ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Ironically, Islam and Calvinism have deterministic, fatalistic components. The future is fixed and everything is God's will, including heinous evil.

Otherwise, of course, Calvinism is Christian in the essentials and Islam/Allah is false in belief and god.

 

[Nang]

Otherwise, of course, Calvinism is Christian in the essentials and Islam/Allah is false in belief and god.

And yet you would dare to equate them!!!

Bah!

Shame on you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ironically, Islam and Calvinism have deterministic, fatalistic components. The future is fixed and everything is God's will, including heinous evil.

Otherwise, of course, Calvinism is Christian in the essentials and Islam/Allah is false in belief and god.

Godrulz's robo-post #6. Man you are so deep. :nono:

 

[godrulz]

And yet you would dare to equate them!!!

Bah!

Shame on you.

Context. Islam believes in one God and Christianity and Judaism believe in one God. This is a common monotheistic belief, but it does not mean I am equating them as equally true or valid. Islam is a false religion. Christianity, even Calvinism, is a true religion.

Equating on the point of determinism is not saying the rest of the stuff is on the same level.

I am not the first Christian to notice this. C. Gordon Olson, respected missiologist, noted this point. He has extensive dealings with Calvinism and Islam (book was 'Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An inductive mediate theology of salvation').

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz's robo-post #6. Man you are so deep. :nono:

Do you have a kite?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you have a kite?

Feel better? You always need the last word. Instinct drives and compels you. Have you ever read a post that you did not have two superficial sentences at the ready to vomit forth? (This is rhetorically asked, so no response is needed or wanted.)

Hurry now, do what you are irrevocably compelled to do. Get the last word in so we can move on.

 

[Philetus]

Do you have a kite?

:rotfl:

That says so much.

 

[Philetus]

Hurry now, do what you are irrevocably compelled to do. Get the last word in so we can move on.

Hurry now, do what you are irrevocably compelled to do. Put everybody on ignore so we can move on.

 

[Lighthouse]

No! Not because he was dualistic - separating the spirit and the flesh, but because Christ didn't sin! (And don't even speculate as to whether or not he could have. It's irrelevant to the issue here.) Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh - one whole person. Your dualistic view messes with the ontological arguments and borders on gnosticism. And your earlier comment to Clete makes it obvious to everyone you don't understand 'dualism'.

And another thing while I'm at it: I believe in eternal security as long as one continues in the faith. In Christ one can only forfeit their salvation intentionally! Blaspheme the Spirit, reject the Gospel, walk away from and turn their back on God and renounce their savior. (It isn't done by just sinning; actual or imagined, so don't go there.) It is done by an act of the will and it is the most asinine thing a child of God could do. But, I believe that when we come to Christ we don’t check our brains or our wills at the door. God continues to respect both.

Philetus

Firstly, Knight asked us to stay on topic, so we will have to discuss this elsewhere. Secondly, You have no idea why I asked the question I did.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know! I don't like the "both/and" thing much either and the only reason it works in this case is because for a being that has always existed there is no first act, no moment in time when He became righteous. God has both always been righteous and always acted righteous, neither came before the other.

And yet His righteous act is not what makes Him righteous. Nor is His righteousness what makes His acts righteous. He acts righteously because He is righteous, though.

Exactly! It was theoretically possible for God to have done otherwise. This is what makes God's action meaningful. If God isn't free then who cares what He does or doesn't do? There is no virtue in an unchosen action.

Agreed.

No. I mean that the when someone says that you are righteous, there is a righteous action which makes it so, whether that actions is in thought, word, or deed. To be righteous means that one chooses to act in the best interests of others. That's what the word means and so if you divorce the word righteous from willful action (whether in thought or deed) then you strip the word of its meaning. Thus God is righteous because He chooses to act in the best interests of those in relationship with Him. At one time this selfless relationship existed only within the Trinity but since creation it has multiplied to include the whole of that creation.

Huh?

There is no such creature that exists who's sins are forgiven who is not also both righteous and saved.

Are you sure of that?

Don't ignore the context of the passage in order to force it to say something that it doesn't intend to say. The whole theme of the Bible is about God providing a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins Lighthouse! How in the world does one get to a point where they cannot see that?

In fact, I am not even going to debate this with you. Its asinine. If you end up in Hell its because of your own sin. If you think otherwise then you need to put on the brakes and say wait just a damn minute. How in the crap did I get so far off track that I could except that God would send anyone to Hell for any other reason other than their own sin? The Bible is not written in some sort of code. It's really easy to understand if you just read it and make even the smallest effort toward staying on the same page as the Author. When you get to a place where your theology is so convoluted and complex that you find yourself arguing about such simple to understand principles, use it as a red flag to signal that something has gone terribly wrong.

It's as simply as this. You are guilty of sin that you yourself chose to perform. Christ died and redeemed the whole human race from Adam's sin and so no one will be punished for the sin of their father's but your own sin will not be washed away by Christ's blood unless you humble yourself and ask God to do so acknowledging your need for a savior. If you do that then God will quickly forgive you of your sin and you will be declared righteous on the basis of Christ's action on your behalf. But if one fails to do that then God will not apply to sacrifice to their sin and they will be made to pay their own debt - their own SIN debt.

That's the gospel and that's it. Take it or leave it. I will not debate it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:think:

You may have a point.

 

[Yorzhik]

"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 perceptive will of God.

No, it's related to the decretive will of God and God's provincial control. We can get to God's perceptive will later.

AMR continues:

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.

I read the link. Not only does it not answer the question, but I responded to it in that thread and you didn't respond back. In that thread, the question I had in my response was "Does God know His decretive will, and can God communicate?". I think the question is rhetorical, but it leaves us with valid reasons to question if you are proposing a God that can do the logically absurd.

Also, it seems to me that you think I just don't understand the concepts of decretive/perceptive will or foreknowing/foreordaining events or that providence and decree are not the same. I get them. I lived them for a great number of years of my adult life. It's just that you should acknowledge that I have valid reasons for disagreeing with these concepts.

Now; The question remains: "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not exhaustively decreed but simply allowed to happen in its own time? How do you square those two?" You simply cannot waive a magic wand and invoke perceptive will; it isn't in the scenario you describe. What you have described is a scenario wherein the mechanism that brings about the execution of God's decrees is exhaustive, that everything must have a decree falling under God's providence, but then you turn around and also say that there is not a decree in this situation.

Of course, you can invoke God's perceptive will, but only if God's perceptive will is the mechanism that allows God to do the logically absurd. If you simply want to say "God can do the logically absurd", that's fine!

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.

Thanks for the distinction. I would only be concerned if the causes of a choice, whether it be from antecedent or proximate causes, exist. Do these causes exist, and is God the first cause? Does God know His decretive will? Can God communicate? Can you answer questions directly?

AMR continues:

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.

When you say "God is ultimately responsible for all things" do you mean that God is responsible for all events? And there is no trap here, I will follow up and ask if the choice to commit the first sin was an event. And if you don't mean that God is responsible for all events, then what do you include in "all things"?

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.

I was going to split up these sentences, but I want to make context as easy as possible for the reader.

You mention 2 types of causation proximate and antecedent, and then say Adam's choice was caused by… Adam's will? If you mention the 2 types of causation, then please follow it with a reason for mentioning it. Say "As above, we must distinguish between proximate and antecedent causation. Adam's choice was caused by proximate causes." or "As above, we must distinguish between proximate and antecedent causation. Adam's choice was caused by antecedent causes." and then we can see your point clearly and move on to which of these types of causes were started with the First Cause - God.

The second part of your quote "That God foreknew Adam would sin in no way makes God the author of Adam's choice." brings the questions again; Does God know His decretive will? Can God communicate?

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.

I'm not conflating the providence and decree of God. And thanks for explaining again so I can be crystal clear that I'm not conflating the two.

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.

So you don't agree that God is the first cause? Or you don't agree that if one event is outside of one's control, then events following that uncontrolled event may also be outside of one's control?

Do you agree with one but not the other?

What premise is not factual?

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:

Don't worry, there's no need to go into any supra/infra discussion. I know which one you believe and we'll stick with that one for this discussion.

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.

"If Adam had sinned at some other time", then at the time he was foreseen to sin that wasn't some other time... he would have been doing something else. So, to say that "the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place." could not also be true.

I'll state my position clearly: if you have exhaustive foreknowledge combined in the first cause, it is equal in every way to foreordaining. That would be obviously true for beings like ourselves, but for any other being to avoid it would require that they can perform the logically absurd.

I would also say that if God cannot have a new thought, then He is obviously, Himself, a part of the watch made by the Divine Watchmaker UNLESS God can do the logically absurd. And it's OKAY for you to believe that, just don't insist that people that believe the OV don't have legitimate concerns that the SV is hogwash/hooey/wrong. Rather, you can say, "thanks brother for your concerns, I see now that my view of the nature of God, something that is foundational to all that I teach, has some serious problems."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Now; The question remains: "Nothing is outside of God's provincial control, but there was an event that was not exhaustively decreed but simply allowed to happen in its own time? How do you square those two?" You simply cannot waive a magic wand and invoke perceptive will; it isn't in the scenario you describe.

(When quoting please add the links to the quotes you are using. The context of this post is here.)

I do not follow the point you are making. Where have I ever stated that God "allows [something] to happen in its own time"? What is this "event" that you are referring to?

Thanks for the distinction. I would only be concerned if the causes of a choice, whether it be from antecedent or proximate causes, exist. Do these causes exist, and is God the first cause? Does God know His decretive will? Can God communicate? Can you answer questions directly?

God is the first cause, while the proximate cause of the actions of His creatures are His creatures self-determined wills. God knows His will, comprising decretive and preceptive aspects. God communicates analogically (and not exhaustively) through His special revelation, the Scriptures.

When you say "God is ultimately responsible for all things" do you mean that God is responsible for all events? And there is no trap here, I will follow up and ask if the choice to commit the first sin was an event. And if you don't mean that God is responsible for all events, then what do you include in "all things"?

Yes, God is ultimately responsible, as the first cause, for all events, including Adam's self-determined choice to sin. But no matter how hard you press the matter, you won't make God the author of the proximate sinful actions of His self-determined creatures.

So you don't agree that God is the first cause? Or you don't agree that if one event is outside of one's control, then events following that uncontrolled event may also be outside of one's control?

God is the first cause of all things. There are no events outside of God's providential control, so I do not agree that an "uncontrolled event" exists.

"If Adam had sinned at some other time", then at the time he was foreseen to sin that wasn't some other time... he would have been doing something else. So, to say that "the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place." could not also be true.

You misunderstand. Adam's actions, no matter when they take place are foreseen, for the fact that they are foreseen means they took place, whenever in fact they did take place. You are trying to cast an absurd scenario that is impossible. "If Adam sinned at some other time" is irrelevant, for no matter when Adam sinned, God foresaw the time and place and circumstances. How else could God have foreseen? You cannot divorce the two by making Adam into a free radical in the universe.

I'll state my position clearly: if you have exhaustive foreknowledge combined in the first cause, it is equal in every way to foreordaining.

I think you are trying to say, equivalently, God foreknows because He has foreordained. To this I agree. Indeed, foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. Since all these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled. Nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass. But God’s foreordination and foreknowledge implies certainty, for what God decides to happen will happen and, as a consequence, God certainly knows what He has decided.

(remaining ad hominem deleted - please recast in the form of a question or cogent assertion)

 

[Ktoyou]

Some of this is a little steep for me, given my addle minded condition. What I think you are saying is Adam is self-determined within a limited horizon, but not capable of altering his nature.

 

[RobE]

Some of this is a little steep for me, given my addle minded condition. What I think you are saying is Adam is self-determined within a limited horizon, but not capable of altering his nature.

This is central to the argument. All things act according to their nature unless an outside force intervenes(coerces their nature). Open theology rejects the idea that God might know(fore-know) a man's actions. This is based on the misconception that knowledge of those actions would make the 'knower' responsible for those actions.

Obviously, the 'knower' isn't responsible unless he intervenes(coerces) and creates the actions/outcomes. Our Creator certainly chose to continue with creation despite foreknowing that sin would occur --- Because His purpose was greater than suffering. Those sins were however self-determined by the natures of the ones who would commit them.

 

[godrulz]

God can foreknow possible actions, but only knows them as actual when they are actualized in the present (the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present). Anything less is determinism/fatalism and denies any sense of freedom.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God can foreknow possible actions, but only knows them as actual when they are actualized in the present

:squint:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:squint:

What is it about godrulz statement that you don't understand?

 

[Servo]

God can foreknow possible actions, but only knows them as actual when they are actualized in the present (the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present). Anything less is determinism/fatalism and denies any sense of freedom.

There is a steak in my freezer and steak sounds kind of good for dinner. I just bought some more BBQ briquettes. Yet going to Chipotle sounds intriguing as well. Fish tacos? :vomit:

I wonder what God can determine from this knowledge.

 

[Nang]

There is a steak in my freezer and steak sounds kind of good for dinner. I just bought some more BBQ briquettes. Yet going to Chipotle sounds intriguing as well. Fish tacos? :vomit:

I wonder what God can determine from this knowledge.

Who provided the steak, briquettes, chipotle, and fish tacos from which you can decide?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is it about godrulz statement that you don't understand?

I am squinting to find some meat behind GR's robo-response #17, that's all.