Well,
1) I've given an apology, please accept it.
2) I'd hope you can empathize on this: Something is in common with Mormons or else the major Open Theologians and authors wouldn't be doing Bringham Young (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, likely more minor players). That alone is intriguing, compelling. You are against the interactions, comparison, and commonality. It is good but realize you are a cog in this wheel and the rest of Christianity, if they look into Open Theism, are going to read about these interactions and ongoing dialogue. It 'can' be a relegation to 'cult' by association in guilt and dismissal. If you read the discussions, some of these discussions/interaction between them is over the Omnis with Mormons: What is shared in common. The phenomena may be driven by interested Mormons initially
idunno
. They are interested in Process Theology for instance, because what is similar as they continue to want validation from the rest of Christianity.
Okay, so first of all, regular typos aside, you need to pay closer attention to your sentence structure. This is barely readable.
Secondly, and far more important, all of what you said here is precisely the reason why such dialogues are stupidity on parade! Your entire premise here is that the dialogue that these prominent Open Theists had with these cult members gives the cult credence! It is the mere fact that the dialogues happens that lends that credence to the supposed similarities that you want to draw attention to.
This entire subject makes my blood boil and you are doubling down. You want to apologize and retain the validity of the point. Well, we're fixing to find out which side of that equation you're really on.
If you say one more word about the Mormons in relation to Open theism, I'll simply put you on ignore and be done with it.
Mormons believe God didn't 'create' the universe, but rather 'ordered it.' I means there is something in Open Theism paradigms that draw Mormon interest, because God is 'limited' to coin Derf's term. Correlations on these interactions force categories in the rest of our minds. There is definitely a difference but please see I was only comparing 'omnis qualified' between the two of you. Granted you do not at all appreciate the comparison and I'll try to be sensitive in the future. Mormon doctrine departs with Open Theism upon many points. Likely Mormons are more interested than these Open Theist spokesmen/founders in the dialogue, needs further investigation, I'm guessing. Maybe yet another thread: Mormonism and Open Theology connection.
Lon, atheists believe it is immoral to murder. Does that give them some sort of connection to Christianity similar to that you are implying between Open Theism and Mormonism?
Communists believe that it is wrong for someone burgle their neighbor's home, does that give them some sort of connection with Capitalists similar to that you are implying between Open Theism and Mormonism??
Satan wants to be king of the world, does that give him some sort of connection to Jesus Christ? By your logic, it makes him godly!
Thank you for the reciprocation.
It's up to you to see if it holds.
The Omnis, this came because of a mention of Calvinists with EDF, and so we finished (prayerfully) a disagreement on categories regarding Omniscience and EDF. I believe it is the rest of post 528 where this left off.
I can't even read that post without getting red in the face and cussing, Lon!
The "logical argument" about EDF is simple stupidity. It isn't a logical argument in the first place, its a collection of naked claims that aren't accompanied by a syllable of logical support whatsoever and it's peppered throughout with implied connections with the Mormon cult that make me totally certain that you believe that we are basically the same religion as they. I'm telling you right now, you're going to drop that or I'll never say another word to you as long as I live.
I strongly urge you to just drop it, Lon! Don't even respond to anything above this sentence. Just forget about it and don't ever mention the Mormons to me again in this context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'd like very much to continue if we can finally put this Moron crap behind us. I recommend we take the discussion in a completely different direction, which I've already brought up with Derf on a previous post and that I think will succeed in getting us away from the Mormonism nonsense because I don't know or care what the Mormons believe or why but what I do care about is God's righteous character, which is THE foundational premise behind Open Theism.
Many want to posit the notion that Open Theism is about free will. It isn't. Open theists definitely do believe in free will but it is not the foundational premise that people want to believe it to be. It is not the starting point from which open theism is derived. Rather, the founding principle from which Open Theism springs is justice and foundational even to that is God's own righteous character.
Those who believe in the settled view are fixated on how big God is, how much He knows and how much power He controls. Open theists on the other hand understand that these quantitative qualities of God mean nothing if God cannot be trusted, if He is not righteous, if His judgments are not just. Who cares how much power God has if He's a tyrant? Why would David care to write a Psalm of praise to an unjust God that he can't escape from?
The Calvinist here is instantly trapped. They have two and only two means of escape, and they use them both. They can pull out the "antinomy" trump card and simply declare the issue of free will vs. God's justice to be something we poor stupid human beings cannot understand, and they can redefine the terms "love", "righteousness", "justice" and any other term related to morality as it applies to God.
The Arminians do something different (and better) but still not rationally sound. They reject predestination in favor of free will.
Why?
What does our having a free will have to do with whether or not God is righteous? Well, that's sort of obvious right? We are the subjects of God's judgement. God is the One we are all going to be made to answer to. If God is righteous and just then we can lean on the provision that God Himself has made for mercy (i.e. Calvary). If, on the other hand, God is unrighteous and unjust, then the only hope that exists at all is the sort of hope one has for getting rich by buying a lottery ticket, except that the very act of buying a lottery ticket would afford the buyer more control than he could ever have before an unjust god.
The Arminians see this point clearly in relation to predestination but remain blind to the fact that exhaustive, infallible divine foreknowledge results in the same problem. Simply declaring that one has free will doesn't get God off the hook because their declaration of free will isn't based in sound reason but rather on an emotional reaction to the notion of predestination. Instead of thinking it through, they simply declare predestination false and formulate their doctrine around their desire to believe in free will as though truths can be chosen a la carte and without consequence.
This is the proof that Open Theism is not logicaly predicated on a belief in free will as so many of our opponents want to suggest. If that were the case, we'd be Arminians. We are not Arminians! Indeed, it is open theists that say that Arminians are far too Calvinistic for their taste and they mean it when they say that!
So, to keep this post from getting entirely too long, I'll conclude it with the following logical argument, which establishes just what it is about EDF that lands the Arminians in the same moral quagmire that their Calvinist cousins created and that they so vehemently reject, namely that we have no free will.
T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am
- Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
- If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
- It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
- Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
- If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
- So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
- If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
- Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
- If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
- Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Source
....and continuing on from there....
11. All moral actions are freely chosen actions, [definition of 'moral'].
12. Conversely, any action that is not done freely is an amoral action, [definition of 'amoral'].
13. The rewarding or punishment of an amoral action is unjust, [definition of 'just']
14. God is just. [presupposition of the Christian faith]
15. God rewards and punishes the actions of men. [this statement is based on the presupposition that the bible is true]
16. Therefore, the actions of men are moral in nature.
17. Therefore, the actions of men are done freely.
18. Therefore, God does not have exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge.
Now, if one wanted to be strictly in compliance with the rules of reason, this argument would be reordered and several points (like point 15) would be fully established rather than presupposed, but it is convenient to put it in this order for three main reasons. First of all, brevity counts for a lot, especially in informal discussions such as we are having. Secondly, it allows for the proper citation of the first ten points, and third, because point's 11-18 can just as easily be applied to any logical argument that falsifies predestination as well. Thus, to put it all in a nice tight nut shell....
God is just! Therefore, BOTH Arminianism and Calvinism are false!
This is the true bedrock foundation of Open Theism. I don't care what anyone believes about how or why either predestination or foreknowledge is true. It does not matter! If either of them are true, God is unjust. If God is unjust then there was no need for Jesus to die and the entire Christian worldview crumbles to dust and becomes a moot point. Ideas have consequences.
Clete