ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

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.

One can know a myriad of contingencies, but only as possible or probable. By definition, there is an element of unsettledness (may or may not happen; alternatives) until the choice is made and the possible becomes actual/certain. God knows reality as it is, so why go beyond this? The future is not there yet, nor is it settled like the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such because this is the type of non-deterministic creation He sovereignly chose to actualize.

 

[Lon]

One can know a myriad of contingencies, but only as possible or probable. By definition, there is an element of unsettledness (may or may not happen; alternatives) until the choice is made and the possible becomes actual/certain. God knows reality as it is, so why go beyond this? The future is not there yet, nor is it settled like the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such because this is the type of non-deterministic creation He sovereignly chose to actualize.

I understand where you are coming from but certain scriptures are difficult to appreciate from this perspective.

Some examples:

Josiah's grandfather was named about 300 years before he was born.

Prophecy is often so accurate, that it isn't exactly 'predictive' (messianic, Peter's denial etc.)

Visions and dreams: future predictive, and in John's case interactive as well. That interactive portion really gives me trouble with the OV from a logical perspective.

 

[Philetus]

Prophecy is always interactive and/or determinative. God will, no if/ands/or buts. God accomplishes what He purposes. Other wise it is conditional. God might or might not do something … IF/then. Sometimes it is even speculative. Given the present situation/this is the (likely) outcome.


God says, His name will be John, and Zach won’t say another word until it is.

 

[Philetus]

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).

Then why not just say that God is one big mystery, and leave it at that? That statement almost sounds agnostic. We are wrestling with "what can be know about God" as revealed in creation, scripture and ultimately in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

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.

So in the settled view of the future, when did God relate? At what point in history was the future 'contingent'? When and who decided and determined the six winning numbers in next weeks lottery or that there would even be a lottery?

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.

I agree! Hence the quotation marks around 'exactly' three times.

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.

More or less 'exhaustive'?

If by that you mean that God knows far more than he doesn’t know… well …

Just how much is out there that cannot be know? Infinite details of non-existent stuff. Wow! what a big God to be preoccupied with so much non-stuff. That isn’t a ‘mystery', that absurdity.

It is widely held by the OV that God know all there is to know, or at least all that God chooses to know of what is knowable. That is vast knowledge anyway you measure it.

 

[philosophizer]

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.

I don't quite agree. God has offered special revelation in the form of His Word. But there is also a natural revelation that is self-evident in all of creation. We can reason by many facts of nature that there is a God and we can even ascertain many aspects of His character through these means. These are all a part of human experience. Also the moral law that God has written on all our hearts speaks of Him.

So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.

 

[philosophizer]

It is widely held by the OV that God know all there is to know, or at least all that God chooses to know of what is knowable. That is vast knowledge anyway you measure it.

Yes. When you take the sum of all that the OV claims God knows and then add all the extra things the SV purports, you are essentially adding nothing but zeros, as they are non-things.

"Look how many numbers I've added to your sum! Surely it's a bigger number now."

"Uhh... you're only adding by zero every time. It's still the same number."

 

[elected4ever]

philosophizer

So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.

This is true but at some point personal knowledge comes from a revealing of truth by God to the human heart.

 

[Lon]

It always seems to be the same go around. I always get deja vu reading and responding. Clearly there is a mental or logic block for our discussion. I'm very very often reminded of the 3 blind men and the elephant when chatting terms with OV. All I'm saying from my perspective is that I'm open to the trunk and legs in theological discussion, not just the tail. God is too big. Your corner may be a bit more manipulable but I'm pretty sure it's only part of the big picture of who God is, like mine.

 

[Philetus]

It always seems to be the same go around. I always get deja vu reading and responding. Clearly there is a mental or logic block for our discussion. I'm very very often reminded of the 3 blind men and the elephant when chatting terms with OV. All I'm saying from my perspective is that I'm open to the trunk and legs in theological discussion, not just the tail. God is too big. Your corner may be a bit more manipulable but I'm pretty sure it's only part of the big picture of who God is, like mine.

Maybe you need to get out of your circle more.
:granite::mario: :luigi:

A Calvinist, an Arr-meanian and a Jehovah Witness were walking down a jungle path one day when they happened upon an elephant. Grabbing the trunk the Calvinist said, “This tree was determined to be here and by god, no path can change that.” Bumping into the side of the elephant, the Arr-meanian said, “I think we’ve hit a wall.” Holding the tail, the Jehovah Witness said, “This isn't even enough rope to hang yourself.” Then a voice came from above. The Open Theists sitting atop the elephant said, “It’s an elephant, boys. It’s just an elephant.” "NO WAY!" Was their unanimous replay."​

:nono: :nono: :nono:

People who draw circles shouldn’t complain about them, Lonster. And what can be known shouldn't be embellished to make it all puffed up in an attempt to appear humble.

Some things CAN be known.

Originally Posted by philosophizer: God has offered special revelation in the form of His Word. But there is also a natural revelation that is self-evident in all of creation. We can reason by many facts of nature that there is a God and we can even ascertain many aspects of His character through these means. These are all a part of human experience. Also the moral law that God has written on all our hearts speaks of Him.

So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.

:up: Great post philosophizer.

Knowledge of God isn't something to be manipulated. Take a step back, Lonster, and look at the whole BIG picture. Yes! God is big, really big. But not so big that he can't make Himself known to His creatures. Trying to make Him bigger (unknowable?) is counter to the very reason Jesus came in the first place ... to make HIM KNOWN.

John 17:3 - Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Open is a great corner to be in.
It beats going around in circles, any day.

 

[Philetus]

philosophizer philosophizer
Over 1000 post club

Slogan/motto:

Posts: 1,014
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In the middle of a giant cornfield... what's it called... oh yeah, Iowa.
Rep Power: 20113
Reputation: 1848895

Iowa is just a suburb of Indiana. :madmad: :angel: :dizzy: :chuckle: :rotfl:

 

[Lon]

Maybe you need to get out of your circle more.
:granite::mario: :luigi:

A Calvinist, an Arr-meanian and a Jehovah Witness were walking down a jungle path one day when they happened upon an elephant. Grabbing the trunk the Calvinist said, “This tree was determined to be here and by god, no path can change that.” Bumping into the side of the elephant, the Arr-meanian said, “I think we’ve hit a wall.” Holding the tail, the Jehovah Witness said, “This isn't even enough rope to hang yourself.” Then a voice came from above. The Open Theists sitting atop the elephant said, “It’s an elephant, boys. It’s just an elephant.” "NO WAY!" Was their unanimous replay."​

:nono: :nono: :nono:

People who draw circles shouldn’t complain about them, Lonster. And what can be known shouldn't be embellished to make it all puffed up in an attempt to appear humble.

Some things CAN be known.



:up: Great post philosophizer.

Knowledge of God isn't something to be manipulated. Take a step back, Lonster, and look at the whole BIG picture. Yes! God is big, really big. But not so big that he can't make Himself known to His creatures. Trying to make Him bigger (unknowable?) is counter to the very reason Jesus came in the first place ... to make HIM KNOWN.

John 17:3 - Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Open is a great corner to be in.
It beats going around in circles, any day.

Yes, the arrogance screams to me loud and clear. False humility? Not at all. I'm honest at least to state that all I know about God is what He chooses to reveal to me. I don't go 'beyond' that. Logic from OV is very self-elevating to the intellect.

I'm reminded of many parables and assessments of humility and seeing through a glass darkly. You'll forgive me, it isn't arrogance, but your glass is a little 'too' clear for me. While you'd say this is as it should be, I'd say that it is very reminiscent of past theological stances I've seen.

OV has the 'whole' elephant which frankly gives me much much room for pause.

You sometimes come across genuinely Philetus, but on other occassions you come across very demeaning and arrogant in your posts (as many OVers).

This ALWAYS gives me great great pause. I pray it would do the same for you.

OV is much too proud of a sect for me. Not right, just arrogant.

 

[godrulz]

Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.

 

[Lon]

Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.

When you get aboard my enterprise, I'll probably smash my little ship with a lazer gun too.

How ya doing brother? You tend to bring me back to a sane view with OV that I try to hold onto (most of the time).

 

[godrulz]

When you get aboard my enterprise, I'll probably smash my little ship with a lazer gun too.

How ya doing brother? You tend to bring me back to a sane view with OV that I try to hold onto (most of the time).

Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.

Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

 

[elected4ever]

Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.

If the borg be you then forget it.:shocked:

 

[godrulz]

If the borg be you then forget it.:shocked:

Ditto. I am not the Borg. I am born again, part of His forever family (God).

 

[Lon]

Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.

Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

Despite Philetus' claim to be sitting on the entirety of who God is (I believe it is an incredible claim) we all see through a glass dimly.
Because I think OV examines different aspects, I'm in appreciation, but I really don't think there is a corner on the market.

 

[Philetus]

Despite Philetus' claim to be sitting on the entirety of who God is (I believe it is an incredible claim) we all see through a glass dimly.
Because I think OV examines different aspects, I'm in appreciation, but I really don't think there is a corner on the market.

Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

godrulz: Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.
Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.

 

[Clete]

Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.

Excellent point Philetus!

We should not polish the mirror with sand paper in order to make the image even dimmer than it already is. We can know what we can know and are not responsible for that which we cannot know. We are however responsible for what we chosen not to know.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.

Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.

I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately. Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween. No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.

I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more. Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.