ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

Being held responsible and being responsible are two different things. Jim wants desperately for them to be the same but they are not.

True. So I asked for clarification.

Such a god cannot be just (according to the basic definition of that word). God does not act arbitrarily but in a manner consistent with His righteous and holy nature.

I think Jim means according to His desire/decrees.

Notice at this point that Jim is back to simply pretending that his case hasn't been blown wide open by the fact that Calvinists routinely play the antinomy trump card anytime the irrationality of immutability is presented against their theology. Jim might deny the existence of contradictions within the doctrines of Calvinism and insist that we are making it up in order to knock down straw dummies but the Calvinists not only don't deny it, they proclaim it proudly and count their willingness to accept antinomy as a mark of piousness and faith.

I'm not so sure about the real existence of the antinomy as we have discussed previously. I do now agree that many Calvinistic authors acknowledge antinomy; but Augustine, Molina, and St. Thomas believed that simple foresight solves the problem with it. Remember that St. Ausustine spent much of his life arguing with the Pelagians and many of his writings were overzealous in emphasizing ordination and God's decrees. In his retractions he pulled many of these statements back to a more neutral position. Exactly what does Hilston disagree with the Calvinists about?

Rob

 

[Hilston]

Hi Yorzhik,

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well. Regarding your questions ...

Yes, within the context of the story itself, your son is responsible. Obviously, right?

Responsible to whom?

But lets take the context outside of the story, and within your world. Your son programs a robot to break a window in your house. Should he be punished now?

Your robot scenario doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm talking about someone who authors a story that includes evil characters, not a computer program. Should I punish my son for making up a story about evil villains who commit sins?

Thanks for your questions.

AATGD, OC.
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your questions.

Rob asked previously: Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Hilston replied: Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

I'm not sure this answers the question. God does what He desires. Part of righteousness is being responsible for your own actions though. Jesus Christ was the response.

There's an equivocation of terms here. It's the same error that Jeremy Finkenbinder was making. When we're speaking in theological terms, we have to be careful. If by "being responsible for" you simply mean "performing," then of course God performed the act of authoring sin. But the meaning of responsible in theological terms is more than merely performing an act. It is being held culpable. No one does that with God and lives to tell about it.

RobE wrote previously: Lee and I discussed this on another thread. My current position would say that God can't lie because His immutable essence won't lie; not because He is incapacitated in some way by His structure or function.

Hilston wrote:

You make an error by viewing God's inability to lie as an "incapacity." Unlike man, there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will. They are perfectly and inextricably aligned. God cannot do what is against His own decreed will. He does not have the ability to oppose Himself, unlike man, who does it all the time.

If you would further consider what I've offered above, I think things will begin to make more sense to you. It isn't a limit upon God to say that He cannot lie. It is the limit upon reality that is governed by God's immutable essence.​

How is my position contrary to yours?

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to answer the so-called "Can-God-create-a-rock-too-big-to-lift?" conundrum. You're allowing yourself to get tangled up in a false disparity between ability (e.g. is God able to utter untrue statements) and God's will (e.g. is God able to lie). It's a false dichotomy as it applies to God. It is true of men, i.e., they have the ability to oppose themselves, but not true of God. Open Theists must believe, contrary to scripture, in a God who lies because they are existential dualists, and believe that genuine truthfulness requires the ability to be untruthful.

... I'm saying that God's will makes Him unable to lie ...

You'd have to unpack that more for me. As stated, I'm ok with your meaning, although it's not biblical to describe God as being "made" to do (or not do) anything, except perhaps figuratively.

... unable to do other(wise) than what God has foreseen.

Foresight and foreknowledge are biblical figures of speech. They refer to His exhaustive and meticulous plans from the beginning to the end.

In both cases the will is free to do as it pleases and in both cases the performer is capable of doing otherwise in structure(disregarding the will). Thus foreknowledge exists without destroying free will even though the actor is incapable of doing otherwise!

This is the hoop-jumping I mentioned earlier. It's not necessary, neither logically, nor scripturally.

... willingness makes a free will agent unable to ever do other than what their own essence decrees despite the structural ability which still exists in reality.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier regarding God's ability and will be perfectly aligned. The distinction between ability and capacity doesn't exist with God. With man, there is an ever present gap between ability and capacity.

Therefore, at judgement a man is unable to honestly proclaim any inability to do other than what he actually did; and, the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the actor in every situation because His will(essence) did exactly as it desired even though he was structurally capable of doing otherwise.

Although I might quibble with a few details, I would agree generally with what you're saying.

Jesus' will was to do the will of the Father which is what made Him worthy. Jesus was unable to sin or give into temptation because of unwillingness, not because He wasn't fully man.

I would agree with that.

Lee spoke to me about the Greek word used in the scripture where it says that God can't lie; and after I looked into it, I agree that the Greek word means incapable.

Excellent work. This is something that Open Theists cannot abide.

... What I had to ask myself is "Why was God incapable if He is in reality able to do anything which is possible?".

It's the same old "Can God Create A Rock Too Big To Move?" ruse that atheists like to use. Open Theists are much closer to atheists than they are willing to admit.

To answer your question about what I disagree with Calvinists about, it would include, but not be limited to their claims concerning the following doctrines:

Calvinist Kingdomism
Calvinist Reconstructionism
Calvinist nomialism
Calvinist soteriology
Calvinist harmartiology
Calvinist ecclesiology
Calvinist eschatology
Calvinist covenantalism
Calvinist sacerdotalism/sacramentalism
Calvinist hermeneutics
Calvinist anthropology
Calvinist theology
Calvinist Christology
Calvinist angelology​

Those who think Calvinism is limited to the 5 points of TULIP betray their ignorance of the 700+ pages Calvin wrote in his Institutes, not to mention other massive volumes written by him and others. Lots of people are unaware that the 5 points were drafted as an answer to the 5 points of Arminianism, and only a small percentage of Calvinist writings actually concerns the so-called 5 points. The fact remains that Calvinists can't stand my doctrine. If I were standing in a room full of Calvinists who knew all of my beliefs, and an Open Theist walked in, pointed at me and declared "Hilston is a Calvinist!," they would laugh the Open Theist out of the room. I would join them. I would probably throw pretzels at him, too.

Thanks for your questions, Rob.

All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Double post. Sorry about that.

All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim

 

[Clete]

To answer your question about what I disagree with Calvinists about, it would include, but not be limited to their claims concerning the following doctrines:

Calvinist Kingdomism
Calvinist Reconstructionism
Calvinist nomialism
Calvinist Calvinist soteriology
Calvinist harmartiology
Calvinist ecclesiology
Calvinist eschatology
Calvinist covenantalism
Calvinist sacerdotalism/sacramentalism
Calvinist hermeneutics
Calvinist anthropology
Calvinist theology
Calvinist Christology
Calvinist angelology​

Those who think Calvinism is limited to the 5 points of TULIP betray their ignorance of the 700+ pages Calvin wrote in his Institutes, not to mention other massive volumes written by him and others. Lots of people are unaware that the 5 points were drafted as an answer to the 5 points of Arminianism, and only a small percentage of Calvinist writings actually concerns the so-called 5 points. The fact remains that Calvinists can't stand my doctrine. If I were standing in a room full of Calvinists who knew all of my beliefs, and an Open Theist walked in, pointed at me and declared "Hilston is a Calvinist!," they would laugh the Open Theist out of the room. I would join them. I would probably throw pretzels at him, too.

Thanks for your questions, Rob.

All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim

This is in keeping with Jim's routine lies concerning this particular point. If Jim is not a Calvinist no one ever has been since Calvin. This also is a beautiful demonstration of the point I mentioned earlier about how Jim thinks that basically any deviation at all from any of the doctrines of Calvin himself, including things that have nothing to do with foundational beliefs, causes you to be removed from under the Calvinist umbrella. The vast majority of Calvinists wouldn't even know what two thirds of the things Jim's listed here are, never mind what they actually believe about them and they certainly wouldn't know what Calvin believed about them and if you got fifty Calvinists in a room you would have seventy five different variant opinions concerning all 14 if the issues which Jim has listed and all of them except Jim would stridently insist that they were Calvinists.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your answers.

Rob asked previously: Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Hilston replied: Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

Hilston: There's an equivocation of terms here. It's the same error that Jeremy Finkenbinder was making. When we're speaking in theological terms, we have to be careful. If by "being responsible for" you simply mean "performing," then of course God performed the act of authoring sin. But the meaning of responsible in theological terms is more than merely performing an act. It is being held culpable. No one does that with God and lives to tell about it.​

Isn't this the same thing which is happening with the terms used for free will especially ability and willingness? Isn't your statement that 'God is the author of sin' given as "performing" in opposition to how it is taken as "being culpable" by open theists?

RobE wrote previously: Lee and I discussed this on another thread. My current position would say that God can't lie because His immutable essence won't lie; not because He is incapacitated in some way by His structure or function.

Hilston wrote:

You make an error by viewing God's inability to lie as an "incapacity." Unlike man, there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will. They are perfectly and inextricably aligned. God cannot do what is against His own decreed will. He does not have the ability to oppose Himself, unlike man, who does it all the time.​

​

My position would say that man is unable to oppose himself and must be renewed by the Holy Spirit before he is able to do something contrary to his own will. In other words, causality pushes man forward unfreely until the Holy Spirit regenerates him and allows Him the choice of doing God's will instead of his own. It isn't man's ability to oppose himself, it's man's ability to allow the Grace of the Holy Spirit to oppose himself and share in God's freedom. Making the statements 'free in Christ' and a 'slave to sin' and 'renewed mind' and etc., etc., etc., completely true and in fact is the only way that these things make any sense to my mind. This brings the question of is Grace overwhelming/sufficient or not for all mankind and remains the most notable reason I oppose Calvinism. For man, the causes exist outside of himself and for God they are internally essential, of course. This would make our beliefs equal in the fact that there is no incongruity between God's ability and His will when we realise that God doesn't do everything which He is able to do because He doesn't will it.

Hilston: If I understand you correctly, you're trying to answer the so-called "Can-God-create-a-rock-too-big-to-lift?" conundrum. You're allowing yourself to get tangled up in a false disparity between ability (e.g. is God able to utter untrue statements) and God's will (e.g. is God able to lie). It's a false dichotomy as it applies to God. It is true of men, i.e., they have the ability to oppose themselves, but not true of God. Open Theists must believe, contrary to scripture, in a God who lies because they are existential dualists, and believe that genuine truthfulness requires the ability to be untruthful.

How is it a false dichotomy from my perspective in which man is unable to save or change himself? My perspective says that man or God does not have the ability to oppose themselves without coercion. Who is able to coerce Our Lord? He remains essentially immutable because there is no outside force greater than Himself whereas we are not in the same position. He resides in true freedom where we abide in slavery. Through Grace Jesus Christ has offered us an opportunity to share that freedom.

You'd have to unpack that more for me. As stated, I'm ok with your meaning, although it's not biblical to describe God as being "made" to do (or not do) anything, except perhaps figuratively.

Figuratively, God's immutable essence doesn't allow Him to lie(speaking of His essence as seperate from His actions). In reality His essence limits His actions to righteous ones.

To answer your question about what I disagree with Calvinists about, it would include, but not be limited to their claims concerning the following doctrines:

Calvinist Kingdomism
Calvinist Reconstructionism
Calvinist nomialism
Calvinist Calvinist soteriology
Calvinist harmartiology
Calvinist ecclesiology
Calvinist eschatology
Calvinist covenantalism
Calvinist sacerdotalism/sacramentalism
Calvinist hermeneutics
Calvinist anthropology
Calvinist theology
Calvinist Christology
Calvinist angelology

Those who think Calvinism is limited to the 5 points of TULIP betray their ignorance of the 700+ pages Calvin wrote in his Institutes, not to mention other massive volumes written by him and others. Lots of people are unaware that the 5 points were drafted as an answer to the 5 points of Arminianism, and only a small percentage of Calvinist writings actually concerns the so-called 5 points.​

I'm guilty of not studying Calvin's writings and have not come into contact with any true Calvinist. Clete asserts that according to you Calvin was the only true Calvinist. Is this true?

Rob​

 

[RobE]

Double post. Sorry about that.

All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim

It's alright. It just gives Knight more opportunities to see that handsome face. :mrt:

 

[RobE]

One of my favorite passages, Jonah 3:4-10, as an Open View believer in Jesus Christ my Savior, shows us what our God is really like. He is not like the determinists attempt to make Him in this passage as well as others.

Bob,

You do realise that your proof requires you to assume foreknowledge as its basis?

How have you been?
Rob

 

[Clete]

I'm guilty of not studying Calvin's writings and have not come into contact with any true Calvinist. Clete asserts that according to you Calvin was the only true Calvinist. Is this true?

Rob

Stupid question.

How many here would be willing to wager on what Jim's answer will be to this question of Rob's?

I'm not saying that Jim makes this claim but that according to his logic it would be only possible conclusion. Are you trying to miss the point or are you simply puckering up in close proximity to Jim's backside?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Bob,

You do realise that your proof requires you to assume foreknowledge as its basis?

WHAT?! :kookoo:

Rob!

NO SMOKING POT ON TOL!!!!

If you want to make such an assertion do so with some sort of substanciation.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Rob,

My response to your post is below:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your answers.

Rob asked previously: Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Hilston replied: Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

Hilston: There's an equivocation of terms here. It's the same error that Jeremy Finkenbinder was making. When we're speaking in theological terms, we have to be careful. If by "being responsible for" you simply mean "performing," then of course God performed the act of authoring sin. But the meaning of responsible in theological terms is more than merely performing an act. It is being held culpable. No one does that with God and lives to tell about it.​

Isn't this the same thing which is happening with the terms used for free will especially ability and willingness? Isn't your statement that 'God is the author of sin' given as "performing" in opposition to how it is taken as "being culpable" by open theists?

Yes, exactly. But don't let any Open Theists hear you say that. You might get labeled a Calvinist.

My position would say that man is unable to oppose himself and must be renewed by the Holy Spirit before he is able to do something contrary to his own will.

How, on your view, does a person get "renewed by the Holy Spirit"?

This brings the question of 'is Grace overwhelming/sufficient or not for all mankind' and remains the most notable reason I oppose Calvinism.

The term "sufficient" means that nothing else needs to be added. It is enough. Do you believe God's grace is enough to save all mankind?

Hilston wrote: Hilston: If I understand you correctly, you're trying to answer the so-called "Can-God-create-a-rock-too-big-to-lift?" conundrum. You're allowing yourself to get tangled up in a false disparity between ability (e.g. is God able to utter untrue statements) and God's will (e.g. is God able to lie). It's a false dichotomy as it applies to God. It is true of men, i.e., they have the ability to oppose themselves, but not true of God. Open Theists must believe, contrary to scripture, in a God who lies because they are existential dualists, and believe that genuine truthfulness requires the ability to be untruthful.

How is it a false dichotomy from my perspective in which man is unable to save or change himself?

It isn't. I said it is true of man. I said it is a false dichotomy as it applies to God.

My perspective says that man or God does not have the ability to oppose themselves without coercion.

God does not have the ability, period. For man, it's quite natural to oppose ourselves.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; ...​

I'm guilty of not studying Calvin's writings ...

Unless you plan on spending your life critiquiing Calvinism, it's not essential to your studies. I primarily use Calvin's writings as fodder for apologetics studies and church history (Christendumb). The only other reason I read Calvin is for the comedy (i.e. to compare what Calvin actually wrote to what Open Theists have conjured up in their imaginations).

... according to you Calvin was the only true Calvinist. Is this true?

No. There are two types of Calvinists:
(1) Those who rigorously study Calvin and the other Reformers, and are scholars in church history and doctrine. We know some in our homeschooling association; they're nice people and very studious. Some of them put me to shame with their knowledge and dedication. They also don't care much for what I believe.
(2) Those who are Calvinists by association or label. They couldn't elucidate their beliefs if their lives depended on it, and would only give you a list of doctrinal catch-phrases or Reformed jargon that they hear in church in their attempts to explain. These are probably the most numerous, but they're not very useful when it comes to learning what Calvinism actually teaches. Sadly, it is this latter group from whom most Open Theists seem to have learned their Calvinism.

Of course, this deficit of knowledge and scholarship is not limited to Calvinists. Evangelicals of all stripes are guilty of paying lipservice to their doctrinal label and tenets but do not actually understand what they mean, let alone being able to defend their doctrine intelligently and rationally.

Thanks for your post.

TITR,
Jim

 

[RobE]

WHAT?! :kookoo:

Rob!

NO SMOKING POT ON TOL!!!!

If you want to make such an assertion do so with some sort of substanciation.

Fair enough.

Jonah 3:4-10 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

God changed His mind. That is our Wonderful God.

The fact that Bob believes that God changed His mind from what He would do in the future; to what He knew He would do in the future after repentence; relies on foreknowledge of the future to achieve.

My statement:

You do realize that your proof requires you to assume foreknowledge as its basis?​

I would ask: Did God know He would destroy Nineveh in the future when Jonah said:

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”​

Was there a doubt in God's mind, Jonah's mind, or the people of Nineveh's mind according to the open view?

Was Nineveh destroyed as of yet or was that still in the future?

How did God speak truly if the knowledge of what He was going to do was not foreknown?

In addition:

10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.​

How did God know He would not do it later without foreknowledge? Maybe God would change His mind and do it later if the open view is correct. Without foreknowledge what can be known by God or any other person? What actions will yield results if causes cease to have knowable results? Every action known to man must have a result of some kind. Is the world random or has God defined and decreed how creation works?

Rob

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No. In fact, rarely does God's prescriptive will line up with His decretive will. For example, God prescription is that each and every man repent and submit to His law. But God's decree is that most men are unrepentant and reject His law. And all of it is for God's good purposes (i.e. His decretive will).

Thanks for your questions,
AATGD, OC.
TITR,
:j

Thanks Jim!

I started a new thread so we could discuss this topic more closely.

God's prescriptive will and His decretive will

 

[Hilston]

Hi Rob,

My response to your post is below:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your answers.

Rob asked previously: Why is God not responsible for sin if God planned the men and their resultant sinful actions?

Hilston replied: Who will hold Him responsible? You? Me? There must exist a greater authority than God if He is to be responsible for anything. The Scriptures affirm that there is no higher authority, and therefore God does whatever He has decreed arbitrarily (according to the basic definition of that word) and with complete freedom.

Hilston: There's an equivocation of terms here. It's the same error that Jeremy Finkenbinder was making. When we're speaking in theological terms, we have to be careful. If by "being responsible for" you simply mean "performing," then of course God performed the act of authoring sin. But the meaning of responsible in theological terms is more than merely performing an act. It is being held culpable. No one does that with God and lives to tell about it.​

Isn't this the same thing which is happening with the terms used for free will especially ability and willingness? Isn't your statement that 'God is the author of sin' given as "performing" in opposition to how it is taken as "being culpable" by open theists?

Yes, exactly. But don't let any Open Theists hear you say that. You might get labeled a Calvinist.

My position would say that man is unable to oppose himself and must be renewed by the Holy Spirit before he is able to do something contrary to his own will.

How, on your view, does a person get "renewed by the Holy Spirit"?

This brings the question of 'is Grace overwhelming/sufficient or not for all mankind' and remains the most notable reason I oppose Calvinism.

The term "sufficient" means that nothing else needs to be added. It is enough. Do you believe God's grace is enough to save all mankind?

Hilston wrote: Hilston: If I understand you correctly, you're trying to answer the so-called "Can-God-create-a-rock-too-big-to-lift?" conundrum. You're allowing yourself to get tangled up in a false disparity between ability (e.g. is God able to utter untrue statements) and God's will (e.g. is God able to lie). It's a false dichotomy as it applies to God. It is true of men, i.e., they have the ability to oppose themselves, but not true of God. Open Theists must believe, contrary to scripture, in a God who lies because they are existential dualists, and believe that genuine truthfulness requires the ability to be untruthful.

How is it a false dichotomy from my perspective in which man is unable to save or change himself?

It isn't. I said it is true of man. I said it is a false dichotomy as it applies to God.

My perspective says that man or God does not have the ability to oppose themselves without coercion.

God does not have the ability, period. For man, it's quite natural to oppose ourselves.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; ...​

I'm guilty of not studying Calvin's writings ...

Unless you plan on spending your life critiquiing Calvinism, it's not essential to your studies. I primarily use Calvin's writings as fodder for apologetics studies and church history (Christendumb). The only other reason I read Calvin is for the comedy (i.e. to compare what Calvin actually wrote to what Open Theists have conjured up in their imaginations).

... according to you Calvin was the only true Calvinist. Is this true?

No. There are two types of Calvinists:
(1) Those who rigorously study Calvin and the other Reformers, and are scholars in church history and doctrine. We know some in our homeschooling association; they're nice people and very studious. Some of them put me to shame with their knowledge and dedication. They also don't care much for what I believe.
(2) Those who are Calvinists by association or label. They couldn't elucidate their beliefs if their lives depended on it, and would only give you a list of doctrinal catch-phrases or Reformed jargon that they hear in church in their attempts to explain. These are probably the most numerous, but they're not very useful when it comes to learning what Calvinism actually teaches. Sadly, it is this latter group from whom most Open Theists seem to have learned their Calvinism.

Of course, this deficit of knowledge and scholarship is not limited to Calvinists. Evangelicals of all stripes are guilty of paying lipservice to their doctrinal label and tenets but do not actually understand what they mean, let alone being able to defend their doctrine intelligently and rationally.

Thanks for your post.

TITR,
Jim

 

[Yorzhik]

Hi Yorzhik,

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well. Regarding your questions ...

Things are okay. The doctor says I need to take care of my liver better, but he didn't declare imminent death. How's things going with you?

Responsible to whom?

Within the sphere of the story and writer, the writer is only responsible to himself and the characters in the story.

Your robot scenario doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm talking about someone who authors a story that includes evil characters, not a computer program.

No, they are identical. All character actions are decreed in writing, whether prose or source code. The only difference is the sphere of the influence of their actions.

Hilston continued:

Should I punish my son for making up a story about evil villains who commit sins?

No. But can you explain how this anology is being used? I may have missed something in a prior post and I'm not going back to read that many pages.

 

[Clete]

The fact that Bob believes that God changed His mind from what He would do in the future; to what He knew He would do in the future after repentence; relies on foreknowledge of the future to achieve.

I'm sorry Rob but this is simply idiotic. If a person has a particular course of action in mind and then decides later to go in another direction then that is a change of mind. In Christian parlance its called repenting.

My statement:

You do realize that your proof requires you to assume foreknowledge as its basis?​

I would ask: Did God know He would destroy Nineveh in the future when Jonah said:

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”​

NO! He didn't know. He intended to do just that but He changed His mind because they repented of the evil for which God had decided to destroy them for.

Was there a doubt in God's mind, Jonah's mind, or the people of Nineveh's mind according to the open view?

No, I wouldn't say there was any doubt at all. God knew factually that He would destroy Nineveh if they did not repent and He knew factually that if they did repent that He too would repent of the harm He said He would do. This is precisely how God Himself declared He would react in such situations in Jeremiah 18 and so no, there was no doubt in God's mind at all.

Was Nineveh destroyed as of yet or was that still in the future?

"Still in the future" would be a figure of speech in this context because the future and the events therein do not exist in reality and so your question is invalid.

How did God speak truly if the knowledge of what He was going to do was not foreknown?

The same way you do when you say, "I'm going on vacation in a month."

In addition:

10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.​

How did God know He would not do it later without foreknowledge?

The same way you know when you say, "When I go on vacation in a month, I am not going to Zimbabwe."

Maybe God would change His mind and do it later if the open view is correct.

According to the Bible too! See Jeremiah 18 for details.

Without foreknowledge what can be known by God or any other person?

The future actions of agents with a will cannot be known. Nearly everything else can be, including but not limited to one's own intentions.

What actions will yield results if causes cease to have knowable results? Every action known to man must have a result of some kind. Is the world random or has God defined and decreed how creation works?

For random I can only assume you mean chaotic because otherwise you would have to be insinuating that nothing random ever happens, which would be obviously false.
Also you seem to be suggesting that if something is random that it got that way in opposition to God's design. Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating a universe were some things happen in an unpredictable way? If so, I'm going to start running out of little god boxes to hand out to people. First Jim and now you want to put God in a box and start telling Him what sort of universe He can and cannot make. Naughty, naughty!

There are at least three ways in which God could create a universe in which certain events are predictable to one degree or another but not absolutely knowable.

1. If the variables affecting a particular outcome are infinite in number, scope or complexity.
2. If any one set of variables can have more than one possible effect.
3. If both 1 and 2 are true

There may be many other possibilities of which I am unaware but those are the two I've come across myself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

No, that's an idiot.

By your logic, you must also be an idiot since you have changed your mind thousands of times :yawn:

If God changes His mind in line with His character and changing contingencies, then it is actually a sign of intelligence. An idiot would not change responsively to changing contingencies showing a lack of wisdom with detrimental consequences. :hammer:

 

[godrulz]

As an aside, only 10% of Southern Baptists consider themselves 5-point Calvinists. Thre is some controversy in their denomination.

Christianity Today, September 2006 has an interesting cover story on "Young, restless, reformed...Calvinism is making a comeback- and shaking up the church."

People are flocking to John Piper, etc. They are reading Jonathan Edwards.

CT also featured Pentecostalism recently (and another article in this month) and has followed the Open Theism debate fairly.

This article is good background for the resurgence of Calvinism. Things are heating up given the popularity of Open Theism compared to decades ago.

 

[Bob Hill]

When we look at our open God, it is such a blessing that He allows us to respond to Him as we want to, without zapping us. What a blessing to have that.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Then, just knowing that Jesus Christ, the Son, helps us to know the Father as we read about Him and His life on this Earth. As we learn about Him, we can love Him more for who He is. Then, as we focus on Him, who He is, and how wonderful He is, we can be filled with God’s fullness, and be able to love and worship Him more because of our relationship with Him.

That must have been how Paul felt as He communed with God. He must have had that kind of experience shortly before he wrote Eph 3:14-19. For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height - 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

We can become imitators of God as the Spirit produces fruit in our lives. That’s why He inspired Paul to write in Eph 5:1, Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.

In Christ,
Bob Hill