Posts tagged LORD

Neil Short It looks like a neat article and blog. I'll check it out.

September 18, 2013 at 7:22 pm

John Sanders Mr. Fisher, though I did not read your blog with detailed care I believe you have done some good work to refine which questions need to be addressed regarding predictions and which questions are red herrings. My experience with some evangelical Calvinist critics of open theism was that they tended to beg the question by assuming their view was correct. Dr. John Sanders

September 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Matt Parkins In principle I like this. We may have to define love though? Is love something that comes into existence through action, ie, it requires an agent to be the recipient of that love through an action/response?

September 17, 2013 at 6:18 am

Gordon Knight Matt: this is the sort of hole I was thinking of. I think there is a sense in which love might mean just "desiring the good" and a trad. theist can say that even if God knows everything that will happen, indeed, even if God is outside of time and incapable of change, there is still the wanting for the good. But I want to say this is not a relationship ( philosophically, it is still a relation of course). I would like to pursue the idea that give and take, reaction and response is essentially part of the best loving relationships.. Maybe I think we need to think of loving relationships as not one sided, as involving creaturely response as something new... I don't really know.. this is one of those "I believe but can't really be precise yet" sorts of views

September 17, 2013 at 6:27 am

Michael Faber There is a problem in this argument in that it creates a dependence for God on creation to have responsiveness.

September 17, 2013 at 6:28 am

Gordon Knight Michael: thank you, yes it does.. but why is this bad? does not love require a beloved?--so if love is a relation to the other, it automatically brings in a dependence on creation (though the trinity may also allow God to be loving.. so, more carefully, God's love towards creation makes God dependent on creation.. you cannot love without someone to love.

September 17, 2013 at 6:34 am

Michael Faber Well, either we must embrace process theism, or deny #1. I choose tge latter, preferring to say that love is one of the means by which God chose to interact with His creation. Thus we retain ontological distinction and have a God that freely engages in loving relationships of Gis choosing.

September 17, 2013 at 7:19 am

Gordon Knight But if being loving is part of being good. That is, if it is part of being a good person (God is a person) that one loves other, then its hard to disengage GOd from love. One of things that I really don't like about Calvniist theology is the emphasis on "Sovereignty"-- as if might makes right! as if being in control gives me any bleeping reason to worship! ..

September 17, 2013 at 7:22 am

Gordon Knight I don't mean to suggest that you, Michael, adopt that probably uncharitable conception of the deity.

September 17, 2013 at 7:24 am

Michael Faber Well, what us "good"? Isn't good defined by the nature of creation? If Gid decided to create a universe where, for instance, human mating rituals looked like how lions do it, tgen morality would be very different. Same applies with all things we call "good." So, the idea that love us "good" cones from how God created and not God's essence. To say that it us God's essence reduces Him from His maximal potential, as per.Anselm. I agree with you about Calvinistic sovereignty, but substituting another attribute that.limits God isn't the answer..

September 17, 2013 at 7:33 am

Gordon Knight well, I am an unabashed realist about 'good' I think its an objective property that some states of affairs have and some don't. Friendship is good, is not the result of arbitrary fiat, but a feature of friendship as such. I don't think a divine command theory can avoid the accusation of utter arbitrariness.. if God commands we torture childen it is good. But that is outrageous. I think God embodies or exemplifies ultimate goodness, but I don't think what is good or bad depends on God's will.

September 17, 2013 at 7:36 am

Gordon Knight if it did, then morality would be trivial- just as it would be if morality depended on my will, or the cultural norms of the society we live in. IF morality is real and important, it needs to be grounded in nothing other than objective reality--facts that no one, not even God, can change.. Or so I thnk..

September 17, 2013 at 7:37 am

Michael Faber Well, God is still sovereign in the non-Calvinist sense. He defines morality based upon His purposes, so it isn't arbitrary or defined by us. and that doesn't require that morality or love define how God must act and/or create. And thus God is maximal, per Anselm, and there us an objective standard of good based upon God's free choice of what to create.

September 17, 2013 at 7:58 am

Nathan Greeley The best way to make necessary responsiveness in line with orthodoxy is, as Gordon suggested, to use the Trinity as the means or source of obtaining God's necessary responsiveness and creation as the means or source of God's contingent responsiveness.

September 17, 2013 at 7:59 am

Gordon Knight Well, if good or bad, right or wrong, depends on God's will, and that y,ywill is not itself dependent on God's nature as being Good, then it is arbitrary. Divine command theory is nothing other than subjectivism in which only on subject matters. but why should I care what God commands? From a prudential perspective, I may have a reason, but from a moral perspective? I should care only if what God commands is not mere whim but grounded in the ultimate nature of things (just as I should trust God's view about mathematical truth--these are not the result of whim, but foundational, ultimate truths)

September 17, 2013 at 8:08 am

Nathan Greeley Gordon, would you see goodness as something that is essentially self-verifying or self-authenticating? It just is what it is, and nothing and no one is responsible for its being what it is? I think that's right, but I'm just wondering. What I would want to claim is that even though God does not determine what goodness is (i.e., it is given with his nature), goodness would not exist in any objective way without God.

September 17, 2013 at 8:26 am

Michael Faber I'm not talking about divine command theory. I'm talking about morality being based in God's purpose and the nature od what He created. It has nothing to do with human conception of morality. Nor does Gid need to make a command for something to he right or wrong. What I sm avoiding us an ontological dependence on creation, and an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on God.

September 17, 2013 at 8:35 am

Michael Faber why could God not create for another purpose and create in such a way that morality there is different ftom ours?

September 17, 2013 at 8:38 am

Rod Thomas I like Michael Faber's previous point. I think that Open theism affirms God's freedom and human freedom in a way that we can discuss God's being independent as well.

September 17, 2013 at 8:44 am

Tom Belt Gordon, all of your concerns are addressed in a healthy view of God as triune. God doesn't require a world to love in order to be a God who loves. He's fully and actually loving without any world. When the world comes along (unnecessarily), yes, he loves it, and there's no change of his doing anything else ONCE there's a world. But there need not BE a world in order for God to BE love. TTTRRRIIINNNIIITTTYYY. 8)

September 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Tom Belt Just felt like writing 3 T's, 3 R's, 3 I's, etc. Trinity? (Bad joke.)

September 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Michael Faber Very bad joke :)

September 17, 2013 at 4:52 pm

Michael Faber And I think there's a problem with calling the relationship in the trinity 'love.' If we define love as a relationship that is freely entered and freely kept, then we cannot use this term, as the relationship between the members of the trinity is necessarily in unity. I do think the relationship is more intimate than love, but because of how we describe love, it cannot characterize the relationship within the trinity.

September 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Robert Allen Parris Several verses in John in which "the Father loves the Son". Perhaps "love as a relationship that is freely entered and freely kept" is an insufficient definition. We, as human, "freely enter" relationships because...well, we don't know everyone from the start, we "get to know them", and so "freely enter" relationships. And when we say we "freely keep" the relationship, do we mean to imply that we can choose to freely end the relationship? Relationships end because of failures of love. The Father, Son and Spirit never "entered" into a love relationship with one another, it's always been. There is no chance of an ending to their relationship because there is no chance of a failure of love among them. So, Tom is right....TTTRRRIIINNNIIITTTYYY!!!

September 17, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Tom Belt Good point Michael. I agree there are dangers in the (uncritical) attribution of any of our language to God. Love can't mean for God (as necessary/uncreated being) all that it means for us (as contingent/created beings). I don’t see the persons of the trinity deciding ‘libertarianly’ to relate to the others, as if God decides through libertarian discursive deliberation whether or not God’s going to be triune. Love includes that kind of deliberation FOR US. But it can’t FOR GOD. That being said, I wouldn’t say that love “cannot characterize thee relationships within the Trinity.” I think it can characterize God, just not univocally or without qualification. So all divine predication is a “Yes, but….” I think this is probably one of the areas where I differ from Process’ approach (and as far as I can tell all the open theists I know) to divine predication.

September 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Tom Belt Somehow I missed your post Robert. Yep. Totally agree.

September 17, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Michael Faber Robert Allen Parris, how do you define a loving relationship, then?

September 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Yes! If creatures and free and the future is open, this should influence how we think about eschatology, salvation, sanctification, theological anthropology, ecclesiology, the doctrine of God, atonement theory... as I type this, I'm starting to wonder what category the ideas at the heart of open theology does not shape! Is this the kind of answer you were wanting?

September 18, 2013 at 4:31 pm

William Lance Huget For e.g., Sanders (God who risks) rightly observes that free will theism/Open Theism would not lend itself to OSAS/POTS. There is a group of Open Theists who are OSAS and I think this is inconsistent. For e.g. the open future fits with the indeterminate church age (vs object of OT prophecy) that we are in now. The Second Coming date was not fixed in eternity past, but has an element of contingency as to timing, but not to certainty in the future.

September 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm

AO Green Dr. Oord, yes but any thoughts as to how it looks? I know Dr. Pinnock addressed worship (from a Charismatic perspective). I know you addressed love (which I really enjoyed). I was just wondering how it would look. I think Dr. Sanders work on Soteriology fits perfectly with the Open View.

September 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Thomas Jay Oord I'm hesitant to talk about details, because I think there is plenty of room to talk about diverse views on these doctrines. Open theists can plausibly disagree. And even telling you mine would require a book! In general, however, I think many of the doctrines framed with open theism principles would look like the doctrines espoused by free-will traditions such as the Wesleyan tradition.

September 18, 2013 at 5:40 pm

AO Green I gotcha, but I think the interesting part in this is looking about the manner in which you spoke of in your book regarding building one's theology. Start with God and love and then go from there. I experimented with that idea in a blog post once.

http://yhwhtheologian.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/an-open-ecclesiology/

September 18, 2013 at 5:49 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Ooh! I like that blog!

September 18, 2013 at 5:57 pm

John Sanders Mr. Green. Yes, I believe the openness of God affects many areas of theology but it does not necessitate many specific views. For example, I think OVG emphasis on divine love affects the range of acceptable views on salvation outside the church but which of the views one takes will not be determined by the open view. One does not have to affirm inclusivism as I do and be an open theists. However, because I see God working through Israel and Christians and, as I say in GWR, typically works with what is available, then God is resourceful. So, for me, inclusivism resonates with how I understand God to typically work through the historical and cultural creations of humans. Even though these are not perfect the Spirit can make use of some ideas and values in non Christians to work them apart from knowledge of Jesus. I see this as preferable to, for instance, postmortem evangelization which entails that God works after death in dramatically different ways. I could say more about these views but I'm limiting myself to how I see the open view of God fitting with them. As for what other topics open theism would influence I think your blog on ecclessiology resonates with it. I tried to say some things similar to that in my address at the open theology and the church conference. I attempted to think out some key virtues of the openness view and apply them to life in Christian communities. I have also applied the view to the issue of care for the environment against Calvinist evangelicals who tend to say we need no such concern because God will not allow anything to happen which is not part of God's meticulous plan. I do not claim that every conclusion I reach will be shared by open theists but I hope that the general direction is influenced by my understanding of the God who is open to the input of creatures for most things. I hope this addresses at least some of your good questions.

September 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. Ah, justice is served. Thanks.

September 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm

Rod Thomas Hi Gordon Knight! In the early days of this forum, there were a number of Calvinists that were allowed to join. The debates were pretty rigorous, but in the end, the Calvinists chose to leave since it was too much work to respond. Since then, neo-Calvinism is changed, and I don't think for the better. How would you suggest we go about addressing this? And should REAL process theists and Molinists and Arminians be included in these discussions as well?

September 17, 2013 at 8:38 am

Gordon Knight Hi Rod Thomas. Well, I would like for a thousand flowers to bloom, and for there to be free discussion from all points of view related to the pros and cons of open theism. I think we learn a lot form encountering our best critics and those with alternative, but related, standpoints.

September 17, 2013 at 9:30 am

Tom Belt I agree Gordon. I think the recent debates over evolution and the nature of Scripture are pretty relevant to open theist, by that I mean determining whether or not evolution (true or not) is compatible with open theism. The discussion unfortunately turned into a debate about whether evolution is true or not. And that's unfortunate, because it doesn't at all help. But at some point we gotta put this behind us.

September 17, 2013 at 9:37 am

Tom Belt That's why I think the debate over whether evolution is true or not is NOT at all germane to open theism. But whether or not evolution (true or not) is compatible with open theism IS germane. They're different questions.

September 17, 2013 at 9:38 am

Joshua Tom I'd like for this group to be more than just debates, though. We're actually growing at a pretty good pace, but I think people are dissuaded from participating because all we do is argue. This group has a lot of potential to be a place for networking, fellowship, sharing news, etc

September 17, 2013 at 9:39 am

Rod Thomas ^^^^^^

September 17, 2013 at 10:22 am

Rod Thomas I also recall when Calvinists were active in this group, there weren't any debates over evolution or inerrancy, it was individual election versus corporate election, week after week.

September 17, 2013 at 8:42 pm

William Lance Huget Why am I not familiar with Rod Thomas? Who art thou?

September 18, 2013 at 1:29 am

Scott Austin FWIW, as a newer member of the group, I've contemplated leaving or muting notifications because almost none of the threads have been on-topic. No offense intended to anyone; just offering one data point.

September 18, 2013 at 8:50 am

Joshua Tom I hope you stick around Scott, we've had solid periods of discussion here in he past. It's been rockier than usual, but a lot of that is being sorted out.

September 18, 2013 at 9:03 am

Rod Thomas To answer William Lance Huget's question, a watchful protector, a silent guardian :-) but if youre curious, send me a personal message. I'll oblige.

September 18, 2013 at 9:26 am

William Lance Huget Is Rod a pseudonym? I just don't recall seeing your name in the past.

September 18, 2013 at 6:29 pm

William Lance Huget Some say Gen. 1 is not literal, chronological. They fail to recognize that there are credible theories and scientific evidence to support the face value reading.

September 17, 2013 at 2:12 am

Rod Thomas I side personally with the scholars who believe in local floods around the world. Scripture and science are affirmed.

September 17, 2013 at 8:46 am

Tim Marshall In what sense is this evidence for a young earth credible? It seems to be rejected by *all* of the scientists who know the data and who don't already have a prior acceptance of or in some way lean towards a certain literal interpretation of Genesis as theologically important or desirable. This alone is an extremely good reason for thinking that the scientific evidence is heavily in favour of an old earth (and evolution for that matter) even if YEC turned out to be true. Of course, if YEC turned out to be true, given our evidence, we would have serious questions regarding deception on the part of God.

September 17, 2013 at 10:08 am

Rod Thomas And it's not the flood itself i have a problem with, its what happens directly after the Flood, the curse of ham that evangelicals refuse to denounce. Silence is deafening. And also, the argument that scientific evidence is falsified so satan can lie to us. What does that say about God? God is good, and God created all of creation good. Open theism is affirming God's goodness, plus the idea that Satan can create creation for untruth makes the devil a rival gos given a lot of power. #dualism

September 17, 2013 at 10:33 am

David Mathison Tim, there are scientists and historians and evidence for a young earth and worldwide flood. Check out Montgomery's book or go to the ICR website and see what they have to say. I have looked at both sides of the issue.

September 17, 2013 at 10:59 am

Eric Maggard David... you still just have talking points arguments... how about post some links that have arguments and counter arguments? Or how about ones that point out actual data? Here is an interesting one I found doing a recent search.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

A global flood is really a stretch... but I agree with Tim that it is likely that localized floods occurred.

Example: Lake Missoula and the flood that created the Scablands in Washington:

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html

September 17, 2013 at 11:04 am

Eric Maggard David... you started this 9 hours ago.

I am wondering if you are still trying to tie Open Theism to a belief of Young Earth and creation over evolution?

If not, could you post another one that states this?

If you are, why do you see the need for this?

September 17, 2013 at 11:11 am

David Mathison Eric, I certainly will be doing that. I have been doing this for sometime at theology on line. There we have a site designed for all out debate, here we don't. I'm getting my info off there and revamping for here. As being new here I'm still trying to figure out how to do this. I wrongly assumed that most everyone here was a creationist and already knew arguments for it and knew why evolution was not true. You know how that went. : )

September 17, 2013 at 11:31 am

Seth Patrick Callahan David, many of us do know arguments for creationism, as well as any number of theological and interpretational positions, but do not hold that position. Dialectic is super helpful, but it requires a certain amount of respect for the various view holders. Unfortunately, I do not find this group conducive to these types of discussions, at least on "wedge issues" such as inerrancy and YEC. If you do not think people who find evolution to make sense can also be Christians, you may have more success in praying for them instead of taking over the post count of this group which happens to have a specific focus on Open Theism.

September 17, 2013 at 11:45 am

Seth Patrick Callahan As far as God's repentance, I don't see God repenting after the flood. He seems to say he won't do it again, but never admits any wrong doing. As I've already shared my views on the Genesis version of the flood in an earlier thread, I won't get into that here.

Do you think Exodus 32:7-14 is a better example of God changing his mind? I say this because God seems primed to repeat the same method of starting over that he used during the flood: find a holy man and wipe out everyone else. Moses pleads for Israel and God's name, and convinces a divine change of mind. It's a very interesting case that shows:

A. God hadn't yet repented from the methods used during the flood (aside from the water)
B. Man and God work together in creating the future of God's will being done on earth
C. Starting over isn't always the best way; grace and redemption are good.

September 17, 2013 at 11:52 am

David Ricci the proof is in the pudding. this arguments is meaningless and pointless. there is no search for higher meaning in this discussion. it is the equivalent of church deacons still trying to preach that the world is flat. this is not a controversial topic or topic even worth discussing. all of the worlds top scientist, and notably all of the theologians i respect, alllll believe in an old earth and evolution. if you read genesis 1-11 how it was suppose to be read, as an etiology, you wouldn't find it contradicts some sort of scriptural bases at all. genesis 1 and 2 have nothing to do with creation or how the world came to be. it has everything to do with the babylonian gods at the time and showing gods character.

obviously you probably think carbon dating is a lie from scientists that have an agenda, unlike christians they have no agenda at all right? an old earth is simply confirmed in the fact of fossilized tree rings. so if carbon dating doesn't tickle your fancy, you can simply spend a few hours counting the rings on old trees.

September 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan David, if one believes all fossils were caused by the flood, as YEC folks tend to do, how would counting tree rings help?

September 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm

David Ricci one, water does not cause fossilization to the degree that most fossils presently have been FOSSILIZED to. fossilization does not happen when you place them in water for a month.

this quick little website answers it pretty well http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/noahs-flood-is-fairy-tale-part-1.html

September 17, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Right. I agree. What I'm saying is, this is one of the big ones for YEC.

September 17, 2013 at 12:49 pm

David Ricci i see i see. well it's tough to do without a degree in geology and botany, which i don't have and i doubt most literal creationist do either. since it is impossible to try and convince them simply using logic and reason, we must retort to plain and 'stone cold' evidence, which luckily we have heaps of from the cretaceous period.

the saddest part is that these people don't believe in jurassic park, and that is what really keeps me up at night.

September 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan I would definitely own a miniature elephant if they were real.

September 17, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan When I was in highschool, I doubted my faith because I just couldn't overlook evolution. I went through about a 6 year phase of hardcore apologetics. Met the dude that runs AnswersinGenesis, the banana man, and took a required Creation Science class at my bible school. Then I started to read the bible and was AMAZED that the timelines in Genesis 1 and 2 are different (one could even say "contradictory"). Thankfully, I read more and talked about it with people and discovered the rich diversity of historical Christianity.

Instead of scaring people who study science away from Jesus, we should teach how God can and does live, move and have being in a world were the american-pop-christian biblical narrative is rejected. Thus, Open Theism (for a start ;) ).

September 17, 2013 at 1:05 pm

William Lance Huget Consider catastrophism (Noahic Flood) vs uniformitarianism (long ages).

September 18, 2013 at 1:39 am

Seth Patrick Callahan Consider radical reinterpretation of a popular meme to define YHWH in contrast to other ANE gods vs literal, worldwide flood.

September 18, 2013 at 7:43 am

David Mathison Seth, the flood account is compared to the day of judgement in the New Testament. The God who literally destroyed wicked people in the flood will literally destroy evil people in the lake of fire. Christ is, figuratively, the Ark in who we are saved.

September 18, 2013 at 9:05 am

Rod Thomas Dave i dont see where Seth contradicted that sentiment.

September 18, 2013 at 9:06 am

Seth Patrick Callahan David, it doesn't need to be literal to be true. Myth and metaphor are not bad words. I appreciate that you are sharing your view point. If you'd like a peek at mine, John H. Walton has written some great stuff that has influenced my understanding on biblical interpretation.

September 18, 2013 at 9:20 am

Seth Patrick Callahan Also, I didn't say that no flood occurred. With accounts in so many cultures (Hebrew, Sumerian, general Mesopotamia, Hindu texts, even Plato), it's pretty evident that there was a flood. But the point of the flood narrative in the Bible is to show how YHWH deals with his people. He didn't start a war on humanity, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but a war on depraved living. He showed care for his creation by saving all the animals and some humans. He then covenanted with Noah.

September 18, 2013 at 9:47 am

Seth Patrick Callahan Sadly, Noah and his family proved that they were still sinners. I'm sure Rod has a lot to say about that, but I think it's out of the scope of this conversation.

September 18, 2013 at 9:49 am

David Mathison Seth, there were many, under the liberalism that took over the main line Protestant churches who have rejected not only a literal judgement by past flood but also rejected a future judgement by fire. Have you done the same? Will open theism embrace the same?

September 18, 2013 at 10:13 am

Nathan Greeley You're a YEC, right? ;)

September 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm

AO Green -_-

That's why I am losing respect for a lot of people, they would rather play and make fun of people than address matters in a serious fashion. Nathan Greeley I know you may have been actually playing but it is a serious habit for others in here.

September 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm

Nathan Greeley I think progressive creationism is quite reasonable, but I don't think YEC is at all reasonable, so I see a pretty big difference.

September 17, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Eric Maggard AO, What is "Progressive Creationist"? I don't see it on the chart. I haven't heard that term before.

September 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Thanks for posting this! I use this exact framework for my lectures, and I even use most of the categories in the framework. I like the "problems" segment at the end, too. Of course, a chart like this glosses over important nuances, but it's helpful overall. Thanks!

September 17, 2013 at 2:12 pm

Ian Hutchinson A useful, if rather biased, chart.

September 17, 2013 at 2:15 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Yes, Ian. I personally, for instance, think among the problems that should be listed under YEC is that it reads Gen 1 and 2 in a way it should not be read.

September 17, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Ian Hutchinson I agree with you there & equally I cannot, from a scientific standpoint, believe that macroevolution can be supported from the fossil record. We have no extant transitional forms & the claims for a tiny percent of fossils that they support it seem to be spurious. I have a habit of asking evolutionists why we have 2 eyes. It gets some interesting responses!

September 17, 2013 at 2:22 pm

AO Green Eric Maggard it would fall under Old Earth Creationism (OEC). But I agree that that chart is not perfect it should give us all a frame of reference. Because the numbers regarding OEC has changed to fit more along the lines of current scientific evidence.

September 17, 2013 at 3:48 pm

William Lance Huget The chart guy is now an atheist....

September 18, 2013 at 3:19 am

Christian Boehm Indeed. Interestingly, he lost his faith due to some of the issues that have been debated in this group: evolution, inerrancy, OT violence, etc.

September 18, 2013 at 5:06 am

David Cole Thank you for posting that AO. Good stuff.

September 18, 2013 at 5:32 am

Scott Woeck Thank you AO this helps me to put things in a better perspective on the placement of thoughts and ideas in creation and the flood.

September 18, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Sounds like he ripped the title from Peter Rollins, but I'm sure this will do good for many. In fact, I'm certain!

September 17, 2013 at 12:53 pm

T. C. Moore Yeah, Rollins has done work on this recently, but he's certainly not the only one.

September 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan I have no doubt that you are correct. David Dark also comes to mind: The Sacredness of Questioning Everything

September 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm

AO Green Why is he implying that a large portion of professed Christians are idolators just because they want to be sure about something?

September 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Nathan Greeley Maybe because there's little to be sure about.

September 17, 2013 at 1:10 pm

AO Green Why do I feel like I am talking to atheists all over again?

September 17, 2013 at 1:11 pm

W Scott Taylor Indeed, Allen it is this very thing that I warned about in my review of his latest book of the same topic at Amazon.com

September 17, 2013 at 1:13 pm

Nathan Greeley My faith is in God, and not in my own certitudes about anything. The beginning and the end of my faith is that God is himself faithful. But it is a matter of faith and it always will be. And if I'm wrong, at least I desired the highest good that a human can.

September 17, 2013 at 1:16 pm

T. C. Moore Allen, the answer is because certainty isn't what Scripture means by faith. And idolatry is placing your trust in someone/something other than God. You're not talking to atheists; you're talking to people who understand the biblical nature of faith.

September 17, 2013 at 1:17 pm

AO Green T. C. if you study Hebrews 11:1 you will see that there exist some evidential certainty in faith. To me Boyd is pushing veiled Charismatic teachings.

September 17, 2013 at 1:21 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan It may be because I am a recovering charismatic, but I don't see how "Boyd is pushing veiled Charismatic teachings." Please elaborate.

September 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm

T. C. Moore You're wrong about Hebrews 11.1 Allen. Boyd addresses that in the book.

Seth, Allen is a cessationist and doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit.

September 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan That's funny. I usually lump YEC and strict inerrancy with Charismatics. Just goes to show, we all have different POVs.

September 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm

AO Green T. C. so now you are questioning my salvation? You said that I do not believe in the Spirit.

Seth Patrick Callahan, faith is based on God's previous actions in history as evidence that He will act in the future. And will you and everyone else please stop referring to me as YEC I am a Progressive Creationist.

http://hopefaithprayer.com/faith/faith-is-hebrews-111-hupostasis/

September 17, 2013 at 1:35 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan AO, I thought you were the one questioning people's salvation: "Why do I feel like I am talking to atheists all over again?" Maybe you are talking to atheists. You are certainly talking to idolaters, but I think we'd all agree that is hard to escape. Why does this group constantly bicker at one another? It's really a downer.

Let's stop shaming people who believe differently, at the very least.

September 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan On another note, I can see your concern in claiming the majority, if not all, Christians are committing idolatry. Do you have a preferred word to use for the things we place above Jesus' greatest commandment? How many times do we let our difference in believe close us off from those around us? Maybe we don't all have everything figured out, but that includes each one of us.

September 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm

AO Green Seth Patrick Callahan no one is shaming anyone I said earlier on that many of the arguments and much of the talk I am hearing sound like the same stuff I heard from atheist and at one time I was an atheist so I should know.

September 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan I remember you saying that. But how helpful is that question? On another note, some atheists have some very good things to say, just like some Christians share junk.

September 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm

AO Green Seth Patrick Callahan I presented a article above that covers Hebrews 11:1 that demonstrates that a amount of evidential certainty in faith. We look at what God did in the past and if that is proven to be trust worthy we can trust that He will act in the future.

Yes all people can have something helpful to say but I do not or at least no longer see any evidence for macroevolution. There are too many problems with the theory.

September 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan What you call "evidential certainty" I call "subjective experience."

September 17, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Also, I didn't say anything about evolution.

September 17, 2013 at 1:49 pm

AO Green If the Bible says something existed and we find out that it did (through archaeology for example) then we know the Bible was not lying in that area. That beats I know its true because (a)/the 'Spirit' told me. Also atheists generally believe in naturalistic evolution.

September 17, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Sure, we make our best coorelation based on evidence. But, as can be seen in the variety of views on origins, evidence is subjectively interpreted. There is room and encouragement to doubt our certainty, although we hope we are right.

September 17, 2013 at 1:54 pm

T. C. Moore You'll find Allen, that if you review my comment, your salvation or lack thereof is never in consideration. When I say that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, I am commenting on the hundreds of comments you and I have exchanged on the subject in which you've demonstrated that you do not believe that God's Spirit is everywhere present in the lives of human beings communicating Godself to them. You have repeatedly reduced the Holy Spirit to something contained within the Bible like a genie in a bottle. That is not the historic, orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit.

Your lack of clarity on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit however does not jeopardize your ultimate justification (in my view, at least) since a person is not justified on the basis of the accuracy of their intellectual comprehension of a particular doctrine (what would we make of the mentally handicapped?) but instead is based on a person's fidelity to, faith-fulness to, allegiance to the New covenant with God forged by Christ's blood.

Which is precisely the point you are misunderstanding about Boyd's book. Boyd is teaching that we are "saved" not by the content in our brains, but by our trust in God demonstrated by our beliefs and our discipleship. As an Anabaptist, you should agree. But because you have been indoctrinated by Fundamentalists, you believe that salvation is entirely a result of correct beliefs. That is an error and borders on Gnosticism, which stems from a Platonic dualism (the kind that Open theism rejects).

September 17, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan AO, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not labeling you as a YECer, just commenting on my personal and problematic view of charismatics.

September 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Scott Austin Ha, if "holy crap" counts as profanity, I'm scr—I'm in trouble.

The "evangelical pious/devotional talk" drove/drives me nuts, too. OT offers such a more coherent and consistent philosophy in this regard.

September 18, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Jon Wymer I would have used the f-bomb if it wasn't for the rule.

September 18, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Jon Wymer My sermon last Sunday was in Genesis 22. I can't understand that text in any other way than that God knows something after the event that God did not know before the event.

September 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm

T. C. Moore Hey Jon, I'm really happy you're both exploring Open theism and joined this group. I want to apologize for the state you find this group in currently. While I can't promise that it will all be over soon (the future just isn't that settled, and ppl have free will), I can assure you that I and the other admins (Josh and Rod) are actively working to make this a more civil space for discussion. If you can excuse the mess, we'll just be picking up around the place while we talk :)

Have you had a chance yet to read any books for or against Open theism?

September 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Jon Wymer I am working through several for.

September 18, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Jon Wymer Had read Epperly's intro to process theology and now have four on my Kindle to read through.

September 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Jon Wymer My issue with process is that it is not uniquely biblical or Christian in any sense I can tell, so that is what I am looking for. I do not mean any slam of process theology, only that I am hesitant to embrace anything that is not less obliquely tied to Christ and Scripture. I would be interested in conversation on how process theology is distinct from pantheism.

September 18, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Karl Oehling ha, Gen 22 was my fork in the theological road way back when I was a teen.

September 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Jon Wymer Wow.

September 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Jon, good to have you here! I actually left this room last week, but rejoined in hopes of change. Heh. Anyway, would love to talk some time about the difference between process and open theism, pantheism vs panentheism, etc. I'll be out for the next several days, but after that, the future is open ;).

September 18, 2013 at 5:07 pm

Ian Hutchinson Seth, likewise with me. It'll settle down I hope, but's been reminding me of mediaeval disputes about angels dancing on the point of a needle—nothing to do about seeing God's Kingdom growing on earth. :'(

September 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Exactly.

September 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan But some discussions are not only worth having, but in the proper scope of this group. Jon's questions seem to fit both criteria.

September 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm

David Mathison I wish God would help me with my memery. :-) Is the error you see that Paul says he baptized only Crispus and Gaius but then also includes Stephanas? How do you see an error?

September 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Michael Faber You can't pull apart the text like that. Paul isn't intending to make a list of everyone he's baptized, so it isn't in error any more than it is in error for Jesus to say that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds.

Paul's point is that he's glad he didn't baptize a lot of people in Corinth so he didn't create a church of Paul followers rather than Christ followers. Whether he baptized anyone else is irrelevant to the truth of the passage.

September 15, 2013 at 12:27 pm

W Scott Taylor Dr. Oord, in your "challenge" to inerrantists I can't help but wonder at the propriety of using the passages in this way. You are taking the verses out of their context or analyzing them without regard for their historical correlation to versers 1 - 17. And part of the statement of what constitutes inerrancy is that the Bible is true in all that it affirms. Well one could hardly find a fault there.

A context that follows a most blessed affirmation of Divine purpose: "Faithful [is] God, through whom ye were called to the fellowship of the Son of him Jesus Christ the Lord of us. (v 10) Here, in this Epistle he affirms the grace of God given them "from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

In ver 10 he is beseeching them in the name of the Lord Jesus to live up to their high calling and purge the dissension among them. In light of the nature of the fault they are now guilty of in sectarian excess he is faulting them and is attempting to enervate it by the ready knowledge that he did very little to cause or foment the foolishness.

And it is right hear that I think you making an unrealistic demand upon the Apostles memory. It is not exactly in error but rather shows that it working through his history over the period of time he was challenging the Corinthians. My memory works like that, and I dare say most do also. The upshot was that it was not in error. Therefore the criticism that a natural functioning memory some how invalidates the notion of inerrancy is incorrect. But it say's something more about the nature of the criticism. It seems suggestive of a disposition to "fault finding" which would be less of an objective exercise over all.

September 15, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. Paul lists a few people he baptized and included two individuals and a household. How us this an error?

September 15, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Annie Welch Britt this post /thread is so dry and actually pretty dumb. How absurd to try and debate or talk about such matters as this....smh!

September 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Kurt Johnson Coulda went with the contradictory accounts of Judas' death, and the thirty pieces of silver...

September 15, 2013 at 1:44 pm

David Mathison Chad, Paul is writing to the Corinthian church. We see from 1 Corinthians 16:15 that Stephanas is from Achaia, a short distance away by car not by mule. So Paul could be saying he only baptized Crispus and Gaius in Corinth and then adds Stephanas over in Achaia, a footnote not an error.

September 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm

David Mathison Kurt, could you give me those passages about Judas.

September 15, 2013 at 2:10 pm

Ian Hutchinson Matthew 27: 3 to 8 & Acts 1: 15 to 20

September 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm

Kurt Johnson Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” After consulting together they bought the Potter’s Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “ They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (Matthew 27:3-10 NET)

(Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”) (Acts 1:18, 19 NET)

September 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm

David Mathison Thanks Kurt & Ian

September 15, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Kurt Johnson In the Matthew text, Judas returns the money, and dies by hanging.
In the Acts text, Judas buys the field with the money, and falls, mortally wounding himself.

September 15, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Kurt Johnson Defenders of "inerrancy" want to say that Judas bought the field 'indirectly,' and that perhaps he busted open after hanging there for a while.

September 15, 2013 at 2:30 pm

David Mathison As a footnote, actually an independent phrase that syntaxually, is that a legit word, does not have to connect with what is previously said. We can complete Paul's thought this way; I baptized only Crispus and Gaius in Corinth and only Stepanas in Achaia.

September 15, 2013 at 2:33 pm

David Mathison We can safely assume that the Christians in Corinth knew Stephanas and others in Achaia and understood Paul's meaning.

September 15, 2013 at 2:45 pm

David Mathison Go Packers

September 15, 2013 at 2:45 pm

Russ Slater Thomas... you're suuch a trouble maker. :)

September 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Russ Slater Ps... I'll choose v.17 as a third way, eh?

September 15, 2013 at 3:34 pm

Robert Allen Parris I Corinthians 7...vs 10 "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)" vs 12 "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)" at a minimum with these two verses we have to recognize degrees of authority within Paul's writing. He explicitly tells us that vs 12 is from HIM, not the Lord. Don't get confused, I'm not commenting on the legitimacy or rationality of the content in vs 12, just that it has a different level of authority than vs 10. The President sends John Kerry to make a deal with the Russians. There are degrees of authority that are different depending on whether John Kerry says, "The President told me to say this..." and if he says, "I'm saying this..." Still may be a legitimate and appropriate comment, but Putin understands the difference and before committing to something may want to get explicit agreement from the President. Degrees of authority within the Bible doesn't deligitimize it, but it wreaks havoc upon a strong understanding of "Word of God"

September 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm

David Mathison Kurt, my thinking would be that the chief priests bought the field on behalf of Judas because they certainly did not want to be associated with Judas and they did not want the money back so by buying it for Judas it is being bought with his money not their money. They clear themselves of unlawfully receiving "blood money". I imagine this conversation between a local potter and chief priests. Potter: "Did you guys buy the field that Judas the follower of Jesus just hanged himself in?" Priests: "Oh no, that you know would be illegal. Judas had given us money to buy the field on his behalf, he said he had other pressing business to attend to and would not be able to make the purchase of the field himself for the foreseeable future. Why do you ask?" Potter: "Well, the rope broke and he fell on the rocks and spilled his guts all over the place. Some of us were thinking if it was your field then you should go clean up the mess. He should have bought a stronger rope."

September 15, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Ian Hutchinson That's not at all what Matthew records, nor Luke in Acts. The two accounts are irreconcilable without extreme sophistry.

September 15, 2013 at 4:24 pm

David Mathison Ian, are you saying that no one can purchase property on behalf of someone else? Are you saying rope or whatever someone tries to hang themselves on can never break?

September 15, 2013 at 4:30 pm

William Lance Huget Dr. Oord, Doctor of Love (TM): Is this more interpretative than inspiration? Technically (vs popular), inspiration is the accurate recording of what was said. In this sense, Satan's lies, Job's Comforters, Paul's non-revelatory musings, imprecatory Psalms, pithy Proverbs, backslidden Ecclesiastes Solomon, Luke's naturally gathered history, etc. is 'inspired' because the words are accurately recorded, even if false (the popular use is inspired in the sense from God). In contrast, revelation is divine revelation/truth from the heart and mind of God. It is also accurately recorded (i.e. inspired), but also infallibly true (not just in doctrine, but also in matters of science, etc.). Does this support a stronger view of inspiration that allows us to read Paul's personal opinions and musings in contrast to divine revelation that is also inspired/accurately recorded? Paul sometimes qualifies something as his opinion/natural wisdom/hopefully mind of Christ with supernaturally revealed truth from Christ/Spirit Himself? Does this clarify some supposed errors that do not have to mitigage against strong interpretation? There are no end to alleged discrepancies/contradictions (usually brought up by skeptics, but more and more by Christians who question inspiration), but many are cleared up by textual criticism/manuscript differences, translation problems, misunderstanding original historical background (such as practice of rounding numbers that is not a true mistake/contradiction), etc.?

September 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm

AO Green All of this to me as I mentioned before comes down to excuses to validate some idea or doctrine. I am seeing the same arguments I used to read from atheists when I was one. I do not think no other piece of literature us scrutinized as much as the Bible with the US Constitution coming in second (and we all know agendas is behind the examination of the Constitution).

I often wonder how anyone can look at the Bible like this but claim we can bet our salvation on what it says concerning Jesus. If I believed it had all these 'errors', 'contradictions' and so on as people claim why would I believe anything about Jesus?

September 15, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Jim Gilles AO Green,
Well put! My approach exactly to every professing Christian who dismisses certain parts of the Bible that they do not like nor understand. The Judas verses, as David Mathison, so easily explained, are usually brought up by unbelievers everday on campus.

September 15, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Quick responses before I run to teach class: I personally think there's nothing illogical about affirming inerrancy (even in the strict sense) and also affirming open theism. (Of course, I personally don't think strict inerrancy is plausible, as you know, but I don't see any logical contradiction.) But second, this article shows that a host of theological positions foreign to open theism are also compatible with inerrancy, even when those positions present intellectual difficulties to the way inerrancy is usually understood. Finally, a person like me who affirms soteriological inerrancy (or trustworthiness) or someone who affirms doctrinal inerrancy could theoretically fit in ETS. It is only when ETS requires absolute or strict inerrancy (and this is one thing Greg's article points out) that problems emerge.

September 16, 2013 at 10:57 am

T. C. Moore That's what I was going to say ;)

September 16, 2013 at 11:00 am

T. C. Moore Allen, the message has been consistent here: Inerrancy is 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 with Open theism—it just isn't 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆.

September 16, 2013 at 11:01 am

Michael Faber the full marginalization od Open Theism begins, as I predicted.

September 16, 2013 at 11:02 am

T. C. Moore Sorry Michael, the future is not exhaustively settled, so all predictions can at best only be conditionally possible.

September 16, 2013 at 11:03 am

AO Green T. C. what are those blocky things in your comment?

September 16, 2013 at 11:07 am

T. C. Moore Dangit! That means my cool formatting thingy isn't working for you. Are you on a mobile device?

September 16, 2013 at 11:08 am

T. C. Moore Try this: http://www.gschoppe.com/projects/fbformat/includes/unicodefont.zip

September 16, 2013 at 11:09 am

Nathan Greeley It's not working for me either. :(

September 16, 2013 at 11:29 am

T. C. Moore Boo!

September 16, 2013 at 11:29 am

T. C. Moore Can you see Joshua's italic text?

September 16, 2013 at 11:29 am

Nathan Greeley No.

September 16, 2013 at 11:30 am

T. C. Moore Boo!

September 16, 2013 at 11:30 am

David Cole Inerrancy is an unnecessary construct forced on the biblical text to support determinism. Inspiration is what is needed to support biblical credibility not rigid inerrancy claims.

September 16, 2013 at 11:35 am

Tom Belt I see the bold stuff TC. Very cool.

September 16, 2013 at 11:48 am

Tom Belt Whooah. I just saw Greg's ReKnew piece. SOMEBODY'S been over hear reading up on us!

September 16, 2013 at 11:48 am

T. C. Moore I think you have to have "unicode" font installed on your system to see it.

September 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

Tom Belt Yep.

September 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

Tom Belt There you have it. Greg believes in inerrancy! Everybody happy? 8)

September 16, 2013 at 11:50 am

T. C. Moore Hahaha! Not likely 8)

September 16, 2013 at 11:50 am

Tom Belt But note...he does not believe in a literal/historical Adam and Eve. Greg's an evolutionist.

September 16, 2013 at 11:52 am

Tom Belt This is gonna get FUN!

September 16, 2013 at 11:53 am

Nathan Greeley I believe in inerrancy too. Just make sure to consult all my caveats.

September 16, 2013 at 11:54 am

AO Green I still waiting to see what comes out of ETS, Mohler said that Chicago Statment was going to be updated to account for recent errantist arguments so this might be the first step in that process.

September 16, 2013 at 11:59 am

Tom Belt Yeah, but he's reposting it now, so I assume he still agrees with what he wrote them.

September 16, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Scott Austin I guess I should clarify this remark. What I do NOT mean is that anyone with a minority view on evolution should be silenced in this group. I realize now that it may have sounded that way, and I apologize for being unclear.

What I meant is that some of the arguments and evidence used in the discussion threads resort to false equivalence. For example: saying "Some scientists don't think evolution happened" is a true statement, but it can create the impression that there is meaningful debate about that question within the scientific community, when in fact there is not: false equivalence.

September 17, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Rod Thomas I thought that was clear from your original post. It's the "Debate as Entertainment" that's the problem. We're here for discussion and fellowship and networking.

September 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm

Rod Thomas See: "Exceptionally long posts (say, longer than six short paragraphs)" but mostly it was irrelelvant to Open Theism

September 15, 2013 at 11:42 pm

David Mathison I think every one else will disagree with you, but let me post it and lets have others see for them selves

September 15, 2013 at 11:48 pm

Rod Thomas The decision was made by the admins. Please send your note to Tom. Thanks.

September 15, 2013 at 11:49 pm

William Lance Huget 1984?

September 16, 2013 at 12:43 am

Tom Belt Did you read David's note, William?

September 16, 2013 at 12:48 am

William Lance Huget No, so I cannot comment. I might suggest if the evolution thing is getting old that he be limited to one long giant thread only and put everything under there so it will be easier for those who want to ignore it can do so. It would give freedom of speech with strict limitations (I ended up doing this on my group with the Oneness attacks).

September 16, 2013 at 12:56 am

David Mathison Tom. how do I send you a note just for you?

September 16, 2013 at 12:58 am

Tom Belt You didn't comment? What did "1984?" mean? I was wonderin'.

September 16, 2013 at 12:58 am

Tom Belt Hey Dave. Just go to my Facebook page, click on "Message" and paste it in. I think!

September 16, 2013 at 12:59 am

William Lance Huget It was my late night Orwellian humour, ya know. I did not see his note so I don't know how good or bad it was. Mods can do what they want anyway.

September 16, 2013 at 1:00 am

Tom Belt Next time your in town we'll have to get you out on the town William!

September 16, 2013 at 1:02 am

William Lance Huget You buying?

September 16, 2013 at 1:03 am

Tom Belt Jim said he would.

September 16, 2013 at 1:06 am

Tom Belt Got the note David. Thanks!

September 16, 2013 at 1:08 am

David Mathison Tom, that's the post that got deleted.

September 16, 2013 at 1:11 am

David Mathison Tom, you've been right all along, I don't belong here. I'm going back to theology on line. You can tell Rod he can delete the rest of my posts. I'm not being taken seriously by you and to many others here.

September 16, 2013 at 1:18 am

Tom Belt I take you seriously, Dave.

September 16, 2013 at 1:19 am

Tom Belt And I haven't been arguing all along that you don't belong here. Is it possible that you've so completely misunderstood me? Dang.

September 16, 2013 at 1:20 am

David Mathison At times I think so but other times I don't

September 16, 2013 at 1:20 am

Tom Belt Tomorrow's another day! Let's get some sleep. I'll get back to ya on your note!

September 16, 2013 at 1:22 am

Tom Belt Some PM's will probably help.

September 16, 2013 at 1:22 am

David Mathison OK

September 16, 2013 at 1:28 am

William Lance Huget TOL is far from perfect. Better to work through things than run.

September 16, 2013 at 1:30 am

David Mathison Then I'll just take a little break

September 16, 2013 at 7:51 am

Jim Gilles Is this the thread where I drew attention that Tom Belt mistook David Mathison's answer of "no" for an answer to one of his questions? If so, where are those comments? If not, which thread was it?

September 16, 2013 at 11:01 am

David Mathison Matt, please create your own title we are not co-authors of What is Open Theism Part...

September 14, 2013 at 8:39 am

Matt Parkins No.

It's a valid continuation of a group discussion.

Still waiting on that scientific evidence for YEC.

September 14, 2013 at 8:53 am

David Mathison Yes, I agree that your post is a valid continuation, you just did not have to use the title I've been using. You could have just left out "What is Open Theism Part 9" because it associates itself with my posts and that is misleading. One might get the idea that you and I are partners working together. Are we partners?

September 14, 2013 at 9:09 am

David Mathison Matt, I have What is Open theism part 9 already in mind, it's about DNA not the age of the earth. Part 10, which I think will be the last of my parts would be the age of the earth and universe. For me the age of the earth, cosmology, is secondary to DNA, earth geology, and the fossil record. I don't believe in evolution or creationism because I believe the earth or universe to be old or young. Both a Genesis created world and an evolving world are young at some point in time and will become older as time goes by.

September 14, 2013 at 9:26 am

David Mathison Chad, I agree, but the age of the earth does not tell me if it has evolved or was created.

September 14, 2013 at 9:50 am

Matt Parkins The posts are associated, David. It's a dialogue, and like most dialogues its path is not dependent on one participant, but all those involved.

Modifying the question for you sin e you won't answer the one above:Where is the scientific evidence to support 6-day creationism?

September 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm

AO Green This is silly.

September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Bill Wilson You might as well ask for the scientific basis for unicorns and fairies.

September 14, 2013 at 12:46 pm

Matt Parkins My point precisely.

September 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm

AO Green Matt Parkins what was the point of this again?

September 14, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Matt Parkins Right now I'm waiting for some evidence to back up YEC/6-day creationism. Surely you guys that believe it have more than mere interpretation to your arguments?

September 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm

AO Green Can you identify the "you guys"?

September 14, 2013 at 1:19 pm

Rod Thomas I would like to read some answers. This question is pertinent to open theism. There are other options outside the YCE & theistic evolution divide

September 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm

AO Green Huh? I think folks are lumping everyone that believe in inerrancy with the YEC folks.

September 14, 2013 at 1:35 pm

Matt Parkins This question has nothing to do with inerrancy. Just the science behind YEC / 6-day creationism.

September 14, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Brutus Balan Well, I must have missed something. Will the theistic evolutionists first give the 'proven' scientific reasons (not theory) for not believing in the faith position of the YEC ? The last time I looked I still read that evolution is still an unproven theory (assumption). It too is a faith position which requires a billion leap of faith than the simple, humble faith of the Creationist.

What God created in 6 literal days He could have done it in 6 nano, literal, mere seconds. God created observable science and science did not coexist with God. He spoke science into existence by His word. These mere modern Openness Bible scholars if they are called that are like the blind men who went about describing the Elephant in their blindness, thinking themselves wise they became fools. The philosophers of Athens/Greece resurrected again I see. They are perhaps the new American white Gurus who are describing the indescribable.

There seem to be a position that says, the greater the Uncertainty of Scripture the greater the 'rational' certainty of Faith but that the position of Certainty of inerrant Scripture as the irrational faith of the simple minded

September 15, 2013 at 6:00 am

Matt Parkins You're right that's an assumption. The details of evolution are far from agreed, but evolution itself in principle is beyond question.

There is a very high standard within the realm of science to call something a theory - very high. Evolution fulfils the theory criteria. Conversely it appears that to call something a "position" in theology, such as 6-day creationism, requires a very low standard of evidence. Don't think for a second that these two are remotely comparable - yet they're being talked about as if they carry the same weight.

Is anyone here qualified to evaluate the arguments and evidence for evolution? Presumably you guys have doctorates in the relevant sciences to be writing off such great minds and experience as if they're misguided fools.

The arrogance and ignorance shown over the past few posts with regards the weight of scientific thought has been phenomenal - all because of a commitment to a fundamentalist, recent and minority view of Genesis.

September 15, 2013 at 3:43 pm

David Mathison Matt, in part 8, I asked for anyone to present evidence for evolution. If you're so certain about it why don't you explain why? 8 comes before 9 so you should step up to the plate before I give evidence for a young earth.

September 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Matt Parkins Because neither you nor I are qualified to debate the merits of evolution.

September 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Matt Parkins Unless you're about to announce you have a PhD in a relevant scientific field. Or is it just a mission college?

September 15, 2013 at 4:38 pm

David Mathison Matt, the only person you can judge is yourself. The only thing that matters is the integrity of the argument not the one who makes it.

September 15, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Matt Parkins So you're not actually qualified to write off the great scientific minds studying evolution over the past generation, are you?

September 15, 2013 at 4:47 pm

David Mathison Where it matters, yes! Are we supposed to swallow hook, line, and sinker what ever any one with a PhD says? I know a man who has 11 earned degrees who not only believes in Noah's ark but has also climbed Mt. Ararat. Look up John Warwick Montgomery.

September 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Matt Parkins So because you have a friend who has studied 11 (unknown) degrees you feel that you're in a position in your part 8 to evaluate evidence for evolution? How odd.

Can I ask why you're happy siding with this one academic rather than the tens and hundreds of thousands of academics that disagree with him? Is it because he is saying what you want him to say?

September 15, 2013 at 5:07 pm

David Mathison Go to google and type in the name John Warwick Montgomery before you judge.

September 15, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Glen Balmer "as iron sharpens iron" 8-)

September 17, 2013 at 8:23 am

Michael Schellman a house divided

September 17, 2013 at 8:23 am

Rod Thomas In the words of Harvey Dent, TDK, "Darkness comes before the dawn."

September 17, 2013 at 8:35 am

Joshua Tom Speaking for the admin team, our general rule has been to be hands off and give individuals a very long leash in terms of behavior. It's becoming apparent that isn't a sustainable policy and changes are necessary, so I expect things to get more pleasant over the next week or so.

September 17, 2013 at 8:42 am

Tom Belt Rock on!

September 15, 2013 at 11:53 pm

AO Green Joshua Tom does this rule apply to admins as well?

September 16, 2013 at 10:26 am

Joshua Tom Admin pronouncements are 𝑒𝑥 𝑐𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑎, and therefore in principle infallible

September 16, 2013 at 10:34 am

T. C. Moore How do you italicize things?!

September 16, 2013 at 10:35 am

Tom Belt I bow before thy matchless et cetera!

September 16, 2013 at 10:35 am

Tom Belt Can you bold too?

September 16, 2013 at 10:35 am

Joshua Tom 𝐀𝐬𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐞

September 16, 2013 at 10:36 am

T. C. Moore I want one!!

September 16, 2013 at 10:37 am

Joshua Tom T. C. I don't really "do" anything, I just show up and let the Holy Spirit work through me

September 16, 2013 at 10:37 am

T. C. Moore lol

September 16, 2013 at 10:37 am

AO Green *Sigh*

September 16, 2013 at 10:38 am

Joshua Tom To answer your question AO, we'll rely on the community to keep us in check. "Who watches the Watchmen?"

September 16, 2013 at 10:39 am

T. C. Moore 𝒯ℯ𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃ℊ. 𝘛𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 1̶ 2 𝟯

September 16, 2013 at 10:44 am

T. C. Moore YES!!

September 16, 2013 at 10:45 am

Rod Thomas Oh The Watchmen!

September 16, 2013 at 10:46 am

T. C. Moore ☣✌

September 16, 2013 at 10:55 am

Matt Parkins ¿ uʍop-ǝpısdn ƃuıʇıɹʍ llɐ noʎ ǝɹɐ ʎɥM

September 16, 2013 at 11:01 am

T. C. Moore Show off! ;)

September 16, 2013 at 11:02 am

David Cole How are you guys able to use different fonts?

September 16, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Michael Faber How do you deal with admin abuse of power?

September 16, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Joshua Tom http://www.panix.com/~eli/unicode/convert.cgi?text=Use+this!

September 16, 2013 at 1:52 pm

T. C. Moore How do you deal with admin abuse of power in the group you moderate Michael? Oh, you don't. Because the difference is this: You moderate that group all by yourself, while in this group, we moderate as a team.

Don't concern yourself with how this group is moderated so much. We are doing just fine. You might want to concern yourself far more with how your own group is moderated. And, if you're not happy with how this group is moderated, there is no one forcing you to be a member any longer. You are free to leave.

September 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Michael Faber Answer received loud and clear.

September 16, 2013 at 7:23 pm

AO Green Smh...

September 16, 2013 at 7:27 pm

David Cole ๏ђ ฬ๏ฬ

September 17, 2013 at 5:28 am

Thomas Jay Oord Thanks for posting this letter of clarification, Tom.

September 16, 2013 at 5:12 pm

W Scott Taylor Well, Tom L, you have misunderstood me from the look of this post. I see that it is probably more temper than cool analysis of our discussion previous and current.

I'll be happy to go over those areas where you are unfortunately mistaken in a pm. As it stands, I hope you do not entrench yourself further based on the present personal debacle we are experiencing. Things said in anger, it is true can never be unsaid, but they can be forgiven.

September 16, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Tom Lukashow Nothing said in anger on this end Scott. I think the PMs were very straightforward.

September 16, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Tom Belt Yes they were.

September 16, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Joshua Tom The post in question has been removed from the group. The admins are discussing appropriate sanctions.

September 16, 2013 at 6:44 pm

William Lance Huget Tar and feather. I cannot see WST posts. Do unto him as he does unto others.

September 16, 2013 at 6:49 pm

Joshua Tom William Unfortunately we've been unable to find anyone who wants to plagiarize Scott's work.

September 16, 2013 at 6:52 pm

W Scott Taylor Well then for the record. Tom Lukashow has agreed to an offline phone discussion possibility later in the week.

September 16, 2013 at 6:55 pm

W Scott Taylor Frankly, it does seem like some want this to turn out badly. I'm not sure that is the moral high ground. But I'm not worried. The full truth will come out. And the new PDF does have Tom's sanction as he agree to it being published (though with his caveats above). Either way it is in the Public Domain and is freely available to any one who is interested.

September 16, 2013 at 6:57 pm

Jim Gilles Tom Lukashow,
Why would a bunch of free willers attribute one man's behavior, whether good or bad, as a reflection upon another man?

September 16, 2013 at 8:36 pm

Elijah Hess Glad to have the original Lukashow version. :)

September 16, 2013 at 9:25 pm

W Scott Taylor If you guys really want this to be hashed out the hard way here, I'll oblige you. But if you are objectively motivated you'll think about the impact on Tom Lukashow.

September 16, 2013 at 9:35 pm

W Scott Taylor This much I will say. I find it remarkable that people who wrote over a hundred years ago can in any wise "affirm open theism", a construct that all admit here was a 1994 time frame coin.

May want to actually read "Open Theism Timeline".

September 16, 2013 at 9:37 pm

Joshua Tom I think you should have thought about the impact on Tom Lukashow when you misrepresented his work and appropriated it for your own. Whatever your reasons it was dishonest and deceptive to the members of this community.

September 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm

W Scott Taylor Sorry Joshua, you assume too much. Public statement that defame ones character are called libel or slander. You need to consider what you are saying about me.

September 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm

W Scott Taylor I never appropriated Tom's work for my own. That is patently false.

September 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Joshua Tom Scott, we have screenshots of the thread where you make several claims that, to put it mildly, have a loose relationship with the truth. Frankly, I am astounded that you seem to have little appreciation for how bad this is.

September 16, 2013 at 9:45 pm

W Scott Taylor Joshua - you must examine what you say. If it is not technically provable you are making the problem for yourself. You better make sure you and your pals are not making 'inferences' that are just not true.

September 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Joshua Tom Some of the claims you made include 1) Your revised version was the authorized version superseding all others 2) you made these revisions at the request of Tom 3) you identified yourself as an additional author on the piece. Inference doesn't come into it. I repeat my bewilderment at your refusal to acknowledge any fault in this matter.

September 16, 2013 at 9:53 pm

W Scott Taylor Joshua, I'm just not reading your words now. You have the burden of proof for what you allege. At this point you need to prove what you say.

September 16, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Joshua Tom Scott, you haven't disputed that you said any of these things. As I said, we took screenshots of everything. At this point I am mystified as to how you think this plays out. Either deny that you made these claims or explain how they don't constitute an egregious act of plagiarism.

September 16, 2013 at 9:59 pm

W Scott Taylor Joshua your words just don't mean anything. The truth is all that matters. My conscience is not at your beck and call. How assuming is that?

September 16, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Joshua Tom My words are not in focus here, yours are. Neither am I particularly interested in manipulating your conscience, I'm interested in your apology to Tom and the group for your actions.

September 16, 2013 at 10:11 pm

W Scott Taylor smh

September 16, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Joshua Tom Well, your level of cooperation isn't entirely unexpected. I'll just reiterate that an apology to Tom and the group would be appropriate.

September 16, 2013 at 10:28 pm

Joshua Tom Welcome to the group!

September 16, 2013 at 9:36 am

David Mathison Thanks for your testimony

September 16, 2013 at 9:38 am

Neil Short This group is a great hang-out.

September 16, 2013 at 10:14 am

Elijah Hess Hey Chad, the thesis isn't necessarily trying to resurrect the term "Neo-Molinism" per se as it is simply re-evaluating the validity of the ideas Greg was arguing for under that heading. I interact both with Greg's old article (from Philosophia Christi) and a number of criticisms it got. I argue that Greg's approach (and really Alan Rhoda's and Tom Belt's as well) to "might/might not" propositions isn't actually at odds with the "customary semantics" for counterfactual conditionals as some (e.g., William Lane Craig) like to claim. In fact, I argue that it is Craig and other Molinists who have to give up the standard semantics when it comes to evaluating so-called "counterfactuals of creaturely freedom." Molinists, on the whole, are aware of this, but the really interesting issue (to me) is that in the process they end up giving these really inadequate accounts of what "counts" as libertarian freedom. Given that one of Molinism's twin bases is libertarian free will, I argue that any account of "free" that cannot, in principle, be differentiated from compatibilist definitions of the same is going to be trouble for the Molinist enterprise.

September 16, 2013 at 10:16 am

James Miller Hi Elijah. Very interesting. For about a year I've been thinking about a way to combine elements Molinism and Open Theism, but the conclusion I think I'm coming to is that there's no point. They cannot be melded together. In the end either the freewill in Molinism is truly libertarian in nature, in which case why would God need to leave any of the future open? Or it isn't, in which case Molinism faces the same issues as Calvinism - it's just God uses a different mechanism to determine everything and there is no genuine freedom and so no room for genuine loving relationships between God and humanity. What do you think?

September 16, 2013 at 10:25 am

Elijah Hess I'm not trying to combine Molinism and open theism. On my view, there wouldn't be any true counterfactuals of creaturely (libertarian) freedom--so, in other words, there wouldn't be middle knowledge in the traditional Molinist sense. My point is that, the way in which libertarians typically understand modal expressions like "could have done otherwise," "might," "might not," etc. can actually be modeled pretty well on a Lewisian semantic for counterfactual conditionals. Molinists want to define counterfactuals in a broadly Lewisian sense but can't really do it consistently...or so I argue.

September 16, 2013 at 10:40 am

Elijah Hess And I apologize for the jargon used above. There are a lot of issues and the literature runs pretty deep.

September 16, 2013 at 10:42 am

Elijah Hess But, yeah James I think you're right, if the Molinist's idea of "free will" really were free in the libertarian sense, well (at risk of begging the question)...Molinism would be false! Of course, I argue for all this so, hopefully, I won't be accused of begging this (or any other) question in the thesis! :)

September 16, 2013 at 10:47 am

Tom Belt Awesome. Welcome aboard these Chinese junk we call open theism! It's taking on water, so you'll have to help us bail water from time to time.

September 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm

William Lance Huget Molinism is convoluted and confusing, too deterministic in the end. Plain Jane Open Theism is the way to go. Can someone work on converting William Lane Craig? He would be a huge asset to the 'Chinese junk'.

September 16, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Elijah Hess Well, I'm not trying to convert Craig. I'm just trying to show others who are influenced by his negative assessments of open theism that he (often) glosses over important distinctions which, when brought to light, reveal a much stronger position than he tends to present.

September 16, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Tom Belt Dave's Part 9! Whoooah. That's hilarious.

September 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Eric Maggard Dave... First off, you keep equating that: "evolution cannot mean both that "God is involved in the process" and "God is not involved in the process" without also creating a contradiction." But, this time you tried to tie it to God in time and outside of time. That is a wholly other beast.

God can work in and through an evolutionary process and it still has natural selection. God could do some selective manipulations and the natural process can and will continue to work the way He set it up. I don't see any conflict or cannot fathom it... I see it as a very real possibility. It is the same as God working with the natural world... God can do some selective "miracles" and break the physical laws but the laws of physics still function for everything else including when God stops to operate with the "miracle".

I am taking it that you haven't been around breeders of any kind? I grew up on orchards and we cross pollinated and cross breed apple varieties. There was once when I was 6 years old that I came across a Golden/Red Delicious apple. It was divided perfectly down the center and was red on one half and yellow on the other. God could have taken that genetic mutation and made a variety of apples that were red/yellow... if He so desired.

I have also worked with Cat breeders and there are genetic mutations that have been caught and breed into various breeds of cats. One good one in particular is the Scottish Fold: http://www.cfa.org/Breeds/BreedsSthruT/ScottishFold.aspx

Now, if man can catch something like that and breed different traits into animals and plants... you don't think God could do the same thing over time?

I don't fully buy this, but us sharing a large portion of DNA with other animals and species makes you stop and wonder: http://www.genome.gov/15515096

I agree with you that the sequences of some animals that they portray with evolution is kind of a stretch, but it is a possibility.

September 14, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Tom Belt Nice. And what do we get when you breed an evolutionist with an open theist? An opelutionist? And evolopenist? And opevolutionist? Hey...it's Saturday.

September 14, 2013 at 5:07 pm

Eric Maggard An Evopenthelutionist... :-D

September 14, 2013 at 5:08 pm

Tom Belt A theopenuvolutionist...

September 14, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Tom Belt And add in some fundamentalist DNA...to get fundopevolutionist.

September 14, 2013 at 5:10 pm

Tom Belt Sorry for the lightheartedness. You guys can have the thread back. 8)

September 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Eric Maggard Sounds kind of like a philosoillusionist... :-D That is ok... I am out of here soon... so Dave can review it and get back to me later... :-)

September 14, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Eric Maggard Thanks for the laughs Tom... :-D

September 14, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Jim Gilles Yep, a bunch of freshman Campus Crusade for Christ members.

September 14, 2013 at 5:25 pm

David Mathison Breeding is man doing it with intelligence and purpose not nature with out intelligence and purpose. As I said, chance plus mutations doesn't produce anything. God would have to be involved at every stage of evolution. If evolution via nature can produce any new species then it can produce every new species and God would not have to be involved.

September 14, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Jim Gilles David Mathison,
Next they will bring up Stanley Miller's experiment as proof of evolution.

September 14, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Eric Maggard Dave... "As I said, chance plus mutations doesn't produce anything. God would have to be involved at every stage of evolution." So, could God be involved in evolution?

"If evolution via nature can produce any new species then it can produce every new species and God would not have to be involved." So, with God involved could evolution happen?

September 14, 2013 at 5:59 pm

Joshua Tom "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."- Todd Wood

September 14, 2013 at 6:04 pm

Matt Parkins Wait shouldn't this be part 10 ? :)

September 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Jim Gilles Joshua Tom,
If I stated the same and substituted the word creation for the word evolution what would I have proven?

September 14, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Joshua Tom You would have proven that "Creation" and "Evolution" are not interchangeable words. Do you not find the quote compelling?

September 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm

David Mathison Eric, God could not be involved with evolution if evolution never occurred.

September 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm

David Mathison Joshua, then just give me one example that you are sure of that proves evolution occurred.

September 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm

David Mathison Matt, no :-)

September 14, 2013 at 6:40 pm

Joshua Tom I know you're going to jump on me for this, but I'll throw this out there anyway: I am not a natural scientist. I am a social scientist, and I am not qualified to assess the evidence. I wager that we're in the same boat in this regard. But I am qualified to assess the consensus of the experts in the field, and that assessment is very easy to make. The question, then, is who has the more rationally defensible position: the non-expert who agrees with the expert, or the non-expert who disagrees with the experts?

Todd Wood, who I quoted previously, is a biochemist, and I think his words are impeccable. Do you take issue with his characterization of the landscape of the debate?

September 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm

Eric Maggard Dave.. "God could not be involved with evolution if evolution never occurred." But God could be involved with a theistic type evolution if that occurred?

September 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Tom Belt The debate is NOT about the truth or falsity of evolution. The debate is about whether or not those who believe evolution is false are willing to remain in open theism and share it peacefully with those who believe evolution is true.

Let’s assume David is absolutely correct. Evolution is false, and all those open theists who believe it to be true are wrong.

That said, NOW we have a debate about something. What are those who know evolution to be false going to do about the presence of evolutionists in open theism and open theism’s acceptance of evolutionists?

David, are you willing to share ‘open theism’ with evolutionists and those who don’t believe in a literal-historical Adam?

September 14, 2013 at 6:58 pm

Jim Gilles I think that Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's words are impeccable. We could do this ad infinitum.

"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution"

By: Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith
Publisher: The Word For Today

The Natural Sciences themselves are contrary to the theory of evolution as is demonstrated in detail in this challenging thesis.

September 14, 2013 at 7:25 pm

David Mathison Joshua, who someone is and how many degrees one has is absolutely meaningless. The argument is all that is important. Every view has it's scholars and most of them don't agree with each other.

September 14, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. Anyone else care to respond to this post so that you can also express your displeasure at the posts of David being deleted?

September 15, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Rod Thomas It was 1 post. All about Tom Belt. Nothing to do w/ open theism. 1 post.

September 15, 2013 at 10:58 pm

Joshua Tom It was an admin decision Jack, based on the irrelevance of the post to OT. It had nothing to do with disagreeing with the post. David's made a large series of posts in the last week, of questionable relevance to OT, that we've allowed to stand

September 15, 2013 at 10:58 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. An in-thread warning would have been sufficient. In other groups I have received such warnings. Deleting a post is heavy-handed and breeds distrust.

Which I now have that distrust of Rod.

September 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Joshua Tom Point taken, Jack, we're working on clarifying group policy.

September 16, 2013 at 12:01 am

Rod Thomas Thanks for holding us accountable Jack Swayze Sr. so we could improve the rules. It was an oversight.

September 16, 2013 at 12:02 am

William Lance Huget I protest the protest until we all read the offending post. I can understand how Dave feels since I have been booted from ex-JW groups for talking about Jesus (never been one) and from a prominent apologetic site for saying Calvinism impugns the character of God and that Open Theism is a biblical, coherent view. Hurts the pride, it does.

September 16, 2013 at 1:13 am

David Mathison William did you get my note of the post?

September 16, 2013 at 1:26 am

William Lance Huget I don't think so. No email. No FB PM.

September 16, 2013 at 1:28 am

David Mathison I sent it as a message do you see it

September 16, 2013 at 1:30 am

William Lance Huget FB PM? Nope.

September 16, 2013 at 1:31 am

David Mathison I just posted it on your web page

September 16, 2013 at 1:33 am

William Lance Huget Got it. Could have been sent to PM vs all my friends to see? I actually did see that post somewhere and did not have a problem with it (probably 'liked' it). It does sound like a private conversation between you and Tom, so I see their point to delete it or move it private. If you would have keep it more generic for everyone to share your heart, maybe they would not have grounds to delete it? If you did it on my FB group, I would not have deleted it personally.

September 16, 2013 at 1:38 am

Rod Thomas Thank you William.

September 16, 2013 at 1:39 am

David Mathison I don't think it was all that "heart" but others had asked me the same question and others wanted me to answer him so this was not just between me and Tom. What will be the reaction of people like me to the inclusion of evolution to OT is on a lot of peoples minds, yours and also Rods, I'm sure.

September 16, 2013 at 1:46 am

Rod Thomas Not mine, please dont assume. I have other things I am concerned about that go beyond the culture wars.

September 16, 2013 at 1:47 am

David Mathison But Rod it is still on the minds of many even if not on yours and there was nothing bad about my response

September 16, 2013 at 1:50 am

Rod Thomas I didnt say it was bad. Please dont make assumptions. Im just trying to keep the focus on OT, and not members addressing other members about personal experiences and preferences outside Open Theism. It just needed to be a personal message.

September 16, 2013 at 1:52 am

David Mathison This post was not outside of Open theism just outside of what you think is important

September 16, 2013 at 1:54 am

Rod Thomas Admins made the decision. We have a new rule about warnings before deleting posts, that rarely happen. Let it go.

September 16, 2013 at 1:56 am

T. C. Moore David, Joshua and Rod have been extremely upfront and transparent about the oversight of deleting your post, and have received your criticism and the criticism of others in a very mature manner. Josh even posted an apology and a policy change. I think it is now your responsibility to accept the apology and move on. The reality is, they didn't owe you that kind of humble response, but they offered it anyway. Please don't dishonor their gesture by pressing the issue. Cool?

September 16, 2013 at 2:01 am

David Mathison Ok

September 16, 2013 at 2:05 am

T. C. Moore Thank you David. Your cooperation is appreciated.

September 16, 2013 at 2:06 am

David Mathison I know being an umpire is not easy I've made many bad calls my apology for going a little to far.

September 16, 2013 at 2:12 am

Rod Thomas Thank you, Dave, and I do appreciate your contributions to the group.

September 16, 2013 at 2:14 am

William Lance Huget Sorry. I just learned how to hack and do not like Americans.

September 15, 2013 at 10:42 pm

Rod Thomas Yes. I did. Youre entire post was about you and Tom Belt. Easily could be resolved thru personal message. This is a group about Open Theism, and not two proponents disagreeing. Stick to the topic, stop derailing.

September 15, 2013 at 10:46 pm

William Lance Huget Rod the mod? News to me. Another person to bribe....sheesh.

September 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. I hereby express my utter contempt for deleting David's posts.

Let's destroy this group if this is how things are going to be handled.

September 15, 2013 at 10:49 pm

Rod Thomas Exactly your response, its all about tom, not Open Theism

September 15, 2013 at 10:49 pm

David Mathison Rod you're out of line

September 15, 2013 at 10:49 pm

Joshua Tom People have been bribing the mods? I've been missing out

September 15, 2013 at 10:49 pm

David Mathison Tom and other if not even you thought his concerns were important

September 15, 2013 at 10:51 pm

David Mathison Rod, and you decide what is derailing with out first tell me

September 15, 2013 at 10:52 pm

Daniel Mininger I did not see the original post so I cannot judge on content, but I think Rod was well within his admin jurisdiction to delete a post that was fueling (or was entirely consumed by) a personal argument.

September 15, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Rod Thomas David i asked you what your personal post have to do w/ Open Theism. Did your response have open theism in it? No.

September 15, 2013 at 10:56 pm

David Mathison Dan, if you did not read the post then how do you know?

September 15, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Daniel Mininger David: read my post.

September 15, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Daniel Mininger Just so we're clear, there is an unspoken "if" statement implied. If the post was personal in nature and had little or nothing to do with open theism then it was entirely appropriate.

If the post was not personal in nature and was concerned with the topics at hand, and the deletion was caused by disagreement then it was inappropriate.

I have not seen anyone say the post was not personal, simply that deleting posts, per say, is unethical (which is absurd).

September 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm

David Mathison Rod, you know I am new on this site, I gave you an answer, you should have told me you were an admin and that you were going to delete my post, then I would have copied it myself and deleted it myself and sent it another way.

September 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm

Rod Thomas Please read the rules and stay on topic. Thanks.

September 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm

David Mathison Dan, it had everything to do with open theism. Dr. Oord gave it a thumbs up, lets see if he though it only personal.

September 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm

David Mathison Rod, ask Dr Oord what he thought of the post

September 15, 2013 at 11:06 pm

David Mathison Rod, Tom's question about the direction of our group was a good question.

September 15, 2013 at 11:07 pm

Tom Belt I don't remember having a question about the direction of our group if you mean a FB group. The question was whether or not you were willing to share open theism with evolutionists.

September 15, 2013 at 11:15 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. I just re-read the rules of the group.

David, the rules call for two warnings. Did you get your two warnings?

September 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Rod Thomas "Typically a member will get a warning or two before a ban." thats only in a situation of a ban from the group. Keep to the rules.

September 15, 2013 at 11:28 pm

David Mathison Where are those rules?

September 15, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Rod Thomas They can easily be found at the Open Theism files: https://www.facebook.com/groups/opentheism/files/

September 15, 2013 at 11:31 pm

William Lance Huget Jack S. Did you see or read his post? I would before I would use the contempt word.

September 16, 2013 at 1:11 am

Joshua Tom I was wondering the same thing, it was here one moment and gone the next. I thought you had taken it down but I guess not

September 15, 2013 at 10:33 pm

David Mathison Some one has deleted it I think, I want to know what happened to it

September 15, 2013 at 10:35 pm

David Mathison Rodney, did you do this?

September 15, 2013 at 10:35 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. Deleting posts with which you disagree is highly unethical and is quite contemptible.

It destroys the civility and openness which these groups must have in order to function.

September 15, 2013 at 10:45 pm

David Mathison Jack, who are you talking to? I did not delete any post

September 15, 2013 at 10:46 pm

Jack Swayze Sr. I am talking to the person who deleted your posts.

September 15, 2013 at 10:51 pm

Tom Belt I didn't see it, Jack, so I can't comment. BUT...my guess is the admins don't delete posts just because they disagree with them. If that were true they'd be deleting 90% of the posts. So there must have been--in their minds--some violation of forum policy. Best to let David and them sort it out via PM. That's how it works I think.

But you're free to PM me anything Dave.

September 15, 2013 at 11:07 pm

David Mathison Tom, I'm so angry, that post took a long time to think through. That Rod would judge your question to me to be personal tells me he didn't read it. You would have liked it, others shared your concern about the direction of our group. I hope Dr. Oord shares his thinking on it, he read it and liked it.

September 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm

Tom Belt Let's all bow our heads and pray! Then a big group hug--'cause we're all washed in the blood of the Lamb! As unpleasant as working through this is, we really are the Body of Christ. (Not sure Jim thinks that about us all, but I do!)

So let's raise our glasses! Here's a toast to OPEN THEISM...long live its vision and its unity as God wills it! Hip Hip!

September 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm

David Mathison Thanks Tom

September 15, 2013 at 11:19 pm

Neil Short Are you planning "Open Theism and Evolution, part 21?"

September 15, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Tom Belt I took "Parts 14 through infinity" so nobody can go past 13! 8)

September 16, 2013 at 12:00 am

Tom Belt The admin's just approved my request to make it policy that no one can post a thread with a title similar to "What is Open Theism. Part 14..." or higher. It'll get deleted pronto! 8)

September 16, 2013 at 12:14 am

William Lance Huget I think if a long, blood, sweat, tears post is going to be deleted, there should be an opportunity for the composer to save it for other use even if not allowed to repost on offending forum. This is a minimal courtesy to avoid meltdowns and need for Ativan.

September 16, 2013 at 12:46 am

Joshua Tom Agreed William That's what we're trying to avoid in the future. Our mistake for sure

September 16, 2013 at 12:54 am

Annie Welch Britt Well, just reading the first sentence gives me pause...if "they" reject inerrancy...then what does that say about the rest of what they say or do or believe or write. To "reject inerrancy" as this post suggested, is to start from a completely wrong base......(js)

September 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan Or, a different base, a four legged stool, so to speak: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

September 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Seth Patrick Callahan It's as much an admission that every reading of scripture is interpreted as it is anything.

September 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Annie - I encourage you to read more carefully: Nazarenes reject "strict" inerrancy, but they affirm soteriological inerrancy. To learn about the difference, read the whole piece carefully.

September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Jez Bayes That's very clear, helpful and well explained.

The church group I belong to don't seem to acknowledge the place of interpretation, with their values stating this fairly meaningless phrase:
"A church where regular teaching and preaching of the Bible holds a primary role and where Scripture’s authority is final."

Hmmmm, yes but ......... ?

(http://www.commission-together.org/about/our-values.aspx)

September 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Michael Faber I don't understand how one can have selective inerrancy.

September 10, 2013 at 5:58 pm

Eric Maggard Michael... one of the scriptures that the Nazarenes use is:

2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Nazarenes don't hold that the Bible is authoritative on Science, History, and things like that. It is "inerrant" for all maters of salvation and faith.

Did you fully read the blog from Tom? He explains it pretty clearly with examples.

September 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Michael Faber I know what Dr. Thomas Jay Oord believes, and to an extent I agree with some of it. But there is a difference between saying that there is scientific inaccuracy because of a limited and incorrect cosmic geography, and saying that Scripture writers who communicate what they received from God wasn't really from God.

September 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Russ Slater Very glad to see a biblical group like the Wesleyans do away with an unnecessary and divisive doctrine fabricated in the 80s to prevent discussion, scholarship, and inquiry.

September 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm

Michael Faber Russ Slater, Um.... infallibility is one of the oldest doctrines of the Church.

September 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Jez Bayes Michael, who do you think is "saying that Scripture writers who communicate what they received from God wasn't really from God" and where?

September 10, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Michael Faber Jez Bayes, it is the position of many here that God's instructions to Israel to wipe out entire towns or to kill women and children weren't commands from God. And this particular doctrine is the way many try to get around those texts.

September 10, 2013 at 6:23 pm

Annie Welch Britt I read the whole thing. Still not buying it. .it states .."recognizes its limitations"...this is wide open for error. And also it says."the purpose for scripture is to bring us to salvation"....it is not its only purpose...So...there is that..

September 10, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Eric Maggard Michael... do you need that section to be Historically accurate for your faith in Jesus? Are there other truths in those scripture passages that you can apply without the text to be Historically accurate?

example... were there 100's of thousands of Israelites living in the desert for 40 years? What if there were only 10's of thousands or even just a few thousand? Would that ruin your faith in Jesus, God and the Bible?

September 10, 2013 at 6:31 pm

Michael Faber Eric Maggard, I am not as concerned about numerical accuracy, as the standard for numbers and such in the ancient near east do not compare to what we in the western world consider accurate due to any number of factors. Even Jesus said that the mustard seed was smallest of all the seeds, and it isn't. So, that's not the issue.

The problem is when we start throwing out an author's recording of what they received from God because it doesn't fit well with our western morality, and then we claim that (western morality) is based is Jesus' teaching... which we get from the bible.

When we begin to arbitrarily discard the writings of the bible because they don't fit our western mindset or we don't like how it makes God look today, then I begin to express concern.

September 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm

Jez Bayes Michael:
Re. the meaning of (e.g.) distasteful OT violence ........

But that's a debate about interpretation not inerrancy (which isn't quite the same as infallibility).

I would humbly ask, if the Bible is the ultimate written authority (being less of an authority than God, and less of a revelation than Jesus) how does it define itself?

I think the answer is that it never uses a modern concept like inerrant, but instead emphasises divine inspiration for purpose mainly in application (teaching, rebuke, correction, training, etc as quoted earlier) and not for relatively recent definitions connected to modern science or history.

e.g.1: When did Jesus cleanse the temple?
Does it matter that the Gospels disagree?

If God inspired them that way then it obviously doesn't matter to him, and it means that they aren't history by modern definitions, i.e. Sequential chronologically arranged accounts of events as they took place. Even the writing must involve elements of theologically selected interpretation, let alone the reading 2,000 years later.

This is in the text itself. To make them into harmonised history is to ignore that, and to damage the method of inspiration chosen by God.

e.g.2 If Jonah turned out to be a parable, would it convey less Truth/Truths than if it is 'history'?

If the answer is Yes, then why did Jesus use parables to convey truth, rather than just recount scriptural truths and actual events?

I think that the truth of the Bible's inspiration is that it conveys far more layers, nuances, complexity and beauty than simple monochrome inerrancy could.

September 10, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Eric Maggard I agree with you... but that is not what the Nazarene statement says. Your first paragraph agreed with the content of the Nazarene statement. As far as the morality and discarding writings of the Bible... that has to be applied to individuals, groups, or churches. However, the Nazarene church also holds a strong background of Holiness and is not changing that teaching, nor are they throwing out anything.

If you see otherwise... talk specifics.

September 10, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Michael Faber 1) The gospels don't disagree. Give me a break, people have been claiming this for years, and Christians have explained many times. As is the matter of when Jesus cleansed the temple.

2) 2 Peter 1:16-21 claims that the writings both of the Tanach and the New Testament writers were "spoke[n] from God." And, TBH, the church has believed what we describe as inerrancy today since its infancy. Yes, I know the term "infallibility" was attacked and changed in the 1800s by liberal theologians. That's why the term "inerrancy was adopted."

3) Whether Jonah is a parable or a literal story has no bearing on the infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture.

4) Inerrancy doesn't affect the layers, nuances, complexity or beauty of Scripture. Indeed, it enhances it.

September 10, 2013 at 6:50 pm

Jez Bayes OK, as my up-sum, I want to remind myself that our main calling is to be Disciples, learning to follow Jesus and his teaching, helping to make others Disciples too.

All the rest is 'twitter' (Hauerwas)

So my calling isn't to convince you I'm right about this, nor yours v.v.

You can be a follower of Jesus helping others so to be, and hold various interpretations of other areas of doctrine. We need churches that allow and encourage different opinions, interps and perspectives to dialogue in love without the need for winning arguments against each other.

By this others will know what we are.

I hope your church is good at that, I'm not sure mine allows different theological perspectives to flourish enough.

Peace & Cheers!

September 10, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Russ Slater @Michael: infallibilty does not equate with inerrancy. Many get this confused. Moreover infallibility refers to all matters having to do with God such as our various church doctrines however they are understood. And lastly, by the discussions proceeding here one notices inerrancy's divisiveness. It is a fabricated doctrine that forces a type of hermenuetic upon the bible to support evangelic "truths." Btw, I don't equate evangelic truths with biblical truths.

September 10, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Rod Thomas Honestly, history has shown, looking even at the SBC in the 1980s, that any definition of inerrancy outside of the Bible being perfect in revealing salvation, is just some Christians' method for arguing that their preferred interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. Salvation in Christ is necessary, everything else is secondary. That's a conservative position.

September 10, 2013 at 7:44 pm

W Scott Taylor Hat's off to Micheal for giving a sensible response to what appears to be the monolithic consensus of those who refuse to even confront the subject matter with the equanimity of scholars. It's not that you don't "cotton" to inerrancy that is fundamentally problematic, rather is a the refusal to go back and re-investigate how and why the schism occurred and re-asses those reasons in the light of modern textual criticism and other areas of modern science.

Frankly, that so many give evidence of not even understanding the fundamental principles of modern science and yet are so hard over against inherency or anything like that is troubling.

September 11, 2013 at 2:20 am

Christian Boehm Couple points of agreement with Michael:

(1) He has stated correctly that inerrancy has ALWAYS been the belief of the church, even if the term is not strictly used. Various issues with the Bible have been a matter of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. Whether a book is metaphorical, for example, does not have to do with inerrancy. That is a common mistake and shows a lack of education in theology. Please learn a position before attacking it. And please STOP saying it is an enlightenment doctrine. IT IS NOT! This is foolishness. I hear this statement all the time (not necessarily from people here, but from errantists in general).

(2) Michael is correct that the problems of the Gospels have been, for the most part, solved. We must read the Gospels in their HISTORICAL CONTEXT and judge their truthfulness according to ancient standards of error. Ancients did not have rigid standards. They were a little more flexible. Recent research in Greco-Roman Lives (or Bios) has shed a lot of light on this issues in the Gospels, as these books closely resemble the Lives (although I will not discuss that scholarly debate right here). PArt of this flexibility has to do with the educational and technological capabilities of the NT period (e.g. oral culture, etc.).

Chronological order and exact minor detail accuracy were not a big deal and did not count as an error. This should be clearly seen from the fact that MAtthew and Luke most likely used Mark as a major source. They changed minor details (e.g. when exactly the fig tree withered, resurrection appearances, etc.) and changed the ordering of events to fit their larger pastoral and theological purposes. I don't get the feeling that Matthew or Luke were wrong or in "error" by changing minor details. They didn't screw up. It was purposeful, which is important. We do this all of the time when we re-tell stories from our past. We might exclude some details or emphasize another or speed up an event or something of the like. Can the Gospel writers do this as well? I think so.

(3) Michael is correct about numbers. First, we must know that ancients, especially during the time of Israel's history (ANE cultures), used numbers symbolically at times. Plus, we must define error in terms of PURPOSE of an affirmation. If a number is meant to estimate or round, then there can be differing numbers and yet the two statements are free from error. This happens in our experiences as well. We round all of the time. Does this mean we are in error? No one would think this.

Another example: Michael is correct to say that Jesus' statement of the mustard seed being the smallest seed is not an error. His PURPOSE was not a science lesson, but a theological lesson. It is only an error if he was teaching science. He just used the cultural understanding of audience to make a point. It would have been a disservice to God to confuse the audience by using a seed that the audience would not know of.

We do all of the time as well. When preaching to a foreign culture, for example, we might use errant information from that culture to make a point about the importance of the gospel. Who would really call this an error? I wouldn't.

Genesis comes to mind as well here. If it was MEANT to be an exact history, then it would be counted as error. I personally think this is not the purpose of the account. Hence, it is not in error. It is more metaphorical.

(4) Reports do not count against inerrancy. For example, Stephen's speech in Acts or the statements made by Job's friends or maybe even a prayer of Psalm that records the frustration of a saint. Job's friends were in "error" regarding the reasons for Job's suffering. This does not count against inerrancy. As long as it is properly recorded, then there is no error. An author is allowed to record a statement made by someone else, or even use non-canonical sources or use the Septuagint. It only counts as error if the source is being used an affirmation, and this affirmation is in error. So, for example, Jude's references to Enoch and The Assumption of Moses do not count against inerrancy. Truth can be in other sources.

We do this all of the time. We use quotations and other sources to make points. We are only wrong in our points if we are using that source as an affirmation of our own point. The same can be said if we tell a story from our lives. We can tell about a false statement made by someone else. It is only an error on our part if we say that this statement in true.

(5) Next, we must not judge sometime an error if it is a phenomenal observation about science or history. We do this all of the time. We see some occurrence from a certain angle and record what we see. It is not an error if the statement is MEANT to be phenomenal. If it not meant to be this, then it could be in error.

(6) Also, we must not make too much of authorial intent. I believe this is misguided. I judge inerrancy in accordance with the Spirit's intent. He may have a purpose for a given text that the author is not aware of.

(7) Another misconception is that inerrantist only affirm this doctrine because of a need for certainty or to push for a doctrinal position or as a power play. Who knows; for some people, this may be true. Not me or any other inerrantists I know. We push for this because we believe it can be inferred from Scripture and because it disallows moderns from changing doctrines because it does not fit well with modern sensibilities (the spiritual world, violence in the OT, etc.).

(8) Finally, we should give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. The fields of biblical criticism and science have changed quite a bit in the last 200 years. We need to be tentative in our scientific and historical judgements. Anyone who has studied in the field of biblical studies knows this much. Old theories have been replaced because they failed to explain the available data.

Also, we must withhold judgment of biblical difficulties here and there, because we are not omniscient. Again, for example, there has to be a good reason why there is differing accounts of the death of Judas. If the sources were shared, then there has to be a reason certain details were not included. I doubt one author changed it to deceive or as an error in reading. They made a certain point by it, even if we don't know it. In fact, this difficulty has many readily available solutions (which I won't discuss right now) that are indeed plausible.

September 11, 2013 at 3:52 am

Christian Boehm With that said, there are certainly some difficulties in inerrancy, especially in regards to the OT. I am speaking about archaeological evidence textual issues in certain books. However, many solutions have been found by those willing to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. Plus, we must remember some of the above principles with the OT as well.

But I also want to say here that I don't think inerrancy is a must for salvation. One can be saved and disagree with inerrancy. Christ alone is the savior.

Finally, again, we must be tentative about the data we have. The field is always changing and archaeological evidence is always changing as well.

Here is a good video by NT scholar Mike Licona. He explains the difficulties of Gospel accounts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XtNi2dj1A

September 11, 2013 at 3:59 am

Russ Slater Thanks CB for reviewing the idea of inerrancy that drives evangelicalism forward. However, it is not the engine of the bible but is a modern 20th century refinement to the more traditional doctrine of infallibility. Letting go of inerrancy does not reduce the bible's infallibility... but yet, by letting it go it will adjust how we approach Scripture in trying to understand the meaning behind the words within our present temporal and cultural contexts. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation and insight, and it is this kind of bible that intrigues me. But not the approved ideas of a particular movement or group that hedges against science, history, and scholarship.

September 11, 2013 at 8:52 am