you who resort to name calling, e.g., "airyhead", etc., remind me of what Eisenhower once said: "Those people who use four letter words, show their level of intelligence because their vocablulary is very limited" or words to that effect. When I hear the name calling, I simpy consider the source. 'nuff said on that.

Is 'nuff a four letter word?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by AiryStottel
f I didn't answer some posts, it's because they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread ....open-ended theology, or as I like to say "if you like hell, you'll love open-ended theology even more".

You say this like I have a choice but if God is immutable as you say then the future is locked in place and I have been predestined by God Himself to believe not only in free will but in an open future.
Care to explain that one? (probably not! )

And once more I will ask you to answer my very simple questions; questions that should be perfectly obvious to anyone who is a Christian.

Has God always been a man?

Has God ever been a man?

Is God a man today?

Has God ever died?

Is God dead now?

In what way is it possible to reconcile the incarnation, crucifixion, burial and resurrection with the idea that God is utterly immutable?

If you ignore these further I will consider it proof that you are indeed a liar. You say that you don't answer "because they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread" but they very clearly do have everything to do with it. These questions speak directly to the issue of whether or not God changes which is the very foundation of your objection to Open Theism. Now either answer the questions, admit that you cannot or prove yourself a liar.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

Since you are of the earth, let me use earthly terms to explain infinite mercy.

LOL :kookoo:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

Correct.
Why is this so?

because time already doesn't "exist".

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

because time already doesn't "exist".

That could be taken in many different ways: Time is not material, Time is not measurable, There is no observable evidence of time, etc...
Please clarify what you mean.

 

[godrulz]

Airy will not clarify the roots of his beliefs. It seems to be a mystical, philosophical hodge podge with Christ in the background. Until he clarifies the core of his beliefs, he lacks credibility. I will not be rushing out to buy his book.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

That could be taken in many different ways: Time is not material, Time is not measurable, There is no observable evidence of time, etc...
Please clarify what you mean.

time is the measurement of duration. it's a tool, a non-thing. it doesn't "exist" in having a sense of being or having been created.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by AiryStottel



Since you are of the earth, let me use earthly terms to explain infinite mercy.
Airy

May I assume that you are not?

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by AiryStottel



If I didn't answer some posts, it's because they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread ....open-ended theology

You relly are a piece of work. You claim you are "always willing to help others know God" yet you simply ignore the questions of others

or as I like to say "if you like hell, you'll love open-ended theology even more".

Airy

I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The creator of the universe who sent his only begotten son to die for my sins. I have accepted that free gift of salvation. Now you have the nerve to claim that simply because You and I draw different conclusions about the attributes of God that I am going to hell.
So tell us oh wise one, What does that say about your belief in God's infinite mercy?

 

[AiryStottel]

To All,

My patience is wearing thin.

I am a strong believer in free will. We are creatures of God, God is free. God wants us to be like God - free. Free to love God and God's goodness and free to reject God and God's goodness. What do you need .....a map? Anyone with an IQ above 10 knows that.

Open ended theology should not be about free will or predestination. Free will is a given. God's omniscience has nothing to do with it. A mother says to a child "don't eat the freshly baked cookies on the table. I'm going to the store and Ill be right back." She knows that this particular child never followed her orders before and won't now. Sure enough, some of the cookies were missing when she returned. The child had free will, the mother in her quasi omniscience knew what would happen. Did the mother predestine the child? Of course not.

At the same time, if you assume that God is not omniscient, you derogate all of God's attributes in one swoop. Infinite knowledge is a given attribute. Open-ended backers need to prove that God is not omniscient. Once they do that, an impossibility, they do it in their own minds, not in God's real world.

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Scorn God and you'll be begging for a woman's fury throughout eternity. Is it worth God's wrath? Of course, if your IQ is less than ten, your answer doesn't matter.

Airy

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

Open ended theology should not be about free will or predestination. Free will is a given. God's omniscience has nothing to do with it. A mother says to a child "don't eat the freshly baked cookies on the table. I'm going to the store and Ill be right back." She knows that this particular child never followed her orders before and won't now. Sure enough, some of the cookies were missing when she returned. The child had free will, the mother in her quasi omniscience knew what would happen. Did the mother predestine the child? Of course not.

At the same time, if you assume that God is not omniscient, you derogate all of God's attributes in one swoop. Infinite knowledge is a given attribute. Open-ended backers need to prove that God is not omniscient. Once they do that, an impossibility, they do it in their own minds, not in God's real world.

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Scorn God and you'll be begging for a woman's fury throughout eternity. Is it worth God's wrath? Of course, if your IQ is less than ten, your answer doesn't matter.

Airy

Your analogy about the child is consistent with the Open view. God knows the past and present perfectly. He knows all future possibilities and contingencies. He would be able to predict the child would eat the cookie. However, there is a possibility that the house would burn down as mom left, the child would have a seizure, or Dad would come home at that moment. The child would normally eat the cookie (probable), but under those possible scenarios, he might not have the opportunity. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is logically incompatible with free will (incompatibilism is the theology; you believe compatibilism). Calvinists get around this by claiming God predestines everything. This would solve the problem, but at the expense of genuine freedom. Your view is simple foreknowledge and is not explainable. It must assume that the future is already there to know. This also less obviously negates freedom or it is impossible to explain how God knows the future that is not there to know.

You beg the question by assuming that omniscience means knowing the future as an actuality. Omnipotence is not limited by God not being able to do logically contradictory or absurd things. Likewise, omniscience (we both defend omniscience, but understand it differently) is not limited by God not knowing a nothing or something not logically knowable. Either you must give up genuine freedom, or exhaustive foreknowlege.

To make this philosophical discussion a salvific issue shows a lack of understanding of biblical salvation. We are saved by faith in the person and work of Christ, not profound theological insights (a minimum level of understanding of God's nature/attributes, Christ's Deity, etc. is essential).

Who do you say Jesus Christ is? Your answer will determine whether you are a Christian. Philosophical concepts about God as 'pure act' is not the ultimate issue.

If an act be free, it must be contingent (equal possibility of being and not being). If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable.

This is sound reasoning about free moral agency that we both agree on. It is the nature of the type of creation God made. An acceptance of this self-evident truth precludes exhaustive foreknowledge and is not a denial of omniscience (knowing everything logically knowable; we both believe in infinite knowledge, but in my view God correctly distinguishes possibilities/probabilities from certainties/actualities).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

To All,

My patience is wearing thin.

Darn the luck!

I am a strong believer in free will. We are creatures of God, God is free. God wants us to be like God - free. Free to love God and God's goodness and free to reject God and God's goodness. What do you need .....a map? Anyone with an IQ above 10 knows that.

Great! we agree!

You continue...

Open ended theology should not be about free will or predestination.

Uh... that's a bit like stating discussing ham and roast beef should not be about discussing meat. It's a little unavoidable.

Free will is a given. God's omniscience has nothing to do with it. A mother says to a child "don't eat the freshly baked cookies on the table. I'm going to the store and Ill be right back." She knows that this particular child never followed her orders before and won't now. Sure enough, some of the cookies were missing when she returned. The child had free will, the mother in her quasi omniscience knew what would happen. Did the mother predestine the child? Of course not.

Very nice... you have accurately described the essence of open theism.

You continue...

At the same time, if you assume that God is not omniscient,

Name one person who has argued that God is NOT omniscient???

You continue...

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Scorn God and you'll be begging for a woman's fury throughout eternity. Is it worth God's wrath? Of course, if your IQ is less than ten, your answer doesn't matter.

Airy

Uh... I suggest you stop attempting to sound intellectual. You aren't very good at it.

 

[Clete]

As it is obvious that you have in fact read my posts (based on your last response) but have refused to answer my questions it is obvious that you do not intend to. So I will answer them for you.

Has God always been a man?
NO! To suggest such a thing is trully blasphemous.

Has God ever been a man?
YES! To deny this is antichrist and a denial of the faith.

Is God a man today?
YES! When God the Son became a man, the change was a permanent one. Jesus has His gloified physical body to this day and will continue to have it forever more.

Has God ever died?
YES! If not then we are still in our sins.

Is God dead now?
NO! If He were we would be the greatest of fools and our faith would be in vain.

In what way is it possible to reconcile the incarnation, crucifixion, burial and resurrection with the idea that God is utterly immutable?
It cannot be. An acceptance of the very gospel message itself requires a belief in dramatic, meaningful and permanent changes in God Himself. The doctrine of the absolute immutability of God is in direct conflict with the very premise of the Christian faith. One is true and the other false, or they are both false. Take your pick, you cannot have it both ways.

With the absolute immutability of God proven to be a rational impossibility, the foundation of any objection to genuine freedom, and an open future (same thing) is completely removed.

Further, you said in your last post...

Open-ended backers need to prove that God is not omniscient.

I have already done that, both from Scripture and with simple sound reasoning. You can stick you head in the sand and pretend like it isn't true or you can respond to my arguments, whichever is fine with me, do what you want, I no longer care.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by AiryStottel



At the same time, if you assume that God is not omniscient, you derogate all of God's attributes in one swoop. Infinite knowledge is a given attribute. Open-ended backers need to prove that God is not omniscient. Once they do that, an impossibility, they do it in their own minds, not in God's real world.

Airy

I don't assume that God is not omniscient. I can't even fathom that he would not be, But you and I have a difference of opinion as to what total knowledge is. Thing is it is a little hard to have any helpful discourse when you make blanket statements like "Anyone with an IQ above 10 knows that."

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

time is the measurement of duration.

It doesn't "exist" in having a sense of being or having been created.

If time is the measurement of duration, then does duration "exist"?

To clarify your use of terms... Are thoughts, ideas, or concepts "created"; or do these not "exist"?