BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
How can we....GuySmiley said:
How will we....
.... be able to ....
con... tin..... ue...... on?
:taoist:
I can follow this analysis...bling said:
...but here it appears that you're pulling a semantical slight-of-hand. The words expect and hope, when used properly, never imply something factual. That would be knowing. Furthermore, if your interpretation here is what Paul really was trying to communicate, why wouldn't he just say "Love always knows?"
RobE
New member
Sounds Interesting.
Sounds Interesting.
Why? I'm really interested.
I have a question. Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent?
The reason I asked is-- in many of the posts against Calvinism(Armenianism) it is proposed that if God knows everything to the smallest detail that he's the author of such things as child molestation, rape, abortion, etc..
It occurs to me if he is omnipresent then he would be an accessory to these crimes even if he doesn't have extensive foreknowledge according to the open view objection to Calvinism above.
If he isn't omnipresent then why do you pray? Does he have a spiritual voice mail service? Are you just praying for your own benefit? Does he not yet realize that people are being killed at abortion clinics? Isn't he an accessory to abortion since he could stop it by using his supernatural authority? Or is he impotent to end certain wrongs because of his nature. Maybe his intervention would interfere with your free will?
I'm not sure. How would the 'open view' look on these issues?
Thanks,
RobE
Sounds Interesting.
Bob Enyart said:
Why? I'm really interested.
I have a question. Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent?
The reason I asked is-- in many of the posts against Calvinism(Armenianism) it is proposed that if God knows everything to the smallest detail that he's the author of such things as child molestation, rape, abortion, etc..
It occurs to me if he is omnipresent then he would be an accessory to these crimes even if he doesn't have extensive foreknowledge according to the open view objection to Calvinism above.
If he isn't omnipresent then why do you pray? Does he have a spiritual voice mail service? Are you just praying for your own benefit? Does he not yet realize that people are being killed at abortion clinics? Isn't he an accessory to abortion since he could stop it by using his supernatural authority? Or is he impotent to end certain wrongs because of his nature. Maybe his intervention would interfere with your free will?
I'm not sure. How would the 'open view' look on these issues?
Thanks,
RobE
I think that the Open View posits that God is everywhere He chooses to be--that He isn't a slave to having to be in all places at all times. For instance, He probably chose not to see what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah.RobE said:
I guess that means that God certainly has the power to be omnipresent.
Regarding how God actively hears our prayers we can only guess. He could possibly set up a medium to always hear the prayers of humble, truth-seeking persons who know or desire to know Him (God knows who they are). Just a wild guess here.
I would say that the OV mostly infers different conclusions about the Omnis. I do believe, for example, that God is all powerful in that he is the origin of all power.RobE said:
I think you may have misunderstood the argument. Some settled viewers believe that God causes everything that happens. If that is true then it would in fact make him the author of all evil. Others believe that God does not cause all things but knows them because he sees all events before they happen or from a position outside of time. OV'ers belive this is illogical because if God already knows it, they could not choose otherwise.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Sorry about the late reply, I missed this response...
But the question I was addressing was "How did God fulfill his statement that Nineveh would be overthrown?" The implication was that this prophecy must have really failed, but if overthrow meant "by destruction or repentance," then this conclusion is not a firm one.
Just trying to loosen this conclusion!
Blessings,
Lee
Sorry about the late reply, I missed this response...
Certainly it's not certain! So then we have to see what is most probable. One indication is that we do not read that "The Lord did not overthrow them as he had said." That could imply a distinction here, between the threatened destruction, and the statement that Nineveh would be overthrown, which latter statement may well be broader.
But the question I was addressing was "How did God fulfill his statement that Nineveh would be overthrown?" The implication was that this prophecy must have really failed, but if overthrow meant "by destruction or repentance," then this conclusion is not a firm one.
Just trying to loosen this conclusion!
Certainly they didn't understand it that way! Nor did Jonah. Yet God does make statements he knows will misunderstood at first (e.g. Mt. 15:12, Jn. 2:21).
Wouldn't a fulfillment before then qualify, though? Nineveh could be said to have been overthrown 80 days later, if judgment had fallen.
Yes, it means both! Just my point here...
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
"Don't bother about the idea that God 'has known for millions of years exactly what you are about to pray.' That isn't what it's like. God is hearing you now, just as simply as a mother hears a child. The difference His timelessness makes is that this now (which slips away from you even as you say the word now) is for Him infinite. If you must think of His timelessness at all, don't think of Him having looked forward to this moment for millions of years: think that to Him you are always praying this prayer." (C.S. Lewis)
And lest we think this is just Greek philosophy, time is like another dimension, we are told, and God is omnipresent!
We certainly see God's responses changing in time, yet "time is the very lens through which ye see" (C.S. Lewis again), and as far as the incarnation, again we have an indication of timelessness here:
Revelation 13:8 ... the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Blessings,
Lee
No, I don't think it was conclusive one way or the other. But I do think the Open View has got the wobbles! It's rather, well, unsettled. As far as the questions no Calvinist will answer, well, that would seem to be an open challenge, here are mi dos centavos...Bob Enyart said:
I wouldn't mind...
God is not in time, in the Trinity, I would say, nor with his creatures, in an ultimate sense.
"Don't bother about the idea that God 'has known for millions of years exactly what you are about to pray.' That isn't what it's like. God is hearing you now, just as simply as a mother hears a child. The difference His timelessness makes is that this now (which slips away from you even as you say the word now) is for Him infinite. If you must think of His timelessness at all, don't think of Him having looked forward to this moment for millions of years: think that to Him you are always praying this prayer." (C.S. Lewis)
And lest we think this is just Greek philosophy, time is like another dimension, we are told, and God is omnipresent!
We certainly see God's responses changing in time, yet "time is the very lens through which ye see" (C.S. Lewis again), and as far as the incarnation, again we have an indication of timelessness here:
Revelation 13:8 ... the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill said:
Lee, by embracing C.S. Lewis and misquoting Revelation 13:8 you and millions of Calvinists like you try nailing Christ back onto the cross. Or haven’t you heard:
For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:9)
The tomb is empty, Lee. It really is.
Revelation 13:8 reads:
All who dwell on the earth will worship Him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lame Slain from the foundation of the world.
Book of Life of the Lame Slain is the name of a book in heaven, not a proof text that Christ is eternally suffering for your and my sins. Christ conquered death, for real. Drop the metaphysical nonsense and believe scripture.
patman
Active member
The Setteled Equation
The Setteled Equation
From what I have read and heard, the settled view followers seem to hold highly to this equation:
"A" knows all of the future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy.
Of course they use "A" = God, "B" = some bible verse, such as Peter denying Christ.
But it is plain to see that if this is the one argument they rest all their beliefs on, their theology is on shaky ground. The Settled Equation is not a proof, it is a very bad theory. How? If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is not they knew the future.
For example, my mother predicted that one day I would get married. Therefore my mother knows the all of future.
"A" = mother
"B" = get married
Did it happen? Yes.
Therefore "A" (mom) knows all of the future.
This logic fails big time. It can't even be considered evidence to the conclusion.
For example:
If the Settled Equation can repeatedly show someone knew a future event, thus it is more likely or true that that person knew the future.
Settled View followers say that because God predicted Peter and Judas, the crucifixion, and the book or revelations, thus God knows the future.
But, again, my mom predicted that one day I would go to high school, that I would have a broken heart from a girl turning me down, that one day I would learn to drive a car, and that I would go to the prom and graduate. She said I would go to college, despite my non-willingness to go. And to this day she thinks me and my wife will have children. Therefore, mom knows the future.
Do you see? It is obvious my mother does not know the future, yet if you plug her into the equation, she does! But we know there is some other explanation... that is she knows me well enough, and she knows life of the typical American boy growing up. She knows what happens when you get married, and she believed and hoped I would find someone.
God can do much the same. And he can intervene, make things happen.
Aside from the Settled Equation, the Settled view works on faith. "Any god has to know the future because that's what gods do. It makes them powerful." Says who? You?
Settled View logic again falls behind.
"A" is powerful. Thus "A" can do "A-Z" (i.e. everything).
My computer is a powerful machine. It can do complex tasks in seconds. But can it stop the world from turning? No, it has a different kind of power, but it is power none the less.
God is powerful, can he be the worst sinner? No. Some things are impossible for God, and sin is one of them. I think everyone can agree on at least that. His inability to sin does not make him weaker, or less of a god, does it? No.
If you can agree with that, you must logically agree that having power does not give you the ability to do anything that is conceivable. You cannot come to the logical conclusion that God is powerful and can do anything.
You are not blaspheming God by saying he does not do a certain thing, unless He said other wise. You do not blaspheme God by saying he does not know the future, but you do if you say he is unloving. It is different. God never said "I know the future", but he does say he is loving.
Settled View uses this faulty logic and fear of insulting God to come to the conclusion that God knows the future. And it leads them to think that God does ordain sin, or that God is in such control that every aspect of every life is his to decide, thus he sends people to hell for his will.
If you simply think about God not knowing the future... It doesn't take away any of his might, it does not make him less of a god. It just means that when someone sins, God didn't say, "Ye shall sin." Or if someone goes to heaven, it was out of love, not force.
The settled viewers need to rethink their logic. And they should consider the lack of God’s own addition to absolute foreknowledge.
And one last time, here are those faulty equations
“A” knows the future because “A” accurately predicted “B”.
“A” knows the future because of the large number of accurate predictions.
“A” is powerful. Therefore A can do A-Z (i.e. everything).
The Setteled Equation
From what I have read and heard, the settled view followers seem to hold highly to this equation:
"A" knows all of the future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy.
Of course they use "A" = God, "B" = some bible verse, such as Peter denying Christ.
But it is plain to see that if this is the one argument they rest all their beliefs on, their theology is on shaky ground. The Settled Equation is not a proof, it is a very bad theory. How? If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is not they knew the future.
For example, my mother predicted that one day I would get married. Therefore my mother knows the all of future.
"A" = mother
"B" = get married
Did it happen? Yes.
Therefore "A" (mom) knows all of the future.
This logic fails big time. It can't even be considered evidence to the conclusion.
For example:
If the Settled Equation can repeatedly show someone knew a future event, thus it is more likely or true that that person knew the future.
Settled View followers say that because God predicted Peter and Judas, the crucifixion, and the book or revelations, thus God knows the future.
But, again, my mom predicted that one day I would go to high school, that I would have a broken heart from a girl turning me down, that one day I would learn to drive a car, and that I would go to the prom and graduate. She said I would go to college, despite my non-willingness to go. And to this day she thinks me and my wife will have children. Therefore, mom knows the future.
Do you see? It is obvious my mother does not know the future, yet if you plug her into the equation, she does! But we know there is some other explanation... that is she knows me well enough, and she knows life of the typical American boy growing up. She knows what happens when you get married, and she believed and hoped I would find someone.
God can do much the same. And he can intervene, make things happen.
Aside from the Settled Equation, the Settled view works on faith. "Any god has to know the future because that's what gods do. It makes them powerful." Says who? You?
Settled View logic again falls behind.
"A" is powerful. Thus "A" can do "A-Z" (i.e. everything).
My computer is a powerful machine. It can do complex tasks in seconds. But can it stop the world from turning? No, it has a different kind of power, but it is power none the less.
God is powerful, can he be the worst sinner? No. Some things are impossible for God, and sin is one of them. I think everyone can agree on at least that. His inability to sin does not make him weaker, or less of a god, does it? No.
If you can agree with that, you must logically agree that having power does not give you the ability to do anything that is conceivable. You cannot come to the logical conclusion that God is powerful and can do anything.
You are not blaspheming God by saying he does not do a certain thing, unless He said other wise. You do not blaspheme God by saying he does not know the future, but you do if you say he is unloving. It is different. God never said "I know the future", but he does say he is loving.
Settled View uses this faulty logic and fear of insulting God to come to the conclusion that God knows the future. And it leads them to think that God does ordain sin, or that God is in such control that every aspect of every life is his to decide, thus he sends people to hell for his will.
If you simply think about God not knowing the future... It doesn't take away any of his might, it does not make him less of a god. It just means that when someone sins, God didn't say, "Ye shall sin." Or if someone goes to heaven, it was out of love, not force.
The settled viewers need to rethink their logic. And they should consider the lack of God’s own addition to absolute foreknowledge.
And one last time, here are those faulty equations
“A” knows the future because “A” accurately predicted “B”.
“A” knows the future because of the large number of accurate predictions.
“A” is powerful. Therefore A can do A-Z (i.e. everything).
I love reading well-thought posts like yours patman. Using one of your points, let me share a real-life question I asked one of my Calvinist friends (a very good friend who I respect, by the way):
I asked this friend if God was able to create a being whose future actions He could not foretell. That stumped him and he told me that he never really thought of anything like that and had to give it some thought. I love asking Calvinists this question because it puts in conflict two attributes they feel that God must have: that He knows everything (omniscient), and that He can do everything (omnipotent), both without exception.patman said:
I think that this is where the rubber meets the road. Out of their utmost respect for God, Calvinists have allowed themselves to take God's attributes to absurd levels, like making Him the author of a serial murderer's life (their interpretation of "book" in Psalms 139) just so that they can maintain belief in the attributes they feel He should have. For our God to be The Mighty and The Able, He does not have to fit the standards of men.patman said:
patman
Active member
Not Really Feeling It
Not Really Feeling It
How can God be patient without time? Wait, never mind that question, because the only answer I'll get is some mystical reasoning that you have to be Plato to 1.) make up and 2.) believe. I am sorry for the harshness, but we do not have to twist all reasoning around to understand God.
I notice from lee_merrill's last post that he quoted a lot more C.S. than J.C.. With such extraordinary claims requires good evidence from scripture. And, I am glad lee_merrill at least offered one verse:
…which isn't a proof verse at all. Read it in its entirety "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Some of you will remember sentence diagrams from high school:
What is the subject of the sentence?
The antichrist is.
And who is worshiping him?
The "those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life"
Since when?
"From the foundation of the world."
Whose book was it?
“The Lamb who was slain”
Disagree? Read this footnote from theNIV
So Jesus was not slain at creation at all. Anytime you read a translation, you have to be careful not to get too fixed on a particular word. What is important is the meaning.
This small sentence is trying to make a point. These people who are worshiping antichrist are not, not were they ever, written in the Lambs book of life. Trying to point out how dramatic that is and how intolerable what they are doing really is.
It isn’t proof text for the Settled View either. It just says, up to that point in time, they weren’t in the book, and if God doesn’t know the future, that is logical. How can you invite someone to a party, or not invite them, until you know them?
Lets explore the logics of this idea, just tho show how impossible it is.
To say that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, you would have to be talking about the physical Jesus, who could die, as he was flesh. And the Bible does not contradict itself, it clearly shows this event happened one time around 30 AD, and is not required to happen more than once.
Something else: People speak of time as if it were a creation. Time is not some object. It is just a sequence of events. So before creation, before there was matter or atoms, or any kind of mass or space, the event of God saying "let there be light," happened sequentially. Time! God does not require creation to perform an action. And like it or not, that's all time is, actions after actions. And God is full of actions; he is a god that never rests.
There is this popular theory that states that time and space are relative. But what about time before there was space? We just established that Time was there... how else could God speak? So how can time exist without space if this theory is correct?
OH. Wait, I think I understand. Settlers believe time is like a script. Every event is laid out and it can be read by someone powerful enough. That's what time is! So, they must therefore think that God created a script, and we call it time. That's how he is outside of "time", he's sitting there reading this funny little script called "Your Life!"
So that must mean that God created "time" i.e. a script, and that's how he knows the future. So he authored the script / created the events / ordained the actions that lead to the rape of an innocent child. That's how he does it! :madmad: That's how he knows the future :dead: .
What a bad, terrible thing to say about a loving God. To say "The God who cannot be tempted by evil is really behind it all, ‘cause he 'created time' so he could know the future". You value your perception of God over his reputation of being a just and loving god if you believe this. And I must rebuke that. IF your faith is shaken by the idea that God does not know the future, fear not. The alternitive is worst.
Any theology that places God in the situation of being the author of sin is one, anyone should know in their heart of hearts, needs rethinking! I love the God who loves us all, not one who doomed us.
Not Really Feeling It
lee_merrill said:
How can God be patient without time? Wait, never mind that question, because the only answer I'll get is some mystical reasoning that you have to be Plato to 1.) make up and 2.) believe. I am sorry for the harshness, but we do not have to twist all reasoning around to understand God.
I notice from lee_merrill's last post that he quoted a lot more C.S. than J.C.. With such extraordinary claims requires good evidence from scripture. And, I am glad lee_merrill at least offered one verse:
lee_merrill said:
…which isn't a proof verse at all. Read it in its entirety "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Some of you will remember sentence diagrams from high school:
What is the subject of the sentence?
The antichrist is.
And who is worshiping him?
The "those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life"
Since when?
"From the foundation of the world."
Whose book was it?
“The Lamb who was slain”
Disagree? Read this footnote from theNIV
So Jesus was not slain at creation at all. Anytime you read a translation, you have to be careful not to get too fixed on a particular word. What is important is the meaning.
This small sentence is trying to make a point. These people who are worshiping antichrist are not, not were they ever, written in the Lambs book of life. Trying to point out how dramatic that is and how intolerable what they are doing really is.
It isn’t proof text for the Settled View either. It just says, up to that point in time, they weren’t in the book, and if God doesn’t know the future, that is logical. How can you invite someone to a party, or not invite them, until you know them?
Lets explore the logics of this idea, just tho show how impossible it is.
To say that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, you would have to be talking about the physical Jesus, who could die, as he was flesh. And the Bible does not contradict itself, it clearly shows this event happened one time around 30 AD, and is not required to happen more than once.
Something else: People speak of time as if it were a creation. Time is not some object. It is just a sequence of events. So before creation, before there was matter or atoms, or any kind of mass or space, the event of God saying "let there be light," happened sequentially. Time! God does not require creation to perform an action. And like it or not, that's all time is, actions after actions. And God is full of actions; he is a god that never rests.
There is this popular theory that states that time and space are relative. But what about time before there was space? We just established that Time was there... how else could God speak? So how can time exist without space if this theory is correct?
OH. Wait, I think I understand. Settlers believe time is like a script. Every event is laid out and it can be read by someone powerful enough. That's what time is! So, they must therefore think that God created a script, and we call it time. That's how he is outside of "time", he's sitting there reading this funny little script called "Your Life!"
So that must mean that God created "time" i.e. a script, and that's how he knows the future. So he authored the script / created the events / ordained the actions that lead to the rape of an innocent child. That's how he does it! :madmad: That's how he knows the future :dead: .
What a bad, terrible thing to say about a loving God. To say "The God who cannot be tempted by evil is really behind it all, ‘cause he 'created time' so he could know the future". You value your perception of God over his reputation of being a just and loving god if you believe this. And I must rebuke that. IF your faith is shaken by the idea that God does not know the future, fear not. The alternitive is worst.
Any theology that places God in the situation of being the author of sin is one, anyone should know in their heart of hearts, needs rethinking! I love the God who loves us all, not one who doomed us.
- Status