 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 6:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | Author Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
DanielPratt
05/14/01 1:42 AM
Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a couple of you know, I have inquired many questions pertaining to the recent death in my family. But since my time spent in this discussion board I have learned a lot about these different topics, while most of it is out of my reach. That Naturalist Truth guy is especially intriguing, especially since I am more persuaded by his argument. And that's mostly because all you guys seem to do is call him names and treat him like he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm glad that you didn't treat me that way. Guess it's good that you call this whatever "ministries" 'cause it's sure fulfilling your purpose, promoting a relativistic faith that satisfies the individual mind regardless of whether it is consistent or not. But take it from a confused (or agnostic as you like to call it) individual, that this "open theism" is nothing like the faith of my cousin or the Christianity of the people in his church that I've grown up with but never adopted. It's just your own way of making a god that will suit your needs whether he's in the Bible or not, only so that you'll be a little less miserable. I hope to somehow find the truth, unless it's a relative as yours.
Disappointed,
As a couple of you know, I have inquired many questions pertaining to the recent death in my family. But since my time spent in this discussion board I have learned a lot about these different topics, while most of it is out of my reach. That Naturalist Truth guy is especially intriguing, especially since I am more persuaded by his argument. And that's mostly because all you guys seem to do is call him names and treat him like he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm glad that you didn't treat me that way. Guess it's good that you call this whatever "ministries" 'cause it's sure fulfilling your purpose, promoting a relativistic faith that satisfies the individual mind regardless of whether it is consistent or not. But take it from a confused (or agnostic as you like to call it) individual, that this "open theism" is nothing like the faith of my cousin or the Christianity of the people in his church that I've grown up with but never adopted. It's just your own way of making a god that will suit your needs whether he's in the Bible or not, only so that you'll be a little less miserable. I hope to somehow find the truth, unless it's a relative as yours.
Disappointed,
Dan Pratt
*this is the same as the last message, only the title is right on this one
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
boydreamer101
05/14/01 3:17 AM
glass darkly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because things seem relative and subjective does not mean that they are...it may simply mean that here for now we see through a glass darkly...we simply cannot know some things...now you've entered a group of people who all think they know what they believe....on an impersonal internet...i would suggest to you that most people say what they say b/c they will never see the person...don't let anyone else put a damper on christianity...the only important thing is that you....you as an individual try to experience christ....nothing that we say, no matter how convicted we are can do anything for you in comparison to what christ will do for you. You might ask how can i know this? I can't assure you of that...you just have to give it a whirl...kierkegaard said that people will either encounter christ or be offended. Amen....don't let us pissants get in the way of YOU and CHRIST..thats all that matters....us relating to an absolute...objectivity cannot be had in most areas....what would we need faith for? I suggest that you maybe not invest as much time on this sort of website and maybe try actively pursuing a relationship....just get out there and try to encounter christ...its all up to you...no matter of theology or relativistic sounding christian theo discussion will bring you to the truth....you have to find it for yourself...dare i say that? You'll know what i mean when you find it! peace-adam
sounds paradoxical doesn't it?! I assure you that a relationship with christ has been real for me, and i humbly sumbit that it could be for you...just try looking for it outside of this website or any theology discussion..it'll only t ya off...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
boydreamer101
05/14/01 3:18 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH BUT THERE IS ONE CONSISTENT THING I WANT TO MENTION...WE ALL AGREE AND PRESUPPOSE THAT CHRIST IS REAL IN OUR LIVES AND THAT A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD IS A RAD THING....peace-an umpa lumpa
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/14/01 7:22 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dan,
Sorry to hear about the recent death in your family. I pray that God would meet you in the midst of your grief and draw you closer to him. And I pray that God would surround you with discerning and faithful friends who can help you process this tragedy. And I pray that as you search the Scriptures, God would speak to you in an unmistakeable voice. Blessings and Peace to you, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
05/14/01 9:38 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan said: "... relativistic faith that satisfies the individual mind regardless of whether it is consistent or not"
First off, I want to state that I really appreciate your sensitivity to the name-calling that sometimes happens during discussions on this board. I personally have seen this board as a means of challenging my ideas about God, but the underlying message that needs to be conveyed and practiced when we relate to one another is that Jesus loves and accepts people right where they are at and that is what we are called to do also. When people name-call I have a hard time seeing the love of God being portrayed. I really wish people could be a bit more sensitive and respectful.
As far as the open view goes, I find that predestination doesn't cut it for me. If God knows a persons destination before they are even born... then why create a person in the first place who is inevitably going to perish in hell? To me this is not love which I know is the character of God. Many times the people who turn against God do so because they have experienced so much pain in their life that they attribute it all or mostly to God's doing. I don't see the open view as being a means of "making God less miserable:, as you stated, but rather for me it's a logical way of explaining how it is that we can truly call Him an all-loving God. He doesn't know every detail of our future, (due to freewill), but He is definitely, TOTALLY on our side even when it wouldn't seem the case. I guess I just don't see the discussions as being "relative" I see them as exploring to come to a deeper understanding. The open view is not relative -- it is a way to understanding God.
God's blessings on you,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/14/01 11:22 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: I, too, am sorry that you have had a death in your family and also that you have seen the "bad" side of how many of us react. But I am wondering: did you notice that many of us apologized and were sorry for how we acted? I feel it is only fair that, too, be worked into the mix of your thinking.
It seems to me that many come to the "mix" of Christianity with the notion that we have it all together and that we are on the same page with our God and everything is worked and fine, as if somehow we live in a different world than most. I would like to say that that is simply the prejudices of the world and how it views us, but I have found it to be a combination of both. Sometimes we do act like that. On the other hand, many times those on the "outside" seem to feel that a person can't point to the way unless they have it altogether. But Christians are not usually together, they simply have found the God who is together. There is a major difference.
While I appreciate many of your comments, I would suggest to both you and Natural that you study open theism fully before judging it. Particularly in the case of open theism, there are many misconceptions about what it does and does not entail and it is only through dilegent study that we find the truth. Oh, for myself, I don't have a ministry. I simply parent my children.
Finally, about Natural: I think people tend to get irritated in general when people make general, blanket statements about what they believe. While it doesn't excuse the reaction it does give some understanding to it. I believe natural doesn't really know much about open theism and he has basically shown himself (so far), not willing to get into an indepth discussion about open theism, prefering (it seems) to answer quick questions and has not really entered into anything of substance.
Finally (again), your judgment of open theism sounds more emotional than intellectual. Have you actually read up on what we believe? Are you interested in doing so? Personally, I am deeply sorry that you see this as a bad experience. But "your own way of making a god that suits your needs." I find that a statement lacking any merit whatsoever. I hope that you will take the time to fully investigate open theism on its merits. And I pray that God may bring you healing. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/14/01 6:42 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicely put WriterDad!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Yofu
05/14/01 8:16 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
I am sympathetic to OV theism, but do not accept it wholesale.
I am more interested in what you said about your family's church. You spoke of their faith in very positive terms! If you wouldn't mind, could you tell us more about them? What is the positive which you see in that church?
I am not concerned for whether their theology is correct - I just want to know what it was about your experience with them that let you know that they have something that many on this board may not.
Thanks!
-Yofu
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
DanielPratt
05/14/01 9:59 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all of your comments. So I decided to actually take some of you up on your challenge and I did some study on your open view theology. I noticed that one of the replies to my comments was from Greg Boyd (if it was really him), whose book, "God of the Possible," I actually decided to read. My uncle referred it to me as my uncle is the pastor of my deceased cousin's church. He's Calvinist, but hungry for knowledge, and we've had great discussions in the light of his son's death. I'm also kinda what some would call a "knowledge geek" and so I couldn't put it down. My past in going to church growing up at least helped give a little padding to what I read. And quite frankly, I didn't like it. Making God in the image of man, Mr. Boyd, that's all I have to say. You have no Biblical basis. The Bible I looked at translated your precious verses in a different way. Maybe I'll even pick up "Letters to a Skeptic" being that's what I seem to be. But I'm a skeptic that's more intrigued by the REAL God of the Bible, my cousin's God, who knows everything there is to know, which includes our "free actions." I love philosophy, and even classical philosophy tells us that ultimate reality can only exist in God. Don't keep on appealing to my ignorance of the subject, or I will have to begin to appeal to your ignorance of the Bible.
With eagerness,
Daniel
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Yofu
05/14/01 11:24 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel, where are you at right now? What do you believe, or not believe, right now, if anything?
What do you think teh notion "God" is all about?
What do you think about the claims of christianity regarding jesus christ?
Thanks for your answers...
Yofu
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
05/14/01 11:28 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: if you feel someone is being ignorant about the God of the Bible because they believe in open theism and you think we are making God in the image of man with our "previous verses," show us where. Bring it on, that's all I got to say. Talk the talk, then walk the walk. I'm not afraid to debate it, if you want to do more than make statements that basically state that we are miss interpreting the Bible. Pick a verse and bring it on. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/15/01 1:19 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I don't know the Bible as much as the rest of you. Of course, I grew up with John 3:16 and the other catch-alls, but I guess I learned a little from spending enough time with my family. I am much more of a philosophy nerd, but I've also gotten into the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo and even some of Jonathan Edwards' psychological works.
To tell you what I believe: I believe in a God, and I even believe that he created the earth (different from the formerly mentioned naturalisttruth), and I believe in Jesus. Was he a great teacher or the Son of God? I don't know how to approach this, but I am pretty sure that there is one God, and if my philosophical learning has done anything, I have come to believe that there is one objectively true God, not many ways to him (i.e. Buddah, Allah, or Krishna all ways to God). I just want to know if Christ is the one as testified by the Bible. So this is why I reject your open theology, since I believve that, no, you all do not believe in Christ as your one common trait, but your God is fundamentally, characteristically, and consistently different.
I know you have been a bit frustrated with my comments that seem blunt and close-ended, and for that I ask you to forgive me. I know better than to throw out a comment without backing it (debate team taught me that). So, while I don't think I can really compare to the knowledge represented on this website, I want to learn, question, and be convicted of truth.
Here's one of my arguments with regards to the Bible:
Dr. Boyd's use of the denial of Peter makes me ponder this argument's validity. Of course God knows Peter's character. It is wierd to say that God anticipated what Peter would do, but here's the real kicker for me: that God "we do not need to make sense of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial." Does this imply that Christ dictated something to God, so God made it happen (which undermines what the Bible says about not telling God what to do- something brough up at my cousin's funeral, interestingly enough). To say that God does not know, but only guesses based upon what we do makes humans sovereign, right? I don't know if that's a word that I can use, but it's one that seems to fit who God is to many Christians, but it is something that is impossible for him to be to an adherent to open theology.
Forgive me if this is a small argument, as I am sure that you can outdo me. Just be patient. Thanks.
With Enjoyment,
Dan Pratt
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/15/01 11:38 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: I do not understand the nature of your argument about Peter. Is there a word missing from the sentense, God "we do not need to make sense of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial."?
I did want to drop a couple of things down for you to think about: First, to Christians, Jesus is part of the Trinitarian God. Jesus is God. Another place he said the Father and I are one. Therefore, Jesus wouldn't dictate to God, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would do something in conjunction together. It is important to remember this when dealing with Jesus as a man. I do not know if you consider yourself a Christian, but the Christian church as affirmed the Trinity throughout its history and that is what it believes to be the nature of God.
Second, as an open theist I believe that God knows everything that can be known. The debate centers not on what God doesn't know but the substance of what can be known. Thomas Aquinas first argued that God can do everything logically possible, but there are certain things that are logically impossible to do and thus even God cannot do them. For instance, as (I believe) Doc says in his book God of The Possible, God cannot make a married bacholar. He cannot make a sqaure circle. These are logical contradictions. The argument proceeds from there that God cannot know truly free decisions because truly free decisions are not knowable. They do not exist.
Finally, I did want to bring up this point: it seems to me from your posts that you have stated several times that you don't know the Bible as well as us and at the same time you seem to be pretty strongly convinced that open theism is wrong and wrong biblically? How do you feel this is possible, for they seem kind of contradictory statements? I mean, it would seem to me that if you believe open theism is wrong biblically, you would know the Bible well enough to be able to depend your case. But you seem to be saying the opposite.
It seems to me that, given you characterize yourself as a philsophy nerd, that that would seem to be where your beliefs of God are coming from, and that that is dictating how you view the God of the Bible. Is this a correct assessment? John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/15/01 1:14 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments, writerdad.
To clarify, yes, there was a bit of a typo in my quote from Dr. Boyd's book. Just take out "God" from the sentence and it'll make sense.
If I'm not mistaken, it seems that you get your open view of God from a philosophical view. So why is mine less valid? There's not as much Bible in "God of the Possible" as a "biblical introduction" should allow, but it seems strongly based upon philosophical reasoning. And, if you don't mind, I'd like the discussion to sit on philosophy for a time.
You say that reality cannot be known because it is not knowable. To humanity it is not knowable, we know this. But to God? Why does our reality dictate his knowledge? Funny you mention Thomas Aquinas, because he taught that reality existed in God's mind before it existed in things or in man's mind. Do you believe God is eternal? Do you believe that in him is ultimate reality? Can all reality be known? In Kantian philosophy the only ultimate reality exists in God, and we are incapable of knowing that. Openness theologians don't give God even that credit. But then you will say that God's love is what dictates these things. I hope you understand that it is hard to trust in a God who learns from a dirty person like me and who is careless enough to let a drunk driver swerve into the wrong lane and kill a bunch of kids. There is no need to ask why to a God like that. I've been reading the Bible a lot lately, whenever I can, and I notice that God kills people. He kills people for his purpose. It just fits, doesn't it? That a loving God is also just and can decide who to kill and who not to. I understand your trinitarian views through my reading of Saint Augustine. So the dictation I understand.
But then you talk about historicity in the Christian faith. Open Theists would have been burned at the stake by even the indulgence-selling Catholics. Dr. Boyd believes that we are moving closer and closer to the right theology. But why do we need theology if philosophy will create a God we need instead?
And by the way, you are on the defensive, stop arguing my logic, you've got the burden of proof. Convince me of why you're right, not why I'm wrong. I'm the one going to hell unless God changes his mind, remember?
Disdained,
Daniel
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/15/01 3:29 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: first off, I did not say that reality cannot be known, I said choices. There is a difference. Second, it is YOUR view that there isn't much Bible in God of The Possible. I would completely disgree. It seems to me that you have a lot of anger about what happened. Why are you bringing it down on the view of open theism? It seems to me that you are looking for an avenue to vent your anger over what happened and since you believe open theism is wrong, it seems you feel you can make just about any comment on it that you wish. But I am not really interested in philosphical debate. You put the opus down that you didn't believe it was scriptural (which, again, I find odd coming from someone who has admited that he isn't that well versed in scripture). So I will take a pass in getting involved in a philsophical debate with you on the merits of the open view of God. But if you want to debate the biblical reasons why, I would be more than willing.
Going back to an earlier thing I touched on, I am sorry about your loss. But, to me your beef is with God in general, not the open view of God. I would suggest you try and figure out who you believe God is (or isn't), then try and reconcil with that. I understand where you are coming from...I lost a very dear person last year, which made me search the scriptures and study who I believe God is. Through that I came to believe the open view is the truest view of the God of the scriptures and that is why I hold that view. I believe we need theology because theology is all about God. It is the study of God.
Finally, "there is no need to ask why to a God like that." Read the Psalms. They questioned God everyday. As I said, I think you need to find out who God is to you, then try and deal with him. But, personally, I think you are using open theism to vent on. And it is God you should be talking to. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/15/01 3:32 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick point Daniel: "I'm the one going to hell unless God changes his mind..." please, try not to made cardboard cutouts of people's faith, okay? Maybe you are mad at God, but there are many out there who sincerely believe. Have a little respect for what others believe...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/15/01 4:57 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I find out who God is to ME, then is he different to you? I said earlier that I know for sure that God is objectively true. Logic yields that information. I can see a huge difference between your god and my cousin's God. What if I believe him to be the God of hard-core Calvinism? Then are our "gods" different? I am not gunning on you, I'm just telling you that you are wrong. Even a Muslim or a Jew knows that. Yeah, surprise, I know religion. I've searched the scriptures of a hundred religions in my short life and you know what? Christianity is it. It's true. I guess I'm more familiar with the Bible than I have admitted, but being intimidated by those who know it better has kept me from using it. Right now something keeps me from Christianity. Maybe it's all the division. Now I have to decide which Christianity is true. Augustine's or Boyd's? Or is Christianity what we should call it now? So many questions, and quite frankly, you have been a great help, writerdad. But I don't want this discussion to end. I just want to know why you believe this. Can you tell me in an epistemological fashion barring all "Boyd says this" and "the Bible says that" and tell me as if we had no scripture and you had to explain. I understand if you don't want to, most people can't.
thanks
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/15/01 4:59 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. What does MY going to hell have anything to do with respect for YOUR beliefs? Don't you believe in hell? Sheesh, don't tell me there's a new way of looking at that one, too.
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/16/01 1:11 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: I am sure I could give you reasons for the existance of God aside from the Bible, but I am sure that you already know them so what's the point? But, no, I cannot give you reasons for why I believe in open theism aside from the Bible because that is what the Bible teaches (your view not withstanding...actually, I have calvinists tell me the same thing all the time...so it ain't no big deal).
I am glad to hear you believe in the God of Christianity. I will say this (and I have told calvinists this in all sincereness): if believing in calvinism gets you into heaven, keeps you worshipping God and keeps you drawing closer to God, then stay with it. We are not saved by how we view free will, or by what we believe as far as baptism or any such stuff. We are saved by Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
I do not believe Boyd or Augustine are different versions of Christianity. Both are Christians. I simply believe Augustine got some things wrong (I am sure Doc would tell you he probably has gotten some things wrong as well). But he also got things right as well, so he is just like the rest of us.
I encourage you to keep seeking. And I'll do my best to answer as best as I can.
I did want to add that, yes, in the Bible God kills people. He judged the Israelities in the desert and sent plagues on the Egyptians. Believing in God means accepting some things that can be hard to swallow. This much is true. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/16/01 1:13 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for that one...it was not meant to be posted...I was simply writing some test words and I hit the post button and as I was waiting my daughter needed something and I forgot about it...how's that for the excuse of the month (true, though). Anyway, I apologize.
--
DanielPratt
05/16/01 9:48 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey writerdad and anyone else reading this.
I'm disappointed to know that you will not give me an overview of open theism apart from the Bible. I understand that the existence of God is evident without the Bible. This much is true. But not his sovereignty or openness? I think that any Christian should be able to give an account for their faith apart from the Bible. It's part part of proper epistemological argumentation. What if some kid DIDN'T believe the Bible is true? Do you attack that belief first and put him on the defensive, or do you tell him why God is real anyway?
And if Augustine is wrong, then so are the revered Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, as it seems that they followed the same pattern, not to mention numerous other theologians of the past including the reformers and Princetonians. That's a lot of wrong people. More than some cult that makes its people drink kool-aid. You're saying that now, the openness view has it right finally. Is there a history of openness theology or is it new in the past 20 years? I'd like to know.
And by the way, take a look at Dr. Boyd's doctoral dissertation. It's on the trinity. You can find it online. Very interesting takes on your Christian triune God. But I'm sure you'd agree with him regardless.
With Sincerity,
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Hanania777
05/16/01 9:49 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hola,
I am trying to figure out if anything actually got resolved. Dan, I was a debater in high school, and as a result have developed a love for philosophy. Perhaps it has gone more into obsession, but I have used it to help explain my faith in times of distress. So, if you would like, we can go all out, and I could probably hold my own.
All truth is God's truth, and as I study the word some philospher is close by to assure of it's logical sense. Then, when I study philosphy, the Bible is opened to check of it's accuracy. While this doesn't have anything to do with anything, I thought it would be a good start since both you guys have had a head start (Currently I am studying to be a pastor/lawyer, I don't know why)
There are a few points that I thought ought be brought out since neither of you answered each other, I was wondering what were your points.
First, DAD, you have constantly attacked Dan for not having a full understanding of the scripture. You continue to direct him towards giving scriptural reference for his claims against open-view. I have noticed that you also have not readily given huge amounts of Verses that prove your side, while the burden of proof does lie in your court. You have made refrences to Boyd, and his book, but again this is not evidence. Also, you seem to constantly avoid philosphy all together. I was wondering as to why that is?
One noted place is in your dealing with the dictation of Jesus to God. You were quick to bring up that they are all the same, so technically that wasn't the case. In retrospect, you would also have to argue they are also seperate. After all, the whole idea of the trinity is them being seperate and same. So, if they were seperate as well, then the open-view would have to address this issue. It is the only logical step in the argument, and so I want to hear your opinion. Mind you, I know how you'll answer the same aspect to the trinity, now I want to know how you'll answer the seperate issue.
You also make known that a key idea behind open-view is the idea of knowing the future, and knowing a situation are different concepts. Please tell me how. As in the understanding of me, what I decide to do is directly related to the future. I decide to drive in a car, and so I do it. Granted, I may not know that I would get into a car accident, (sorry dan, I have had a VERY close friend die in one), but I decided to be there. At the same time, another person decided to get drunk, and drive. The two decisions crossed paths, and tragedy was brought out. Think about this logically...
How could I know that an accident would ensue involving me and another person if I didn't know that I would choose to drive that night. It would make more sense to say that the future cannot be known, but choices can. Then again, it seems illogical. When looking through eyes of logic, your idea cannot be supported. Why should I, or anyone else trust an idea that fails inherent logic?
I am very sorry, but in this arena, you need to play by Dan's rules. He is the one with the questions, and you don't shove square pegs into a slot that is round. Dan has noted that he feels more comfortable using philosphy to answer questions then theology, and it is easy to see why. Face it, philosophy may be something that he knows, and for him, it is the only thing that can be trusted. From an outside view, Christians do have different gods. One person says his god knows all, while the other person says that his doesn't. Not very logical. His beef may be with God, but unless you are a psychologist, I wouldn't make that synopsis for fear that you may become contradictory.
As for you Dan, I will not even try to relate, but all I ask is to work with me here. I am one who has seen the arguments of open-theism, and I don't beleive. For me, it seems that they really are not giving enough credit to God, but also, they are giving more power to themselves. What I really want to know is how you can beleive that Christianity is correct, but then back away sheepishly.
In reading your comments, you have really good ideas coming out, but then, you back away and fail to complete. Please, state what it is that you beleive!!!!! Just because it may seem like there are different Gods, it doesn't mean that there isn't one. I am sure you would agree. One of my friends sees me as being really funny, while the other sees me as being very serious. While studying psychology, I have noticed that you will be different to all your friends, and it is not your fault. Instead, it is a gift... People need certain friends for various reasons. Some need funny, and some need serious, and they will draw that characteristc out of you. All those sides were trully you, just released through a different faucet.
I would say that you are unfair to the open-view because you don't need it in your life. Let's face it, your mind works differently from DAD's, and you can readily accept certain information where he cannot. You love philosphy, you can accept ideas that are not concrete but instead made in your mind. I personally cannot accept that God has predestined me, and therefore, I don't beleive in Calvanism. I can grasp the idea that I have some control, but know that God has seen what I will do. Hence my arminian nature. Boyd I think is just weird, and I am sure he would agree Seriously, he accept the idea that perhaps God doesn't know your choice. After all, they say God does know everything, it's just impossible to know the extra yard we attribute.
Now, are these all different gods? I would stand to say no. You are in philosophy, so let's think logically. If I were to have an abstract sculpture, and we were to stand in different areas looking at the piece, we would see different things. When assighned to describe what you see, who has the correct idea? They would all be correct despite them being different. Where there many different sculptures? No, and while it may seemed to be relative, there is still the universal constant of one statue.
Same with God. After all, you think about it, the whole debate of God knowing everythign is simply a matter of where you view it. From God's perspective, yes he does know everything setting things up for the future. Almost Calvin in a way. When you view through the eyes of man, you see that God provided and knew what you would do. Still, you made the decision, just like how arminists think. From an angelic point of view, you see God working to do his will. You really don't know if he knows what is all going on, and it seems that man is making their own decision. Similiar to the open-view.
I may be wrong, but it seems that your point of this forum was to answer which should I beleive. Trying to be logical and spiritual is a very hard thing to do. Especially when relative truths get into the picture. When I was in a similiar postion, I came to realize that the truth was allways there. God has placed himself in front of me and has decided to show a different aspect. This idea of him, I can identify with because I need him.
While all these differences do exist, fundemtals of him don't change. One being the key to salvation. Through Jesus, we are saved, a statement Boyd, Dad, and I agree with. And the Jesus does say that it is only through him that we are saved, not through theology or philosophy.
Isn't that what you originally asked? I asked how could I be a Christian and claim one truth, when in reality, there are many apperant answers to, "What is God?"
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/16/01 9:57 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HANANIA: I did not "attack" Daniel, but I simply commented on a couple of things he said (for instance, he, at the same time, stated that he didn't know the Bible as well as we did, yet he also stated that we were wrong. I found that odd and commented on it), nothing more. I asked him to show why the verses that open theism believe prove their view are wrong. I see nothing wrong with that. Thanks for the comments...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Hanania777
05/16/01 10:21 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see nothing wrong with asking questions, especially when they don't make sense. I do see something wrong when it becomes one sided. It wouldn't be fair to demand proof when one fails to provide as well. NOT saying you haven't, just in the minds of debaters, you didn't Thought I would at least help you two hit a common mark You do ask sharp questions though, so I do praise you on that. Peace.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
05/16/01 10:47 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Said: "take a look at Dr. Boyd's doctoral dissertation. It's on the trinity. You can find it online"
WHERE? I would like to read it. Could you tell me where to look it up?
Thanks,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/17/01 12:44 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel: I have been contemplating your question and wondering how it might best be addressed. I wonder: can anyone do justice to any given system within such space as this bulletin board? I am not really sure. Perhaps this seems like a cop out, but I do not mean it that way. Perhaps Doc could do it, but I am not sure I could really do such a thing justice. I can, however, recommend some material for you to read that might get you started in the right direction.
"The Case For Free Will Theism," by David Basinger is a good book to start with because he does not try to prove within the book whether or not free will (open) theism is true but rather whether it is viable as a belief system. Heavy on the philsophical...you'll like it.
"God, Time And Knowledge," investigates philisophically God relation to time and what God knows from a open view. The author is William Hasker.
"Coherence of Theism," by Richard SWinburne is also excellant.
"The God Who Risks," by John Sanders I thought was good at giving an excellant, complete view of open theism. I think it does an excellant job in contrasting it with other views.
And, of course, God At War by Doc and "The Openness of God," By Pinnock and others.
I would like to add quickly that this is an "open" bulletin board. Not everyone on here is an open theist, nor does everyone on here have time to give the answers they may want to. In the end, the seeker of God must do the work and, as I said before, it would be hard to put any theological system on a bulletin board. I hope these books help. Oh I almost forget...
...it has really helped me to read the books out there that oppose open theism.
The God of Lesser Glory By Bruce Ware, No Place For Sovereighty by Wright and Making God in The Image Of Man, by Geisler. Enjoy. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/17/01 12:28 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does sound like a cop out. But whatever.
Thanks for the comments, Hananiah, but now I gotta figure out what arminianism is. And your comments on seeing God from different perspectives doesn't quite hold weight I'm afraid. It looked good on the surface. But look, there is one objectively true God. There is a nature and character of this one God. He cannot both know the future and not know the future, for that would commit the fallacy of contradiction. Logic is set up by God, so he cannot contradict himself. This means one thing: if I believe in God, who does know the future, and you believe in one God who doesn't, then we believe in contradictory gods. They are fundamentally different. They are not different aspects of truth that we hold onto, like you grasp more onto God's love, while I grasp more onto God's justice, but these are two fundamentally, at the core, different ways of viewing God. Your argument works, sure, if we're talking about God's characteristics without denying any of them, but when it comes down to it, it's relative, and relativity does not exist in God.
Here's another question for you, writerdad. Reading from the gospel of John this morning I came across something interesting:
When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."
"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."
What does it mean from your open perspective? Is Jesus present everywhere like God, and is that a different aspect of his character, one that his ignorance of the futuredoes not affect? How do you explain this?
Thanks
Daniel
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Hanania777
05/17/01 2:40 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you in saying that relativity does not exist in God. Relativity does exist in the person viewing him. I am constant to myself, but when another friend views me compared to the other, they are different.
You talk about God having to be universal, and he is. The only problem is that I see you also talking about the characterstics of Him. Is that necassarily wrong? Not when you can't describe him any other way. Unfortuanately, he surpasses all of us, and we can't fully understand him with our limited minds. All we really can do is explain what he has shown to us individually.
My ideas do hold weight, and are logically sound. God is allways the same, and we are all different. So it is then logical to assume that if there were any differences as to who God is, then it is not from Him that the differences stem. It comes from us, and how we view him.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/17/01 3:12 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you just worte, Hananiah, is exactly the problem. We as people have our individual idea of God. This is relativity and subjectivity. These ideas, however, apart from scripture, may or may not be true. Just because you don't believein predestination doesn't mean that it's not true. There is an objective truth, whether we as humans recognize it or not. Therefore, our assumptions about God should not change God's character. But it sounds like an open theist would say that there is a possibility for all of us to be right because we are earnestly seeking him. That's pluralism, which is also wrong. We can know what is revealed by God to humanity, and if it is contrary to the Bible, then it is not true.
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/17/01 3:13 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you just wrote, Hananiah, is exactly the problem. We as people have our own individual ideas of God. This is relativity and subjectivity. These ideas, however, apart from scripture, may or may not be true. Just because you don't believe in predestination doesn't mean that it's not true. There is an objective truth, whether we as humans recognize it or not. Therefore, our assumptions about God should not change God's character. But it sounds like an open theist would say that there is a possibility for all of us to be right because we are earnestly seeking him. That's pluralism, which is also wrong. We can know what is revealed by God to humanity, and if it is contrary to the Bible, then it is not true.
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/17/01 4:11 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, Daniel, you're rude. I don't think you really appreciate all the postings here, expressing people's sorrow over your loss, but I don't appreciate your attitude. Learn some general manners of respect and consideration for others. It is no wonder that more people don't post for you, considering that you critisise anything you don't like in such harsh terms. I'll be praying that you let go of such bitterness and good luck on your search. I'll out. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/17/01 4:15 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish I could answer you, Daniel, but to be frank, with you I would be afraid that if you did not like the answer, you would be rude about it and, to be quite frank, I don't know you, so I am not willing to put up with such things...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/17/01 6:05 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or you could explain why I'm rude. Sorry that I have convictions and I actually think that I am right in some of them. And by the way, this is a really good way to win someone to your religion, tell them how bad they are and why they're wrong and then refuse to answer an honest question 'cause you're afraid of being wrong. Just call all of your adversaries rude, that'll get 'em. Sounds like I'm mad? Darn right I'm mad. I'm mad at your illogical heresy that has invaded the religion that I hold as true. I'm mad at all of you who think that you can limit the most powerful being in the universe, its creator. I'm mad that the only way you can explain the bad things that happen is to call God an ignorant all-powerful being--IT'S STUPID!!!!!! And you're ignorant to believe in it. No, the Bible does not tell us about an open God. That would be God with a lower-case "g".
I have a feeling this is the last you'll hear from me 'cause it's pointless to bother with you open theists. And thanks for pushing me away from your god- now I know who God is. And I didn't back down sheepishly. I've been predestined, I've been chosen before the foundations of the world, and Christ is my Savior. Praise the Lord for heresy 'cause then we can figure out the truth. And praise God for R.C. Sproul.
Daniel Pratt, Christian
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Hanania777
05/17/01 6:45 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, you came out with it Dan. So where do you want to go from here? How do we figure out God's true nature? Is it ok to say that someone is wrong, and then live normally believing what we will, as long as we strive to know him more? Is it OK, for your view to be different, and yet you mantain a level with God similiar to mine?
I would say that it is. I am going to be wrong on many issues, but at the same time, I may be right. Same goes with another person. At least, we did agree that there is one way to the father, and that being through Jesus.
I would agree with you on the idea with open-theism, in that it has a few fallacies to contend with. That is why I don't beleive it. I won't refuse to listen however since I do like hearing different views. The discussions about them, if done apporpriately, can be rewarding. I am only sorry to see that the open-theist in the group has decidely quit the discussion. I can't answer your problem because I see where you are coming from, and it is the same as mine.
Instead of holding a beef about it, (which I really don't think you did) why not explore other ideas and prove them wrong. Take what you thinkn is right, and create an idea. Then test it out. I do it all the time At least I am comfortable enough with my faith that it can be bashed a few times
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/17/01 10:45 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, sounds like Daniel got a taste of his own medicine...I certainly hope it didn't hurt too much...does seem like I drew some of the stuff out in the open that you have been hiding around the edges. If you feel like were heretics, that is your right. Heretics, stupid, I am curious, did you just decide to become a Calvinist and not tell anybody or is this just a fact you kept hidden. It should be noted that, as Doc, as said in other places, you can't get away from the problem of pain, no matter what view you take of it. You think you are getting off because everything is prestined? All depends on where the mystery is. For Calvinists, its why God would determine such a thing. For open theists, its in man's free will and why God would allow it. Mystery is mystery, but you don't get off the problem of suffering or evil just because you view God as all controling. Anyway, as I said I'll be praying for you. By the way, perhaps Calvinists believe we pray to different gods, but open theists don't. So, no, I don't believe I pushed you away from my "god," which is the Christian God just as yours is. Oh, two other things: we don't limit God. The only thing that can limit God is himself and how he descibes himself in scripture. Two, I praise God for RC Sproul everyday. Wonderful teacher, as is Calvin Luther, Edwards, many other good calvinists. Just because a person disagrees with another person don't mean they can't learn from them. Nor does it mean they ain't a brother in the Lord. John 17:3 Harold
PS...oh, the books are out there, if you are interested in learning what open theism is about. But it takes work. Ain't gonna learn about it by posting on a bulletin board. You learn about it by doing the work...which is what God requires of us in seeking the truth.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Newcomb
05/26/01 10:31 PM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives, Long one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel, your comments ("Sheesh, don't tell me there's a new way of looking at that one, too.") seem to indicate that "new" or "different" are somehow equated with "right" and "wrong."
This is a logical falacy. Something is not right or wrong because of its age. Neither is is right or wrong because you are or are not familiar with it. It is either right or wrong based on objective facts.
You need to realize that we openness theologians come to this understanding objectively and, quite independently. Me for instance. I have been working on this theology for 16 years and was kicked out of a large local church because of this belief 15 years before I met someone else (Boyd) who held them. I was 100% alone and untrained or conditioned by reading anyone else's views.
This also does not mean it is right, it is just my experience. However, the only text I had was the Bible. It didn't come from anywhere else for 15 years. That's a long time considering my wife didn't even believe it. I mean I was ALONE.
Yet the criticism you may have received from other and rightly commented on is repeated here by you. The sarchasm isn't needed.
I appreciate writerdad's comments. Well stated and kind.
Let me point out that the basic belief that you are criticising us for not holding is not from the Bible, it has it's origins in Greece about 500 BC in the philosophers. I can trace this for you:
XENOPHANES (c 570-465 BC) thought that the universe was immutable and incapable of change, an idea that was later applied to God. By immutable, he meant exactly that, nothing at all could change.
PARMENIDES (b. 510 BC) held again the concept of an unchanging universe beyond human comprehension, thus starting mystic traditions in Greek philosophy which later entered the church. It is he who started and idea that crept into the church, that God is without time, he is timeless in the sense of not having time. (He did not use God per se, he used the term "Being" meaning the ultimate True Being that Greek theorized.) The True Being could not move, or learn, or respond, or change in any way whatsoever, or else it would not be perfect. This concept did not start in Judaism nor Christianity, it started here, in Greece 500 years before Christ.
PLATO (app. 427-347 BC) had a particular bent toward mysticism after Pythagorus and Parmenides, that the ultimate Being must be fixed, permanent, and unchanging, he identified the real with the ideal realm, ethereal realm of being as opposed to the physical world of becoming, everything here changes, nothing there changed at all.
Origen (c 182-c 251) Born to a Christian family, raised in a neo-platonic environment he used this teaching to interpret the Bible in Platonic terms and constructs nearly to the point of being accused of gnosticism.
AUGUSTINE (354-420) had teachers and learning that led him through Origen to Platonism, the influence of that philosophy is found in the idea of God which he developed systematically and handed down to generations of Christians perminantly infusing the church with Plato's teachings. He conceives God as the unity of ideas (after Plonticus and Prophyry as well as Origen), of abstract perfections which included absolute immutability and timelessness from Plato.
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564) was heavily influenced by the Greeks and Roman Rhetorics, because he followed Augustine. Calvin is credited with the view of predestination that Augustine changed from Ignatius' error, that God predestines one to heaven based on God's own choice (election). This was actually Beza's doctrine called "Calvinism" by the Synod of Dort.
BEZA 1519-1605 was heavily influenced by Calvin but more so by Augustine and Plato and taught that predestination was a result of God's Providence, whereas Calvin related it to the person and work of Christ. The T.U.L.I.P. doctrine of "Calvinism" is actually his.
IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804), attempting to defend Christianity against the current theories of knowledge, made a crucial mistake in thinking that there was a moral code grounded in rational thought, not in theological absolutes. To Kant, things like the existence of God, concepts like freedom, morality, and conscience cannot be dealt with scientifically or rationally but only irrationally.We are right back to Platonic mysticism again where you take any meaning you want to take and simply state that it is "deeper" that others can understand.
SOREN AABYE KIERKEGAARD (1813-1855) was both a philosopher and theologian who was the founder of Existentialist philosophy. As a philosopher he was a relativist, when the fideists (people who believe you must start with a basic acceptance of God and the Bible as His Word, or some set of beliefs accepted by faith alone without proof) were found to have certain paradox' in faith, he simply determined to believe irrationally in the Bible instead of seeing if there were a rational alternative. He dealt with the Word of God as if it had little to do with our daily walk in life, with reality. He proposed that if we are to find meaning in life, we must take a (blind) leap of faith.
KARL BARTH (May 10, 1886-December 10, 1968) was a neoorthodox who emphasized our utter inability to know God except through revealed knowledge. He regarded the Bible not as the actual revelation of God but as only the record of that revelation. For Barth, God's sole revelation of himself is in Jesus Christ. God is the "wholly other," totally unlike humankind, and we are utterly dependent on an encounter with the divine for any understanding of ultimate reality. You have to be an "insider" to really know. This is true in any mystic belief system. It is an easy way to exclude others who disagree without having to prove a point or argue with them. If a theologian makes an assertion about God taken from the Bible, the Barthian theologian can merely state, "your simplistic formulas cannot contain God" regardless of the reliability of the text. There is no absolute.
-------------
So you see, the central beliefs of the churches you were raised in (an most of the rest of us as well) were not Judeo-Christian, but Greek philosophy. The system you are calling "new" is just new to you. It has historic roots that go all the way back. Again, this does not make it right, but your point of newness is simply in error.
What wirterdad was trying to help you understand is that these issues are really secondary to salvation.
God created so he could have an honest, two-way relationship with people who have a free will and choose to love him. Salvation helps correct a problem we created by disobedience. The mechanics are secondary to that.
"Newk'em"
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/29/01 1:51 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, newk'em, for your comments and your tracing of history for me. It is much appreciated and helpful. But let me comment on one thing:
Openness theology is NOT a peripheral issue that has nothing to do with salvation. It has everything to do with salvation. Why would you then want to stand alone on this for 16 years, something that really means very little? You see, just because God may know all events past, present, and future does not make our relationship with Him less honest. Man, created by God, was given the ability to sin and the ability to not sin. Adam exercised his free will to sin and therefore bonded himself to sin, forever being held by sinfulness, never again having the ability to not sin. So, man can never chose God under his own will because he will always choose the wrong, an effect of the fall of Adam. But God offers grace in Christ, which is irresistible, restoring our wills to the original condition, giving us freedom to choose the right, the irresistible, the eternal. But this is not of ourselves, for that ability to choose God is given by God. So, in choosing God under the openness theology, man is choosing God under his own will, not the call of God. This choice is no better than a man choosing to follow Krishna or Allah. God does not wait for us to call, but He calls. This is the nature of grace and salvation, for it is the atonement, Christ crucified, and open theism diminishes Christ's crucifixion to nothing more than an accident, unintended by God, but something that worked out all right in the end.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
05/29/01 8:10 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Daniel,
Obviously you did not read my purely logical repudiation to "naturistruth". I find it interesting that you found his fallacious arguments persuasive (while you make a pretense to logic). The fact that you did does not speak well for you in three important respects:
1.) It shows you need serious improvement in analyzing and formulating arguments (which obviously hamstrings you when analyzing the openness issue).
2.) You disregard valid arguments because some have participated in "name calling." Though it wasn't so much "name calling" as it was some writers suspecting a disingenuous disguise. If this is all it takes, then you should not be a Christian. For Christians through the centuries have done a fare amount of it; Not to mention the fact that you are engaging in name calling towards those who hold to Openness.
3.) (And of greater concern) You (and some others) seem to seek a tentative intellectual fellowship with someone arguing for atheism. Why? Because you think their lame arguments help disprove a theological view that you don't like. How about this; "I'm just telling you that you are wrong. Even a Muslim or a Jew knows that." Now there is a strange statement for a Christian to make. Try this one: "Open Theists would have been burned at the stake by even the indulgence-selling Catholics." [Evidently forgetting that Calvinists would have been, too.] Let's try this one: "Yeah, surprise, I know religion. I've searched the scriptures of a hundred religions in my short life" Evidently not very much, or you would try to tone down the pride and arrogance.
Next, I must point out that through reading the course of your postings it appears you are a bald-faced liar. Clearly, you first portrayed yourself as an agnostic, merely an interested searcher of your cousin's faith. But by your last two postings you are claiming that Openness is an attack on the faith you hold dear, and that you know what the truth is, etc.. You roundly espouse Calvinist doctrine and praise God for R.C. Sproul (whom I praise God for as well, though he has also written some very bad arguments). Now I wonder, why is it that Openness people can be honest about who and what they are, but a number of Calvinists have shown themselves liars on this site (for a time publicly denying knowing the very Christ that bought them)?
You have made many dogmatic assertions against Open Theism. But you have not presented sound arguments for your case. You have not refuted the Open Theist arguments, and you have not mounted a successful defense of the classical view. Further, you clearly misunderstand the Open view (and must not be trying to) as testified by your statement, "I hope you understand that it is hard to trust in a God who learns from a dirty person like me and who is careless enough to let a drunk driver swerve into the wrong lane and kill a bunch of kids."
My challenge to you (since you assume the classical view to be absolutely correct and logical) is, can you make it hold up logically. Lord willing, later this week, I will post a short and easy refutation of the classical view based on its internal inconsistencies regarding the nature of God. If you and similarly minded folk would like to deal with the issue, I'll look forward to your valiant attempts to defend it then. I especially look forward to Memphi's, since he so often does an excellent job of unwittingly displaying the inconsistencies and false arguments standard among Calvinists (not to mention his own inconsistency with it).
God is not easy to "figure out." There is the 5 point Calvinist (really the only true Calvinist), the four pointer, the three pointer, the Armeneanist, the open view. All are attempting to figure out how God may work in relation to foreknowledge, predestination, and "free will."
Sincerely,
Unworthy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/31/01 1:08 AM
RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the argument ad hominem, unworthy. Try harder to gain some credibility next time.
Dan
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
06/02/01 12:13 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice come back there, Daniel...
--
unworthy
06/04/01 12:28 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism's rediculous motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel, et al,
Sorry for being long in responding. My girlfriend takes priority over this web site, though she is more expensive. So does my family, and for some reason my dad has lost most of the use of his right hand. They can't figure out why yet. Appreciate any prayers.
Now as to my previous note to Daniel:
1.) Ad Hominem arguments are not by nature invalid. Where issues of character are concerned they may be completely valid, particularly among Christians. And when one seem to be acting in manners that need to be addressed in that context, it is completely valid.
2.) Some of my ad hominem was POINTEDLY directed because you had attempted to use this method against both those who hold OT, and the view itself (name calling without substantial refutation). THIS IS invalid Ad Hominem (attacking the arguer to disprove the argument. My point was, if this were to be considered valid by you, then turn about is indeed fare play (even if invalid).
3.) Most of what I wrote was not ad hominem at all, merely observations.
4.) I could have easily pointed out the invalid nature of many of your arguments, such as:
-Fallacious use of appeal to authority (made more amazing because the particular authorities appealed to you yourself reject).
-Fallacious use of appeal to common belief.
-Straw man: Where you misrepresented OT, then argue against that.
-Fallacious use of ad hominem: As pointed out, a large part of your early postings included dismissing OT due to "name calling" by a few proponents (which would be a fallacious ad hominem if employed to dismiss an argument). Your response was to attack that, rather than OT arguments, thus doing exactly what you were regaling others for.
Etc., etc., etc.
5.) Observing a persons poor performance in analyzing arguments is a valid consideration, particularly when you admire bad arguments and treat them as substantive (i.e. as evidenced by your positive assessment to naturistruth's arguments). Likewise it may raise questions about your abilities when analyzing arguments that you claim are not valid. The fallacies in naturalistruth's arguments were adequate testimony of this.
6.) Now, I do not want to fallaciously employ burden of proof (shifting the burden of proof). I agree that OT must provide logical basis for their view. They have done so in various books. Those arguments also engage the logical case against the traditional view (as is much the nature of argument, particularly antithesis).
You have claimed (along with what's-her-name) that OT must prove itself to you (OT is on the defensive). This is not necessarily true. Why? Because your attacks (accusation of falseness) have been invalid by nature. One need not internally defend one's theology when the attacks being made are invalid. For it is on the basis of your invalid attacks that you accuse it of being wrong (not to mention based on the idea that your Calvinist assumptions are correct).
7.) I found it very interesting that when your argument about the history of OT as compared to the classical approach went up in smoke you simply began spouting Calvinist dogma (another invalid attack). Further, you seem to believe that if a historical figure is mentioned in relation to an argument they employed all of their theology must be accepted along with it (ref.: Thomas Aquinas). But as a Calvinist you do not do this. The history of most of your systematic theology begins at the reformation. [Not to mention this is another type of invalid appeal to authority based on age/ancientness.]
8.) You have claimed that OT needs to present in "proper epistemological argumentation" a defense of it's position. This would be rather difficult, since epistemology is the theory of the nature of knowledge and the grounds for knowledge. It does not have to do with knowledge of the future (the purview of metaphysics - theories about WHAT we know about reality/existence, and the nature of the known, their qualities and relationships), which is at question between the classical view and OT. Hence, the arguments presented by definition would not be epistemological.
9.) You have argued that such arguments must be presented independently of scripture, yet when up against the wall you spout purely Calvinistic doctrines, all of which are interpretations of scripture without independent metaphysical proofs. For instance, what are the metaphysical proofs apart from scripture for total depravity, or irresistible grace? Orthodox Jews seem able to often obey commandments of God without being saved. Even Christians resist the power of saving grace when they sin. And does the sentence "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51) sound familiar? What were they resisting from the Holy Spirit, but the Christ and his grace? And if the Holy Spirit were not trying to reach them with it, how could it be said that they were "always resisting"? So, now where is the metaphysical proof that these Calvinist doctrines are true (for they must be proved so that you may accuse others on their basis).
10.) In addition, you seem to believe that every theological issue must be entirely settled, even when scripture is not absolutely clear on them; That all must dogmatically conform to the view which you have settled on. [As a former Catholic, may I say that this is very Catholic of you.] But this engages the fallacy of false dilemma.
11.) I do not need to "gain some credibility" since I have not besmirched my reputation on this site. I haven't even given the appearance of attempting to deceive anyone about what I am or believe. Nor have I aggrandized bad arguments. As for my arguments, they shall carry their own weight. You have not yet seen mine (except perhaps in response to naturalistruth). Yet they bring no gain of credit to me, since I did not invent truth, logic, or argumentation; I only display it.
12.) Finally, as is plain by my concluding paragraphs, at that time I was not attempting a logical presentation of OT at the time, nor a logical attack on the classical view. Nor am I doing so right now.
In closing, let me mention that I am not committed to Open Theism, Calvinism, nor Armeneanism. I am committed to Christ. However, it does seem to me that the Open view offers a more logically consistent and scriptural balanced theory about the nature God regarding foreknowledge, predestination, omniscience, and sovereignty [and this statement is also NOT an argument]. It remains that the Classicist will have to show their view to be valid in the face of logic; the very thing they claim to have going for their view, and the very thing the accuse Openness people of not having.
Gotta go.
Sincerely,
Unworthy
P.S. If Calvinism is so scriptural, logical, and true (as you claim), and can account for all of scripture, please explain to us how God changes HIS mind about what He will do (say, when addressing Moses regarding what he will do to punish the people). Note that the Christoligical answer employed by Packer et al will not hold up (since even Christ incarnate only did what he saw the Father doing); Nor will the idea the while it only appeared from human perspective that God changed his mind (unless you want to make everything presented in scripture purely subjective to the authors perceptions - which rather puts the issues of reliability and inspiration on the ropes).
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 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 |
|
|