Yes, you're getting my point, exactly!
I do fully acknowledge that the analogy is an imperfect one, as are almost all analogies.
Our Moral God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
I do fully acknowledge that the analogy is an imperfect one, as are almost all analogies.
Open Theists do not reject the omnis in a fashion akin to the Mormons! This way of thinking doesn't work anyway. Would you put yourself in the same category as the Mormons because you pray to a guy named Jesus? I mean, do you know anything at all about what the Mormons teach? The Mormons are the worst kind of cult! The very worst kind! The, by far, most evil, most destructive, most deadly cult the world has ever seen! Yawweh Ben Yawweh and the Moonies and the Branch Davidians and all the other goofball "Christian" cults all put together don't come within 10,000 miles of doing the spiritual destruction that the Mormons have done all by themselves. The Jehovah Witnesses are the only ones that come anywhere close and even they have less than half as many members.
Very well then! Thank you for that!Supra. If you want to die on this hill, I'll let you. 1) I apologized, but I'm not going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I certainly do apologize this has become a mess but 2) I am not guilty of the full accusation, just in the collateral harm. It is I who am guilty by association on this one, you are assuming I meant something disparaging but reread. They only drawn connection (and there are more than just this in the articles I've read of ongoing dialogue between Open Theists and Mormons that frankly puzzles and captures my investigative mind). . Clete, I'm being totally honest with you: I did not intend to malign. I was literally trying to think of categorical groups: Those who hold to Omnis and those who do not. And yet again, I'm sorry for this aftermath. Not my intent.
Possible, but not for the 'reason.' It might be why it readily came to mind but honestly, it had more to do with my research into the founding Open Theists and the yet ongoing associations and correspondence all of them have with LDS. It is so significant that this readily is yet an attachment my mind has between Open Theists and Mormonism. It is incredibly notable. That said, please: I'm sorry! Is there something of intent to be disparaging? Theologically I am concerned about both but I also need to say this: I believe Open Theists are believers and Mormons are not. Because of the overarching difference, I can readily admit any connection between Open Theism and Mormonism is superficial. That said, I may start a thread on why the major players in Open Theism are in ongoing dialogue, even going to each others conferences, between Open Theist and Mormons. Clearly there is a connection that greatly troubles you in the category of Guilty-by-Association. I appreciate your strong aversion and will be careful in the future. It is something I have to remember and I'm prayerful that I will not bring up this association, with you, ever again.
Appreciate that. I believe they are like Samaritans with Jesus. They were despised/they are despised. I used to have a similar reaction but God has been working on my heart: I've tried to tell them clearly and compassionately that there is are huge differences with empathy. Wicked? Yes, anything that keeps one from the gospel. Different conversation, but I agree. This is all catching a bit on the surreal side because of the attention. I will try again with apology. I believe I've even been guilty of the accusation in the past. I'm just trying to say "not this time." At the very least, I think I can say "I think I should have known better." It wasn't the intention, as you can see there are a lot of other factors that went into my statement, but I think I have to own 'some' of this. Again, not the intent, but in the background? Yes. It wasn't the part that came into play at this time, but on the backburner.
Advice please: It may only be for you, but should I never bring up comparisons when it comes to cultists or sects? Is it better to simply not bring up comparisons? I'd think 'never' and see wisdom in it but realize I'm seeing "Mormonism and Open Theism Connection and Ongoing Dialogue" as a topic on TOL as a very connected reality. They are literally doing each other's conferences. How are the rest of us to understand this? Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, and others have been in extensive interaction with Mormons. How am I to 'disassociate' what is right in front of me?
So I'm asking.
I honestly wouldn't have known this about you and appreciate it.
Clark Pinnock at BYU
John Sanders lecturing at BYU
I had thought I'd read a dialogue between Greg Boyd and Mormon representatives in the past but cannot find that at this time.
This article bins Arminians with Mormons and Open Theists upon qualified Omnis, I believe wrongly. Arminians embrace the Omnis without qualification.
I fully and unambiguously recant the implication as it wasn't the intention. I do indeed recant the insult to you by association. I honestly didn't know (should have suspected?) that any Open Theist was this antiMormon. Truly. Apologies.
I recommend erasing the connection in your mind between the two. To the extent that it exists at all, it is entirely coincidental.
It is truly a severe disappointment that either Pinnock or Sanders would participate in such a discussion. What a completely destructive thing to have done! The only possible outcome was precisely what has happened. Mormonism is given credence that it could not earn at the expense of undermining the life's work of those two men. Foolishness beyond comprehension!
Now, where were we?
Lon
Well-known member
Well,
1) I've given an apology, please accept it.
2) I'd hope you can empathize on this: Something is in common with Mormons or else the major Open Theologians and authors wouldn't be doing Bringham Young (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, likely more minor players). That alone is intriguing, compelling. You are against the interactions, comparison, and commonality. It is good but realize you are a cog in this wheel and the rest of Christianity, if they look into Open Theism, are going to read about these interactions and ongoing dialogue. It 'can' be a relegation to 'cult' by association in guilt and dismissal. If you read the discussions, some of these discussions/interaction between them is over the Omnis with Mormons: What is shared in common. The phenomena may be driven by interested Mormons initially
idunno. They are interested in Process Theology for instance, because what is similar as they continue to want validation from the rest of Christianity. Mormons believe God didn't 'create' the universe, but rather 'ordered it.' I means there is something in Open Theism paradigms that draw Mormon interest, because God is 'limited' to coin Derf's term. Correlations on these interactions force categories in the rest of our minds. There is definitely a difference but please see I was only comparing 'omnis qualified' between the two of you. Granted you do not at all appreciate the comparison and I'll try to be sensitive in the future. Mormon doctrine departs with Open Theism upon many points. Likely Mormons are more interested than these Open Theist spokesmen/founders in the dialogue, needs further investigation, I'm guessing. Maybe yet another thread: Mormonism and Open Theology connection.
Thank you for the reciprocation.
The Omnis, this came because of a mention of Calvinists with EDF, and so we finished (prayerfully) a disagreement on categories regarding Omniscience and EDF. I believe it is the rest of post 528 where this left off.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Agree. God knew, thus wasn't asking 'where?' for information, but to hold men accountable.
Right Divider
Body part
They certainly become one in a sense and maybe that is the way that you like to look at it.
I fully agree that the two are "owned" by the one Lord Jesus Christ. But I maintain that the divine nature and the human nature have different characteristics that remain distinct forever.
Agreed.
Same here and thanks.
Derf
Well-known member
I listened to a Ravi Zacharias talk at BYU that was quite good. He wasn't open theist. I applaud any attempts to reach Mormons, and Paul gave us examples of finding common ground.Well,
1) I've given an apology, please accept it.
2) I'd hope you can empathize on this: Something is in common with Mormons or else the major Open Theologians and authors wouldn't be doing Bringham Young (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, likely more minor players). That alone is intriguing, compelling. You are against the interactions, comparison, and commonality. It is good but realize you are a cog in this wheel and the rest of Christianity, if they look into Open Theism, are going to read about these interactions and ongoing dialogue. It 'can' be a relegation to 'cult' by association in guilt and dismissal. If you read the discussions, some of these discussions/interaction between them is over the Omnis with Mormons: What is shared in common. The phenomena may be driven by interested Mormons initially
Mormons believe God didn't 'create' the universe, but rather 'ordered it.' I means there is something in Open Theism paradigms that draw Mormon interest, because God is 'limited' to coin Derf's term. Correlations on these interactions force categories in the rest of our minds. There is definitely a difference but please see I was only comparing 'omnis qualified' between the two of you. Granted you do not at all appreciate the comparison and I'll try to be sensitive in the future. Mormon doctrine departs with Open Theism upon many points. Likely Mormons are more interested than these Open Theist spokesmen/founders in the dialogue, needs further investigation, I'm guessing. Maybe yet another thread: Mormonism and Open Theology connection.
Thank you for the reciprocation.
The Omnis, this came because of a mention of Calvinists with EDF, and so we finished (prayerfully) a disagreement on categories regarding Omniscience and EDF. I believe it is the rest of post 528 where this left off.
Last edited:
You might like Dominic Enyart's YT channel Enyart Theology. He's been putting out some stuff on Mormonism lately.
Lon
Well-known member
Derf
Well-known member
Maybe this is the one:
Okay, so first of all, regular typos aside, you need to pay closer attention to your sentence structure. This is barely readable.Well,
1) I've given an apology, please accept it.
2) I'd hope you can empathize on this: Something is in common with Mormons or else the major Open Theologians and authors wouldn't be doing Bringham Young (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, likely more minor players). That alone is intriguing, compelling. You are against the interactions, comparison, and commonality. It is good but realize you are a cog in this wheel and the rest of Christianity, if they look into Open Theism, are going to read about these interactions and ongoing dialogue. It 'can' be a relegation to 'cult' by association in guilt and dismissal. If you read the discussions, some of these discussions/interaction between them is over the Omnis with Mormons: What is shared in common. The phenomena may be driven by interested Mormons initially
Secondly, and far more important, all of what you said here is precisely the reason why such dialogues are stupidity on parade! Your entire premise here is that the dialogue that these prominent Open Theists had with these cult members gives the cult credence! It is the mere fact that the dialogues happens that lends that credence to the supposed similarities that you want to draw attention to.
This entire subject makes my blood boil and you are doubling down. You want to apologize and retain the validity of the point. Well, we're fixing to find out which side of that equation you're really on.
If you say one more word about the Mormons in relation to Open theism, I'll simply put you on ignore and be done with it.
Lon, atheists believe it is immoral to murder. Does that give them some sort of connection to Christianity similar to that you are implying between Open Theism and Mormonism?
Communists believe that it is wrong for someone burgle their neighbor's home, does that give them some sort of connection with Capitalists similar to that you are implying between Open Theism and Mormonism??
Satan wants to be king of the world, does that give him some sort of connection to Jesus Christ? By your logic, it makes him godly!
It's up to you to see if it holds.
I can't even read that post without getting red in the face and cussing, Lon!
The "logical argument" about EDF is simple stupidity. It isn't a logical argument in the first place, its a collection of naked claims that aren't accompanied by a syllable of logical support whatsoever and it's peppered throughout with implied connections with the Mormon cult that make me totally certain that you believe that we are basically the same religion as they. I'm telling you right now, you're going to drop that or I'll never say another word to you as long as I live.
I strongly urge you to just drop it, Lon! Don't even respond to anything above this sentence. Just forget about it and don't ever mention the Mormons to me again in this context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'd like very much to continue if we can finally put this Moron crap behind us. I recommend we take the discussion in a completely different direction, which I've already brought up with Derf on a previous post and that I think will succeed in getting us away from the Mormonism nonsense because I don't know or care what the Mormons believe or why but what I do care about is God's righteous character, which is THE foundational premise behind Open Theism.
Many want to posit the notion that Open Theism is about free will. It isn't. Open theists definitely do believe in free will but it is not the foundational premise that people want to believe it to be. It is not the starting point from which open theism is derived. Rather, the founding principle from which Open Theism springs is justice and foundational even to that is God's own righteous character.
Those who believe in the settled view are fixated on how big God is, how much He knows and how much power He controls. Open theists on the other hand understand that these quantitative qualities of God mean nothing if God cannot be trusted, if He is not righteous, if His judgments are not just. Who cares how much power God has if He's a tyrant? Why would David care to write a Psalm of praise to an unjust God that he can't escape from?
The Calvinist here is instantly trapped. They have two and only two means of escape, and they use them both. They can pull out the "antinomy" trump card and simply declare the issue of free will vs. God's justice to be something we poor stupid human beings cannot understand, and they can redefine the terms "love", "righteousness", "justice" and any other term related to morality as it applies to God.
The Arminians do something different (and better) but still not rationally sound. They reject predestination in favor of free will.
Why?
What does our having a free will have to do with whether or not God is righteous? Well, that's sort of obvious right? We are the subjects of God's judgement. God is the One we are all going to be made to answer to. If God is righteous and just then we can lean on the provision that God Himself has made for mercy (i.e. Calvary). If, on the other hand, God is unrighteous and unjust, then the only hope that exists at all is the sort of hope one has for getting rich by buying a lottery ticket, except that the very act of buying a lottery ticket would afford the buyer more control than he could ever have before an unjust god.
The Arminians see this point clearly in relation to predestination but remain blind to the fact that exhaustive, infallible divine foreknowledge results in the same problem. Simply declaring that one has free will doesn't get God off the hook because their declaration of free will isn't based in sound reason but rather on an emotional reaction to the notion of predestination. Instead of thinking it through, they simply declare predestination false and formulate their doctrine around their desire to believe in free will as though truths can be chosen a la carte and without consequence.
This is the proof that Open Theism is not logicaly predicated on a belief in free will as so many of our opponents want to suggest. If that were the case, we'd be Arminians. We are not Arminians! Indeed, it is open theists that say that Arminians are far too Calvinistic for their taste and they mean it when they say that!
So, to keep this post from getting entirely too long, I'll conclude it with the following logical argument, which establishes just what it is about EDF that lands the Arminians in the same moral quagmire that their Calvinist cousins created and that they so vehemently reject, namely that we have no free will.
T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am
- Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
- If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
- It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
- Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
- If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
- So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
- If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
- Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
- If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
- Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
....and continuing on from there....
11. All moral actions are freely chosen actions, [definition of 'moral'].
12. Conversely, any action that is not done freely is an amoral action, [definition of 'amoral'].
13. The rewarding or punishment of an amoral action is unjust, [definition of 'just']
14. God is just. [presupposition of the Christian faith]
15. God rewards and punishes the actions of men. [this statement is based on the presupposition that the bible is true]
16. Therefore, the actions of men are moral in nature.
17. Therefore, the actions of men are done freely.
18. Therefore, God does not have exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge.
Now, if one wanted to be strictly in compliance with the rules of reason, this argument would be reordered and several points (like point 15) would be fully established rather than presupposed, but it is convenient to put it in this order for three main reasons. First of all, brevity counts for a lot, especially in informal discussions such as we are having. Secondly, it allows for the proper citation of the first ten points, and third, because point's 11-18 can just as easily be applied to any logical argument that falsifies predestination as well. Thus, to put it all in a nice tight nut shell....
God is just! Therefore, BOTH Arminianism and Calvinism are false!
This is the true bedrock foundation of Open Theism. I don't care what anyone believes about how or why either predestination or foreknowledge is true. It does not matter! If either of them are true, God is unjust. If God is unjust then there was no need for Jesus to die and the entire Christian worldview crumbles to dust and becomes a moot point. Ideas have consequences.
Clete
Last edited:
Proof by assertion is a fallacy for a reason, Lon.
False.
Not a single one of them mean "sustain."
Sustain: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustain
Again, the word used is:
| Strong's g4921 - Lexical: συνίστημι - Transliteration: sunistémi - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: soon-is-tah'-o - Definition: to place together, commend, prove, exhibit; instrans: to stand with; to be composed of, cohere. - Origin: Or (strengthened) sunistano (soon-is-tan'-o), or sunistemi (soon-is'-tay-mee) from sun and histemi (including its collateral forms); to set together, i.e. (by implication) to introduce (favorably), or (figuratively) to exhibit; intransitively, to stand near, or (figuratively) to constitute. - Usage: approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with). - Translated as (count): commending (3), are we commending (1), commends (1), Demonstrates (1), having been composed (1), hold together (1), I commend (1), I prove (1), shows (1), standing with (1), to commend (1), to have been commended (1), we are commending (1), you have proved (1). |
You want to say it means sustain, prove it.
Otherwise, what I said and demonstrated stands.
Liar.
Right back at you, hypocrite!
I'm right and I proved it.
You disagreed, and did not even attempt to establish your disagreement.
Accept the correction, or show that I'm wrong. It's literally as simple as that!
The only reason you have to insist that sunistemi means "sustain" is your commitment to the idea that God "sustains" His creation, and the only verse you have given so far does not say that.
In fact, the word "sustain" is not even used ONCE in the New Testament!
You are building a house upon the sand, and I just pointed a water cannon at it!
Lon
Well-known member
Sustains Literally what 'consist, make to stand' means. I don't care to argue over the difference. Don't care frankly. You can be wrong or supposedly me. Not important if you grasp the meaning unless you have a pertinent point and I suspect nothing.
Don't monkey see/monkey do. Such is often going to be seen as childish, immature, and lacking. You've a better education. Don't monkey see/do, especially as a mod. It doesn't suit.
Every body sees it as sustain (lots more links, do some research because you are all wet on this one. It doesn't really matter if you think otherwise.
The point again, is everything (everything) you posted means 'sustains.' Try again.
Naw, you didn't.
I've no idea why you are doubling down on this anyway. It literally isn't anything when I already suspect you know what 'holds together' means : plain: It isn't worth my or your timeover the negligible difference (isn't one). I don't care but to assert it, it is what it means. You can do some research and find it is true or not. Hebrews 1:3.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Seems pretty straight forward but there is no need to revisit a 'mormon' connection. Honestly, it wasn't intended to be a huge discussion point. I'm just puzzled by the fact that so many Open Theist theologians are in ongoing conversations specifically because it looks like 'commonalities.' It'd have to be, right? That said, this subject is unpalatable so let me drop it. I grasp your disdain over the interactions and comparisons. I'll try very hard to be done with this, in conversation with you in the future.
You just couldn't go without making one more stab at pointing out "commonalities", could you?
I'm literally at the end of my patience with it, Lon. This right here is your very last warning. If you say one single addition syllable anywhere along these lines, I'll put you on ignore and be done.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Lon
Well-known member
Thank you for your patience and long-suffering.