ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

If God is not in control of every charmed quark in the universe, then we have no hope that what He says He can accomplish. For if God must release sovereign control, and grant autonomy to anything or anyone, then we have no guarantee that He will know when to act or what to do when He makes a reasoned guess to act. God becomes a great probabilistic handicapper, betting He gets it right and regrouping when He misses the mark (Curses! Those pesky autonomous free agents have struck again). And don't give me this, well, "God is wise, powerful, and loving" as the hope it will all work out, for nothing therein passes any logical test for asserting certainty in any outcome, given the autonomy you’ve assumed in His creatures.

Do you believe that God is Omnipotent?

Muz

 

[Philetus]

RobE: A perfect plan yields perfect results whether we're able to understand the process or not.

'Perfect results' suggests perfect execution of the plan, as well. Even so, sometimes an architect has to be on the job to ensure the building gets built according to his plan.

God has a perfect plan. What God doesn't have is perfect players on the team (us). We don't always execute the plays perfectly. Nevertheless, God is able to adjust and continue on to achieve the results of His original intent and purpose. God never fails! We do! The question is: How then does God include us in His plans to archive His goals without compromising who He is or who we are? By grace God extends the invitation and opportunity and we respond through faith by following His plan as best we can.

Where in the world have you been? I haven't thought of you in months.

 

[Philetus]

If God truly predestined everybody and preordained everything then there is no need for anything. We are but pre-programmed automatons running a program that was loaded before we were born. There is no need for a savior for all were predestined for heaven or hell from the beginning anyway. There is no sin because everything you say/do/think/feel was put there by God. No options. No deviation. No hope.

Calvinism is a the most depressing interpretation of the Bible I have ever seen. It offers no hope. Either God liked you or He didn't. No appeals. No second chance. No hope.

:thumb:
And NO relationship!
Yeah, it kind’a reduces everything to melodrama: a dramatic or literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict.

 

[Philetus]

What exactly is this "power" that respects a creature's ability to do otherwise, yet can somehow assert, "My will be done"?

love

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If God truly predestined everybody and preordained everything then there is no need for anything. We are but pre-programmed automatons running a program that was loaded before we were born. There is no need for a savior for all were predestined for heaven or hell from the beginning anyway. There is no sin because everything you say/do/think/feel was put there by God. No options. No deviation. No hope.

Calvinism is a the most depressing interpretation of the Bible I have ever seen. It offers no hope. Either God liked you or He didn't. No appeals. No second chance. No hope.

Excellent post! :up:

Not only do us humans have no hope if all of the future is settled but God Himself cannot hope if all of the future is settled.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God knows everything that will happen, with the implication that He is therefore responsible for everything and we have no free-will.

We are self-determined, choosing according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we choose. We are not autonomous from God's providential control of His creation.

God is dynamically resolving at run-time in response to our free-will, with the implication that He is not in absolute control.

Yes, according to unsettled theism God must act with incomplete knowledge for His creatures are purportedly autonomous. God is the Survivor God - outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting, sometimes surprised and incorrect in what He thinks will happen probabilistically.

Not sure which camp it puts me in but I have always summed up my perspective thus: God's power is limited only by His will. A bit simplistic but it's the impression I get from studying the Bible.

This might be naive on my part but why can't it be both? That is : God resolves according to our free-willed choices, He just always knew what those choices would be (due to his unique perspective).

Depends on what you thing "free-willed" means. No creature of God can act autonomously from God.

 

[Lighthouse]

This came up in another thread a couple of months ago. I cited Matthew 26 as evidence of God's foreknowledge of even what others would do out of their own free will, and the answer I got was basically "God can know what someone is going to do, but that's not foreknowledge."

Okay.....

It's not exhaustive foreknowledge. There are many times where God says He does not know what someone will do of their own free will.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you believe that God is Omnipotent?

Muz

Is there a point you want to make? Then make it in your post, something like, "Do you believe God is omnipotent, for if you do then...."

Life is too short for playing twenty questions blindly. Get on with it, muz.

 

[themuzicman]

Is there a point you want to make? Then make it in your post, something like, "Do you believe God is omnipotent, for if you do then...."

Life is too short for playing twenty questions blindly. Get on with it, muz.

I find it odd that, if you believe that God is omnipotent, that you say He couldn't accomplish His purposes without fixing every moment of history, every decision, every event, beforehand.

Seems to me that you minimize God's omnipotence when you say that He couldn't handle a world where free will exists.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

I find it odd that, if you believe that God is omnipotent, that you say He couldn't accomplish His purposes without fixing every moment of history, every decision, every event, beforehand.

Seems to me that you minimize God's omnipotence when you say that He couldn't handle a world where free will exists.

Muz

Exactamungo.

Being omnipotent does not mean God always does what He could do nor does it have to mean brute force in His dealings with man. God could squish us like bugs, but He does not. God could have created a deterministic universe, but He did not. God created significant others and voluntarily limited His omnipotence and exhaustive foreknowledge. Why? Love is not divorced from power or freedom.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I find it odd that, if you believe that God is omnipotent, that you say He couldn't accomplish His purposes without fixing every moment of history, every decision, every event, beforehand.

Seems to me that you minimize God's omnipotence when you say that He couldn't handle a world where free will exists.

Could God have created a different world than He did? Could God, when He acts goodly, do so and display even greater goodness? Of course. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what God in fact did, not what He could have done. You reason from your will, not from the revelations of God to His creation. Unsettled theists have absolutely no biblical warrants to create doctrines that deny God's complete sovereignty, providence, and His exhaustive omniscience. Every single doctrine of open theism begins with a humanistic perspective on what God "should" be like, what God "should" do, that God "should" be egalitarian, that His creatures "are" autonomous. Open theists start from within themselves and proceed to reason upwards to God, philosophizing away Almighty God, when the Scriptures are the revelation of God seeking man for His own glory. Forget about what you think and start considering what God has told you.

Being omnipotent does not mean God always does what He could do nor does it have to mean brute force in His dealings with man. God could squish us like bugs, but He does not. God could have created a deterministic universe, but He did not. God created significant others and voluntarily limited His omnipotence and exhaustive foreknowledge. Why? Love is not divorced from power or freedom.

All nice sentimentalities. Focus on what God did, not what He could have done, for "could have done" is utterly irrelevant and mere human wishful thinking. Your notions of God's love would have a person believe that God was compelled to create the universe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[Nang]

. God created significant others

"Significant others?" Odd choice of words, for the term is used to denote persons living together who are not legally joined in marriage. You know, like . . .fornicators!

and voluntarily limited His omnipotence and exhaustive foreknowledge.

I cannot think of a single Scripture that would support this notion.

Do you really think God Almighty compartmentalizes His consciousness; switching it on and off; going back and forth between knowing all and knowing nothing?

Why? Love is not divorced from power or freedom.

What, exactly, is your point?

Love doesn't get turned off and on, but Godly power and wisdom are on a light switch?

 

[themuzicman]

Could God have created a different world than He did? Could God, when He acts goodly, do so and display even greater goodness? Of course. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what God in fact did, not what He could have done. You reason from your will, not from the revelations of God to His creation. Unsettled theists have absolutely no biblical warrants to create doctrines that deny God's complete sovereignty, providence, and His exhaustive omniscience. Every single doctrine of open theism begins with a humanistic perspective on what God "should" be like, what God "should" do, that God "should" be egalitarian, that His creatures "are" autonomous. Open theists start from within themselves and proceed to reason upwards to God, philosophizing away Almighty God, when the Scriptures are the revelation of God seeking man for His own glory. Forget about what you think and start considering what God has told you.

This has got to be the most inaccurate description of Open View Theism I've seen yet. One thing that OVT cannot be accused of is not basing its foundations in Scripture. You may disagree with some of the exegesis. That's fine. But OVT is clearly founded upon and in Scripture. This isn't about what we'd like God to be, but about what God says about Himself in Scripture.

And personally, my efforts are founded around doing good exegesis of Scripture, and founding doctrines and beliefs in the text of Scripture.

My question was based upon what you claimed God could not do:

If God is not in control of every charmed quark in the universe, then we have no hope that what He says He can accomplish.

My question and subsequent comment were designed to expose what you think of God's omnipotence. First you say that He cannot accomplish anything without meticulous control, now you turn tail and run away from it, throwing a straw man behind you as you go.

Which is it, Mr. Religion? Could God accomplish His purpose in a world of Free will or not?

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And personally, my efforts are founded around doing good exegesis of Scripture, and founding doctrines and beliefs in the text of Scripture.

We have all witnessed what you claim to be as your mantra, muz. Your written words do not back up your assertions.

My question and subsequent comment were designed to expose what you think of God's omnipotence. First you say that He cannot accomplish anything without meticulous control, now you turn tail and run away from it, throwing a straw man behind you as you go.

A perfect example of your interpretive 'skills'. Nothing in what I have said claims otherwise. God is Sovereign or He is not the God. You read into things too often, that's not exegesis.

Which is it, Mr. Religion? Could God accomplish His purpose in a world of Free will or not?

If free will means "to do otherwise", that is to be autonomous, God could only probabilistically hope to accomplish His purposes. The logic is inescapable for every single one of His autonomous creatures could, probabilistically speaking, "do otherwise".

If you can do otherwise you admit the possibility (the probability) that everyone can just say "no" to God's purposes. I don't care how infinitesimal the probability may be, only that it exists. For your way of thinking the likelihood must indeed exist.

 

[themuzicman]

If free will means "to do otherwise", that is to be autonomous, God could only probabilistically hope to accomplish His purposes. The logic is inescapable for every single one of His autonomous creatures could, probabilistically speaking, "do otherwise".

If you can do otherwise you admit the possibility (the probability) that everyone can just say "no" to God's purposes. I don't care how infinitesimal the probability may be, only that it exists. For your way of thinking the likelihood must indeed exist.

Just to be clear: You're saying that if God created a world where there was Free Will among His creations, God would be unable to accomplish His purpose.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Just to be clear: You're saying that if God created a world where there was Free Will among His creations, God would be unable to accomplish His purpose.

No, that is not what I am saying. Here is what I am saying:

Given the probabilistic nature of God’s future actions, for unsettled theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either:

(1) God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will.

-or-

(2) Unsettled theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty.

Choose door #1 and those persons whose "free will" (previously defined) is overridden are no longer responsible for their sins since unsettled theism holds that "free will" (previously defined) explains God's holding them personally responsible. Thus my point is made: unsettled theism misunderstands the doctrines of "free will" and God's sovereignty.

Choose door #2 and our discussion is over and my original point is made: unsettled theism's doctrinal notions of a 'competent' God offers no irrevocable assurances of the eschaton being realized.

 

[themuzicman]

No, that is not what I am saying. Here is what I am saying:

Given the probabilistic nature of God’s future actions, for unsettled theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either:

(1) God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will.

-or-

(2) Unsettled theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty.

Choose door #1 and those persons whose "free will" (previously defined) is overridden are no longer responsible for their sins since unsettled theism holds that "free will" (previously defined) explains God's holding them personally responsible. Thus my point is made: unsettled theism misunderstands the doctrines of "free will" and God's sovereignty.

Choose door #2 and our discussion is over and my original point is made: unsettled theism's doctrinal notions of a 'competent' God offers no irrevocable assurances of the eschaton being realized.

That's simply a false dichotomy. I don't have to close either door.

All I really need to do is posit that God knows all possible courses of the future, and knows how His actions will affect those possible courses.

You see, you have a "one course of history must occur" mentality of God's purposes, when it's easy to see that there are potentially an infinite number of possible courses of the future that accomplish God's purposes.

That's one of the major differences between the "static" and "dynamic" views of knowledge and the future.

Thus, it may only be a certain probability that X course of the future will result in Y prophecy, we can posit that, given God's actions and in infinite number of possible courses, that it is certain that Y prophecy will be fulfilled, but uncertain as to whether course X1, X2, X3, X4... X course will be followed to get there, due to the possible courses based upon the free will of men.

And the other item that is a clear difference:

You believe that all things that occur are part of God's purpose and well. However, Scripture has a limited selection of items that God prophesies as His purpose, and each one of those things are certainly attainable, given God's knowledge of all possible courses of the future, knowledge of how His actions will affect those possible courses, and God's actions in that respect.

So, your assertion in this respect shows a very simple, even naive view of God, His knowledge, His power, and His creation. Once we bring in reality, a certain end from uncertain courses of the future is easy to see.

So, I ask the question again: Do you think God is unable to bring about His purposes in a world where He creates free will beings?

Muz

 

[RobE]

If God truly predestined everybody and preordained everything then there is no need for anything. We are but pre-programmed automatons running a program that was loaded before we were born.

Well, we're speaking of knowledge of what will happen(has not happened yet). When God decided to create He simply knew what the outcomes would be. The outcomes weren't real yet.

So if you are thinking of predestination in the terms of:

God said 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven it creates a little confusion on the subject.​

The correct mindset is to think of predestination in these terms:

When God created He knew that 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven. Should God have avoided creating for the sake of 'A' and denied 'B' his place in paradise?​

There is no need for a savior for all were predestined for heaven or hell from the beginning anyway. There is no sin because everything you say/do/think/feel was put there by God. No options. No deviation. No hope.

Not really. God knew what you would say/do/think/feel, but those things were extensions of your own nature, and not pre-programmed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, we're speaking of knowledge of what will happen(has not happened yet). When God decided to create He simply knew what the outcomes would be. The outcomes weren't real yet.

So if you are thinking of predestination in the terms of:

God said 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven it creates a little confusion on the subject.​

The correct mindset is to think of predestination in these terms:

When God created He knew that 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven. Should God have avoided creating for the sake of 'A' and denied 'B' his place in paradise?​

Not really. God knew what you would say/do/think/feel, but those things were extensions of your own nature, and not pre-programmed.

From the Calvinist point of view, what I said is correct. They believe in double predestination. Calvinist theology holds that, since before the foundations of the earth were laid, God decreed A would go to hell and B would go to heaven.

They also believe the God preordained whatsoever comes to pass. That includes everything anybody would say/do/think/feel. R.C. Sproul in his book, "Chosen by God" explains in detail the Calvinistic theology. I have paraphrased but the meaning is identical.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That's simply a false dichotomy. I don't have to close either door.

All I really need to do is posit that God knows all possible courses of the future, and knows how His actions will affect those possible courses.

You see, you have a "one course of history must occur" mentality of God's purposes, when it's easy to see that there are potentially an infinite number of possible courses of the future that accomplish God's purposes.

That's one of the major differences between the "static" and "dynamic" views of knowledge and the future.

Thus, it may only be a certain probability that X course of the future will result in Y prophecy, we can posit that, given God's actions and in infinite number of possible courses, that it is certain that Y prophecy will be fulfilled, but uncertain as to whether course X1, X2, X3, X4... X course will be followed to get there, due to the possible courses based upon the free will of men.

And the other item that is a clear difference:

You believe that all things that occur are part of God's purpose and well. However, Scripture has a limited selection of items that God prophesies as His purpose, and each one of those things are certainly attainable, given God's knowledge of all possible courses of the future, knowledge of how His actions will affect those possible courses, and God's actions in that respect.

So, your assertion in this respect shows a very simple, even naive view of God, His knowledge, His power, and His creation. Once we bring in reality, a certain end from uncertain courses of the future is easy to see.

So, I ask the question again: Do you think God is unable to bring about His purposes in a world where He creates free will beings?

Muz

Before I spend the time responding, Muz, I want to make sure that this is your position. Perhaps some of your unsettled theism brethren will PM you and let you know where this is inevitably headed.