ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

I’m starting to come to the conclusion that OVT is at worst wrong and at best irrelevant.

Though I extend the irrelevance to the entire debate between OVT and Calvinism, since I see them as functionally equivalent.

That is of the set of all people there exists two subsets one of those who are saved/believe and the set of those who are unsaved/unbelieving. If God decided that some would believe and be saved, or individuals believe of there own accord and are saved does nothing to change the final result. Some believe and are saved some do not and are not.

Unless of course you believe that holding to one of these views or the other is, in and of itself, a condition of salvation. (I don’t believe this, as I have encountered no mandate that believing either is required for salvation). This would however impact the result.

The whole debate is about who is in control of the fate of men, and who is going to get the credit for persons finding forgiveness and salvation; as well as who will be blamed for continual and unrepentant unbelief.

Most religionists attempt to place the onus upon mortals for either outcome.

Calvinists give God the right to make the call either way He chooses.



Nang

 

[godrulz]

Quite so, when God changes his mind (as they say) we hear the future is unknowable, when pressed to explain prophecy of future human choices, we hear God can determine even such choices. This would however be definite foreknowledge of the future.

Blessings,
Lee <- Who does however usually eat his cake, when he has it

Some/exceptional limitations of freedom is not the same as exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies.

It is possible to explain the naming of Cyrus or Peter's denial from an Open Theist position. It is not possible to explain EDF as being consistent with free will contingencies from a logical, philosphical, or biblical position.

 

[godrulz]

Ah, I should also add that this part of the post was speaking as a Settled Viewer. I'll fix it in my previous post.

Settled is not your position, I think.

This explains why it did not make sense. It is incoherent logically.

 

[Yorzhik]

Settled is not your position, I think.

This explains why it did not make sense. It is incoherent logically.

Correct, SV is not my position. But the problem is easier to explain from the SV point of view.

Since it was pages ago, I'll repost. It isn't too long:

If a Settled Viewer is honest they would admit: since God is transcendent and God doing bad things (from our perspective) is actually good (from God's perspective); we cannot trust any promises of God because God breaking promises is only bad from our perspective, but would be good from God's perspective. And God's perspective is the only one that matters.

 

[godrulz]

The whole debate is about who is in control of the fate of men, and who is going to get the credit for persons finding forgiveness and salvation; as well as who will be blamed for continual and unrepentant unbelief.

Most religionists attempt to place the onus upon mortals for either outcome.

Calvinists give God the right to make the call either way He chooses.



Nang

Nang is pretending that I do not exist.

God is in control of the fate of men in both views. We are bugs that could be stepped on compared to who He is as God.

However, God's ways are based on His character and a law of love. His plan of redemption is not arbitary, but wise and consistent with holiness, justice, mercy, and love.

Man alone is to blame for his stupid, selfish rebellion. God and man are ontologically distinct. Unless you are pantheist, man has God-given self-determination to reject God's love and goodness. Love, relationship, and freedom are principles in His kingdom. In Calvinism, God is omnicausal, not omnicompetent. One huge problem with this is theodicy, the problem of evil. God does not desire or intend for man to be a rebel. The possibility of loving God necessitates the possibility of hating God. The Fall was not a foregone conclusion, but grieved the heart of God.

In both views, God alone gets credit for salvation. He alone provides and initiates salvation. It is a wrong premise to think that man's God-given ability to receive or reject truth (hence culpability/accountability) is tantamount to self-salvation or robbing God of all glory. It is a flawed understanding of faith and salvation (faith is not a meritorious work, whether a gift of God or a response of man).


Nang presents a false dichotomy and straw man views. There is a more balanced approach than to assume non-Calvinists are perjorative 'religionists' (again, misrepresents the opposition's view of faith and salvation).

Any responsibility on man's part arises from God's sovereign choice to have parameters and quality of freedom, not just retaining the right to be a meticulous control freak. He values love, relationship, and freedom over a deterministic universe. The biblical evidence is that He actualized the former, not the latter. This has ramifications, including the possibility of evil and calculated risk (in smaller things, not overall project/purposes). Granting the possibility of reciprocal relationships with other moral agents who have a limited say-so explains reality and Scripture. A deductive, preconceived hyper-sovereignty view compromises explicit revelation and is indefensible and problematic.

OT give the right to God to actualize any kind of universe He wants. The evidence is that He lovingly, wisely chose a non-deterministic universe even though it led to grief in His tranquil triune relations and necessitated the ignominious death of the Son of God to redeem the mess we made by abusing our gift.

God's love is not arbitrary, but it is impartial. Elect vs non-elect (double predestination) impugns the character and ways of God. Take off the preconceived filter and indoctrination to see that God is more free and loving and awesome than one could ever imagine.

Jn. 4:24

 

[lee_merrill]

Some/exceptional limitations of freedom is not the same as exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies.

The point though is that both statements are made categorically, in ways that do seem unqualified--depending on the need of the moment.

It is possible to explain the naming of Cyrus or Peter's denial from an Open Theist position.

I note my latest Cyrus questions are still unanswered, if God can determine future choices when they are not free, why then I can too! This shows no notable power on God's part, so why make so much of what Cyrus will do, and underline that no other god predicted this? So then God is predicting future free choices here.

As far as Peter's denial, the rooster crowed twice, not just once at the end. How could Jesus have guessed that Peter would not remember the first time the rooster crowed, and then that he would remember the second time? So this cannot be simply a prediction based on Peter's character. And if Peter did forget the second time, then how would Jesus know that no one would challenge him again, and that Peter would not deny him yet a fourth time?

And Jesus said "truly" (Mt. 26:34), in John 13:38, it's "truly, truly", which was a way of saying "this is sure and certain." So this could not have failed, yet if it was an estimate, then what would that tell the disciples, and us, in other places where we read "truly, truly"? Is this another estimate, again? Would this also not make Jesus a false prophet, if he predicted unconditionally like this, and failed?

It is not possible to explain EDF as being consistent with free will contingencies from a logical, philosphical, or biblical position.

Biblically, God predicts future human choices in the area of repentance, how can God predict that some in Revelation will not repent, some will give glory to God, and others will refuse to give him glory?

And how can God know that only the remnant of Israel will be saved, until the full number of the Gentiles come in? Isn't salvation always a free choice? and Jesus' sacrifice was both known, and also at the very last moment, freely chosen.

As far as philosophy, why let philosophy interpret Scripture? And with regard to logic, I see no fundamental contradiction in knowing a future free choice, just as we can know a past free choice. Why say God cannot do this, especially if he predicts future choices people will make?

And Jonah needs mentioning, if this prophecy had an implied condition, every other such instance where the Open View says God changed his mind may have a similar implied condition as well.

You see, the Open View has been driven off its main points, and can no longer mount a compelling case...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Just bugging you because you seem to equate an acceptance of Calvinism with an acceptance of Christ.

Please substantiate this observation of yours or stop making it. I will give you a day or so to do so.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We also know that Jesus will return again in the future. This is settled, but not actual yet.

Does God know the exact date and time of Christ's return?

 

[godrulz]

Please substantiate this observation of yours or stop making it. I will give you a day or so to do so.

Or what? Or else? Ooooo...I'm afwaid.

You recently suggested that myself and Open Theists are not believers because we reject your articulations of theological nuances (or that is what I gather since the issues were Calvinistic....re Clete and AMR mudslinging to negate each other's salvation over semantical issues with the incarnation).

Perhaps it is more obvious with Michael T., Beloved 57, and Nang's (lack integrity, credibility, and discernment...let's add mystery too) explicit negation of my faith for rejecting TULIP, a deductive framework not seen by non-Calvinists who also read, study, and love Scripture.

 

[Evoken]

As long as one recognizes the true nature of freedom and sovereignty, one will also see the two motifs

One sees two truths in Scripture both God's absolute sovereignty/foreknowledge and human freedom/responsibility. The idea of God being ignorant of anything is simply not there. These are two facts that Scripture present to us and as such we must accept them as they are. Rationalizations that seek to "solve" the tension that exist between these truths end up either degrading God (O.T.) or destroying free will (extreme forms of Calvinism).

With regards to O.T, I would say that any idea seeking to degrade God or reduce him in anyway in order to exalt man or retain some quality in man automatically becomes suspect. You are using human freedom as the criteria by which you determine what God can or cannot know, that is a man centered approach which is alien to the Scriptures.


Evo

 

[godrulz]

Does God know the exact date and time of Christ's return?

I smell a trap.

After the Fall, the potential plan of redemption was implemented, but not actualized for thousands of years. The prophecies of first and second coming were not given before the Fall, but after the Fall.

God knows that the Son of Man will return. It seems that Jesus and Paul and the early church believed in an imminent return of Christ. This is where I may agree with some of the dispensational/open view ideas. The kingdom was postponed when they crucified the King.

I do not believe the exact date of His return was settled in eternity past by decree. Peter implies He delays His return due to patience and not wanting anyone to perish. It also seems we can hasten or delay His return depending on the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This does not make us sovereign, but shows that God flexes with changing contingencies.

At this moment, He may have the exact moment settled in His mind. This does not mean it was settled before creation. The unfolding of creation created new contingencies that may or may not have potentially affected his time of return. I think His return is in the fulness of time (like first coming Gal. 4:4), not an arbitrary date. If history unfolds in a certain way, it may affect what and when God does things. He is not locked into a fatalistic future, but is free and responsive as things change dynamically (warfare vs blueprint model).

So, there is a difference between proximal and remote knowledge. He did not have to settle the return date, but He did settle the fact of the return in the remote past. As the potential time of return becomes more proximal, He could finalize the date or simply decide on 'short' notice to return (consistent with prophecy which is not exhaustive and chronological systematically).

This is what we know: He is returning. Occupy until He returns.

Whether the sovereign God has set the date and when (pre-trib rapture can happen any time) is speculative (unless you assume exhaustive definite foreknowledge instead of two motifs).

I do not think it was set before creation. It may or may not be set now (I am not convinced it is). When He decides to pull the plug, it can happen on short notice or be fixed for a longer period of time. This is true sovereignty vs fatalism.

Given that the future is open, at least partially, it would not be a deficiency in omniscience to not know a choice that is open at the moment, even for God (again, assuming eternal now simultaneity is bunk). If God has already made up His mind, then it is settled (unless He does a Hezekiah thing again) and known as such. This is in His control (cf. Is. 46 and Is. 48 about His ability, not foreknowledge).

I have not slept much, so don't freak if this seems nuts to you. I think I am on the right track, but may need to polish statements, even as you have in your short, but sweet life.:sam:

I am sorta trying to figure out the word count that makes statements true instead of mere assertions with no substance. If this is too short to be considered a plausible explanation, I can pad it to your liking with nonsense, so it becomes legit due to length. Sound fair?

 

[godrulz]

One sees two truths in Scripture both God's absolute sovereignty/foreknowledge and human freedom/responsibility. The idea of God being ignorant of anything is simply not there. These are two facts that Scripture present to us and as such we must accept them as they are. Rationalizations that seek to "solve" the tension that exist between these truths end up either degrading God (O.T.) or destroying free will (extreme forms of Calvinism).

With regards to O.T, I would say that any idea seeking to degrade God or reduce him in anyway in order to exalt man or retain some quality in man automatically becomes suspect. You are using human freedom as the criteria by which you determine what God can or cannot know, that is a man centered approach which is alien to the Scriptures.


Evo

I think you fail to grasp the complexity of issues relating to exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies. It is not a matter of bringing God down, but is in the category of logical absurdities like an omnipotent God creating married bachelors or square circles.

Exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian free will is a logical contradiction. One cannot claim antinomy and embrace the concepts as compatible on blind faith. Again, one needs to properly understand omniscience, freedom, and sovereignty. We differ as to possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is omniscient or not (He is).

It is hard to explain in a moment what has involved decades of thought and research. I just hope we all think about it instead of uncritically accepting the traditions of men, no matter how well intentioned. What does the Bible say? I think I know.

 

[Evoken]

I think you fail to grasp the complexity of issues relating to exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies. It is not a matter of bringing God down, but is in the category of logical absurdities like an omnipotent God creating married bachelors or square circles.

Actually it seems you are the one who do not understand the issue. We already went over this godrulz: here and here.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You recently suggested that myself and Open Theists are not believers because we reject your articulations of theological nuances (or that is what I gather since the issues were Calvinistic....re Clete and AMR mudslinging to negate each other's salvation over semantical issues with the incarnation).

Misunderstandings of the Incarnation and the deity of Christ are salvific issues. You agree with this as I have seen you so state to many a JW and Mormon. Now having said that, again I ask that you retract your assertion, for these matters have nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism, but pertain to all of Christendom.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Does God know the exact date and time of Christ's return?

God knows that the Son of Man will return.

It also seems we can hasten or delay His return depending on the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This does not make us sovereign, but shows that God flexes with changing contingencies.

I think His return is in the fulness of time (like first coming Gal. 4:4), not an arbitrary date.

This is what we know: He is returning. Occupy until He returns.

I have not slept much, so don't freak if this seems nuts to you.

I am sorta trying to figure out the word count that makes statements true instead of mere assertions with no substance. If this is too short to be considered a plausible explanation, I can pad it to your liking with nonsense, so it becomes legit due to length. Sound fair?

Means "No!".

At least you get positive credit for your own introspective condemnation of your ramblings.

There is no trap here. Your answer is simply the logical conclusion of unsettled theism--a probabilistic God cannot know know the exact date of anything in the future, nor could He infallibly know even when to act.

 

[RobE]

Well this is where the teaching that I heard solves the dilemna. Christ who died has fulfilled the law of death for sinners who constitute His body.

What is the "law of death" and how was it fulfilled?

The natural outcome of sin. You said it was a matter of divine government.

If grace is resistible, men would suffer death, even though Jesus Christ died their death. Does this make sense to you? What good would that kind of (unsaving) grace be? It would prove to be non-efficacious and lacking in power. Does this describe your God? My God is all-powerful and His arm not too short to save:

"Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee." Jeremiah 32:17

This is the whole point! Men DO suffer eternal death which is the proof that grace is resistable. The good of that sufficient, yet non-efficacious grace, is that it would maintain God's attribute of being just. Efficacious grace is achieved through the cooperation of a man's faith.

Then you hold to the Arminian belief that salvation is conditional and dependent upon a sinner's choice and decision? My, I thought we were much closer theologically than this!

We are closer than you are feeling. Words, words, and more words......

Faith is dependent on God's grace. God's graces are the prime motivator of the entire process. Our only disagreement is over whether grace is an irresistable coercive force or not. Calvin says yes and the rest of Christianity says no.

The cross work of Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of His people. It was not a universal work, or indeed we would witness only Christians living in this world. We would have heaven on earth!

The wheat and the tares. Also, if Christ 'accomplished the salvation' then grace becomes superfluous to the process. Calvinism would allow man to behave in any immoral way of his choosing with no responsibility whatsoever. Why would sinning have any effect whatsoever, if 'Christ accomplished the salvation' independently? This would be in direct conflict with the teachings of Paul.

When Limited Atonement is denied, then the concept of universal atonement must be denied . . .if one does not want to be called a Universalist . . .and thus the Arminian, semi-Pelagian position is born.

Why must universal atonement lead to universalism? Christ's atonement was universal, but receiving it had a condition. You must believe in that atonement to receive the grace of it and make it efficacious! As the scripture supports.

Salvation is not a co-operative act; we are saved by the grace of God and not of ourselves at all. See Ephesians 2:8&9

This is true. A man isn't able to save himself(pelagius). However, we are able to cooperate with grace and become one with Christ! Then our salvation becomes inherent with our being in Christ and having Christ within us. Thus it can be said, that Christ saved us alone through the cross and that we did nothing towards our own salvation. You might think this is splitting hairs, but does hold to ALL the scriptures and doesn't reject one iota. It also gives credence to Christ's atonement being sufficient for all, even though many will reject it. It upholds Divine Justice as well.

Rob, Calvinists are the ones who teach the "Doctrines of Grace" aka TULIP.

Grace was discussed long before Calvin was born.

Are you speaking from the Roman Catholic view, or EO?

Roman Catholic.

The foreknowledge of God does not determine who will be the elect of God.

How is this true if your claim is that He foreknew them before the dawn of time?
What does determine their existence if not God by acting upon what He foreknew?

. . .For you are giving sinners credit and merit for having the smarts to believe in the cross work of Jesus Christ, and the good sense to not pass up God's aid in this life. You believe those who avail themselves of the things of God are somehow then in a superior position in life, opposed to unbelievers, due to their good choices.

This is self-righteousness, not faith in the righteousness of Christ, alone.

It is true that I believe the children of God are in a superior position in life due to their good choices. But this position is because of the righteousness of Christ in me, not my own righteousness.

Legal justification and pardon must have a moral basis. Jesus Christ vicariously supplied that basis of Godly forgiveness for His children, through the sacrifice of His flesh and blood.

As does legal condemnation and punishment which is eliminated if Christ's atonement wasn't universal.

I heartily disagree. Sinners are saved by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in the righteousness of Christ alone, by hearing of the Word of God alone, to the glory of God, alone.

Sure, but hearing the Word of God alone and faith mean nothing without cooperation. Calvinism could simply skip the entire creative process. God could make those he wanted, good and evil, and go directly to the judgement seat. Sending the reprobate immediately to hell and the grant the ones he wanted access to paradise. Does this make sense to you?

 

[RobE]

Rob,

What is your denominational affiliation?

Raised in a SBC environment. Spent most of my adulthood in a non-denominational environment. Heavily influenced by Augustine, Aquinas, and other Church fathers. I'm sure the catholic influence shows through since I reject dispensationalism, rapture, OSAS, and several other positions which are heavily believed in here.

The commonality between open theism and Calvinism is that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. Calvinism cuts the knot by saying free will isn't true. Open theism cuts the knot by saying foreknowledge isn't true. I cut the knot by saying that free will is ill-defined and is in reality compatible with foreknowledge.

In fact, I disagree with Calvin's statements that our natural behaviors limit our exercise of free will. I would say that our natural behaviors are the outpouring of our free will. And in agreement with Calvin would say that grace is the only thing which can make us act supernaturally and reject our sinful natures.

On the other hand, LFW is a travesty and can only lead to Pelagianism if we follow it to it's logical conclusion. The rejection of scriptural foreknowledge was first suggested by Whitehead and then defended by Pinnock(an acolyte of the former) to the detriment of Christianity at large. Open theism's objectives are good, but their means are flawed.

Of the two positions, I have more in common with Calvinism, just as Calvinism has more in common with Traditional Christianity than open theism does.

Thanks,
RobE

p.s. What's your denominational affiliation?

 

[Evoken]

Good post RobE

Our cooperation with grace is something that is clearly taught in the Scriptures.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The commonality between open theism and Calvinism is that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. Calvinism cuts the knot by saying free will isn't true. Open theism cuts the knot by saying foreknowledge isn't true. I cut the knot by saying that free will is ill-defined and is in reality compatible with foreknowledge.

To be more accurate, there are compatibilists and incompatibilists within Calvinism. The former is the majority position and we see "freedom" as the mind's choosing according to its greatest inclinations, and not the liberty of indifference. In actuality your "knot cut" is the dominant Calvinist position.

Not sure what you are really saying by "cooperating with grace". Are you a synergist? Monergist? I and all Calvinists are monergists.

p.s. What's your denominational affiliation?

PCA

 

[Philetus]

....

Sure, but hearing the Word of God alone and faith mean nothing without cooperation. Calvinism could simply skip the entire creative process. God could make those he wanted, good and evil, and go directly to the judgement seat. Sending the reprobate immediately to hell and the grant the ones he wanted access to paradise. Does this make sense to you?

God could have just made some creatures to fill up the empty space before His throne. Calvinism makes a mockery of God, His creation, saving grace and loving relationship. Calvinism could skip the entire process all together if it weren't for having to deal with reality.