 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/23/2003 1:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | okay peoples it's time to chill!!!!
Whether or not OVTheism is right in its rejection of Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge for God matters because it is a matter of truth. I.e., on this theological point Boyd and Calvin can't both be right. It also matters because it demonstrates the fallible nature of how we do theology, irregardless of how logically consistent we seek to be.
It also matters because theologies often serve as psychic balms. They put to rest in our minds uncertainties and help us cope with the tragedies we confront in our lives. The predominant understanding of Calvinism, as I understand it, denies the reality of evil in our world. OVTheism potentially undermines the psychic balm feature of theology since we can no longer trust that there is a reason....
As such, I join OVTheism in rejecting the use of spatial metaphors to time and affirming the reality of evil. I believe the reality of evil is more pragmatically coped with from a world-view that focuses on the problem of order and aligns it with the reality of fallibism or the need for us to work things out without regard to an infallible blueprint.
So that is why it matters to me...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/23/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Earp - I DO know what Open Theists believe- at least the Greg Boyd version. And I know it is that God knows the future as possibilities, and not as exhaustively determined.
There, is that better???
Thanks. Yes, that is an accurate representation of the Open view. When people say OVT says "God doesn't know the future," they are simply incorrect. I didn't think you would you rather that I allow you to continue to incorrectly state the Open view.
My conclusion that you were in fact closed to the Open View is simply and only based on what I have gathered from your posts here. I am sorry if my comments with regard to your mind came across as arrogant. They were definitely not intended in that way.
As to the eternal outcome of Calvin's life, based on his theology that makes God the author of sin (however much Calvin may have tried to deny this), as well as his persecution of many (not only Miguel Servetus, a trailblazing physician and surgeon, though of course a heretic) who disagreed with him, and his abuse of political power to attempt to coerce others to consent to his interpretation of the Christian faith, all considered, lead me to greatly doubt that he was in fact a true Christian. Not being omniscient, I of course cannot say 100% for certain, but Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them," and "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, in that you have love one for another."
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/23/2003 9:41:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2003 2:26 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: The predominant understanding of Calvinism, as I understand it, denies the reality of evil in our world.
PoW: How you came up with THAT one really flamboogles me.
Calvin was a big one in recognizing "the Antithesis."
quote:
Heidelberg Catechism Q. 34. Wherefore callest thou him "our Lord"?
A. Because he hath redeemed us, both soul and body, from all our sins, not with silver or gold, but with his precious blood, and has delivered us from all the power of the devil; and thus has made us his own property. (a)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/24/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp writes:
quote:
When people say OVT says "God doesn't know the future," they are simply incorrect.
Would you accept ". . . Open Theism, which denies God's unlimited absolute foreknowledge" as correct? This is a phrase from a talk given by Roger Olson at a conference on "Salvation in Christ" held at Brigham Young University in April 2002. (Go to
www.byubroadcasting.org/salvationinchrist/real/episode113.ram
and scroll forward to the 13:15 mark.) Olson seems to be friendly with Open Theists, or at least with John Sanders, with whom he hung out for most of the conference.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris Grant
quote:
Would you accept ". . . Open Theism, which denies God's unlimited absolute foreknowledge" as correct?
What is "unlimited, absolute foreknowledge"?
Define it, please.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/24/2003 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What is "unlimited, absolute foreknowledge"?
Define it, please.
Was it incorrect of Roger Olson to make that statement in his talk without going on to include definitions of those terms?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
What is "unlimited, absolute foreknowledge"?
Define it, please.
Was it incorrect of Roger Olson to make that statement in his talk without going on to include definitions of those terms?
Don't I have to know the definition first?
Do believe it was right to leave multiple inheritance out of Java?
Edited by - Laika on 07/24/2003 11:28:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/24/2003 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
quote:
What is "unlimited, absolute foreknowledge"?
Define it, please.
Was it incorrect of Roger Olson to make that statement in his talk without going on to include definitions of those terms?
Don't I have to know the definition first?
You have to know the definitions of the terms Olson used in order to know if it was incorrect of Olson to use those terms without giving their definitions?
I sense an infinite regress coming on.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Was it incorrect of Roger Olson to make that statement in his talk without going on to include definitions of those terms?
Yes, it was incorrect for Roger Olson to make that statement without including his defintions of those terms.
Your original question was:
quote:
Would you accept ". . . Open Theism, which denies God's unlimited absolute foreknowledge" as correct?
To this I answered, "what are his definitions of 'unlimited absolute foreknowledge'?"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Yes, it was incorrect for Roger Olson to make that statement without including his defintions of those terms.
What if he had included definitions of those terms, but had failed to include definitions of the terms used to define those terms? Would that have been incorrect?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: un·lim·it·ed
Pronunciation: -'li-m&-t&d
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : lacking any controls : UNRESTRICTED
2 : BOUNDLESS, INFINITE
3 : not bounded by exceptions : UNDEFINED
- un·lim·it·ed·ly adverb
Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve
Date: 14th century
1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie>
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb>
4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>
5 : POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE <absolute proof>
6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time <absolute electric units> c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero <absolute temperature>; specifically : KELVIN <10° absolute>
7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE <absolute knowledge>
8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>
9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music>
10 : being the true distance from an aircraft to the earth's surface <absolute altitude>
- absolute noun
Main Entry: fore·know
Pronunciation: (")fOr-'nO, (")for-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fore·knew /-'nü, -'nyü/; fore·known /-'nOn/; -know·ing
Date: 14th century
: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation
synonym see FORESEE
- fore·knowl·edge /'fOr-"nä-lij, 'for-; (")fOr-'nä-, (")for-/ noun
So, Laika, from these definitions, and the context in which we are speaking, I think you can figure out what Roger Olson meant. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt is Roger Olson?
quote:
So, Laika, from these definitions, and the context in which we are speaking, I think you can figure out what Roger Olson meant.
Why do you list your name as Gina Lombardo, Roger?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Roger Olson, does God know the names of all the unicorns on earth?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | Laika, It's impossible to communicate with you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika, It's impossible to communicate with you.
Well, pick up a book on logic sometime and give it a go.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't appreciate whatever it is you're trying to do. Don't bother responding to me- I am done trying to communicate with you.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I don't appreciate whatever it is you're trying to do. Don't bother responding to me- I am done trying to communicate with you.
I've been ignoring you. Who forced you into this thread?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Boyd made some sort of differentiation on the Immutability thread between "Time" (our time) and some sort of "Sequence" (which is at the very least defined as "not our time"). As I see it, "our time" is characterized by decay, at least.
quote:
unlimited absolute foreknowledge
Now, I don't consider God to be at all limited either with respect to WITHIN TIME or as totally separate from the temporal reality of the Creation. I accept God as equally ascribable (nice word) BOTH ways: involved with creation energetially by the Spirit, and not interacting with us in his essence. ACTING Personally, and Personally interTrinitarian. But these two things don't mix.
What has struck me increasingly as odd is this word "foreknowledge." As Evdokimov points out "fore" can only be something done WITHIN time. So this is true: That when God foreknew us to be in Christ that is a statement focusing attention within creation. It is not a statement about the Eternal Word/Son. It is a statement about the conjuction of us and our Head, joined together, and definitely within time.
What strikes me as OVERKILL, and perhaps just wrong, is the EXCLUSIVITY the phrase "unlimited absolute foreknowledge" seems to have in DENYING God to know anything "a-temporally" and in so doing to "trap God in time." (Which seems ironic!!!)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
give Gina a break! At an ultimate level, the decision to be an OVTheist or not is not a matter of logic.
Gina, I was hoping to hear back from you regarding my earlier post about the psychic balm uses of theology.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/24/2003 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm with DLW. Give RD a break Laika! For Pete's sake. I hope you continue to ignore her as you say you are. I prefer not to read your acrimonious sarcasm.
Chris Grant, I've been wondering. Your email is a BYU address. Are you a student or professor there? What are the links between Mormonism and open theism, if any? I've read you mention a couple times about a Mormon speaker on open theism. Would like to know your thoughts. Thanks.
Will get back to you re: Roger Olson.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/24/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Chris Grant, I've been wondering. Your email is a BYU address. Are you a student or professor there? What are the links between Mormonism and open theism, if any?
I teach at BYU (and am Mormon). As to the relationship between Mormonism and Open Theism, let me break things up into categories and be as brief as I can. (I can elaborate later if anyone's interested.)
(1) Scriptures: Mormons have books that they consider scriptural in addition to (but not in place of) the Bible. In these extra scriptures are some statements that seem to affirm God's exhaustive knowledge of the future more explicitly (perhaps) than the Bible.
(2) Church leaders: During my lifetime (40 years), I've heard Church leaders affirm God's exhaustive foreknowledge many times--I'm in the middle of compiling their statements to that effect--, and I've not heard a single statement from them questioning it. Things are less clear if you go back to the early years of the Church when, among statements affirming God's foreknowledge, some statements about God's knowledge progressing can be found.
(3) Philosophers and Theologians: Most enthusiasm for OT-type positions I see among Mormons comes from philosophers/theologians like David Paulsen and Blake Ostler. I'm not attracted to their speculations on this and other issues, and I see no evidence that Church leaders put any stock in their ideas.
(4) Apologists: Recently I have read some enthusiastic statements about Open Theism among self-appointed defenders of the Mormon faith like Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley. I like a lot of the stuff these guys write, and so have been disappointed by their quasi-endorsement of Open Theism. These guys are constantly doing battle with Christian anti-Mormons, and it's hard for me not to see their enthusiasm for Open Theism as stemming from the maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; perhaps they think that the Open Theists provide them with a weapon to use against classical theism and don't care if that weapon happens to be toxic to Mormonism, too.
(5) Rank and File Mormons: Mormon Philosopher James Faulconer has written: "Historically, most Latter-day Saints have taken the . . . position [that] everything is foreseen and freedom remains." In my regular interactions with rank and file Mormons that are active in the Church, I would say that not only do "most" of them agree with this but that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them do. The closest thing to an expression of sympathy for Open Theism that I can ever remembering hearing in a Mormon religious service came from my own lips when I answered a Sunday School teacher's question about God's omniscience with the statement: "He knows everything that can be known." I was a teenager then and have since repented. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm with DLW. Give RD a break Laika! For Pete's sake. I hope you continue to ignore her as you say you are. I prefer not to read your acrimonious sarcasm.
Then stay in the shallow end of the pool. No one is forcing you to read my posts.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/24/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Chris Grant
Sekai juu de neko wa mina shiroi aru deshou ne?
Is this correct or not?
You see, in order to verify whether something is correct or not, you need to understand the language, don't you?
Words like "unlimited", "absolute" and "foreknowlege" are heavily charged words. I was curious what Roger Olson's meaning of those words were before I answered that loaded question.
For example, "unlimited". In respects to what? "Unlimited" regarding logic? "Unlimited" regarding necessity of existence?
God knows the names of all the unicorns on earth? Out of necessity He has to know names for things that don't exist?
God knows the sizes of all square circles? God has to know all the illogical, silly things?
If He doesn't know some of this stuff, is His knowlege limited? I don't think so.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/24/2003 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika: you keep on going. You have the right to post just as others have the right not to read you.
RD is not Roger Olsen. Having dialogued with him on another bulletin board, I can tell you from personal experience that he is much more sympathetic to and understanding of open theism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/24/2003 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | A Mormon on this website. AHHHHH the rumors will abound...
| | Back to Top | | |
| 95 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 PM (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 |
|
|