 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Is Nothing Impossible with the OVT God? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
gershom
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
gershom: Pete would still be morally responsible because this world was realized as a result of his choices, but I would still tend to view the "moral choice" as occuring prior to the denial.
Tom: I don't follow ya. If Peter is "morally responsible" for the denial, how is the denial not also a "moral choice"?
Tom: Pete is morally responsible because the denial was a necessary consequence of his earlier moral choices, where he exercised true libertarian freedom (wrongly :) I think we're agreeing that the denial in that sense is not a "choice" in the sense of Pete having libertarian freedom- as you stated earlier, there is a distinction between moral choices and libertarian free will choices.
I think the only difference is I would tend to see the denial as a necessary consequence of an earlier choice, not a 'moral choice' itself. The choice for which God would hold Pete morally responsible would be the earlier choice where he had genuine ability to choose alternatives, and chose wrongly, thus necessarily leading to the denial. That's just my theory of course, but I'm curious what others think.
--gershom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by gershom
quote:
quote:
It seems to me there is a very clear qualifier there, because he says, "If we have been given freedom". So the question still seems open here as to whether we have been given freedom in every activity.
gershom,
No. Please read Greg Boyd's argument much more carefully. His initial supposition--"If we have been given freedom . . ."--does not qualify his assertion that God does not and cannot know future human decisions. His supposition grounds his assertion that God does not and cannot know future human decisions.
Gerry- it seems that you are speaking of any "future human decisions" but boyd always speaks of "future free acts". You are leaving off the qualifier, "free"- which Boyd always includes.
My understanding is that God can know with certainty *many* "future human decisions"- but that would mean that they are not "free" in the sense of man having true libertarian freedom (a genuine ability to choose between alternatives)- they are either determined by God, or necessary as causal consequences of current conditions.
gershom,
No. I am quite aware of Greg Boyd's meaning. When I speak of "future human decisions" I mean exactly the same thing that Greg Boyd means when he speaks of "future free acts." Greg Boyd's "future free acts" is entirely interchangeable with "future human decisions." Here's the proof. Greg Boyd says, "This entails that future free decisions do not exist (except as possibilities) for God to know until free agents make them." Who makes "future free decisions"? They are "free agents." Who are the free agents that Greg Boyd is talking about? He's not talking about squirrels or whales. He is talking about humans! 
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
I know that many people will go to church on Sunday, does that prove I have knowlege of the future free choices of people?
I know more people will eat pizza than broccoli in the cafeteria today, my knowlege of people's free choices is comprehensive.
What is your point?
Your knowledge is only actuarial knowledge. That is hardly divine!
"actuarial"? Webster says:
a. 1. Of or pertaining to actuaries; as, the actuarial value of an annuity.
If you mean statistical, why can't God's foreknowlege be statistical? There's nothing to indicate it isn't.
So how you going to prove me wrong?
Me and God, statistical foreknowlege or exhaustive foreknowlege.
For starters, I could make more statistical predictions that will come true than God has made predictions listed in scripture.
Red herring! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry, you're making it too easy for me!
Gerry: In Greg Boyd’s Letters from a Skeptic he argues this same point: “If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can't foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions”(p. 30).
Tom: This is perfectly compatible with what I’ve described above and what Greg believes now), for a sufficiently solidified agent can “make” it certain that she’ll do x in situation z. It is at THAT point that x is foreknown as certain by God. Greg isn’t denying this here. He’s focusing on “libertarian” choices, not “compatibilistic” choices. If God gives us libertarian freedom, then libertarian choices can't be foreknown as certain. This is affirmed. But this is not to say that libertarian freedom isn't finite and cannot, over a history of misuse, give way to compatibilistic free will, rendering choices predictable. Perhaps a more charitable reading would have taken this into account.
Gerry: Greg Boyd offered not the slightest hint of any qualifier so as to allow for any future human decisions that God could know–good, bad, or morally indifferent. In fact, Greg reinforces the absoluteness of his denial that God could know any future human decision when he responds to his father’s question in his following letter of response even as he equivocates. Greg’s father, Mr. Edward K. Boyd, responded to the statement above by saying, “It seems like your view of God is much more ‘human’ than what I've always thought God was supposed to be. I'm no authority on the Bible, but isn't God here seen as knowing the future?” (p. 32). Greg’s reply letter poses a logical and philosophical inconsistency for his earlier statement, noted above. Greg says, “This view doesn’t maintain that God doesn’t know anything about the future. It only maintains that God doesn’t eternally foreknow the free decisions people will make in the future. If there are aspects of the future which are already determined, either by present circumstances or by God’s own will, these God would know for they are presently there to know. Future free acts, however, aren’t” (p. 33). In other words, Greg Boyd insists that God cannot know his creatures’ future free decisions prior to their making those free decisions.
Tom: Well, Gerry, you’re simply mistaken. You’re misunderstanding Greg. First, the qualification you deny Greg makes IS made. He says, “God doesn’t ETERNALLY foreknow FREE decisions people make.” This is right in line which we’re saying and not incompatible with the claim that human beings can become sufficiently solidified over time so as to make some choice determinate. As you note, Greg points out that God can know as settled or determined future events if they’re rendered certain by “present circumstances.” But a sufficiently solidified will IS a present circumstance, Gerry. That’s all we’re saying. There is no equivocation here. Future FREE (libertarian) acts are not rendered certain before they occur, neither eternally nor at any point in time leading up to the moment we make those choices. Greg is right on. He’s talking about libertarian free choices. These are foreknown for what they are by an omniscient God: “might and might not’s.” Future choices rendered certain by the presently solidified wills of agents are NOT libertarian choices. They’re compatibilistic choices. You’re whole post mistakes this and the context of Greg’s comments, namely, that they regard future libertarian FREE choices. He hasn’t equivocated. And what he says about libertarian choices isn’t incompatible with his affirmation that God CAN foreknow as certain future choices that flow from a sufficiently solidified will. You even quote him on this, noting the very qualification you deny he makes. Greg writes: “Except in cases in which a solidified character or God’s predestining plan makes people predictable . . . Scripture teaches us that God literally finds out how people will choose when they choose.” Exactly what we’ve been saying. Except in cases were people themselves over time render their wills sufficiently solidified and thus predicatable, God knows our future choices as “might and might not’s.” There's no denial that God may EVER know a future decision as certain. Greg explicitly affirms that this IS possible in some cases and he specifies the nature of the case.
Gerry: So, please excuse me for not simply conceding that your claim is correct on the basis that you do not recall what I recall vividly. Contrary to your claim that no open theist “ever specifically claimed that God can know NO future human decisions as certain,” Greg Boyd himself made such claims repeatedly.
Tom: Well, again Gerry, you’re just mistaken. You yourself even quote Greg as specifying the very sort of cases in which God MAY know future decisions as certain, namely, those cases in which we freely, over time, render ourselves sufficiently solidified. So Greg can’t be claiming that “God never knows future human decisions as certain.” On the contrary, read correctly, Greg is denying that God can foreknow as certain future FREE, i.e., libertarian, choices. But he affirms that as omniscient God MUST foreknow as determinate future CHOICES that are rendered determined by sufficiently solidified agents.
Your move.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | gershom: Gerry- it seems that you are speaking of any "future human decisions" but boyd always speaks of "future free acts". You are leaving off the qualifier, "free"- which Boyd always includes.
Tom: gershom got it right.
gershom: My understanding is that God can know with certainty *many* "future human decisions"- but that would mean that they are not "free" in the sense of man having true libertarian freedom (a genuine ability to choose between alternatives)- they are either determined by God, or necessary as causal consequences of current conditions.
Tom: Fine with me so long as we point out that if persons are held morally accountable for choices they make which are rendered certain by "current conditions," it be understood that those conditions are the exercises of their own free will over time.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: Earlier you said, "I’m not aware of any open theist who ever specifically claimed that God can know NO future human decisions as certain." Now you have said what you claimed earlier that you were unware that any open theist has ever said: "It's impossible for God to know as determined future free contingent choices precisely because God IS omniscient."
Tom: There’s nothing incompatible about these two claims Gerry. This is where you’re slipping on the soap. Allow me to make myself clearer:
No open theist I know claims: “God cannot foreknow as determined ANY human choice whatsoever.” This is the claim which I denied any open theist ever made. You argued this claim WAS made by Boyd. You're worng on that score. Your quotes from Greg show this. You miss his context (libertarian choices are not foreknowable as certain) and fail to note his qualification (compatibilistic choices are foreknowable). gershom saw this too.
However, ALL open theists I have read and talked to DO claim (and have always believed): “God cannot foreknow as determined libertarian, i.e., FREE (Greg's word in your quotes) human choices, BUT God must foreknow as determined non-libertarian (i.e., compatibilistic, viz., determined) human choices.” Greg notes this "exception" in your quote of him.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/20/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Your move.
Tom
No. I make no more moves. Equivocation. Dodging. Transmogrification. It's called cheating. I will not spend any more valuable time trying to convince you.
Gerry
P.S. No. For you who are thinking about taunting me, my refusal to spend more valuable time on this thread is not because I've been silenced by convincing argument. Tom's response has not made the case he thinks he has made. Bye! Bye! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: No. I make no more moves. Equivocation. Dodging. Transmogrification. It's called cheating. I will not spend any more valuable time trying to convince you.
P.S. No. For you who are thinking about taunting me, my refusal to spend more valuable time on this thread is not because I've been silenced by convincing argument. Tom's response has not made the case he thinks he has made. Bye! Bye!
Tom: For the record, the only "case" I'm making is that which claims that open theists have always understood their belief that God does not foreknow as certain future free choices to apply to libertarianly free choices. They have never explicitly denied that God may foreknow as certain choices rendered certain by their own solidified wills (and in Boyd's case this qualification is explicitly made). The case is what open theists have believed, not whether or not they're correct.
Sorry to see you go Gerry.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/20/2004 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Your move.
Tom
No. I make no more moves. Equivocation. Dodging. Transmogrification. It's called cheating. I will not spend any more valuable time trying to convince you.
Gerry
P.S. No. For you who are thinking about taunting me, my refusal to spend more valuable time on this thread is not because I've been silenced by convincing argument. Tom's response has not made the case he thinks he has made. Bye! Bye!
The Monty Python defense....
Run away! Run away! Run away!
Let's see, Gerry's attack on Open Theism was that it "transmogrifies".
(but not as much as calvinism has)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/20/2004 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Calvin did have a transmogrifier after all:
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/20/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Gerry
P.S. No. For you who are thinking about taunting me, my refusal to spend more valuable time on this thread is not because I've been silenced by convincing argument. Tom's response has not made the case he thinks he has made. Bye! Bye!
The Monty Python defense....
Run away! Run away! Run away!
Sisters,
You just could not resist taunting. Could you? My postscript was for you because I anticipated your solidified character response.   
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry (hoping you're still around): I am quite aware of Greg Boyd's meaning. When I speak of "future human decisions" I mean exactly the same thing that Greg Boyd means when he speaks of "future free acts." Greg Boyd's "future free acts" is entirely interchangeable with "future human decisions." Here's the proof. Greg Boyd says, "This entails that future free decisions do not exist (except as possibilities) for God to know until free agents make them." Who makes "future free decisions"? They are "free agents." Who are the free agents that Greg Boyd is talking about? He's not talking about squirrels or whales. He is talking about humans!
Tom: "Future human decisions" and "future free acts" are not interchangeable for Boyd or any other open theist. Your quote from him does not prove that he understands these to be interechangeable. All the quote says is that Boyd believes future FREE human choices cannot be foreknown as certain. That's it. That's his context. But that doesn't rule out there being future human choices that are NOT free in this libertarianly free sense and so MAY be foreknown as certain. There IS a difference, and Boyd notes it when he specifies the exception, namely, choices that flow from a sufficiently solidified character.
Draw two concentric circles (a smaller one inside a larger one). Label the larger one "future human decisions" and laber the smaller one "future FREE human decisions." That's the paradign Boyd works with. "All future human choices" are "human choices" whether they're free or not. Only SOME are libertarianly FREE choices (the smaller circle). These free choices are human choices but cannot logically be foreknown as certain before we make them. But human choices may be other than libertarianly free, that is, they may be compatibilistic choices, in which case they may be foreknown as certain. These are the "future human choices" that lie within the larger circle but outside the smaller circle.
Simple.
Tom
Sisters--very funnyt Calvin and Hobbes! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/20/2004 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Gerry
P.S. No. For you who are thinking about taunting me, my refusal to spend more valuable time on this thread is not because I've been silenced by convincing argument. Tom's response has not made the case he thinks he has made. Bye! Bye!
The Monty Python defense....
Run away! Run away! Run away!
Sisters,
You just could not resist taunting. Could you? My postscript was for you because I anticipated your solidified character response.
Gerry
No, anticipation of a response based on current knowlege is not a valid answer. The only valid answer is YOU HAVE COMPREHENSIVE, EXHAUSTIVE KNOWLEGE OF AN ALREADY COMPLETED FUTURE.
I'll amend it to, "Run a little ways off! Run a little ways off!"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/20/2004 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Gerry (hoping you're still around): I am quite aware of Greg Boyd's meaning. When I speak of "future human decisions" I mean exactly the same thing that Greg Boyd means when he speaks of "future free acts." Greg Boyd's "future free acts" is entirely interchangeable with "future human decisions." Here's the proof. Greg Boyd says, "This entails that future free decisions do not exist (except as possibilities) for God to know until free agents make them." Who makes "future free decisions"? They are "free agents." Who are the free agents that Greg Boyd is talking about? He's not talking about squirrels or whales. He is talking about humans!
Tom: "Future human decisions" and "future free acts" are not interchangeable for Boyd or any other open theist. Your quote from him does not prove that he understands these to be interechangeable. All the quote says is that Boyd believes future FREE human choices cannot be foreknown as certain. That's it. That's his context. But that doesn't rule out there being future human choices that are NOT free in this libertarianly free sense and so MAY be foreknown as certain. There IS a difference, and Boyd notes it when he specifies the exception, namely, choices that flow from a sufficiently solidified character.
Draw two concentric circles (a smaller one inside a larger one). Label the larger one "future human decisions" and laber the smaller one "future FREE human decisions." That's the paradign Boyd works with. "All future human choices" are "human choices" whether they're free or not. Only SOME are libertarianly FREE choices (the smaller circle). These free choices are human choices but cannot logically be foreknown as certain before we make them. But human choices may be other than libertarianly free, that is, they may be compatibilistic choices, in which case they may be foreknown as certain. These are the "future human choices" that lie within the larger circle but outside the smaller circle.
Simple.
Tom
Sisters--very funnyt Calvin and Hobbes!
Tom,
I'm going to write one response. I cannot give any further time to this discussion. Respond, if you want, but I will not promise any further engagement in this thread.
When Greg Boyd published Letters from a Skeptic, he had not yet transmogrified his view to include an attempt to harmonize his libertarian freedom view of human decisions with a so-called "compatibilist" view of human decisions. One of the initial and sustained foundational assertions of all open theists in contrast to Calvinists was a radically consistent insistence that all human decisions must entail libertarian freedom or else no human could be accountable for their decisions. All open theists, including Greg Boyd, rejected any compatibilist explanation of human decisions in opposition to Calvinism. Open theists initially put all their theological eggs into the basket of libertarian freedom. Their position was absolute. They made no allowance to explain any human decision of any kind as entailing anything other than libertarian freedom. All human decisions, they argued as I have already shown by quoting Boyd, are of the libertarian variety. Go back and read the open theists' literature in historical progression, and you will discover that what I am saying is accurate and true.
As I showed with quotes from Letters from a Skeptic and from God of the Possible Greg Boyd smuggled into his view the notion that some things of the future are certain but not through human choice, libertarian, compatibilist, or of any other kind. In God of the Possible Greg began to show some signs of equivocation with regard to human decisions, that some human decisions entail "solidified character." Yet, again as I have already showed with quotations from Boyd's book, he equivocates concerning human decision-making. Only after Boyd published God of the Possible did he make some attempt to explain human decisions, such as Peter's denials, in terms of compatibilism because he was pressed to do so by theological sparring partners such as Paul Helseth. Yet, Greg's use of compatibilism to describe his view of Peter's decision-making is itself a transmogrification of the term compatibilism and of the concept it represents. Paul Helseth has masterfully demonstrated that Greg Boyd's view of Peter's decision-making cuts the ground out from under his whole open theist project. Helseth cornered Boyd.
Greg Boyd's theological transmogrification is all quite well documented both in published materials and within the pages of these discussions just as his transmogrification into neo-Molinism and out again is capable of being traced in his published and unpublished statements. The progression of Greg Boyd's theological transmogrifications and experimentations are traceable, if you're willing to trace them.
What is my point? My point is rather simple. Open theists began their project with radicalized views that have migrated significantly under criticism. Nevertheless, open theists seem unwilling to acknowledge either their initial and radical attribution of all human decision-making to libertarian freedom on the basis that no human could otherwise be accountable for any of their decisions. Furthermore, open theists seem unwilling to acknowledge that sparring with critics has impelled them to undergo major modifications to their view of human decision-making. In other words, open theists have found themselves modifying their views because of their critics but at the same time refusing to acknowledge that their critics have landed major blows to the open theism project.
Because open theists have been unwilling to acknowledge that their theological sparring partners have landed substantial blows to the open theism project by refusing to engage their critics' arguments, open theists shut off fruitful discussion. Yet, open theists blame their critics for terminating discussion while prompting an end to thoughtful discussion themselves. For example, in the fall of 2001 John Sanders called evangelical critics of open theism the "evangelical Taliban" and "evangelical Mullahs." Such smarmy talk terminates reasonable discussions of legitimately disputed ideas. The same kind of thing happens on these discussion pages ad nauseam. Reasonable critics of open theism repeatedly are driven from these pages by ridicule, dismissiveness, mockery, red herrings, ad hominem responses, and a whole lot of other tactics that are unbecoming either reasonable people or Christians.
That's all!
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Glad for your response, Gerry. Thanks for hanging in there. We disagree. So what else is new?
Greg's free to comment (deny, confirm, elaborate, etc.) if he wants.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, you edited! No fair.
Gerry: What is my point? My point is rather simple. Open theists began their project with radicalized views that have migrated significantly under criticism.
Tom: If you mean open theists have changed their defining, core beliefs, you’re as wrong as the sun doth shine. If you mean we’ve adjusted our arguments over time in response to criticism, then thank us. It’s a good thing to do. As others have point out, Calvinists have changed, migrated, and morphed in ways that have Calvin turning in his grave. Give the man some rest.
Gerry: Nevertheless, open theists seem unwilling to acknowledge either their initial and radical attribution of all human decision-making to libertarian freedom…
Tom: Sorry to keep saying it, Gerry, but you are simply wrong on this score. Boyd never claimed that all human decisions are libertarian. He admitted that some human decisions can be compatibilisitc. Your own quotes of him show this.
Gerry: Furthermore, open theists seem unwilling to acknowledge that sparring with critics has impelled them to undergo major modifications to their view of human decision-making. In other words, open theists have found themselves modifying their views because of their critics but at the same time refusing to acknowledge that their critics have landed major blows to the open theism project.
Tom: If it makes you feel better to keep your own score, go for it. But the defining, core claims of the open view are today what they have always been. I’ll say it again, no open theist (Boyd, Hasker, Pinnock, Rice, Sanders) ever intentionally claimed that human decisions are only ever libertarian. Now don’t go crazy over “intentionally” there Gerry. I know you think I’ve probably transmogrified somewhere. I haven’t. If an open theist in print somewhere actually wrote "all human decisions are only ever libertarian ones" then I'll claim he wrote poorly and, if shown his error, would agree that he made a mistake. But the claim isn't there, though I'll be happy to face it if you can produce it. Every writer is an imperfect writer. I’m sure if Calvin had a chance to read the stuff that’s been written about his beliefs and rewrite the Institutes he’d want to argue some things differently or change some things. That’s good. Sanders has admitted that if he rewrote his book he’d say a few things differently. But the core, fundamental, DEFINING beliefs of the open view would remain the same.
Gerry: Because open theists have been unwilling to acknowledge that their theological sparring partners have landed substantial blows to the open theism project by refusing to engage their critics' arguments, open theists shut off fruitful discussion.
Tom: Let me see if I get this. Open theists have shut down discussion because we are unwilling to acknowledge that our opponents "have landed substantial blows" to our views "by our refusing to engage them." So the blows are only substantial blows because we've refused to engage them. The most significant arguments against open theism have simply gone by unaddressed? Amazing.
Well, Gerry, let's do this. Let's assume you're right: No open theist has ever engaged a single argument of the opposing side. So tell me, Gerry, what are the arguments that land these substantial blows? List them for me and then you and I, without any other meanspirited open theist around, will debate them calmly and rationally. Or, once you've listed what these arguments are, let's first see if any open theist anywhere has ever addressed them. Deal?
Gerry: Yet, open theists blame their critics for terminating discussion while prompting an end to thoughtful discussion themselves. For example, in the fall of 2001 John Sanders called evangelical critics of open theism the "evangelical Taliban" and "evangelical Mullahs."
Tom: Really? Sanders called "every evangelical who levels any criticism against the open view at all" a Taliban Mullah? Wow. I guess everything Sanders says about Hall in the book the two of them published is a lie. Sanders and Hall have shown the rest of us how to debate! But, to the point, Sanders did not say this about “every evangelical without exception who criticizes the open view,” now did he? There are many evangelicals Sanders would have excluded from that statement. Guess you'll have to transmorgrify your claim.
Gerry: Such smarmy talk terminates reasonable discussions of legitimately disputed ideas. The same kind of thing happens on these discussion pages ad nauseam. Reasonable critics of open theism repeatedly are driven from these pages by ridicule, dismissiveness, mockery, red herrings, ad hominem responses, and a whole lot of other tactics that are unbecoming either reasonable people or Christians.
Tom: Now you’re just picking a fight, Gerry. But that’s cool. I’m not the one who stomped off this thread claiming I wouldn’t invest any more of my precious time arguing with people. I haven’t called you names, ridiculed you, dismissed or attacked you. I respect you and your views. I’ll debate you any day of the week about this stuff. I took on your claims point for point and your quotes of Boyd standing straight up and like a gentleman. I’m totally open to reasonable discussion if you have any to give. Wanna start a thread closed to everybody but you and me? You name the topic (open cosmology, libertarian free will, the logic of indeterminacy, anthropomorphism, you name it), I’ll be there. If you wanna forget the history of debate and actually debate theological/exegetical claims, I’m game.
By the way, if there are open theists on this board who are judgmental and unloving and smarmy (and there have been), let’s you and I take them over to John Piper and let him talk to them about his public admission of guilt for precisely this sort of attitude. Let open theists who don’t really love Calvinists the way they should hear Piper tell them about his public apology for being judgmental and unloving toward an open theist, Greg Boyd, because of his open theism. Then you and I can have a time of prayer together in Piper’s office with all those open theists who have crossed the line like all those Calvinists who have crossed the line. If ever being unloving means being wrong about all you believe, my goodness Gerry, nobody is ever right about anything, including you and Piper and your theological determinism. So keep your feet on the ground. I’m here any day of the week you wanna talk about the issues. For an old codger who has been around (as you affectionately like to call yourself at times), to date you’ve produced nothing to give me a reason for doubting my core beliefs regarding the open view. But when you wanna stop complaining about how you think the rules of debate have been totally respected by everyone but open theists, I'm in my corner waiting. Just ring the bell and come out.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Hey, you edited! No fair.
Gerry: What is my point? My point is rather simple. Open theists began their project with radicalized views that have migrated significantly under criticism.
Tom: If you mean open theists have changed their defining, core beliefs, you’re as wrong as the sun doth shine. If you mean we’ve adjusted our arguments over time in response to criticism, then thank us. It’s a good thing to do. As others have point out, Calvinists have changed, migrated, and morphed in ways that have Calvin turning in his grave. Give the man some rest.
I never suggested that open theists have changed their defining core beliefs. I have argued with evidence, however, that open theists have transmogrified their view from the original and foundational insistence that all human decisions are of the libertarian freedom variety, for otherwise humans could not be held accountable for their choices. Just because you choose not to acknowledge that the evidence I have set forth supports this case hardly means that you're right. As a geezer who has been around a long time, I have watched open theism emerge from its embryo. Whether you like it or not, I think I know what I'm talking about. 
All open theists, including Greg Boyd, argued from the beginning that all human decisions derive from libertarian freedom, in agreement with their Arminian associates and in opposition to their Calvinist associates. However, open theists offended both Arminians and Calvinists by insisting upon a radicalized form of libertarian freedom, insisting that God cannot and does not know future human decisions because, if he knew them, then they would not be free. Their entire focus was to insist upon their radicalized concept of libertarian freedom to separate themselves from Arminianism. Only after open theists began to realize that they had separated themselves from Arminianism too radically did they begin to draw back somewhat by working on the idea of "solidified character," God's "unilateral decisions" (coercion of his creatures against their wills), and "neo-Molinism" (all present in Greg Boyd's writings).
Object all you want, Tom, if it is important for you to be right.  The fact is that this is what open theists argued and asserted when they brought their view out into public hearing and viewing. Trace their arguments from the beginning of their project. Do it for yourself, if you dare!
quote:
Gerry: Because open theists have been unwilling to acknowledge that their theological sparring partners have landed substantial blows to the open theism project by refusing to engage their critics' arguments, open theists shut off fruitful discussion.
Tom: This is comical.
Comical? Hardly! 
quote:
Gerry: Yet, open theists blame their critics for terminating discussion while prompting an end to thoughtful discussion themselves. For example, in the fall of 2001 John Sanders called evangelical critics of open theism the "evangelical Taliban" and "evangelical Mullahs."
Tom: He did not say this about “every evangelical without exception who criticizes the open view,” now did he?
Huh? What kind of non-response is this? John Sanders made no distinctions among his critics when he called them "the evangelical Taliban" and "evangelical Mullahs." I heard him. I read him. Your response is a non-response to the point I made. What difference would it make whom John Sanders called these mean-spirited names? The point is that John Sanders behaved badly, in a mean-spirited manner.  I have yet to hear him acknowledge his mean-spiritedness.
Since it seems evident that you are not inclined to retrace the history of open theism's progression and you seem rather inconvincible with evidence and reasonableness, I will let the matter drop. I think I will go do my retirement projects that are much more efficient and far more rewarding. I will go back to only reading these pages periodically. I'll sit down with my stack of books and spend my time with my good friends, my books. 
Auf Wiedersehen! 
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
I'll sit down with my stack of books and spend my time with my good friends, my books.
Auf Wiedersehen!
You'll have a better chance, arguing unilaterally, I'll grant that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/21/2004 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: I never suggested that open theists have changed their defining core beliefs.
Tom: Great! Then whatever modifications open theists have made are modifications to better support their core beliefs. EVERY theological view makes these sorts of modifications, even Calvinists; well, especially Calvinists.
Gerry: I have argued with evidence, however, that open theists have transmogrified their view from the original and foundational insistence that all human decisions are of the libertarian freedom variety, for otherwise humans could not be held accountable for their choices.
Tom: Your evidence included a quote from Boyd admitting that some human decisions may be compatibilistic if made by one of sufficiently solidified character.
Gerry: Just because you choose not to acknowledge that the evidence I have set forth supports this case hardly means that you're right.
Tom: Right. Well, Boyd’s qualification sinks your boat.
Gerry: As a geezer who has been around a long time, I have watched open theism emerge from its embryo. Whether you like it or not, I think I know what I'm talking about.
Tom: I think I do too. So, you were alive in the early fifth century? You knew Calcidius? Lorenzo McCabe back in the 1800’s? Adam Clark too? Boy, you ARE an old geezer.
Gerry: All open theists, including Greg Boyd, argued from the beginning that all human decisions derive from libertarian freedom…
Tom: A simply false statement that no open theist has ever made. Your quotes of Boyd don’t show him making this claim. I’ve read the stuff too, Gerry. I’m not a teenager.
Gerry: However, open theists offended both Arminians and Calvinists by insisting upon a radicalized form of libertarian freedom, insisting that God cannot and does not know future human decisions because, if he knew them, then they would not be free. Their entire focus was to insist upon their radicalized concept of libertarian freedom to separate themselves from Arminianism. Only after open theists began to realize that they had separated themselves from Arminianism too radically did they begin to draw back somewhat by working on the idea of "solidified character," God's "unilateral decisions" (coercion of his creatures against their wills), and "neo-Molinism" (all present in Greg Boyd's writings).
Tom: Interesting interpretation of history. Well, “solidified character” isn’t a new creation of open theists. Augustine argued it. So it’s hardly transmogrifying for open theists to agree. Boyd grants this qualification to libertarian free will in the quotes of his you provided. Furthermore, arguing that God cannot foreknow libertarian choices isn’t a more radicalized form of libertarian freedom. It’s the same libertarian freedom. It’s just that open theists disagree with traditional Arminians about what libertarian freedom implies about foreknowledge. But they aren’t advocating a different “form” of freedom as you say. Your whole rewriting of history is skewed.
Look, arguing “solidified character” hasn’t brought us any closer to Arminians who don’t like open theism. Nor was that a motivation. Neo-Molinism? Gosh, is this it? You’re making a case against open theism out of this? I'm worried about ya, Gerry. You OK?
Gerry: Object all you want, Tom, if it is important for you to be right.
Tom: Now can I say “comical”?
Gerry: The fact is that this is what open theists argued and asserted when they brought their view out into public hearing and viewing. Trace their arguments from the beginning of their project. Do it for yourself, if you dare!
Tom: I have, and I find no evidence of the skewed history you’ve just narrated.
Gerry: Huh? What kind of non-response is this? John Sanders made no distinctions among his critics when he called them "the evangelical Taliban" and "evangelical Mullahs." I heard him. I read him.
Tom: My point is that John didn’t level that accusation against “all evangelicals without exception” who criticize the open view. Chris Hall is just such an example. He’s an evangelical who criticizes the open view. John doesn’t think he is a Taliban. So John was obviously addressing himself to a specific group of evangelicals. If you ask me, the comparison of some critics of the open view to the Taliban isn’t inaccurate. It’s a strong metaphor and is probably too prone to be misunderstood (because of all the murderous actions of the Taliban which are NOT intended to come across in the comparison). It doesn’t imply that people are literally chopping heads off. It’s a metaphor, Gerry. Remember those?
Gerry: Since it seems evident that you are not inclined to retrace the history of open theism's progression and you seem rather inconvincible with evidence and reasonableness, I will let the matter drop.
Tom: And with it your argument. Well, take care Gerry. Enjoy your garden.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2004 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: I never suggested that open theists have changed their defining core beliefs.
...and...
Gerry: I have argued with evidence, however, that open theists have transmogrified their view from the original and foundational insistence that...
Tom: Help me out, Gerry. If you agree that open theists have not changed their "defining, core" beliefs, what does it mean to claim they've transmogrified their "foundational" belief regarding free will? We haven't changed what "defines" our view but we have changed what's "foundational" to our view? What's that mean?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mordecai
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/29/2004 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | A very informative exchange everyone!
QUESTION: Why couldn't it be said that God in essence created an unliftable rock (a logical impossibility) when He created a world whose contingent future He cannot fully know? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/30/2004 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mordecai
QUESTION: Why couldn't it be said that God in essence created an unliftable rock (a logical impossibility) when He created a world whose contingent future He cannot fully know?
You could look at it that way! But most people who offer this specific example do so to pit God's attribute against one another in an attempt to show God doesn't exist. Qualified the way you have, I don't see a problem with it.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/30/2004 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: Despite the attitude that many people display when using the unliftable rock picture, I think they do inadvertently raise a good point. Many believers throw on God whatever attributes will suit their purpose, in this case omnipotence and sovereignty, even though they contradict each other. I think the open view addresses the problem. Either omnipotence or sovereignty must be limited. Either God can't exercise power in creating what he can't be completely sovereign over or God "delegates" some sovereignty to what he exercises power in creating.
Tom: Hmmm. I guess I’d agree that God can do neither that which is logically impossible nor that which is contrary to his nature. I’d agree that “creating a rock so big that you can’t pick it up” can arguably be likened to “creating a world with freedom X such that you can’t disregard freedom X.” But that’s not to say there aren’t logical impossibilities and that it’s nonsensical to claim that God’s inability to perform such impossibilities means he can’t also be omnipotent.
But why think omnipotence and sovereignty contradict each other, that God can’t be both without limiting the exercise of one? I mean, couldn’t God create a world in which God unconditionally determines everything and causally brings it all about? Then he’d be deterministically sovereign and the exercise of his power would not be conditioned by our freedom. That’s not a contradictory sort of world.
What seems contradictory is to introduce variables on one side of the equation without introducing them on the other side. For example, saying God unconditionally determines everything AND we are free in the libertarian sense.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:39 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 |
|
|