ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

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!

When you honestly analyze it ... a human being isn't just clay.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."​

God didn't just make the clay ... God made the clay live, breath, gave gave it a soul, put it in an environment to sustain its life, gave it dominion over that environment, conversed with it ... even became part of it ... all without compromising His own identity or integrity!

Now that's confident-competent-creative power!

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I mean, come on! He merely spoke and whole worlds were created!

Now that's power!

He merely spoke and they ate from the tree anyway.

Now that's loving-power! Not power-loving.

Philetus

 

[Lon]

He merely spoke and they ate from the tree anyway.

Now that's loving-power! Not power-loving.

Philetus

You are imperializing one over the other. This in my mind, is making god in ones own image rather than accepting God on His terms, His way.

 

[RobE]

Compatibilists have a compromised view of free will and say God causes the desires,.....

Something like heart hardening.

...but man acts on his desires and is thus responsible.

Could it be that God simply foreknows man's desires and allows some of those desires to bear fruit? --- All in order to achieve a foreknown plan, of course.

This watered down compromise misses the point of genuine freedom and responsibility.

How so?

Contingencies are such that we must be able to chose between alternatives without causation or coercion (incompatibilism is more coherent).

O.t. and Calvinism do have this one point in common. That's why I reject both. Only compatibilism accepts all scriptures as true and doesn't need to jump through hoops to explain scripture away.

Causation IS coercion according to open theism. All things have causes. Name an outcome without a cause if you are able. We do things for 'reasons'(causes); not just at random. Our behavior and world are ordered, not just random. Go ahead and deny this and then tell me how illogical I am; as required by your theology. I foreknow your reason will cause the response. Something like "If it's caused then it isn't free!". Or has your reasoning improved?

Rob

p.s. Cheerleaders need not reply as they won't be responded to.

 

[RobE]

Simple foreknowledge offers no advantage for ruling over omnicompetence (intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, power to respond to contingencies).

I disagree. Foreknowledge is required to know if the response is sufficient to overcome the contingencies. Otherwise, God is simply cleaning up messes of out of control humans with no idea as to how effective His own actions may be.

 

[RobE]

Menopausal?

This statement is uncalled for as per our previous discussion. I know you are annoyed at Nang, but you've always been respectful and courteous no matter how others were behaving. You are better than this!

 

[Yorzhik]

I disagree. Foreknowledge is required to know if the response is sufficient to overcome the contingencies. Otherwise, God is simply cleaning up messes of out of control humans with no idea as to how effective His own actions may be.

You'd almost think God would be frustrated if His own action wasn't effective.

 

[Philetus]

You are imperializing one over the other. This in my mind, is making god in ones own image rather than accepting God on His terms, His way.

Imperializing? Not in the least. Making god in ones own image? You’ve got to be kidding!

Agape4Robin said "he merely spoke" and reduced ALL of creation to an exercise of power-over by the imposition of divine will, coercion. Freedom to respond to the divinely spoken word by living-soul-beings is different. God also spoke, "Thou shalt NOT EAT" and they ate anyway. Go figure. They exercised their God given freedom to do what they were commanded NOT to do. Sinned. Power expressed in love is more than merely speaking the word. That does not imperialize (if you mean place the authority of man over God) anything. They died as God also said they would.

What Calvinism can’t get a handle on is the simple truth that God created mankind in HIS image – living souls - individuals. God isn’t a lump of clay. Neither is man a mere lump of clay. In fact the thing about us before the fall most unlike-God is that we are made of clay. But that is not all we were or are. Calvinism reduces all of creation including mankind to EMPTY clay pots. God remains supremely powerful yet grants mankind dominion over His creation. Imperializing? My foot. You have to do better than that.

Clay thinks! Only an omniconfident God could allow that one.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

You'd almost think God would be frustrated if His own action wasn't effective.

He might even be frustrated if His own action was effective. Frustration is often born out of hope and not reality. God may have hoped that Adam, Israel, or we did not sin; but was not 'caught off guard' when it happened. It doesn't mean there isn't a real desire on His part that things were different. The end result will end with perfection. The 'wheat' will survive, despite His frustrated hope that there were no 'tares'. God's purpose is greater than suffering.

 

[Philetus]

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.​

But, He can't goose a rooster? (I mean ... not knowing if it will be effective and all.)
Gee, what's a deity to do?

"God frustrated?"
That's a good one, Yorzhik! :up:

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?

I would think that God cannot accomplish His ultimate goal without 'destroying' (I would say overriding) at least some of men's free will.

Without KNOWLEDGE of all future actions God will eventually override some (if not all) of men's free will to accomplish His final objectives. Christ will return without a VOTE (not even His own. It's up to His Father.)

Philetus

 

[Servo]

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!

REAL power is dealing with free beings that have choices instead of just dealing with robots run by a computer program that you wrote.

 

[Philetus]

Bill Gates thinks the world can be controlled by software.

 

[Yorzhik]

God may have hoped that Adam, Israel, or we did not sin; but was not 'caught off guard' when it happened. It doesn't mean there isn't a real desire on His part that things were different.

So just say that God can do the logically absurd as you describe here, and we can be clear with each other.

 

[RobE]

So just say that God can do the logically absurd as you describe here, and we can be clear with each other.

How does my description differ from that of an open theist?

Originally Posted by RobE
God may have hoped that Adam, Israel, or we did not sin; but was not 'caught off guard' when it happened. It doesn't mean there isn't a real desire on His part that things were different.​

 

[RobE]

Chicken Soup for the Open Theist's Soul

Chicken Soup for the Open Theist's Soul

But, He can't goose a rooster? (I mean ... not knowing if it will be effective and all.)
Gee, what's a deity to do?

I've been thinking about ov'ers preoccupation with rooster squezin. I thought maybe it would get some rest when AMR adressed the problem, again, in his response to Bob's 50 questions. First, I would like to remind you that the whole point doesn't revolve around the rooster's free will, but around Peter's free will. That's right, despite the fact that God is able to squeeze a rooster and therefore yield an, according to open theism, unknown result; it doesn't matter one iota to the argument at hand. Notice I said 'unknown' because without foreknowledge of what would happen that's exactly what the result would be from rooster sqeezin'.
According to 'open' logic God would have had to hide behind a bush and made rooster noises to bring His prediction/prophecy to pass.

Anyway, I digress. The matter at hand is Peter's free will. Let's examine what that will was:

Matthew 26:33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."

Matthew 26:35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.​

According to Peter it was NEVER to betray Our Lord. What evidence did Jesus have that this wasn't true if open theists are right? Not once, not twice, not three times; but NEVER was Peter's statement of intention. Peter wasn't a sissy when it came to his own beliefs. Nor was Peter a compulsive liar who said anything that came to his own mind. Do open theists wish me to believe that God squeezed Peter just like the rooster they're so fond of speaking of?

Bob Enyart suggested that God foreknew that Peter would deny Him and waited until the right moment and then 'cued'(for lack of a better word) the rooster. If open theists are right in their assumptions then perhaps Jesus may have known that a denial on Peter's behalf was going to happen based upon Jesus' intimate present knowledge of the apostle. But the second denial or, worse, the third denial would be completely outrageous to assume. Why wouldn't Jesus say 'Peter you will deny me' instead of.....

Matthew 26:34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."​

Wow!

I would think that God cannot accomplish His ultimate goal without 'destroying' (I would say overriding) at least some of men's free will.

Whereas, Philetus, I will say that other than at judgement; God NEVER need override any man's free will because God has the attribute of foreknowing events which would make the overriding unnecessary to accomplish His own desires. God would simply use a man's natural desires to accomplish His own good ends.

Without KNOWLEDGE of all future actions God will eventually override some (if not all) of men's free will to accomplish His final objectives. Christ will return without a VOTE (not even His own. It's up to His Father.)

Philetus

Just as everything is.....

Matthew 26:39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Matthew 26:42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."​

....What sets Jesus Christ apart from us is that He always put the will of the Father above His own. Did Jesus know whether His death was a certainty based upon His prayer in the Garden? What say you open theists. It can't be 'yes' because that would require foreknowledge which is a logical impossibility, right.

Matthew 26:1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."​

Did God orchestrate the death of Our Lord according to open theism? Does open theism claim that God 'squeezed' men to fulfill a prophecy?

Methinks, something is afoul in this line of reasoning.

Rob Mauldin

p.s. Sorry Philetus, I've been thinking about this subject for a few days and couldn't resist replying. I didn't intend it, anymore than Peter did, but alas it was going to happen despite my intentions.

 

[Lighthouse]

The Bible does not give any support for the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent as it was presented by Augustine.

 

[RobE]

The Bible does not give any support for the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent as it was presented by Augustine.

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

John 18:4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"​

John 16 :

28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

31"You believe at last!" Jesus answered. 32"But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Menopausal?

:baby:

For someone who denies free will, you would think she would consider my concession a step in the right direction

GR, you do many things that are uncalled for, but your personalization above is despicable and only hints at your own frustrations and inabilities to make any cogent arguments.

 

[Clete]

GR, you do many things that are uncalled for, but your personalization above is despicable and only hints at your own frustrations and inabilities to make any cogent arguments.

I don't remember the last you made an argument at all! The only difference between your style and godrulz' is that you bloviate until the reader passes out from boredom, whereas godrulz is the king of one liners.

I've begun to believe that you don't even know what making an argument even means.

 

[Nang]

I don't remember the last you made an argument at all! The only difference between your style and godrulz' is that you bloviate until the reader passes out from boredom, whereas godrulz is the king of one liners.

I've begun to believe that you don't even know what making an argument even means.

You are either delusional, blind as a bat, or in a state of denial.

Whatever your problem, you miss great blessings provided by AMR.

:rain: