We have to make an ultimate/supreme choice to live for Self or God (heart/purpose in life). Motive is more important than conduct. Our subordinate and simple choices may or may not line up with this at any given time. We are not born with a causative nature or born again with a causative nature. Choices flow from will and mind, so we are responsible. Our choices lead to habits, nature, character, but they are still not causative. An atheist can remain faithful in marriage and a Christian can commit adultery. We cannot save ourselves, but we can receive or reject Christ who does save or condemn us.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
We have to make an ultimate/supreme choice to live for Self or God (heart/purpose in life). Motive is more important than conduct. Our subordinate and simple choices may or may not line up with this at any given time. We are not born with a causative nature or born again with a causative nature. Choices flow from will and mind, so we are responsible. Our choices lead to habits, nature, character, but they are still not causative. An atheist can remain faithful in marriage and a Christian can commit adultery. We cannot save ourselves, but we can receive or reject Christ who does save or condemn us.
RobE
New member
Then read what I said again and then respond based on what I said. At least make an attempt to see beyond your mindset.
Rob said:
Clete said:
I could be more powerful which would make me better! On the other hand, I could be more righteous and less powerful then them. I think you're saying that for a man, there are preferable traits. For instance, would it be better(from my perspective) to be more powerful or more righteous for a man? If I worshipped Zeus or Odin or some man-made god who had flaws within his character I would prefer righteousness over authority. It wouldn't however mean that righteousness was more important as an attribute over power or knowledge. It would just be more important to me! Say the man had more power than righteousness, would his power take precedence over righteousness?
I know you're not comparing a man or a man-made god to Our Lord who has ALL power, ALL righteousness, and ALL knowledge. It would be comparing apples to oranges. The question isn't what makes a 'good person'; but which of Our Lord's attributes(actually, within reality) take precedence over the others(in your thinking) and why? And your proofs which state righteousness is foundational to authority, don't establish precedence because righteousness has foundations itself. The thinking is self defeating.
Feel free to post my comments which have caused the confusion in you and I'll clarify.
RobE
New member
1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Hitler, David, Bundy all acted within their own natures(free will). Please make an attempt to understand the analogy and the scripture. God is able to manipulate natural forces to his own good ends. Is man a natural creature with a specific nature?
This is true. Being true, doesn't this mean that Hitler and the others wouldn't have been allowed to do what they did unless they were bringing God's purposes to pass through their own morally evil actions?
God may well intend to bring about justice through allowing evil to befall an evil doer. God never causes evil. God doesn't desire evil, but is able to use evil for good as Lee has already pointed out.
Did God desire, intend, or cause the death of Himself on the Cross according to the open view?
You seem to like compatibilism and determinism, yet not claim to be a Calvinist. The will, not a causative nature, is the seat of moral choice (hence responsibility). Cause-effect is how God rules inanimate creation. Moral creation is ruled based on love and freedom. You confuse these two and think man is like a rock.
Heinous evil has no good purpose. Looking for hidden good and meaning in the rape of children misses the point. Giving us the ability to freely love and bring great good necessitates the possibility (not certainty or benefit) of evil, selfishness, and great harm. This does not mean evil is part of the big picture plan to bring good. God responds to evil justly now or later and mitigates the effects. There is no reason to assume this means He is desiring it. Issues of freedom, not hyper-sovereignty, must be factored in.
The cross itself is part of God's redemptive plan of love and justice. Voluntarily coming and dying for a great good is not evil (though you could say those who freely killed him did evil). This is NOT parallel to gratuitous or heinous evil that does not originate from God's love and holiness, but is contrary to it. Comparing the Lamb of God's sacrifice to Hitler's slaughter is indefensible and an invalid argument.
Philetus
New member
:BRAVO:
:readthis:
Matthew 21:33-46
33 "Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35 "The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. 38 "But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." 42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
33 "Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35 "The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. 38 "But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." 42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
RobE
New member
I was comparing the ones who crucified Jesus to Hitler and it's a valid comparison. Why were these things allowed if not to achieve some end?
themuzicman
Well-known member
If you're going to base an argument on the translation of a single word, you'd better do your homework in the original language before making it.
The word, here "Ra" can mean anything "bad" for the recipient, including war, wrath, famine, etc. In this case, the translated "I make war" is probably better than this version.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Try to keep up.
They were allowed because freedom is irrevocable. The potential to love and do great good also necessitates the potential for great harm and evil. Unless God intervenes always right from the beginning (existence ceases, including love and good) or turns us into robots, there will be a warfare. Things are not the way they are supposed to be or intended after the Fall. Justice will take place in the end, but not always immediately. Trying to read a mysterious, higher good or purpose for brutality is not necessary to explain it.
RobE
New member
Certainly true. How then does God accomplish His goals since 'freedom is irrevocable'? I think you don't mean 'irrevocable' since satan and those who are found to be God's enemies will be imprisoned. I think you mean, free will is an integral part of the plan which God has.
With this in mind, wouldn't God need foreknowledge to accomplish His goals without destroying men's free will? Think about it for just a minute. Without understanding of future actions wouldn't God have to override some men's free will to accomplish His objectives?
1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
The scope and duration of free will is limited.
God can and does intervene at times to bring His purposes to pass, but He does not always do so in a micromanaging way. He has a project that He brings to pass working with other free moral agents. Someday, He will chain Satan and His influence, but not yet. God can incarnate and rise from the dead apart from human choices. He can also work with Noah in bringing justice and replenishment of the earth. He led Israel and the Church, but does not coerce them. When Israel was disobedient, He sent judges. He killed Ananias and Sapphira, but He does not kill every sinning believer.
Simple foreknowledge offers no advantage for ruling over omnicompetence (intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, power to respond to contingencies).
Practically, if God foreknew a trillion years ago that I would get hit by a car tomorrow and prompted me to take a different route or stay at home sick in bed to avoid my death, then it was not foreknowledge (it was error, not truth). If he sees a collision unfolding in real space/time, He could intervene at that point by His ability. It does not have to be remotely foreknown to make a difference, nor can it logically be if contingencies are real. How could He foreknow before my existence if I could freely take a different route, have a mechanical breakdown, or not go out at all. These things can happen on short notice with no possible way of knowing far in advance which possibility will actualize in a non-deterministic world.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Menopausal?
:baby:
For someone who denies free will, you would think she would consider my concession a step in the right direction
Truth does not run from error. I will not run from truth like you do.
God given man self-determination to name the animals, procreate, have a vocation, preach and teach, eat, sleep, and drink does not rob God of His glory and sovereignty. It is far more glorious to rule free agents than to be a control freak ruling automatons.
Agape4Robin
Member
Ok, you had me here. We can agree. Sort of.
But then you lost me here. Is free will limited or not? Is God Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent or not?
Having free will is like being "a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. It's really black and white.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Exactly.
Can't have it both ways, and speak out of both sides of one's mouth.
This is an either/or truth.
Agape4Robin
Member
I just don't buy the whole, "God doesn't want to know", arguement. Just clay pots arguing over what the Potter intends for His creation. And when you really analyze it further, He isn't just the Potter.
He made the clay!
I mean, come on! He merely spoke and whole worlds were created! :noway:
Now that's power!
Our free will does not mean we can leap tall buildings or kill Jesus before His time. It does not mean we can stop the Second Coming or take away someone's salvation.
God is omni..., but these must be understood properly. Being omnipotent does not mean you can make colorless red cars or married bachelors or square circles.
Free will is genuine, but there comes a day when Satan's will ends up severely restricted in the lake of fire. It was genuine when Lucifer became Satan.
Compatibilists have a compromised view of free will and say God causes the desires, but man acts on his desires and is thus responsible. This watered down compromise misses the point of genuine freedom and responsibility. Contingencies are such that we must be able to chose between alternatives without causation or coercion (incompatibilism is more coherent).
I just don't buy the whole, "God doesn't want to know", arguement. Just clay pots arguing over what the Potter intends for His creation. And when you really analyze it further, He isn't just the Potter.
He made the clay!
I mean, come on! He merely spoke and whole worlds were created! :noway:
Now that's power!
Open Theist affirm the power of God. It is not a matter of not wanting to know something knowable. It is a matter of actualizing a non-deterministic creation making certain knowledge of free will contingencies logically impossible, even for an omniscient being.
Either we are robots or God voluntarily limited the nature of His knowledge of the future. He knows all that is knowable and cannot chose to know a possible object of knowledge. He knows the future as possible until it becomes certain/actual.
- Status