 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > PotOnWheel | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/31/2004 3:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW - You know what? I like your handle. Let's chat about it, if you will.
The pot on the wheel is man (national Israel), and the mare that God found in His hand was thus in man. God did not make that mistake, the clay (Israel) should be compliant to the workings of the Lord, but Israel had other plans, so the clay was the problem. So He decided to make ANOTHER vessel as a reaction to the people of Israel.
If God was dictating over the whole event (i.e. everything happens according to the will of God) instead of Him being a righteous responder, then He would have completed the first vessel since God does not make mistakes. But we know He made the second vessel, and so God is a great and righteous responder, where man has authentic free will.
Also, the next verses after that and up to verse 10 shows again that God is the ultimate responder. First God responds to national issues, then man responds to God's judgments, then God responds again, only this time, He does not do what He was going to do.
So I could take it by your handle that you are an Open Theist, since you bring to mind perhaps the single most succinct open view teaching in the entire bible. So what do you say? Are you Open or Closed view?
My base of operations is from God's word, although I have great and humble men of the Lord that have greatly helped me in my journey in life and walk of faith. I am responsible for my beliefs, they are great guides, but God and His word is what really matters.
So are you an open theist POW? Gotta love that handle. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/31/2004 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Way asks: "So I could take it by your handle that you are an Open Theist... So what do you say? Are you Open or Closed view?"
PotOnWheel answers: Really? That is not the only choice for afirming free will!
I regard the "Open View" to be an allergic reaction to a calcified form of the "Classical" Western view. As a reaction, it is understandable. But I've found that it retains some of the very things it fights against (As Protestantism retains some of the clericism it fought in Catholicism, etc.).
Were these the only two options, perhaps I'd feel choosing was necessary. But the older, Eastern tradition, and pre-scholastic Western tradition makes both "Open" and "Classical" unnecessary.
My money's on scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the first seven Eccumenical Councils that established the Canon of Scripture. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/31/2004 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - Oh yes, it's all coming back to me. I just posted 65% bible talk, and you respond with 95% man's tradition, and at the very end, tack on something about the bible, most likely to keep folks like myself from razzing you too harshly.
Either the future holds at least some options or contingency, or it holds none. So either your an open viewer, or you are not. This is reality here. You can not have it both ways, or half way in-between an either or. There is no half way between an either or, you either are open view, or you or some form of closed view.
So, I like your handle very much, it is one of the single most clear bible OV teachings in the whole bible.
Pray tell then, what part of Calvinism does Open Theism retain? This should be good.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/1/2004 2:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey 1Way,
I happen to like your handle, and especially the way the arrow points to the RIGHT when it lists you've posted on the main page '1way->'
2 Cor. 11:But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
simplicity, singleness, plainness; always opposit to duplicity, hence 1Way->.
One way, one Lord, one spirit, one God, one Truth, one faith, 1Way and 1Way only!
There is ONLY ONE WAY and we are working at getting back to it.
I was asked in another post,"Are you an open viewer? And I wound up giving this answer
"Well I haven't delved into it very much, never actually heard of it till I came here and read a bit. I know one thing and that is I flat don't believe in Calvins twist of fate. I think his interpretation was influenced by his previous education in philosophy in the area of pagan beliefs and practices. In that, he took the belief of "The Fates"....................OH MY GOSH, there's another PUN!
"In that Calvin mistook "The FATES for the FAITH." Gee whiz I sure amust myself sometimes.
"The threads which the Fates spin are so unchageable, that, even if they decreed to someone a kingdom which at the moment belonged to another, and even if that other slew the man of destiny, to save himself from ever being deprived by him of his throne, nevertheless the dead man would come to life again in order to fulfil the decree of the Fates ... He who is destined to become a carpenter, will become one even if his hands have been cut off: and he who has been destined to carry off the prize for running in the Olympic games, will not fail to win even if he broke his leg: and a man to whom the Fates have decreed that he shall be an eminent archer, will not miss the mark, even though he lost his eyesight." [Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 8.7]
Calvin mistook the FATES for the FAITH.
Ha, to hallarious. Have a great day!
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/1/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | (BTW: The man--Peter Gilquist--who invented the "1-Way Sign" is now an Antiochian Orthodox Bishop!)
.
1way: I just posted 65% bible talk, and you respond with 95% man's tradition...
wheel: Now WHY would you say that? Neither of us quoted any scripture.
You asked what I beleive. I wrote five sentences, and gave you the answer you asked for.
1way: tack on something about the bible, most likely to keep folks like myself from razzing you too harshly.
wheel: Judge not! Your statement implies that I only "tack on" Scripture, and do not love it. And it is self-elevation, considering you to be superior.
1way: Either the future holds at least some options or contingency, or it holds none.
wheel: True. One certainy must concure.
Below is a primary source of Christian tradition. Its writer knows scripture incredably well. He grew up with scripture IN GREEK. His writing is full of scripture quotations (and the site linked has hypertext links to the citations). He wrote in the eighth century. St. John of Damascus is an important compiler of Christian theology. Because of where he lived, in Damascus (what is not Syria) and when he lived (after Damascus was taken over politically and militarily by the Islamic forces) his "Exact Exposition of the Christian faith should be appreciated for its facility in not only speaking to Christians, but also explaining the Christian faith to the Moslem powers. In fact, John, by God's grace, even "discharged the duties of chief financial officer for the caliph, Abdul Malek." So, while no specific scripture is cited in what is linked, it is very, very easy to recall the specific stories from the Old Testement that he had in mind.
If you want to avoid a determinism-dominated view (God does determine many things; but also created us with free will.) I'll recommend it.
quote:
Concerning Free Will and Predestination, by St. John of Damascus
Chapter 25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.
Chapter 26. Concerning Events.
Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.aspx
So, 1-Way, if you want to discuss something with me, then read the LINK above. I know enough about "Open-Theism" that I don't want to rehash its allergies/reactions. (There are better ways of addressing those same problems with determinism!) I'm sympathetic to what the "Open" view wants to correct in "Classical" theology. But I also don't think it achieves what it sets out to do.
Considering your opening statement (God is a great and righteous responder, where man has authentic free will.), I think that you'd love reading it!
1way:
So either your an open viewer, or you are not.
wheel: But THAT is not true. "Open-Theism" is something particular. One does not have to be "Open" and agree with what quoted/linked above. When you say above, "either your an open viewer, or you are not" you REALLY mean to say that if you are not an "Open-theist" that you are a "determinist." And that is incorrect.
1way: This is reality here. You can not have it both ways, or half way in-between an either or. There is no half way between an either or, you either are open view, or you or some form of closed view.
wheel: Actually, 1-Way, the "open" view accepts part of what it set out to fight. The "traditional" view (linked above) has the opennes of man's free will, and has "determination" taking the form of God, through his own free love, "determining" himself to give his own Son to die on the Cross just by creating us. The "openness of God is his Love, and the determination is too.
1way: Pray tell then, what part of Calvinism does Open Theism retain? This should be good.
wheel: I didn't mention Calvinism. Just traditional Christianity. I'm not a Calvinist--not even one "point."
.
And, one more thing: No more name-calling!  (as above)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/1/2004 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - Your responses are not approaching the level of discussion I thought we had and certainly hoped for. As long as this will be how you treat me, I'll happily go elsewhere for commensurate respectful discussions. By glancing at every one of your responses, and this is being kind, I would have about 20% correspondence to what I actually said, and about 80% incongruity, but as to contextual conformity to what I said, you get a zero. You make your own messes, I am not in the mood to straighten up what you make crooked. You seem like an interesting person, but, you have to draw the line somewhere, in this case, the decision is only clear. Have fun with your straw men and contextually ripped way of responding.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/1/2004 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
God is a great and righteous responder, where man has authentic free will.
and
quote:
Originally posted by larris
"In that Calvin mistook "The FATES for the FAITH." Gee whiz I sure amust myself sometimes.
"The threads which the Fates spin are so unchageable, that, even if they decreed to someone a kingdom which at the moment belonged to another, and even if that other slew the man of destiny, to save himself from ever being deprived by him of his throne, nevertheless the dead man would come to life again in order to fulfil the decree of the Fates ... He who is destined to become a carpenter, will become one even if his hands have been cut off: and he who has been destined to carry off the prize for running in the Olympic games, will not fail to win even if he broke his leg: and a man to whom the Fates have decreed that he shall be an eminent archer, will not miss the mark, even though he lost his eyesight." [Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 8.7]
BOTH of you would really enjoy what John of Damascus has to say:
quote:
Concerning Free Will and Predestination, by St. John of Damascus
Chapter 25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.
Chapter 26. Concerning Events.
Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.aspx
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/1/2004 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Free will
quote:
The outward impression of virtue is nothing more than conceit. True virtue is the struggle for truth and the deliberate choice of our own free will to become an imitator of Christ. Then, in the words of St. Maximos, "God who yearns for the salvation of all men and hungers after their deification, withers their self-conceit like the unfruitful fig tree. He does this so that they may prefer to be righteous in reality rather than appearance, discarding the cloak of hypocritical moral display and genuinely pursuing a virtuous life in the way that the divine Logos wishes them to. They will then live with reverence, revealing the state of their soul to God rather than displaying the external appearance of a moral life to their fellow-men.
www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8435.asp
"...He (God) does this so that they may prefer to be righteous in reality rather than appearance" ... "They will then live with reverence, revealing the state of their soul to God rather than displaying. . .external appearance."
The Lord is my Shepherd... They rod and Thy staff...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/1/2004 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | laris - Thanks much for the response and insight. I find your observation about simplicity and the nature of truth to be profound and realistic. 
You end up taking a somewhat general overview approach to that whole issue. Which is great. But I also enjoy the specifics as well. So for you, so far, you more clearly reject Calvinistic or classical fate and destiny. And so in that I find huge kinship and bible conformity, and I'm happy for that.
Overview
Foreknowledge and contingency/uncertainty
I find that God's word does not allow for the closed view if you take it all into account and do not interpose upon it the presuppositions of God's immutability and so on. There are really only a few core issues to consider around the issue of the open and closed view. The most central of which is God's foreknowledge, because if God's foreknowledge includes any uncertainty or contingency, then the issue is done and the open view is right. Now, the most central issue for the closed view sort of thinking is classic immutability, the idea that God cannot change in any way. Without that view, the OpenView is pretty much the only reasonable result from scripture.
The closed view says that God is immutable, but God's word often shows God living and responding and changing in sometimes significant ways. I like to approach this issue from the standpoint of divine repentance, because in my view, that issue is not only clear and concise, it is also powerfully conclusive.
Exhaustive foreknowledge demands only one destiny
For the purposes of critical review, lets grant the validity of the claim that God does not change in any way. Such a claim has far reaching implications. To remain consistent with that view, God can never change. There can be no "response" from God, which immediately assumes a state of affairs we call events (in time). Events happen one step at a time, a succession of events. It cannot be as though God had to wait for something to happen, and then figure out what He would do. God cannot change, so He always knew what He would always do. There simply is "no time" to "respond", you only have what actually happens, and the idea is more of one huge pre-scripted fate or destiny, because if anything changed from what God knows will happen, then He would have to "reconsider" things and make appropriate "adjustments" and end up possibly making "alternative plans" and that is simply not possible under their system of thought. So if God can never change at all, then all His plans from all eternity are already locked into one unalterable fate or destiny. And, on top of that, no matter what, no matter how much free will we try to find in that system, no matter what, we MUST accord our lives exactly to that one pre-known and unalterable fate or destiny.
A most interesting question
We already know that the fate part is repulsive to you, but you may somehow think that God still somehow foreknows everything but that at the same time, we all have free will too. But first, let's stick to this one issue about "immutability". So they say that God cannot change at all, so He must necessarily know EVERYTHING He will ever know in an unchanging way, and so if you consistently grant that idea, consider the following question. Can God ever be said to change His mind? That is something that closed viewers absolutely are not allowed to believe in God. They can try to make it "seem" like He changed His mind, but in reality, He always knew exactly what He would in fact do. Sort of like using reverse or child psychology. Say it one way for the sake of the less wise, even though the truth may be quite the opposite in order to get the desired effect.
Mind is a part of your being
A side note here. Your mind is most certainly a part of your being, just like your body or heart or soul is. That might sound pretty elementary, but as we both know, that is often a wonderful part of truth. A change in mind does not mean you are a new and different kind of being, I change my mind all the time, but remain a human (for the most part, chuckles). Obviously it's the same with the person of God. So God can change His mind, change a part of Himself, and remain Himself just like we can.
Biblical example and specific argumentation
Examine the evidence to discover the truth
If they reject and so no, by definition, God can not change, then I'd just ask by which definition, because there are plenty of believers throughout time that believe that God can change. In fact, of interesting note, about 5,500 years enjoy a widespread view that God can and does change, yet only in the last 500 years (since reformation) do we find a widespread view that says He does not change. So I think they beg the question of the immutability of God by simply trying to define Him that way. A truth claim is not true by restating the validity of the claim, you need to evaluate the supporting arguments, and that is exactly where they come up short.
Divine repentance is biblically true
Ok, so if God clearly teaches that He at least some times changes His mind, then the closed view is directly denied for contradicting divine change of mind. So I bring to the table all positive divine repentance teachings for general consideration. It is commonly held that there are certainly some 2 dozen or so examples of "God" "repenting" in scripture, although there may be many more without the use of the word for repenting, not sure though how many.
The Potter and the Clay
As to specifics, consider Jer 18:1-10, especially 7-10 and especially the use of two very special words, "spoke" and "thought". Namely, that God sometimes relents/repents from what He "said" He would do, and or from what He "thought" He would do. For me, that single word "thought" is one of the most outstanding and critical words in the whole bible, yet it rests comfortably in all divine repentance teachings, which are many and consistent. Here's the bottom line on that specific passage. If God can and does (at least sometimes) change His mind over what He said and/or thought He was going to do, then exhaustive foreknowledge of the entire future is not possible. You would have to somehow invalidate or neutralize that teaching if you want to have divine immutability accepted. I suggest that if you read all of God's word about divine repentance, you come away with a contextually rich and very clear message that God does indeed change via divine repentance, and so classic immutability is wrong from the get go.
The Jonah prophecy did not come to pass
Next specific passage to consider is a most efficient demonstration of Jer 18 (the Potter and the Clay) at work in action. And that is Jonah 3 and the first part of 4. Specifically Jonah 3:4, 9,10, 4:2. And most specifically 3:10b where the prophetic scriptures indicate that God repented from the (national) disaster that He said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. The double statement of "God's intended course of action" serves well to highlight that this prophesy of destruction was according to His "intended course of action", it was not just a sly theoretical threat that did not accurately represent what God was going to in fact DO. And that is really enough right there to establish the fact of what actually happened.
But there is more. V.9 says that Nineveh assumed that this prophetic national overthrow was lethal! Yet scripture does not correct against that assumption, instead it is positively accepted thus naturally implying it was accurate. Next, besides the fully sufficient treatment in verse 10, we have several more from the next chapter, 4:2. The prophet admits that he understand and disapproved of God's character over such matters, saying that God has a personal reputation for turning from acting from His anger in favor of lovingkindness, and to repent from doing harm! So these again show unambiguous characterizations and correlations over what actually happened without any correction from God, so we rightly assume that these descriptions truthfully correlate to what happened.
So to sum up, we have the clincher in verse 10, and 3 other direct positively accepted correlations in terms of what actually happened. The prophesy that God repented from bringing to pass, is qualified as being: - a "national disaster" to be "brought upon" them 3:10
- "lethal" 3:9
- from opposing "anger" instead of "lovingkindness" 4:2
- from God's intent to do "harm" 4:2
So we know that it was not a threat only, we know that God did not do what He said He would do which was His previous intended course of action. And yet some contingency was involved to be sure. Naturally it resides in God, because He may repent from doing what He said or thought He would do. The contingency rests in Him and in this case, not in His prophetic message of judgment.
So, in conclusion
Contradicting scripture is bad
I've heard literally hundreds of accounts from many people trying to defend that God never changed His mind in this scenario, and it always boils down to one of two main things IMHO. First and foremost, they void 3:10b of meaning and replace it with nothing, which is pretty serious violence against God's word (even though they may not really be aware they are doing it), and secondly they violate or void of meaning the entire context with is richly and simply provided as demonstrated. The entire story mandates without a doubt that God changed, He even reversed(!), His previous course of action, but because that directly contradicts classic immutability, they reject that entire aspect of this teaching and then just try to ignore it because of their manmade tradition.
Same thing goes for how they treat Jer18 and all positive divine repentance teachings. Once God changes and does not do what He previously thought He was going to do, the game is up, the Closed View is denied through contradiction. To me, this is like step one towards a more bible conforming faith. It certainly does not answer all questions around this issue, but it does wonders against the errant closed view. Thanks much for your time. Looking forward to your response.
Blessings,
1Way
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/2/2004 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | larris - I heard and from the first accepted and understood your reluctance to accept the open view.
Then I responded assuming your view accurately with an attempt to persuade you for the open view, offering you some specific bible reasoning for support.
Then you basically restated that you do not agree with the open view.
I am specifically interested in your response to my bible arguments. Did you actually read my post, I can't tell by your response. Please give it a careful read, I made it specifically for you.
You said quote:
I don't think it's as much a matter of God changing his mind as that he perfoms his word. If God says it, God's gong to do it and he always gives people the choice of life or death, blessing or cursing. Then as they choose one or the other, he hastens to perform what he has already said he would do.
That is what most Christians say. But, I don't believe any of you are consistent with that. Lets plug in your idea into Jer 18 "the Potter and the Clay" and see if how consistent you really are.  God's word says: quote:
Jer 18:7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy [it], 8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
So, through the prophet Jeremiah, the prophetic word was given to him in verses 1-10, but you would not allow God to fulfill that word, because you suggest that God must do what He said or thought He would do. So tell me, why are you being inconsistent here? How do you decide which prophetic words of God are to be considered faithful must be fulfilled and which are not?
How about the following example of a prophecy that God says He did not bring to pass? Do you deny that prophet word as actually coming to pass too? (v.10b that God said He did not do what He said He would do) Consider. quote:
The prophesy first given
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" The prophesy was considered to be a lethal judgment against their nation. 3:9 Who can tell [if] God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? They repented, and then God repented from bringing to pass His prophesy of national disaster, and He did not do it. 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. and God's word shows a correlation of God's actions in the following way. 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, "Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You [are] a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.
So in verse 10, do you accept God's prophetic word there(?) that God reference His spoken prophesy of national destruction in that He repented from bringing that prophesy to pass, and He did not do it. By your response, you seem to be rejecting the teachings that state that God repents and does not always do what He said or thought He was going to do (= divine repentance). | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - Getting back to the original discussion, you said 1Way asks: "So I could take it by your handle that you are an Open Theist... So what do you say? Are you Open or Closed view?"
PotOnWheel answers: Really? That is not the only choice for affirming free will! That is not the point. Then I rightly pressed you for a commensurate answer, and you said alot of stuff but did not answer my question. You pointed me to a determinist-dominated view, but did not give me your view.
I could quote hundreds of views, who cares? I am discussing this issue with YOU. Or are you really that dead guy reincarnated and just pretending to be POW instead?
You started to share your view by granting a part of my view in saying that it is an either or situation, either the future entails at least some contingency or uncertainty, or does it not, to which you agreed, but then you deferred comment as to your view.
You can say you do not know, I am only asking what your view is, not that you must have a cogent understanding one way or the other, you may not be able to express your own evaluation of these things, I can not say, only you can. So please do, preferably in this life.
You said 1way:
So either your an open viewer, or you are not.
wheel: But THAT is not true. "Open-Theism" is something particular. One does not have to be "Open" and agree with what quoted/linked above. When you say above, "either your an open viewer, or you are not" you REALLY mean to say that if you are not an "Open-theist" that you are a "determinist." And that is incorrect. Yes and no, mostly no. I agree that you see the extending arguments that I use for authentic free will. But I am not concerned with who and what causes things, I am specifically and only dealing with yet future contingency and uncertainties. Sorry for throwing man's free will in there, it was a natural but tangent addition. Please, let my question as specifically stated mean what I say it meant, you do not rule sovereign over my thoughts and intentions, ,,, right?
As to determinism and openness, I think you are confusing ideas. Again, openness (open theism) (OV) (whatever) does not mandate that God can not determine anything, it claims that the future holds at least some contingency or uncertainty. Cause and effect is hardly at stake with the open and closed issue.
As to name calling, I'd rather trust and obey God, He appreciates name calling when "called" for. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2004 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Way, I have to say that your rough comments make sharing a thread with you (here and another) very unpleasant. But you keep mentioning me...so here's just one more try.
What follows is the same post I did before, that you took very different from what I was trying to say. So, explanations will be added. (Please pardon the CAPS as that is what I'll use to distinguish the new from the old.)
Here goes:
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
1Way asks: "So I could take it by your handle that you are an Open Theist... So what do you say? Are you Open or Closed view?"
PotOnWheel answers: Really? That is not the only choice for afirming free will!
I'M SAYING THAT THE OPEN-VIEW IS NOT THE ONLY AVAILABLE VIEW THAT HAS "FREE WILL" AS AN IMPORTANT PART. (PRE-PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY VALUES FREE WILL.)
I regard the "Open View" to be an allergic reaction to a calcified form of the "Classical" Western view. As a reaction, it is understandable. But I've found that it retains some of the very things it fights against (As Protestantism retains some of the clericism it fought in Catholicism, etc.).
THIS PARAGRAPH IS AN ASIDE: IT SAYS THAT SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE "CLASSICAL" VIEW GOT PRESERVED IN "OPENNESS" INSTEAD OF BEING ELIMINATED. AGAIN, ITS AN ASIDE--AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE REST OF THIS.
Were these the only two options, perhaps I'd feel choosing was necessary. But the older, Eastern tradition, and pre-scholastic Western tradition makes both "Open" and "Classical" unnecessary.
I'M SAYING THAT I VALUE FREE WILL, AND DON'T NEED THE "OPEN VIEW." THE DETERMINISM OF THE "CLASSICAL" VIEW DOESN'T BOTHER ME, AND THAT IS BECAUSE I HAVE NO NEED TO BORROW FROM IT AT ALL!
My money's on scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the first seven Eccumenical Councils that established the Canon of Scripture.
I THINK THIS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. GOD HAS REVEALED HIMSELF UNTO US. OVER THE COURSE OF THE GROWTH OF THE SCRIPTURES GOD REVEALED MORE AND MORE TO US. AND THE FINAL REVELATION WAS CHRIST JESUS.
I HOPE THAT HELPED. THAT'S ALL I CAN DO. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - While my comments of some disappointment in you for leaning on what seems right in man's eyes may be unpleasant for you to bare in love, but I assure you that you need not be so concerned with the things of man, really. God is good and we are to trust Him even it that means we should go against man sometimes in so doing. Jesus said that if they hated Him they will hate us, so, because the contention between us is clearly over a need to focus on God instead of man, I find comfort that Jesus' word is true and should be all our guides for right living. I see nothing wrong with that even though I see you misrepresent and misunderstand me on significant points, yet I put up with you all the same.
"Judge not" is the hypocrites golden rule, watch yourself, you're playing with fire. In the mean time, try this one on, you who are spiritual judges all things, and judge with righteous judgment, and name calling like hypocrites and blind guides and evil and dogs and swine.
As to your points in all caps.
1
I figured as much.
2
I partly got it and partly did not, but it was all covered in the end. My subjective view cancels out your subjective view, so all that remains is the objective truth of the matter. Back to square one, ready to deal whenever you are.
3
You confused the certain aspects of the open view with classical theism and that is simply wrong. Open theism perfectly allows God to determine some things yet future as being absolutely certain, so like I said I find your evaluation greatly wanting.
4
I heard you, I understood you, you are not addressing my responses. If you have no view on the open and closed view, then I understand, no one says you must have a view one way or the other, but there is only two options as you said, yet to try to invalidate the issue by saying it's a non-issue. The fact remains that either the future is open or it is closed to (at least some) future contingency or uncertainty. Your answer by not being able to affirm the one or the other is an answer of ignorance, you simply do not have a view on the issue. Or if you do, you are being rough or rude with my by leading me on and yet not giving me your answer.
If you can explain how it is that your view makes the open verses the closed view unnecessary (concerning yet future contingency or certainties) then please be my guest. If not, then I suggest that I am right about your attitude and you should at least admit that you do not really have a view one way or the other. But remember, it's like you said, it's an "either or" situation, and so far, you apparently have no corresponding view.
I'll appreciate it if you answer my points of discussion from my previous post to you as well.
BTW, I really like your handle, the Potter and the Clay renounces the closed view wonderfully. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/4/2004 8:37 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Way-
PoW and I have talked a lot through the years here. I’ll tell you what I think. I think PoW is a confused open theist. He sees much of the Western Classical view in what open theists believe and then (subconsciously I think!) makes the mistake of thinking that what there is of the Western tradition he doesn’t agree with is necessary to open theism. I’ve tried to say it many times--one could stand firmly in the Eastern tradition and be an open theist. So everything he says about open theism being an allergic reaction to the classical Western view is beside the point. Besides, if the open view is an allergic reaction to the classic Western view, that’s good in my opinion. The classic Western view should be reacted to and “allergic” is not an entirely bad word to describe the sort of response we ought to have to it. PoW and the entire Eastern tradition “react” to it as noisily as any allergy I’ve ever heard. If he thinks open theists haven’t reacted enough because they retain elements of the classical view, that doesn’t say anything about what his view is regarding what open theist affirm in disagreement with that view.
He’s giving you all smoke screens 1Way. My guess is you're not gonna get a straight answer from him on this. 
George Ladd use to teach at Fuller. (He passed away.) He was a historic premillennialist. People used to say he was a confused amillennialist but just didn’t know it. Adn that's pretty accurate if you ask me. Similarly, I think PoW is a confused open theist but just doesn’t realize it, or may realize it but buries it subconscisly.
Do I get my psychoanalyizing degree now?
1Way, if you were to boil the open view down to a single sentecne or a single question, I think PoW would find a way to dismiss the question as illegitimate.
Let's try it:
PoW, do you believe God knows any true "might and might not" propositions? (A "yes" would necessarily mean one was an open theist, a "no" would necessarily mean one was not an open theist. An "I don't know" would necessarily mean one could not be justified in rejecting the open view, for one would not yet have an opinion on whehter it was true or false.) 1Way, I'll wagger you, eh, a free CVM T-shirt (when they come out with them) that PoW will not answer this question. He will dismiss the question as inappropriate.
Have a nice day.
Tom
PS PoW writes: "My money's on scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the first seven Eccumenical Councils that established the Canon of Scripture."
There is much in the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils to dissagree with. And there is not a single word in them nor in any of the Creeds regarding the nature of God's foreknowledge, the future, nor the manner in which God must be believed to know all things. If one wanted to refer to the Creeds for guidance on the question of open theism, there would be as much a basis for accepting open theism as there is for rejecting it. So there's no help there. You're left with Scripture, PoW, which is a GREAT place to go to discover whether or not God sometimes faces an open future. So, if you're putting your money on Scripture, the Councils, and the Nicean Creed, then all your money is in fact on Scripture. And if you're decidedly not an open theist, then you must have concluded that Scripture nowhere describes God as ever facing an open future. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/4/2004 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, c'mon, you know that we can't give you your psychoanalyzing degree until you send in your $300 bucks. 
But seriously, folks...
Speaking as one who came to Open Theism via Arminianism, it seems to me that anyone who believes in libertarian free will is in fact an Open Theist, whether they realize it or not. That includes anyone and everyone who denies Augustinianism/Calvinism/determinism. So it looks like PoW's in good company.
Which brings up what I think is a very important (if not the most important point) in the whole Openness debate: It seems to me that the most important issue in this debate is NOT the content of God's foreknowledge; it is rather whether or not created beings can affect anything in history, or if we are simply nothing more than flotsam and jetsam on the sea of life.
I realize many determinists follow Edwards' view that we are able to do as we will, but what we will is determined by God; i.e., "soft" determinism, but that truly seems to me to be really no different than "hard" determinism when all is said and done. If someone controls your actions by internal means of forcing your will, that is really more powerful, manipulative, and deceptive than if they controlled your actions by external means (physical coercion).
I was an Open Theist before I ever knew there was such a theological point of view officially. I highly suspect there are many, many more people in the same predicament.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/4/2004 9:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Good point John. And since how we live is the more important point, I'm happy to encourage people who already live like the open view is true to continue living that way. But when THEY see the incompatibility some belief they hold has for living the way they do, then I'm happy to encourage them to adopt new beliefs that make sense of living and praying to impact the world.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
He’s giving you all smoke screens 1Way. My guess is you're not gonna get a straight answer from him on this.
Maybe, maybe not. I've offered two things to the Open-Theist crowd. My FIRST e-mail to Doc Boyd (back when Modes was his research assistant) were the very "open" (And I WOULD say they are; but he would not) possition you now -- and I'm glad to see it. (Of course I equally love you Tom, and enjoy barbing you just a bit. . .But notice I'm putting points on your side of the score-card!) John of Damascus should be considered "Open" in every regard that matters. Its just the *extra* things that speculation-entertainment adds that I'd throw up flags about. The VERY REAL part that Free Will plays in all of creation is that first thing. The second is what I'v eposted from Evdokimov -- and again it was not picked up at first. (But I'd be gratified if it eventually is.) His experssion is that it is God that is "predetermined" through Creating us with Free Will -- predetermining his love to possibly, potenially havgin to take the expression of the Cross. In BOTH of these two ways I am as OPEN (!)  as I am Scandinavian!!!
Tom, as per "Do I get my psychoanalyizing degree now?" the answer is yes!
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Let's try it:
PoW, do you believe God knows any true "might and might not" propositions? (A "yes" would necessarily mean one was an open theist, a "no" would necessarily mean one was not an open theist. An "I don't know" would necessarily mean one could not be justified in rejecting the open view, for one would not yet have an opinion on whehter it was true or false.) 1Way, I'll wagger you, eh, a free CVM T-shirt (when they come out with them) that PoW will not answer this question. He will dismiss the question as inappropriate.
Tom, 1Way does not get the T-shirt. I'd LUMP TOGETHER a combination of the first and the third answers.That is because -- and keep in mind that I just don't use the "might and might not" expression (and that I am a very S L O W learner) that I use. I'm cautiouos about presuming how God "thinks." But I think that God's word-creation-grace isexpressed within time and creation the way your first answer puts it. So, I also wouldn't use the third answer because I don't think that "inappropriate" is right either. (If I've frustrated you more than you believed possible, then either I owe you a tee-shirt from Seatle--here for a wedding--or you owe me a "I visited Beruit, and all they would let me bring through cuxtoms was this." tee-shirt.)
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE (Remember, i defended the OPen view for more than a year on this board.) IS THE IMPIETY OF MAN THINKING THAT WE CAN SPECULATE ABOUT GOD, OR THAT IT IS SAFE. And you, Tom, have taken up that sword and sheid yourself more articualtely than I. So I leave that Task in your able hands!!! You do great. And I thank you for it.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PS PoW writes: "My money's on scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the first seven Eccumenical Councils that established the Canon of Scripture."
There is much in the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils to dissagree with. And there is not a single word in them nor in any of the Creeds regarding the nature of God's foreknowledge, the future, nor the manner in which God must be believed to know all things. If one wanted to refer to the Creeds for guidance on the question of open theism, there would be as much a basis for accepting open theism as there is for rejecting it. So there's no help there. You're left with Scripture, PoW, which is a GREAT place to go to discover whether or not God sometimes faces an open future. So, if you're putting your money on Scripture, the Councils, and the Nicean Creed, then all your money is in fact on Scripture. And if you're decidedly not an open theist, then you must have concluded that Scripture nowhere describes God as ever facing an open future.
So, as above, I am NOT decidedly not an open theist; just not an "OpenTheism-ist."
What I think wise in the Patristic time is the piety of not going further in speculation thatn Faith leads. Modes and I used to both say that it is about knowing God, not about knowing about God. The first has to imform the second. If that is kept straight, then one can be agressive about the second.
Thanks for honoring me with the memory, the attention, the challenge, and the humor, Tom.
Blessings from Seattle. (But I hope the White Sox win today!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Tom, c'mon, you know that we can't give you your psychoanalyzing degree until you send in your $300 bucks.
But seriously, folks...
Speaking as one who came to Open Theism via Arminianism, it seems to me that anyone who believes in libertarian free will is in fact an Open Theist, whether they realize it or not. That includes anyone and everyone who denies Augustinianism/Calvinism/determinism. So it looks like PoW's in good company.
Which brings up what I think is a very important (if not the most important point) in the whole Openness debate: It seems to me that the most important issue in this debate is NOT the content of God's foreknowledge; it is rather whether or not created beings can affect anything in history, or if we are simply nothing more than flotsam and jetsam on the sea of life.
I realize many determinists follow Edwards' view that we are able to do as we will, but what we will is determined by God; i.e., "soft" determinism, but that truly seems to me to be really no different than "hard" determinism when all is said and done. If someone controls your actions by internal means of forcing your will, that is really more powerful, manipulative, and deceptive than if they controlled your actions by external means (physical coercion).
I was an Open Theist before I ever knew there was such a theological point of view officially. I highly suspect there are many, many more people in the same predicament.
Good post, John.
On a Reformed ListSearve I have friends who know and love Jonathan Edwards. and I think they may be neirer to you than some Arminians would suspect.
A lot is present in the theology of groups of people that is there PASTORALLY that might not be suspected by those outside that tradition. But that should not surprise us-- as there is only ONE FAITH. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: Modes and I used to both say that it is about knowing God, not about knowing about God. The first has to imform the second.
Tom: One of the biggest reasons why I went "open."
I'll try to find you a T-Shirt, or a "Lebanon" Starbucks mug.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
POW: Modes and I used to both say that it is about knowing God, not about knowing about God. The first has to imform the second.
Tom: One of the biggest reasons why I went "open."
I'll try to find you a T-Shirt, or a "Lebanon" Starbucks mug.
You are one of the Good Guys, Tom.
BTW -- at a used bookstore by the Univ. of Washington I found a bood of Maximus the Confessor's writing. He's before the East/West split, and though an Easterner "went to the mat" (martyrdom) with a Latin Pope. And he's pre-Schoastic while being one of the most gifted sythetic thinking theologians (comparable to Aquinas) in church history. It contains sections like: "Four Hunder Chapters on Love"; Commentary of the 'Our Father'"; etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/6/2004 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - You said quote:
He's before the East/West split,
Truth is objective and real. It's not about style and ethnical diversity. You have God's word, which is spiritual or eternal truth, then the only other thing you have, is false. Things are either true, or they are false. That is the fact of the matter. So your East/West distinction is meaningless compared to the crucible of the truth of a matter. The truth is what counts, not, which tradition did what, where and why.
BTW, I really like your handle, it represents perhaps the single most persuasive argumentation for the open view! Excellent handle choice, yet sort of ironic that you do not accept the story that indicates that God does not know the entire future exhaustively, i.e. the future holds at least some contingency.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/7/2004 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
POW - You said quote:
He's before the East/West split,
Truth is objective and real. It's not about style and ethnical diversity.
1Way. Judging from your "response" you haven't a clue to what is being said in that quote. Please don't attack what you don't understand. Besides, I wasn't addressing you. OK?
quote:
Originally posted by 1way
You have God's word, which is spiritual or eternal truth
Yes, I do. I read scripture. And so do a lot of other people. Even some who lived long ago.
.
1Way. Don't you commit the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor? That's God's word.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/7/2004 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - If I used your logic and reasoning against you, we would both be lost in a world of subjectivism. What matters more than style and personal opinion, is the truth.
I said nothing wrong in my post and dispite you quoting much of my post that you objected to, you specifically did nothing to dissuade me from what I said.
Please do not judge me wrongly.
Here is the bottom line. I see you constantly focusing on man's tradition as opposed to God's word. You rarely share a discrete thought over what God's word means, but if it's what man has said, you could explain your thoughts for chapters... Your focus is off base, though perhaps your intent is for God. Be well, do right, trust and obey God, focus on Him more than you do man.
And then let your words, which is a window into the treasure in your heart, become congruent with that focus. Like a child looks to and listens to his father, so should you stop going to the neighbors in order to better understand your own father, listen to what God says you should believe more so than man.
That has been my consistent and reasonable objection, and I say all that with consistent godly caring for you and all who are like you. If you reject that, then you are rejecting my sincere love in Christ, and I would hope that you would not be so hard hearted.
Again, I do not object to people sharing about God, but when it comes time to faith conformity, it's to be toward God's word, not man's, you keep founding your belief's by pointing to man instead of God's word, and that is a wrong emphasis.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:05 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|