:darwinsm: I accept reality as opposed to something other than reality. :up:elected4ever said:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
elected4ever
New member
So you accept a by guess and by gaulle. :dizzy:Frank Ernest said:
elected4ever
New member
Reality is what God says it is not what man thinks it is.
elected4ever said:
The reality is that the future is not there yet. If it is, then we are mere puppets in a deterministic universe. God has given us significant freedom and desires reciprocal relationships. Even though He allows many things, this does not mean He desires or causes them (e.g. Hitler).
elected4ever
New member
And you believe Hitler.?????????? :vomit:godrulz said:
elected4ever said:
Huh? I believe Hitler about what? I said that God did not cause Hitler to kill millions of Jews. It was not part of His will or plan. Hitler misused his God-given freedom and will be harshly judged accordingly. Hitler could have grew up to be a man of God, but he chose not to. He rejected God's influence in his life.
RobE said:
We can predict who is likely to win a horse race. This is how they get odds. The horse may or may not win. Predictions are not always infallible. Prophecy is not always foretelling. It can also be forthtelling. The way God knows it will come to pass is that He purposes it and brings it to pass by His ability (not foreknowledge...see Is. 46; 48). Some prophecies are conditional and may or may not come to pass depending on the response to God's call to repent. If they repent, He will relent. If they do not repent, He will bring judgment as He intended. Some prophecies are unconditional.
I have discussed God having free will with some others and get some conflicting ideas; you guys seem to know the ins and outs. I do not have an issue with God changing, God having limited knowledge and God having choices, but will God always make the best choice for us that can be made at the time?
elected4ever
New member
You have a question about the trustworthiness of God? If I believed what you say you don't have a problem with then I would have a problem with God. But I don't believe that nonsense.bling said:
Godrulz, I have another question about the O.V. teaching:
I have heard it said that if God knows the future then man can not make a free will choice. The logic for this is given by the idea:
1. If A knows B will do X.
2. And A can not be wrong.
3. B can not change from doing X
4. B can not make free will choices.
If that is a truism, then if A were a simple robot made by God and the information carried by A about the future was never read until after the future became the past, then B would still not be able to make free will choices. So, who is making B’s choices if it is not B? It seems that A would have to be using the information of the future to control B some way, for B not to be making the choices.
I have heard it said that if God knows the future then man can not make a free will choice. The logic for this is given by the idea:
1. If A knows B will do X.
2. And A can not be wrong.
3. B can not change from doing X
4. B can not make free will choices.
If that is a truism, then if A were a simple robot made by God and the information carried by A about the future was never read until after the future became the past, then B would still not be able to make free will choices. So, who is making B’s choices if it is not B? It seems that A would have to be using the information of the future to control B some way, for B not to be making the choices.
Judas regretted his actions and may have repented from this particular sin but that doesn't mean he repented in the sense that he but his faith in the Lord Jesus as Messiah. The rest of the Biblical record regard Judas' demise is sufficient proof of that. One must make an effort to remain on the same page that God is on when read or else you can pluck out individual verses and apply them in all sorts of fallacious ways.RobE said:
It didn't have to happen at all. Jesus certainly didn't make it happen, although He may have manipulated Judas who He knew to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. But even at that, Judas could have repented and it would have not caused any problems for anyone, especially God (Jesus).
When the passage says "so that Scripture would be fulfilled" it is not referring to direct prophecy but rather the fact that the events surrounding the crucifixion were being manipulated by God so as to parallel details in Scripture so as to add to the mountain of evidence that Jesus was/is God. That is to say that had Judas never existed there would be no prophecy which some Bible critic could point to as an unfulfilled prophecy as evidence that the Bible was not of divine origin.
So I say again, Judas did not HAVE TO betray Jesus. Jesus knew Judas better than Judas knew himself and so full expected and perhaps even manipulated Judas in the direction of such a betrayal but one way or the other Jesus did not need to see into the future and Judas always had the option to repent.
Have you never planned for anything before? This is not rocket science RobE! Questions like this seriously make me wonder whether you are even trying to seriously think this through.
Is it necessary for me to peek into the future in order to know that my son (if I should ever have one) will one day do something that will demonstrate that he is not only aware of the consequences of his actions but that he has chosen to prefer some other person over himself, thereby demonstrating that he knows right and wrong and is morally responsible for his own actions and has chosen to do rightly? Of course I don't have to see into the future to know such a thing. And on the chance that it never happens, I, like God, am not obligated to ever give him the blessing with which I thought to bless him (Jer. 18).
No it wouldn't. God would simply have to be smarter than your average cat.
Who cares? What Enyart says is usually right but it is nowhere remotely close to my standard of truth. I don't even know where this inane comment came from. I never brought up Bob Enyart nor have I appealed to him as an authority on this issue, nor would I do so. My authority is the Scripture and that alone and it interpreted by sound reason.
:thumb:
Sorry it's taken so long to respond. I've been in over my head at work and haven't had time to post hardly anything at all.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You ask a question that is invalid. Your question assumes, in spite of the proof that there is no choice, that a choice is being made anyway. If A knows that B will do X then B makes no choice because there is no choice to be made. He may think there is a choice being made but there isn't, it's an illusion as best. The point is that free will requires there to be a choice. The moment X is known there is no longer any choice to be made, and therefore free will cannot exist where X is concerned.bling said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
Clete said:
Could it be that God knows everyone better than they know themselves? Very accurate prediction(foresaying).
So scripture which is specific, might not be so specific.
Matt 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
John 13:21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
Matt 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
John 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him,
Matthew 26:25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."
No where in here do I see an IF, BUT, or UNLESS. I believe that Judas could have repented(done otherwise); but God foresaw what Judas would do. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him.
It doesn't say If your gonna, shoulda, coulda, woulda; but will.
Friends,
Rob
So, who is making B’s choices if it is not B? Is what I asked and you are saying correct me if I am wrong here, If the future is known even by a dumb robot that does nothing with the information it removes all choices. I must say you are consistent. What caused X to happen and not Y?
I don’t want to play games here, but I assume if for a week the recording device was broke in the robot then for that week there would be free will decisions made by B. Would there be any way of telling there was or was not a free will decision being made by B? Could B then be accountable for the decisions made in that week and not held accountable for decisions (illusions) made the other weeks?
You say, “The moment X is known there is no longer any choice to be made”, but could we say this robot is seeing it as it happens as B is making the choice. The robot could have traveled a lot of different places and not traveled back in time with no different results as I can see so what is the difference? Can a purely mechanical robot be said to, “know anything”? Does your tape recorder know something?
You say, “He may think there is a choice being made but there isn't, it's an illusion as best”. Could God still hold B responcible for following X even if it is an illusion and why?
RobE said:
These are all talking about proximal, near knowledge. God knows the heart and past/present perfectly. This was predictable at this point. This does not mean we can extrapolate to exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free will contingency from eternity past (remote). This is problematic to genuine freedom and a misunderstanding of omniscience (God cannot know a nothing). Just because God knew about Judas as events unfolded does not mean that He knew who would win this year's Superbowl way back then (this is not a possible object of knowledge since the future has not happened yet).
Of course! I have never denied God's ability to predict the future, but prediction and knowledge are not the same thing, regardless of how accurate that prediction is.RobE said:
If Jesus knew what Judas was going to do it is because Judas had already made the decision to do so. As you said a moment ago and I have said repeatedly, Jesus knew Judas better than he knew himself.
Is this really that difficult a concept to see and understand and even accept? Where is the resistance to such a simple idea coming from? Have you asked a question yet that I have been unable to answer or that has even seemed to present me with difficulty? I've demonstrated the logical consequences of your position and you ignore them and instead cling to a doctrine that destroys the meaning of morality in favor of what? I don't get it? You act as if I'm afraid of the Bible or something; like you're going to come up with some verse that I just cannot deal with but you won't. I've read the Bible, I know what it says. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last to present these verses that I have seen and responded to a hundred times. They all mean what they say and none of them mean what you read into them.
What it really boils down too, it seems to me, is that you, and others who cling to the settled view, do so because you place a higher emphases on God's power than you do God's love. In fact it seems that you are willing to completely sacrifice the concept of love altogether on the alter of divine foreknowledge. I think I've demonstrated beyond anyone's ability to honestly deny that you have to choose. Will you have a God that's a know-it-all or a God that loves you and that you can love? You cannot have both, they are mutually exclusive.
As for me, I choose the later without reservation or trepidation of any sort. God does not have to be a know-it-all to be God but He most certainly must be loving.
1 Corinthians 13:2 though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Yes that is what I am saying. If a future action is known then there is no ability to do otherwise. To be free means that I have the ability to do or to do otherwise so without that ability to do otherwise free will does not exist.bling said:
As for what causes X to happen and not Y, who knows and who cares. There are probably hundreds of possible answers but the only answer that answer that has any relevance to this issue is that X is caused by something other my own volition.
It's impossible to answer this question. There is insufficient information. How does this hypothetical robot of yours get this information about the future? The answer to that would need to be known before any answer to this question to even begin to be formulated. Basically the question really comes down to whether the future is settled or whether it is open. Foreknowledge is only one way in which the future could be settled but regardless of the manner by which it came to be, if the future is settled by any means, we are not free to do otherwise and everything moral becomes utterly meaningless.
No there wouldn't be any way to tell. But that is irrelevant. God is a God of justice and even if no one else knew that He was punishing people for actions that they did not choose to do of their own will then He would still know and He would still be unjust for doing it and if God is unjust then that sort of throws a wrench in the whole Christianity thing, wouldn't you say? Justice is only one of many moral issues that would lose all meaning if the settled view is correct.
Again, it all depends not so much on whether God (or your robot) knows the future as it depends on whether the future is settled or not. If it is settled, by whatever means, we cannot justly be held responsible for our actions because we have no ability to do otherwise.
See the present does no damage to free will because the ability to do otherwise remained up until the time the action was taken.
Time travel is not possible. The past does not exist, nor does the future. All that exists, exists now. God cannot go to a place that does not exist because that would be an absurdity (to do it would be not to do it) thus God cannot travel to the past. If He can than the future is settled and we have no ability to do or do otherwise and are thus not free.
No inanimate objects cannot know anything but that isn't the point. If the information is available to record then the result is the same. The only way to record the future would be if the future was settled; if it existed and was there to record. It makes no difference whether its being recorded on magnetic media, dvd, or in someone's mind (presumably God's).
NO! Because he could not have done otherwise!
Using variable such as X an Y sometimes causes one to miss the point here. X can be any event at all, not just major decisions. X can represent the fact that you were tricked into buying into the illusion of free will, for example. And if the future is settled then you couldn't have not bought into the illusion if in fact you did buy into it. Do you see my point? If the future is settled then nothing you do is free, nothing. You don't drive your car freely, you don't pick your nose freely, you don't think freely. You don't do anything at all freely if the future is settled. You simply become the mindless automaton which totally "believes" that it isn't a mindless automaton. It's truly the most pathetic of all possible existences.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
Clete said:
Yet the definition of prediction forces the events to happen or it isn't a prediction at all. It must be completely accurate, don't you see?
Webster's said:
Clete said:
But couldn't Judas, according to Open Theism, choose to do otherwise than what Jesus knew(remember, predicting is different than knowing according to you)?
This scripture occurred prior to Judas making a deal with the priests:
Matt 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
Matt 6:71 is included in the scriptures and is scripture itself. I know you don't deny this. The fact that it is there shows that Jesus was talking about Judas specifically, and 'knew' what Judas would do before it was done(foreknowledge). If God couldn't foresee the future then Jesus couldn't know anything about Judas at this point; unless God intended to make Judas betray Jesus, right?
Clete said:
Yes, I've asked many questions that you have been unable to answer. Even when I ask direct questions about what Jesus said, you find some way to say that He didn't mean it exactly as stated. So did you answer them? Yes, but not honestly.
For example:
John 13:21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
Clete said:
Knew?
I reject the idea that God manipulates any man into evil. This is exactly why foresight MUST exist. If it doesn't then God must manipulate man to do evil; just as you say that foresight does. It's untrue. God simply (predicts, prophecies, foretells)foresees what's going to happen by man's true free will, not coerces man.
If the scripture says God foretold of an event; then God either:
A)manipulated it to happen,
B)predicted and allowed it to happen,
or
C)foresaw it happening and allowed it to happen.
A is false for everyone except Calvinists.
B requires foresight and is essentially the same as C.
Clete said:
What am I reading into it? Who's reaching outside the scripture? Your 'logical consequences' defeat your position as well, but you ignore that. If you say something enough, you'll begin to believe it. Hummm.......
Matthew 26:25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."
Might be you? Who's stretching the scripture? Jesus knew beforehand(foreknew). Period. Nothing to reach for. If Open Theism is correct then Jesus couldn't know beforehand(He would have to guess). So Open Theism must stretch the scripture. If Judas did not betray Jesus after Matt 26:25 then Jesus would have been a liar(or at least mistaken) which we both agree He wasn't. Catch 22. Logic?
Here's the bottom line, Clete. If God allows sin(which He does); it's no different if He saw that sin happening before creation or if He saw it happening before the Last Supper. Your main objection to foreknowledge occurs here whether you accept it or not. The choice to do or to do otherwise exists as a matter of fact in both situations.
Jesus allowed Adam to eat of the tree. Jesus allowed Judas to betray Him. Is Jesus culpable? No. Was Adam or Judas manipulated(coerced)? No. Did God know these events would happen? Yes. How? Doesn't 'knowing' create a responsibilty as Open Theism touts constantly? My response: When you begin 'knowing' doesn't significantly increase or decrease your responsibility, does it? So if Open Theism declares that God is responsible if He foresaw evil before creation, I say that God is not: based on the fact that time(when) isn't of consequence whether it's two hours or two eons; because He's given the solution to the problem in advance.
His solution: The Christ.
Do you follow this?
Rob Mauldin
- Status