I think you're an atheist friend of jimipresley's, who is here to raise hell and have some fun at other people's expense..
Stripe wrote:The context was knowledge of the future. You restricted that to "experiential" knowledge. It may have been obvious to you that this is what you meant, but it is certainly not what I meant and nor was it obvious.
Is all your knowledge based upon anti-OT expositions?
And yet, He can still know what will happen.
Well, I'm not an atheist. What kind of atheist confesses Jesus Christ and Lord and God, personal saviour and coming judge?
Either that or you are now misrepresenting him...
Stripe wrote:And why would you think the law has been thrown out?
I guess your only recourse is to insist I should have known you meant existential knowledge before you declared that was what you were talking about.
jimipresley wrote:Stripe is a good friend of mine, but he's certainly not atheist.
I think you're being a tad ungracious.Fortigurn wrote:I used it in the sense that it's typically used in the context of this subject. That you were unaware of this usage shows you aren't sufficiently familiar with the subject.
Sure, you did. I asked if you could provide an OT-proponent who believed God did not have any knowledge of the future and you went down another road.I did not provide you with 'anti-OT expositions'.
The fact that you dismissed them as 'anti-OT expositions' shows that you didn't read them properly and didn't check any of the sources.
Fraudulent!?Ironically, you have yourself provided me with a quotation and link from an Arminian source which explains why he doesn't agree with open theism, yet you don't see that as 'anti-OT exposition'. You also provide me with a source which argues against open theism, describing it as 'a position with inconsistent hermeneutics' and 'a teaching that has been espoused by no orthodox believers in almost two thousand years of church history'; this is explicitly an 'anti-OT exposition'. So we find that your complaint about me supposedly using 'anti-OT expositions' is fraudulent; it's simply an attempt to avoid the facts.
No argument.Now who's ignoring qualifiers? In open theism He can only know for certain what He will sovereignly determine; conversely, He can only know the possibilities of what others will do. None of this is experiential knowledge of the future. The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future.
You should watch the semantics of what you say. This statement is very close to self-contradictory nonsense.Well I hadn't seen you do that, and your lack of standard Biblical knowledge makes you look like someone with next to no familiarity with the Bible.
Oh. Well I guess this all comes down to your inability to recognise a bit of light-hearted banter for what it is.I'm not misrepresenting him. He didn't you were an atheist, he told me that most of what you have written is (in his words), 'pure troll'. I agree with that.
And that gives you right to invent any old thing about me?Stripe wrote:Because when you started the thread you didn't explain what you actually believe.
Sure, I did. I'm an OT - I explained what I believe.You didn't explain open theism properly at all.
Perhaps you can lighten up.If you had done so, in the manner I described, you wouldn't be facing such questions now. Let's see if you do any better from here on.
No, it's not any sort of crux. It's a detail that helps differentiate between OT and Calvinism and Arminianism. And if it's such an obvious distinction that I should have automatically made, it should be pretty easy to show, right? Unfortunately when I Google the term "open theism experiential knowledge" I get a rather circular sort of result. Try it. It's intriguing.You should have, since it's the crux of the open theist position.
It's one of the reasons why I reached the conclusion that you don't know very much about open theism. You seem to have a passing acquaintance with the pop-theology version, as demonstrated by your recourse to the blogs. To date you haven't actually demonstrated an accurate understanding of what the position is actually addressing about God.
Stripe wrote:If you look at my OP, there is no claim that I am anything of an expert in theology. It's just a friendly enquiry to see if there are any like-minded people here in Taiwan. Then you went off the deep end...
Sure, you did.
I asked if you could provide an OT-proponent who believed God did not have any knowledge of the future and you went down another road.
Perhaps I should have realised that you were talking about experiential knowledge only.
My lack of "standard biblical knowledge" implies the possession of biblical knowledge.
To use that as evidence for no biblical knowledge is pretty funny.
Oh. Well I guess this all comes down to your inability to recognise a bit of light-hearted banter for what it is.
Stripe wrote:Perhaps you can lighten up.
No, it's not any sort of crux. It's a detail that helps differentiate between OT and Calvinism and Arminianism.
And if it's such an obvious distinction that I should have automatically made, it should be pretty easy to show, right?
Sure, I have. You just don't like the way I express myself.
Stripe wrote:William Lane Craig debating George Williamson said the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences.
I was listening to a debate between George Williamson and William Lane Craig on the existence of God. Williamson argued that the concept of God is incoherent. He claimed omniscience would require that God possess all empirical knowledge (experiential, know-how), and yet God clearly does not know what it is like to play basketball, ride a bike, or sin. Craig responded that the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences. Williamson counters that theists have so defined omniscience only to escape the logical absurdities involved in a being who is truly omniscient. So is the classical definition ad hoc as Williamson claims? No. There is good reason to limit omniscience to propositional knowledge.
Perhaps you should go back and read that little exchange again.Fortigurn wrote:I didn't go off the deep end. I made a comment about open theism, and you immediately attacked it as wrong.
All of them except perhaps the encyclopaedia and the dictionary.Please specify which of the sources I used was an 'anti-OT' source.
And, as was very clear, I was wondering if you could quote an OT who believed God cannot know the future. You quoting non-OT sources does not answer that challenge. My quoting non-OT sources is perfectly reasonable.As I have pointed out, you have already used two 'anti-OT' sources yourself so your objection is fraudulent; you're perfectly happy with using 'anti-OT' sources yourself.
Sure, I did. Right here:No you didn't ask that, and I never said any open theist believes God does not have any knowledge of the future.
And sure, you did. Here:Stripe wrote:You show us one OTer who believes God has zero knowledge of the future and I'll buy you a Big Mac Combo (or the vegan equivalent).
Fortigurn wrote:Open theists believe knowledge of the future is unknowable to God.
I do. I believe that God knows all sorts of things about the future. Just nothing from experience given that the future does not exist. Can we move on?I would expect someone who claims to be an open theist to know this; I would expect them to actually understand the doctrine in which they claim to believe.
Perhaps you can lighten up.I'm sorry it's not just me; jimi himself told me that most of what you wrote was trolling, and he called you on it himself. You need to make up your mind whether you want to engage in 'light-hearted banter' (in which case you need to stop furiously defending your claims and telling others they're wrong), or if you're being serious.
It hasn't changed.Indeed. See my first list of citations for plenty of evidence. Previously you said 'No argument' when I observed that 'The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future'. Now you're denying it's a crux, and complaining that it's difficult to find support for such a statement. You need to make up your mind what you believe.
Dude! You insisted that I support what I said! You need to make up your mind. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what I believe or I can scour the internet and tell you what others believe.This is not about how you express yourself, it's about your repeated insistence that other people are wrong, while you yourself have to Google for details of a doctrine you claim to believe and can't explain it accurately.
He's not talking about the same issue. As I have pointed out, experiential knowledge of the future means that God experiences knowledge of the future in the same way that He experiences knowledge in the present and past. Craig's claim that God knows all true propositions is indeed the classical position; it is not open theism. What you have missed is the context of the debate, which is this.
The topic under discussion in that debate is whether or not God has experiential knowledge of all possible experiences, and whether or not omniscience is limited to propositional knowledge. What's clear is that this is bothering you, so instead of looking through the relevant scholarly literature you're Googling frantically to find something which sounds like what you thought open theism actually is. This is not the position of someone who is certain about what they believe.
Stripe wrote:All of them except perhaps the encyclopaedia and the dictionary.
And, as was very clear, I was wondering if you could quote an OT who believed God cannot know the future. You quoting non-OT sources does not answer that challenge.
My quoting non-OT sources is perfectly reasonable.
And sure, you did. Here:
I do. I believe that God knows all sorts of things about the future. Just nothing from experience given that the future does not exist. Can we move on?
Perhaps you can lighten up.
It hasn't changed.
You insisted that I support what I said!
Your insistence that I match up to your scholarly standards off the top of my head is just plain nutty.
Nice Googling. That's exactly where I got my link from.
You need to make up your mind. First you're complaining that I am too insistent about what I believe now you are accusing me of not knowing what I believe.
How about you just let go of your preconceived notions and have a discussion.
Forumosans browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests