ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

They have no worth until they receive the gift. They are worthless until God gives them worth, you stupid, stupid, person.

This is your answer?

How could I have missed it?:hammer:

 

[Philetus]

That's right she has one finger on the ignore button at all times.

Don't we all.:chuckle:

 

[Mystery]

Don't we all.:chuckle:

Mine is usually just pointed at the computer. I only have one person on ignore, as requested under the sovereignty of TOL's administrator.

 

[Philetus]

Not revealed, Phil, but made possible.

Yeper. Do you mean possible or actual.

If actual .... then revealed?

 

[Mystery]

This is your answer?

How could I have missed it?:hammer:

Except I probably should have left out calling you stupid. I know it's not your fault.

 

[Mystery]

Yeper. Do you mean possible or actual.

If actual .... then revealed?

You would have to actually be in Christ for it to be actual. But, that is possible for anyone.

 

[Philetus]

Except I probably should have left out calling you stupid. I know it's not your fault.

Right, It's God's.

Good night, Mystery. Tomorrow is another day.

 

[Mystery]

Right, It's God's.

It is? :noway: You've been hanging out with Nang too long!

 

[lee_merrill]

God gave His elect worth, by choosing them in Christ before the foundation of the world, so that they might be made acceptable in the Beloved. (Eph. 1:4-6)

Who can bring any charge, then, against one of God's elect, for whom Christ died?

"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Romans 8:34

And by being in Christ, part of his body, united with his Spirit, the presence of God, the glory of God, is weighty, worthy, "Kavod" in Hebrew.

(I personally thinketh there is too much condemneth going on around here. :sigh: )

Ameneth...

 

[godrulz]

Not engaging someone is not the same as putting on ignore like an ostrich in the sand. I can read and learn without interacting with everyone. We were not mandated to block posts, but to not engage like fighting animals.

 

[Yorzhik]

Not only can "libertarian free will" not hold, but no will whatsoever.

Are we going to go down this path once more?

If all choices have a cause, and all causes can be traced back to before-me-or-you, then neither of us has a will whether it be libertarian, free, libertarian free, or free libertarian. Now, I'll admit that we can have a will if, despite all causes tracking back to God's decree, God simply declares that we have will. We can do this as humans: we can create a play and in the script the one actor will say to the other "pick a random number" and the script says the other actor will say "3", thus making the random number "3" for that instance and within the context of the play.

Yorzhik, Do you just start replying as soon as you see a post instead of continuing to read and ponder the entire post you are replying to beforehand?

No. I read your whole post, usually more than once, before I begin to reply.

AMR continues:

I told you I don't like hypothetical games with Scripture topics, yet I indulged you anyway.

In all discussions, watch out for the person that a) shy's away from generalizations b) doesn't want to allow "rules of thumb" and c) prefers not to deal with hypotheticals. That's all I meant by "telling". I knew you followed your statement with doing what you would not have preferred to do. I was even thinking of mentioning it, but I didn't think you would need to be hit over the head with an explanation of the subtle word "prefer".

AMR continues:

Are you just baiting me? Telling, indeed.

I'm not baiting you. I specifically used the word "prefer" because I saw you indulge the hypothetical.

Careful now. I know how many language lawyers are reading these posts. I purposefully crafted my statement. If you re-read, you will see that I show that while God did not decree Adam's sin, God most certainly decreed to allow man to sin through man's own self-determination.

Yes I saw how you worded it, but the question still stands clearly in context, "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not decreed? How do you square those two?" But I'll admit that I should have relied less on context by adding qualifiers. Let me restate, "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not exhaustively decreed but simply allowed to happen in it's own time? How do you square those two?"

Don't assume thusly:
If God foreknew Adam would sin, then Adam cannot refrain from sinning.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, according to you, that all choices have a cause. God is the first cause, right? He is/was the first cause before creation, right?

This is a common misunderstanding by those who do not fully understand the Reformed faith.

Good, then I'm not misunderstanding like I thought I wasn't misunderstanding.

The assumption above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Adam's moral free agency. When properly applying the doctrines, the correct statement would read:

Necessarily, if God foreknew Adam would sin, then Adam does not refrain from sinning.

Okay, I'm glad I'm not assuming as mentioned above.

Adam's choice to sin had a cause, just like our choices have a cause; and not as a matter of philosophy or theory, but in actual fact. Also, as a matter of fact, God is the first cause.

Hence, we state that

The actions of self-determining agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.
​

Your question was related to the hypothetical if Adam had sinned later than he did. As I replied, it does not matter when Adam sinned, but only that Adam did sin. The results are the same.

No. The results could not possibly be the same in the hypothetical. The hypothetical allows for all possibilities of a cascade of changes if Adam waited a minute longer, a day, year, 10 years... whatever. After his 2nd child, for that matter. Unless you are prepared to say that reality doesn't change when reality changes...

The point being that if there is an event outside of God's provincial control not decreed before the foundation of the world, then at least some events after it may no longer be in God's provincial control as decreed before the foundation of the world.

AMR continues:

Our natures are the same. The unregenerate can only sin more or sin less. The regenerated can choose to sin or not to sin. What else are you looking for in my answer? Please elaborate.

Just an acknowledgement that:
1. God is the first cause
2. If there is an event outside of God's provincial control, then at lest some events after it may no longer be in God's provincial control.

No, as explained above you were not a careful reader of my post. There is not a single charmed quark in the universe that is outside of the providential control of God.

Um... I did read your post carefully. And your post said "I hold that God did not decree the fall of man." And "God most certainly decreed to allow man to sin through man's own self-determination."

There's some charmed quark somewhere in man's determination there.

AMR continues:

What is your answer to your hypothetical question?

(Note: answer your own question up front when asking me something. You will still get my answer and it will save us both some time going round and round.)

I'll try to remember that.

My answer: If Adam had changed when he sinned, then there would be events afterward that would either conflict with God's provincial control, OR God is able to be logically absurd.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes I saw how you worded it, but the question still stands clearly in context, "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not decreed? How do you square those two?" But I'll admit that I should have relied less on context by adding qualifiers. Let me restate, "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not exhaustively decreed but simply allowed to happen in it's own time? How do you square those two?"

The distinction is related to the decretive and preceptive will of God. The former is always achieved. The latter can be thwarted by self-determining agency. In other words, what God wants (decretively) He will always get. What God desires (preceptively) may not occur. See here for a more thorough discussion. Moreover, we should not confuse providence and the decree of God. Providence is the mechanism bringing about the execution of God's decree.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, according to you, that all choices have a cause. God is the first cause, right? He is/was the first cause before creation, right?

There are proximate causes and antecedent causes. I may design (antecedent) the gun, but if you shoot someone (proximate) with it, I am not held directly responsible. Yes, as He is sovereign, God is ultimately responsible for all things, but He is not the author of sin. Fortunately, God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which He permits to exist.

Adam's choice to sin had a cause, just like our choices have a cause; and not as a matter of philosophy or theory, but in actual fact. Also, as a matter of fact, God is the first cause.

As above, we must distinguish between proximate and antecedent causation. Adam's choice was caused by his own will. That God foreknew Adam would sin in no way makes God the author of Adam's choice.

The point being that if there is an event outside of God's provincial control not decreed before the foundation of the world, then at least some events after it may no longer be in God's provincial control as decreed before the foundation of the world.

Again, we need to not conflate providence and the decree of God. As Sovereign, nothing is outside of God's providential control. However, divine providence does not impose necessity on all things, as God wills some things to occur by necessity and others by contingencies based upon the self-determining choices of His creatures. That is, God’s sovereign will is that will of God by which He purposes or decrees whatever shall come to pass, whether He wills to accomplish this effectively (causatively), or to permit it to occur through the unrestrained agency of His creatures.

Just an acknowledgement that:
1. God is the first cause
2. If there is an event outside of God's provincial control, then at least some events after it may no longer be in God's provincial control.

This would be true if these premises were factual. They are not. But I will go along with you to see where you are headed.

Um... I did read your post carefully. And your post said "I hold that God did not decree the fall of man." And "God most certainly decreed to allow man to sin through man's own self-determination."

There's some charmed quark somewhere in man's determination there.

Charmed quarks are theoretical sub-atomic particles held to be the smallest physical quantities in the universe. To decree the fall is to make it a certainty outside of the self-determined will of man. That is different from allowing the fall within the scope of self-determination. If we go further we are back to discussing supra/infra-lapsarianisms. Then I will be having this discussion with you and Nang all night long.:sigh:

My answer: If Adam had changed when he sinned, then there would be events afterward that would either conflict with God's provincial control, OR God is able to be logically absurd.

If Adam had sinned at some other time, there would be no absurdity. For the actions of self-determining agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place. In other words, Adams actions, whenever they take place, are foreseen since Adam's action was certain to take place. You cannot separate God's foreknowledge of the actions of His creatures from the actions themselves. To accomplish this feat, God would have to be an absentee landlord, the proverbial Divine Watchmaker setting things in motion and then sitting back to watch what takes place.

 

[Clete]

When was His first act? Was He made righteous by the act?

There was no first act. God has always existed and has always had an on going love relationship with the members of the Trinity thus there was never a time when God was not righteous.

I know that justice is trans-dispensational, but righteousness by account, regardless of acts, is not.

What does this have to do with the topic?

It also says that where there is no law, there is no transgression. It is on the basis of His nature. Which He imputes to us. Only righteousness can exist in Heaven, Clete. It is not because He no longer counts our sins, that we are allowed into Heaven, it is because He accounts His righteousness to us, and that is also the reason He no longer counts our sins against us.

We are only righteous IN HIM and that righteousness is based on Christ's righteous ACT. We are not declared righteous unjustly or by fiat but on the basis of the one Man's righteous ACT!!!

Would you like for me to quote that another half a dozen times?

No one goes to Hell for sin anymore, Clete.

Hell wouldn't exist but for sin and separation from God (i.e. death) is the just penalty for sin.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

I've always found it odd that, although God is immutable to the Calvinist, He can decree something as His decretive will that His prescriptive will is adamantly opposed to, and yet claim to be holy and righteous.

 

[Philetus]

I've always found it odd that, although God is immutable to the Calvinist, He can decree something as His decretive will that His prescriptive will is adamantly opposed to, and yet claim to be holy and righteous.

Yeah, I've laid awake at night wondering about that, too ... and … what ever that means ... He can't do otherwise. :sigh:

 

[Philetus]

32 Days and still Ban Free!

32 is not bad! But, it is still just SoSo.

I'm betting you make it a full 100 days, dog.:dog:

 

[Philetus]

Bold and red mine:

The distinction is related to the decretive and preceptive will of God. The former is always achieved. The latter can be thwarted by self-determining agency. In other words, what God wants (decretively) He will always get. What God desires (preceptively) may not occur. See here for a more thorough discussion. Moreover, we should not confuse providence and the decree of God. Providence is the mechanism bringing about the execution of God's decree.

There are proximate causes and antecedent causes. I may design (antecedent) the gun, but if you shoot someone (proximate) with it, I am not held directly responsible. Yes, as He is sovereign, God is ultimately responsible for all things, but He is not the author of sin. Fortunately, God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which He permits to exist.

As above, we must distinguish between proximate and antecedent causation. Adam's choice was caused by his own will. That God foreknew Adam would sin in no way makes God the author of Adam's choice.

Again, we need to not conflate providence and the decree of God. As Sovereign, nothing is outside of God's providential control. However, divine providence does not impose necessity on all things, as God wills some things to occur by necessity and others by contingencies based upon the self-determining choices of His creatures. That is, God’s sovereign will is that will of God by which He purposes or decrees whatever shall come to pass, whether He wills to accomplish this effectively (causatively), or to permit it to occur through the unrestrained agency of His creatures.

This would be true if these premises were factual. They are not. But I will go along with you to see where you are headed.

Charmed quarks are theoretical sub-atomic particles held to be the smallest physical quantities in the universe. To decree the fall is to make it a certainty outside of the self-determined will of man. That is different from allowing the fall within the scope of self-determination. If we go further we are back to discussing supra/infra-lapsarianisms. Then I will be having this discussion with you and Nang all night long.:sigh:

If Adam had sinned at some other time, there would be no absurdity. For the actions of self-determining agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place. In other words, Adams actions, whenever they take place, are foreseen since Adam's action was certain to take place. You cannot separate God's foreknowledge of the actions of His creatures from the actions themselves. To accomplish this feat, God would have to be an absentee landlord, the proverbial Divine Watchmaker setting things in motion and then sitting back to watch what takes place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this sound a lot like simple foreknowledge?:think:
Well, at least until you get to the 'Calvinistic' qualifier which complicates the heck out of everything beyond reason.

"To separate God's foreknowledge of the actions of His creatures from the actions themselves" you would have to have a divine absentee landlord ... divine watchmaker just watching ....
That is bunk!

To deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge of the actions of His creatures is to have a partially Open Future and a very involved God in the present; A most moved mover actively engaged in and with creation in order to accomplish His ultimate purposes, which He is and will!

 

[Philetus]

You would have to actually be in Christ for it to be actual. But, that is possible for anyone.

If it is possible for anyone what prevents it from being actual? What in your view constitutes being in Christ?

 

[lee_merrill]

I've always found it odd that, although God is immutable to the Calvinist, He can decree something as His decretive will that His prescriptive will is adamantly opposed to, and yet claim to be holy and righteous.

This Calvinist doesn't believe God has two wills, see here for thoughts from me on this subject...

 

[Mystery]

If it is possible for anyone what prevents it from being actual?

Rejecting the gospel.

What in your view constitutes being in Christ?

Being made alive by the Spirit.