ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

patman,

I too, see that it is no use to waste time with those who just like to call names or be extremely sarcastic. I want to enjoy the give and take on the Word of God. I have a better chance of learning more about our wonderful God.

Bob Hill

The older I get, the less patient I am with wasting time or with the triviality of some people. With age comes wisdom and lack of time left on earth (make the most of it).

 

[Hilston]

If God were finite, it'd be a problem.

The problem is: Open Theism worships a finite God*. If God is subordinate to time, then He is finite. Period.

But as I see it, God through His infinitude can give all of himself to everybody individually at the same time.

Give me an example of how He has given all of himself to you lately.

Is still did not catch your answer why or how it is all according to God's decrees for us to believe the 'error' of Open Theism when it is the Holy Spirit's job to lead us into all truth?

I gave the answer, here: Jim's answer to Godrulz' question.

Seee? You got me again. I have no idea what you are talking about because you don't use complete answers.

What's your question? Did I miss one? Because I answered all the ones I could find in your post.

However, I asked quite a few questions that you haven't answered*, to wit:

How does God fill you with wisdom when you ask? Please describe the process and the means by which you know it was God who was actually filling you with wisdom.

Since when does being the author of sin make the author sinful? Is my daughter sinful for imagining a story in which one of the characters tells a lie to another character? Should she be reprimanded for authoring evil?

It's just a "Your wrong," and "Please hate me..please," and then a "Your brain is melting from the O.V."

Well that leaves me with a lot to respond to, ...

Those statements are merely keen observations for those who have ears to hear. They require no response. So relax.

I too, see that it is no use to waste time with those who just like to call names or be extremely sarcastic.

Is that the way you dodge the pile of verses that were handed to you about God planning evil? Bob, do you believe God planned the torture, humiliation and execution of Jesus?

*All according to God's decrees, of course.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

If God is subordinate to time, then He is finite. Period.

Open Theism does not make God subordinate to time. Nice straw man. Open Theism affirms the Infinity of God.

Give me an example of how He has given all of himself to you lately.

For what purpose? Do you not agree with that idea?

 

[godrulz]

The problem is: Open Theism worships a finite God*. If God is subordinate to time, then He is finite. Period.

I gave the answer, here: Jim's answer to Godrulz' question.

What's your question? Did I miss one? Because I answered all the ones I could find in your post.

God is not subordinate to time. It is an aspect of any personal being's experience. Will, intellect, emotions, thoughts, actions, feelings are not possible without duration/sequence/succession (time).

I must have missed your answer. Thx for pointing back to it. If I ask 'why x, y, z' and you answer 'because' or 'why not', then how is that a good answer? Your answer begged the question and was non-responsive (or whatever Clete calls it). Saying something is for God's pleasure/purpose and for the elect does not make incoherence defensible.

God is truth vs lie/error. You can quibble about the Spirit of truth, but the fact is that He is always holy, not just for one verse in John. The Spirit does not decree or lead people contrary to God's Word, character, and will. You are confusing Him with Satan.

I am convinced more than ever that your deterministic views are far more problematic than relational/free will theism.

Why does God decree a man to molest and murder an infant?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Why does God decree a man to molest and murder an infant?

For His glory silly! Everyone knows that. :vomit:

 

[Hilston]

Open Theism does not make God subordinate to time. Nice straw man. Open Theism affirms the Infinity of God.

It's double-speak, GIT. You redefine time to get your finite God off the finite hook*.

Hilston asked: "Give me an example of how He has given all of himself to you lately."

For what purpose?

You made the statement. Please explain it. Thanks.

God is not subordinate to time. It is an aspect of any personal being's experience. Will, intellect, emotions, thoughts, actions, feelings are not possible without duration/sequence/succession (time).

See what I mean? God is created in the image of finite man. Nice.

I must have missed your answer. Thx for pointing back to it. If I ask 'why x, y, z' and you answer 'because' or 'why not', then how is that a good answer?

Um ... what?

... Your answer begged the question and was non-responsive (or whatever Clete calls it). Saying something is for God's pleasure/purpose and for the elect does not make incoherence defensible.

There is no incoherence, except in the mind of the humanist*. It is perfectly logical, and therefore defensible.

God is truth vs lie/error. You can quibble about the Spirit of truth, but the fact is that He is always holy, not just for one verse in John. The Spirit does not decree or lead people contrary to God's Word, character, and will. You are confusing Him with Satan.

It is not unholy for God to plan evil for good purposes, GR. I won't punish my daughter for writing a story that includes an evil witch as one of the characters.

I am convinced more than ever that your deterministic views are far more problematic than relational/free will theism.

It's only because you refuse to understand it*. Understanding it would shine a high-beam on the errors of your own view, and you dare not do that.

Why does God decree a man to molest and murder an infant?

For His decreed good purposes. It truly is wonderful that the Bible says we can take comfort, even amid tragedies and evil, because we know that God works all these things for good. The Open Theist has no such comfort or confidence*. Why do you trust this God of yours?

*All according to God's decrees, of course.

 

[patman]

patman,

I too, see that it is no use to waste time with those who just like to call names or be extremely sarcastic. I want to enjoy the give and take on the Word of God. I have a better chance of learning more about our wonderful God.

Bob Hill

I believe Hilston will see how he is getting nowhere soon. Even though he wants no one to have confidence in him, I think he will want to come around once he sees he isn't getting anywhere with his rants without reason.

Disagreements are one thing, name calling and generalizing someone's intelligence using threatening sounding posts.... shesh.

 

[Hilston]

I believe Hilston will see how he is getting nowhere soon.

How soon? I've been drinking the blood of Open Deists this since 1995, patman. Judging from PMs, private e-mails, etc., over the years, I've had the blessed privilege of snatching a few from the fire of Open Theism. I'm sure there are others I may never hear about. When will I see that I'm "getting nowhere"?

Even though he wants no one to have confidence in him, I think he will want to come around once he sees he isn't getting anywhere with his rants without reason.

I'm getting somewhere. Trust me on this one.

Disagreements are one thing, name calling and generalizing someone's intelligence using threatening sounding posts.... shesh.

Sticks and stones, patman.

 

[patman]

How soon? I've been drinking the blood of Open Deists this since 1995, patman. Judging from PMs, private e-mails, etc., over the years, I've had the blessed privilege of snatching a few from the fire of Open Theism. I'm sure there are others I may never hear about. When will I see that I'm "getting nowhere"?

I'm getting somewhere. Trust me on this one.

Sticks and stones, patman.

One day you will realize your tactics do not work, then you will "get somewhere" with people in general....

 

[godrulz]

Congrats Hilston (no pun intended) on having the highest neg reps count. I still think you do not deserve it.

I am surprised that you do not accept Sander's "The God who risks" and Boyd's responses to God and evil/suffering. I take no comfort in a God who decrees that infants get raped (no wonder people reject this caricature of Christianity and become atheists). I do take comfort in a God that risks giving creatures freedom to not be robots in order to enter reciprocal love relationships. Despite evil that breaks God's heart and is contrary to His will, He redeems a people and will ultimately vindicate His name. His love and goodness is not in dispute in the Open View, but it sure is in your view (making God and evil under the same umbrella). :doh:


The Open View does affirm that God works things for the good (developing the character of Christ in us= Romans context...not making heinous evil equivalent of God's good will and plan...there is nothing good or righteous about sexual deviance). He is creative, responsive, providential. In your view, you blur the distinction between good and evil and make God a meticulous control freak locked into a fatalistic blueprint.

I cringe at funerals where the guy at the front says that God took him home (guy shoots himself in the head or is killed by gangs?!) or must have wanted him up there, etc. or if a child gets run over by a bus or struck by lightning..must have been God's will? Really? If you could accept that God's will can be resisted and rejected...by His decree, of course, then you would move to a more biblical theology. Hyper-sovereignty is coming at the expense of love/holiness, a more fundamental quality of God. His rule is providential, not omnicausal. He macromanages vs micromanages because He is so great. A lesser god would have to use your method of running the universe (like a cosmic, insecure Dictator).

 

[sentientsynth]

I believe Hilston will see how he is getting nowhere soon.

On the contrary. Hilston's in the fast lane showing the inanity of the Open View.

I, for one, am quite thankful that he puts his time and energy into debunking the theology of the many who are on this forum. If it hadn't been for Hilston, I myself might have found myself among the ranks of the Open Theists, though for a time I seriously gave credence to it, and tried to read the scriptures in light of it.

Keeping my nose in the Epistles left me with many questions though: things that couldn't be resolved to my satisfaction and I was uneasy, in no man's land, in and out of assurance, for a time.

Then when BRIX came along, Hilston and I began corresponding about presuppositional apologetics. I had never known Hilston before this. I think he was banned or something. After a few months, our conversation turned toward Open Theism.

And I'll tell you, he never took with me in our discussions the tone or the stance that he takes against you all. It was very genial and edifying. He answered the questions I had about the settled view and slowly, after much thought, I began to see that the settled view was, in fact, correct.

One day [Hilston] will realize your tactics do not work, then you will "get somewhere" with people in general....

I'm not sure that's his goal, patman.

His goal is:

...snatching a few from the fire of Open Theism.

And a noble goal it is.

By the way, I'm eagerly looking forward to a response to Hilston's post # 3605 .

I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer from the Open View, and I really do want to hear how Open View proponents answer this.



SS

 

[sentientsynth]

...there is nothing good or righteous about sexual deviance.

But what did David say?

1 ¶ A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance.
Jehovah, rebuke me not in thy wrath; neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand cometh down upon me.
3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine indignation; no peace in my bones, because of my sin.
4 For mine iniquities are gone over my head: as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
5 My wounds stink, they are corrupt, because of my foolishness.
6 I am depressed; I am bowed down beyond measure; I go mourning all the day.
7 For my loins are full of burning, and there is no soundness in my flesh.
8 I am faint and broken beyond measure; I roar by reason of the agitation of my heart.
9 Lord, all my desire is before thee, and my sighing is not hid from thee.
10 My heart throbbeth, my strength hath left me; and the light of mine eyes, it also is no more with me.
11 My lovers and mine associates stand aloof from my stroke; and my kinsmen stand afar off.
12 ¶ And they that seek after my life lay snares for me; and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and meditate deceits all the day long.
13 But I, as a deaf man, hear not; and am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.
14 Yea, I am as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs.
15 For in thee, Jehovah, do I hope: *thou* wilt answer, O Lord my God.
16 For I said, Let them not rejoice over me! When my foot slipped, they magnified themselves against me.
17 For I am ready to halt, and my pain is continually before me.
18 For I will declare mine iniquity, I am grieved for my sin.
19 But mine enemies are lively, they are strong; and they that hate me wrongfully are multiplied:
20 And they that render evil for good are adversaries unto me; because I pursue what is good.
21 Forsake me not, Jehovah; O my God, be not far from me.
22 Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation.​

67 ¶ Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.
68 ¶ Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.
69 ¶ The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
70 Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.
71 ¶ It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.​

Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying to mean that sexual deviance in itself is good. But what comes from it for the righteous, the learning of the statutes of the Lord, is good. The affliction that David bore from his sexual deviance brought David closer to the Lord. And that is good.

God works all things together for the good of those who love Him.

But it is not as if we say, "Let us do evil, that good may come of it." Not at all. But good does come out of evil, if none other good than the demonstration of God's attributes, His longsuffering and His wrath.

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

All the wicked and the corrupt of the world will demonstrate God's righteousness. Of course, there are those who find fault with this. But Paul says ...

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

On the contrary. Hilston's in the fast lane showing the inanity of the Open View.

I, for one, am quite thankful that he puts his time and energy into debunking the theology of the many who are on this forum. If it hadn't been for Hilston, I myself might have found myself among the ranks of the Open Theists, though for a time I seriously gave credence to it, and tried to read the scriptures in light of it.

Keeping my nose in the Epistles left me with many questions though: things that couldn't be resolved to my satisfaction and I was uneasy, in no man's land, in and out of assurance, for a time.

Then when BRIX came along, Hilston and I began corresponding about presuppositional apologetics. I had never known Hilston before this. I think he was banned or something. After a few months, our conversation turned toward Open Theism.

And I'll tell you, he never took with me in our discussions the tone or the stance that he takes against you all. It was very genial and edifying. He answered the questions I had about the settled view and slowly, after much thought, I began to see that the settled view was, in fact, correct.

Uh, for sake of staying true to your own theology neither you nor Hilston did anything, you were both simply acting out God's ordination from before the foundation of the world.

Notice once again how the settled viewer cannot seem to come to grips with his own theology. In practice and in his actions SS promotes the notion that he and Hilston have freewill and that Hilston was able to convince him that the settled was true. :doh:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

It's double-speak, GIT. You redefine time to get your finite God off the finite hook*.

Unless you can show a problem with our definition (since we view your definition as biblically inaccurate) you are just babbling.

You made the statement. Please explain it. Thanks.

Romans 5:5
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.​

We have all of God's Spirit and love inside of us. Not just part of His love. Not just part of His Spirit. All of it. Infinite, not finite.

 

[sentientsynth]

Uh, for sake of staying true to your own theology neither you nor Hilston did anything, you were both simply acting out God's ordination from before the foundation of the world.

It's only in the Open Theist mindset that God's foreordination means that you don't "do" anything. Typical straw-man. In the settled view, you "do" everything that you do.

Notice once again how the settled viewer cannot seem to come to grips with his own theology.

On the contrary, it's you who cannot "come to grips" with compatibilism, even in theory. If you could, you wouldn't keep disseminating this straw-man of yours.

In practice and in his actions SS promotes the notion that he and Hilston have freewill...

Of course we have free-will. The settled theist and the unsettled theist simply have different connotations of that term.

We're not coerced into anything. We do exactly as we desire to do. And that all according to God's decrees.

...and that Hilston was able to convince him that the settled was true.

This isn't true. Hilston didn't "convince" me. The scriptures convinced me. Hilston merely helped me resolve certain intellectual difficulties that I had about the settled view, most of which were straw men that I had picked up from the likes of TOL and Bob Enyart. That's all.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In the settled view, you "do" everything that you do.

Yet not of yourself right?

On the contrary, it's you who cannot "come to grips" with compatibilism, even in theory. If you could, you wouldn't keep disseminating this straw-man of yours.

Ahhhh... the ever famous blemish removing Compatibilism™, just rub it on liberally and obvious contradictions vanish!

Place your order today!

But wait, there's more!!!! If you order today you will get a free bottle of Anthropomorphism™ to relieve those annoying repent and relent verses.

 

[sentientsynth]

Yet not of yourself right?

No. Not right.

Ahhhh... the ever famous blemish removing Compatibilism™, just rub it on liberally and obvious contradictions vanish!

Place your order today!

But wait, there's more!!!! If you order today you will get a free bottle of Anthropomorphism™ to relieve those annoying repent and relent verses.

Careful. Figures of Speech have expiration dates.

By the way, I'm running low on both Anthropomorphism™ and Hypocatastasis™. Do you all have any extra in stock?

 

[patman]

And I'll tell you, he never took with me in our discussions the tone or the stance that he takes against you all. It was very genial and edifying. He answered the questions I had about the settled view and slowly, after much thought, I began to see that the settled view was, in fact, correct.

I would really like a real conversation with Hilston, I really would. But his prejudice attitude and general looking down his long nose has left me wondering when I can have a real conversation with him.

His tone is the problem. If I had a serious question, and, please, look at my early posts towards Hilston.... But if I were to ask him any question instead of answers I get posts about my rotting brain. Ya'd think I sneezed in his cap'n crunches.

Then he called God the author of sin. And you say I need rescuing?

If you have a question for me, I will be glad to answer it and consider your points. But Hilston has lost all respect from me. If I thought he were ready to discuss this topic, I would, but his mouth has showed his pride and I no longer believe him to be serious about discussion in this thread.

Had he been serious about conversation he would have apologized to us all a long time ago about his rotten attitude and used words of persuasion instead of words of anger.

SS, if Hilston truly had useful info about the S.V. that would oppose my O.V. arguments, he would use them. Instead he covers his ears and says "No you are wrong you MUSH head" and never explains why. That tells me he doesn't have good answers to offer.

When some people are wrong, the first thing they do is lash out. That is Hilston. Others reason and find out why they were wrong so not to let it happen again.

When ask for an answer from Hilston and get anger instead, and find myself still looking for an answer, I can recognize how he is. He would rather put others down in Christ's name than lift them up.

So I will not answer his posts seriously from now on unless he is serious about talking about this thing as men and not children.

As for you, I would be glad to address anything. If anything in that post stands out to you and you want to know what I think, let me know.

I wrote you in this post and didn't catch a response. I just wonder why the S.V. is so hard on the O.V. when the O.V. proclaims that God is powerful enough to create us. With power like that who needs 100% future knowledge?

 

[patman]

How soon? I've been drinking the blood of Open Deists this since 1995, patman. Judging from PMs, private e-mails, etc., over the years, I've had the blessed privilege of snatching a few from the fire of Open Theism. I'm sure there are others I may never hear about. When will I see that I'm "getting nowhere"?

:loser:

I was referring to your attitude. You aren't adult enough to have a real conversation about the topic of this thread.

:loser: :loser: :loser: :loser: :loser: :loser:

 

[sentientsynth]

Patman,

I've been watching your discussion with Hilston. And at your request, I went all the way back to post #3341, 20 pages back, to look at Hilston's original response to you and to look again at your interactions.

Here's the original:

Originally Posted by patman

With respect to Hilston, his criticism to the O.V. is easily returned with criticism to the S.V. by saying it makes God out to be the Author of sin..... and he isn't.

Originally Post by Hilston

It's not a criticism. It's a feature. God is the author of sin. Nothing happens apart from God's plans. He planned for sin to happen. He plans evil for His good purposes and reasons. The scriptures affirm that this fact is a source of comfort and assurance. The OT (Opposable Thumb) God can offer neither. According to the Unsettled Deist, most things happen for no good reason or purpose. Why do you trust this God you've conceived?​

I'd say that's a rather engaging reply. Lots of hooks in there. And nothing about "MUSH head" either. The discourse remained rather engaging for some time.

Then you started to moan and groan like a little girl. "I want to hit something." And you begin to fall back on responding to his posts and then complaining and complaining some more (like a little girl, still).

You keep complaining about "attitude." You don't engage the facts presented. When Hilston starts calling you maligning God, calling Him a false prophet, was when you seemed to have your ultimate meltdown.

Since then, you've just whined. Time to time, I've watched you throw your straw at him. I've see him answer your questions. And I've seen you moaning and groaning and acting like a little girl. Get a spine, man!

Darn, at least Knight has a sense of humor and will clown around. You just start pouting. Just look at your avatar! You're like a little drama queen!