ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Can those who are not elected to have this discussion enter in to the discussion?

I have faith that there will be a discussion..... isn't that enough?

Or perhaps such a discussion is only fit for another dispensation...:chuckle:

:cheers:

We are all elected to the discussion.

Whosoever will, let him/her type.

Dispensation? There is no other dispensation ... only this one.

 

[Philetus]

I appreciate this. It helps open discussion between us and appreciate (at least a tad) one another's difficulties.
Sorry I let this go for a tad. Your discussion with E4E needed no interruption.



There is truth in this. God is relational to us. I've tried in the past to reconcile these ideas here in discussion. I don't think that a settled future necessarily detracts, it just seems to with logical conclusions from the OV. I don't believe the SV closes those doors logically like OV does looking in. It is difficult for both of us I think because we are talking about dichotomy. It appears contradictory, but it isn't. The triune view, and how Judas actually killed himself come to mind for examples. The discussion is good and needed for our dialogue.



LOL Clete does rest a lot.

Yeah, same here. I'd guess our biggest point of difference is how much God knows of future reality. It seems to be the hingepin for our respective views.

Oh please, interrupt! :bang:

So, in your view, how much does God know about the future? And when did the future become a reality, in your view?

BTW, Judas hanged HIMSELF. :loser: (Judas, not you.)

 

[Lon]

Oh please, interrupt! :bang:

LOL, I believe that rowdy interchange is over now.

So, in your view, how much does God know about the future? And when did the future become a reality, in your view?.

Wow, nobody has asked me what "I" specifically believe before. I lean toward SV with scriptures that indicate God knows the future. How much and to what extent I don't know. I have said before that I believe is is more than OV allows, possible less than traditional SV. It is one of those areas where I try to err on the side of God being bigger than my complete comprehension. It is a difficult aspect to grasp.

BTW, Judas hanged HIMSELF. :loser: (Judas, not you.)

Ar,

Mat 27:5 So7 Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.

but then we also learn that he spilled his guts.

Act 1:18 "As you know, he took the evil bribe money and bought a small farm. There he came to a bad end, rupturing his belly and spilling his guts.

Which was it? (I believe it is a dichotomy merely).

 

[Philetus]

LOL, I believe that rowdy interchange is over now.



Wow, nobody has asked me what "I" specifically believe before. I lean toward SV with scriptures that indicate God knows the future. How much and to what extent I don't know. I have said before that I believe is is more than OV allows, possible less than traditional SV. It is one of those areas where I try to err on the side of God being bigger than my complete comprehension. It is a difficult aspect to grasp.



Ar,

but then we also learn that he spilled his guts. Which was it? (I believe it is a dichotomy merely).

Its never over with E4E.

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.



I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

 

[elected4ever]

Its never over with E4E.

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.



I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

According to you Jesus was a really good guesser never mind that Jesus told them in advance what they would do.

 

[Philetus]

According to you Jesus was a really good guesser never mind that Jesus told them in advance what they would do.

Your response was totally predictable for anyone on TOL for more than a week. And it didn't require DFK, ESP or LSD.

And yes, Jesus was (and IS) a really good guesser. But, that's not all he is.

 

[Philetus]

It never ends.

 

[elected4ever]

Jesus was (and IS) a really good guesser. But, that's not all he is.

What is God other than the soothsayer that you clam him to be?:dunce:

 

[Lon]

Its never over with E4E.

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Doesn't matter, God is big no matter what, but I think we are talking about which view is more atune to how big and able God is. For this, I like my mysteries. God is so vast, that my intellect is fragile in comprehension. I glory in the mysteries of God. The bigger the mystery, the more captivated I am in understanding who He is. For this discussion, it is very good to see the weakenesses in our respective views. God is huge (and bigger, words are so constraining).

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.

SV also believes God is relational. My thinking is that His decisions are contingent on our responses even as He knows the result. I'm not sure I've effectively discussed this to the OV satisfaction, but what is important is that we know God moves by our prayers from either respective view. I submit that God is relational. As Pastor Hill, has stated, it does not affect His immutable nature.

I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

Yep, I'm of that opinion also, uck.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Too exact, regardless of how many times a rooster crows. They actually crow any number of times. Whoever told you it was 3 was selling you something. It is a wive's tale. Jesus predicted, it would be better for OV to make the claim that it was providential interjection rather than predictive coincidence. 3 crows, 3 denials.

Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

Agreed. I'm not sure. More 'exhaustive' than not. It is similar in my mind to omnipotent questions: He doesn't do the ridiculous (like a rock He can't pick up).
Can He know what is unknowable or absurd? These kinds of questions are a little to big for my finiteness.

 

[lucaspa]

Your faith shapes your reality.

Why can't it be the opposite: reality shapes your faith. That's the way it happens for most people.

Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality.

And that is not always the case, either. Lots of people try to adjust reality to their reason.

That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something.

No, the reason it is impossible not to believe in something is that 1) any search for truth demands that you start with statements that you may never be able to prove and 2) not all experience is intersubjective. The two foundational statements you must believe are true are 1) I exist and 2) I am sane. There are some experiences that are unique to yourself. In fact, a LOT of them. You believe those experiences are accurate.

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Of course there are. Atheists are people who believe deity does not exist.

 

[lucaspa]

We make decisions basted on the knowledge we bring to the table. I do not trust anyone who bases there belief on human reasoning alone.

This is somewhat contradictory since human reason is based on our knowledge. No one does "pure" reasoning. Reasoning always involves "knowledge".

Trinity is based on human reasoning. It is a product of the hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Do you trust that belief?

 

[lucaspa]

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.

Let me phrase this differently: if the future is settled, why bother? If all your future actions are known and determined, what meaning has our life or God's?

Also, if you are Biblical literalist and SVer, God should have known the outcome of accepting Abel's gift and reject Cain's. That makes God guilty of murder. God didn't directly kill Abel, but God sets a situation, according to SV, that God knows is going to result in Cain killing Abel. By law, that's murder.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

I agree. Knowing Judas as a person, his politics, and how Jesus was disappointing Judas' expectations of a Messiah would ensure "knowledge" that Judas would betray him.

I think the "exactly three times" was put in later. Knowledge of Peter and a general knowledge of how the situation would play out would ensure that Jesus would "know" that Peter would deny him.

When reading scripture you must always remember that 1) it was written after the event and 2) people did not have our criteria for strict history. It was very common in that time to put words into people's mouths of "prophecy" of later events. Thucidydes and Herodotus did it all the time.

And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

And here we encounter quantum mechanics! :ha:

 

[lucaspa]

Agreed. I'm not sure. More 'exhaustive' than not. It is similar in my mind to omnipotent questions: He doesn't do the ridiculous (like a rock He can't pick up).
Can He know what is unknowable or absurd? These kinds of questions are a little to big for my finiteness.

Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?

Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing.

The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence.

 

[elected4ever]

This is somewhat contradictory since human reason is based on our knowledge. No one does "pure" reasoning. Reasoning always involves "knowledge".

Would you agree that some knowledge comes by revelation and not by human experience alone. Man would have no knowledge of God if God does not impart that knowledge. Human reasoning of itself has no knowledge of God. Human reasoning cannot define God. It takes more than human reasoning to know God.

Trinity is based on human reasoning. It is a product of the hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Do you trust that belief?

No, I do not trust that belief at least not in the sense that i have been taught through the years. It is confusing and God is not the author of confusion. I call it what you call it, hypothetical deductive reasoning.

 

[elected4ever]

Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?

Yes

Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

Complete

It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing.

I object to using human reasoning alone. There are some things that we know that are beyond human reasoning and understanding and we accept them by faith. We use those things as part of our knowledge base that the world does not possess.

The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence.

Sense we know that human reasoning apart from reveled knowledge from God is "ridiculous", Why is it then necessary or advisable to through out God's omnipotence?

 

[Lon]

Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?

Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

As powerful and knowledgeable as He says He is. That's the important point here. All we can really know is what we are told. For this inspection I'd simply say that OV has issues on the other side of the problem spectrum. Both of our perspectives have troubling scriptures. Dichotomy is fine, but we should recognize both our strong suit and weaker hands. I don't condemn OV, I just don't see it as the best fit. Perspective I think. I'm reminded constantly of the 3 blind and elephant parable in these discussions. We're all blind and must lean on our limited perceptions (scripture, the Holy Spirit, traditions, logical ability).

It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing.

No, "Almighty" is His name. It means "All-powerful." It isn't human reasoning.
Omnipotence is very defendable as a Biblical position.

Omniscience is a bit tougher, but it can be supported. I'm less bothered by questions concerning this aspect of who God is. As I said, our perception and logically ability to grasp is limited. I don't want a God who is constrained only to human capacity for logic. My understanding of Him has plenty of mystery left for my duration here on earth.

The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence.

It is called "the illogical question" for a reason. The problem isn't the dilemma, it's the faulty concept for the question. It is unanswerable. If you say 'yes' you are wrong, and if you say 'no' you are wrong. Further complicating this, if you say 'yes' or 'no' from a different perspective, you could be right. The problem is that first, the question asks that which is contradictory. And second, it asks that which cannot be answered.

 

[godrulz]

There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.

 

[elected4ever]

There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.

That is a purely stupid human bit of reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Purely :spam:

 

[Lon]

There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.

Yes to the first part (and thanks for support there), but not necessarily on the second.

I know we disagree on this, but I just don't see it as absurd. Difficult, yes, hard to grasp, yes. Absurd? He knows way more than I'll ever be able to grasp. He's God. There is a huge chasm for understanding. I understand the 'absurd' assessment, but it seems to be a logical box to me. It is like saying 'no' or 'yes' to the omnipotence question. I can't anwer it. Can God know the 'unknowable?' It is a bit like that.

Now the question: Is a myriad of contingencies unknowable? Daunting yes, but after that I'm without facility to answer. Too big of a question for me to even comprehend if it could be absurd or not.

 

[godrulz]

That is a purely stupid human bit of reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Purely :spam:

Some people think God can create square circles. No He cannot. The issue is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on omnipotence. Secular and Christian scholars do not dispute this self-evident point. Why are you straining at gnats?