themuzicman
Well-known member
I'm trying to remember what points haven't been properly answered. I don't recall any.
And, of course, we have compatiblism (the "average" calvinist's pipedream) taking a beating right before your eyes....
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I'm trying to remember what points haven't been properly answered. I don't recall any.
And, of course, we have compatiblism (the "average" calvinist's pipedream) taking a beating right before your eyes....
Muz
Philetus
New member
We haven't given up on the open view of the future ... we've given up on you ever grasping it. Now take your meds and after your nap feel free to put your head back in the sand.
I'm not sure what you are after. You seem to have just slump with the rest of of us in this thread. Come back Lee ... your better than your above post.
Philetus
New member
My faith is in the triune God, not the future.
I know for sure that God will change His mind and alter the future in some ways based on contingencies built into His creation. That won't prevent God from doing what He Promises.
My faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus (a settled historical fact) and the present reality of the Spirit (also a fact) and the expressed determination that God will in Christ come and get me so that where He is I may be also. Something to look forward to! ... don't you think?
God knows the future as HIS PLAN.
Glad you didn't quit just because somebody nang-reped you!
I don't even know what blind faith is. :sigh:
P
lee_merrill
New member
As in these...
Where are the responses to the verses I posted about Cyrus? And then "Before they call I will answer" is not saying God is nimble and quick to form an answer to spoken prayers because he reads thoughts(!). God does know future choices, as is also shown by prediction of future choices in Revelation.
And God does not speak and then not act, he does not promise and not fulfill, and he does not take back his words, we may take the OVT proof texts as having implied conditions--as in the case of Jonah, instead of saying God changed his overall plan.
God does plan even sinful events for good, as in the cross, as in Paul's thorn in the flesh, which was given to keep him humble, this would therefore be given by God.
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
Why is EDF necessary for "Cyrus"? You don't think God is able to get a particular person a given name? Maybe you should read the book of Luke and find out how John got his name.
Again, this doesn't require EDF. God simply needs to know all the possible courses of the future, along with how His actions will affect that course of the future. Revelation isn't a story with only one possible story line, but an apocalypse describing the kinds of events that will occur along the way.
Well, this is where we need to be intelligent in understanding God's purposes. In Ninevah, even Jonah knew beforehand that the people of Ninevah might repent, and knew that God would change His mind. If you read the book, Jonah makes that clear.
As for God's promises, our salvation is based upon faith in HIM and HIS nature and what HE has promised, and not based upon some assurance that our doctrine gives to us.
Are you saying that you're unwilling to put your faith in the God of the Universe who has promised salvation, because He might change His mind? What else are you going to do? Where are you going to go?
Muz
Yeah, the rape of 8 year old girls is really a good thing. Right. Tell that to their moms.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
My, that sounds lofty . . .but you said men are supposed to "follow" Him into the future. How can one "follow," or run the race, or endure to the end, if they don't care?
What exactly has God promised?
What historical evidence do you have that Jesus actually resurrected?
What proof do you have that the Holy Spirit is present? Can you see Him?
Where is this Godly "determination" expressed?
You said you did not place any faith in the future, so on what basis do you have something to look forward to?
Where do you get the notion God has a "plan?"
:doh:
RobE
New member
I always find it interesting that foreknowledge is often assumed in o.v. thinking.
lee_merrill
New member
So then God can bring about human choices? Yes, he certainly can, this would then be definite knowledge of the future, even in the area of human decisions, and so the future isn't "unknowable because it hasn't happened yet."
Well, that would be one escape from the dilemma, why then do we not read this in the text? Instead, "events that must soon take place" is what we read, and to say this means kinds and sorts of events is bad exegesis.
Yes--and we may view the other verses where OVT says God changed his mind, similarly!
I would think this would be a question for you to answer, I don't believe he will change his mind in the area of election to salvation.
Why is it better if there is no possible way to overcome such evil in a given instance? The Open View says there are real losses that God would rather not have had happen, so then the devil's works to steal, kill and destroy, are not destroyed--Jesus came for that purpose, and then failed.
"Tell me yourself--I challenge you: let's assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let's say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don't lie!" (Doestevsky - The Brothers Kamarazov)
RobE
New member
What's your proof that you did '~A'? Furthermore, besides your claim to be able to do 'A' what real proof do you have?
I know you wouldn't assume a foreknown outcome such as 'A' is 'going to Wendy's to buy lunch' to prove your point. That would be against your previous statement to the contrary:
And would violate the condition my post....
Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.
And would show my claim to be correct....
I'm sure you wish to try again....
themuzicman
Well-known member
You're stuck in a rut. Did you read the story about how John got his name?
Not really. I wasn't make a absolute case, but a general one. Those that are specific are going to happen.
Great.
I don't have a problem putting my faith in the God of the universe, knowing that He will do what is righteous and just. And if that means I'm condemned, then I'm willing to accept His judgment.
Are you?
Or are you so much into "I gotta have my eternal life!" that you're unwilling to simply obey God and let Him do what is right?
Who said that Jesus came to destroy specific works? (BTW, these sins are propitiated, as well, and judgment comes for all of them, so that pretty much covers it anyway.)
I would not seek happiness for all of mankind by committing an evil. For it would be better for mankind to suffer in righteousness, than to experience an eternally guilty happiness.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, 'A' was going to Wendy's and I did otherwise.
And.. I go to Wendy's a couple of times every week. It's no big deal. Really.
No, I never claimed it was foreknown. I simply stated that as a particular action that I may do.
Foreknowledge states that I will do it.
So, it's not definite foreknowledge.
Except that it's not definite foreknowledge, mainly because it was incorrect! :hammer:
Don't have you. You've jumped off the deep end. Where do you get the idea that something that isn't accurate is definite foreknowledge?
Muz
RobE
New member
You didn't say that 'A' is 'might be going to Wendy's to buy lunch'.
Looks defined to me.
RobE
New member
A person has strength, weakness, righteousness, or any other quality we might speak of. A "qualitative attribute" is really what I asked for the definition between qualitative and quantitative to resolve. I haven't heard of such a thing and am trying to understand this. I first believed you were simply setting the stage:
Are you sure this isn't a way to describe, categorize, and subjegate certain attributes?
I realize now that you believe this. So I'm going to look at your definitions again....
A quantity has to do with how much of something there is.
A quality has to do with how good something is.
A quality has to do with how good something is.
Are you saying that knowledge is quantitative because it has to do with how much of something there is? And that righteousness has to do with how good something is? The problem I have with these definitions is that knowledge doesn't express a quantity, just as righteousness doesn't. That would change if I were to say all-knowing or completely righteous; then they would both express a quantity. Not righteousness itself, but the term completely or all(in the case of knowledge). I must therefore assume according to how this is defined that knowledge and righteousness are qualities and not quantities. Whereas, 'all' and 'completely' are quantities.
If I were to say that God was completely righteous would this take it from a quality to a quantity?. I think not. It remains a quality, just as knowledge is a quality. Omniscient has a quantity 'all' and a quality 'knowing'. To say it isn't a quality would be misleading.
No. I would say that it's what a person 'IS' that determines his character whether that characteristic be powerful, merciful, righteous, etc..... What the person does certainly is caused by his personal qualities whether good or evil, knowledgeable or naive, etc.... In other words, the qualities within his essence(or character if you prefer) determines his actions.
If you mean are you able to determine the qualities that someone posesses through his actions then I would agree with this. If it's a person of quality then we mean does the person have good qualities or not? This is the sense your speaking of I believe.
Would I say a good quality person must be righteous, knowledgeable, strong, merciful, loving, charitable......? Obviously not. These are all good qualities, but to be a 'good quality' person; you need not possess them all. Your 'goodness' would be described by only some of your qualities, not all of them. Just as your intelligence would be described by some of your qualities, not all of them.
Am I getting closer?
RobE
New member
I'm home now and will respond to the entire post. I have a hard time jumping in here and there at work. I need to answer this question.....
As did your proof: I am agent A, Z is 11am this morning, and 'A' is going to Wendy's to buy lunch.(How do you know that 'A' is going to Wendy's without definite foreknowledge?)
Sounds good. The only problem is that your starting premise is therefore false and the argument is invalid. In fact, my entire claim is that you can't prove doing otherwise unless your argument uses definite foreknowledge as its basis. You would then have a true premise to work with.
I'll explain:
1) I could say that A = I will go to Wendy's(your proof and definite foreknowledge)
2) I could say that A = I might go to Wendy's(open theism)
Am I able to do 'A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
Am I able to do '~A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes#1. No#2)
1)Am I able to not go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW? Yes.
2)Am I able to not maybe go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW? No.
Does 'not maybe' make going to Wendy's a certainty? Or if we introduce 'A' as I may go to Wendy's for lunch, then 2)I may not go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW. Both ideas defeat LFW. So your starting premise must be definitely known beforehand to prove you are able to do otherwise.
Rob
Have I stated this? Point it out so I can see what you're talking about.
As did your proof: I am agent A, Z is 11am this morning, and 'A' is going to Wendy's to buy lunch.(How do you know that 'A' is going to Wendy's without definite foreknowledge?)
Sounds good. The only problem is that your starting premise is therefore false and the argument is invalid. In fact, my entire claim is that you can't prove doing otherwise unless your argument uses definite foreknowledge as its basis. You would then have a true premise to work with.
I'll explain:
1) I could say that A = I will go to Wendy's(your proof and definite foreknowledge)
2) I could say that A = I might go to Wendy's(open theism)
Am I able to do 'A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
Am I able to do '~A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes#1. No#2)
1)Am I able to not go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW? Yes.
2)Am I able to not maybe go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW? No.
Does 'not maybe' make going to Wendy's a certainty? Or if we introduce 'A' as I may go to Wendy's for lunch, then 2)I may not go to Wendy's for lunch and maintain LFW. Both ideas defeat LFW. So your starting premise must be definitely known beforehand to prove you are able to do otherwise.
Rob
Have I stated this? Point it out so I can see what you're talking about.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Has anyone recently submitted the factor that LFW does not even exist; and therefore what does not exist, cannot possibly, or legitimately; let alone theoretically, be a basis of debate . . .especially if such a hypothetical might affect God's omniscience and exhaustive foreknowledge?
How could any version of (mortal; human; sinful) hypothetical thought compete with absolute revelation from the holy and perfectly righteous mind and mouth of God?
(e.g. Holy Scriptures)
If not . . I (re-)submit this very factor . . .
There is absolutely no such thing as a "FREE" will, existent in any of God's creatures.
Not according to the Holy Scriptures.
There is no man or woman on this discussion board who can present such a notion from the Bible. NONE!
Nang
Of course it does! I am not talking about wisdom but merely knowledge, as in omniscience.
Omniscience has to do with HOW MUCH you know, does it not? If someone is omniscient and I am not, then I know less than he does. If that isn't quantitative I don't know what is! And you've already conceded that a person can know more than someone else and not be any better of a person than they are and so knowledge is not qualitative.
See? Qualitative vs. Quantitative! There is a difference.
No they wouldn't. Righteousness can be spoken of in terms of quantity but when you do you correspondingly speak in terms of quality as well. A person who is more righteous than another is better than that other person by the same degree! Thus righteousness is fundamentally a qualitative attribute.
No Rob! I don't care how much you know, it doesn't make you a better person! Unlike when you speak about how righteous a person is, when you speak about how much knowledge they have you are not speaking to how good a person they are. You cannot go to school and earn your PhD and suddenly become a better person than a Freshman who just enrolled. It doesn't matter that you know more than they Freshman! You might be better qualified for a job than he is but that doesn't mean you are a higher quality person than he is! (Yes, I used the word qualified on purpose - think it through before you go off half cocked thinking I've just contradicted myself. I haven't - think it through Rob!)
Notice what you did here Rob. This is one of your favorite fallacious debate tactics only this time I'm not sure you even noticed that you did it.
You're right about righteousness still being about quality, as I explained above but you just equated it with knowledge without even a hint of an argument to substantiate such a claim!
Do you believe that because someone knows more than you do that they are a better person than you are by virtue of their increased knowledge? Isn't it just as possible that they are worse than you are? If a person uses their increased knowledge to harm people and to do evil, are the better or worse than someone who is kind to their neighbor but doesn't know 2+2=4? Knowledge can be used for good or evil and thus is not qualiitative in the sense we are discussing the term.
It isn't misleading at all Rob. You are just trying your hardest not to get it, that's all.
Then you are not a Christian and we are no longer discussing Christian theology. God will judge us based on our actions, whether in thought word or deed. The Bible teaches that as a man thinks (an action of the mind) in his heart so is he. A man is defined by what he does. Adam was inoccent (not necessarily righteous and certainly not evil) until he acted and ate from the Tree in the Garden of God. And likewise the righteousness which has been imputed to us by faith is based on one Man's righteous ACT (Romans 5:18).
This is directly the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
You don't know how not to get off topic do you? You know my question was not asked in a vacuum. We have been having a somewhat lengthy and rather detailed conversation which provides a context for the question and makes it virtually impossible for anyone with even a room temperature IQ to understand and answer rather easily. But not you! You have to assume that I'm asking something completely unrelated to what we've been discussing for the last two days! :bang:
Which one's are necessary Rob? To be a good quality person as you put it, which of the attributes you listed are necessary and which are not?
Until that last little paragraph, I would have said no but now I'll reserve judgment until you answer that last question I just asked, then we'll see.
You know Rob when I say things like I just said, usually I am just trying to insult you because I find you to be one of the most distasteful people I've ever come across but this time I'm just stating the truth. I sincerely cannot tell for sure whether you are getting any closer to getting this or not! If I were you, I would fin that to be embarrassing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jesus can.
John 7:17
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
Luke 10:42
but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."
Humans plan for the future all the time without seeing or knowing it exhaustively. If the future was settled and knowable, God would know it as such. Because it is possible, not actual at the moment, He correctly knows that reality as it is. You underestimate His greatness if you think He has to see, micromanage, or determine everything in advance to 'plan' for the future.
God does settle and plan much of the future and brings it to pass by His great ability (not foreknowledge or causative decree; see Is. 46 and 48). These include creating an angelic realm, creating man, incarnating/dying/rising in Christ, Second Coming, future judgments, calling of a corporate people in Israel and Church, etc.
Any changes of mind are consistent with His purposes and character. Changing in response to changing contingencies is a strength, not a weakness, and allows for genuine love relationships.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Scripture interprets Scripture . . .and this truth revealed by Christ is the same as the truth stated by Him to Nicodemus, when He revealed:
"He who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done IN GOD." John 3:21
Corresponding to the same wonderful truth revealed by Isaiah, when this prophet declared:
". . For You have also done all our works in us." Isaiah 26:12b
As taught by Paul:
"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
IOW,s when Christians choose to obey God and serve Him in righteousness, this is evidence of Godly grace and power that has granted particular sinners repentance (II Tim. 2:25)
Repentance has nothing to do with human will-power or choices. Repentance from sin is a gift of God. (Also see Acts 5:31, 11:18)
Mary "has chosen that good part," which was a great blessing and gift from God . . .for Jesus said, this gift given to Mary is sure, and "will not be taken away from her." Luke 10:42
This verse says nothing about Mary exercising LFW, but teaches Mary responded according to the miracle of grace shown to her by God.
Which grace, comes only according to election, which is an unconditional gift from God; never according the willful choices of sinners, but by His will alone.
Sola Gratia!
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
So what?
Do you compare God's act of creation, and determination to eliminate all evil in order to provide an eternal kingdom for His son . . . truly comparable to the sin-tainted activities of His creatures?
That is nonsense.
God's purposes do not compare to human functioning on this planet.
The future is settled and knowable to God, and thus God knows it as such.
No . . .God's purposes are absolutely certain. There is no such thing as "possibles" when it comes to the decrees and Covenant of God. The decrees, based upon Covenant promises, are sure to come to be.
Yes.
Because God correctly views reality, God is constantly overcoming the evil of reality, with His goodness; in order to ensure the certain outcome of His purposes and good pleasures.
What part of the future do you believe God does not purpose, plan, and settle?
So what "great ability" do you attribute to God to bring things to pass? What is your definition of this admitted attribute possessed by God? You admit Godly ability; what do you choose to call it? (And cite Scripture, please!)
No argument . . .but what extra "great ability" do you know about that is not covered by these mentioned wonders worked by God?
There is no need for God to ever "change" His mind, for His purposes and character are perfect (i.e. "complete").
There is no human "contingency" that can affect, thwart, influence, change, or cause God to deviate from His eternal decrees. NONE!
God's decrees were established and foreordained to overcome all darkness, evil, and sin (failure of creatures to live according to the glory of God.)
For the first thing God created, was light (Gen. 1:3), which would expose the darkness (Gen. 1:2), that God purposed to eliminate.
All of His creative works were performed with the intent to eliminate the sinful opposition to His holiness.
Ponder on this verses for at least 24 hours, if not for the rest of your earthly life:
"All things that are exposed, are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light." Ephesians 5:13
"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." Isaiah 60:1
". . Everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed, but he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deed may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." John 3:20&21
". . For You have also done all our works in us." Isaiah 26:12
"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
Nang
- Status