ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

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.

PCA

Monergism is true when viewed through an 'all knowing' lens. Man's perspective, as we are temporal, must be one of synergism.

God gives us the grace to have faith, God provides the method in which we are saved, God frees our mind and nature to do the supernatural. Once free we are able to cooperate freely with His design. Without this cooperation(synergism), which He as provided(monergism), efficacious grace is unachievable.

A mystery perhaps. I think it's only a matter of perspective.

Looking forward we are able to say that our cooperation will be necessary.

Looking from an omniscient perspective we are able to say that God did all the work to accomplish our cooperation.

Which is true? I believe both depending on which perspective we view it from.

Understand that I hold to simple foreknowledge and not causal forknowledge. Foreordination is a result of the creative act. Therefore, God did not decree who would be reprobate. He simply knew their outcome beforehand and created anyway for the benefit of the elect. God's purpose is greater than suffering.

 

[Philetus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
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:
Quote:
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.

Threw me there for a moment, too.

 

[RobE]

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.

Open theism, however, would have God be subject to His own creation through lack of intelligence. They would strip Him of His scriptural attributes in such a way that Zeus or Odin would might be more powerful --- and, even worse, elevate man to equal status with Him. Through His own decrees of course. Even those pagan Greeks didn't think their God's were on equal footing with them.

Calvinists hold God in awe which is appropriate. God is not their buddy or pal who's doing the best with those rascally creations. God is still God within Calvinism. Can the same be said of open theism?

Calvinists have legitimate scriptural proof to support their positions - unlike some others I can think of. Hyper-calvinism, supralapsarianism, and the genre are what we're objecting to here.

How can an open theist even consider thinking judgement will ever occur. Maybe God will change His mind and skip it altogether? God's promises mean nothing when God is like a man changing His mind with the wind.

What some find clever, I find insulting.

 

[themuzicman]

So, Rob, it's impossible for someone without foreknowledge to act with any integrity? The options are total control, or totally random?

You're the king of the logical fallacy.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

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).

Good post, even with insufficient sleep. I'm curious about one thing, however.

Does delaying the second coming really constitute postponing the Kingdom? If so OCCUPY what exactly until His return?
Is Christ not now reigning in your blueprint motif (even now in the face of resistance and opposition) in the hearts and lives of His followers? Isn't He even now Lord over all things for the church?
If Jesus is Lord, what is He Lord over if His kingdom has been 'postponed' not to exist until His second coming?
Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

... it's impossible for someone without foreknowledge to act with any integrity?

Well, this is a straw man, we can act with integrity when it is possible we may change our mind. The objection is that if God can reverse himself, this makes his purposes, and thus his promises, unsure.

 

[themuzicman]

Well, this is a straw man, we can act with integrity when it is possible we may change our mind. The objection is that if God can reverse himself, this makes his purposes, and thus his promises, unsure.

However, if God has declared that something will come to pass, and engaged in covenant, then God will do and live within those things.

All the things Rob was speaking of are elements of God's declaration and God's covenants, for which He will not change His mind, because it is His Word.

Apparently Rob doesn't have the intellectual capacity to grasp that.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

I begin my eulogy...

Friends, today we honor a noble effort, one that sought with earnestness to reconcile various concerns and address difficult questions: the problem of evil, and what can be known, and how God rules the world. We may take from their example a commitment to truth and to understanding God's ways and words, and being willing to examine the foundations of doctrine.

A maze of questions has been laid out, and as a result of exploring this the way is clearer, there being no answer more satisfactory than a tested reply, and for their untiring effort in many questions we also thank them, I never knew so much was hidden in the book of Jonah, nor that so much was at stake in the prediction of Peter's denial.

 

[RobE]

However, if God has declared that something will come to pass, and engaged in covenant, then God will do and live within those things.

This, however, isn't the open view....

Jonah 3:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”​

God's decrees mean nothing within that theism.

All the things Rob was speaking of are elements of God's declaration and God's covenants, for which He will not change His mind, because it is His Word.

Where does it state that the judgement is a covenant?

Apparently Rob doesn't have the intellectual capacity to grasp that.

Don't become bitter because open theism is self-defeating.

 

[themuzicman]

I begin my eulogy...

Friends, today we honor a noble effort, one that sought with earnestness to reconcile various concerns and address difficult questions: the problem of evil, and what can be known, and how God rules the world. We may take from their example a commitment to truth and to understanding God's ways and words, and being willing to examine the foundations of doctrine.

A maze of questions has been laid out, and as a result of exploring this the way is clearer, there being no answer more satisfactory than a tested reply, and for their untiring effort in many questions we also thank them, I never knew so much was hidden in the book of Jonah, nor that so much was at stake in the prediction of Peter's denial.

Yes, Calvinism's death must be painful for you, Lee.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

However, if God has declared that something will come to pass, and engaged in covenant, then God will do and live within those things.

Yet (we have discussed this) does OVT not say God meant to destroy Israel, and annul a covenant, and Moses intervened, and God changed his mind?

All the things Rob was speaking of are elements of God's declaration and God's covenants, for which He will not change His mind, because it is His Word.

I believe in all instances where OVT says God changed his mind, we see what OVT takes to be a firm declaration of what he would do.

 

[Philetus]

Open theism, however, would have God be subject to His own creation through lack of intelligence. They would strip Him of His scriptural attributes in such a way that Zeus or Odin would might be more powerful --- and, even worse, elevate man to equal status with Him. Through His own decrees of course. Even those pagan Greeks didn't think their God's were on equal footing with them.

Calvinists hold God in awe which is appropriate. God is not their buddy or pal who's doing the best with those rascally creations. God is still God within Calvinism. Can the same be said of open theism?

Calvinists have legitimate scriptural proof to support their positions - unlike some others I can think of. Hyper-calvinism, supralapsarianism, and the genre are what we're objecting to here.

How can an open theist even consider thinking judgement will ever occur. Maybe God will change His mind and skip it altogether? God's promises mean nothing when God is like a man changing His mind with the wind.

What some find clever, I find insulting.

You throw up yet another straw man.

Lacking knowledge of nonexistences isn't lack of intelligence.

OT neither strips God of His scriptural attributes nor exaggerates.

OT doesn't elevate man over God.

OT holds God in awe. Awe that the Creator of the universe actually has a relationship with His creation.

God isn't like a man changing his mind at every whim and fancy. Man is like God ... NOT GOD! God is faithful though every man unfaithful. God is true though every man a liar.

What I'm objecting to is Calvinism, period. You can object to anything you want to.

You’re either playing games or you really are as stupid as others have suspected. Either way, Rob, you should be more embarrassed than insulted.

 

[themuzicman]

This, however, isn't the open view....

Jonah 3:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”​

God's decrees mean nothing within that theism.

You know, even Jonah got this, and he was there. Maybe you should read your bible for yourself.

You CAN read, can't you?

Jonah 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do [it]. 4:1 But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, "Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my [own] country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.​

Even JONAH knew this was conditional.

Where does it state that the judgement is a covenant?

You must have selective eyesight, let's try again:

speaking of are elements of God's declaration and God's covenants

God declares judgment.

Don't become bitter because open theism is self-defeating.

I don't have to worry about it, with apologists like you on the other side.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Yet (we have discussed this) does OVT not say God meant to destroy Israel, and annul a covenant, and Moses intervened, and God changed his mind?

No. God intended to destroy the people of Israel except for Moses and start over with Him, maintaining His promises and Covenants through him.

I believe in all instances where OVT says God changed his mind, we see what OVT takes to be a firm declaration of what he would do.

No, God changes His mind because doing so is compassionate and in response to those who respond to Him. Often declarations are inherently conditional, such as we see in Jonah, where even JONAH gets it.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

However, if God has declared that something will come to pass, and engaged in covenant, then God will do and live within those things.

All the things Rob was speaking of are elements of God's declaration and God's covenants, for which He will not change His mind, because it is His Word.

Apparently Rob doesn't have the intellectual capacity to grasp that.

Muz

Apparently!

 

[RobE]

You know, even Jonah got this, and he was there. Maybe you should read your bible for yourself.

You CAN read, can't you?

Jonah 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do [it]. 4:1 But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, "Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my [own] country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.​

Even JONAH knew this was conditional.



You must have selective eyesight, let's try again:

God declares judgment.

Jonah 3:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”​

This looks like a declaration of judgement to me.

Even JONAH knew this was conditional.

God declares judgment.

But according to open theism it might be conditional.

 

[RobE]

I don't have to worry about it, with apologists like you on the other side.

Muz

It's not me you have to worry about. It's yourself, since you are an honest man with much integrity. That's what will finally convince you of the error.

 

[lee_merrill]

No. God intended to destroy the people of Israel except for Moses and start over with Him, maintaining His promises and Covenants through him.

Certainly, I agree, I have a better example, how about the covenant with David to have someone on his throne, and we are told God changed his mind at the time of Jehoiakim?

No, God changes His mind because doing so is compassionate and in response to those who respond to Him.

Did we forget the other aspect of Jer. 18? God is said to change his mind both in regard to mercy, and judgment, and what promises are sure if the reason is a change in man's response?

Do people have free will to choose to sin in heaven? so then even salvation is unsure, forever, and all promises that really are of concern to us.

 

[Philetus]

Rob, your rooster croaked … stop crowing … we aren’t fooled.

 

[lee_merrill]

Muz: God declares judgment.

RobE: This looks like a declaration of judgement to me.

RobE: But according to open theism it might be conditional.

Muz: Even JONAH knew this was conditional.

Otherwise known as having the proverbial cake, and proverbially eating it, too...