ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Delmar]

She's a girl, of course she would think that about games.
I totally forgive her for that view and understand it.
"Hun? Grabbed those pretzels off the counter." (ducks, cowers)

The difference here of course is our take on what God knows. Because OV has Him in prediction rather than foreknowledge (Biblically given btw). Your percentage theory supports your view and makes it plausible, however one has to buy the intial premise to appreciate it "God knows what is knowable and the future doesn't exist."

My nonOV perspective says: "God knows all. Foreknowledge is a scripturally given."

Actually in the baseball analogy, I don't see God making a prediction at all, but rather just enjoying the game.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I do not believe that God ever "flips a switch" and takes over a man's will. God may limit a man's choices and thereby effect the man's ability to choose.... or God may persuade, or pressure, a man to choose in a certain way (i.e., Jonah) but the man still has his own will.

An example... some people wrongly think that a prisoner in jail has lost his freewill. Of course that isn't the cause. The prisoner has lost his free-DOM, not his freewill. The prisoners choices and abilities are now limited in jail, but his will is just as free as ever.

God can effect our will in a variety of ways through external pressures, circumstances, or obstacles, but I do not believe that He ever removes our will from us.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You say that while God may intervene, His intervention never involves the removal of the free will of His creatures.

I ask this because this is not what the proponents of open theism have been advocating.

David Bassinger, "Practical Implications", in The Openness of God, writes: "Unlike proponents of process theism, we maintain that God does retain the right to unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs. That is, we believe that freedom of choice is a gift granted to us by God and thus that God retains the power and moral prerogative to inhibit occasionally our ability to make voluntary choices to keep things on track." (p. 159)

Sanders and Hasker affirm the same. Hasker uses the analogy of parents exercising control over children. "Their [the parents] policy could well be described as the deliberate and intensive application of 'persuasive power'--though to be sure, coercive power is their reserve, should the child start to run out into a busy highway. Should not a similar account be given of God's control over us?" (Hasker, "A Philosophical Perspective", in The Openness of God, pg. 142.)

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe the above to be the assumption? That is, you believe God, when He intervenes, will not override the free will of His creatures.

 

[rehcjam]

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You say that while God may intervene, His intervention never involves the removal of the free will of His creatures.

I ask this because this is not what the proponents of open theism have been advocating.

David Bassinger, "Practical Implications", in The Openness of God, writes: "Unlike proponents of process theism, we maintain that God does retain the right to unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs. That is, we believe that freedom of choice is a gift granted to us by God and thus that God retains the power and moral prerogative to inhibit occasionally our ability to make voluntary choices to keep things on track." (p. 159)

Sanders and Hasker affirm the same. Hasker uses the analogy of parents exercising control over children. "Their [the parents] policy could well be described as the deliberate and intensive application of 'persuasive power'--though to be sure, coercive power is their reserve, should the child start to run out into a busy highway. Should not a similar account be given of God's control over us?" (Hasker, "A Philosophical Perspective", in The Openness of God, pg. 142.)

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe the above to be the assumption? That is, you believe God, when He intervenes, will not override the free will of His creatures.

Sorry to butt in.

God is a person and we are persons and God can affect us and impose on us.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry to butt in.

God is a person and we are persons and God can affect us and impose on us.

Stick around and let's see how that works out for you here.

Suggest you get up to speed by reviewing the thread.

 

[rehcjam]

Stick around and let's see how that works out for you here.

Suggest you get up to speed by reviewing the thread.

It is way too long.

 

[Lon]

It is way too long.

Start about here and you'll catch the most part of it: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1499613#post1499613

 

[Philetus]

Exact perhaps (doubtful - "When Lord? When did we see you...")
Exhaustive? hmmm
Foreknowledge, yes, I agree. It isn't from our own knowledge base, but His.
We do know this day is coming with no doubts.

I think what you are trying to say is good: We should both be looking toward doing His business.
But first, I think discussions here are His business, and second, I think your call is somewhat diminished by drawing the lines at the offset.

Finally, I think the sports comment has more to do with gender than doctrinal position. Certainly 'how' God enjoys a game is doctrinal.

:cloud9: IN THE SKY BOX SEATS:cloud9:
"Hey God, did you see that curve ball?"
"Yeah, at least twice now. Wait till you see the next one."
"When?"
"That's for me to know and you to find out."​

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that over statement doesn't work well with either the Open View or Calvinism. Sarcasm maybe with smiles, but hyperbole never. You got the point I was making by exaggerating the position of Open Theists, Now can you apply it to your own view? (I think even Open Theists missed it because it touches our golden cow on the back side, too.)

Exact perhaps (doubtful - "When Lord? When did we see you...")
Exhaustive? hmmm
Foreknowledge, yes, I agree. It isn't from our own knowledge base, but His.

Didn’t need a bible dictionary or a dozen commentaries to figure that one out, did you?

We do know this day is coming with no doubts.

Yeah, well, duh? So do we.

 

[Philetus]

Last year, I watched a young lady's world come apart as she came face to face with the idea the the pain in her life happened because "God had some reason for it" The only answer I had for her was "God didn't want your daddy to hurt you". She couldn't buy it. She was too entrenched in the teaching that every evil that ever happens, happens because it brings glory to God! I will stand against that garbage with my dieing breath!

Couldn't agree more.

I think you missed my 'tongue in cheek' way of making my point so let me restate it here:

"FREEDOM!"

I just didn't want to over state it.

BTW, Love your avatar. (Well, I don't really 'love' it but I do like it a lot. :chuckle:

 

[Nang]

Couldn't agree more.

I think you missed my 'tongue in cheek' way of making my point so let me restate it here:

"FREEDOM!"

So you are saying the OV answer is: Pain and suffering happens in order for men to be "free?"

"Free" to what? "Free" to sin, and cause more suffering and pain?

Or "free" to somehow to alleviate suffering and pain?

Please, someone tell me, how man supposedly possessing "free" will has achieved the latter in the slightest degree. How have supposed "free" agents improved the plight of all societies? How come men with "free" wills have not willfully stopped wars, willfully prevented disease, or willfully solved the problem of universal death?

What would the OV'ers have said to the young lady whose "world was coming apart" to console and comfort her?

Nang

 

[rehcjam]

I have a question on divine omniscience and God learning. Maybe you've gone over this before.

If God learns because He is a living being then how does God create? How does He learn how to create or how is it that He would already know how to create the universe especially since the creation does not yet exist and the universe is obviously very complex? It seems that He would have had to somehow gain that knowledge.


This may have an obvious answer but I don't know it.

 

[Lon]

:cloud9: IN THE SKY BOX SEATS:cloud9:
"Hey God, did you see that curve ball?"
"Yeah, at least twice now. Wait till you see the next one."
"When?"
"That's for me to know and you to find out."​

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that over statement doesn't work well with either the Open View or Calvinism. Sarcasm maybe with smiles, but hyperbole never. You got the point I was making by exaggerating the position of Open Theists, Now can you apply it to your own view? (I think even Open Theists missed it because it touches our golden cow on the back side, too.)



Didn’t need a bible dictionary or a dozen commentaries to figure that one out, did you?


Yeah, well, duh? So do we.

Er, my 'we' was inclusive (ya git!).

It probably has more to do with being a nerd than theological position. Ask B. Hill, you know what I mean-I love my books (yeah, thick glasses too. But NO pocket protector!). <-g

 

[Delmar]

So you are saying the OV answer is: Pain and suffering happens in order for men to be "free?"

It happens because we are free!

"Free" to what? "Free" to sin, and cause more suffering and pain?

Or "free" to somehow to alleviate suffering and pain?
Please, someone tell me, how man supposedly possessing "free" will has achieved the latter in the slightest degree. How have supposed "free" agents improved the plight of all societies? How come men with "free" wills have not willfully stopped wars, willfully prevented disease, or willfully solved the problem of universal death?

What would the OV'ers have said to the young lady whose "world was coming apart" to console and comfort her?

For one thing I would convince her, if I could, that God did not want her daddy to abuse her! He did that out of his own wickedness!


Do you not understand the necessity of opposites? In order to truly love a person must be free to not love. In order to choose to do right a person must be free to choose to do evil.

 

[elected4ever]

I thought you were Elected 4 EVER?????
Hey, Go long, E. Go long. On 4.

NFL on this earth. I am elected 4 ever.

 

[elected4ever]

It is not God, who's world view hinges on Him knowing the winner ahead of time! Seems to me that, if God is a sports fan, He would rather just enjoy the game.

Your only mad because He wont tell you who the winner is. Oh yea, He did tell us. All who believe in Him are winners.

 

[Nang]

I have a question on divine omniscience and God learning. Maybe you've gone over this before.

If God learns because He is a living being then how does God create? How does He learn how to create or how is it that He would already know how to create the universe especially since the creation does not yet exist and the universe is obviously very complex? It seems that He would have had to somehow gain that knowledge.


This may have an obvious answer but I don't know it.

The answer is Scriptural. There is nothing God needs to learn. He certainly does not learn or need instruction from His creatures . . .but they learn and receive all instruction from Him.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." I Cor. 2:16

"Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? . . ." Job 40:2

 

[Philetus]

Er, my 'we' was inclusive (ya git!).

It probably has more to do with being a nerd than theological position. Ask B. Hill, you know what I mean-I love my books (yeah, thick glasses too. But NO pocket protector!). <-g

For me it’s trifocals. I’ll bet I have three times as many books as you do.:ha:

I have a pocket protector that I don't use ... you can have it.

I should have used the smilie on my 'WE'!:bang:

 

[Philetus]

So you are saying the OV answer is: Pain and suffering happens in order for men to be "free?"

"Free" to what? "Free" to sin, and cause more suffering and pain?

Or "free" to somehow to alleviate suffering and pain?

Please, someone tell me, how man supposedly possessing "free" will has achieved the latter in the slightest degree. How have supposed "free" agents improved the plight of all societies? How come men with "free" wills have not willfully stopped wars, willfully prevented disease, or willfully solved the problem of universal death?


Nang

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
Stop that!
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: I can't :bang: :bang: :bang:

What would the OV'ers have said to the young lady whose "world was coming apart" to console and comfort her?

Stay away from Calvinists!

 

[elected4ever]

:

Stay away from Calvinists!

Bad advice Philetus. It is time you learned that all calvinist are not the same just as all OVers are not the same.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by Philetus

Stay away from Calvinists!

Bad advice Philetus. It is time you learned that all calvinist are not the same just as all OVers are not the same.

I have a good friend. He is a Christian and legally blind so I sometimes read books to him. For about four years we have been debating the Views of Open Theism (long before I ever heard the term or had read any Open Theists. I first heard the term when I joined TOL.) He would adamantly defend the Calvinist's position even when he lived otherwise and admitted so.

Until recently the only church he had attended was Calvinistic. When I read him the five points (tulip from a book HE asked for) he said ”no way!” and said that’s not Calvinism. He is typical. He had never heard anything but … and never heard or thought through the whole thing. Once he had, he wasn’t one anymore.

All Calvinists are either just duped or duped dupers. (AMR is a super duper duped duper. He teaches it for money. ) Maybe if the former just really read closely the material of the later they would realize it. They sure can’t hear any thing else if all they hang with are Calvinists.

The girl in the above illustration needs to know that the abuse she suffered was NOT God's will for her, it was the expressed will of a sin sick man.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe the above to be the assumption? That is, you believe God, when He intervenes, will not override the free will of His creatures.

I believe that God has the power to remove our will (He could zap us into some sort of zombie state of existence) if He wanted to.

Although I see no evidence of that in the Bible. That doesn't seem to be God's M.O. (so to speak)

Therefore... I am not sure if I agree or disagree with your stated examples, it seems like I would be likely to disagree with the first (Bassinger) yet agree with the second (Sanders and Hasker) since their statement merely refers to God having that ability.

Without getting an entire context it's kinda hard to say.

I will however, unequivocally state my own position....

- God has the power to remove our will
- God does not typically (if ever) remove our will