Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Erickson's Critique

Forum Quick Jump

36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 11/17/2003 8:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
But if I had been around, I could have counted Peter's hairs. So *that* is not out of the realm of possibility for me.

The antecedent of "*that*" being "knowing the number of hairs on Peter's head", right?

quote:

So why think it extraordinarily out of the realm of possibility for Him, enough that He has to explain that in scripture?

The leap from being able to count Peter's hairs and having perfect knowledge of the present seems like a nontrivial jump to me. Many cultures that lacked the Christian scriptures seem not to have been able to make the jump to exhaustive definite present-knowledge.

"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.)

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 11/17/2003 9:00 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
The antecedent of "*that*" being "knowing the number of hairs on Peter's head", right?

You think it's physically impossible to number the hairs on a head?
Does it violate logic in some way? Is it completely out of the realm of possibility?

I don't think present/past knowlege are in any way comparable to future knowlege. The former exist, the latter does not exist. Comparing things that exist to things that don't exist, you don't see the difference? Are we surprised when people have knowlege of what exists? No. Why are you surprised that God has knowlege about what exists? How much evidence does He have to give you?

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 11/17/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
You think it's physically impossible to number the hairs on a head?

Of course I don't. Whatever gave you that idea?

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 11/17/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant

quote:
You think it's physically impossible to number the hairs on a head?
Of course I don't. Whatever gave you that idea?

You make it sound like God has to give lots of scriptural support for being able to know that. I'm arguing that it's so common He doesn't need to give much evidence for that. I am arguing that knowlege of the future is so EXTRAORDINARY to us that He needs to give EXTRAORDINARY evidence and explanation in scripture as to His having that knowlege. Where is it? We have TONS of explanation of how His idea of love is different from ours, where's the TONS of evidence of His knowlege of things that don't exist yet?

"It never entered my mind that My people would do this." doesn't sound like comprehensive knowlege of the future.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 11/17/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika
I don't think present/past knowlege are in any way comparable to future knowlege.

With the relativity of simultaneity, I'm not even exactly sure how to carve the spacetime continuum into a present/past and a future.

quote:
The former exist, the latter does not exist.

Says who?

quote:
Why are you surprised that God has knowlege about what exists?

Why were the worshippers of Zeus?

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 11/17/2003 9:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika
You make it sound like God has to give lots of scriptural support for being able to know that.

With "that" being "the number of hairs on Peter's hair", or with "that" being "every fact about the present and the past"? It makes a difference, you know.

quote:

"It never entered my mind that My people would do this." doesn't sound like comprehensive knowlege of the future.

It sounds like a figure of speech to me. If it were to be taken literally, it would seem to be saying that God didn't even think of including this in his probability calculus. Is that what you believe?

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 11/17/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
quote:

"It never entered my mind that My people would do this." doesn't sound like comprehensive knowlege of the future.
It sounds like a figure of speech to me. If it were to be taken literally, it would seem to be saying that God didn't even think of including this in his probability calculus. Is that what you believe?

I believe He knew all possible paths. That His people would choose that particular path surprised Him. The Vikings could have won yesterday, that they didn't, doesn't surprise me.

Here's my logic:

1. We're made in His image
2. That image is not physical. Scripture portrays Him as spirit, in other words, scripture has alternative ways of portraying Him other than physical.
3. We're made in His image. Which image then? What's left?
4. Emotional/mental image. Scripture doesn't portray Him in any alternative ways other than mental and emotional images similar to ours. Perfect examples of ours but not different in essence.
5. Physical figures of speech; because there's an alternative explanation (God is spirit), they are figures of speech.
6. Mental/emotional figures of speech don't exist because there is no alternative explanation of God's mental/emotional image.
"Finger of God", well "God is spirit" so this is a metaphor/figure of speech/anthropomorphism.
"God loves", well this means what it says as there is no alternative given in scripture for what this means other than "God loves".

Chris, I know your question was for Dr. Boyd and you should not take anything I've said as anything other than my ideas. I hope he answers your question. Thank you for indulging in conversation with me in the meantime.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

brolewis
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 5

Posted 1/8/2004 12:57 PM (GMT -6)

I'm taking a class with Dr. Erickson right now and tomorrow and defending the OV in a debate with a fellow classmate. I am curious to hear Dr. Erickson's comments tomorrow. Having read this, I hope to take him to lunch and ask him some questions concerning points you all have raised and get some responses about his book. I'll try to post any thing I discover from my day tomorrow.

To think that it is correct first of all to deal with the metaphysical Being of God, and then with His Love, as His ‘ethical attribute’, means that the decisive element in the Biblical Idea of God has not been perceived." -Emil Brunner

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 1/10/2004 6:43 AM (GMT -6)

So, how did the discussion go? Was the infinite intelligence argument addresses? What did Dr. Erickson say in defense of his (apparent)limited view of God?...e,g., in his latest book he appears to indicate that even God could not know or ancipate some possibilities that could occur in the future.

John

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/11/2004 1:25 PM (GMT -6)

I'd be interested in hearing how it went as well. Bandit

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

brolewis
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 5

Posted 1/14/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6)

Ladies and Gentleman, since there was so much material that I had typed out in reponse to this topic, I felt that it might be best to start a new thread and allow for discussion to flow from the comments and questions enclosed within my post. Thus, if you want to see my post, please look for the one authored by me entitled "A Discussion with Erickson" (I thought about a cute title like ME and Millard Erickson but decided against it).

36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:48 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual