Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
God could predestine and bring to pass everything. In light of evil and suffering and free moral agency (necessary for love, relationship, moral responsibility), it is evident that God predestines some vs all things (decretal Calvinism is a wrong, deterministic paradigm).
In other words, God makes Himself dumber
According to SOZO, I need to go to Hell because I am a 'Christless' pervert.
Nice neg rep
My rep count has stayed between 4500 and 5000 forever now because of these ridiculous posters. Tis' funny.
How does God make Himself dumber in my view? Are you talking about my Open Theism EDF view?
There is no in between. God is either omnipotent, or He is not omnipotent. In which case, if He is not omnipotent, then He is not God.
That is the silver bullet for open theism. They, Pentecostals, and the like are fanatics. This is nothing new. All the way back to the Medieval era, fanatics had come from every corner of the known world with many even coming from the Church itself. One would do well to realize that before jumping into a debate of reason.
In my opinion, Calvinists and Catholics are really the only sensible standings. Arminianism just reeks of dishonesty and wishful thinking.
There is no in between. God is either omnipotent, or He is not omnipotent. In which case, if He is not omnipotent, then He is not God.
That is the silver bullet for open theism. They, Pentecostals, and the like are fanatics. This is nothing new. All the way back to the Medieval era, fanatics had come from every corner of the known world with many even coming from the Church itself. One would do well to realize that before jumping into a debate of reason.
In my opinion, Calvinists and Catholics are really the only sensible standings. Arminianism just reeks of dishonesty and wishful thinking.
Open Theism is more about omniscience than omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God does all that is doable. He cannot illogically make square circles or uncreate Himself. It also does not mean He always does all things possible. God could have killed Satan or Hitler, but He did not without allowing much evil to happen. God could get rid of winter, but He does not. In your view, does that mean He is not omnipotent because of His voluntary self-limitations (cf. incarnation where the eternal Word was limited on earth, but not in heaven).
So, denying wrong views of providence, sovereignty, free will, omnipotence, eternity vs time, immutability, Christology, omniscience is NOT denying God or the Bible.
www.opentheism.info More biblical, coherent than Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism.
You make the Calvinistic mistake of saying that if we reject their view of sovereignty in favor of a better view that God is not or cannot be God? This was Plato's reasoning in His wrong view of an Unmoved vs Living Deity. God is still God and still sovereign if we reject a wrong view of Him and His ways.
Why are Pentecostals and Open Theists more fanatical than Catholics and Calvinists who also hold to views with conviction and attempt to defend them? Calvinists are far more acerbic and unreasonable in their attacks of others than vice versa (Catholics also oppose evangelicals despite nominal Catholics finding new life in Christ in Latin American Pentecostal churches that they did not find in their dead, ritualistic Catholic churches...for the record, there are Catholics who know and love God, but being Catholic does not make you Christian automatically).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Open Theism is more about omniscience than omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God does all that is doable. He cannot illogically make square circles or uncreate Himself. It also does not mean He always does all things possible. God could have killed Satan or Hitler, but He did not without allowing much evil to happen. God could get rid of winter, but He does not. In your view, does that mean He is not omnipotent because of His voluntary self-limitations (cf. incarnation where the eternal Word was limited on earth, but not in heaven).
Not being able to lift a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift or not being able to 'uncreate' Himself is not grounds to say He is not omnipotent. It is rather grounds to say that He is omnipotent.
God-deniers and Arminians have beaten that straw man for ages. It is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
So, denying wrong views of providence, sovereignty, free will, omnipotence, eternity vs time, immutability, Christology, omniscience is NOT denying God or the Bible.
If God is not omnipotent, then He is not God. They both go hand in hand. Even hypothetically, if that could be the case, His omniscience makes everything predestined anyway because He is timeless. But since Arminians are fanatics, reason and physical reality does not matter to them. That irrational and wishful bias is the only thing that could possibly keep one from realizing a theology which works with both Scripture and reality.
If God is not omnipotent, then He is not God. They both go hand in hand. Even hypothetically, if that could be the case, His omniscience makes everything predestined anyway because He is timeless. But since Arminians are fanatics, reason and physical reality does not matter to them. That irrational and wishful bias is the only thing that could possibly keep one from realizing a theology which works with both Scripture and reality.
God IS omnipotent, but there are qualifications (logical possibility, etc.). Your wrong assumption is that God is timeless (where did you get that idea? Plato? Augustine? C.S. Lewis?). God could settle the future with predestination/power. Arminians assume simple foreknowledge as to how the future is settled (but this is indefensible assumption). The best view is that God settles some of the future by His ability, but leaves other aspects partially open and thus indeterminate/unknowable except as certain vs possible (agents settle the future if they have free will, so this precludes exhaustive foreknowledge before their existence if contingencies are real as we see). Endless time, not timelessness, is defensible (God is eternal, but not timeless, unless He is impersonal).
I am unclear of your views since you just call opposing views fanatical.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
God IS omnipotent, but there are qualifications (logical possibility, etc.). Your wrong assumption is that God is timeless (where did you get that idea? Plato? Augustine? C.S. Lewis?). God could settle the future with predestination/power. Arminians assume simple foreknowledge as to how the future is settled (but this is indefensible assumption). The best view is that God settles some of the future by His ability, but leaves other aspects partially open and thus indeterminate/unknowable except as certain vs possible (agents settle the future if they have free will, so this precludes exhaustive foreknowledge before their existence if contingencies are real as we see). Endless time, not timelessness, is defensible (God is eternal, but not timeless, unless He is impersonal).
I am unclear of your views since you just call opposing views fanatical.
The first three words of your post debunks the entirety of the rest of your statements.
God does not have to be what you say to be personal. Those type of arguments are just plain arbitrary.
And
Endless time requires a starting point, whereas timelessness does not. God could not have had a starting point unless something else created Him.
No it does not. Few would disagree with the fact that God cannot make square circles or that He does not stop all rapes negates His omnipotence.
If you are going to quibble, make it clear what your beef is (where is the beef?).
I have already explained that fallacy of logic.
Just like fanatics do, they deny/pretend a rebuttal was never given and continue.
Only 'few' are smart enough to comprehend sound logic. If you think the world is full of smart people, think again.
I must have missed it. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus....so sorry.
No you didn't, you flat out ignored the first part of the post and quoted/argued the rest of it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj
Not being able to lift a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift or not being able to 'uncreate' Himself is not grounds to say He is not omnipotent. It is rather grounds to say that He is omnipotent.
God-deniers and Arminians have beaten that straw man for ages. It is a logical fallacy.
No you didn't, you flat out ignored the first part of the post and quoted/argued the rest of it
To clarify, Venus, do you think God can create a rock too heavy to lift? I would suggest He cannot (logical absurdity, not a true limitation on omnipotence). If you think He can do so (please draw one) and must do so to truly be God/omnipotent, then I cannot help you (also explain the concept of married bachelor, man woman, Christian atheist, pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time, etc.).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Linear Mode
