ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Does the term FINAL judgment ring a bell, Lee?

 

[RobE]

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

Sure you aren't. But God could have been if your theology is correct!

 

[themuzicman]

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?

Again, there is an inherent conditionality, just as there was in the Old Covenant. The Kings didn't hold up their part of the deal.

However, God did fulfill this covenant, did He not?

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?

And this is where we can appeal to God's righteous nature, and specifically His integrity. I doubt anyone (other than Jonah, for poor motives) minded that God changed His mind in response to Ninevah.

Thus, we have to apply a little intelligence (thus Rob's problem) to understanding God's desires and motives with respect to His declarations.

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.

Gee, I didn't even get to answer the question.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

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

Otherwise known as what the text actually says.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Sure you aren't. But God could have been if your theology is correct!

:chuckle:

I'll take that as humorous, but your on thin ice. God will not be mocked. He is never fooled.

P

 

[lee_merrill]

Again, there is an inherent conditionality, just as there was in the Old Covenant. The Kings didn't hold up their part of the deal.

However, God did fulfill this covenant, did He not?

Quite so, so this is not a place where we see God changed his mind, and thus we do not have an OVT proof text.

Thus, we have to apply a little intelligence (thus Rob's problem) to understanding God's desires and motives with respect to His declarations.

Why do you insult Rob's intelligence? "He who throws mud is losing ground"...

Gee, I didn't even get to answer the question.

Quite so.

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.

Now--if I understand your complaint--you have the opportunity to answer this!

Does the term FINAL judgment ring a bell, Lee?

Yes, but if humans have free will and can sin in heaven, then promises are unsure concerning salvation--forever.

 

[RobE]

:chuckle:

I'll take that as humorous, but your on thin ice. God will not be mocked. He is never fooled.

P

Ezekial 26:14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.​

Then how about all of those proof texts where God doesn't know the future and makes mistakes about the outcome? Was God wrong as open theists claim or 'fooled' within the venacular?

 

[themuzicman]

Quite so, so this is not a place where we see God changed his mind, and thus we do not have an OVT proof text.

That's fine. OVT doesn't stand or fall on these kinds of proof texts anyway.

Why do you insult Rob's intelligence? "He who throws mud is losing ground"...

I was just pointing to a problem.

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.

Now--if I understand your complaint--you have the opportunity to answer this!

Well, this is a common misconception about Free Will. Free will isn't the ability to do anything. Free will is the ability to choose from available options.

Because we've chosen to believe in God for eternal life, God has promised that we will be incorruptible after our resurrection. Most take this to mean that sin won't be an option.

Yes, but if humans have free will and can sin in heaven, then promises are unsure concerning salvation--forever.

Again, you're confusing free will with unlimited ability.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

I post again my latest yet-unaddressed questions...

With regard to Cyrus, if God can determine future choices when they are not free, well, I could 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?

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?

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.

 

[lee_merrill]

Because we've chosen to believe in God for eternal life, God has promised that we will be incorruptible after our resurrection. Most take this to mean that sin won't be an option.

Thus people in heaven are not freely choosing to be righteous, they in fact have no choice?

Blessings,
Lee <- Seems to hear one Godrulz inveighing about "children, not robots"

 

[RobE]

I was just pointing to a problem.

Excellent! I tried to rep you but wasn't allowed to. Thanks for the attention. Perhaps my limited intelligence has perceived a relationship between your statements which you are unwilling to acknowledge. A broken clock is still right twice a day!

 

[themuzicman]

I post again my latest questions...

With regard to Cyrus, if God can determine future choices when they are not free, well, I could 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?

Because the other gods were nothing more then prophets trying to make a living speaking for some made up god?

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?

Why does Peter's memory make a prophecy true or false?

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?

Did it come to pass>

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?

Group dynamics. Certainly God understands these better than we do, does He not?

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.

Again, you confuse the ability to choose from available options with free will. No one is able to come to Christ, unless the Father draws him. (You DO remember John 6;44, right?)

Thus, only a remnant are drawn.

The free will moment of salvation comes AFTER one is drawn, not before.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Thus people in heaven are not freely choosing to be righteous, they in fact have no choice?

Absolutely not. Certainly there is more than one righteous choice in any given situation, is there not?

Again, just because one thing isn't an option doesn't mean that there isn't free will.

Blessings,
Lee <- Seems to hear one Godrulz inveighing about "children, not robots"

Why don't you give us a term we can use for people who always follow the nature given them by God?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Because the other gods were nothing more then prophets trying to make a living speaking for some made up god?

Well, yes, but if the notable point is a prediction I also could make, knowing choices that weren't free, then how does this especially demonstrate God's power? For people are called "gods" too.

Why does Peter's memory make a prophecy true or false?

This is a non sequitur, though.

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.

Did it come to pass...

Yes but the question is based on the possibility of Jesus being wrong.

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?

Group dynamics. Certainly God understands these better than we do, does He not?

Yet how can God predict with certainty the future decisions even of a group, if these are freely made?

Thus, only a remnant are drawn.

That hardly seems fair (I use an Arminian / OVT argument) is it then the case that some cannot possibly be saved, because God does not draw them, nor call them?

Certainly there is more than one righteous choice in any given situation, is there not?

But I meant no choice about whether to do right or not, I also recall discussions about "love must be free," do people in heaven have no choice but to love God? How is that real love, then?

Why don't you give us a term we can use for people who always follow the nature given them by God?

Maybe we should ask Godrulz? for this is his objection, and his conclusion, it seems, that such restrictions make people robots.

 

[themuzicman]

Well, yes, but if the notable point is a prediction I also could make, knowing choices that weren't free, then how does this especially demonstrate God's power? For people are called "gods" too.

Who said that this wasn't all the result of free choices?

This is a non sequitur, though.

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.

Why is this necessary? Why does Peter have to remember?

Yes but the question is based on the possibility of Jesus being wrong.

With knowledge of all possible futures and how God's actions will limit those futures, it's possible to prophesy.

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?

I don't see why fear, uncertainty and doubt make a valid argument. God's knowledge and power are sufficient to fulfill what He prophesies.

Yet how can God predict with certainty the future decisions even of a group, if these are freely made?

Same way that we can.

That hardly seems fair (I use an Arminian / OVT argument) is it then the case that some cannot possibly be saved, because God does not draw them, nor call them?

Everyone is guilty of sin. If all were condemned, it would be "fair." This is not an OVT argument, but one from the Arminians, of which I disagree.

But I meant no choice about whether to do right or not, I also recall discussions about "love must be free," do people in heaven have no choice but to love God? How is that real love, then?

Because we've chosen in this life to embrace God and to love Him, and we will live eternally in that choice.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Who said that this wasn't all the result of free choices?

Well, Muz did:

Lee: So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

Muz: Except that it isn't free.

Why is this necessary? Why does Peter have to remember?

Because all this happened against his intent ("Even if I have to die with you...") and thus requires he be oblivious to what he is doing.

With knowledge of all possible futures and how God's actions will limit those futures, it's possible to prophesy.

Yet if a prediction involves a free choice, there is always a possibility that that choice will be made another way, so then it cannot be "truly, truly."

I don't see why fear, uncertainty and doubt make a valid argument.

Unless God says "this is sure" knowing it's not, then God is deceiving us about the truth, this I would be concerned about.

Same way that we can.

How is it that group decisions can be predicted with certainty? This is in fact impossible, if individuals choose freely, there is always some possibility that all or most will choose another way, and will repent when God said they wouldn't, or will give glory to God when he said this would not happen, or will refuse when it was said they would glorify him.

Everyone is guilty of sin. If all were condemned, it would be "fair."

I agree, and yet Jesus did not come to seek to save the lost in general? Just those who are to be drawn?

Because we've chosen in this life to embrace God and to love Him, and we will live eternally in that choice.

I agree, there is freedom within the will of God, and within the boundaries of all righteous choices, and only there, "where the Spirit of the Lord is--freedom!"

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Ezekial 26:14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.​

Then how about all of those proof texts where God doesn't know the future and makes mistakes about the outcome? Was God wrong as open theists claim or 'fooled' within the venacular?

"I thought that..."

Blessings,
Lee <- Mr. Idiot, strange how such incapable people are able to give OVT proponents, such fits

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

A probabilistic God? I'm not sure how you mean that.

"cannot know the exact date of anything in the future" Yeah. So what.

"nor could He infallibly know even when to act." You mean like, God doesn't know when the fullness of the Gentiles is?

But God acting in the Settled View is really hit and miss for you...

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.

 

[lee_merrill]

"nor could He infallibly know even when to act." You mean like, God doesn't know when the fullness of the Gentiles is?

How could God know whether waiting longer might have more Gentiles repent? This being a free decision as far as I understand, according to the Open View, Muz may be excepted here.

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.

But he has told us his perspective, that breaking promises is bad, and this is not a perspective, but essential morality, which is not decided by decree, even a decree of God. God could not declare that idolatry was good, nor stealing, nor murder.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

You seem to have found what you think is a hammer and like using it over and over, when in reality all you have is a tinker toy.

By what warrant from the Scriptures should you claim any perspective as a valid filter for truth, e.g., where your 'trust' should lie, other than God's perspective? Moreover, please feel free to cite any references you run across having God breaking His promises.