I doubt it.
They have.
So not everything is set in stone? Men could potentially choose to do something that God has not foreseen?
Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists
- Thread starter BrianJOrr
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
I think you missed the BEQ = Bob Enyart's Question? AMR said "no" in response.
Well, we all have different ministries in the body. I think it mean of you to denigrate me because I don't happen to have the ministry that you think you have. I have also seen Calvinist 'pastoral' activity at work, with being told that one's divorce was the will of God and that good would come of it or to young people that God had the exact right partner for them and making them doubt if their boyfriend or girlfriend was the right one or not and searching for signs of God's will in random everyday events so as to be sure one is on the right track. Any or all of which you might contest but I'm afraid this is what happens.
I can't be special pleading when you are making a straw man. For the second time: I have not said and I do not claim that I am without presuppositions. What I do claim is that each passage should speak for itself in its own context. And that adducing other passages outside the proper context leads to unpredictable results. In my experience those results are little more than the presuppositions and predilections of the person writing the systematic theology dressed up with Biblical authority and oftentimes disingenuous to boot. This is not special pleading. To argue that each passage should stand on its own two feet is not special pleading. It's pleading for the integrity of the Bible because it's letting the Bible speak for itself.
And it seems to me, that even though I have only advanced some very basic and undeveloped ideas along these lines, you are doing everything possible to avoid confronting them, resorting to straw men because you even at this basic level have no argument. Your previous argument amounts to 'because you are not a pastor, I must be right'.
By the way, I have read a couple of your links and will read more. However, I don't want to get into a debate over homosexuality.
BrianJOrr
New member
Romans 11:36 – “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
But that is the point! You argue against me that how I interpret the Scriptures is flawed because of presuppositions, which you say fails to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, broad-stroking the Reformed tradition. But as I explain what systematic theology is, which is presenting the truths of Scripture in a clear, self-consistent manner (which is what you claim to do), you argue against this approach, though you seek to do the same. So how about finding the flaw in my approach.
Your experience does not dictate what is right and true. That is fallacious. Have you read every systematic theology out there? I think you make that smoke screen because you don’t like what you read. And I can already see that you take issue with what the Bible says regarding homosexuality, not wanting to debate about it (which is fine), further confirming my assumption that you reject what the Bible clearly teaches because what has been consistently understood and taught in Christian orthodoxy doesn’t comport with your interpretation, regardless of the historic, unified belief on this matter.
You still have not answered my question about your creed and what makes JWs and Mormons different, for they too believe the same.
Again, your concepts are nothing new. You position yourself as a Biblicist, assuming that your understanding of Scripture is original. I have confronted your ideas but you have failed to respond to many of my questions. I ask about your involvement in ministry because being on the front lines with people needing to be ministered through the Word of God, not lectured in a theoretical and abstract manner, is important for these discussions. I don’t mean to say you are not right if you are not a pastor. It just helps me get a better understanding of your position.
That is fine.
This will be last response for a while. I will be gone all day and surgery early tomorrow.
Last edited:
Brian, this is not what I said. If you'd care to respond to what I did say then we can move on from there.
As I have said before, the flaw in the reformed approach is the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. I showed many flaws in that approach in my 1-1 with Lon. The scripture is indeed self-consistent. But such self-consistency is inherent. It does not need you or a 'systematic' theology to explain it.
But if you start off with a wrong principle, then everything you do is bound to be wrong. Or, if it is right it is only by luck. If you seriously think that my experience is wrong then tell me which passages in the 1-1 I had were argued wrongly and why.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You took 2 plus 2, assumed that I meant 7 plus 18, then applied complex number geometry, integrated and did a Fourrier transform. Getting the right answer is bound to be hopeless.
If there is anything in my creed that you take exception to, please free to specify it. As I previously said (why don't you ever read what I write?) your creeds are intended to be divisive. Your creeds will distinguish between you, JWs and Mormons. Don't expect mine to. Don't apply your standards to me. I warned you about this at the beginning. I warned you how radical openness theology is. But still you refuse to acknowledge this, still fighting the same old tired battles.
Which questions? The ones where you couldn't take what I said at face value and so had to ask if I meant what I said, the ones where as a matter of fact you did not confront my clear statements at all, the ones you just ignored?
So in one paragraph you manage to contradict yourself twice. I was right. What you mean is that because you are a pastor, you must be right. You think your job is more important than someone else's or you think that you are more important than someone who isn't in full time Christian ministry. And you have never heard of other pastors who disagree with you. You assume that all pastors agree with you because you can't imagine how anything else could be so important. Because you are on 'the front lines'. Gosh, you must be especially honoured. Hey look guys, Brian Orr is on the front lines, it's red carpet time! And you think that anyone who isn't a pastor is 'lecturing' to everyone else in the congregation, 'theoretical' and 'abstract'. And of course such people are not 'on the front lines' like you are. I got it. Thanks. I understand now.
Hope you recover well from your op.
Lon
Well-known member
See Sander's "The God Who Risks." As far as he and Open Theism is concerned, God lovingly imperializes man's freewill and responds to it as "a master chess player" (their words to me in explaining this). He and they argue, that if it were not so, man could have but an illusion of freewill, which would malign the character of God. Thus, freewill is the impetus for the denial of omniscience. All of God's Omni's are redefined, along with an accusation that Greek philosophy has invaded the church, rather than seeing scriptural support.
As such, I hope the verse given (among others) gives them great pause with that assertion. The Omni's are necessarily biblical, imo.
Lon
Well-known member
Needed a link to go with your straw men, did you?
BrianJOrr
New member
Oh, and I appreciated your ankle-biting remarks too.
Lon
Well-known member
Here is the discussion thread for it also. It is a bit convoluted with special needs present but about page 5 some back and forth of substance ensues.
Last edited:
Are you always this uncivil?
BrianJOrr
New member
I just understood your post now. Sorry for the sarcasm. I was intending to be reciprocal but now see it was a misunderstanding on my end.
Your dictionary is broken.
BrianJOrr
New member
So, if God influences your will to choose Christ, is he not violating your free will for his purposes, since your natural, free will 'does not seek God' (Rom. 3:11) nor can it to 'submit to God's law' (Rom. 8:7-8)?
If man in his fallen nature naturally chooses sin, meaning it is his nature and will to only sin, is not God's supernatural changing of your will to want to choose Christ, proclaiming him as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3), a violation of your natural free will, which freely doesn't want to choose him?
God enabled me to exercise my own will. Not influenced, not forced, but I chose him. And without him I could not do anything. But he enabled me to use my will to choose.