A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[godrulz]

So then does God ever interfere with or intervene on man's free will?

God can and does intervene at times, but it is not normative (meticulous control is inferior and contrary to providential control in love relationships). There may have been some intervention in the naming of Cyrus to fulfill that prophecy.

If Russia was about to destroy the world with a nuclear war, Jesus could return, or God could send angels or the Americans (?) to alter this possibility. God did not allow Jesus to be pushed over a cliff before His time.

Omnipotence does not mean using sheer force all the time. Miracles are an intervention into our world. God does not stop every rape or murder, even against Christians. There have been times where God did put up a wall of angels or prompted humans to change course.

God has chosen to not coerce salvation issues. God has chosen to create other free moral agents who will voluntarily love and respond to Him. This free will also created the possibility of the Fall of Lucifer and Adam and each of us subsequent to this. It has introduced evil into our world, but this was not a foregone conclusion in His 'very good' creation.

So, issues where it seems God meddles with free will relate to things like His judgements on wicked nations or individuals (e.g. Ananias and Sapphira). His hand was on the Israeli people when they won the 1967 War (supernatural intervention). What we do not see in Scripture is God coercing people to chose or reject Him. Love, freedom, justice, and relationship demands that we freely chose and maintain a love relationship. He influences, woos, persuades; He does not cause or coerce.

 

[docrob57]

Libertarian, genuine free will is the only legit. free will (incompatibilism). Compatibilistic 'free will' is an incoherent concept and is not genuine free will. It is trying to soften the problematic, deterministic issues of Calvinism (e.g. makes God responsible for heinous evil, contrary to His character and ways).

Free will is a self-evident concept. I do not understand the mental gymnastics to deny it in order to cling to a deductive, preconceived philosophy.

Free will and the idea that behavior is caused are not incompatible. If people commit heinous acts, are these the results of some random process or a causal process? God does not have to be the cause. This does not mean he cannot foreknow the outcome.

 

[godrulz]

There are definitely some questions regarding the issue. God directly interfered in Sauls life (causing his conversion to Paul.) That is definitely not in the norm, and definitely interrupts several basic "Tenents of Scripture". How much did Paul have to accept on Faith after a dramatic showing of the Power of God, and an actual personal message from Christ? Talk about an interruption in the process of Free Will It changed Pauls choices considerably.

Does that make God a "respector of persons"? He did choose Paul for a specific purpose and fast-tracked Him onto "the path". Why not with everyone else? Hmm, things to ponder.

Paul still could have refused his calling and could have rejected the revelation as demonic. He did not have to bow His knee.

 

[godrulz]

But that's just it DD...God can't be limited at all, therefore I would say there is not a slim chance at all of His not being able to calculate what each will do. I believe that He knows for sure each and every moment of the day what each one will do, exactly.

This is not necessary. A sports team or chessmaster can respond moment by moment to a myriad of changing contingencies.

God has chosen some limitations in His universe. He could have His way all the time, but He choses not to. He does not intervene (yet) in every crime or accident on the planet. He limits salvation to those who come in repentant faith. This upholds freedom, love, and justice. The alternative is to make robots incapable of love. It breaks His heart when many reject Him and suffer the consequences.

 

[godrulz]

The problem with trying to dismiss the causality of human behavior as a matter of the will is it begs the question of what causes free will choices. I agree that the range is between probability and certainty, however, to say that free will behavior is probabalistic in nature really means that it is random within certain boundaries, that is uncaused. This seems to me to be a hard argument to make.

Light waves and particles may be random. Human choices are far more free and volitional. We cause free will choices. This is a glorious aspect of being in the image of God, the One who is most free in His choices. Our choices may be predictable based on past choices, but this does not preclude out of character choices or the influence of other's choices. I might drive to work safely every day, but I could get killed by a fleeing bank robber tomorrow.

 

[godrulz]

Free will and the idea that behavior is caused are not incompatible. If people commit heinous acts, are these the results of some random process or a causal process? God does not have to be the cause. This does not mean he cannot foreknow the outcome.

If God sees someone pulling a trigger of a gun pointing at my head, He could know the outcome. There is no reason to think He sees and knows that this event will happen as a certainty from trillions of years ago before I or the criminal even exist (let alone guns and bullets).

 

[docrob57]

Paul still could have refused his calling and could have rejected the revelation as demonic. He did not have to bow His knee.

True, but to argue that God dod not know what Paul would do says that God knows very little about us. Unless you are prepared to argue that it was basically a coin flip.

 

[docrob57]

Light waves and particles may be random. Human choices are far more free and volitional. We cause free will choices. This is a glorious aspect of being in the image of God, the One who is most free in His choices. Our choices may be predictable based on past choices, but this does not preclude out of character choices or the influence of other's choices. I might drive to work safely every day, but I could get killed by a fleeing bank robber tomorrow.

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Because a choice is a free will choice does not make it uncaused. Can you distinguish what you mean by a free will choice and one that you think might be caused by something?

 

[docrob57]

The argument of exaustive foreknowledge to me is moot. Let's say for a moment the future is not closed, and that God's foreknowledge is complete when it comes to anything not human, that God knows "all possibilities, probabilities and certainties," and let's assume God knows us better than we know ourselves. So our will is the only thing God cannot know for certain about the future. But if God knows all other factors of our enviromnent, how those will affect us, and our personality and tendencies, it would stand to reason he could accurately predict our actions with slim to no chance of error. Taking into account his dynamic will capable of rearranging his plans in a instant (in response to our will) to work in all things for the good of those who love him, the fact of the future not being closed just seems moot.

:thumb:

 

[Delmar]

:thumb:

So you too agree that God is "capable of rearranging his plans in a instant (in response to our will)"

 

[docrob57]

So you too agree that God is "capable of rearranging his plans in a instant (in response to our will)"

Well, that probably goes farther than I would, but the poster at least seemed to be getting my point. What I am talking about is not really free will vs. determinism. I am talking about whether God merely reacts to us or does he shape things so that ultimately his plans will be accomplished. I believe it is the latter.

 

[docrob57]

Do you also believe, right now, that God knows who will win the 2047 World Series? Could you believe he could know this without believing he is outside of time?

Yes, if he cares, which I doubt, I do believe he could know this, but that does not place Him outside of time necessarily.

 

[Delmar]

Free will and the idea that behavior is caused are not incompatible. If people commit heinous acts, are these the results of some random process or a causal process? God does not have to be the cause. This does not mean he cannot foreknow the outcome.

Does this, in your opinion, hold true for all events thosands of years in the future

even if the future, in fact, does not exist..

???


OK I think you answered that in the t post. 32

 

[docrob57]

Does this, in your opinion, hold true for all events thosands of years in the future
???

Yes, remember, we are talking about God, not us.

 

[Delmar]

But that's just it DD...God can't be limited at all....

If god can not be limited then he is, in fact, capable of rearranging his plans!

 

[docrob57]

If god can not be limited then he is, in fact, capable of rearranging his plans!

Certainly God is capable of rearranging his plans, I guess the question is would he really need to? I tend to think not.

 

[justchristian]

Yea I do believe in exaustive foreknowledge whether in a closed pre-existing future or not. This is due mostly to my current understanding of time (whcih is another thread) and God's relation to time (again anouther thread). But for arguements sake if Open View is correct. God would have a dynamic will and would accurately be able to predict future events (with his infinate mind and knowledge of everything on earth in each moment for all of history). The only hinderence I can think of to God's exaustive forepredictions are truely random occurances. I think God knows me well enough to "know" which choices I will make with my free will (my free will isnt random and without cause)...but he wouldn't be able to predict random events that would affect everything else. But are there any events that are truely random? Or are they just "random" because we cannot accurately measure the enviroment in which they happen? If we can't can God?

 

[docrob57]

Yea I do believe in either exaustive foreknowledge whether in a closed pre-existing future or not. This is mostly of my current understanding of time (whcih is another thread) and God's relation to time (again anouther thread). But for arguements sake if Open View is correct. God would have a dynamic will and would accurately be able to predict future events (with his infinate mind and knowledge of everything on earth). The only hinderence I can think of to God's exaustive forepredictions are truely random occurances. I think God knows me well enough to "know" which choices I will make with my free will (my free will isnt random and without cause)...but things that require a certain random nature that would affect everything else. But are there any events that are truely random? Or are they just random because we cannot accurately measure the enviroment?

That's right, only TRUE random occurences would be unpredictable, and even then, unless God is ignorant of probability theory, which is unlikely, He can predict within some given range of probability.

I am a fan of Mr. Enyart and look kindly upon the brethren here, but I really can't get behind the open theism thing.

 

[godrulz]

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Because a choice is a free will choice does not make it uncaused. Can you distinguish what you mean by a free will choice and one that you think might be caused by something?

If it is caused, it is not free.

A choice can be so coerced it is almost caused. If someone puts a gun to my head and says cough up your $, I could say no and die, but I will likely be persuaded to give the money. The will is the seat of volition. I do not see how the will can have something back of it that is causative. God could narrow circumstances in a way that would limit our choices, but it is normative that we can chose between alternatives freely.

I would reserve causative issues for machines, not men. Determinism and Skinner's behaviourism/conditioning is not worthy of free moral agency given as a gift from God.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

That's right, only TRUE random occurences would be unpredictable, and even then, unless God is ignorant of probability theory, which is unlikely, He can predict within some given range of probability.

I am a fan of Mr. Enyart and look kindly upon the brethren here, but I really can't get behind the open theism thing.

i'd recommend reading a book on open theism so you can get a better understanding for it. i read "the openness of God" and would recommend it to anyone looking to understand open theism better (even if they don't agree with it).

amazon.com has it here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-6747540-5948765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846