Which proof texts do you use to show that we cannot chose between chocolate or vanilla, between adultery or fidelity?
Free will is self-evident. The Fall of Lucifer and Adam illustrate this truth.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Which proof texts do you use to show that we cannot chose between chocolate or vanilla, between adultery or fidelity?
Free will is self-evident. The Fall of Lucifer and Adam illustrate this truth.
We do not dispute the texts that show God settles specific things about the future. However, you totally ignore the other motif that shows that other things are unsettled. Man, not God, gave names to the animals. My wife and I freely married and procreated. Other people divorce and abort their children. A holy God does not cause both circumstances, we do (hence personal responsibility and inability to blame God).
Your mistake is to prooftext out of context and extrapolate from the specific to the general and then dismiss other themes that would undermine your myopic assumptions.
God has a purpose and a program and He will triumph and bring His purposes to pass. However, the ministry of Jesus reveals a warfare model, not a blueprint one. Thy will be done on earth is a legit prayer because there are times His will is not done (heinous evil, etc.). He does not need every molecule and moral choice to be dictated in order for the cross, resurrection, and Second Coming to happen. It does not matter if my cat and dog are alive or if I eat breakfast or not. God is not insecure like your view portrays. Only an insecure, weak God would have to micromanage and control things to achieve victory. Given His greatness, He can rule providentially and responsively (macro vs micromangage).
Bah!
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...
Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
But these are (free, so OVT would say) human choices.
So then did he come for this purpose and fail? If the devil does accomplish some of his aim to steal, kill and destroy? And propitiation, and judgment, do not change this aspect of the devil accomplishing some of his purpose.
Blessings,
Lee
Certainly, and I agree that God can bring about human choices. This contradicts a principle in the Open View that such choices cannot be known.themuzicman said:
So these, then:
Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...
Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
But these are (free, so OVT would say) human choices.
Well, let’s be zealous in this matter, “strive earnestly to enter the narrow gate.” But yes, I cannot demand salvation.
John did, I would say: 1 John 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.
So then did he come for this purpose and fail? If the devil does accomplish some of his aim to steal, kill and destroy? And propitiation, and judgment, do not change this aspect of the devil accomplishing some of his purpose.
This is the Open View.godrulz said:
Nor I. But what of being required to allow evil you would rather not have, in order to bring human happiness? I think the question is still to be pressed, in that case. Should there be any suffering that is regrettable, and a real loss, in order to have a paradise? This is the ends justifying the means, it does seem.themuzicman said:
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
Yes. "MIGHT" is not an indication of DEFINITE FOREKNOWLEDGE. It's an indication that it is an option. I went to Little Caesars, and yet this statement is still true.
"Might" only defines options. It doesn't define what will definitely happen.
Michael
themuzicman
Well-known member
Because I'm not stating what I WILL do. I'm stating what I MIGHT do, an option.
Don't need one. As I already stated, LFW by itself isn't scientifically demonstrable.
You completely lost me there. The fact that going to Wendy's is one of my choices doesn't become false because I don't choose it.
Again, this is simply incorrect. #2 only states that going to Wendy's is an option that I may choose. If I don't go there, that doesn't change the fact that I was able to do so.
Both A (going to Wendy's) and ~A (not going to Wendy's) are possible. I may choose them. The fact that I don't choose one doesn't change those truths. I could have done either and maintained the truth of LFW.
I think you're trying to equate your problem of one option being definite with LFW's statement that neither are definite, but both are possible.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Incorrect. Humans can be influenced to freely make particular choices without definite foreknowledge.
Anyone that God does not draw cannot come to Him (John 6:44-45)
Group dynamics. People in groups are far easier to predict than individuals.
Same as Rev 11:13
Yup.
Of course not. You're guilty. But that doesn't answer the question: Will you obey the God of the universe because He is the God of the universe, and have faith in His to do what is righteous and just? Or do you demand that He guarantee you something first?
LOL... John is right in the middle of his diatribe about those who are of God no longer sin, but are righteous.
1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
John is referring to the sanctification in out lives that should result from our salvation, no longer doing the works of the devil, but works of righteousness as a result of Christ's propitiation.
Do you believe that God will ultimately judge all mankind and the devil and all his angels, and that they will ultimately be thrown into the lake of fire?
I don't think that's what the Devil's purpose was.
Choice 1: Heinous evil is man's will (OV)
Choice 2: Heinous evil is God's will (Calvinism)
I like choice 1 better.
No. It doesn't. There is no justice in killing anyone to make everyone else happy. Only one who lays down their life willingly for another is just.
Muz
RobE
New member
Clete said:
I don't find it embarrassing at all. Let me speak plainly. I can find NO references to this 'qualitative'/'quantitative' thinking within reputable Christian thinking. Is this a new methodology employed by modernists essentially exhalting some of God's attributes over the others? This is my concern. I'm listening to what you are saying, but it appears to me that open theism and it's rationales are the challengers in this debate and are, therefore, somewhat handicapped because of the lack of historical support. In addition, open theism's position as 'challenger' firmly places the entire burden of proof upon them which many here forget.
I am not a theologian, nor am I a would-be theologian so I must find support for ideas from within the accepted thinking of Traditional Christianity. I am not qualified to answer many of the questions that are put to me, so often my responses my seem unresponsive because I'm simply trying to understand this 'new' language you are speaking. Quantitative vs. qualitative for example. My first question was 'what does this mean'. Of course, your response was that I should 'intuitively know', but how could I since it's new thinking?
As far as you finding me 'distasteful', I am shocked to hear it. Of all those on TOL, I expected you the most likely to appreciate that I don't simply bend over and take every argument presented to me as truth --- because that would be truly dishonest. I'm sure if you knew me, you wouldn't find me so. It does require work to convince me since I have no desire to be 'part of the gang' or to simply 'go along with the group' when my beliefs are at stake. Anyway, back to the discussion.....
I've already answered this:
What could be a 'good quality' of an evil man? Could an evil man also contain mercy or power to a point? Is their good and evil in every man simultaneously? I understand that you want me to focus on what qualities help define righteousness and call those superior to the other qualities, but indeed they are not superior in the sense that you are presenting them. They are all integral to each other especially when speaking of our Lord. It is true that righteousness doesn't need strength or knowledge to exist, just as knowledge doesn't need righteousness or mercy to exist. This doesn't mean that righteousness takes a 'back seat' to knowledge; because they are both 'good qualities' with merits of their own.
I'm going to refrain from claiming that you believe righteousness is foundational to all of God's qualities because you keep denying that I know what you think. I will, however, remind you of your response that pointed out that that each quality exists independently. It's the combination of these qualities which express God's essence.
Thanks for the opportunity.
RobE
New member
Nor logically demonstrable, apparently. I didn't ask for a demonstration of the ability this time. I simply asked for a logical proof which didn't have to assume foreknowledge to be true. Your proof does require this. Sorry if you don't see it.
Rob
themuzicman
Well-known member
OK, definition time:
Are you referring to DEFINITE foreknowledge (the idea that something WILL CERTAINLY happen), or are you simply referring to the idea that we can know some of the possibilities of what we may be able to do at some point in the future?
Muz
Which is precisely why I find you to be so distasteful a person.
And so your standard is "reputable Christian thinking" rather than the plain teaching of Scripture which I have quoted to you in quantity and plain reason which you have conceded large portions of yourself.
Yet another reason I find you to be so distasteful a person.
Is the book of Psalms new? In fact I believe it is about 1000 years older than Christianity itself!
I'm perfectly comfortable with the burden of proof Rob. How much more proof do you want? I've quoted Scripture repeatedly, all of which you have ignored. And you've admitted that things like strength and knowledge do not make a person better than another. What other proof could be presented?
This is an intentional lie. You are very definitely a theologian. Not a good one and certainly not a professional one but you are a theologian nonetheless and you very well know it. It would not be possible to engage these discussions otherwise.
This is another lie. If this were true you would simply ask me to clarify or to restate the question some how. But you don't do that. What you do is ignore the context of the question and pretend like I've asked something totally different that what I've asked so as to shift the subject to a topic with which you are more comfortable. It's called intellectual dishonesty. When you see intuitively that you are being led to a conclusion you don't like, you arbitrarily change direction. It is a sign of an unrepentant heart which loves its theology more than the truth.
It isn't new thinking Rob! I'm not speaking in code here. Quantity means how much and quality means how good. It's the same meaning that the words had the first time you used them way back in 1st grade (or younger). If you think that what I'm talking about is difficult to understand its only because you are trying to make it difficult.
No you're not. Stop lying Rob! Sheesh!
I agree that simply accepting whatever anyone said without examination would be just as intellectually dishonest as you are being by doing the opposite which is rejecting anything you don't already believe and refusing to acknowledge when a sound argument has been made that refutes those beliefs.
I'm not! Are you saying that in real life that you are somehow magically tranformed into a person who knows how to think and is willing to do so honestly and accept the conclusions that sound reason and the Scripture lead you too?
Yeah right!
Now this sentiment I can appreciate! Do you think I like being the only Open Theist that I know in my entire city? Try finding an Mid Acts Dispensational Open Theist in your town sometime, you won't find one. You want stress? You want to feel anything other than like you're "part of the gang"? Try becoming an Mid Acts Dispensational Open Theist and see how you feel when nearly every sermon you hear turns your stomach. Try realizing that while not ever haven darkened the door of a seminary you know for certain that you understand the gospel message better than every pastor in your town. Don't even talk to me about not taking the easy road. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Which of them are the "some of them" you are referring too? The underlined portion of your quote is what prompted the question Rob! What planet are you on?
You give a whole list of various attributes and then say only some of those attributes are needed to be a "good quality person". Which one's? Which are necessary for being good and which are not?
You see what I mean Rob? You are dishonest. You just admitted that you understand the question I am asking and you know that you cannot answer it without proving everything you've been arguing over the last few days wrong and so what do you do? You refuse to answer? That isn't honest Rob! That isn't being difficult to persuade away from your beliefs. That's being impossible to persuade away from your beliefs! I've led you step by step by step to the water and you now refuse to drink and take pride in your thirst! That's foolishness Rob. You are a fool.
NO THEY ARE NOT!
Not when you are talking in the context of QUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop changing the subject! Not even one full paragraph goes by and you lose focus on the whole discussion! You just got through saying and even underlining the notion that not only of these characteristics are needed to be a quality person. YOU JUST GOT THROUGH SAYING THAT!!! And now you flip over like a pan cake and say the opposite!
Now you flip flop again! Inside of a single sentence! :bang:
You cannot have it both ways Rob! Either strength and knowledge makes you better than the next guy or it doesn't. Which is it? All other things being equal, if you are know more than your neighbor, are you therefore a better (i.e. higher quality) person than your neighbor? Yes or no.
Do you just skip over the Bible verses I quote or what?
What I believe is what the Bible plainly states. Righteousness is the foundation of God's authority. That's a great big problem for your theology Rob. You are incapable of thinking it through sufficiently to figure it out but we'll get there one day, maybe.
This is not in dispute and is therefore entirely irrelevant!
We've digressed to more than a day ago at this point. :bang:
We're back to the single baby step stage. Focus exclusively on the following question...
Which attributes are required to make a person a "good quality person" Rob.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Where did you get the notion “if they don’t care”?
Who said anything about ‘not caring?
You are really pulling things out of thin air.
:doh:
Do you mean other than His actual living presence?
No. Like Jesus said to 'Israel's teacher' on a dark knight: like the wind, Nic, you see the evidence. I see the evidence.
Ya want'a talk about getting back into the womb next, Nang?
da, b-i-b-l-e, yep, that's da book for me ...
I'm going to treat that like a serious question, not for your sake but my own (because I can't really believe you were all that serious when you posted this list of questions.)
ah...er...aah... an empty tomb maybe ... a living relationship with a living, eternal being. I'm far less focused on where I'm going to spend eternity than who I'm going to spend eternity with. It keeps me grounded and focused in the present. I think very little about following Jesus to Heaven. Following Jesus in the world today requires the vast majority of my attention and all the help from the Spirit I can get. I'm never disappointed in His performance. The more I learn to trust Jesus here today, the less I question His ability to get me to the future He and our Father are preparing for US to share. Besides, Learning to see Jesus here and now takes care of that question that both the righteous and unrighteous will ask when they stand before the King, "Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, sick, homeless ....?" To which Jesus will reply, "Hey, that was me."
I spend little energy on what I will eat, or what I will wear. The future will take care of itself. I'm just enjoying the journey and the company ... today. That's all the assurance I need of God's ability to handle the future.
I spend little energy on what I will eat, or what I will wear. The future will take care of itself. I'm just enjoying the journey and the company ... today. That's all the assurance I need of God's ability to handle the future.
How's this for a start:
Sounds like a plan to me.
Which is it Nang? Either Christians choose or they don’t. Stick to your guns or open both eyes. I have no idea what you mean by “blind faith” (a pejorative term that gets tossed out when somebody can't think of anything constructive to say or ask) but I do know what blind theology looks and sounds like.
Philetus
RobE
New member
In my opinion this question is too generic and unanswerable because of the possible definitions of "good quality person". My answer to your insistence is that righteousness and all that it entails are what I consider makes a "good quality person". I think we can proceed with the following statement.
I haven't skipped anything. Righteousness is a foundation of God's authority, but what makes righteousness take precedence over His authority? This in my mind is the question.
An example would be a comparison of righteousness and knowledge.
Is God righteousness foundational to His knowledge? Is knowledge foundational to His authority?
RobE
New member
This doesn't say " ....and 'A' is might be going to Wendy's for lunch."
Your original assumes as known that you will go to lunch at Wendy's before the fact of going.
Therefore, my claim that you must assume EDF to prove your ability to do otherwise is proven true.
If you insert the word 'may or might' then your proof fails on this basis....
Muz said:
Here's the link.....Post where Muz defines the condition of a valid test of the ability to do otherwise.
EDF.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Nor does it say "I WILL go to Wendy's for lunch." It simply states what the action is without the assumption of "will" or "may." "Going to Wendy's for lunch."
Incorrect. You inserted that.
The demonstration fails, yes, because we cannot tell beforehand what will happen. The proof does not, because the ability to do A or ~A is shown, and does not have any impediments.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Man was created by God under the Law of God. Man was created in the image of God, with consciousness of the Law and possessing a moral agency (will) to obey the Law. Man was not created with permission to break God's Law; therefore his will is not totally free, and certainly not designed to function autonomous from the will of God.
Thus, man is a volitional creature, who makes choices and decisions all the time.
As long as eating ice cream is not against the Law of God, man is free to choose to eat ice cream and decide what flavor he wants to indulge in.
This is a matter of Law. The Law does not permit adultery. If a man chooses to commit adultery, he has broken the Law of God, and sinned. A man can choose to commit adultery, but not freely. He will pay legal and eternal consequences for his actions.
It should be obvious to you that it is the word "free", or the description of LFW that I believe is a fallacy.
No man is "free" when living under the Law and orders of God. A man either serves God in faithful obedience, or a man serves himself, death, and the devil. A man is a servant of one or the other; a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. No man is free to do only what he wants.
And no man, since the fall of Adam, is free to escape bondage to sin, death, and the devil by his own human capacities, because all men are spiritually dead to the things of God, cursed with enmity against God, and totally corrupted in heart, mind, body, and soul.
It takes the free gift of grace from God, to escape this bondage, and be adopted into the family of God; whereby one can willfully serve their Father in righteousness.
Nang
RobE
New member
So which is it(in order to maintain the validity of your argument per your own statement)?
Muz's proof: I am agent A, Z is 11am this morning, and 'A' is going to Wendy's to buy lunch.
I would say that the word 'is' states that you will go to lunch. How do you interpret it to mean that you may go to lunch.
Not incorrect. You made the statement before you went to Little Caesars didn't you?
According to your own definition the proof fails because "there's no standard to say whether I(you) did otherwise or not."
Muz said:
That is unless it's possible for "A" to remain undefined and my prior test was indeed valid. I doubt if you honestly believe this! :chuckle:
What's it gonna be, Muz?
themuzicman
Well-known member
"is" does not mean "will." It's a statement of what "A" will represent in
Agent X at time Z may do A or ~A.
Thus, the "may" comes in the statement of what LFW is.
"A" is just represents what I will substitute for 'A' in the definition.
But I didn't say I "will" go. I said I "MAY" go.
But the standard, in this case, isn't whether I did otherwise, but whether I may do A and whether I may do ~A. Both were clearly demonstrated.
The problem is that you're still stuck on this idea of "otherwise", when we're talking about "may do A or ~A."
Muz
RobE
New member
Sure. Don't you mean "It's a statement of what "A" might represent, "just represents what I might substitute for "A", an so forth. In your example is "A" undefined? If so then how are you able to say that the argument you made is valid when you consider:
MUZ said:
Notice you are agent A and A is going to Wendy's(not might). Hang on to those straws.
MUZ said:
How do I know you did otherwise if 'A' was maybe going to Wendys instead of was for sure going to Wendys. I know you understand this.
They weren't both clearly demonstrated unless you assume foreknowledge in the case of doing ~A.
LFW is the ability to do or do otherwise or; if you prefer, 'A' or ~'A'. Right?
We should probably re-examine my own claim at this point.....
Either;
LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,(which you are unable to do)
or
LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.
LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,(which you are unable to do)
or
LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.
themuzicman
Well-known member
No, the agent is X.
Because going to Wendy's was an option.
Incorrect. 'A' was simply one of the options available.
the latter definition is preferred, as you tend to load "otherwise" with things that it doesn't imply.
Incorrect. We do not need to know what will happen in the future in order to show that an individual is able to choose 'A' or '~A.'
Again, incorrect, mainly because you are unable to grasp the concepts of how LFW is expressed... (Or, more likely, are unwilling to do so, because then you'd have to admit that you were wrong.)
Muz
That's it? You listed mercy and power and several others as well.
Does one have to be powerful to be righteous?
Yes or no.
Of course you have Rob. Otherwise I wouldn't be having to reminding you of it and repeating myself over and over again.
Well I think one really good aspect that causes righteousness to take precedence is the fact that it speaks to a person's quality! :duh:
But even if that isn't the only reason or even if you reject that as a reason, it doesn't matter. At this point you have lost the debate because you've conceded the foundation of the Open View hermeneutic. The Settled View places God sovereignty at the pinnacle position or at the very least demotes righteousness to its level and thus interprets Biblical passages in the erroneous light. The Open View places its emphasis on God righteousness "and all that it entails" as you put it, including the fact that He is personal, relational, dynamic, loving, etc., which yields the opposite conclusion on a great many Biblical question, not the least of which is whether or not we have a genuine ability to do or to do otherwise.
Irrelevant.
You must of A.D.D. or something Rob. You simply cannot keep your eye on the ball. Stop going, or attempting to go, down every conceivable rabbit trail and take this a single step at a time. Or is it that you are afraid of where sound reason will take you?
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status