Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Berean Todd
New member
Knight, actually I'm going to withdraw my name from this topic, and hope for taking part in the next BR. I'm retiring, for the time, from debate on this issue here at ToL. I do support anyone who will argue for the closed view, but also offer a caution - many people here at ToL are strict adherants of Mr Enyart, and as such are set in their ways of Open Theism, so it will be nigh-impossible to "win" any votes as to who won the debate, but the closed view does need to be presented so I support and encourage you to go for it if you feel so led.
Oh please....
You have got to be kidding me Todd!
The open view has no more to do with Bob Enyart than opposing abortion has to do with Bob Enyart.
Bob is an open theist so what? Bob isn't even going to be the opponent in this debate.
If your arguments cannot stand up to the test then your arguments will lose on their own merit or lack thereof.
Re: OK
Re: OK
I would like to review your position so we know where you are coming from.
Re: OK
OK... great! I will put you on the list! Can you give me a link to any TOL thread where you have argued your side on this topic?
I would like to review your position so we know where you are coming from.
adajos
New member
For the open view side it would be interesting if you could get Greg Boyd, or one of the people affiliated with his organization Christus Victor ministries. Boyd was a theology professor at Bethel College in St Paul, MN and I had many opportunities to hear him speak. His Open Theism was quite controversial on campus when I attended.
He's a very intelligent man and an extremely passionate and articulate....it'd be cool if him or some other scholarly person would take the Open View side of a Battle Royal.
If anyone is interested in trying to get him his website is www.gregboyd.org
It might be worth a shot. I'd feel sorry for whoever had to debate him, even though I personally am not necessarily a proponent of the Open view.
He's a very intelligent man and an extremely passionate and articulate....it'd be cool if him or some other scholarly person would take the Open View side of a Battle Royal.
If anyone is interested in trying to get him his website is www.gregboyd.org
It might be worth a shot. I'd feel sorry for whoever had to debate him, even though I personally am not necessarily a proponent of the Open view.
Hey adajos do you know the folks at Greg Boyd's website personally?
If so... we would love to be linked in their "other ministries" links section located...
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=542
We at TOL have been defending the open view on the internet since 1996!
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: Re: OK
Re: Re: OK
I have not engaged this topic on these forums yet, however, I can offer an overview of my position......
The God of the Bible is described as being infinite, and whose existence transcends the physical properties of the universe. Time is one of the physical properties of matter. Its a physical dimension that directly correlates to a state of matter. Since God transcends matter (and therefore time), his knowledge is unbound by temporal delineations of matter/time (past, present, future). The only thing that delineates the present from the future is a variation in the state of matter. For example, our earth has not yet spun 4.4 degrees, so it is not yet 5pm. But God's existence transcends all states of matter, and therefore, his knowledge of universal events transcends all states of time. This is what "omniscience" means. Consequently, God possesses knowledge of everything we call "future" events. There is nothing that has ever occurred in this universe that God didn't know would happen. If God's state of knowledge ever changed, he would be a temporal being whose state of existence is in some way subject to the state of matter. (Since time is a variable that is directly attached to matter) If this were so, this obviously would demote God's sovereignty, and make God's knowledge (and therefore divine attributes) subordinate to the universe. But if any aspect of God's being (such as his knowledge) is subordinate to something else (such as the state of matter/time), then God cannot be considered all-knowing, all-powerful, or immutable.
Open theism relegates God to a mutable, temporal being whose knowledge is in some way bound to the dictates of time/matter, which means he could not accurately possess the characteristics described in the Bible. (ie, Open theism contradicts James 1:17.)
There is much more I could say, but I think this is enough information to give you a general overview of the position I would be representing.
Thanks,
Scrim
Re: Re: OK
I have not engaged this topic on these forums yet, however, I can offer an overview of my position......
The God of the Bible is described as being infinite, and whose existence transcends the physical properties of the universe. Time is one of the physical properties of matter. Its a physical dimension that directly correlates to a state of matter. Since God transcends matter (and therefore time), his knowledge is unbound by temporal delineations of matter/time (past, present, future). The only thing that delineates the present from the future is a variation in the state of matter. For example, our earth has not yet spun 4.4 degrees, so it is not yet 5pm. But God's existence transcends all states of matter, and therefore, his knowledge of universal events transcends all states of time. This is what "omniscience" means. Consequently, God possesses knowledge of everything we call "future" events. There is nothing that has ever occurred in this universe that God didn't know would happen. If God's state of knowledge ever changed, he would be a temporal being whose state of existence is in some way subject to the state of matter. (Since time is a variable that is directly attached to matter) If this were so, this obviously would demote God's sovereignty, and make God's knowledge (and therefore divine attributes) subordinate to the universe. But if any aspect of God's being (such as his knowledge) is subordinate to something else (such as the state of matter/time), then God cannot be considered all-knowing, all-powerful, or immutable.
Open theism relegates God to a mutable, temporal being whose knowledge is in some way bound to the dictates of time/matter, which means he could not accurately possess the characteristics described in the Bible. (ie, Open theism contradicts James 1:17.)
There is much more I could say, but I think this is enough information to give you a general overview of the position I would be representing.
Thanks,
Scrim
Last edited:
Berean Todd
New member
Re: Re: OK
Re: Re: OK
Knight, there is a reason that 4 out of 5 theologians strongly reject open theism, and probably at least 3 out of 5 serious Christian posters here are adherants to it. You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but the strict adherance to Mr Enyart and his book "the Plot" comes up over and again from your side of the debate here, so I do see it as a major factor in the belief patterns here.
Re: Re: OK
Knight, there is a reason that 4 out of 5 theologians strongly reject open theism, and probably at least 3 out of 5 serious Christian posters here are adherants to it. You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but the strict adherance to Mr Enyart and his book "the Plot" comes up over and again from your side of the debate here, so I do see it as a major factor in the belief patterns here.
add yasaf
New member
premature
premature
IYGTTUAS quote - Knight....I might be able to get a really big name for the closed view side of this debate. I would really appreciate it if you could hold the spot open until I get this person's response. It will be a surprise...
I would like to be informed of that decision. Why? Because I have read most of the closed views theologies. More than closed viewers do. And I know which ones would be or would not be good. For instance, any Calvinist would not as good as Arminians on the subject, simply because they will end up with the answer that it all is a mystery a lot more prematurely then an Arminian would.
Not that mystery is a bad thing, but every one I have read, simply ignore obvious verses in the Bible. One of the reasons I am an Arminian is because I feel it does the best justice to all of Scripture, and feels no complusion to hide behind certain texts, and ignore other ones. I can deal with Acts 13:48 as well as I can deal with I John 2:2 which supports an Arminiain understanding.
premature
IYGTTUAS quote - Knight....I might be able to get a really big name for the closed view side of this debate. I would really appreciate it if you could hold the spot open until I get this person's response. It will be a surprise...
I would like to be informed of that decision. Why? Because I have read most of the closed views theologies. More than closed viewers do. And I know which ones would be or would not be good. For instance, any Calvinist would not as good as Arminians on the subject, simply because they will end up with the answer that it all is a mystery a lot more prematurely then an Arminian would.
Not that mystery is a bad thing, but every one I have read, simply ignore obvious verses in the Bible. One of the reasons I am an Arminian is because I feel it does the best justice to all of Scripture, and feels no complusion to hide behind certain texts, and ignore other ones. I can deal with Acts 13:48 as well as I can deal with I John 2:2 which supports an Arminiain understanding.
adajos
New member
Knight
No I'm afraid I don't know them (or Greg) personally--I was never lucky enough to have a class with him, although I attended many a chapel service as well as quite a few of his church services.
I'd suggest going to http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=260
and having a look at the two email addresses that are provided for contact info. Through them you may be able to get TOL added to their links page, and possibly entice Greg or somebody else to argue for the open view in a Battle Royale.
No I'm afraid I don't know them (or Greg) personally--I was never lucky enough to have a class with him, although I attended many a chapel service as well as quite a few of his church services.
I'd suggest going to http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=260
and having a look at the two email addresses that are provided for contact info. Through them you may be able to get TOL added to their links page, and possibly entice Greg or somebody else to argue for the open view in a Battle Royale.
Sweet!Originally posted by IYGTTUAS
Knight....I might be able to get a really big name for the closed view side of this debate. I would really appreciate it if you could hold the spot open until I get this person's response. It will be a surprise...
When will you know?
add yasaf
New member
huh
huh
Uh Poly, that wasn't me, that was IGGY.
You don't need a big name, just one who knows all sides, in which I qualify. Calvinists, esp, look at Arminianism and Open Theism as a joke, and don't even bother to study their take on everything, so most of them are very ill-equipped to deal with it.
huh
Uh Poly, that wasn't me, that was IGGY.
You don't need a big name, just one who knows all sides, in which I qualify. Calvinists, esp, look at Arminianism and Open Theism as a joke, and don't even bother to study their take on everything, so most of them are very ill-equipped to deal with it.
Re: huh
Re: huh
I would say they are ill-equipped because its difficult to give a Biblical apologetic for something based in Greek philosophy. This may also explain why there isn't a great deal of Bible study going on the Body of Christ. It's difficult to keep interested in a Bible study when everything you've been taught by those who are supposed to know what they are talking about is contradicted on nearly every page of the Bible.
And please don't be offended by my saying so, but while I don't doubt that you are knowledgeable enough to play devil's advocate and argue the closed view effectively, I must say that it seems to me that someone who actually held that view would make a more passionate and therefore more interesting argument.
Your brother in Christ.
Clete
Re: huh
I would say they are ill-equipped because its difficult to give a Biblical apologetic for something based in Greek philosophy. This may also explain why there isn't a great deal of Bible study going on the Body of Christ. It's difficult to keep interested in a Bible study when everything you've been taught by those who are supposed to know what they are talking about is contradicted on nearly every page of the Bible.
And please don't be offended by my saying so, but while I don't doubt that you are knowledgeable enough to play devil's advocate and argue the closed view effectively, I must say that it seems to me that someone who actually held that view would make a more passionate and therefore more interesting argument.
Your brother in Christ.
Clete
- Status