ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

This is a very rich portion of Scripture, but you are blind to all that it reveals.

It explicitly mentions, "The seed of Israel His servant, you children of Jacob, His chosen ("bachiyr") ones." Who is the "seed" but the Elect ("bachiyr") of God, Jesus Christ? Who are the "children of Jacob, His ("bachiyr") ones," but the spiritual seed of Abraham.

The problem is that you've asserted something about two Hebrew words and you're trying to demonstrate that this is true, but then you use what you're trying to prove as part of the evidence to demonstrate that the verses you cite are saying what you claim. That's circular.

There is another passage of Scripture that explains all this, that we have discussed before, but I will insert it here again, for others that may be reading and attempting to understand:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one (Ishmael) by a bondwoman, the other (Isaac) by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise; which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar . . for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children . . but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

For it is written, 'Rejoice, O barren; you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.'

Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according the the Spirit, even so it is now.

Nevertheless, what does the Scriptures say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." Galatians 4:22-31

I don't have any specific disagreement with this assertion. The disagreement about your assertion that there are no other elect other than those to salvation. The 1 Chr passage simply doesn't have the context to be exegeted as you wish.

This is a lapse on your part into dispensationalism. The O.T. does not necessarily correspond with the old covenant, and the N.T. does not necessarily correspond to the new covenant.

I'm not dispensational.

And this is true. I don't have a problem with that. However, just because you want a certain thing to be true doesn't mean it has to be true. The 1 Chr passage is a celebration by and for and about those who are in the Old Covenant.

People are not time periods . . .one is either a person of flesh, remaining under the old covenant of the law. Or one is a person born of Spirit, brought under the new covenant of grace. And this is applicable to all persons of every era, O.T. and N.T.

No problem with that.

One is either remaining in bondage to the flesh, sin, death and the devil or one is freed in the spirit through the grace and justification of Jesus Christ.

Again, no problem.

You are confusing two people and two covenants. Are you not interested in distinguishing between the two?

Abraham had two sons. One was elect (Isaac) and the other (Ishmael) was non-elect.

God provided temporal, earthly, covenant (promise of nationhood and land) with both, but a different, spiritual, and everlasting covenant (heavenly inheritance in the Kingdom of God) only to the elect and spiritual lineage of Isaac and Jacob.

Ishmael was a child born of flesh. Isaac was the child of Godly promise.

Ishmael was born of Hagar, a bondwoman. Isaac was born from "Jerusalem above" (heavenly) who is free and the mother of all the elect sons of God.

"Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise." Gal. 4:28

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29

"You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" Acts 3:25

The Acts passage was directed to Jews, who were first under the old, earthly covenant, but also given the promises of the new covenant:

"To you, first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. . . Many of those who heard the word, believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." Acts 3:26, 4:4

Again, no major issues, per se. However, in the end, the sons of Israel, those who place their faith in their physical descendancy from Israel become Esau, not Jacob, and are analogized to Ishmael rather than Isaac.

I am giving you Scripture, Muz. Much Scripture. In fact, these truths are taught throughout Scripture.

But you're not doing so in an exegetically valid way.

If I gave you Matt 27:5 and Luke 3:11, why would you not follow it?

There has always been two kinds of "seed." Beginning with the contrast between Cain and Abel. Cain was a seed of flesh; Abel a spiritual seed, who evidenced belief in the promises of God.

You cannot just lump all mankind together, or distinguish them according to time dispensations and/or race.

I'm not doing that.

You cannot lump all Godly covenants together, for God provides differently between the (eternal) elect and (temporal) non-elect.

Again, I make more of a distinction than you do. This isn't the problem. The problem is that your exegesis fails because you want this passage to fit into your systematic theology, in spite of what it actually says.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

How long has compatibalism been argued? I understand well that you don't accept it any more than hyperCalvinists do, but certainly one of the arguments rings true with you.

I've had a variety of discussions with both Calvinist and Molinists on this topic.

Free will doesn't require a conscious decision to enact. When we drive we are excercising our will. When we eat, or behave in any way our will is at work. Consciousness might well accompany our will(Kilstrom), but it in no way is our will.

No problem here.

With this in mind, isn't if fair to say that our actions are free unless they are coerced?

Or programmed.

So in response to your query:

Unfortunately, you cannot explain how free will decisions can be known before they are made.​

I need to ask how does foreknowledge coerce our actions?

It doesn't. However, it should be noted that for definite foreknowledge, decisions are certain before they are made.

It certainly proves that there were causes and influences behind our decisions. If foreknowledge doesn't coerce then our actions would remain free even while they are known.

What if some form of determination or coercion was the source of foreknowledge, rather than foreknowledge coercing anything?

My answer is that God either divines our free actions through His immense intelligence or that He exists outside of time. Both answers are plausible even though I prefer the first.

Again, you have yet to know how free will decisions can be certainly known before they are made. Both assertions here violate free will.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

To discuss anything with a temporal people, atemporality isn't a workable vocabulary. Scripture does occasionally give us these ideas, but then we are hard pressed for definition and understanding because of our limitation not His. For instance: "Before Abraham was I AM." instead of "I WAS." Yes it is a name, but it is also a verb of being and it is spoken in present tense. This is blatantly atemporal and 'cannot' be argued against. You'll have not ability to do so. Again, it escapes 'both' of our logic. Compare 'Abraham was' and 'I am' and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is inescapable.

We are able to discuss the atemporal without too much trouble. Why do you think that God is unable to do so?

It means literally 'knows beforehand.' Not guesses beforehand, predicts beforehand, decides beforehand. There is no preconceived notion of definition that would be incorrect. 'Redefining' the term would be incorrect.

Why? If God already knows that a certain event will happen, what difference does it make if it may come about through one possible future or many?

Yes, but with the scripture given in context freedom is why Christ came otherwise will is in bondage. You'll also appreciate again with me that Jesus said in Matthew 6 that we will always serve either of two masters. We are never without bondage on the will. It is never truly free except as Christ defines it.

Your error here is expanding Jesus' intent in this passage. Jesus isn't speaking of being slaves in all situations,

Matt 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.​

Recognize that the man without the spirit 'cannot' please God. Can he make better choices? Yes. Can he escape the influence of sin upon those choices? No.

Romans 2:14-15 says that Gentiles who not have the law must be able to do works of the law in order to demonstrate the knowledge of the law. However, sin is violating the law. If Gentiles always sin, how can they be held accountable for their sin, in light of this passage?

Or, take the unsaved married man who goes on a business trip by himself, and is approached in his hotel by an attractive woman who offers to have an anonymous sexual encounter in her room. However, he wishes to honor his marriage vows, and refuses.

Is that sin?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

You are an idiot Lee!

This is what is called an ad hominem attack.

From dictionary.com, ad hominem: "Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

Is that an ad hominem or simply an insult?

What you did is, yes, on both counts. You see, these outbursts are typical of your posts, thus it is difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you.

And I am perfectly well able to conduct a reasoned discussion when the people I engage is those discussion participate honestly.

I have not seen you do this in any thread I have been in, I hope you have done so, though.

Its very nearly impossible to find someone willing to discuss these issues that isn't either simply too stupid to bother with or intentionally dishonest!

More ad hominems, Clete: "too stupid to bother with or intentionally dishonest!" Is virtually everyone here who discusses with you in one of these categories? Surely not.

Which of those two categories do you fit into Lee?

Well, it might be that you are the one mistaken, note that you did not reply to my last post to you about whether unbelievers can do good, and love with agape love, without the love of God in the heart. I wonder sometimes where the love of God is in your comments, which seem spiteful, more than almost any other poster I have met in any forum, alas, Christian or non-Christian.

Engage me like a man with honesty and integrity, respect the debate and respond substantively to the real points made. I dare you Lee!

I have done this for months and years, why do you speak as though I never have discussed with you? You, Clete, are extraordinarily provoking, this is again sad, because of people who send your reputation skyrocketing, for you do not seem to be able to discuss without the vitriol and claims that those who are are being civil, who disagree with you (I've seen you say this of Open Theists who cross Clete) are stupid, idiotic, and fools.

This is not Christian conduct.

 

[Philetus]

Your understanding is wrong. No Open Theist has ever said anything remotely like this nor would any Open Theist ever agree with it.

Libertarian freedom does not require that one be able to do anything at all that might come to mind. I do not have to be able to go catch a whale in the Dead Sea in order to have free will. All that is necessary is for me to be able to do or to do otherwise. There is no requirement for me to act outside my character, no necessity to act against my instincts.


No. Coercion is a completely meaningless term in a settled view paradigm. In fact, your very use of the term barrows from my open worldview. Thank you for asking that question. This argument had not occurred to me until just now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

p.s. I don't expect you to understand nor do I expect you to respond to what I've actually said here so go ahead and turn it all upside down, figure out how to make it mean the opposite of what I've just said clearly enough for any third grader to understand before responding. Don't respond with any sort of honesty. The shock of it would probably put someone in the hospital.

And I have a weak heart. So thanks for looking out for me. :angel:

Like so many, Robe has never given any evidence that he understands Open View Theism. He has such a conglomerate of views and terms that it is impossible to know what he is arguing in favor of. But there isn’t any doubt about who/what he is arguing against; everybody.

Coercion being a moot point in the settled view is an excellent illustration as to how terms imposed from a very different world view distort the debate. This is Robe’s constant downfall. He (at least consistently) tries to argue against views by synthesizing incompatible terms from other views resulting in only an inconsistent position that he never really develops to the point that anyone can follow, an argument built on inconsistencies because he only argues against by using terms that have no real meaning in his own view. For the life of me, after all this time, I can’t tell what he IS FOR. Exhaustive fore-knowledge without eliminating freedom??? It beats me. Like you said to nang … “I don’t get it”. Funny how the point you were making was turned against you proving the very point you made. I expect more of the same. At least it is consistent.

Do you think it will ever be possible to talk about Open Theism without the residual thinking and terms/categories that classical theism has imposed on us for so long? I wonder and I long for it.


BTW, I love it when you get on a roll!
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Lee, just for the record, I don't think you are stupid, intentionally dishonest or really all that confused. I just think you are wrong most of the time.

 

[zapp]

g'rulz - I think you give him/her too much credit. To refer to "non-cessationism" as "unbiblical" as though it were a Theologue's doctrine or such is sillytalk. I think its safe to say that the value of the Cessationist view has been "proven" by the demise, worldwide, of the mainlines that included that seed of death in their practices. There about as many practical cessationist left as there are Atheists.... and they are mostly residing in the same places - Academia.

I had commented on another thread re: the total VOID of cessationist seed in the record of the ante-nicene fathers. Cessationism is largely the result of the very late protestant revolt and revulsion-to-all-things-catholic. Springboarding from obvious excesses foisted by clerical hucksters upon superstitious parishioners, the reformers figured a rigorous dose of intellectual/rational religious practices and a ban on supernaturalism would cure and prevent.

Does this have any relevance to OT discussions? I suppose it does, since some renegade charismatics today argue that the 'canon is still being written' by self-appointed and self-congratulating "apostles" and "prophets" using mind-games and sheer manipulation to ply their constantly-changing dogma among starry-eyed groupies.

It is a Pentecostal College, like the early church. There is no exegetical reason for cessationism. This is my counter assertion. I think the onus is on you to explain why you rationalize or dispensationalize Scripture. A simple reading of Scripture makes my point self-evident. If you want to attack the obvious, then you need to do more than assert simple truth.

God is love. Do I have to defend this or will you accept it at face value?

Let's play psychologist. I think you want this to be an in-depth academic forum because that is the ivory tower you reside in. However, it is not, so you are frustrated. I think TOL is more fun for the average Joe who does not float in your rarified circles. We want to be simpler without being simplistic. We want to chat with the common man and learn together, not have an egg-head platform divorced from practical Christian living.

Perhaps you are also miffed that this is a growing, successful, impactful forum and your email one is not so much. There is a place for both, but don't make this one in your image unless we voluntarily want to engage at your level.

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee, just for the record, I don't think you are stupid, intentionally dishonest or really all that confused.

:sheep: :cheers: :jump:

I just think you are wrong most of the time.

Strange though it seem, I ofttimes have the same conclusion regarding Philetus! Hence the discussing. I appreciate your geniality...

Blessings,
Lee :kook:

 

[Lighthouse]

What is the false statement? I thought you agreed with Open Theism and free will and rejected deterministic Calvinism (or are you talking about a statement from months ago).

You miss my point, as usual.

I consider myself an idiot savant (which is better than a run-of-the-mill idiot like some others here). We are all dumb and smart in various ways.

Actually, many of my ideas were grasped intuitively, quickly, decades ago. All these years of continued thought as not given me a good reason to change things. e.g. I knew that God is love years ago. I continue to think about it, but have not changed my convictions. I have been an Open Theist for most of my Christian walk. Despite continued thinking about it for decades (makes me smart, not dumb), I see no reason to embrace Calvinism instead (I would if it was more biblical). Get it?

It was a joke. However, for the most part it's true. I should have added, "most of the time." Because you're right. I do agree with you on the open view.

Why not make a positive contribution like I am trying to do with my recent long posts instead of juvenile ad hominem attacks? Who is the dumb one? Better to remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt, fool.lain:

Like I said, it was a joke.

 

[RobE]

No. Coercion is a completely meaningless term in a settled view paradigm. In fact, your very use of the term barrows from my open worldview. Thank you for asking that question. This argument had not occurred to me until just now.

Precisely why I made the comment before....

Originally Posted by RobE
Clete's apparent inability to think beyond the surface of a statement makes it hard to get anywhere with him.

This is a lie RobE. If you are going to insult me, at the very least you should say something that sounds like it might be true to someone other than yourself.

It's my understanding that the argument employed by open theists is that.....

If foreknowledge is true then the actions are 'settled' by some force other than the person, so some force must be coercing their actions and they are therefore not free.

Your understanding is wrong. You are stupid RobE. Not because you think this because I know you do not. You are stupid because you thought that I would buy into the idea that you actually think this way. No Open Theist has ever said anything remotely like this nor would any Open Theist ever agree with it.

Why not?

Libertarian freedom does not require that one be able to do anything at all that might come to mind. I do not have to be able to go catch a whale in the Dead Sea in order to have free will. All that is necessary is for me to be able to do or to do otherwise. There is no requirement for me to act outside my character, no necessity to act against my instincts.

Then it would simply be a matter of someone to know your character and instincts to foreknow what actions you would make.

No. Coercion is a completely meaningless term in a settled view paradigm. In fact, your very use of the term barrows from my open worldview. Thank you for asking that question. This argument had not occurred to me until just now.

It absolutely isn't meaningless in either view. Coercion is the only thing that can remove freedom. Coercion must exist somewhere in your theology if foreknown events are not free.

BTW, this isn't a new concept for many of us.

 

[RobE]

Or programmed.

A form of coercion.

However, it should be noted that for definite foreknowledge, decisions are certain before they are made.

Decisions are certainly foreknown, but un-made.

What if some form of determination or coercion was the source of foreknowledge, rather than foreknowledge coercing anything?

What form of coercion could produce foreknowledge? Determination requires knowledge, so I don't think it would have any bearing on the discussion.

Again, you have yet to know how free will decisions can be certainly known before they are made. Both assertions here violate free will.

How do they violate free will is the question?

We know many things before they happen. It doesn't mean that our knowledge had anything to do with the events. How does knowledge translate to a violation of free will?

What is it exactly which takes away our freedom? Could it be that knowledge could simply illuminate the fact that freedom is an illusion as defined by LFW? That in reality we are constrained by our natural behaviors and environment to the point of having only very limited freedom of action? Maybe we aren't really sure what freedom is.

 

[Clete]

This is what is called an ad hominem attack.

From dictionary.com, ad hominem: "Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

Ad Hominem refers to a type of fallacious ARGUMENT, Lee. My calling you an idiot had nothing to do with making any sort of argument, I was merely making an observation. Had I made an argument that said something like, you're an idiot, therefore your conclusion is false, or implied such a thing then that would be an ad hominem. As it is, my having called you an idiot was only a statement of fact, as evidenced by the fact that you still don't know, even after I just explained it too you, what the term ad hominem means.

What you did is, yes, on both counts.

No it isn't Lee. Look it up on some site that isn't going to give you a definition based on common usage but rather on what the term actually means. Do a Google search on fallacies and read what it tells you. Ad hominems are often insulting but insults are rarely ad hominems.

You see, these outbursts are typical of your posts, thus it is difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you.

I do not dispute that they are typical of my posts but that's only because of the people I'm engaging here on this website. I've had extremely long and productive discussions with people I disagree with and nothing like this sort of thing happens. You see, I've just decided that I don't have to tolerate stupidity. There is nothing godly about ignoring stupidity and intentional dishonesty. If people want to have a productive discussion then all they have to do is respect the debate (not me, the debate) enough to respond to the actual arguments being made and don't treat me like I'm some sort of idiot who isn't able to detect when they are obfuscating.

I have not seen you do this in any thread I have been in, I hope you have done so, though.

This is a lie Lee. Selective memory counts as lying, or didn't you realize that when you wrote this stupidity.

More ad hominems, Clete: "too stupid to bother with or intentionally dishonest!" Is virtually everyone here who discusses with you in one of these categories? Surely not.

You do not know what an ad hominem argument is Lee. You think you do but you don't. That means you're stupid because I can guarantee you that you still at this very moment think that this sentence counts as an ad hominem argument.

Well, it might be that you are the one mistaken, note that you did not reply to my last post to you about whether unbelievers can do good, and love with agape love, without the love of God in the heart.

If I do not respond to a post written to specifically to me it is because I did not see it.
Yes, unbelievers love others unconditionally all the time.

I wonder sometimes where the love of God is in your comments, which seem spiteful, more than almost any other poster I have met in any forum, alas, Christian or non-Christian.

You wonder that because you close your eyes to dishonesty and have a generally non-confrontational personality type. That and you wouldn't know what the love of God looked like if it walked up hand smacked you in the face.

I have done this for months and years, why do you speak as though I never have discussed with you?

You and I haven't engaged in a real substantive debate in a very long time, mostly because I consider your post pedantic for the most part and have a hard time reading all the way through them but also because you don't want too, which is fine with me.

You, Clete, are extraordinarily provoking, this is again sad, because of people who send your reputation skyrocketing, for you do not seem to be able to discuss without the vitriol and claims that those who are are being civil, who disagree with you (I've seen you say this of Open Theists who cross Clete) are stupid, idiotic, and fools.

Such comments are reserved for those who are intentionally dishonest in their responses or who repeatedly ignore points made against their position. In short they are reserved for those who disrespect the debate and the time it takes to think through and type up what are often quite long and substantive posts. If someone isn't going to actually debate the issue with me, I'd very much rather they just keep their pie hole shut and stop wasting everyone's time. This forum has a great potential for good and it is the likes of Nang, who can only respond to open theist by lies and intentional deceitfulness, and AMR who ignores entire posts worth of arguments and simply repeats his position and pretends like nothing was said in opposition too it, who give internet discussion forums their poor public reputation. Of course, you'll say that it is the likes of me who give forums their reputation but I challenge you to find even one single theology forum that doesn't ban someone the moment thay someone gets their feeling hurt by the likes of me. TOL is a great site but I hardly thing that this single sight and myself and the few others who are willing to call idiots what they are is sufficient to account for the less than glorious reputation of internet forums.

This is not Christian conduct.

So says you. I've got a Bible here that tells me otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Why not?

Because it doesn't make any sense.
All you are doing is attempting to restate your opponents position in such a way that it is easier for you to argue against. In fact, it would seem to me that you are trying to state in such a way so as not to have to argue against it at all. But it is nothing but an intentional mischaracterization of the Open View position. Why not argue against what we actually say and what we actually believe? Wouldn't that be more productive?

Then it would simply be a matter of someone to know your character and instincts to foreknow what actions you would make.

No.

Your character and instincts do not absolutely determine your specific action or decision. There is a range of actions from which one may choose and still remain well within your character and instincts. Remember, there is no need to have the ability to do anything imaginable in order to be free. Two options from which I can choose is all that is required.

It absolutely isn't meaningless in either view.

Yes, it is Rob. If everything anyone does, including the actions of whomever it is doing the coercing, is settled before any of them do anything, then it isn't really coercion. It's just the next scene in the prescripted play.

Coercion is the only thing that can remove freedom. Coercion must exist somewhere in your theology if foreknown events are not free.

This is simply not so. Foreknowledge does not force me or even cause me to choose one option over another, it simply means that there are no options. What I do is what I do and that's it. The reason I have no freedom in such a situation is that I have no ability to do otherwise because there was no otherwise option to choose.

BTW, this isn't a new concept for many of us.

I never suggested otherwise.

What is a new concept for all of us though, is your having posted and half way descent response without having said anything ridiculous. Let's see how long you can keep it up, shall we?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Clete,
:thumb:

 

[lee_merrill]

Had I made an argument that said something like, you're an idiot, therefore your conclusion is false, or implied such a thing then that would be an ad hominem.

My argument was in this instance, that Clete is unable to conduct a reasoned discussion. To reply that I am an idiot, when responding to this point, is to conduct an ad hominem argument, presumably this insult is to show why you need not accept what I said.

This is the case regardless of whether you respond to my actual point further down, for calling people idiots is a way of saying "Your thoughts are ridiculous because you are idiotic." This is not a mere observation that I am an idiot, however much you may protest that you were only observing.

You see, I've just decided that I don't have to tolerate stupidity. There is nothing godly about ignoring stupidity and intentional dishonesty.

You seem unaware of sincerity, and postulate that people who disagree with Clete have only deliberate dishonesty as the reason, or complete inability to see Clete's points. This is hubris on your part.

If people want to have a productive discussion then all they have to do is respect the debate (not me, the debate) enough to respond to the actual arguments being made ...

Again, I think I do such, where in my latest posts have I not responded to the actual arguments?

This is a lie Lee. Selective memory counts as lying, or didn't you realize that when you wrote this stupidity.

I expect there is not one post you ever have made in reply to me that was gracious and thoughtful and considerate. Please point me to one such post to some other person you were disagreeing with, and I will be encouraged.

Yes, unbelievers love others unconditionally all the time.

With the agape love of God? I think not, for "love fulfills the law," and this is the righteousness that God requires, this is the essence of heaven.

 

[RobE]

Then it would simply be a matter of someone to know your character and instincts to foreknow what actions you would make.

Your character and instincts do not absolutely determine your specific action or decision.​

There is a range of actions from which one may choose and still remain well within your character and instincts. Remember, there is no need to have the ability to do anything imaginable in order to be free. Two options from which I can choose is all that is required.

Your character and instincts do not absolutely determine your specific action or decision.​

Sure they do. Not even God does things outside of His own nature. What you're talking about is neutral choices. If choices were neutral then how would any choices be made? Choices are made based upon reasons. Reasons are provided through your character, environment, etc.....basically nature.

Maybe a coin flip which would appear to be a neutral choice, but with enough information we would be able to determine how that turns out. What we're talking about here is God's unlimited knowledge of the universe of which we and the coin are a part of.

In previous exchanges you have admitted that the choices need not be equal, and I would submit that they never are. In my view God's intelligence is sufficient to calculate what the outcome will actually be based upon this inequality.

Yes, it is Rob. If everything anyone does, including the actions of whomever it is doing the coercing, then it isn't really coercion. It's such the next scene in the prescripted play.

I'm not sure where you got this from. Prescripted suggests a coercion of its own.

This is simply not so. Foreknowledge does not force me or even cause me to choose one option over another, it simply means there are no options. What I do is what I do and that's it. The reason I have no freedom in such a situation is that I have no ability to do otherwise if otherwise was never an option to begin with.

Originally Posted by themuzicman
Just because ___ CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.

(What a shock, another logical error...)

What is a new concept for all of us though, is your having posted and half way descent response without having said anything ridiculous. Let's see how long you can keep it up, shall we?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Praise from you means so much.

 

[Nang]

If someone isn't going to actually debate the issue with me, I'd very much rather they just keep their pie hole shut and stop wasting everyone's time.

Translation: If someone does not agree with my views, they better not post, or I will punish them for speaking their mind.

it is the likes of Nang, who can only respond to open theist by lies and intentional deceitfulness,

This is ad hominem for it is not only insulting to my character, but it is a fallacious statement. God knows I do not lie.

I simply hold another theological view, which you cannot handle or accept like an adult.

and AMR who ignores entire posts worth of arguments and simply repeats his position and pretends like nothing was said in opposition too it, who give internet discussion forums their poor public reputation.

AMR keeps this place interesting. You dislike him because he is so much more knowledgeable than yourself. You feel inferior, so you bad-mouth him, which only, if you do not know it, makes you appear even less knowledgeable than you are.

For that is the bottom line, Clete . . . you end up the loser. Others of intelligence, like RobE and Lee, have trouble getting past your hatred and emotional temper tantrums. You complain about not finding decent discussion and argument, but you are the one causing the obstruction to civil discourse on this site. You are your own worst enemy, and I can't see how you elevate the reputation of TOL with your bad behavior.

All this name calling is nothing but verbal fillers thrown out to cover up your lack of solid argument. If you really had answers to Calvinism, you would be too busy making effectual points, instead of producing all this shrieking and crying and noise by pounding your little fists and feet.

So says you. I've got a Bible here that tells me otherwise.

This is simply how you justify your bad behavior. You tell yourself you are o.k. You seem to have no sensitivity to the feelings and reactions of others . . .no conscience at all. And yet the OVT you are supposed to be representing, is based upon Godly love and relationships.

Are you maturing spiritually and emotionally as a result of your OT beliefs? Seems to me you are becoming more and more strident and hateful, with more and more people.

Go figure . . .:down:

Nang

 

[Clete]

My argument was in this instance, that Clete is unable to conduct a reasoned discussion. To reply that I am an idiot, when responding to this point, is to conduct an ad hominem argument, presumably this insult is to show why you need not accept what I said.

You're an idiot Lee.

This is the case regardless of whether you respond to my actual point further down, for calling people idiots is a way of saying "Your thoughts are ridiculous because you are idiotic." This is not a mere observation that I am an idiot, however much you may protest that you were only observing.

Why is this the case regardless? Because you say so?
I've made no ad hominems Lee. Because you read such an argument into my insults is your problem not mine. I have no obligation to elaborate on every comment I make, especially when responding to something that an idiot has said to me.

You seem unaware of sincerity, and postulate that people who disagree with Clete have only deliberate dishonesty as the reason, or complete inability to see Clete's points. This is hubris on your part.

You are truly a moron or else you just don't know how to read and have have a very selective memory to boot. The whole thread is still here for us all to read Lee! And not only that but I've been doing this for quite a long time now and it has become rather easy for me to spot when people are playing silly games instead of reacting out of sincere ignorance.

Again, I think I do such, where in my latest posts have I not responded to the actual arguments?

Yes Lee, I've never accused you of dishonesty. Silliness and accassional stupidity perhaps but not dishonesty. As far as I can tell you respond to what you believe to be the actual points being made and not some point that you just made up off the top of your head like Nang and AMR do. My apologies if I insinuated otherwise, it was not my intention to do so. My comments where more in response to your having come to the defense of Nang who is clearly dishonest and entirely unable to defend her belief system against the real arguments posed against it.

I expect there is not one post you ever have made in reply to me that was gracious and thoughtful and considerate. Please point me to one such post to some other person you were disagreeing with, and I will be encouraged.

There are whole threads of such posts Lee. If you want to see them find them yourself, I feel no obligation to justify myself to you nor do I care whether you're encouraged or not.

With the agape love of God? I think not

I don't care what you think. You didn't ask me if they could love people with "the agape love of God", you asked my if they could display agape love. The answer is yes, they can and do all the time, every single day!

for "love fulfills the law," and this is the righteousness that God requires, this is the essence of heaven.

Well this isn't what you asked me! This is getting pretty damn close to the sort of dishonest tactics used by the Calvinists around here! I never said that an unbeliever could fulfill the law, BELIEVERS CAN'T EVEN DO THAT!!!!

Don't recreate the definition of words Lee. It leads to confusion and in the long run ends up rendering the term meaningless. Agape love is simply unconditional love. It is the sort of love that one has merely because they've decided to have it. It is a love that is not earned but merely bestowed. It is the sort of love that a mother has for her children or that a man might have for his best friend. True agape love is the sort of love that makes a man give his life for another, not out of a sense of duty as when a fireman heroically gives his life fighting a fire or when a body guard takes a bullet for the President, but as when a man knowingly chooses to give his life so that a person he loves can live, not because he has to so or because its his job but simply because he prefers the other over himself to the point of being willing to give his life for the other. That's unconditional love. That's agape love; the sort of love that God has shown for us and unbelievers do it to one degree or another every day, everywhere, all over the world. If you deny it, it only means that you don't know what the word means or else you are a very poor observer of the human condition or else have had your mind poisoned by Calvinist rhetoric.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Translation: If someone does not agree with my views, they better not post, or I will punish them for speaking their mind.

Do see what I mean Lee?

This is a lie! There is no way that Nang actually believes that my comments translate to anything remotely like what she's said here. But this is all she's got! There's nowhere else for her to go because she is flatly incapable of engaging a debate where she has to come up with real arguments against real points made by those in opposition to her blasphemous doctrine. The bottom line is that it is not possible to rationally argue in favor of that which is false. Perhaps more than anything else, this is the real reason why committed Calvinists will not engage the debate honestly. They simply don't have that option.

This is ad hominem for it is not only insulting to my character, but it is a fallacious statement. God knows I do not lie.

YOU DO TOO LIE! You just got through lying inside of a single sentence of this claim not to be a liar! :hammer:

I simply hold another theological view, which you cannot handle or accept like an adult.

Yet another lie! I've been doing this one hell of a lot longer than you have Nang and you know it. You simply won't engage the debate and I have substantively shown you to be dishonest in your so called responses to my posts. You intentionally respond to points that no one has made and whether consciously or otherwise, hope that no one will notice that the original points made against you have not been substantively addressed. It's the same tactic used by every single Calvinist that has ever posted on this forum. And I don't think it's hyperboly to say that, either. I seriously cannot think of a single exception!

AMR keeps this place interesting.

Oh yeah right. Interesting how? By copy pasting other people's work and endlessly repeating the same point over and over and over and over and over again until his opposition quits refuting it so that he can claim victory? You call that interesting? What a joke!

You dislike him because he is so much more knowledgeable than yourself.

:roftl::roftl::roftl:

Yeah! That's it Nang! You got me! I wish I could be just like AMR the pompus blow hard who thinks he's God's gift to Calvinism.

Just keep telling yourself that!

:roftl::roftl::roftl:

You feel inferior, so you bad-mouth him, which only, if you do not know it, makes you appear even less knowledgeable than you are.

This is yet another lie. You know Nang, when you say something that you know is untrue, that's called lying. You're a liar, Nang. No matter how you slice it, you tell lies and you know it.

For those of you who might actually believe this nonsense, go back and read AMR's "Ask Mr. Religion" thread from the beginning. Take note of how many times I begged him not to leave because of the poor treatment he was getting lambasted with by some of the other posters as soon as he arrived. Note how many times I begged him to respond to the points I was making rather than simply restating his position as though repeating himself amounted to a refutation of my arguments. Read it! If I still had them (I really wish I did) I would post the private exchanges that AMR and I had early on shortly after he arrived (minus any personal information, of course) where assured me he wasn't leaving and that he was looking forward to debating several issues here on TOL.

For that is the bottom line, Clete . . . you end up the loser.

Only in the minds of those who have no desire to see the truth or to have their belief systems truly challenged and put to the test.

Others of intelligence, like RobE and Lee, have trouble getting past your hatred and emotional temper tantrums.

Don't be a hypocrite Nang. Let's not forget that you originally came here from another website for the express purpose of harassing me personally.

RobE is no more honest than you are and Lee is non-confrontational to his bones. Hardly two that I care anything about impressing. You might be here to make friends and influence people but I am not. I am here to confront error where ever and when ever I see it. I call it like I see it and I let the chips fall where they may. If you don't like it, I encourage you to leave and go back to the boring as Hell website from which you came.

You complain about not finding decent discussion and argument, but you are the one causing the obstruction to civil discourse on this site.

Not so! Is your memory that short? Have you actually forgotten that this thread is still here for everyone to read?

I engaged you honestly and susbtantively, you are the one who decided to throw the discussion down the toilet, not me. It pissed me off and I'm not afraid to express my displeasure but you know as well as I do that had you responded with substance and honesty you would have gotten the same in return.

You are your own worst enemy, and I can't see how you elevate the reputation of TOL with your bad behavior.

That's because in order to see it, you would have to realize that I am right and that you are unable to defend your beliefs honestly.

All this name calling is nothing but verbal fillers thrown out to cover up your lack of solid argument.

This is a lie, Nang! The name calling came after the substantive arguments were systematically ignored and/or twisted into something other than what you know they were.

If you really had answers to Calvinism, you would be too busy making effectual points, instead of producing all this shrieking and crying and noise by pounding your little fists and feet.

Yet another lie. You're compounding them at quite a rate now, Nang. You wouldn't be throwing a fit now would you? Far be it from Nang to play the hypocrite! :shocked:

This is simply how you justify your bad behavior. You tell yourself you are o.k. You seem to have no sensitivity to the feelings and reactions of others . . .no conscience at all.

My conscience is quite clear thank you very much. I have no qualms about calling stupid people stupid and pointing out the lies of liars.

And as I said before, you know very well that had you responded to my argument with substance and honesty you would have gotten the same in return.

And yet the OVT you are supposed to be representing, is based upon Godly love and relationships.

Precisely!

Godly love, which you know nothing about, isn't always nice. Get used to it.

Are you maturing spiritually and emotionally as a result of your OT beliefs?

More so than you could possibly know. You don't even know what it means to mature spiritually. The term is completely without meaning in the Calvinist paradigm. In fact this whole post of yours makes no sense in your worldview. Everything I've done has only been done because your sick and perverted god thing predestined that I would do so eons before time began.

Seems to me you are becoming more and more strident and hateful, with more and more people.

I am indeed becoming more and more impatient with dishonesty and lies. I simply don't care anymore whether I discuss this stuff with any of you. I would prefer too do so and that is why I continue to try from time to time to strike up another exchange but as soon as it turns into what you did last night, I'm through. I have no more tolerance for repeating myself or for begging people to respond to my arguments. Especially when the person in question knows better. Someone knew would be treated quite differently as AMR was when he first arrived. But in short, you've pegged it. I've become much more strident and much more hateful toward those who advocate a unjust god thing and dishonestly attempt to discredit the truth of God's word.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Your character and instincts do not absolutely determine your specific action or decision.​

Sure they do. Not even God does things outside of His own nature. What you're talking about is neutral choices. If choices were neutral then how would any choices be made? Choices are made based upon reasons. Reasons are provided through your character, environment, etc.....basically nature.

I am not talking about neutral choices Rob!

I really don't think I'm willing to do the heavy lifting on this for you, in fact I know that I am not.

Suffice it to say that there is more than one facet to a man's character, several of which can be in play at any particular time and a person's instincts may be unclear or even conflicted concerning a particular decision. None of which is even relevant frankly. This is all just muddying the water. The fact is that if we cannot have done otherwise then are action was not free - period. I don't have to know how the will works, nor do I have to be able to explain the intricate details of how a decision is made. It doesn't matter how it is done. The fact is that God is just and he holds us accountable for our actions and we MUST therefore must have the ability to choose to do or to do otherwise.

Maybe a coin flip which would appear to be a neutral choice, but with enough information we would be able to determine how that turns out. What we're talking about here is God's unlimited knowledge of the universe of which we and the coin are a part of.

This sounds like you've just endorsed causality. You said that if we are not free then we will have to have been coerced in some way. How is causality not coercion (assuming for the sake of argument, your inaccurate definition of the term)?

In previous exchanges you have admitted that the choices need not be equal, and I would submit that they never are. In my view God's intelligence is sufficient to calculate what the outcome will actually be based upon this inequality.

Then you categorically deny free will altogether. We are merely the next domino to fall.

Is this what you are saying?

I'm not sure where you got this from. Prescripted suggests a coercion of its own.

You see Rob! This is what I'm talking about. This has just got to be the stupidest thing posted on TOL today!

Who is being coerced? Take for example a movie everyone has seen, or at the very least that everyone is is familiar enough with to follow the conversation, like Star Wars. Using the movie Star Wars as an example, who is being coerced and by whom to what end?

Praise from you means so much.

It wasn't praise Rob! It was a very thinly vialed insult. :doh:
I have no anticipation that this conversation is going to be any more productive than any previous one has been with you. But having said that, as long as you continue to be responsive and not a complete waste of my time I'm willing to continue, if you are.

Resting in Him,
Clete