Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God

[Delmar]

Is this the sole litmus test for open theism? What are the universally accepted essentials of a person being able to lay claim to the label?

Yes, I believe so. Believing that the future is not entirely settled in advance, is the open view.

Nature of the Trinity?

Omniscience as defined by the church divines?

Omnipotence as defined by the church divines?

Temorality?

OSAS? POTS?

Lots more work needed here.

AMR

When the topic is... "is the future completely settled in advance?"
...these are side issues.

 

[Delmar]

Because if you remember the BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) it didn’t matter what AMR said, everyone who was pro-Enyart said Enyart won the debate, and everyone who was pro-AMR said AMR won the debate.

It was like a sporting event. Let me try to explain. I have been to many Pittsburgh Steelers games over the last 35 years. However, when the Steelers play the Cleveland Browns, the games are just a little more fun and intense. There are a lot of people from Cleveland who come to the games, and vice versa with the games in Cleveland (the two cities are less than 2 hours apart)

No matter who wins the game, when the game is over, and people are walking to their cars, if some Steelers fans see people wearing Cleveland jerseys, they yell “Cleveland sucks” even if the Browns just won the game. Likewise, after games the Steelers have won, Cleveland fans yell “Pittsburgh Sucks”

Unfortunately that is how I saw the BRX thread with AMR and Enyart. It didn’t matter what either guy said, each side was loyal, and pretty much said the other side “sucked”, but in different words.

That’s not the way it is supposed to be, but for some reason that’s the way it always ends up 99.9% of the time. Today however was different, and it was nice to see the difference.

Remember Knight, you and Enyart and all the other open theists could be 100% correct, and all of us settled theists wrong. I am open to that possibility. That is why I don’t wear “Settled Theist” authentic jerseys, not even the cheap fake ones.

I have to admit my own bias. From my earliest study of the Bible I became convinced that God is actually willing to respond to the prayer of one earnest man.... Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5

... as opposed to having his mind entirely made up in advance.

 

[tetelestai]

I have to admit my own bias. From my earliest study of the Bible I became convinced that God is actually willing to respond to the prayer of one earnest man.... Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5

... as opposed to having his mind entirely made up in advance.

It’s called Compatabilism.

Compatabilsim is the belief that man’s free will and God’s foreknowledge exist together.

In other words, I believe we have free will, that God answers our prayers, that God intervenes in our lives, and at the same time God knows exactly what will happen in the future.

Moreover, I do not believe God is the author of sin. Satan committed the first sin, and man followed with Adam committing a sin. Because God is a respecter of free volition, sin exists.

I believe election follows belief. I am pro OSAS.

So, yes Delmer God answers prayers, but God knew a billion years ago what your prayer was, and yet at the same time you are 100% free to pray for whatever you want, whenever you want, about whatever you want. That is what compatibilism is.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Guys this is an interesting thread but it's getting lost because it's tacked unto the discussion thread for the One on One that flopped.

So I started a new thread here so we can carry on in a more relevant way.

 

[godrulz]

It is the "and that the future is not possible for God to know" part of the quote that is grabbing my attention.

The issue is the nature of creation and the future, not whether God is omniscient or ignorant. If the future was knowable as a certainty, God would know it. If an Open Theist denied that God knows the knowable, we would be wrong.

If the future is inherently unknowable because God voluntarily allowed free will, contingencies, uncertainties, then it is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know the unknowable.

The future is anticipatory, not actual, even for God. He does know by anticipation what He chooses to settle in advance. He knows as possible/probable other uncertainties because they are not possible objects of certain knowledge.

This is clear to me, but I appreciate those who don't get it because they are committed to retaining a classical/traditional view of God that they feel cannot be 'compromised'.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, I believe so. Believing that the future is not entirely settled in advance, is the open view.
When the topic is... "is the future completely settled in advance?"
...these are side issues.

Two main points are endless time vs timelessness and free will vs determinism (ideas are linked). There are many practical implications to doctrine and practice, depending which side we embrace and which is actually true. It is a worthy debate.

 

[godrulz]

It’s called Compatabilism.

Compatabilsim is the belief that man’s free will and God’s foreknowledge exist together.

In other words, I believe we have free will, that God answers our prayers, that God intervenes in our lives, and at the same time God knows exactly what will happen in the future.

Moreover, I do not believe God is the author of sin. Satan committed the first sin, and man followed with Adam committing a sin. Because God is a respecter of free volition, sin exists.

I believe election follows belief. I am pro OSAS.

So, yes Delmer God answers prayers, but God knew a billion years ago what your prayer was, and yet at the same time you are 100% free to pray for whatever you want, whenever you want, about whatever you want. That is what compatibilism is.

Compatibilism is a form of determinism. It compromises libertarian free will (redundant). It is not defensible, but a loophole. Determinists do not believe we can influence God. The Bible portrays a different picture. God is dynamic, not static. Prayer is not just for our sake (Calv.), but actually interacts in a reciprocal way with a relational, personal God (not just the Unmoved Mover of philosophy).

I think you like the middle ground and want to have your cake and eat it too. I tried this once, but failed. You will eventually have to pick one side or the other since mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed views cannot be mediated (I suggest that compatibilism is refutable and problematic).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It’s called Compatabilism.

Compatabilsim is the belief that man’s free will and God’s foreknowledge exist together.

In other words, I believe we have free will, that God answers our prayers, that God intervenes in our lives, and at the same time God knows exactly what will happen in the future.

Compatabilism, is just a word. You may as well use the word "snardblat". It's as if you are saying... "see, my theology isn't illogical because of snarblat". Well gee... that's convenient. I need a word like that! :chuckle: It would make debating so much easier!

Now... the real challenge for you will be showing to us how your two positions are in fact compatible.

 

[godrulz]

I think AMR would understand and define it differently. AMR? (I actually though it was originally a supra/infra Calvinistic issue that has become a determinism vs free will issue?).

 

[jasonwill]

I am new in this forum great .....................:jump: