ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

God has from eternity determined what He is now doing in our temporality, including making new songs for us.

:ha: Pretty tricky AMR. How do you sleep with yourself?

AMR, I apologize, I left you a hole in the question and you would have been silly not to use the hole, so it's my own fault you didn't really answer the question I was asking.

Let me try again... and this time I will close the hole.

Can God write a new song for Himself? (not a song that is new for us, yet a song that is new for God)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Has anyone here actually done a positive case for OVT without doing so in response to Calvinist attacks?

Excellent question.

I think the reason there is so much pointed dialog between Calvinists and open theists is that their doctrines are virtually the polar opposites of one another. A Calvinist who rejects Calvinism would likely end up an open theist. Conversely, an open theist rejecting open theism would likely end up a Calvinist.

 

[Evoken]

A Calvinist who rejects Calvinism would likely end up an open theist. Conversely, an open theist rejecting open theism would likely end up a Calvinist.

I feel stuck in the middle

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion:
God has from eternity determined what He is now doing in our temporality, including making new songs for us.

Pretty tricky AMR. How do you sleep with yourself?

I sleep quite well...when I do sleep.

AMR, I apologize, I left you a hole in the question and you would have been silly not to use the hole, so it's my own fault you didn't really answer the question I was asking.

Let me try again... and this time I will close the hole.

Can God write a new song for Himself? (not a song that is new for us, yet a song that is new for God)

No, God could not write a new song for Himself.

God could not create anything "new" for there is no "newness" for God. For something to be new to God it would have recently come into existence or somehow only known for a short time. As the words "recently" and "time" indicate, there is a temporal quality to the concept of "newness". As I have noted elsewhere, God is atemporal, existing in eternity, possessing exhaustive foreknowledge and omniscience, therefore there is nothing "new" to God. We may perceive God's actions in our own temporal existence as somehow "new" to us, yet all of God's actions have been known to God from His eternal existence. By knowing himself perfectly God knows perfectly all the different ways his perfections can be shared by others. For there is within the essence of God all the knowledge of all possible kinds of things his will could actualize. Hence, God knows all the particular things that could ever be actualized.

Not everything that God knows has been, nor will ever be, revealed to us.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can we write new songs? If we can then in our temporality God has given to us a measure of creativity and freedom that is capable of producing New Songs!

Your entire post presupposes a notion of creaturely "freedom" that does not exist in God's mind, for where such a "freedom" exist, God is no longer sovereign, and therefore no longer Almighty God.

Let me make it as clear as I can: nothing that God's creatures can or possibly can do is unknown to God, nor outside of God's providentially exhaustive control. There is nothing "new" to God, thus God is never "surprised" by His creatures...including this sentence that I just wrote.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I feel stuck in the middle.

• We are either totally depraved and unable to save ourselves by any act or man only fell "a little" in Eden.
• We are either unconditionally elected through no foreknowledge of our actions or salvation is universal and all must be saved.
• We are either justified by Christ's specific penal atonement of some or the atonement was necessary, but insufficient.
• We are either unable to resist God's call to righteousness or we can thwart an omnipotent God's purposes.
• We are either forever kept safe in our saving belief or Christ's penal atonement was ineffective and God lied to us.

Can there really be a middle ground?

 

[dale]

...for where such a "freedom" exist, God is no longer sovereign, and therefore no longer Almighty God.

No freedom? None at all?

 

[Clete]

By what definition of sovereign does the freedom of the King's subjects render the King something other than the sovereign ruler of the land?

To be sovereign does not mean to be in absolute control of everything that happens but refers to whomever holds the highest authority. If I am free because God has made me free then God remains sovereign by definition. It isn't as if I went to God and said, "I want to be able to do whatever I choose." On the contrary! He said to me...

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;​

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, God could not write a new song for Himself.

God could not create anything "new" for there is no "newness" for God.

And therefore... your God is not free.

Conclusions....

If God could never create anything new or even think up anything new then God didn't think up and/or design creation (the idea of creation simply always existed). Obviously this notion flies in the face of the Bible and all of orthodox Christianity.

Your version of God is not free. He is forever locked into a state of eternal now. Your God is not creative nor sovereign over His own faculties.

Wacky stuff! :kookoo:

 

[Evoken]

• We are either totally depraved and unable to save ourselves by any act or man only fell "a little" in Eden.
• We are either unconditionally elected through no foreknowledge of our actions or salvation is universal and all must be saved.
• We are either justified by Christ's specific penal atonement of some or the atonement was necessary, but insufficient.
• We are either unable to resist God's call to righteousness or we can thwart an omnipotent God's purposes.
• We are either forever kept safe in our saving belief or Christ's penal atonement was ineffective and God lied to us.

Can there really be a middle ground?

Well, I am not going to comment on these points as that is what we are discusing on our exchange . However, as I noted in my last response to you, we agree on a lot of things. So, perhaps it is innacurate to say that I am in the middle, I would say that my position on these issues is far closer (so close that I am surprised) to the infralapsarian variety of Calvinism than to open theism.


Evo

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let me make it as clear as I can: nothing that God's creatures can or possibly can do is unknown to God, nor outside of God's providentially exhaustive control. There is nothing "new" to God, thus God is never "surprised" by His creatures...including this sentence that I just wrote.

Yet you take it one step further..... you also assert that there is never anything new for God Himself. He cannot design, create, nor imagine.

Your god is dead.

 

[Clete]

AMR,

You give people a hard time about being juvenile and only giving lip service to wanting to have adult conversations and make claims about the rationality of your theological worldview and then intentionally make posts like the one below. I don't get it.

• We are either totally depraved and unable to save ourselves by any act or man only fell "a little" in Eden.
• We are either unconditionally elected through no foreknowledge of our actions or salvation is universal and all must be saved.
• We are either justified by Christ's specific penal atonement of some or the atonement was necessary, but insufficient.
• We are either unable to resist God's call to righteousness or we can thwart an omnipotent God's purposes.
• We are either forever kept safe in our saving belief or Christ's penal atonement was ineffective and God lied to us.

Can there really be a middle ground?

How does it follow that because we aren't totally depraved in the Calvinistic sense of the word, that we therefore only fell "a little"? Define little?

How does it follow that if we are not unconditionally elected that universalism must be true?

How does it follow that if limited atonement isn't true then the atonement was insufficient to accomplish that which God desired for it to accomplish?

How does it follow that if we can lose our salvation (which I don't believe we can but that isn't the point) that the atonement was ineffective and that God lied?

You have some wacky presuppositions going on AMR. None of which are Biblical. That is to say, that virtually everything you've said here is not only irrational on its face but that it would only make sense in the first place IF the Calvinistic worldview is valid and true, which it cannot be because it too is irrational. I submit that not only is your understanding of sovereignty incorrect as demonstrated in my previous post but that your understanding of man's condition, the atonement, it purpose, its application, are all incorrect and that your conclusions concerning them are therefore incorrect. You've redefined seemingly every word and concept in the Christian vernacular in order to force it to fit within a preconceived notion about what God is like that is based not on the Bible but on pagan philosophy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Yet you take it one step further..... you also assert that there is never anything new for God Himself. He cannot design, create, nor imagine.

Your god is dead.

This isn't exactly the case but your 'extrapolation' or ponderings concerning the implication. He already stated that God is vastly outside of our comprehension. Again another point of differenced elucidated. 'I' for instance changed my position to "Yes, God can write a new song for Himself" after reading Mr. AMR's post simply because our perspective would have considered it in a time frame. We are talking about a God who perfect in knowledge, emotion, being, etc. etc. Our point of departure is in the definition of both "Ominiscience" and "temporal" considerations. Because the logic in OV continually refers and derives from temporal observation, the points are obfuscated. Of course they seem problematic. The very definition AND understanding of these concepts have created a huge gap in even our discussing meaningfully together such topics.

(I can't quit make out your new avatar, and miss the "Surf's Up" chicken)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And therefore... your God is not free.

Conclusions....

If God could never create anything new or even think up anything new then God didn't think up and/or design creation (the idea of creation simply always existed). Obviously this notion flies in the face of the Bible and all of orthodox Christianity.

Your version of God is not free. He is forever locked into a state of eternal now. Your God is not creative nor sovereign over His own faculties.

Wacky stuff!

Oh, please, this is silliness. God's experience in eternity is vastly different that what any of us can comprehend. After all, He is transcendent. You are applying humanistic rationale to draw your simple conclusions. Let's say for argument's sake that I grant you that God is "locked" in the eternal now. Is being in the "forever present" something that implies no freedom? God is the only true free being in existence. The fact that all of God's actualizations of His freedom have been known to Him for eternity makes Him no less free, but much moreso.

You just are not making any sense at all. Please try to be more precise, for example "(the idea of creation simply always existed)" should read "(the idea of creation simply always existed in God's mind)" if you are paying attention to my words. But, alas, you are not, which is why you assume "obviously" this is unbiblical, despite the numerous verses I have previously provided that you have ignored.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

By what definition of sovereign does the freedom of the King's subjects render the King something other than the sovereign ruler of the land?

To be sovereign does not mean to be in absolute control of everything that happens but refers to whomever holds the highest authority. If I am free because God has made me free then God remains sovereign by definition.

You are not free if you define your freedom to be outside of God's exhaustive providential control. No where do the Scriptures grant you such a warrant of freedom. On the contrary, we have numerous didactic examples from the Scripture that proclaim God as completely sovereign. Yours is a humanistic contrivance, a wish, as it were, based on humanistic notions of egalitarianism.

An absolutely perfect God is absolutely sovereign. You are trying to compare humanistic ideas and examples with the divine nature of God. Your original premise is false and therefore the conclusions you are drawing from it are also false.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, I am not going to comment on these points as that is what we are discusing on our exchange . However, as I noted in my last response to you, we agree on a lot of things. So, perhaps it is innacurate to say that I am in the middle, I would say that my position on these issues is far closer (so close that I am surprised) to the infralapsarian variety of Calvinism than to open theism.

Yes, I know this is where we are at present. I just used your post as a platform for those that are in a far different camp. Mea culpa.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yet you take it one step further..... you also assert that there is never anything new for God Himself. He cannot design, create, nor imagine.

Your god is dead.

Why? Because He knows all that He knows perfectly and equally vividly? How does that render Him dead? Think harder.

 

[dale]

AMR,

I realize my post was so small it could very easily be overlooked, so I ask again, based on your quote below...

...for where such a "freedom" exist, God is no longer sovereign, and therefore no longer Almighty God.

No freedom? None at all?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You give people a hard time about being juvenile and only giving lip service to wanting to have adult conversations and make claims about the rationality of your theological worldview and then intentionally make posts like the one below. I don't get it.

How does it follow that because we aren't totally depraved in the Calvinistic sense of the word, that we therefore only fell "a little"? Define little?

How does it follow that if we are not unconditionally elected that universalism must be true?

How does it follow that if limited atonement isn't true then the atonement was insufficient to accomplish that which God desired for it to accomplish?

How does it follow that if we can lose our salvation (which I don't believe we can but that isn't the point) that the atonement was ineffective and that God lied?

Please go back and read the exchanges between Evoken and myself. I have no desire to re-state what I have already stated. All have been elucidated in this thread for you and others to read. Feel free to comment on them after you have come up to speed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

I realize my post was so small it could very easily be overlooked, so I ask again, based on your quote below...

No freedom? None at all?

Sorry, Dale, I did miss this one. See here.