 |
| 
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/7/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
open theism affirms the sovereignty of God.
Now, maybe I missed something, but if Dr. Boyd was trying to prove open view theism based on philosophical arguments (Colossians 2:8), then wouldn't he be bound by the rules of logic. Apparently he does not think so (all quoted material is taken from Boyd's site).
Let's look at all the logical fallacies that open view theism commit:
1) Hasty generalization
a. There are a few verses where the Bible exemplifies anthropomorphic qualities
b. Therefore God doesn't know the end.
2) Anecdotal evidence
"They [open thiests] base their conviction on biblical, philosophical, and experiential evidence."
3) Begging the Question
"Self-determination means that the self determines its actions, or it has no clear meaning."
4) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Of course the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language. Nobody can prove otherwise.
5) Law of Non-Contradiction
Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty. (By the way, can any of you please send me a place on his website where he says "sovereign" or "omniscient" so I can shoot that down to.)
I know there are more, but I think that'll be enough for now.
Dr. Boyd also does not practice systematic theology; his list of proof texts doesn't even begin to touch the complete list of verses dealing with God's foreknowledge and sovereign will/plan.
Let us return 'god' to who He really is. The Sovereign, Omniscient, Foreknowing, and Determing God. Libertarian free will is a lie (sorry to break it to you).
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/7/2004 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: Now, maybe I missed something...
Tom: Something you wrote I agree with! 
Welcome to the board, Chris! You can invite dialogue over the issues. Judging from your profile and the tone of your post, you're just on a mission to eradicate open theism. If that's the case, take it somewhere else. If you want to dialogue the issues kindly, with brothers and sisters in Christ, then welcome aboard!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Holiday
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 12/7/2004 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | cpoteet: 2) Anecdotal evidence
"They [open thiests] base their conviction on biblical, philosophical, and experiential evidence."
And thank goodness that monergists don't any base their theology on experience. That would be tragic if limited atonement were not in the bible and they made it up. O wait...
cpoteet: 5) Law of Non-Contradiction
Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty. (By the way, can any of you please send me a place on his website where he says "sovereign" or "omniscient" so I can shoot that down to.)
Well they don't affirm your definition of sovereignty. But they still believe that the Bible is serious when it speaks of God as being good. Thus we don't agree that God eternally decreed to rape murder and kill. And you want to talk about Non-Contradiction. Paul Helm who seems to be the only Evangelical who is willing to both dabble in philosophy and theology and be a monergists offers poor explanations as to how God is not still morally culpable for evil if ultimately decrees it. Secondary causes, having a different intent with the cause, bla, bla, bla if you make someone sin and then send them to hell for it, it is your problem. Helm offers semantic tricks not explanations
cpoteet: Libertarian free will is a lie (sorry to break it to you).
Compatibilistic freedom isn't freedom at all (sorry hate to break it to you).
cpoteet: The Sovereign, Omniscient, Foreknowing, and Determing God.
Its almost like Schweitzer is right. God turns out exactly to be who you want Him to be.
Trying to find monergism in the first three centuries of Christian thought,
Holiday
| | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/7/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
bopeep contradicts herself when she says:
1. "let us return" (an imperative)
2. "libertarian free will is a lie"
Not if you understood the true, Biblical nature of freedom then this wouldn't be a problem for you.
quote:
And thank goodness that monergists don't any base their theology on experience. That would be tragic if limited atonement were not in the bible and they made it up. O wait...
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:5-7
Yea, I see Libertarian free will throughout the Bible. In fact I challenge any of you to pull 1, just 1, verse from the entire Bible that affirms true self-determinism with regard to Libertarian free will (and the first is contingent on the latter).
quote:
Compatibilistic freedom isn't freedom at all (sorry hate to break it to you).
Really? Why not?
quote:
monergists offers poor explanations as to how God is not still morally culpable for evil if ultimately decrees it.
Reformed Christians have held to a form of theological determinism and compatibilism, and thus have denied that man possesses free will in the libertarian sense. So for them the problem of evil could not find resolution in appeals to such freedom. For them, the issue had to be resolved within the very nature of the compatibilistic relationship itself.
For God to hold man morally accountable, yet to predestine everything that man thinks or does, something other than the "freedom of contraries" must ground this accountability. Calvinists believe that this something is the capacity of man to choose and act according to his moral state of being, the "freedom of choice". But man's moral state of being is presently subject to sin, and this fact, itself, is part of the problem of evil. So one must inquire as to the cause of man's subjection to sin.
The Reformed Theodicy boils down to the distinction of purposes between the primary agent (God) and the secondary agents (humans). While it is true that God intends to bring about evil, God's purpose is not, of itself, evil (cf. Gen. 50:20). This idea can be expressed by analogy:
[Picture] that of a prison warden, call him Bill, who hires a guard, Chuck, to execute a condemned rapist and murderer, Spike. Now suppose that Chuck derives some perverse pleasure from killing Spike, and Bill knows this. Does this involve Bill in the evil of Chuck's action? Not unless either the action of killing Spike is evil in itself (which it is not), or Bill shares the same purpose as Chuck (gratification of some perverse desire) in killing Spike (which he does not).
www.wordiq.com/definition/Problem_of_evil
quote:
Trying to find monergism in the first three centuries of Christian thought
Oh yea, so Augustine started the whole thing right? Maybe if you read the Bible that was compiled during that time...The same, insufficient argument can be used for your anthropecentristic theology which appears nowhere in the Bible.
Reformed Theology
"Relentlessly Working to Recover the Gospel, Resisting All Forms of Theological Naturalism & Overthrowing The Tyranny of Bourgeoisie Generic Market-Driven Christian Anthropocentricism."
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
morenever
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | Holiday, "rape murder and kill"? Why do you think anyone deserves anything better? | | Back to Top | | |
|
WormBowedB4TerribleGod
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
Trying to find monergism in the first three centuries of Christian thought
Oh yea, so Augustine started the whole thing right?
Origen
http://www.stathanasius.miss.on.coptorthodox.ca/Menu/Patrology/SchoolOfAlexandria-Origen/Origen_FreeWill.htm
According to Origen men as well as all other rational creatures are free. Truly man is everywhere in chains, but it is his own responsibility, for the cause of his enslavement is traceable to that very freedom, which he misused.
"...every rational nature can, in the process of passing from one order to another, travel through each order to all the rest, and from all to each, while undergoing the various movements of progress or the reverse in accordance with its own actions and endeavors and with the use of its power of free will."
"Since the teaching of the Church includes the doctrine of the righteous judgment of God, a doctrine which, if believed to be true, summons its hearers to live a good life and by every means avoid sin, for it assumes that they acknowledge that deeds worthy of praise or blame lie within our own power (eph'hemin ) - let us now discuss separately a few points on the subject of free will,..."
In his speech on Free will, Origen quotes several passages from the Old and New Testaments (Micah 6:8; Deut. 30:15, 19; Isa. 1:19f; Matt. 5:39, 22, 28; Rom. 2:4-10) to show that God commands obedience and rewards it, and punishes disobedience. But this God "...tells us that it lies in our power to observe the injunctions ..." He concludes, "Indeed, there are in the Scriptures ten thousands of passages which with utmost clearness prove the existence of free will."
Justin Martyr
First Apology 43-44
'We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man's actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good, and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed.
Furthermore, if the human race does not have the power of a freely deliberated choice in fleeing evil and in choosing good, then men are not accountable for their actions, whatever they may be. That they do, however, by a free choice, either walk upright or stumble, we shall now prove... GOD did not make man like the other beings, the trees, and the four-legged beasts, for example, which cannot do anything by free choice.
Neither would man deserve reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good; nor, if he acted wickedly, would he deserve punishment, since he would not be evil by choice, and could not be other than that which he was born. The Holy Prophetic Spirit taught us this when He informed us through Moses that GOD spoke as follows to the created man: "Behold, before your face, the good and the evil. Choose the good."' Deut 30:15,19.
Cyril of Alexandria
Commentary on John 13:18
"Sin is grounded in man's free will. Enlightement by the Logos brings man to knowledge. Knowledge results in right decisions. These draw a man toward God until he is assimilated to God" (Stromata iv. 23).
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
aaronshaf
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | "...monergists offers poor explanations as to how God is not still morally culpable for evil if ultimately decrees it. Secondary causes, having a different intent with the cause, bla, bla, bla if you make someone sin and then send them to hell for it, it is your problem."
Two questions:
1. Why not allow for some mystery in regards to this?
2. Isn't this objectionary language of yours akin to the objection in Romans :
“Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
We can't resist his will, and he still finds fault---he still blames us.
What can we do but shut our mouths and trust him for it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
aaronshaf
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | One more thing... Do you guys believe in justification by faith alone and the hypostatic union? I don't think Origen, Justin Martyr, and Cyril of Alexandria got these doctrines staight, and I know you can find statements (especially from Origen and Martyr) that would be considered heresy today in regards to the Trinity.
Much of Christianity's developed system of theology has come when heresy reared its ugly head to force us to deal with it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
aaronshaf
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I must add yet another question:
1. "let us return" (an imperative)
2. "libertarian free will is a lie"
You claimed these two statements were contradictory because the first was an imperative. Apparently you are assuming that for something to be a genuine imperative, moral ability must be presupposed.
In Romans 5, Paul says that the Law added so that sin might be increased ("Now the law came in to increase the trespass..."). The Law includes plenty of imperatives, and is fulfulled in obeying the greatest imperative: "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength."
So my question is this...
Did God fully expect the Law to increase the trespass? If we have libertarian free will, how is it that the law holds people "captive" (Romans 7) to sin and the passions of sin? Didn't God genuinely "add" the Law to purposefully increase the tresspass? How does this fit your few of genuine imperative? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/7/2004 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | cepoteet: ...anthropecentristic...
Tom: Anthropecentristic?
Yo everybody, can we not multiply alias? I'm seeing more first time posters in one thread than ever before. You can't ALL be real.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
aaronshaf
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Like Sabellianism?
No, I'm Aaron Shafovaloff. The Chris above is Chris Poteet. I'm from AaronAndStacia.com and I run BiggerGOD.com. Chris is a different person--a different center of consciousness, knowledge, and will. I know him from around here in Dayton, OH.
Ok? Thanks :-) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/7/2004 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's make it a stew!
Anthropecentristicism!
It was a bit of a joke, Aaron. 
Anthrocentrism, yeah. Androcentrism, OK. But anthropecentrism?
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/7/2004 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
Trying to find monergism in the first three centuries of Christian thought
Oh yea, so Augustine started the whole thing right? Maybe if you read the Bible that was compiled during that time...
Augustine's "exegesis":
"Of Hebrew, he told Memorius in a letter, he knew nothing, and relied either on the LXX or the Latin. He also wrote in his Confessions of his early dislike for Greek, which prevented him from developing overmuch in it....
Augustine also accepted as inspired what we today call the Apocrypha, and so uses verses from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, etc. to support important doctrines."1
But more importantly, as Augustine shacked up with his mistress, he brought Hellenistic/Manichaeistic thought into Christian theology.
What the church fathers of the first three centuries had to say on free-will, in opposition to Augustine's later Manichaeism is:
Justin Martyr
circa 100-165 AD
Dialogue CXLi: God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.
Irenaeus of Gaul
circa 130-200 AD
Against Heresies XXXVII: This expression, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves...
(4) If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free-will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free-will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
Athenagoras of Athens
2nd century
Embassy for Christians XXIV: Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virture were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels.
Theophilus of Antioch
2nd century
To Autolycus xxvii: For God made man free, and with power over himself... now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting.
Tatian of Syria
2nd century
Address, xi: Why are you "fated" to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; be we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.
Bardaisan of Syria
circa 154-222 AD
Fragments: "How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation?" -if man had been made so, he would not havve belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him;... And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman... they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exulted him above many of His creatures.
Clement of Alexandria
circa 150-215 AD
Stromata, Bk ii ch. 4: But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice.
Stromata, Bk iv ch. 12: But nothing is without the will of the Lord of the universe. It remains to say that such things happen without the prevention of God; for this alone saves both the providence and the goodness of God. We must not therefore think that He actively produces afflictions (far be it that we should think this!); but we must be persuaded that He does not prevent those that cause them, but overrules for good the crimes of His enemies.
Tertullian of Carthage
circa 155-225 AD
Against Marcion, Book II ch. 5: I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature... -you will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.
...Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will...
Novatian of Rome
circa 200-258 AD
On the Trinity, ch. 1: He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind and reason and foresight, that he might imitate God; and although the first elements of his body were earthly, yet the substance was inspired by a heavenly and divine breathing. And when He had given him all things fore his service, He willed that he alone should be free. And lest, again, an unbounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; be he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exercise his freewill in the contempt of the law that was given.
Origen
circa 185-254 AD
De Principiis, Preface: Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone... This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.
De Principiis, Bk 3 ch. 1: There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.
Methodius of Olympus
circa 260-martyred 311 AD
The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi: Now those who decide that man is not possessed of free-will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessitities of fate... are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.
Concerning Free-will: I say that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already existing some evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished... but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause.
Archelaus
Cyril, Epiphanius, and Jerome record a disputation (in 277) between the heretic Manes (founder of Manichaeism, of which Augustine was one) and the orthodox Archelaus.
The Disputation with Manes: For all creatures that God made, He made very good, and He gave to every individual the sense of free-will in accordance with which standard He also instituted the law of judgment. To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God's gift, as our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin.
Arnobius of Sicca
circa 253-327 AD
Against the Heathen: 64. I reply: does not He free all alike who invites all alike? or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him-? To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking...
65. Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from...
Cyril of Jerusalem
circa 312-386 AD
Lexture IV 18: Know also that thou hast a soul self governed, the noblest work of God, made after the image of its Creator, immortal because of God that gives it immortality, a living being rational, imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts: having free power to do what it willeth.
20. There is not a class of souls sinning by nature and a class of souls practicing righteousness by nature; but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only and alike in all.
21. The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator of necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.
Gregory of Nyssa
circa 335-395 AD
On Virginity (368) ch. XII: Being the image and the likeness... of the Power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a free-will this likeness to Him whose will is over all.
Jerome
circa 347-420 AD
Letters CXXXIII: It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try and convince the ignorant that I condemn free-will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created endowed with free-will; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human free-will, as I said, depends up the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that once a man has free-will he no longer needs the help of God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his free-will but requires God's aid who Himself needs no aid.
Against the Pelagians, Book III, 10: But when we are concerned with grace and mercy, free-will is in part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power in His strength and with His help to perform what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort.
John Chrysostom
347-407 AD
On Hebrews, Homily 12: All is in God's power, but so that our free-will is not lost... It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help... It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God's to perfect and bring to the end. 2
1. "God's Strategy in Human History", Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, copyright 1973, page 267
2. Forster and Marston, page 245-257
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/7/2004 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | cpoteet,
I don't know if you're willing to seriously engage with the open view (from the tone of your posts, I doubt it). But your claim that Boyd is guilty of numerous logical fallacies is itself quite fallacious.
quote:
1) Hasty generalization
a. There are a few verses where the Bible exemplifies anthropomorphic qualities
b. Therefore God doesn't know the end.
This is a classic example of a Straw Man. Nowhere does Boyd or any other open theist that I know of argue in the manner you have depicted. If you think otherwise, then please produce some direct quotes to back up your construal. The proper way to engage with another position (even one you may think is heresy) is to practice the principle of charity--always try to construe your opponent's arguments in as strong and plausible a way as possible. That way you minimize the risk of committing the Straw Man fallacy.
quote:
2) Anecdotal evidence
"They [open theists] base their conviction on biblical, philosophical, and experiential evidence."
Now please tell me, precisely, why appealing to experiential evidence, especially where other lines of argument are also given, is a fallacy? The fact is, it's not. If it were, then scientists could never appeal to observations to test their theories, we could never trust the deliverances of our senses or of introspection, and theologians could not appeal to observations of biblical texts to justify their systematic theologies.
And anyway, you misunderstand what the fallacy of anecdotal evidence is. It's not appealing to experience, rather, it's drawing a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion).
quote:
3) Begging the Question
"Self-determination means that the self determines its actions, or it has no clear meaning."
Begging the question always occurs in a dialectical context. Every argument begs some questions, because every argument has some undefended assumptions. Now, would you please explain the dialectical context behind your charge? What position is Boyd begging the question against? From whose perspective is Boyd's claim controversial, and why?
quote:
4) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Of course the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language. Nobody can prove otherwise.
This might be a fallacy on Boyd's part, depending on the larger context. If he defends the first claim with independent exegetical arguments, then it's not a fallacy. If the claim rests primarily on the presumed facts that nobody can prove otherwise, then it's a fallacy. Unfortunately, you didn't give any citations, so we have no way to check your assessment here.
quote:
5) Law of Non-Contradiction
Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty.
Please state for the rest of us exactly how this is contradictory. You are the one making the fallacy charge, so the burden is on you to justify that claim. If Boyd had said "Open Theism affirms and denies God's sovereignty" then he would be contradicting himself, but that's not what he said.
To show a contradiction, you need to document from Boyd's writings what he (not you) takes sovereignty to mean and then show that open theism as Boyd articulates it entails a contradiction with his definition of sovereignty.
It's not enough to show that Boyd's open theism contradicts your definition of sovereignty, because that would merely beg the question on your part.
quote:
Dr. Boyd also does not practice systematic theology; his list of proof texts doesn't even begin to touch the complete list of verses dealing with God's foreknowledge and sovereign will/plan.
Why does one have to touch on some "complete list" of verses that deal with an issue to do systematic theology? All you need is two verses on a given topic before systematic issues arise.
quote:
Let us return 'god' to who He really is. The Sovereign, Omniscient, Foreknowing, and Determining God. Libertarian free will is a lie (sorry to break it to you).
You just begged a lot of questions there. Remember that whether a question is begged depends on the dialectical context. You are attacking open theism. So the dialectical context is one in which the question of whether open theism is true is on the table. For you to make unsubstantiated claims that open theists will reject is, in the context of that discussion, begging the question.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/7/2004 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | For cepoteet, after reading Alan's post, from a First Aid website:
Shock is a depression of all of the body processes and may follow any injury regardless of how minor. Factors such as hemorrhage, cold and pain will intensify shock. When experiencing shock the patient will feel weak and may faint. The skin becomes cold and clammy and the pulse, weak and rapid. Shock can be more serious than the injury itself.
Use the following method to prevent and control shock:
1. When treating injuries:
a) restore breathing
b) stop bleeding
c) treat breaks and fractures
2. If there are no head or chest injuries place the patient on his/her back with the head and chest lower than the legs. This will help the blood circulate to the brain, heart, lungs and other major organs.
3. If severe head and chest injuries are present elevate the upper body. If chest injuries are present, elevate the injured side to assist in the functioning of the uninjured lung.
4. If the injured person becomes unconscious, place him/her in a face down position to prevent choking on blood, vomit or the tongue.
5. Keep your patient warm and under shelter.
Hope you feel better soon.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/7/2004 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | You are the real deal, Lock. A true nucklehead! I thought I was offended by several things you said, but then I remembered it was you making the comments. Par for the course. So very far off. But seriously, Lock, you go astray in attributing sinful intentions to us in claiming we believe what we do "in order to inflate man's ego." That's not cool. And you're a broken record on the "feelings" thing big guy. Get over it. I don't believe in LFW because of my "feelings." It's about meaning. But that appears to be of less concern to you. Alan took Chris's shoddy reasoning and point for point exposed it. You come back with trash talk. Nothing substantive at all.
Seriously, Lock, are you comfortable here?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/8/2004 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan, I can continue this un-edifying discussion (dealing with your claim of my straw man argument, questions begged, and the like), but I shall gracefully bow out. I have hope that the Sovereign Lord will move in all of your hearts (including Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders) to leave this view of God which so dishonors Him.
Our Father and our God,
I exalt and praise you for your majesty and grace. Lord I ask that you move in the hearts of those who see You as an "open" God, and in doing so return them to the view of You that You have preserved in Your word.
You are not waiting on my decisions, You have saved me only out of Your effectual grace to bring me to where I am today and where I will be tomorrow. I have confidence that you are Sovereign and in control. You have made Your majesty known, and I ask that Your Spirit soften and move in the hearts of those who see You other than what You are.
In Your Son Christ Jesus I pray. Amen.
(PS Here is a neat summary of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders membership in the ETS challenged due to their theological views: http://www.etsjets.org/members/challenge/2003-challenge.html)
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
| 214 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 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 |
|
|