Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
add yasaf
New member
debating
debating
Lightson quote - Calvinists have not cornered the market on being closed minded, entrenched and prejudiced.
Well, while that is true, they seem to have the greatest propensity toward it. One of their own acknowledges just this thing, in very stark terms - John Frame in this - http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/135440839?item_no=26396&event=6857SPF
Clete quote - 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.
Actually Knight is placing Arminianism in with the closed view for this debate. So since I am an Arminian, I guess I qualify. The problem I have with open theists is that they are saying the others are being inconsistent. This is simply not true, for the most part, at least the Arminians. And also for the most part the Calvinists.
While I am certainly no where near being passionate about whether or not one is an open theist or not, I do know the subject better than most, students and faculty. I have been in many a discussion on this subject on and off this site, and when someone gets very passionate about their view they tend to mess up. I feel I can bring that neutral type atmosphere to the debate.
debating
Lightson quote - Calvinists have not cornered the market on being closed minded, entrenched and prejudiced.
Well, while that is true, they seem to have the greatest propensity toward it. One of their own acknowledges just this thing, in very stark terms - John Frame in this - http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/135440839?item_no=26396&event=6857SPF
Clete quote - 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.
Actually Knight is placing Arminianism in with the closed view for this debate. So since I am an Arminian, I guess I qualify. The problem I have with open theists is that they are saying the others are being inconsistent. This is simply not true, for the most part, at least the Arminians. And also for the most part the Calvinists.
While I am certainly no where near being passionate about whether or not one is an open theist or not, I do know the subject better than most, students and faculty. I have been in many a discussion on this subject on and off this site, and when someone gets very passionate about their view they tend to mess up. I feel I can bring that neutral type atmosphere to the debate.
Re: debating
Re: debating
After all... perfect exhaustive foreknowledge is by definition perfect... right?
Re: debating
Wouldn't you do the same?
After all... perfect exhaustive foreknowledge is by definition perfect... right?
Re: Re: debating
Re: Re: debating
I think you asked add this question but I would like to throw my two cents in, if you don't mind.
Strictly speaking Armenians are closed theist but only because they are afraid to suggest that God doesn't know the future. The Open View seems to me to be a subset of Armenianism in many repsects although I definately do not consider myself an Armenian. I guess the point I'm driving at is that a debate between an Armenian and an Open Theist would not have the scope that it might otherswise have because there are more points of agreement between them than there are points of disagreement.
Re: Re: debating
I think you asked add this question but I would like to throw my two cents in, if you don't mind.
Strictly speaking Armenians are closed theist but only because they are afraid to suggest that God doesn't know the future. The Open View seems to me to be a subset of Armenianism in many repsects although I definately do not consider myself an Armenian. I guess the point I'm driving at is that a debate between an Armenian and an Open Theist would not have the scope that it might otherswise have because there are more points of agreement between them than there are points of disagreement.
Re: Re: Re: debating
Re: Re: Re: debating
The bottom line is Arminians claim an open view but preach a closed view. :freak:
I think most Arminians don't realize how much they have in common with Calvinsts.
Re: Re: Re: debating
I agree mostly with what you are saying.
The bottom line is Arminians claim an open view but preach a closed view. :freak:
I think most Arminians don't realize how much they have in common with Calvinsts.
add yasaf
New member
kids today
kids today
IYGTTUAS quote -- Ever read Beyond the Bounds?
No, but I have read some of Piper's thoughts on it. Instead of worrying about how he thinks this will affect the church, he should spend more time exegeting.
Knight quote - Wouldn't you do the same?
After all... perfect exhaustive foreknowledge is by definition perfect... right?
Knight, this is where you show your ignorance. Modern Arminians, esp. have no set in stone definition of foreknowledge, as is evident when you read F. Leroy Forline's "The Quest for Truth". And so, my spacetime theory where God manipulates spacetime would still be Arminian.
"perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if one defines it as "certain foreknowledge" then there is no problem. Even if God was able to see all times at once, he sees the past as past, the present as present, and the future as future. Depending on how he sees all these things, you could argue that he blocks out the past and present from view. Also, God seeing future things is the same as Him seeing Past things. So, his seeing them has no effect on their freedom.
kids today
IYGTTUAS quote -- Ever read Beyond the Bounds?
No, but I have read some of Piper's thoughts on it. Instead of worrying about how he thinks this will affect the church, he should spend more time exegeting.
Knight quote - Wouldn't you do the same?
After all... perfect exhaustive foreknowledge is by definition perfect... right?
Knight, this is where you show your ignorance. Modern Arminians, esp. have no set in stone definition of foreknowledge, as is evident when you read F. Leroy Forline's "The Quest for Truth". And so, my spacetime theory where God manipulates spacetime would still be Arminian.
"perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if one defines it as "certain foreknowledge" then there is no problem. Even if God was able to see all times at once, he sees the past as past, the present as present, and the future as future. Depending on how he sees all these things, you could argue that he blocks out the past and present from view. Also, God seeing future things is the same as Him seeing Past things. So, his seeing them has no effect on their freedom.
Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
You are definately right! But that's why I think that the debate should be against a Calvinist or a Catholic or something that is more clearly antithetical to the closed view. The distiction is much clearer and a Calvinist would be able to be more consistant in his argumentation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
You are definately right! But that's why I think that the debate should be against a Calvinist or a Catholic or something that is more clearly antithetical to the closed view. The distiction is much clearer and a Calvinist would be able to be more consistant in his argumentation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
As evidenced by....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: debating
That's very true.
As evidenced by....
:kookoo:
add yasaf
New member
who the
who the
OOOh. error I meant blocking the past and future from view.
Clete quote - The distiction is much clearer and a Calvinist would be able to be more consistant in his argumentation.
Every Arminian has a view of what they think foreknowledge is, so in their own way they would be consistent.
who the
OOOh. error I meant blocking the past and future from view.
Clete quote - The distiction is much clearer and a Calvinist would be able to be more consistant in his argumentation.
Every Arminian has a view of what they think foreknowledge is, so in their own way they would be consistent.
add yasaf
New member
crazy kids
crazy kids
Clete quote - Perhaps, but not as consistant. And the distinctions aren't nearly are profound.
If they are not as consistent, you would have to prove that, not just say it. Listen, if Knight is going to lump us in there, I think it is only fair that if an able person of that ilk is available, they should be given a fair chance. Also since I have read more Calvinist books and am going to the premier Reformed seminary in the world, I could argue from that angle also.
crazy kids
Clete quote - Perhaps, but not as consistant. And the distinctions aren't nearly are profound.
If they are not as consistent, you would have to prove that, not just say it. Listen, if Knight is going to lump us in there, I think it is only fair that if an able person of that ilk is available, they should be given a fair chance. Also since I have read more Calvinist books and am going to the premier Reformed seminary in the world, I could argue from that angle also.
add yasaf
New member
no way hosea
no way hosea
quote:
Originally posted by Knight
Lion... POTD
I nominate Lion to argue the Open View!
Clete
Based on my reply...http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=436157#post436157
and the whole previous discussion with Lion, and the fact that he/she doesn't know Hebrew, I definitely don't nominate Lion!
no way hosea
quote:
Originally posted by Knight
Lion... POTD
I nominate Lion to argue the Open View!
Clete
Based on my reply...http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=436157#post436157
and the whole previous discussion with Lion, and the fact that he/she doesn't know Hebrew, I definitely don't nominate Lion!
add yasaf
New member
whoa nelly
whoa nelly
Clete quote - I don't know a thing about Hebrew and you nominated me!
I was taking what I thought was the best representative from this site. You are more consistent than Lion overall. I don't believe that there is anyone else here who is an open theist and knows Biblical Hebrew anyways. PLUS, I was referring more to Lion's post, which made it glaringly obvious that he/she doesn't know it. I wasn't sure if you knew Hebrew or not, Clete.
Now if I were to go outside the site here, my pick would be Greg Boyd.
whoa nelly
Clete quote - I don't know a thing about Hebrew and you nominated me!
I was taking what I thought was the best representative from this site. You are more consistent than Lion overall. I don't believe that there is anyone else here who is an open theist and knows Biblical Hebrew anyways. PLUS, I was referring more to Lion's post, which made it glaringly obvious that he/she doesn't know it. I wasn't sure if you knew Hebrew or not, Clete.
Now if I were to go outside the site here, my pick would be Greg Boyd.
:shut:
- Status