Open vs Classical Theism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Recently James White of @AominOrg answered a call from a viewer and discussed Open Theism as well as Classical Theism. In this video Chris Fisher of @realityisnotoptional joins Warren to review and discuss.
#Calvinism #omniscience #christian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💡 About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.
📈 Support Idol Killer
Patreon: / idolkiller
PaylPal: www.paypal.com...
⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Any view expressed by a guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of the host and visa versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE
Any use of works in our videos is de minimis, transformative, and constitutes fair use under the Copyright laws of the United States. They are used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Any improper attempts to takedown or claim our videos may be subject to 17 U.S.C. 512(f) claim for bad faith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you want to discuss any content in our videos, please contact us at idolkiller.com before initiating any takedown requests. Failure to do so may constitute bad faith.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
I just want to say a great big THANKS to killer and guys like him, Leighton Flowers, im looking at you too! I spent the first 20 plus years of my christian life in the word faith and nar movements until the Lord opened my eyes to the deception I was in. I was well on my way to becoming a calvinist but something about it always felt off to me and I wasn't sure why. Then I found Leighton and Warren who openly discuss the problems with the reformed church and their theology. No wonder reformed teachers use buzz words like "sovereignty" and "eternal decree" and "man centered" vs "God centered" because when you hear tulip explained openly without the calvinist slang, it sounds horrifying! Thanks again Warren!
Where do you place regeneration, step 1 or step 2?
Colossians 2:12 NKJV
[12]
Step 1 = buried with Him in baptism,
in which
Step 2 = you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Right on brother! Stay on that narrow path & keep following our Savior.
@@jayrodriguez84Define regeneration, please!
@@JosiahTheSiah Born again.
@@jayrodriguez84 Are you a Baptismal-Regenerationist? Not sure what you're getting at?
Love you guys! Two of the best theological open minds out there IMO.
Dude, these guys are rocks. Get your hands on anything by Watchman Nee (not the Spiritual Man 1928, anything from the 50s to the 70s) and then learn to pray everything, every last little thing, through:
"You need no one to teach you, for as his anointing teaches you all things, and is truth, and is no lie, even so, as it has taught you, abide in him."
Oh yeah, pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit. I know, you think you have it, and you do, but when you really get it, you'll know.
God is living and active drawing all men to Christ
Lift up Jesus, lift up the name of Jesus, and he will draw them to himself.
@@duncescotus2342 I agree but regardless of how effective we are at proclaiming the Gospel, Jesus Christ promised to draw all men to himself. I believe He will fulfill His promise.
@@CCiPencil He will always fulfill his end of the bargain, but when he comes will he "find faith on the earth?"
"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees..."
"...who love the chief seats in the synagogue..."
Such are these men here on this channel.
@@duncescotus2342 his end of the bargain? Weird way to interpret His promise to literally drag all men to himself. What part of the bargain do we need to uphold inorder for God to be faithful to His promises?
@@CCiPencil "Offer up your body as a sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, for this is your reasonable form of worship..."
"...and be nothing like this world but let your minds but completely made new..."
Begin there.
The only consistent Calvinist is a Muslim.
Maybe if you became a Muslim you wouldn't be having these problems.
That's stupid.
Always a great time with chris! Love this content
Classical theism is an artifact of a time that has long since passed, threats and abuse have allowed its usefulness to linger well past its expiration date; putrefaction has set in and it needs to be rendered and reconstituted into a consistent, coherent, non-contradictory, non-Calvinist, non-orthodox, biblical theology.
Hear, hear!
What was once "classical theism", was practiced in Jerusalem when "you know who" showed up. And I highly suspect this version of "classical theism" will continue to be practiced until "you know who" returns (putrefaction be damned ; )
@@johnknight3529 --- I took for granted, like most everybody, when they said “classical theism” they meant what came to be known as the man-made Christian orthodoxy hacked and chopped out of the Bible in council post-325AD.
Well said! Classical theism's influence has been directly proportional to Calvinists' ability to murder, torture and out-publish their opponents. They lost the first two legs of the stool hundreds of years ago. Thanks to the internet, they are losing the third and final leg. It's a beautiful thing to behold.
@@johnknight3529 Indeed. Jesus' condemnation of "The traditions of men" was harsh, brutal, and presumably appropriate. But the preeminence of traditions persistently spans all cultures and times, so I guess it's common to all fleshliness. It's all based on the fear of man, and the yearning to be well-spoken of by others. In a word, cowardice. In my pie chart of hell, cowards occupy, by far, the biggest slice (just a prediction--I can't prove it...yet).
So basically, the one and only view of God's omniscience that totally and completely contradicts the biblical description of God lays within Calvinism. The determinism fate machine affectionately referred to as God. Such a "high view" though.
Exactly what is the difference between them and deists?
That's not true. Don't believe this open theism propaganda. While they have refuted Calvinistic determinism, not too hard to do!, they have NOT defended open theism, which is very hard to do.
I agree with Chris that open theism is very appealing as seeming to be so in line with literal Biblical descriptions of God.
So what happened to the church? Why has God allowed so much of the church to be dominated by bad views of Him? I have a theory; before I studied theology, I think I was naturally an open theist without even knowing it. I would wager 99% of Christians throughout the life of the church have been open theists without even knowing it, and it's the educated 1% who wrote down their thoughts contrary to the laity and were also the 1% who almost never affirmed the open view because it seemed "foolish." Sort of seems like He chose the foolish things to shame the wise? Just a theory, trying to explain if God let most of His church believe fundamentally wrong things about Him.
Good point. What we consider the historical church is mostly the outspoken elites (preachers, writers etc) while God sees the laity and every individual believer.
I think there's good reason to believe the bulk of the historical faithful laity do not suffer the delusions of robust black and white classic theism.
Even the teachers of the laity, when speaking casually, largely never taught classical theism strictly to the laity, but only a few key concepts, applied imperfectly to combat pagan notions of the laity, to serve the purpose of elevating God and building a logical edifice that apologetically establishes a vision of God as faithful, transcendent and powerful as to support the biblical claims of his strength, knowledge and power.
Applied lightly it appears to support basic biblical Christianity in the lay mind in that way... but amongst the intelligentsia, it seems to facilitate the historical slouch toward the enlightenment and eventually modernity... aloof deterministic visions of law and impersonal existence.
"literal" discriptions of God? They're almost always figurative. Perhaps literary is the right word.fi
@@duncescotus2342 literally as in actually referring to God, not literal as in non-metaphorical.
The problem with how many classical theists interpret these metaphors, is they do not think they actually describe reality at all, only some relationally condescension of thing... ie: a relational illusion... something not actually true of God himself at all, but only something he manifested.
In other words, if God says "I hold out my hands to you all day" this doesn't mean God, in his primordial essence has physical hands,but it also doesn't mean nothing... but it is describing an actual relationship in time of God pleading with his people. Even if it's a metaphor, it's a metaphor for a real dynamic interplay, not a pantomime devoid of actual emotion, or any actual appeal to fixed behavior to be otherwise.
@@ravissary79 well said
Is all that hair on James' head a wig? Oh. It's something on the wall behind him. The decor makes him look like a clown. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
He looks like that Dracula movie
I was driving and every time I looked at the screen it looked like clown hair haha
You guys put on a great show.
Reformed Bros.:
“Obviously, a few decades after full copies of the Bible were available to clergy, we realized that we didn’t have the whole picture, and we had to adjust our theology.”
Also Reformed Bros.:
“After another 450 years of increased access to the Bible and deeper understanding of the cultural/linguistic context it was written in, we haven’t learned anything new, and anyone who claims to is rejecting true Christianity.”
That statement is absolutely not historically true. A desire for consistent, even exhaustive theology long predates the availability of Bibles. The Scholastic school of thinking which dominated the universities in the Middle Ages was so interested in seeing and applying the hand of God to every iota of human knowledge that to this day "scholastic" means exhaustively pedantic in a pejorative sense, or merely academic in a dry sense.
The Reformation, because of the rise of humanism, rejected Scholasticism for the most part (but could not have happened without the many years of preparation given by Scholastic learning and methods).
It may be true that Calvin, in his desire for a purified Catholic Church, was the most "scholastic" of the Reformers, and the ongoing desire for systematic theology may be rooted in his personality (fun to think on).
Also the second quote, "After 450 years...we haven't learned anything new..." is absurdly false. Much has been learned since the Reformation. We know science about the creation of the universe, we know how denominations evolve and thus how schisms and misgivings set in, we know how cults and false teachers rise up and deceive many, we know the intimate details of other's lives via nearly unlimited media access, we know what happens around the world in a touch of finger, even what happens in Israel a nation reborn in 1948, in a rather clear fulfillment of prophecy. (etc!)
In fact, we have lived to see what Daniel predicted long ago-- the increase of knowledge.
Warren every time I think about all this philosophy I think of a line from Demetrius and the Gladiators…”PHILOSOPHERS their brains are full of mildew.”
I'm not getting notifications again 😭😭 I missed it!! I am so bummed.
I missed it too... not quite exactly sure how...
Fisher!
Can we keep JW at 1.5 speed in future please he's too slow to say anything.
Sorry for the poorly worded question. ... They can't all be bangers.
I'm so tired, I didn't notice. Thanks for engaging!
Just exactly how does the honest Calvinist Preach the Gospel since there is NO Good News in Calvinism? "Hey neighbor maybe God Loves you but if your NOT the Elect well your Screwed because He Hates you with a perfect Hatred and is going to Glorify Himself with your Eternal Torment in Fire with Eternal Worms that will Feast on your flesh Forever and Ever...Have a Good Day"...If Open Theism is Correct Calvinism cannot be True...
You preach the death, burial, and resurrection. If they repent and believe it's because they were elected. No need to preach election and predestination in the death, burial, and resurrection message to distort the gospel to then claim it's a false gospel. Don't conflate the doctrines. Your quotation doesn't even mention the work done on the cross, that's how distorted of a comment you wrote. I hope you realize the stupidity of your comment.
By the way, the names written in the Book of Life(Rev 17:8) are in the perfect tense, passive voice, indicative mood. That really is checkmate. There is no rebuttal for that.
Agreed, in fact the name alone, ‘good news’ is a clear indication that the New Testament writers were not in any way intending to communicate the distinctives of Calvinism. It’s frustrating that this mess ever grew legs….
@@jayrodriguez84 If God is the one picking winners and losers and Not the free will choice of the individual then Salvation is something that God Himself Fates. Thus God becomes a cruel Dictator at least for the Lost...This makes God responsible for Evil and their Damnation...Since the Bible clearly says God Desires all men to be saved then this must be a Real Possibility. But if God is only saving the Elect and already knows who will and won't be saved He is committing an Irrational Act and since God cannot be Irrational the salvation of people must be Open...Thus Calvinism cannot be true...Calvinist have a head up your ass Theology...And "He who hates correction is Stupid."
@@user-fk2ur9cv7h I am more than Frustrated bro. These Calvinists would and have Ruined Christianity. We must Resist their Evil Reading of the Bible Tooth and Nail...They can't even tell people that God is Real and Really Loves them and Paid for them with His own Precious Blood. It's Satanically Evil and Sick...When I confront these People they cannot understand the difference between the Authority of the Bible and their Mistaken Reading of God's Word as if there could No Conflation of these two things...Frustrated x ten...God help us...
I want that intro at my funeral.
I have heard the claim that Process Theist Charles Hartshorne established a classification system in book Philosophers speak of God and that he coined the term/definition of classical theism
The one helpful comment on this whole page.
Theologians for so long have been trying to define God, they forgot to ask who He was.
That's only rarely true. But you, man of God, start on square one, ok?
I need a primer on time...not a timer on prime. Now that I think of it, a timer on Prime would save me some money.
6:00 It's orthodox to tie the left shoe first. If you tie your right shoe first, you're just objectively wrong.
I love seeing your subs rising 🙌 ☺️
Thanks! Me too 😊
@@IdolKillerITS OVER 9000!!!!!! 🤯
Not sure why Chris Fisher says that God was "going against his better judgement" when he made Saul king? What would his "better judgement" be based upon? Is there an over eagerness on his part to make God look "human"?
God stated He did not want Israel to have a king, but conceded to their demands. We see something similar occurring with God granting divorce. It doesn't mean God made a mistake or didn't know the outcome, but granted the people a concession to avoid a greater evil, though He did not want to.
@@IdolKiller I am not sure what you mean by "greater evil" in this context. If Fisher just means that God knows beforehand that any human king would not be as good a ruler as he is, which God states in the text, then I can accept his statement that God went against his better judgement. I assume he had a purpose for doing so. However Fisher doesn't say that does he? He just says that God went against his better judgement apparently to make it look like he knew he was more than likely going to regret it but still goes through with it nevertheless. In other words it was a bad decision on his part. If Fisher believes that the future is open to God then there is no basis for forming a "better judgement" on his part because God has no information from which he can form a better judgement. Fisher can't have his cake and eat it.
@@paulanchor867 in the case of God granting divorce to avoid a greater evil, this references spousal abuse or even end of life.
@@IdolKiller Do you agree with the definition by John Sanders of DO that TF quoted: the future for God is the possibilities that could occur along with any events that God has determined to occur?
If God grants a prayer to someone, knowing it isn't what's best, that's going against his better judgment.
Clearly this isn't something God does all of the time, but scripture demonstrates this, as in the examples above.
It's letting people have what they want, even though it's not what God wanted for them. That doesn't mean God can't use the result. He can.
Where do you get your intros.. they're the best timers on UA-cam.. Hands down
Thank you! I make each one with love
What’s that footage from for the intro? The aesthetic is awesome.
Thank you. The theme serves to convey man's yearning to experience the transcendent, i.e. God. The footage is in the public domain from NASA and the music was licensed from WeAreTheGood and edited with excerpts from Scripture.
Man.. I dont even care what James White does or doesn't believe.. it's just painful listening to him.. he's so definite, on EVERYTHING.. James apparently has it all neatly boxed off and now speaks conclusively and constantly on God's behalf.. the inner part of my being feels like its in agony listening to his rigid absolute certainty trips.. like "PLEASE MAKE IT STOP.. ITS HORRIBLE"
What's forcing you to listen?
@@duncescotus2342 forcing .. strange choice of words? Nothing is forcing me, I listened out of interest.. UA-cam offers that.. in same way I may choose to listen to Joe Biden try to talk sense.. it doesn’t mean I agree or am obliged.. what’s your point
@@djs9315 Then your interests are contradictory. That is to say, you desire to both look and forget. Ah, reminds me of Eve.
Scripture doesn't explain to us how God is omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent. I highly doubt that our finite understanding would be able to grasp the answer. I believe it is futile to try to bring the infinite Creator down to our own human level to explain Him. He became one of us in Christ Jesus so that we could get a glimpse of who He is so that we could better relate with Him. That just blows my mind. That's more than enough for me to know.
One thing that is very clear in scripture is that determinism does not work within theism because it removes man's accountability. The Bible is vividly clear that we are held accountable for our choices and actions.
This comment is false piety. 'I believe it is futile to try to bring the infinite creator down to our level to explain him'. Sounds really holy and pious but means very little.
The intro mix is like butter. *Chef's kiss*
@@CrystalArrow-r2z You sound quite pious yourself in that you are so righteous that you can judge my heart. I will leave that up to God thank you.
@@lmorter7867 I'm just reading what you wrote. Your comment is proclaiming ineffability. God put a lot of work into communicating himself to us, and you turn around and claim nobody can understand or know him. Its not helpful.
@@CrystalArrow-r2z Please read the whole comment. I did not say that we can't know God. He became one of us so that we could know him better. I was just making the point that we can't fully understand his infinite characteristics: all knowing, all present and all powerful.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isa 55:8-9
You are aware that James spent months disagreeing with Jame Dolizal and the president of the Seminary he's part of, Jeffery Johnson, wrote a book defending Biblical classical theism against philosophical classical theism.
45:20 what is the difference between the Reformed view of God and the Diest’s view of God? God in either sounds like first cause of everything like a machine.
How does prophecy work? Does God know what will happen in the future because he makes the events happen that will make the prophecy come true or does God know what will happen but has no impact to make that future occur?
God knows His own intentions and that of His imagebearers.
Prophecy is when a human legitimately speaks for God. It might refer to future events, but prophecy doesn't necessarily have to be forecasting future events. We can say that God is able to exercise complete control, and we cannot say that God is not able to exercise complete control. Whether he does or does not is impossible to say from our point of view.
51:11 The pull quote of this video..."I brought up this idea of the Creeds and confessions talking about God Almighty being all powerful...but He can't add a raindrop to a spring shower...Why do you even use words?!? Like you don't care about language, right? You're not just anti-scriptural, you're anti-language. You don't believe in an Almighty God. You believe in a finite, static concept, not the Living God of scripture.
To me, no one special, it seems obvious that Mr. White worships his own imagination, not (any other) sort of God. Hence, he has no way of truly questioning the "doctrines of grace" etc. etc., without departing from his faith in his "God". The perfectly possible possibility that he (a fallible human) simply errs in how he interprets the Book in various ways, is effectively unavailable to him, therefore.
(That essentially constitutes blasphemy to him . . poor soul ; )
1:25:21 The position I've heard so far from Leighton Flowers is that in philosophical matters he is more willing to appeal to mystery and stick with Bible exegesis. I Don't know HOW God makes everything from nothing, I just believe THAT he does.
50:56 - Mt.24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. - How many days are decreed? And if they are cut short then isn't it true that the shorter number is the one that was decreed? Then the longer number wasn't real.
21:09 All this philosophy seems a little weird to me. "God didn't go from not decreeing to decreeing" which would mean he didn't decree because he had already decreed but then he couldn't have already decreed so the decree must just be eternally there so the decree IS God.
1:06:45 if God is static, there's no point in praying. It's all a show.
Static? What if we change that to steadfast? Or unchanging, as the scripture says.
9:36 A definite red flag when you can't even bring up subject.
It seems to me that when people refer to God as "outside of time", what they are really envisioning is multiple demensions. The Bible make no mention of "dimensions".
scripture doesn't speak of dimensions, but it speaks to what God did "before the beginning of time" or "before the ages began."
Science has demonstrated massive relationship btwn space and time, hence implications for an omnipresent God. In our universe, the farthest star is considered 28 billion light years away. An omnipresent God can observe the light (real time) as it's emitted from that star *AND* observe it 28 billion years later from Earth's perspective (or the extent of time the beginning of creation otherwise would allow)... simultaneously. And this is perspective from *within* creation. God exists above and beyond creation. God's relationship with time is not our relationship with time.
Ecclesiastes 3:15 magnifies this. Many want to say that this is about History repeating itself, but if you read the context of the chapter... "man cannot fathom" and "God does it so that people fear Him".... this is about something far exceeding a mundane idea of history repeating itself (something even non-christians assert).
Scripture doesn't mention dimensions. But it does go to great lengths to describe the magnitude and other-ness of God's power and knowledge. It seems quite suspect anytime we venture to reduce it in order to fit our theology.
Outside of LINEAR time maybe. But the Bible is probably not very scientific on any material thing or physical process.
Psalm 25:8-9
"Good and uprights is the Lord; therefore He instructs sinners in His ways. He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them His way."
Doesn't static omniscience redefine "guide," "teaches," and "instructs?"
Can you define some of these terms somewhere? I keep running into that issue on this channel. You can't even Google "static omniscience" and find an answer. My IQ is in the 99th percentile, so it's not as though I'm too dumb to know what terms mean. But if I don't know, and can't find them, then I'd guess that the portion of people who might be interested in your subject matter, but don't know what they mean either, might be substantial.
Static Omniscience is having absolutely unchanging knowledge all facts. It assumes all propositions have an eternally settled truth value. Thus God has innate, nondiscursive, ungenerated knowledge of all that will be. This entails Necessitarianism and Fatalism as His knowledge is unfalsifiable and grounded in His very essence.
Contrary to this is Dynamic Omniscience, which recognizes God does have innate, nondiscursive, ungenerated knowledge but this isn't all He knows. He also has knowledge based in observation, testing and relationship. This entails a rejection of Necessitarianism and Fatalism.
Some Muslims also had this problem. Maybe they were influenced by Christianity or were Christians that became Muslim and brought their inconsistencies with them. But main stream Muslims don't have this issue.
@@IdolKiller thank you. I appreciate that. I was hoping for something that included more everyday English. Concepts, rather than obscure terms developed and used by people who like to frame theology and philosophy with them. Fortunately for most people, the Bible isn't written that way.
That said, I completely fail to understand why that's an either-or supposition. For some reason, a fair number of people think that if God foreknows something then he must have predestined it. That must have something to do with us being trapped in time and the dimensions we experience, and not being able to conceive of anything beyond that?? But I can't understand how a God who invented time and space, and knows every hair on every head of eight billion humans, nevermind knowing every one of them intimately, invented DNA, and gravity, and water, and light, and sound...is suddenly trapped inside of one of those things he created. I guess they think that if he doesn't step in and stop us from doing something he knew was going to happen, then he made it happen??
At any rate, if you have any programs with ideas for how to help everyday people understand God, I'd be interested in watching those. I assume that if I finish this one it will be more of the explanation you provided, which I appreciate, but is clearly for a specialized audience.
@@suzannedebusschere1607 - I share your frustration with the casual use of terms among the well educated in Theistic lingo. Why they don't just add a brief description like this; "Static Omniscience, which means having absolutely unchanging knowledge [of] all facts" routinely, when the term is first used in a discussion like this one, is a mystery to me.
Sometimes a video will be peppered with such "shop talk" terminology to the point of leaving me in a near constant state of trying to deduce what exactly each such term means, based on how they've been used in relation to other terms I'm not very familiar with either. Doing so while trying to follow a nuanced discussion can be rather difficult, even for upper percentile folks . . one supposes . .
(Got that Idol Killer? Throw me a bone once in a while ; )
@@suzannedebusschere1607no it's not that knowing x is certain means he determined it is x... but it does mean x can't not obtain, it must exist... and if God's knowledge is of himself (divine simplicity) and he can't change or be wrong, then everything he knows becomes equally necessary, thus it becomes equal to God in its eternally necessary nature... which is blasphemous.
Calvinism adds the knowing -> determinism, but they do it in reverse, he knows it because he determined it.
But open theist logic doesn't need to commit this fallacy, because while determinism is a problem in light if the Bible's revealed character of God, "fatalism" of B-theory of time philosophy is what's being specifically countered by A theory Dynamic Omniscience ir Open Theism.
(A theory = presentism, only the present exists, the past is gone and exists as the building blocks of the present or memory, the future is potential, either inevitably (necessity) or potentially. (contracausality of free agent choices plus randomness).
Or B-Theory (Einsteinian 4-D space-time "block" reality... the idea that everything everyone ever did or will ever do is "out there somewhere" in spacetime..I. if God is atemporal then he sees the entire block... but if he knows it as propositionally certain then it can't be changed, even by God, because it would make his knowledge a lie.
In theology this goes back to Boethius, though in his actual writings he's being far more poetic and clearly ascribes free agency and emotion to God in how he interacts atemporally... which is philosophically contradictory in light of the fully orbed/developed notion of divine simplicity/immutability/impassability.
25:59 A Living God vs a dead god.
God doesn’t have to “learn” anything for the future to be open. He can know all possible outcomes because he designed the universe and all its systems. He knows what I’m going to do next cause he knows when I chose X first I’m either going to chose Y or Z and once I chose Z he knows I’m gona chose something from the next set of options no matter how many options because he’s God and is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful.
The more interesting thing is if he “learns” things in an experiential way. Like if creation hasn’t existed eternally and the physical incarnation of Christ hasn’t existed eternally now that the fully man fully God Christ exists in the trinity instead of just the son without the incarnation do the experiences of the incarnated Christ “change” anything experientially?
“Simply” put is the knowledge of something the same as experiencing something first hand? Does Gods infinite knowledge equate experiential knowledge? Gods all powerful so he probably can experience things without experiencing them in time.
James actually thinks Open Theists coined Classical Theism?
The picture next to the entry for "Pseudointellectual" is poser-bearded James White.
Bro, don't mock elders. Why do you say what you say? You're a target for me now.
@@duncescotus2342 how is that mocking? I'm pointing out that he's a false teacher... because he is.
Elder is a particular position of Christian leadership, and he doesn't have the role over me.
I might be YOUR elder, have you considered that?
@@ravissary79 You might be my elder, or my father, and I appeal to you now as such. You are certainly my brother. And since I'm a fool, who doesn't know how not to return mockery to a mocker, you have me to deal with in the comments section. We shall meet again. And I'm no James White.
@@duncescotus2342 lol. We've already BEEN talking, and repeatedly. The ominous threat is... melodramatic and ultimately immature.
Fine, stalk me if you like, you will just reveal yourself to be what your choices lead you to become.
Unlike what you claim I'm doing, I DON'T follow around James white and mock him. I don't harass James White or hate him in any way. I simply share my opinion in a way that does minimal harm, on the topic of his increased efforts to beclown himself in public.
I'm unfortunately not in a position to give him serious, heartfelt edification to change his ways. He's shut those doors a long time ago to public discourse and criticism.
@@duncescotus2342 Also, you essentially just admitted the reason you want to mock me is insincere, since you just admitted i might be your elder and you don't care who I an or my role, that you're vowing to follow, mock and harass me no matter what.
You might need to rethink a lot of things in life, this is incoherent, immoral and nakedly so. Nothing I've done. Comes even close to this open hypocrisy and premeditated vow to harass another human, nit to mention a brother and possibly an elder.
I wish i had been here. Part of that is wrong! Chris is incorrect
On what part?
@@IdolKiller I dm'd you
If Saul is the first king of Israel how can Fisher claim that God is going against his better judgement to make him king? In terms of open theism making Saul king is the first experiment of it's type. In which case you can't form a judgement at the first trial. It does appear that Fisher tends to exhibit an eagerness to make God look like a bumbling amateur. Is that a fair assessment?
It's pretty clear that God didn't want to give Israel a king but gave in to their pleas anyways. Just read 1 Sam 8.
Here is the text:
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day-with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you also.
1Sa 8:9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."
It sounds like: 1. God is granting them a King. 2. God doesn't want them to have a King, because God is the King.
@@psychoelf It seems that according to Fisher this "not wanting" state of mind is a permanent feature of God even if open theism should on the face of it allow for a "rethinking" of strategy and an openness to alternative methods of achieving the same goal. Seems ironic when one is defending openness in God.
I hope you're mocking open theism with that excellent point.
@@duncescotus2342 Thanks. I'm trying my best. I wrote on Fishers blog that the book of Daniel proved that Open Theism was nonsense. He replied by saying in so many words that Daniel was hallucinating when he wrote it. I asked him if Daniel was inspired. He never answered. The bottom line is that Open Theism is mocking the scriptures. It is just the opposite extreme of eedd.
1:23:54 "yeah but in the end all glory be to God Amen" - Why do calvinists just throw that in there without any connection to what has been said? As if to say "if you don't agree with me you aren't glorifying God." James White say that God's sovereignty over evil gives it meaning. HOW? If God's decree is the source of evil it seems to make it more random.Oh well, sometimes God makes things go well sometimes he makes things go bad. Seems more like Hindu Karma or Islamic Kismet to me. like that AI sone Warren made "Determined To Suffer" ua-cam.com/video/SrNPP1hZxms/v-deo.html
Whats up with James White's zesty interviewer?
51:36 so basically God isn’t God then
As I understand dynamic theism is not completely open theism. There are some things that are determined by God in the future because there are some things that he wants to happen in the future, i.e. some necessary events that must happen which he planned and purposed in advance. A planned event is dependant upon events that lead up to it and which can't branch off in any direction but must occur because the ultimate purpose depends upon them for it's fulfilment. Open Theism would seem to suggest that everything that ever happened was a coincidence and without a purpose behind it and it is impossible for God to act providentially by prior intervention but only with some kind of physical coercion which is reactionary and after the fact by necessity. I don't believe that edd is necessary to be a tulip calvinist. If the bible cannot fit edd it cannot fit open theism either. If DO denies that anything in the future can be determined by God it also goes against the bible.
What? Where exactly do you think scripture comes from? Tablets of stone? What exactly are you promoting? I can see you're riding the James White train. So brave. Are you two really defending open theism?
What exactly do you find objectionable about "open theism"?
"Open theism, also known as openness theology, is a theological movement within Christianity that emphasizes divine love and responsiveness to creatures"
Does He not tell us He does exactly that, here? (from Jermiah 17)
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
I take HIm at HIs word. What's wrong with that?
@@johnknight3529 If open theism was that and just that, I would be very wrong. Perhaps at best it is what you say, and I'm wrong. If so, be like God, and accommodate me. But, it's more. Open theism says that human will is such that God is bound to adapt to it. This too may be true, but what an awful thing to promote.
In any case, for Christians, the sina qua non is not a God who plays in harmony with us but all of us playing the same symphony with Him conducting. Perfect freedom is merely perfect obedience.
@@duncescotus2342 - I don't know what you mean by this; "Open theism says that human will is such that God is bound to adapt to it."
(I don't know who "Open theism" is, and don't care at all about what he, or she, says ; )
@@duncescotus2342 - PS- I just "searched" the words "open theism" and quoted the opening sentence of the most prominent response I got. I have no allegiance to anything but the Book itself when it comes to the Book. We had been discussing the state of "the church" in general, and you said "Exactly" to my comment;
"I'm actually talking about what to my mind is "the lukewarm" Church, as I see these matters. Adherents of doctrines of men, with the primary goal of bringing many to the Church, but not to help them "mature" or "prepare them" to walk with God eventually. But instead to keep them walking in their Church, as it seems to me that earlier version of His "church" was doing. As if that IS the primary goal, so to speak."
So, it is somewhat puzzling to me that you now speak as though "for Christians, the sina qua non is not a God who plays in harmony with us but all of us playing the same symphony with Him conducting". To me, that seems to be what is not going on in a great many churches, as I tried to explain, and got the impression you agree . . I could agree with this- "Perfect freedom is merely perfect obedience."
He made us (we didn't make ourselves), and He knows what's best for us, I have no doubt.
@@johnknight3529 Right. It's not worth the effort really. Open theism is hard to define and likely has many versions but in my mind it exists mainly as a trend that arose fairly recently (last few decades) in contradiction to Calvinistic excesses (such as divine determinism) which have been making something of a comeback within the Baptist tradition (but not only). And these beliefs (the TULIP etc) were always there lurking around certain seminaries, masquerading under the name "Reformed." I suppose open theism was always there too but under other names. But two wrongs don't make a right in theology or anything else.