Does God Ever Change His Mind?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Innocent' date='25 April 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1272214910' post='2099743']
Revprodeji, do you have any thoughts on the subject of [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=103576"]this thread[/url]?
[/quote]

I have not read it. Honestly I do not post much on Phatmass anymore but I had a friend link me to this topic when it came up.

Is there anything specific about that thread I should look at?

In a quick look I would need to side with Apo that

[quote] I have never seen this idea proposed in the writings of the Church Fathers, so I really cannot add anything substantive to the discussion.
As I see it . . . God's mercy and forgiveness - are infinitely beyond the infinite.Yes . . . as St. Augustine said: "God made you without any cooperation on your part. For you did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How would you have consented, when you did not exist? But He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it." [St. Augustine, Sermon 169:13] [/quote] (Took out energy part just because I am not sure there).

[Innocent]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1272215576' post='2099749']
I have not read it. Honestly I do not post much on Phatmass anymore but I had a friend link me to this topic when it came up.

Is there anything specific about that thread I should look at?

In a quick look I would need to side with Apo that

(Took out energy part just because I am not sure there).
[/quote]

I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what exactly St. Alphonsus means. Does he mean that when a person is born, God decides that only 500 sins (for example) will be forgiven him? Or is St. Alphonsus saying that a person can become so hard-hearted that God practically "gives-up" on that person? Or does he mean that God keeps giving grace always but a person can become so much trapped in vice that he can be totally unable to co-operate with God's grace and so, for all practical purposes, it is as though God does not give any grace at all?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Innocent

[N/A Gone]

I am not an expert on St. Alphonsus, so I am probably not the one to ask. Sorry. Many of the heroes in the Church are doing exactly what we are doing= trying to explain and understand God. They are chasing the divine. They are not infallible and often times say the correct thing, but sometimes they say things that are very off base. They are human like we are and we can learn from them, but not everything they say is dogmatic.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1272211393' post='2099730']
[b]of course if the majority of your research came from one source, let alone an insufficient source of course you found Open Theism to be insufficient. That is just bad scholarship. I doubt how well you read Boyd if you did not know that a basic part of Open Theism is that the future is partially open and partially determined with God "knowing" all and working within our free wil.[/b]

Of course [b]if you are reading protestant writers they are not going to even bother with Aquinas and Augustine. There are 2 facts here. 1.) They will not work with them because their target audience could honestly care less[/b]. 2.) Boyd does work a bit with Augustine in his research, but you based most on Sanders. Knowing Dr. Boyd for over a decade now I can attest that he hardly "dismisses" philosophical arguments. His M.Div is philosophical theology (PhD was at Princeton Theological)His current work on the blueprint perspective is a reflection of years of patristic research. [b]You just did not properly research[/b]. You cannot do an academic paper on Open Theism and ignore God at War and Satan the Problem of Evil. [b]Your desire was to understand and attack Open Theism from a scholarly perspective, but you read the "for dummies" version of the research.[/b]
[/quote]

-1 for lack of charity when responding...

1. let his teacher grade his paper, that isn't you. Even if it is poor scholarship. Do you know what year of college he is in and what his teachers currently expect of him? I know as a student my freshmen and sophomore papers sucked, and I definitely could have written some of my upper class papers better, but if all people told me was that it was bad scholarship and that I didn't know how to research properly I would not have taken it as constructive criticism. Edit: Just went to his profile and he is a senior. My point still stands though. Either way you could have worded the criticisms a lot more charitably and constructively.

2. The 2nd bolded is IMO bad scholarship...

3. To the 3rd and 4th bolded: lack of charity again here. Also you do not know what the writers desires were.

Rev it honestly [b]seems[/b] like you're coming from a huge huge biased in favor of open theism, not just on an academic level but on a personal and emotional level.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Slappo

[N/A Gone]

1- Lack of charity? I pointed out that if he is claiming to research something then he should properly research it. He claimed and sited a work and then presented a version of Open Theism that does not reflect a basic understanding of someone who would have read the book he cited. The sources he used were not academic, and then on top of it he did not properly reflect an understanding of those sources. This "type" of paper is damaged when you are supposed to understand a view and reflect on it, but never really understand it.

2- Of course I have bad scholarship. I am responding on a message board, not writing a paper in class, but I disagree with your point. If a protestant pastor is writing a layman book for protestant followers then they will not follow Church fathers because their target audience does not want to read them. I am not arguing that it is right or wrong, just explaining why afrojohn did not find reference to St. Thomas in his research.

3. I was personally mentored by Boyd for many years before my conversion. I can speak about his desire with his books because I have discussed it with him.

Of course I am bias. I am an Open Theist. So someone who constructs a straw man argument for a paper is going to gain a response. We all have our individual biases that we defend. The only difference is that my view is not a common one on this forum.

I do disagree with the lack of charity accusation. He posted his paper and asked for a response. I gave a response.

[N/A Gone]

What is this whole (-1) thing? Phatmass popularity contest?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1272221918' post='2099807']
What is this whole (-1) thing? Phatmass popularity contest?
[/quote]
basiclee. Apotheoun currently reigns.

[N/A Gone]

Apotheoun reigns? I thought the phatmass mentality would be anyone with a different perspective would get mucho -1 and lose the whole thing?

LD, does this convo bring up warm and fuzzy times?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1272222292' post='2099814']
Apotheoun reigns? I thought the phatmass mentality would be anyone with a different perspective would get mucho -1 and lose the whole thing?

LD, does this convo bring up warm and fuzzy times?
[/quote]
Apotheoun is, and has from the start been the undisputed champion of green numbers.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1272222292' post='2099814']
LD, does this convo bring up warm and fuzzy times?
[/quote]
YES. I feel like we need to have a group hug or something.

Maybe in the future we could discuss open theism again. I don't know about you but I feel that I've matured in some ways. lawl.

[N/A Gone]

I can communicate things in a Catholic sense/language that I could not before. I would enjoy having that discussion. I have had that discussion with 2 profs at FUS and I felt it really benefited me in moving beyond the Arena that Boyd is working in and incorporating the basic concept with a Catholic metaphysic.

As far as the maturity is concerned? I fear neither of us will grow much in that regard.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 April 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1272222769' post='2099819']
YES. I feel like we need to have a group hug or something.

Maybe in the future we could discuss open theism again. I don't know about you but I feel that I've matured in some ways. lawl.
[/quote]


[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1272222907' post='2099820']
I can communicate things in a Catholic sense/language that I could not before. I would enjoy having that discussion. I have had that discussion with 2 profs at FUS and I felt it really benefited me in moving beyond the Arena that Boyd is working in and incorporating the basic concept with a Catholic metaphysic.

As far as the maturity is concerned? I fear neither of us will grow much in that regard.
[/quote]
I would like to propose a one on one debate following the guidelines set forth on the debate table.

[N/A Gone]

"Debate" is a bad term to use. I respect LD too much to simply debate. Honestly, he knows where I stand. If anything, it would be a friendly discussion where I can use the great gift that is LD to test and edify my views on God/Time/Free will. It would need to be a closed discussion, but I could be game. Not sure how much time I can commit to it, but if he is patient with me we can do it.

[afro_john]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1272221734' post='2099802']
1- Lack of charity? I pointed out that if he is claiming to research something then he should properly research it. He claimed and sited a work and then presented a version of Open Theism that does not reflect a basic understanding of someone who would have read the book he cited. The sources he used were not academic, and then on top of it he did not properly reflect an understanding of those sources. This "type" of paper is damaged when you are supposed to understand a view and reflect on it, but never really understand it.

2- Of course I have bad scholarship. I am responding on a message board, not writing a paper in class, but I disagree with your point. If a protestant pastor is writing a layman book for protestant followers then they will not follow Church fathers because their target audience does not want to read them. I am not arguing that it is right or wrong, just explaining why afrojohn did not find reference to St. Thomas in his research.

3. I was personally mentored by Boyd for many years before my conversion. I can speak about his desire with his books because I have discussed it with him.

Of course I am bias. I am an Open Theist. So someone who constructs a straw man argument for a paper is going to gain a response. We all have our individual biases that we defend. The only difference is that my view is not a common one on this forum.

I do disagree with the lack of charity accusation. He posted his paper and asked for a response. I gave a response.
[/quote]

I appreciate criticism as long as it is constructive and despite some aspects of your responses, I do feel like I'm benefitting from this discussion. The assignment that was given to me was to write a [i]general, cursory[/i] summary of open theism and formulate a response to it. It is quite obvious that Boyd and Sanders do not appeal to Augustine or Thomas, but again, part of my assignment was to give a Catholic response, and I don't think one can get more Catholic than to utilize doctors of the Church.

If you had to submit a general, cursory summary of open theism what would it look like? What would the philosophical basis be? I am genuinely interested in this because I feel that it would be hard to [i]not[/i] be an open theist because it is such a radical appeal to the human heart. If the position wasn't condemned as heretical, I myself would follow the argument of St. John Cassian (but, alas, his view was struck down as "Semi-Pelagian"), but a problem I see with open theism is that it is nowhere within the tradition. So, if you could give me a legitimate, philosophically based argument in favor of open theism, I would appreciate it.

Again, I have no problem with criticism, I know that the paper was crunched and rather crudely thrown together (I literally got the books in through inter-library loan the week before the paper was due) so I put something together based on the short time-frame that I had. At any rate though, please, let's continue this discussion!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1272225550' post='2099843']
"Debate" is a bad term to use. I respect LD too much to simply debate. Honestly, he knows where I stand. If anything, it would be a friendly discussion where I can use the great gift that is LD to test and edify my views on God/Time/Free will. It would need to be a closed discussion, but I could be game. Not sure how much time I can commit to it, but if he is patient with me we can do it.
[/quote]
In the above case I meant "debate" in the most formal sense of the word. The cool kind, in other words.