ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Saying God is greater than His creation isn't necessarily the same as saying God is 'supernatural' when you are using it to exaggerate His attributes to the state of absurdity.

Well, here, any possible exaggerations aside, if God made nature then he is supernatural.

We don't have to exaggerate God's knowledge to include what isn't knowable.

My concern is your statement that God is "not supernatural anything", I'm not concerned presently with what Open Theists may say about what is knowable.

That ought to be enough for us to place our trust in Him to accomplish HIS purposes...

Well, sometimes he doesn't, according to the Open View. Then how do you trust that when God says "I will do X", he will accomplish it? He changes his mind sometimes, and his purposes are not always accomplished, is this not your position? "I thought that..."

 

[Lon]

Lon. I disagree with your statement above. I definitely know that God(a free will agent) will not lie. I definitely know that all greyhound buses won't turn into pumpkins tommorrow. Predictive ability, prophetic ability, are the same. The difference between prediction and prophetic is just the amount of knowledge the prophet has.

I included 'what God has told us will happen' in my definition. You just restated what I said. We agree on this point. You then 'partially' disagree with me (the next point). When Chris Angel turns a bus into a pumpkin, you will be proved wrong on what you thought you knew. If God can change a greyhound bus into a pumpkin (and He can), this also defeats what you thought you 'knew.' It is reasonably close to 'foreknowledge' but not quite the same. You are stating what will 'not' happen based on laws of the universe God has set in motion. It is because of His constancy that we settle our minds on truths but it isn't exactly foreknowledge but rather simple knowledge. Foreknowledge is about future events and existence in interaction. We agree there is a difference between foreknowledge and existing knowledge.

When I go to walk, I must know that in the future I will walk. If I need to turn left in 2 miles, I must know that I will turn left in two miles. We use foreknowledge constantly. Is it always definite? No, because of the 'outside' forces which are unknown to us. We are unable to account for them in our calculations. God, however, being the inventor of all things is able to account for them, making His prediction definite.

You are disagreeing in statement but explaining agreement here. I know that two miles away a turn 'exists.' What I don't know (but can guess or predict) is I will be able to take that turn (future) when I get there. I don't 'know' that I'll be able to, it is just reasonable in routine to suspect so. Police tape, road construction, bad weather, or any other variable will show that I didn't really foreknow anything. I reasonably suspect, predict, determine, my chair will hold me up (except for the three times it broke and I had to reweld it). I'm reasonably sure that it will not break again (I used heavy duty metal and welds this time) but it is merely predictive. Any doubt whatsoever negates 'foreknowledge.' Any lapse negates foreknowledge. Only God has true foreknowledge. The only foreknowledge that isn't negated by doubt or failure is whatever God tells us 'will' happen.

Can you think of some actions we are able to definitely foreknow?

Only what God has revealed. You may say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."
What you really mean is that you 'predict' the sun will rise tomorrow based on reliable information. All our foreknowledge based on reliability is a misnomer. We reliably predict EXCEPT where God has said something is going to happen future. All the rest is uncertain therefore not 'known' by definition. Reliable predictability? Yes. Foreknowledge? No. We do not share this attribute with God. We foreknow one day the sun will cease because God told us it will. It could happen tomorrow. We can guess it will not, but again, this is prediction, not fore 'knowledge.'

Most likely without meaning to, Sanders says that God can make mistakes because He does not have foreknowledge of all things. The problem is that once we understand what foreknowledge is by definition "KNOWING future," and that we do not have this ability, any concession that God knows future negates the logic disagreement. Once God 'can' have foreknowledge, the disclaimer that He cannot know what does not exist is superflous and academic. Sanders argues against his own perceived logic.

 

[RobE]

I included 'what God has told us will happen' in my definition. You just restated what I said. We agree on this point. You then 'partially' disagree with me (the next point). When Chris Angel turns a bus into a pumpkin, you will be proved wrong on what you thought you knew. If God can change a greyhound bus into a pumpkin (and He can), this also defeats what you thought you 'knew.' It is reasonably close to 'foreknowledge' but not quite the same. Only what God has revealed. You may say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."

What you really mean is that you 'predict' the sun will rise tomorrow based on reliable information. All our foreknowledge based on reliability is a misnomer. We reliably predict EXCEPT where God has said something is going to happen future. All the rest is uncertain therefore not 'known' by definition. Reliable predictability? Yes. Foreknowledge? No. We do not share this attribute with God. We foreknow one day the sun will cease because God told us it will. It could happen tomorrow. We can guess it will not, but again, this is prediction, not fore 'knowledge.'

A matter of perspective only...... When looking back on today I noticed that the Greyhound bus is still a bus and not a pumpkin. Therefore the position of the Thomist is acknowledged from the point of view that I am now 'outside of time' where earlier today was concerned. It also maintains the position of the Molinist in the fact that I foreknew through calculation that the bus is not now a pumpkin. It's not by action that I knew this, but through reason(or knowledge if you prefer). Is it reasonable(knowable) that I knew yesterday that Greyhounds wouldn't be pumpkins when I woke up this morning?

Prediction: Synonyms: auguring, cast, forecast, forecasting, foretelling, predicting, presaging, prognosis, prognosticating, prognostication, prophecy, soothsaying​

Foreknowledge is necessary for me to function. If I choose to perform a function without foreknowing the outcome of my action then chaos exists and I would be unable to do anything. For example, I go to take a bath and I find myself at the zoo instead because outcomes are no longer governed by actions. Things must follow laws unless God suspends those laws. My actions cause/effect are based upon those laws. I know that these laws won't fail because God decreed them to govern my environment.

Are the outcomes from my foreknowledge definite? No. Unlike God I don't have definite foreknowledge because I'm unable to understand the outside forces which come into play once I go into action. From this position if I am able to have undefinite/incomplete foreknowledge, how much more is God's ability to foreknow things?

Let's not be fooled by the arguments of the o.v.. It's common for them to say we can't know for sure; even when we reasonably(knowledgeably) can.

 

[themuzicman]

The point is that open theism's position on determination amounts to coercion.



Who's definition. Certainly this has been argued since the dawn of man.

1) Libertarian free will requires that agent X in circumstance Y at time Z be able to do A or ~A. (Defintion of LFW)
2) Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge requires that all decisions be eternally known.
3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X will do A at time Z.
4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).
5) Thus, X cannot do ~A at time Z. (4)
6) Thus, X does not have LFW (5,1)

Note that this does NOT state that EDF coerces anything. It simply states that LFW is logically impossible in the presence of EDF.​

Allright, stay with me for a moment. A modal fallacy occurs in this proof

by...inserting...a...necessary...condition...when...none...is...called...for!

Please point to where I said "must."

In fact, I did not. I didn't speak of necessity at all, but ability.

Without that fallacy in modality the proof doesn't help your position.

An example:

"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children."

True or False?

False. Paul need not have any children.

While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn't have to have any. He doesn't have to have one. He doesn't have to have two. He doesn't have to have three. He doesn't have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul's having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children.​

I understand modal logic. However, I didn't use "must."

4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).​

Where does your proof prove that x can 'only' do A.

If X does anything other than A at time Z, then #2 is false.

It's not in the supporting premise - 3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X will do A at time Z.

It's only eternally known that x will do A, not that x must do a, or the that x will have to do a. If you are saying any of these things then coercion exists(notice I didn't say must).

I never said "must', either. I'm simply pointing out the logical resolution of #2 and #3.

Sencond Example: Originally Posted by themuzicman

Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.​

An excellent example BTW.

However, this is not an example of modal logic on either count.

The mechanisms are the natural law, environment, and nature of the individual being known completely by God. God is smart, really smart. If BF Skinner is able to figure out things about human nature, etc...; then how much more is God able. He created man, his evironment, nature, well everything! Could BF Skinner make a new element? Energy? God's mind is vast. If man is able to know one thing about his fellow man, then I submit God is able to know all things about us. Do you think for a moment that man is more complex and harder to understand than the entire cosmos?

Questions aren't answers.

This is an obvious attempt to dance around the logical conclusion which looms large against you.

Well our 'pretty good idea' is a sure thing with enough knowledge. Natural law is scientific law. We just don't know that much about man's nature - like the Creator does.

However, we do know much about what God created and how God relates to it, from what God tells us about us and about Himself in Scripture. When we dump the Augustinian assumptions, it becomes clear, and OVT is the answer.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

You can't teach old dogmas new tricks.

You can't teach old dogmas new tricks.

LEE,
Your concern with my statement is concern with the Open Theist’s conviction about what is knowable and doable. Use the word ‘supernatural’ if you want. But understand that if by ‘supernatural’ you mean that God can do the absurd or know the unknowable then your distorting what the bible reveals about God. And using it in that way to refute Open Theism is just as inaccurate. I doubt you would say that having the Mind of Christ is 'supernatural' ... Christian and spiritual, but not supernatural. If you use it to describe God as acting in extra-ordinary (even miraculous) ways, then OK, I agree, but I don't think its the best way to describe the divine nature or attributes.

Again you misrepresent Open Theism! GOD ALWAYS accomplishes HIS PURPOSES! I think once again you fail to distinguish HIS PURPOSES from HIS ACTIONS. (That may be due to our poverty in saying it well.)

In the Jonah story God’s PURPOSE in sending Jonah wasn’t just to destroy Nineveh, but He could and would have. God saying he would do one thing and then doing another because of their repentance was ACCOMPLISHING HIS PURPOSES. He may change his mind and direction (immediate actions) but only in response to changing circumstances IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSES.

So, one asks, what if Nineveh had not repented? I believe God would have destroyed it as He threatened to and that the destruction of Nineveh would have served God’s purposes and moved the world closer to God’s intended goal. (Could we say then that God's purpose for Nineveh was accomplished? Some have said no. I don't know. ... That's problematic for the Open View and I'm not sure we know how to say it yet. Maybe I need to cut a new window in my own box. But, I am convinced there ain't nothing 'supernatural' about it. ) If God's purpose is to have a mutually loving relationship with us or not have one at all, is His purpose not accomplished if we freely refuse?

Had Jonah gone to Nineveh the first time, God wouldn’t have needed to cause the great fish to beach him. Had Jonah not repented he would have been whale-poop for bottom-feeders rather than a puke-covered-preacher with more to learn. Sometimes God changes His ACTIONS for the very purpose (reason/intention) of accomplishing His Purpose. After all, God has a single Purpose and unlimited resources and appropriate means for accomplishing that Purpose.

I think one of the most important things in the Book of Jonah is often overlooked. THE NINEVITES BELIEVED GOD, repented and assumed that God MAY YET RELENT. Wonder of wonders, God did and Jonah got miffed. He must have been a Calvinists. :chuckle Which goes to show you can't teach old dogmas new tricks.

Philetus

1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you." 3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
5 The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh: 7 "By the decree of the king and his nobles: 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish." 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. ​

PS Your link doesn't accurately portray Open Theism. The book of Jonah does.

 

[Lon]

A matter of perspective only...... When looking back on today I noticed that the Greyhound bus is still a bus and not a pumpkin. Therefore the position of the Thomist is acknowledged from the point of view that I am now 'outside of time' where earlier today was concerned. It also maintains the position of the Molinist in the fact that I foreknew through calculation that the bus is not now a pumpkin. It's not by action that I knew this, but through reason(or knowledge if you prefer). Is it reasonable(knowable) that I knew yesterday that Greyhounds wouldn't be pumpkins when I woke up this morning?

Prediction: Synonyms: auguring, cast, forecast, forecasting, foretelling, predicting, presaging, prognosis, prognosticating, prognostication, prophecy, soothsaying​

Foreknowledge is necessary for me to function. If I choose to perform a function without foreknowing the outcome of my action then chaos exists and I would be unable to do anything. For example, I go to take a bath and I find myself at the zoo instead because outcomes are no longer governed by actions. Things must follow laws unless God suspends those laws. My actions cause/effect are based upon those laws. I know that these laws won't fail because God decreed them to govern my environment.

Are the outcomes from my foreknowledge definite? No. Unlike God I don't have definite foreknowledge because I'm unable to understand the outside forces which come into play once I go into action. From this position if I am able to have undefinite/incomplete foreknowledge, how much more is God's ability to foreknow things?

Let's not be fooled by the arguments of the o.v.. It's common for them to say we can't know for sure; even when we reasonably(knowledgeably) can.

I think you are correct. You qualify the difference as definite vs reliable foreknowledge. It sounds similar, I just have a hard time saying I 'know' something future if there is any possibility 'I' can be wrong. I'm going to wear a different shirt tomorrow (I think). I think between us there is understanding. For me the difference is dependability/reliability rather than 'knowledge' where I 'know' something. James colors my perception:

Jas 4:13 Come now, those saying, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city and spend a year there, and we will trade and will make a profit,
Jas 4:14 who do not know of the morrow. For what is your life? For it is a vapor, which appears for a little time, and then disappears.
Jas 4:15 Instead of you saying, If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.
Jas 4:16 But now you boast in your presumptions. All such boasting is evil.

 

[RobE]

Please point to where I said "must."

In fact, I did not. I didn't speak of necessity at all, but ability.

I understand modal logic. However, I didn't use "must."

If you are unable to understand that the phrase "can only do" speaks of necessity then we have nothing further to talk about concerning your proof.

4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).
Where does your proof prove that x can 'only' do A?

If X does anything other than A at time Z, then #2 is false.

This is untrue for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we realize that #3 refers to what x is going to do compared to #4 speaking of what x is able to do. It creates a logical error within modality which is pointed out in the second example....

Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.​

or in this form:

Just because X is unwilling to(won't) do A doesn't mean X is unable to do(can't do) A.​

If X does anything other than A at time Z, then #2 is false.

Second, #2 is falsified only if "X does anything other than A at time Z", but is not false if X is able to do anything other than A which illustrates the logical fallacy behind the entire proof.

However, this is not an example of modal logic on either count.

I disagree. It's an example of the use of accurate modal logic just as....

There is no necessity in Paul's having any children or 'There's no necessity in God doing everything He is capable of.'

Questions aren't answers.

Rhetorical questions are.

This is an obvious attempt to dance around the logical conclusion which looms large against you.

It may appear that way to you in your current mindset, but the answers are there if you wish to see them. I'm willing to clarify my answers if they aren't obvious enough. Be specific please.

However, we do know much about what God created and how God relates to it, from what God tells us about us and about Himself in Scripture. When we dump the Augustinian assumptions, it becomes clear, and OVT is the answer.

Augustine was a mental powerhouse and a superb theologian. Should I dump his assumptions for those of Kant or some other latter day genius? (rhetorical question again)

 

[RobE]

The future you want to exist as settled simply doesn't exist yet.

Lee. Not to intrude too much on your discussion, but knowledge of non-existent things is a fact. I know there were passenger pigeons, I know what happened yesterday, God knows what will happen tommorrow --- Knowledge doesn't require existence of its object to exist itself.

 

[lee_merrill]

If God's purpose is to have a mutually loving relationship with us or not have one at all, is His purpose not accomplished if we freely refuse?

But this is a surprising way to explain "God always accomplishes his purposes," in this case, I do too! And so does the devil, for that matter. My purpose is to accomplish X today, or not...

I think one of the most important things in the Book of Jonah is often overlooked. THE NINEVITES BELIEVED GOD, repented and assumed that God MAY YET RELENT. Wonder of wonders, God did ...

I agree, there was an implied condition, Jonah thought so, that is why he ran off instead of going to announce impending judgment. If he had thought there was no possible repentance, he would have been on the first camel train to Nineveh, and he was upset because God did relent--"Was this not what I said back in Joppa?"

Knowledge doesn't require existence of its object to exist itself.

Yes, agreed, I was at this time skipping over this for the nonce, lest the discussion diverge more than I can deal with at the moment, but thanks for making this clear.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

I think you are correct. You qualify the difference as definite vs reliable foreknowledge. It sounds similar, I just have a hard time saying I 'know' something future if there is any possibility 'I' can be wrong. I'm going to wear a different shirt tomorrow (I think). I think between us there is understanding. For me the difference is dependability/reliability rather than 'knowledge' where I 'know' something. James colors my perception:

I understand your distinction as well. It's just hard to maintain our thinking when we are truly asking ourselves if this new theology could be true. Keeping an 'open' :chuckle: mind about things when seeking the truth is difficult when the people you're trying to discuss things with have things 'settled' in their own minds. I find open theists are like smokers who quit. Once they make up their mind they can't re-open it for what they used to believe. In most cases, I believe they never had a firm understanding of what they believed before. Personally, I'm much more reluctant to move on theological issues because I've heard so many different and appealing ones over the years. Caution is called for, but I'm still pliable since I realize that only God knows everything and I want to be able to respond to the urgings of God's Holy Spirit. The real fight comes in trying to keep myself out of the equation. There are so many things that I wish were true, but I realize I am not knowledgeable enough to always discern between Godliness and humanism these days. I think it's our society and its pressures to elevate man in this modern age. I think that Augustine and the early teachers had it easier(in a way) without those influences which we face. Anyway, I appreciate your candidness and I understand that language isn't sufficient to express our thoughts completely. God Bless you and yours. Now back to the discussion.

Your brother in Christ,
Rob Mauldin

 

[lee_merrill]

Now that it seems we agree that God changed his response, but did not change his overall plan with regard to the Ninevites, may we also say this could be the case in the other instances where the Open View says God changed his mind?

For example in the case of Moses here:

Exodus 32:10-11,14 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. "O Lord," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?" ... Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Could it be that God's overall plan was, as in the case of the Ninevites, to show mercy? In fact, Moses even states that judgment was not God's plan here:

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also. It was not his will to destroy you.

So then in the instances where we read of God relenting, we need not say God changed his mind, we need not even insist on a statement such at Dt. 10:10 in order to say God might have had as his plan, the outcome that actually occurred--given these two examples where the same language is used of God relenting (i.e. the use of "nacham").

Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words. (Isa. 31:2)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

If you are unable to understand that the phrase "can only do" speaks of necessity then we have nothing further to talk about concerning your proof.

You need some work in your modal logic.

Let's say that you are required to choose between two cars to buy, and you had to decide in the next 5 minutes. However, while you were pondering your decision, I bought one of them, and drove away. You are now unable to buy the car that I drove away within the next 5 minutes (assuming you couldn't catch me.)

Now, does that mean, from a modal perspective, that it is necessary for you to buy the other car? No. It just means that you're unable to do otherwise.

Inability without necessity.

This is untrue for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we realize that #3 refers to what x is going to do compared to #4 speaking of what x is able to do. It creates a logical error within modality which is pointed out in the second example....

Again, we're not talking necessity, but ability, as I pointed out in my example. There is no way for X to do ~A at time Z and for us to retain the truth of #2 and #3. If you can demonstrate how #2 and #3 can be true, and yet #4 be false, please show us.

Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.​

or in this form:

Just because X is unwilling to(won't) do A doesn't mean X is unable to do(can't do) A.​

[/quote]

This is a strawman. I've never spoken of what X is willing to do.

But that's not the issue, here. The issue is whether A is able.

Exactly. Demonstrate how #2 and #3 can be true, and #4 be false.

Second, #2 is falsified only if "X does anything other than A at time Z", but is not false if X is able to do anything other than A which illustrates the logical fallacy behind the entire proof.

That's not what the proof says.

I disagree. It's an example of the use of accurate modal logic just as....

No, you fail to grasp the difference between ability and necessity.

Rhetorical questions are.

But your questions weren't rhetorical.

Augustine was a mental powerhouse and a superb theologian. Should I dump his assumptions for those of Kant or some other latter day genius? (rhetorical question again)

Rhetorical questions have obvious answers, for which this one does not...

Unless, of course, you bow at the feet of Augustine as inerrant, and are unwilling to think critically about what he's said.




Tell you what.. Let's have a little test:

Let's assume that God has eternally and definitely known that you will use the word "superfluous" in your next post (which would fit #2 and #3.) Please maintain the truth of #2 and #3 for this example, and demonstrate your ability to do otherwise.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Now that it seems we agree that God changed his response, but did not change his overall plan with regard to the Ninevites, may we also say this could be the case in the other instances where the Open View says God changed his mind?

For example in the case of Moses here:

Exodus 32:10-11,14 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. "O Lord," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?" ... Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Could it be that God's overall plan was, as in the case of the Ninevites, to show mercy? In fact, Moses even states that judgment was not God's plan here:

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also. It was not his will to destroy you.

So then in the instances where we read of God relenting, we need not say God changed his mind, we need not even insist on a statement such at Dt. 10:10 in order to say God might have had as his plan, the outcome that actually occurred--given these two examples where the same language is used of God relenting (i.e. the use of "nacham").

Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words. (Isa. 31:2)

Blessings,
Lee

I'm not sure we agree, Lee.

God's over all plan includes His desire to show mercy. Always! So why doesn't He? Human contingencies! He doesn't show mercy irregardless of human actions and attitudes. He shows mercy to the humble and it takes some longer than others to get humble. A settled (known) future requires the kind of speculation you inadvertently confess in your posts; you want so badly for God to know the future that you presume on the text's meaning that God couldn’t possibly know the future and change His thinking toward present circumstances. But the texts reveal that God does change His mind about/ His stance toward humans on the basics of their response to His warnings and promises.

"the Lord listened to me at this time also"

God was open to the attitude and actions of the Ninevites as He was open to the attitude and actions of the Hebrews on many occasions. He is open to us now. God listens to us! There is no getting around that fact. Nothing changes the overall (ultimate) plan or goals of God, but everything influences the immediate actions/responses of divine involvement. God changed His 'mind' or maybe better said, God 'made His mind up' in direct response to the actions, prayers, and/or repentance/lack of repentance of human beings. Still does.

The text leaves no doubt that God intended to destroy Nineveh. He didn't. God relented. And as you pointed out, Jonah knew or at least suspected God had that prerogative. Even the Ninevites knew or at least hoped this to be the case. Scripture is full of occasions where God has 'made up His mind’ to do a certain thing and doesn't do it because He listens to the pleas, prayers, repentance of His servants. In those particular situations God indeed changes His intended actions; God changes His mind without changing His nature or His over all goals for creation.

God always accomplishes His purpose of moving creation and creatures to His ultimate reign! As to whether everyone in particular will or will not embrace/enjoy God's reign remains an unknown even to God. God has made His mind up in that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. The inherent risk is that some will not 'call on His name' and therefore will be lost. The Lord listens to us at this time also.

It is not God's will that any should perish ... but some will perish none the less. God doesn't always (in each and every particular instance) get His way. Some will not repent and will perish. But God will accomplish His purpose in bringing WHOSOEVER into His eternal kingdom by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We cannot assume that it is God's purpose to make that decision for us or anyone else. We cannot presume that God has already 'made up His mind' as to who will be saved and who will parish. The Lord listens to us. The devil is in the details. The future hasn't been written but nothing will prevent God from accomplishing His ultimate purpose in Christ Jesus.

The question remains: Are we listening to God or just hearing what we want to be true?

 

[lee_merrill]

God's over all plan includes His desire to show mercy. Always! So why doesn't He?

Well, more specifically, I meant that when we read "God relented" we need not conclude that God's overall plan was reversed, now this might mean God was going to show mercy, and then his response changed to bring judgment. But the point is that "God relented" need not mean God changed his mind, that is what I am after.

"the Lord listened to me at this time also"

God was open to the attitude and actions of the Ninevites as He was open to the attitude and actions of the Hebrews on many occasions. He is open to us now. God listens to us!

Yes, I agree.

The text leaves no doubt that God intended to destroy Nineveh.

Yet we just agreed that God's overall plan was for mercy, his plan succeeded.

Scripture is full of occasions where God has 'made up His mind’ to do a certain thing and doesn't do it because He listens to the pleas, prayers, repentance of His servants. In those particular situations God indeed changes His intended actions...

Yet "Should I not be concerned?" indicates his overall intended action was for mercy, thus what God made up his mind to do was to pardon, thus the threat of judgment, intended to bring about--repentance.

It is not God's will that any should perish ... but some will perish none the less.

Unless we may hope for all to be saved, but that is another discussion.

God doesn't always (in each and every particular instance) get His way. Some will not repent and will perish.

Then God is not omnipotent, if man has power he can exercise (albeit this power being given by God) to thwart the will of God.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

God remains omnipotent even if He voluntarily limits His free exercise of power or gives limited power to other creatures. He can squash us like bugs even if we say no to some of His overtures of love to us (thwarting His will for us...it is not His will that we go to hell, yet we do). Don't be simplistic.

 

[RobE]

1) Libertarian free will requires that agent X in circumstance Y at time Z be able to do A or ~A. (Defintion of LFW)
2) Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge requires that all decisions be eternally known.
3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X will do A at time Z.
4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).
5) Thus, X cannot do ~A at time Z. (4)
6) Thus, X does not have LFW (5,1)

Your proof speaks of willingness in #3
Your proof speaks of neccessary ability in #4

So. #3 is true and #4 is false. Falsifying #5 and eventually 6.

It switches modality through the word "only".

If it's re-written without necessity then it doesn't support #5's truthfulness.

4) Thus, X can do A at time Z, (2,3).​

I completely understand the difference between necessity and ability and willingness. #3 mentions willingness with the terms 'will do'. What you haven't explained is how this transfers to #4 necessary statement 'can ONLY do'.

 

[RobE]

Exactly. Demonstrate how #2 and #3 can be true, and #4 be false.

Second, #2 is falsified only if "X does anything other than A at time Z"(which x isn't going to do because #3 is true), but is not false if X is able to do anything other than A which illustrates the logical fallacy behind the entire proof.

#3) It is eternally know that God will show mercy at the judgement seat.
#4) Thus, God can only show mercy at the judgement seat.

Does this example illustrate the problem better?

 

[themuzicman]

Second, #2 is falsified only if "X does anything other than A at time Z"(which x isn't going to do because #3 is true), but is not false if X is able to do anything other than A which illustrates the logical fallacy behind the entire proof.

So, demonstrate this for us. Do the test. Show us that you are able.

Let's assume that God has eternally and definitely known that you will use the word "superfluous" in your next post (which would fit #2 and #3.) Please maintain the truth of #2 and #3 for this example, and demonstrate your ability to do otherwise.​

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Well, more specifically, I meant that when we read "God relented" we need not conclude that God's overall plan was reversed, now this might mean God was going to show mercy, and then his response changed to bring judgment. But the point is that "God relented" need not mean God changed his mind, that is what I am after.

God changing His mind isn't an OVERALL REVERSAL OF HIS PLAN! You keep hanging up on that. What else could God relented mean, Lee? . He didn't destroy the city as He said he intended to. God changes His mind whether you do/can or not.

Yet we just agreed that God's overall plan was for mercy, his plan succeeded.

I said it is possible to understand it that way in this case ... "don't be so simplistic".
When I speak of OVERALL I'm speaking of eternal. When you say over all you seem to be referring to the big idea of going to the ice cream shop and having only strawberry because that is what God's knows you were going to do choose from the foundation of the world.
I'm arguing that in the immediate God hasn't made up His mind anymore that any of us on such matters.:noway:


Yet "Should I not be concerned?" indicates his overall intended action was for mercy, thus what God made up his mind to do was to pardon, thus the threat of judgment, intended to bring about--repentance.

Concerned? YES! But you can't dismiss the fact that GOD intended to destroy it in 40 DAYS and didn't! Something changed. Somebody ordered chocolate instead of strawberry. Go figure. It ain't that tough!

Then God is not omnipotent, if man has power he can exercise (albeit this power being given by God) to thwart the will of God.

Either quit saying that or close the lid on your box and go back to sleep. That is not the case in Open Theism! It is a difference in how God exercises His power not in how much power He has. :bang:

 

[Philetus]

God remains omnipotent even if He voluntarily limits His free exercise of power or gives limited power to other creatures. He can squash us like bugs even if we say no to some of His overtures of love to us (thwarting His will for us...it is not His will that we go to hell, yet we do). Don't be simplistic.

You want complicated? :chuckle: Polkinghorne is as open as a stuck faucet! He dances all over it with out declaring. He sides with the view that God's temporality is not imposed but kenotic; a chosen self-limitation on the part of the Creator in bringing into being an intrinsically temporal creation. I like his style and he is a thinker.