ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

What someone wants is too flimsy for a definition. Desires can be changed. Someone could be hyponotised to believe they love someone else and we would hardly call that free will.

No hypnotism would be a form of coercion.

Conversely, someone could have the oppertunity to do what they don't really want to do, but rationalize, or flippantly decided to do, and that could be free will. So I think there is something missing from your definition of free will.

Not really because if you rationalize(decide) or flippantly decided then it was your decision and free. Unlike the case of being hypnotized.

My chosen definition of 'free'(since we all agree on what the term 'will' means) is that it must be unhindered or coerced in any way. The term 'free' does not equate to Clete's definition which is 'choice'. Clete maintains you must have a choice to be free; whereas, I maintain you only must not be coerced to be free; and, even if you truly have only one choice your freedom exists as is the case with simple foresight. It's expressed like this ....."You will choose to do as you wish."

If God knew he was going to heal him, then it wouldn't be changing the future to do so.

True. I hadn't considered this when I posted my response. You're right because what God knows will happen is the future.

The only way we can say God has control over his own destiny is to say that God is powerful enough to affect real change on the future such that He knew the man will die tomorrow, but changed what he knew as certainty by healing him and changing the future.

I believe God can do this. You deny God this ability.

Not at all! I only deny that man has this ability. God is more than capable of changing the future. In fact, I would say that He is the only one who would even know it was changed, since He's the only one who knew what it was beforehand.

Augustine would agree:

From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79:
For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ...​

At this point you might ask me this.....If God changes the future then He really didn't have exhaustive foreknowledge did He? I would answer that..... He did and changed what He exhaustively foreknew which doesn't mean He changed His plans in any way.

It's much like Open Theism's declaration that God is omnicapable of bringing His plans about without foreknowledge. My position is that His capabilities are diminished greatly if He is unable to figure out what you or any free agent will actually do. Especially when you take into accout 6+ Billion free agents. Conversely if He is able to figure out what those free agents will do then He has foreknowledge by definition.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[godrulz]

That would be foreordination, not simple foresight. God certainly foreordained things such as free will and creation itself. Simple foresight would mean that God knew what kind of outcomes would be produced from the actions of free will and creation.

Rob

Does not compute (sounds like Molinism's 'middle knowledge').

 

[spaz]

What does it matter whether you believe in open theism or closed? How does it afect your faith?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

My chosen definition of 'free'(since we all agree on what the term 'will' means) is that it must be unhindered or coerced in any way.

So if someone puts a gun to your head and says “Deny Christ or die” … wouldn’t that be coercion also? Even within coercion a certain level of free will would need to exist withi your ammended definition.. We could still choose to fight against the coercion, which would be “free will” at its core!

Not at all! I only deny that man has this ability. God is more than capable of changing the future. In fact, I would say that He is the only one who would even know it was changed, since He's the only one who knew what it was beforehand.

Didn’t you state that you believed in exhaustive foreknowledge? If so, then if God would know exactly how the future turns out. If He could change that … then it could not be said that he had exhaustive foreknowledge since God’s knowledge of what would happen would have to change as well.

Augustine would agree

That’s debatable. I agree that Austine made statements that were not consistent, most men do. I would say that Augustine already addressed this issue and disagreed with you already… God cannot change the future according to Augustine:

“Time, since it passes away by its mutability, cannot be coeternal with immutable eternity. Thus, even if the immortality of the angels does not pass away in time (it is neither past, as if it did not exist now; nor is it future, as if it did not yet exist), nevertheless, the angels' motions, by which moments of time are carried along from the future into the past, pass away. Therefore, angels cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose motion there is nothing which has been that is not now, nor anything which will later be that is not already.” (XII De Civitate Dei cap. 15)

That seems to run contrary to the idea that God has the ability to change the future.

At this point you might ask me this.....If God changes the future then He really didn't have exhaustive foreknowledge did He? I would answer that..... He did and changed what He exhaustively foreknew which doesn't mean He changed His plans in any way.

So you redefine exhaustive foreknowledge to mean only his “plans” don’t change?

Clearly if he changed what he exhaustively foreknew, then that would be a change of plans. Also, you are bending the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge to have your cake and eat it too. If the future is changed, then we cannot say God has exhaustive foreknowledge. Perhaps God will change it again, therefore what God now knows is not the certain future that will eventually come to pass. To try and hold that this is exhaustive foreknowledge in any way is to change definitions on me in the middle of our discussion.

My position is that His capabilities are diminished greatly if He is unable to figure out what you or any free agent will actually do.

If I brought by Dodge pickup out onto a Nascar track, every person in the stadium would know that I would come in last … even without knowing in detail what I might do during the race. I simply don’t have the engine to compete with Nascar vehichles. They didn’t require divine foreknowledge to know my outcome.

Do you really think that God would be any less capable of completing the finish line than one of those Nascar drivers would have in beating my pickup to a race? Or than Tim Duncan at beating a toddler in a game of horse? Could your theology be affecting this lack of faith in just how much greater God is?
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by this?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

What does it matter whether you believe in open theism or closed? How does it afect your faith?

Just a desire to know the truth about God mainly. There are some serious mplications on the question of evil and just how personal is God, but the main key is to know God better.

 

[godrulz]

What does it matter whether you believe in open theism or closed? How does it afect your faith?

There are practical implications in prayer, evangelism, theodicy (problem of evil), social concerns, knowing God and HIs Word, etc.

It is the glory of a king to seach out a matter (Prov.). We should know God as He is and make Him known as He is. To thinking unbelievers, the closed view could be a fatalistic stumbling block.

 

[spaz]

I want to understand this. We know there are certain passages that refer to predestination, but you believe they are talking about the corporate elect. Explain the corporate elect to me.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I want to understand this. We know there are certain passages that refer to predestination, but you believe they are talking about the corporate elect. Explain the corporate elect to me.

God chose Isreal. They were his elect (Rom 11:28) even though they were called "enemies of the gospel".

God predestined that the Body (those that would choose Christ) would be conformed to the image of the Son even though that doesn't happen always in this life (Rom 8:29) and that God always had a plan to make the believers into heirs via adoption (Eph 1:5).

A passanger plane might have a destination to go to Chicago. Not everyone that buys a ticket is neceassrily destined for Chicago, but only those that get on the plane and do not leave before take-off are truely destined for Chicago (whether they had meant to be or not).

God had a plan for Israel that was a corporate election. However even Gentiles could become prostlyte Jews and join that election.

In a somewhat similar way, God had a plan that there would be a body of Christ and that the Body would be given certain privledges. However, the individual members of the Body were not necessarily specifically picked.

The verses that speak of predestination usually (though not always) have a general context of what one group or another is destined for. Typically individual predestination is not being spoken of in the context of those passages. The distinction seems to be important.

 

[spaz]

The problem here is that there is a group of people who will reach their destination. A group of people is a group of specific individuals, so you are still dealing with specific individuals who will reach their destination.

The plane example doesn't really work as a plane is a machine independant of individuals who fly on it. A group (Body of Christ etc.) cannot be separated from the specific individuals whom the group is composed of.

 

[Bob Hill]

Open Theism and Open Theology are the same thing. Open Theism is the view to which I hold. The theology that I govern my life from is Open Theology.

In my view of things, Open Theology is about God and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc. It is the biblical theology that shows that man has enough freedom to believe God when God says he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

It also is the answer to the Calvinistic view that God knows everything that will happen in the future and predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

We have much material on this subject on our site, biblicalanswers.com. Look under the predestination material.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

The problem here is that there is a group of people who will reach their destination. A group of people is a group of specific individuals, so you are still dealing with specific individuals who will reach their destination.

The plane example doesn't really work as a plane is a machine independant of individuals who fly on it. A group (Body of Christ etc.) cannot be separated from the specific individuals whom the group is composed of.

This is true, but he is correct in that God chose Israel and the Church as His plan/project. All who believe become part of this group. There is no need to think that God chose Harry or Sue, but not John and Mary from eternity past. This is contrary to impartial love and genuine freedom/responsibility.

 

[RobE]

So if someone puts a gun to your head and says “Deny Christ or die” … wouldn’t that be coercion also? Even within coercion a certain level of free will would need to exist withi your ammended definition.. We could still choose to fight against the coercion, which would be “free will” at its core!

No. It's only coercion if you then deny Christ. Free means uncoerced, but not uninfluenced.

Didn’t you state that you believed in exhaustive foreknowledge? If so, then if God would know exactly how the future turns out. If He could change that … then it could not be said that he had exhaustive foreknowledge since God’s knowledge of what would happen would have to change as well.

Exactly! He can change the future if He wishes. In fact, He's the only one who is able. Man hasn't the ability since everything will act according to its own nature. And unless God knows what the future is right now then what would He change? It could be said that He knows the future exhaustively since God's knowledge of what will happen is perfect at any given moment. The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God is willing to change the future in such a way that it will impact all of eternity and must also be a change that wasn't planned from the beginning(such a the Christ).

Hezekiah as an example. Did God always intent to give Hezekiah 15 more years or not? If not then what impact did that have on you and the rest of creation, realistically?

That’s debatable. I agree that Austine made statements that were not consistent, most men do. I would say that Augustine already addressed this issue and disagreed with you already… God cannot change the future according to Augustine:

“Time, since it passes away by its mutability, cannot be coeternal with immutable eternity. Thus, even if the immortality of the angels does not pass away in time (it is neither past, as if it did not exist now; nor is it future, as if it did not yet exist), nevertheless, the angels' motions, by which moments of time are carried along from the future into the past, pass away. Therefore, angels cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose motion there is nothing which has been that is not now, nor anything which will later be that is not already.” (XII De Civitate Dei cap. 15)

That seems to run contrary to the idea that God has the ability to change the future.

Speaking of God as 'outside of time'. Pay attention though....

From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79:
For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ... [/quote]
Augustine says that God changes His ways, leaving His plans in place just as the O.V. states. How could this be? God changing His mind, maybe.

So you redefine exhaustive foreknowledge to mean only his “plans” don’t change?

Clearly if he changed what he exhaustively foreknew, then that would be a change of plans. Also, you are bending the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge to have your cake and eat it too. If the future is changed, then we cannot say God has exhaustive foreknowledge. Perhaps God will change it again, therefore what God now knows is not the certain future that will eventually come to pass. To try and hold that this is exhaustive foreknowledge in any way is to change definitions on me in the middle of our discussion.

No. I'm not trying to change definitions. I'm trying to reason with you as to how God might know the future without existing 'outside of time'. Your point is that if He changed the future He would change His plans is not true. You might change your route to get to the same destination. The O.V. argues this exact same point. The bottom line is if God did not interfere with man then man would act according to His own nature and destroy Himself. God knew how man(Adam) would behave and so on until us. God is able to do new things whereas man is not. Man is limited by man's own abilties which God understands completely. The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God never intended to interfere with man.

If I brought by Dodge pickup out onto a Nascar track, every person in the stadium would know that I would come in last … even without knowing in detail what I might do during the race. I simply don’t have the engine to compete with Nascar vehichles. They didn’t require divine foreknowledge to know my outcome.

That's right. It doesn't require supernatural ability to know the future. Even we can do it in a limited way. Why do think God who is limitless is unable to do it as well and even to a greater extent?

My position is that His capabilities are diminished greatly if He is unable to figure out what you or any free agent will actually do.

Do you really think that God would be any less capable of completing the finish line than one of those Nascar drivers would have in beating my pickup to a race? Or than Tim Duncan at beating a toddler in a game of horse? Could your theology be affecting this lack of faith in just how much greater God is?
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by this?

Well, I'm surprised that you figured out the Nascar analogy and then turned right around and misunderstood my point. Without foresight how is God going to know which outcome is best for His desires and man's good? Will He guess? Or does He know?

I'll just answer your questions for a while,
Rob​

 

[godrulz]

God's wisdom and knowledge is vast. He can think 'on His feet'. Someone who reads history or knows future outcomes is a data machine. They are not necessarily brilliant thinkers. To respond to changing contingencies with vast wisdom, insight, and knowledge is more glorious than someone who would see ever detail in advance and must rely on this in order to think and respond. Your view is not more glorious than a personal God interacting as things unfold rather than having all the answers in advance. Who is the better thinker? The student who cheats and has a copy of the exam a year in advance to memorize, or the one who is well-prepared and competent to answer or work through whatever is thrown his way (including ability to apply knowledge with wisdom to new, dynamic problems not thought of in advance)?

As a Paramedic, I have not studied or foreknown every call or patient in advance. Based on my wisdom, knowledge, and experience, I can handle most contingencies as I run across them for the first time. I use principles and wisdom. This takes more skill than if I had a blueprint of every circumstance, advanced diagnostic tests, time to study and prepare a perfect response, etc. years in advance. A responsive paramedic is more skilled than one who is given a scripted scenario and all the facts under ideal circumstances, including a step by step how to deal with the call. This is what makes my job exciting instead of routine and boring. God is dynamic, creative, responsive, not static and fatalistic. A lesser god would need foreknowledge than one who is great in ability. The issue is still whether foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (exhaustive vs partial) is even coherent. Based on modal logic, it is incoherent and a logical absurdity (no deficiency in God, just the way He limited His knowledge due to type of creation He chose= non-deterministic).

 

[ApologeticJedi]

No. It's only coercion if you then deny Christ. Free means uncoerced, but not uninfluenced.

I don't believe you are using the word "coerce" correctly. Someone putting a gun to your head is an act of coercion. Try using a different word, maybe I'll be able to understand what you really mean.

And unless God knows what the future is right now then what would He change? It could be said that He knows the future exhaustively since God's knowledge of what will happen is perfect at any given moment.

In the example, God could, if He wanted, figure out the rate at which a disease will eventually overtake a man. However, if he could change that, then all God really knew was a possibility … He didn’t know for certain the actual outcome. This means that “exhaustive foreknowledge”, as it is typically defined, is not true.

The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God is willing to change the future in such a way that it will impact all of eternity and must also be a change that wasn't planned from the beginning(such a the Christ).

Please explain why either of these must be true for the open position to be true. I am not saying I doubt you, but why must it be a change that wasn’t planned for, in order for Open Theism to be true?

Hezekiah as an example. Did God always intent to give Hezekiah 15 more years or not? If not then what impact did that have on you and the rest of creation, realistically?

It does not appear that God had always intended to give Hezekiah 45 more years. The impact that it had on all of creation, I suppose, is that the event was recorded for posterity in the most important book mankind has, and, by residing there, lets us know that the plans of God are not set in stone such that God refuses to hear and respond to the pleas of his faithful.

Speaking of God as 'outside of time'. Pay attention though....

You already gave this quote RobE. I indicated that Augustine was not always consistant. To the subject you stated Augustine agreed with you on, I gave a quote from Augustine directly on that subject that did not agree with you. Augustine stated (in the quote I gave) that nothing new will happen for God … thus a change to the future is denied by Augustine.

Now in regard to “changing thy ways”, most Calvinists do believe that Augustine did not hold to the doctrine of impassibility … but to immutability. In case you are not familiar with those terms, it means that God is able to change in the manner of His emotions, but not in the way He acts or does things. You stress the word “ways”, but the examples from your quote that Augustine gives are “love … jealous … sorrow … angry … serene …” these indicate that Augustine did not hold to the idea of impassability.

Impassability is the logical conclusion of a strict immutability of plans. Many Christians struggle to maintain their belief in immutability without sliding down the inevitable slope of impassability. Since this is a natural course of logic that they are fighting against, they will, at times, seem inconsistent with what they say. Augustine is no different in this regard.

Your point is that if He changed the future He would change His plans is not true.

If God planned to bless a nation, and that nation did evil, then he might change his plans (Jeremiah 18:7-8). If God planned to curse a nation, and that nation did well, God may resend His curse (Jeremiah 18:9-10).

If you mean that God has smaller plans (like when to bless and curse a nation) and larger plans (to bring Jesus into the world to pay for men’s sins), then I agree that God can change the minor without affecting the major.

The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God never intended to interfere with man.

Most OVers believe that God always planned to “interfere with man”, so it is pointless for us to need to prove something we don’t hold to. God always planned to interfere with man by communication, fellowship, love, and interaction. God always planned that if man broke fellowship He would send his son as a means to reconnect that fellowship. However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies … and I think that the OV position does a good job with that burden of proof.

That's right. It doesn't require supernatural ability to know the future. Even we can do it in a limited way. Why do think God who is limitless is unable to do it as well and even to a greater extent?

Of course God can know the future by drawing conclusions. Even a man can do that. However some things in the future are unknowable. That I would loose the race in my pickup is obvious, but whether I will crash or not is unknowable.

BTW – in my example, God is the racing car, and mankind is the pickup. It doesn’t matter what mankind does, God will still win the race because he is more powerful.

Well, I'm surprised that you figured out the Nascar analogy and then turned right around and misunderstood my point. Without foresight how is God going to know which outcome is best for His desires and man's good? Will He guess? Or does He know?

Actually that is exactly what I answered, I just may have done it badly.

More succinctly (than my Nascar example perhaps); my answer is that without foreknowledge God does not care which outcome happens. If Moses refused to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, would God be so easily thwarted? No! Men are like smoke from chimney - they linger for a short time and are gone. God could have used another person to accomplish the same goal, or He could have used any number of things. God doesn’t need to know what is “best”; He is more powerful than you give him credit for.

Here’s an example from the Bible. God told Elijah to go down from the mountain and witness. Elijah refused. Perhaps Elijah was the “best” way for God to get His outcome. That’s speculative, but perhaps. So was God thwarted because His so-called “best” outcome was thwarted? No! He raised up Elisha to take Elijah’s place, and took Elijah home (since he stopped being a help). That’s how God works throughout the Bible. If the events change, God changes his plans with them.

 

[spaz]

well I dion't want to kick this around too much, but the question of predestination has been debated by some of the greatest thinkers in history.

The corporate elect just doesn't seem to work for me as Paul does mention certain elect reaching salvation.

I agree that calvinists do degrade the relationship with God, but we don't have to belittle God to do it. yes, God is a loving creater who works alongside with his creation.

 

[Bob Hill]

Some of the things God does shows how open the future is. God has given mankind a great amount of freedom to do either godly stuff or their ungodly stuff.

I want to emphasize this! God doesn’t make any mistakes. However, some of His prophecies will not and some have not come to pass because He repents. The reason the prophecies did not come to pass was the disobedience of men. These sins, which were really mistakes, on their part, were done by men. They were actually gross sins of men.

One of the best examples is in Isa 5:1-7.

Isa 5:1-7 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? 5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. 6 I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it.” 7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help sins of men.

God has expectations from His people.

We should not disappoint Him.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

I used to believe in predestination very strongly. But, now I don’t. I’ll tell you what I believe on predestination, now. The idea of corporate election and predestination had one major flaw which the Scriptures did not seem to support.

When I got saved, I was convinced by some scholars that God’s foreknowledge was the basis of His election and predestination. Since God knew everything as though it were in the present, and His election and predestination were based on His foreknowledge, and since He knew everyone who was foreknown or predestined, then God’s predestination had to be individual just as His knowledge was.

I also believed in what is called the immutability of God. God never changed and could not be influenced by man because everything was already predestined.

That’s the basis for many of the ideas in Calvinistic doctrine. However, I began wondering where the idea of immutability come from. The answer, in the sense of influence, was Plato, in the pre-Christian time and much later, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-430).

Augustine had been thoroughly educated in philosophy. By his time, Plato’s thought had permeated almost every school of philosophy. Philosophers, then and many, now, take the approach that truth can only be attained by reason. This is called rationalism. Since Augustine was steeped in this rationalistic thought, it influenced his ideas about God. He incorporated Plato’s idea of immutability into his theology after his conversion. Through Augustine, Plato has influenced Christian theological thought for about 1,600 years. And that’s the reason I became a Calvinist shortly after I got saved.

What would you do?

I studied on my own, and then I changed.
In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Open theism is strongly free will in its doctrine.

That's what I believe.

Bob Hill

 

[RobE]

It would appear we are beginning to communicate!

It would appear we are beginning to communicate!

I don't believe you are using the word "coerce" correctly. Someone putting a gun to your head is an act of coercion. Try using a different word, maybe I'll be able to understand what you really mean.

My use is correct. If someone puts a gun to your head they are attempting to coerce you through threat of violence. If you capitulate then you were coerced. If you don't capitulate you remain uncoerced.

In the example, God could, if He wanted, figure out the rate at which a disease will eventually overtake a man. However, if he could change that, then all God really knew was a possibility … He didn’t know for certain the actual outcome. This means that “exhaustive foreknowledge”, as it is typically defined, is not true.

Foreknowledge as it is defined "to know beforehand" does not mean the outcome is accomplished. It means that when the outcome is determined then what was known would happen happens. Knowledge of an event isn't the event itself. An example perhaps.

Possibility .vs Reality(ability .vs outcome)

Godrulz is able to eat a live squirrell.....
Godrulz will never freely choose to eat a live squirrell......
I know right now that Godrulz will never eat one and Godrulz retains the ability to eat a live squirrell at the same time.......
It is possible, but will never occur......
I just determined a future free will action without removing all the possibilities or inhibiting Godrulz' ability.

Now your statement, "However, if he could change that, then all God really knew was a possibility …"

Foreknowledge is always a probability until the knowledge is proven to be accurate by the outcome. Infinity to one (or more likely infinity to infinitesmal) still provides a possibility and a true choice(just in case you believe freedom equates to choices). A comparison to omnipresence. God is everywhere(infinite in location) and you are at point X(finite in location). God is all-knowing(infinite in understanding) and you are learning(finite in understanding). God knows Himself, you, and the aforementioned illness. Wouldn't God be able to figure out even what He would do in any given situation? Remember that knowledge of an event isn't the cause of the event.

Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God is willing to change the future in such a way that it will impact all of eternity and must also be a change that wasn't planned from the beginning(such a the Christ).

AJ: Please explain why either of these must be true for the open position to be true. I am not saying I doubt you, but why must it be a change that wasn’t planned for, in order for Open Theism to be true?​

Your last question first. If it was a 'planned' change then it was considered and therefore known.

Your first question last. If the change which God makes doesn't have eternal ramifications then it doesn't change the future at all. We're at the beginning of our eternal existence, but God has been eternal and will be eternal. In 15 million years how will Hezekiah's 15 additional years impact anyone?

It does not appear that God had always intended to give Hezekiah 45 more years. The impact that it had on all of creation, I suppose, is that the event was recorded for posterity in the most important book mankind has, and, by residing there, lets us know that the plans of God are not set in stone such that God refuses to hear and respond to the pleas of his faithful.

Or it proves the sovereignty of God. It depends on which pair of goggles you wear.

You already gave this quote RobE. I indicated that Augustine was not always consistant. To the subject you stated Augustine agreed with you on, I gave a quote from Augustine directly on that subject that did not agree with you. Augustine stated (in the quote I gave) that nothing new will happen for God … thus a change to the future is denied by Augustine.

Now in regard to “changing thy ways”, most Calvinists do believe that Augustine did not hold to the doctrine of impassibility … but to immutability. In case you are not familiar with those terms, it means that God is able to change in the manner of His emotions, but not in the way He acts or does things. You stress the word “ways”, but the examples from your quote that Augustine gives are “love … jealous … sorrow … angry … serene …” these indicate that Augustine did not hold to the idea of impassability.

Impassability is the logical conclusion of a strict immutability of plans. Many Christians struggle to maintain their belief in immutability without sliding down the inevitable slope of impassability. Since this is a natural course of logic that they are fighting against, they will, at times, seem inconsistent with what they say. Augustine is no different in this regard.

Because Augustine did not believe in a non-relational God which was my point. God interacts with mankind which you, Augustine, and I all agree with.

If God planned to bless a nation, and that nation did evil, then he might change his plans (Jeremiah 18:7-8). If God planned to curse a nation, and that nation did well, God may resend His curse (Jeremiah 18:9-10).

If you mean that God has smaller plans (like when to bless and curse a nation) and larger plans (to bring Jesus into the world to pay for men’s sins), then I agree that God can change the minor without affecting the major.

Great! We agree. Let's not forget Pharoah and Moses, though. In which case God changed Pharoah in a major way to bring about a greater destruction for Pharoah. Did God love Pharoah? Of course, but His greater purpose was to teach Israel who He was and that He was sovereign. Problematic with a loving God for you and me both. And an actual support for the Calvinists.

Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God never intended to interfere with man.

AJ: Most OVers believe that God always planned to “interfere with man”, so it is pointless for us to need to prove something we don’t hold to. God always planned to interfere with man by communication, fellowship, love, and interaction. God always planned that if man broke fellowship He would send his son as a means to reconnect that fellowship. However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies … and I think that the OV position does a good job with that burden of proof.​

No. Adam's actions HAD to surprise God in the O.V. If God always 'planned' to interfere with man then His plans were foreknown because they became the outcome. My point was just this. Plans rely on foreknowledge unless they are chaotically conceived. Traditional Christianity gets a pass because God always planned to interact and relate to man as is shown in His 'Way' to the cross. The cross wasn't a contingency plan it was THE PLAN. His foresight is exemplified in Jesus Christ. In my opinion "It is finished!" was the last act of creation. Creation was complete at that moment and all of God's plans reached fruition. The beginning(was Logos) and the end("It is finished!") mark mankind's creation and future hope. The O.V. relies on mankind saving himself and then if that doesn't work out bring in the contingency. What does the fall of man do to man if it's all erased at the Cross which was planned before creation?

Your assertion, "However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies...." is foreknowledge proven.

More succinctly (than my Nascar example perhaps); my answer is that without foreknowledge God does not care which outcome happens. If Moses refused to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, would God be so easily thwarted? No! Men are like smoke from chimney - they linger for a short time and are gone. God could have used another person to accomplish the same goal, or He could have used any number of things. God doesn’t need to know what is “best”; He is more powerful than you give him credit for.

Yet that raises the question "Who would God have gotten to accomplish the task of Judas which was foretold and how would God have manipulated the man into doing it?" Also, I should point out that man doesn't have the ability to thwart God unless you consider comic relief like the story of Jonah as thwarting.

Great responses,
Rob

 

[Philetus]

In 15 million years how will Hezekiah's 15 additional years impact anyone?

Or: what difference does the color of your socks make in the eternal scheme of things?

When we say the future changes based on free will contingencies, it means that in most cases only the temporal (immediate or short-range) future is affected except in the case of salvation. It is not hard to imagine how an additional 15 years might affect eternity if we acknowledge that individual choice affects anything at all. An additional 15 hours may be all that is necessary in which to make a decision that determines where one spends eternity. God granting an individual’s request for more time does not change God's over all plan of salvation! That was set before the foundation of the world and implemented after the fall. However, an additional allotment of time may change how the eternal plan affects the individual. God's judgment was tempered with mercy at the fall by subjecting creation to futility (mundane existence apart from relationship with its creator) exercising a great deal of divine patients. And God’s patients (granting time for making a decision before responding) is meant to lead us to a change of heart.

Consider the conversation of the two thieves on the crosses adjacent to the cross of Jesus. Their brief exchange determined where they spent the rest of the day and all eternity. “Today, you will be with me in paradise” was addressed to only one. No mention is made as to the color of their clothing. It just didn’t matter in the divine scheme of things. Yet, the clothing of Jesus is mentioned and it is a reminder that God is meticulous in orchestrating and bringing His plans to actuality. But, to make the leap that every detail of our lives is meticulously determined by persnickety divine intervention or ‘interference’ (meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge) is not Biblical.

God is involved at the most personal level! God is patient with us. His eternal plan is such that it includes us in the present, giving us opportunity to repent and agree with his plan in the details of our everyday existence: even to the particular clothing we choose to wear and why. Most daily choices are mundane (of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one) while others are of utmost importance in how we relate to God and our perception of how God relates to us. Spiritual maturity is learning to recognize the difference and accentuating the important ones. God’s patients with us is for the purpose of bring us to repentance ... the point of admitting that our ways are not his ways ... our thoughts are not his thoughts ... they are ours and in that they are ours they are often contrary to His. For God to continue to be involved in our lives God must exercise patients or destroy us or leave us to our own demise.

Often however, our thought and ways are neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. I just don’t think God gives much thought as to what I will wear or what I will eat tomorrow. Jesus even told me not to worry about it. Oh, for 15 years to contemplate the depth of God’s love, provision and patience for us while we are yet sinners, for the opportunity to repent and live our lives with the example of Christ ever before us in fellowship with His Holy Spirit.

Well I dion't want to kick this around too much, but the question of predestination has been debated by some of the greatest thinkers in history.

Great minds on both sides of the argument, I would point out. If it is just a matter of consensus, then lets just vote and settle it for all eternity.

God has expectations from His people.

We should not disappoint Him.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

:up: What an awesome series of post Pastor Hill. And how profound the notion: that we could actually disappoint our maker. That says so much in so little. Thanks.

Philetus

​