I like Bob Enyart

[Letsargue]

Hello RP2016. Thanks for quoting Scripture. God knows all things, yes, that are knowable. God can do all things, yes, that are doable. Can God make a duplicate of Himself? Can God make it good and right to hate Him forever? Can God erase one of the Persons of the trinity such that He had never existed? God can do everything doable, and He can know everything knowable. For example, God knows how many hairs are on your head (you might have 0 to 10^5), but he doesn't know how many hairs are on the boogieman's head, because the boogieman doesn't exist.

So, RP2016, at Denver Bible Church we teach the future is not settled, but open, for God is free, and eternally creative, and He has not exhausted His ability to think NEW thoughts, write NEW songs, and design NEW butterflies. So, if God actually can think NEW thoughts, the future cannot be settled. And if God can implement those thoughts, the future cannot be settled.

Thanks for your thoughts RP'16.

-Bob Enyart
OpenTheism.org

There is no ( "Future" ) in the (( Finished )) Work of God; just the rest of ( Eternity )!!!

What do you do with this:>>-- ( Revelation 21:6 KJV )?? - Christ; the fulfilled Word of God said that two thousand years ago, not in the future. (( Justify yourself )), --- ( 1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV ). ---//--- Prove it with God / Christ, the ((( "Finished" ))) Work of the Father. (( The Word was made Flesh; - the "Unfinished" Work ))!! - ( Philippians 1:6 KJV ) ---///--- There are many of your guys supporting you, get them to help you here!! - You know who I mean!!

Paul -- 072713

 

[Nick M]

Huh?

 

[Letsargue]

Huh?

HuH?? -- Wipe your mouth, and pull up your pants; your nakedness is showing off to your ~god, and his children!!!!

Pray tell, - what else can one respond with, to such (( Spit ))???

Paul -- 072713

 

[MarkA]

Could a God, for whom every thought and action was settled from eternity past, rightfully be described as the creator?

are you confusing contingencies with definiteness?

for example God could have created every possible infinite reality that could ever exist at once.

This would require no further creation on his part, regardless of which reality his creation moves into.

 

[serpentdove]

...God could have created every possible infinite reality that could ever exist at once...

But he didn't. lain:

Enterprise D in an alternate quantum reality (aka greek paganism). :skeptic: Eccl 1:10

See:

Is the Future Settled or Open? Dr. Lamerson vs. Enyart

Enterprise 1701-D Alternate Future Timeline - Admiral Riker's Ship - TNG Ending

 

[Delmar]

are you confusing contingencies with definiteness?

No!

for example God could have created every possible infinite reality that could ever exist at once.

Or, He could have made man in His image, with the ability to be creative too.

This would require no further creation on his part, regardless of which reality his creation moves into.

The issue isn't whether God created everything He ever created all at once. The question is can He still be creative? If not was there ever a time when He could have been.? Nang seems to think not, because everything always was.

 

[MarkA]

Or, He could have made man in His image, with the ability to be creative too.

Oh, the classic creation or discovery debate, I am familiar. :think:

for example man did not create cellular technology, he discovered radio waves.

Man did not create X-rays he discovered them, the list goes on and on.

similarly we do not create alternate realities by our own actions, we discover them, but regardless of which one we enter they all had to be created first.

The issue isn't whether God created everything He ever created all at once.

for me it's not an issue!

The question is can He still be creative?

explain still be, if He ever created (which the Bible says he did) he is creative.

Nang seems to think not, because everything always was.

well, He always was and always will be according to scripture.

His creation on the other hand had a beginning according to the first passage of the Bible, and at one point it is said He rested from all his work he created and made.

Genesis 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I'm not sure what Nang thinks not of because I am unsure of the qualifier.

 

[Nang]

Oh, the classic creation or discovery debate, I am familiar. :think:

for example man did not create cellular technology, he discovered radio waves.

Man did not create X-rays he discovered them, the list goes on and on.

similarly we do not create alternate realities by our own actions, we discover them, but regardless of which one we enter they all had to be created first.

for me it's not an issue!

explain still be, if He ever created (which the Bible says he did) he is creative.

well, He always was and always will be according to scripture.

His creation on the other hand had a beginning according to the first passage of the Bible, and at one point it is said He rested from all his work he created and made.

Genesis 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I'm not sure what Nang thinks not of because I am unsure of the qualifier.

Nang does not believe that things "new" to the discovery and knowledge of men, are "new" to God. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Open Theists believe in a linear and progressive creation of God, that is produced contingent upon the will and works of mankind. Thus, they end up worshiping the will of men, over and above worshiping, serving, and submitting to the sovereign will of God. (Matthew 7:21-23)

They attempt to reduce the omniscience of God to a human level, and resort to sophistry to convince others of their error.

Scripture is thrown in, to make this falsehood seem legitimate, but it does not hold up to theological scrutiny.

Nang

 

[MarkA]

Nang does not believe that things "new" to the discovery and knowledge of men, are "new" to God. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Open Theists believe in a linear and progressive creation of God, that is produced contingent upon the will and works of mankind. Thus, they end up worshiping the will of men, over and above worshiping, serving, and submitting to the sovereign will of God. (Matthew 7:21-23)

They attempt to reduce the omniscience of God to a human level, and resort to sophistry to convince others of their error.

Scripture is thrown in, to make this falsehood seem legitimate, but it does not hold up to theological scrutiny.

Nang

I think I understand,

knowing all possible contingencies would have to have been created in order to be there in first place will help solve the dilemma they are having.

 

[Letsargue]

No!Or, He could have made man in His image, with the ability to be creative too.

The issue isn't whether God created everything He ever created all at once. The question is can He still be creative? If not was there ever a time when He could have been.? Nang seems to think not, because everything always was.

If it was ( done ) two thousand years ago, it is still (( Done )).

If God is who I think He is, God created the endless Creation easier than you and I take a breath. However, that was the Old Creation. The Son is the Creator of the New. Time was for the doing things even though the Do’er was in a No Time Eternity Situation, and the Creation was Created in a Time situation for the Purpose to bring the ( carnal minded ) to the Spiritual No Time PLACE!! – ((( OK!! – This is called the “Tongues of Angels” )))!!

Paul – 072713

 

[Nick M]

HuH?? -- Wipe your mouth, and pull up your pants; your nakedness is showing off to your ~god, and his children!!!!

Pray tell, - what else can one respond with, to such (( Spit ))???

Paul -- 072713

At least your rambling is coherent now. Walgreens came through....

 

[Letsargue]

At least your rambling is coherent now. Walgreens came through....

You didn't wipe your mouth; - it's still squirting "Spit" for (( your god ))!!!

Paul -- 072713

 

[Lighthouse]

I think I understand,

knowing all possible contingencies would have to have been created in order to be there in first place will help solve the dilemma they are having.

What dilemma?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Hello RP2016. Thanks for quoting Scripture. God knows all things, yes, that are knowable. God can do all things, yes, that are doable. Can God make a duplicate of Himself? Can God make it good and right to hate Him forever? Can God erase one of the Persons of the trinity such that He had never existed? God can do everything doable, and He can know everything knowable. For example, God knows how many hairs are on your head (you might have 0 to 10^5), but he doesn't know how many hairs are on the boogieman's head, because the boogieman doesn't exist.

OK, I can follow this line of argumentation. And I agree with you. God cannot, for instance, make a rock so big he cannot lift it. The whole question is designed in such a way so that either way you answer it, you admit that God cannot do something. But the bottom line is, for an omnipotent being, "Cannot do" is an oxymoron. So yeah, I agree. God can do anything that is actually possible to do.

So, RP2016, at Denver Bible Church we teach the future is not settled, but open, for God is free, and eternally creative, and He has not exhausted His ability to think NEW thoughts, write NEW songs, and design NEW butterflies. So, if God actually can think NEW thoughts, the future cannot be settled. And if God can implement those thoughts, the future cannot be settled.

That sounds great, but I don't think it stands up to Biblical scrutiny.

Matthew 24:36 says that the Father knows when he will return. If God could change his mind, how would he know the day or the hour?

The Bible also clearly rejects an open future because it teaches that God chooses who will be saved. John 6:37, John 10:26, and Ephesians 1 teach that God predestines who will and who will not be saved. Which I assume, the strong free will position would reject anyway.

Also: if God didn't know the future, couldn't he make mistakes?

Thanks for your thoughts RP'16.

-Bob Enyart
OpenTheism.org

Will take a look.

Is God free?

Of course. We are not.

I have to disagree with you there, Bob. I say that God knows that since the bogeyman does not exist that there are therefore 0 hairs on his head.

LOL!

 

[Christian Liberty]

I have another question for Bob, although not about open theism.

Bob, you have argued before that voting for a candidate who supports ANY abortion is unjustified with the argument that (And I'm paraphrasing here) if Mitt Romney wanted to kill one person by executive order, and it was your son, would you vote for him?

Now, ignoring any debate on lesser of two evils (I didn't believe Romney was the lesser of two evils anyway, they were both puppets and state worshippers as far as I'm concerned) the argument is clear: Killing of any innocent person isn't justified.

How does this affect your views on war, if at all? Are your views on collateral damage in war logically coherent with your absolute position on abortion?

Or: to discuss something even trickier, the death penalty. Now, ignoring any debate on what crimes the death penalty is appropriate for, we'd both agree that to use the death penalty on someone who has not committed any crimes whatsoever would be unjustified. Yet: doesn't any system of the death penalty always make mistakes? What if the one person wrongly executed was your son? Does this therefore prove that the death penalty is unjustified in the real world, even if it is theoretically justified?

For the record, that last paragraph is a devil's advocate argument, not one I necessarily agree with, although I'm curious how you'd respond to it. The one before that is one of several reasons I'm opposed to any preemptive war and the entire "War on Terror" narrative, as well as the interventionist foreign policy that most evangelicals seem to be in favor of these days.

 

[Letsargue]

I have another question for Bob, although not about open theism.

Bob, you have argued before that voting for a candidate who supports ANY abortion is unjustified with the argument that (And I'm paraphrasing here) if Mitt Romney wanted to kill one person by executive order, and it was your son, would you vote for him?

Now, ignoring any debate on lesser of two evils (I didn't believe Romney was the lesser of two evils anyway, they were both puppets and state worshippers as far as I'm concerned) the argument is clear: Killing of any innocent person isn't justified.

How does this affect your views on war, if at all? Are your views on collateral damage in war logically coherent with your absolute position on abortion?

Or: to discuss something even trickier, the death penalty. Now, ignoring any debate on what crimes the death penalty is appropriate for, we'd both agree that to use the death penalty on someone who has not committed any crimes whatsoever would be unjustified. Yet: doesn't any system of the death penalty always make mistakes? What if the one person wrongly executed was your son? Does this therefore prove that the death penalty is unjustified in the real world, even if it is theoretically justified?

For the record, that last paragraph is a devil's advocate argument, not one I necessarily agree with, although I'm curious how you'd respond to it. The one before that is one of several reasons I'm opposed to any preemptive war and the entire "War on Terror" narrative, as well as the interventionist foreign policy that most evangelicals seem to be in favor of these days.

That’s absurd!!! – Anyone can pull an (( IF )) out of a hat against any belief. – And to do so to support ones own doctrine is nothing short of a Foolish Lying Cheat!! – (((( If )))) you were to die by a shot to the Head - if you stated that again, (( You wouldn’t )), like the Lying Cheat you are!!!

Sorry Bob, but a Fool is a Fool!!!

Paul – 072813

 

[Lighthouse]

That sounds great, but I don't think it stands up to Biblical scrutiny.

Matthew 24:36 says that the Father knows when he will return. If God could change his mind, how would he know the day or the hour?

Is God incapable of knowing something for certain regarding His actions, simply because He is capable of changing His mind? Of course not!

The Bible also clearly rejects an open future because it teaches that God chooses who will be saved. John 6:37, John 10:26, and Ephesians 1 teach that God predestines who will and who will not be saved. Which I assume, the strong free will position would reject anyway.

1. Those two verses from John say no such thing. There is not a hint that those who are saved are chosen.:nono:
2. Ephesians 1 teaches that there is a corporate election, e.g election of a group; there is no indication that those who join the group do so without freely choosing to do so.

Also: if God didn't know the future, couldn't he make mistakes?

How small do you think God is that He needs to know the future to not make mistakes?

However, the Bible does show that He regrets some things because of what man has done, such as King Saul.

Of course. We are not.

But you said earlier that God must know the future in order to not make a mistake. How then is He free?

And how are we not?

I have another question for Bob, although not about open theism.

Bob, you have argued before that voting for a candidate who supports ANY abortion is unjustified with the argument that (And I'm paraphrasing here) if Mitt Romney wanted to kill one person by executive order, and it was your son, would you vote for him?

Now, ignoring any debate on lesser of two evils (I didn't believe Romney was the lesser of two evils anyway, they were both puppets and state worshippers as far as I'm concerned) the argument is clear: Killing of any innocent person isn't justified.

How does this affect your views on war, if at all? Are your views on collateral damage in war logically coherent with your absolute position on abortion?

Well, collateral damage is by definition not intentional. Also, war can be justified without specific actions committed by people on the right side of the central issue being justified and vice versa; those on the wrong side can still commit justified acts of war.

Or: to discuss something even trickier, the death penalty. Now, ignoring any debate on what crimes the death penalty is appropriate for, we'd both agree that to use the death penalty on someone who has not committed any crimes whatsoever would be unjustified. Yet: doesn't any system of the death penalty always make mistakes? What if the one person wrongly executed was your son? Does this therefore prove that the death penalty is unjustified in the real world, even if it is theoretically justified?

Again, this is not the intentional killing of an innocent person. Also, if the laws were as they should be then anyone responsible for the death of an innocent person [those who knew they were innocent and did nothing to stop it, those who knowingly committed perjury to lead to the wrongful execution, and those who ignored the lack of proof and didn't set the accused free for such, etc.] would be subject to execution for it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is God incapable of knowing something for certain regarding His actions, simply because He is capable of changing His mind? Of course not!

Well, maybe he'll change his mind tomorrow and decide to delay. Heck, maybe when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away" he actually meant the generation he was talking to, and then God changed his mind. If open theism is true at any rate.

Its absurd and limits God.

1. 
   

   [*]Those two verses from John say no such thing. There is not a hint that those who are saved are chosen.:nono:

   
   Yes, there is. Read the order of the words. Unless they were translated in an absolutely horrible fashion, the predestination in those verses is obvious.
   
   

   [*]Ephesians 1 teaches that there is a corporate election, e.g election of a group; there is no indication that those who join the group do so without freely choosing to do so.

   
   How does this make any sense? Election of a group logically leads to election of every member of that group.
   
   

   How small do you think God is that He needs to know the future to not make mistakes?

   
   I don't think he's small at all. I don't believe in open theism.
   

   However, the Bible does show that He regrets some things because of what man has done, such as King Saul.

   
   I guess open theists take those 100% literally. I believe those passages are in order to allow God, who is outside of time, to relate to man by explaining the divine thought process in a way man can actually understand.
   
   I understand your point with those texts but don't believe it stands up to the other parts of the Bible.
   
   

   But you said earlier that God must know the future in order to not make a mistake. How then is He free?

   
   I was actually strictly not correct when I said God is free. Adam and Eve were free. They had a real choice to choose good or evil.
   
   God can't choose evil, so he wouldn't really be "free" in the free will sense of that term.
   
   

   And how are we not?

   
   Biblically we are either slaves to sin or to Christ. The only beings that were ever "Free" were Adam, Eve, and on one particular location, the angels.
   
   

   Well, collateral damage is by definition not intentional. Also, war can be justified without specific actions committed by people on the right side of the central issue being justified and vice versa; those on the wrong side can still commit justified acts of war.

   
   True, but its still done with the full knowledge that innocents will be killed. If you bomb the city that has Bin Laden in it in order to kill him, you're doing that with the full knowledge that innocent people will die as well.
   
   Same is true with basically any invasion with modern weapons of war.
   

   Again, this is not the intentional killing of an innocent person. Also, if the laws were as they should be then anyone responsible for the death of an innocent person [those who knew they were innocent and did nothing to stop it, those who knowingly committed perjury to lead to the wrongful execution, and those who ignored the lack of proof and didn't set the accused free for such, etc.] would be subject to execution for it.

   
   I agree with you here. Innocent people dying is unavoidable whether you have the death penalty or not. There's a difference between knowingly (Even if not intentionally) killing innocent people, and having a policy that circumstantially happens to, but does not have to, lead to such people dying.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, maybe he'll change his mind tomorrow and decide to delay. Heck, maybe when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away" he actually meant the generation he was talking to, and then God changed his mind. If open theism is true at any rate.

And if He knows He will not change His mind?

Its absurd and limits God.

How do you not limit God?

1. 
   Do I need to teach you how to do lists?
   
   

   Yes, there is. Read the order of the words. Unless they were translated in an absolutely horrible fashion, the predestination in those verses is obvious.

   You're reading into them. But if it's there you shouldn't have any trouble showing us...
   
   
   
   

   How does this make any sense? Election of a group logically leads to election of every member of that group.

   Electing a group means that anyone who freely joins the group, even after the election of the group, joins the elected. And regarding the Body of Christ we all joined after the election of the group.
   
   

   I don't think he's small at all. I don't believe in open theism.

   You make Him out to be small then.
   
   

   I guess open theists take those 100% literally. I believe those passages are in order to allow God, who is outside of time, to relate to man by explaining the divine thought process in a way man can actually understand.

   If man was incapable of understanding the idea that God it outside of time then you would not be able to explain it either. Thus man is capable of understanding it and if it were true God would not have to explain himself in terms as if it were not.
   
   

   I understand your point with those texts but don't believe it stands up to the other parts of the Bible.

   Such as?
   
   What are your thoughts on Jonah 3, wherein God claims to have changed His mind regarding what He thought to do to Nineveh?
   
   

   I was actually strictly not correct when I said God is free. Adam and Eve were free. They had a real choice to choose good or evil.
   
   God can't choose evil, so he wouldn't really be "free" in the free will sense of that term.

   I agree with that.
   
   

   Biblically we are either slaves to sin or to Christ. The only beings that were ever "Free" were Adam, Eve, and on one particular location, the angels.

   The question is, is God free to do as He pleases within the parameters of His nature?
   
   Also, are we free to do as we please within the parameters of our nature and ability?
   
   

   True, but its still done with the full knowledge that innocents will be killed. If you bomb the city that has Bin Laden in it in order to kill him, you're doing that with the full knowledge that innocent people will die as well.

   And that doesn't make it justified.
   
   

   Same is true with basically any invasion with modern weapons of war.

   How so?
   
   Can a target not be localized enough to eliminate collateral damage?

 

[Christian Liberty]

And if He knows He will not change His mind?

How could he possibly know that if he didn't know the future?

How do you not limit God?

Because I don't believe he is unable to see the future.

Do I need to teach you how to do lists?

Yes, probably.

You're reading into them. But if it's there you shouldn't have any trouble showing us...

For instance

John 6:37

All that the father has given me will come to me.

Note: It says the father GAVE them. Not that they came of their own free will. They only came because the father GAVE them. Who gave them? The Father. By divine election.

John 10:27 says they didn't believe BECAUSE they weren't his sheep. Again, if they were his sheep, they would have believed, but BECAUSE they weren't his sheep, they didn't believe. They were not predestined to believe.

Electing a group means that anyone who freely joins the group, even after the election of the group, joins the elected. And regarding the Body of Christ we all joined after the election of the group.

'

4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory

________________________________________

BTW: the doctrine of election isn't necessarily one that makes me happy. I resisted believing it for a long time. I argued that Romans 9 was talking about nations. I still think there's merit to that. But its not just Romans 9. Predestination and election appear throughout the Bible with regards to individuals.

As comforting as it is to believe in the kind of free will that you claim to believe in, where God does not predestine anyone to Salvation, I can't find that viewpoint in scripture, anywhere.

You make Him out to be small then.

Because I don't limit him to one location in time?

If man was incapable of understanding the idea that God it outside of time then you would not be able to explain it either. Thus man is capable of understanding it and if it were true God would not have to explain himself in terms as if it were not.

I don't understand how God's mind works. Do you?

Such as?

What are your thoughts on Jonah 3, wherein God claims to have changed His mind regarding what He thought to do to Nineveh?

He didn't literally change his mind, it was an emphasis of the sadness that he felt.

I agree with that.

:thumb:

The question is, is God free to do as He pleases within the parameters of His nature?

Yes.

Also, are we free to do as we please within the parameters of our nature and ability?

Yes, but I believe that that's more limited than you do. A man who is a slave to sin cannot simply choose Christ, Christ must die for him and pay his debt (After which point it would be unjust for God to demand double jeopardy and send him to Hell, one reason why Limited Atonement is a Biblical proposition)). A man who is dead in his sin cannot simply choose to live again, otherwise he wouldn't be dead.

And a slave to Christ cannot simply choose to return to slavery in sin. He's already a slave to Christ. So a Christian cannot choose to commit apostasy, otherwise he wouldn't really be a Christian in the first place.

That said, I don't reject free will entirely. The Bible is clear that a Christian has a way out of any temptation, but that he can also succumb to sin. Unbelievers can choose not to murder people, although they will never make that choice for Christ's sake, but always with some kind of selfish motivation (Not wanting to go to jail, appeasement of their own conscience, desire to have good standing in the community.)

And exc.

And that doesn't make it justified.

Of course not. That's my point. Which is one aggravation I have with the "Right" in general. Although I don't know what Bob Enyart's foreign policy views are, which is kind of what I was asking him. Admittedly, the fact that aCW respects the man did implant a few assumptions in my mind (Since aCW clearly doesn't respect anyone who doesn't idolize the military, as well as agree with him on basically every political issue AND his attitude with regards to it) but that may simply be ignorance on his part rather than evidence that Enyart actually agrees with him on foreign policy issues.

Can a target not be localized enough to eliminate collateral damage?

Not with modern weapons of war.