| Formal Debate Proposals A forum where topics for Formal Debate may be proposed. |  | | 
30th December 2011, 12:33 AM
|  | Newbie 25 
| | Join Date: 11th October 2010 Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 1,864
Blessings: 41,613 My Mood
Reps: 193,669,102,742,413,024 (power: 193,669,102,742,417) | | | Open Theism VS. Traditional Doctrine I am proposing a debate on the subject of open theism and traditional doctrine. By open theism I mean either the view that God has no clue whatsoever as to what will happen in the future, or the view that God Himself limits His knowledge of the future. If one has any rendition of open theism other than how I have defined it, I would agree to that as well. I suspect this debate will cover topics that include, the nature of God, time, and creation, although perhaps not limited to these things.
I would be taking the traditional side in maintaining that God has infallible foreknowledge. Any other conditions can be discussed as one is interested in taking up the opposition to my position. | 
23rd January 2012, 03:34 PM
|  | Scripture or it didn't happen.

| | Join Date: 17th January 2012 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 110
Blessings: 21,579 My Mood
Reps: 4,880,346,617,688,974 (power: 4,880,346,617,690) | | | Does anybody actually believe Open Theism?
__________________ "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." -1 Peter 2:2 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | 
26th January 2012, 01:15 AM
|  | Newbie 25 
| | Join Date: 11th October 2010 Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 1,864
Blessings: 41,613 My Mood
Reps: 193,669,102,742,413,024 (power: 193,669,102,742,417) | | Originally Posted by Precisely Does anybody actually believe Open Theism? Yes. I have seen the belief espoused many times on these forums, which is partially why I am surprised no one has taken me up on this opportunity. | 
28th May 2012, 06:43 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 28th May 2012
Posts: 472
Blessings: 108,353 My Mood
Reps: 28,340,887,202,759,332 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by elopez I am proposing a debate on the subject of open theism and traditional doctrine. By open theism I mean either the view that God has no clue whatsoever as to what will happen in the future, or the view that God Himself limits His knowledge of the future. If one has any rendition of open theism other than how I have defined it, I would agree to that as well. I suspect this debate will cover topics that include, the nature of God, time, and creation, although perhaps not limited to these things.
I would be taking the traditional side in maintaining that God has infallible foreknowledge. Any other conditions can be discussed as one is interested in taking up the opposition to my position.
I would be interested in debating on this subject. I espouse that God does not have knowledge of the future. | 
29th May 2012, 02:43 PM
|  | Newbie 25 
| | Join Date: 11th October 2010 Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 1,864
Blessings: 41,613 My Mood
Reps: 193,669,102,742,413,024 (power: 193,669,102,742,417) | | Originally Posted by rogueapologist I would be interested in debating on this subject. I espouse that God does not have knowledge of the future.
Could you elaborate more on your position? Also, if you disagree with any of these conditions or have slight modifications, please share them so we can begin asap.
As far as the topic for this debate, it will obviously be the nature of God concerning His omniscience and whether or not that includes knowledge of the future. I am taking the traditional side in maintaining God knows the future. As you said you will take the opposite position in saying God does not know the future.
How many rounds would you like to do? I hear the norm is three which is something I would settle with, however if you want more than that I'd be open to consideration. Also, who shall start the debate? I will if you want me to, or if you would like to I have no issue with that either. And should we alternate between posts, or post all of our rounds back to back? I would prefer alternating.
As far as time time between posts I would hope to keep it under a week or less for each reply. Any other concerns you have just bring up and we'll sort through it. | 
29th May 2012, 10:42 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 28th May 2012
Posts: 472
Blessings: 108,353 My Mood
Reps: 28,340,887,202,759,332 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by elopez Could you elaborate more on your position? Also, if you disagree with any of these conditions or have slight modifications, please share them so we can begin asap.
As far as the topic for this debate, it will obviously be the nature of God concerning His omniscience and whether or not that includes knowledge of the future. I am taking the traditional side in maintaining God knows the future. As you said you will take the opposite position in saying God does not know the future.
How many rounds would you like to do? I hear the norm is three which is something I would settle with, however if you want more than that I'd be open to consideration. Also, who shall start the debate? I will if you want me to, or if you would like to I have no issue with that either. And should we alternate between posts, or post all of our rounds back to back? I would prefer alternating.
As far as time time between posts I would hope to keep it under a week or less for each reply. Any other concerns you have just bring up and we'll sort through it.
My position, which I shall expand upon in coming posts, is that God does not have knowledge of the future, that God's knowledge is limited to that which exists. I will also seek to show how this position does not, however, diminish a traditional understanding of the omniscience of God.
Three rounds, alternating, sounds good to me, although I don't mind going additional rounds if the debate warrants it. Also, I plan to respond quite quickly, so the time frame should be no issue.
Feel free to begin whenever you have an opportunity. Thanks | 
29th May 2012, 11:54 PM
|  | Newbie 25 
| | Join Date: 11th October 2010 Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 1,864
Blessings: 41,613 My Mood
Reps: 193,669,102,742,413,024 (power: 193,669,102,742,417) | | Originally Posted by rogueapologist My position, which I shall expand upon in coming posts, is that God does not have knowledge of the future, that God's knowledge is limited to that which exists. I will also seek to show how this position does not, however, diminish a traditional understanding of the omniscience of God.
Three rounds, alternating, sounds good to me, although I don't mind going additional rounds if the debate warrants it. Also, I plan to respond quite quickly, so the time frame should be no issue.
Feel free to begin whenever you have an opportunity. Thanks
I was thinking the same about the number of rounds. If one of us feels the need to continue the debate, though, I would suggest that only happens if the other party agrees to it. The rest I think we see eye to eye on, and the only thing I'm wondering being this is my first time doing this is how we get these rules we agreed on approved by a mod. | 
30th May 2012, 03:35 AM
|  | Unapologetic Apologist 54 
| | Join Date: 8th December 2007
Posts: 14,279
Blessings: 110,831,888 My Mood
Reps: 1,951,104,503,640,609,280 (power: 1,951,104,503,640,629) | | Hi Guys;
How does this look? Since it is usually the affirmative position which goes first, I have rogueapologist beginning; however, if you both desire, we can change this.
We also need a start date (as soon as possible is ok) .
The rules contained in the "Scope" are non negotiable; however the stipulations at the bottom can be changed on mutual agreement.
Let me know; I can get this setup either tonight, or tomorrow.
God bless,
Mark
Staff Supervisor Open Theism VS. Traditional Doctrine Scope: These forum guidelines apply to all Theology Forums. 1: Scope of Discussions: These forums are for the discussion of Christian Theology, Ethics, and History. For the purposes of the Theology forums, discussion is limited to Christian faith and practice as framed in the Nicene Creed. This includes the study of what Christian churches teach and confess, what Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches. Discussion of non-Nicene beliefs is limited only to discussion from a Nicene point of view for purposes of evangelism. 2: Provide Citations: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication. If quoting from a hard copy then proper citations must also be used. At a minimum the title of the book, magazine, article etc and the name of the author must be posted. 3: Focus on Topics: Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith. Posters who include egregious personal insults and accusations in their posts have their posts edited by moderator staff, and may be issued notices and/or forum specific bans due to them, depending on the seriousness of the flame. 4: Provide Supporting Statements: Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other. When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial. 5. Respect Differing Points of Reference: It is expected that people who post in Theology will respect people of faith, including those for whom faith and logic are not contradictions, but complements to one another. To some Christians, arguments from the Bible, from doctrine, and from tradition, are just as valid (and at times more valid) than arguments from logic, reason, science, or history. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, you should respect the other person's point of reference. 6. Accusations of non-Christian doctrine: Stating that another member's church is not Christian is not allowed. However, stating a teaching or belief of another church is not Christian because of X, Y, and Z, is allowed. 7: "Tread Carefully" Topics: Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, antisemitism, etc., are very emotionally laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult. This rule may be referred to as the "tread carefully" rule. 8: Discussion of Historical Figures: Discussion of historical figures important to Christians of many theological backgrounds is a necessary component of theological discourse. Such figures include [but are not limited to]: the Pope, the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, various Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. Such figures are not immune from criticism. However, insults and accusations against these people are not to be posted lightly, and may only be used when accompanied by citation of sources and in the "If X, then Y, because of Z" format. Statements unaccompanied by these requirements will be deemed inflammatory and dealt with appropriately. 9: Report OR Refute, Not Both: When confronted with a post which a member believes to be a violation of the rules, there are two basic options. The member can respond to the post and try to persuade the other member to correct and/or clarify the perceived slight, or they can report the post. Please refrain from both reporting a post, AND responding to it in the thread. Do one, or the other. If it is indeed a violation of the rules, chances are good that it will be edited or deleted, and any responses will either make no sense or will end up deleted in a thread cleanup. Please do not try to "eat your cake and have it, too." 10: Limit quote size: When copying and pasting quotations from other works, limit the size to 20% of the original article, or other work, while providing proper citation as noted above. Stipulations: - Topic:Open Theism VS. Traditional Doctrine
- Affirmative: rogueapologist
Opposing: elopez - Rounds: 3; additional rounds may be added by mutual agreement of both parties.
- Alternating rounds starting each with rogueapologist being the first post.for a total of 6 posts.
- Time limit between posts: 1 week maximum, there is no minimum.
- Maximum length for each post: Limited to the preset maximum post size (I don't know just how big that is... but it's big
). - Quotes and References are allowed; Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule. (Note: since rogueapologist is still under 50 posts, and therefore can not post links, for fairness; links will not be allowed.
- Start Date: _______________.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr"> Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence.
Augsburg Confession Article XXIV; 1, 2. | 
30th May 2012, 08:57 PM
|  | Newbie 25 
| | Join Date: 11th October 2010 Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 1,864
Blessings: 41,613 My Mood
Reps: 193,669,102,742,413,024 (power: 193,669,102,742,417) | | | I'm a little confused as to what you mean by the affirmative position. I would have figured claiming God does know the future as the affirmative position. Either way, who starts the debate makes no difference to me, so I'll leave the desicion to rogue.
I would prefer to start tomorrow anytime. Unless rogue is going to start and wants to tonight, that is fine. I was also wondering if you could clear up something else for, since like I said this is my first time doing something like this. Does three rounds mean each person posts three times or what? Everything else looks good to me. | 
30th May 2012, 09:33 PM
| | Regular Member
 | | Join Date: 28th May 2012
Posts: 472
Blessings: 108,353 My Mood
Reps: 28,340,887,202,759,332 (power: 0) | | | I'll kick things off tomorrow. |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |