ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

This is patently false. OVTists have consistently worked to understand how prophecy works, and have a variety of viable and even scripturally sound basis for prophecy without foreknowledge.

Then knowing a choice beforehand is not foreknowledge? I say it is, and if it is a free choice, then this is a cardinal difficulty for the Open View.

 

[themuzicman]

Then knowing a choice beforehand is not foreknowledge? I say it is, and if it is a free choice, then this is a cardinal difficulty for the Open View.

The problem that SVers always seem to have is understanding that a prophecy may be fulfilled in a variety of ways, and that any prophecy must only be fulfilled in all the possible futures, rather than one specific one.

Muz

 

[Lon]

You are correct that narrative demonstrates doctrine. However, the doctrine is expressed in terms of the narrative, as well, in that it demonstrates the scope of the doctrine as applied. When God says, "I am unchanging" in the middle of a context speaking of His covenant loyalty, then the doctrine expressed is speaking of God's covenant loyalty and not His temporality or His knowledge.

Your error is trying to expand doctrine beyond its intended expression.



Yes, and this passage along with Genesis stands in opposition to what you claim about God.

Muz

We do not see eye to eye on the doctrinal passages concerning God not changing. Not in one of them does it say that. Scripture says clearly there is no variation or shadow of change.

I'm not hearing your argument clearly on the last point. Everything exists from Him. That was my statement.

Your statement:

For instance, if we were to accept your premise, then we would be required to reject "ex nihilo" creation, and embrace a process theism like existence, where creation is eternally co-existent with God. The reason being is that action is change. If God were first alone, and then created, then there is a change in God's relationships to those things around Him. But you've posited by doctrine and principle that God CANNOT change.

Thus, you cannot embrace ex nihilo creation, and must embrace a creation that eternally co-exists with God.

Mine:

God speaks ex nihlo, but the spoken word comes from Him.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Creation didn't coexist, but my point is it proceeds from Him. He created it from and by Himself. By Him it holds together. The premise of our discussion points back to original original-sin. Whether it was with Satan or wherever it came from is a difficult doctrinal point. It utimately leads to our discussion on free-will etc. I value your free-will discussion here for the answer, but it has as many problems as any other theological position. This is simply a very perplexing dilemma.

"If God is perfect and only makes that which is perfect, how could there ever have been original sin?"

That is the focal point of our discussion. Did God purposefully create us with a faulty wire? Did God plan every attrocity?

The converse is: God made a mistake. Something went wrong because He is not perfect.

This is classically the Armenian/Calvinist debate through the centuries where OV has also picked up the ball. It is how we answer this that strings the rest of our theology into place, but I try to be careful here. It is a philosophical discussion and I try to remember that I need to build my theology on scripture rather than a philosophical question if it isn't answered directly by that scripture. I believe the Calvinist perspective like the potter/clay analogy and the book of Job to be scripturally founded answer. The answer is "Shall the pot say to the potter, 'why have you made me like this?'" A question that has the answer as a question. In other words, it is not directly answered save that we are not given the answer and challenged to leave it in God's hands. Calvinists are accused of believing in a God who creates evil, but that takes the question too far past the demand that God is not to be questioned and tries to dig for an answer where we are specifically told not to challenge God. I caution OV here for trying to get an aswer because God's answer is "I am God, you are not, therefore your question is not wise."

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who indeed are you — a mere human being — to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?
Rom 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

Job 40:2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let the person who accuses God give him an answer!"
Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD:
Job 40:4 "Indeed, I am completely unworthy — how could I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth to silence myself.
Job 40:5 I have spoken once, but I cannot answer;
twice, but I will say no more."

Job 40:6 Then the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind:
Job 40:7 "Get ready for a difficult task like a man.
I will question you and you will inform me!
Job 40:8 Would you indeed annul my justice?
Would you declare me guilty so that you might be right?
Job 40:9 Do you have an arm as powerful as God's,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?

Job 42:7 After the LORD had spoken these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My anger is stirred up against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has.
Job 42:8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job will intercede for you, and I will respect him, so that I do not deal with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has."
Job 42:9 So they went, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and did just as the LORD had told them

 

[themuzicman]

The problem is the consistency between your statement about God not changing, and your statement about God creating. IN order to create, God must change in some way. Thus, your claim that doctrinal statements about God not changing in some way are in conflict with your statements about God creating ex nihilo, and one must be incorrect, unless, of course, you wish to live with logical contradiction.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Lon, I will answer these, but you must promise to answer my last post.

I think you simply misunderstand O.T.. You make will make a pretty lousy calvinist.

1) How is foreknowledge of God different than predictability?

There is no black and white answer. Sometimes God predicts, sometimes he plans, sometimes knows, sometimes he sees. Let me start with a comparison. The S.V. usually think God is outside of time, and that is how he can see the future. Or they think he created the future, so he knows everything because he made it happen (ordained it).

The Open view says that God does ordain some things, but not everything. Whatever he ordains he foreknows. The open view shows verses that place God in time.

God can also predict, and when the decisions of the freewill agents are already made, he will know exactly what will happen. So prediction becomes knowledge. Remember, God has perfect present knowledge. So a prediction for him isn't like a prediction for us.

God can also plan. But he allows his plans to change because of his mercy for us. If he plans to destroy Nineveh, and they repent, he can change that plan. Not however, if God had perfect future knowledge and knew he wasn't truly going to destroy Nineveh, he could never say he would do it and at the same time not lie (even if he lied to bring about good, it is still a lie).

2) How is foreknowledge possible if, as the OV says, the future hasn't happened yet? Does this answer negate the definition of foreknowledge?

I answered this above. But in brief, he ordains some things to happen. Even though free will agents are involved, he ordains things. God uses our obedience or our disobedience to his advantage to bring things about.

3) Is there a way to determine in OV theology when God knows and does not know future?

Yes. Take Job for example. God did not know if his dedication was because of his blessings, or because of his righteousness. So he allowed Satan (who accused Job in the first place and was willing to test him) to test him.

Anytime there is an aspect of a persons life that a decision on how to act has not been made, God doesn't know it either.

4) How does God's knowledge of what we will do and what we are doing differ?

Huh?

5) What does knowing our intimate thoughts, motives, and desires mean to God? How is it different than how we think about this? (I'm trying to show a gap here. God is different than we are and knows what we do not nor cannot).

God knows everything in the present and past. He even knows our tendencies that are presently defined. He does not know things about us that are not defined by us yet. EG, he knows how many hairs are on our head.

6) Do we share in this attribute at all? Do we have any real kind of foreknowledge?

Sometimes we do. But our plans are second to Gods ultimate will.

How close was my attempt compared to yours? Am I understanding you correctly on those points?

I ask because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think I've worded them in close proximately to the statements of this post. Have I correctly addressed the questions from an OV position?

 

[Lon]

The problem is the consistency between your statement about God not changing, and your statement about God creating. IN order to create, God must change in some way. Thus, your claim that doctrinal statements about God not changing in some way are in conflict with your statements about God creating ex nihilo, and one must be incorrect, unless, of course, you wish to live with logical contradiction.

Muz

You are equating change as with a nonbeing. This is not what I mean by not changing. If I were to do everything perfect as my example with the perfect nuclear physicist. He doesn't change what he does. He is a perfect nuclear physicist. This does not mean that all he makes is exactly the same, it simply means that it will be perfect. Whenever the nuclear physicist addresses another's work, he doesn't change what he does. He changes what they did. This is what I mean when I say God doesn't change. Consider that God is creative. This means creation is the same. It isn't any change in who He is. He is creator and always has been.

We as humans must change. We are imperfect and must grow. God is already perfect, there is nothing new to learn or know. Is God growing in knowledge and wisdom as we are?

Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know everything and do not need anyone to ask you anything. Because of this we believe that you have come from God."

Joh 21:17 Peter ... said, "Lord, you know everything..."

 

[Clete]

This simply isn't true. Ignoring the problem doesn't invalidate it. If foreknowledge of a future free action exists, then we are able to induce that God might know all free actions through the same means. Perhaps it would be wise to know the logical conclusions of our arguments before we present them.

I never said a word about "foreknowledge of future free will action(s)".

I'm so sick to death with your stupidity I could scream.

 

[Clete]

Here is one (note the 'might' was bolded and not by me:

You asked I cleared up my definition of foreknowledge (of God). God can foresee what might happen. But he does not foresee what will happen for every instance. A lot of the time, he knows what will happen because he can calculate in his minds the likelihood of events. But the area of the unknown lies with the decisions we have not already made (our freewill).

So when God tests someone, for example, the test is for us and him together. God wanted to know if Abraham would give his son to Him. So he tested him. As you have heard from the O.V. perspective, God said "now I know" (again another 'God in time' reference.) God wanted that answer because he could not foresee it. It was not a decision Abraham was ever faced with, the answer was unknowable until the situation was created.

There are several of these types of statements both here and in part one.

So I take it then that your lack of reading comprehension is the real problem.

Patman does not say that foreknowledge does not exist in that quote. He does not say that at all!

Would you like to try again?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

How close was my attempt compared to yours? Am I understanding you correctly on those points?

I ask because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think I've worded them in close proximately to the statements of this post. Have I correctly addressed the questions from an OV position?

No, I don't think you understand if you still think I believe God has no foreknowledge.

I am going to try this again. I was pretty tired the last time I tried it, so It didn't make any since. I hope this time it does.

If you ask me 1+1, I know that I will answer you 2.

If you ask me 3+3, I know I will answer you 6.

If you ask me the square root of 24456467765224546676543 times the speed of light minus the speed of sound..... I don't know what my answer would be.

But without doubt, I know the answer to the first two questions, and I know exactly what my answer would be. Why? Because I have had experience answering them, I have been taught these answers.

God also knows what my answer would be. He even knows if I am in a silly mood that I may not answer you with the straight "2" answer, I may "1+1 is the same thing as 4-2," and God could know that would be my answer because he is toned into the present, and he knows me.

But while he knows the answer to the 3rd question, he knows I do not know it, so my answer is unknowable.

 

[godrulz]

Then knowing a choice beforehand is not foreknowledge? I say it is, and if it is a free choice, then this is a cardinal difficulty for the Open View.

There is a difference between predictability in some cases and exhaustive definite foreknowledge. There is a difference between proximal knowledge based on perfect past and present knowledge and remote knowledge from trillions of years ago without past and present knowledge to inform the issue.

We can predict the weather this week, but we cannot accurately predict the sports outcomes 40 years in advance.

 

[godrulz]

You know what Ron screw you and the horse you rode in on.
I never said a word about "foreknowledge of future free will action(s)".

I'm so sick to death with your stupidity I could scream.

There should be a comma after Ron...you know what Ron,.....

I could scream too, but until the lights go on, patience is required. It is a paradigm shift to leave tradition for truth.

 

[RobE]

This is patently false. OVTists have consistently worked to understand how prophecy works, and have a variety of viable and even scripturally sound basis for prophecy without foreknowledge.

Muz

Rooster squeezins aside; Judas, Joseph, and Cyrus are problematic. There are others, but Judas is the most interesting to me. OTS have failed to sufficiently answer these questions. Specific examples of foreknown free acts aren't easily explained away.

My response to Cleke was in regards to free acts. That's what we're talking about here, not whether God can forecast the weather.

 

[RobE]

You know what Ron screw you and the horse you rode in on.
I never said a word about "foreknowledge of future free will action(s)".

I'm so sick to death with your stupidity I could scream.

Hey Cleke,

I've taken alot from you, but this is the last straw! My name is R...O...B.:chuckle:

How's anyone to know who you're insulting if you don't spell my name right. You would think that someone named after an atheletic shoe would have more sensitivity.

And, Godrulz is right. You missed a comma. :doh:

No one is suggesting that God couldn't tell Hezekiah was going to die. It's the ov which claims God didn't know he would live. The entire argument is based on whether free will choices can be known.

Originally Posted by Clete
Foreknowledge is simply not a problem for the Open View at all and never has been. And yes, foreknowledge means to know something in advance. It's not a problem.

This simply isn't true. Ignoring the problem doesn't invalidate it. If foreknowledge of a future free action exists, then we are able to induce that God might know all free actions through the same means. Perhaps it would be wise to know the logical conclusions of our arguments before we present them.

Since most future events spoken of in the Bible involve free will agents, foreknowledge of those events present an insurmountable problem for open theism. Of course, they might just throw those scriptures out, ignore them, or conveniently change the subject.

Foreknowledge of free decisions obliterates the OTS position.

All My Love(I mean this),
Ron

p.s. If you really intend to sneak up behind 'Old Paint' be careful. They tell me horses kick!

 

[RobE]

Rob, are you listening to yourself?

You are taking the power of God's creation away from him and putting it in the hands of us. With every point I make you are answering with reasons God couldn't do any better with us, even with this super awesome ability to perfectly foresee the future.

In parallel with your own theology.....even with this super awesome ability to do everything that is possible?

You are making excuses for your theology. I do not mean to insult you, I am truly trying to say this that you might think about where this line of thinking is taking you. It just isn't adding up.

In what way?

When scripture uses the clay analogy, the potter has plans for good things for the pot he is making. When the clay becomes marred, the potter changes his mind and makes something else with the clay. Where is future knowledge ever an element in the analogy? Instead, it is an al-powerful God who is in control, even though the clay is difficult to work with, doing as he sees fit with it as it happens.

So it's the clays own nature which determines the potters actions.

Again this depends on your definition of free will. What is free will to you and how do you defend it against causality?

 

[Philetus]

There should be a comma after Ron...you know what Ron,.....

I could scream too, but until the lights go on, patience is required. It is a paradigm shift to leave tradition for truth.

So my question is, If a Canadian screams on the web and only Calvinists are there to hear it, does it make any sound?

Shouldn't that be PARADIGM SHIFT.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by patman :
Rob, are you listening to yourself?

:nono:

 

[patman]

In parallel with your own theology.....even with this super awesome ability to do everything that is possible?



In what way?



So it's the clays own nature which determines the potters actions.

Again this depends on your definition of free will. What is free will to you and how do you defend it against causality?

Rob, why do you have to copy everyone's stuff? Anyway...

You really don't see the road you are going down? I wish you would consider where you thinking is taking you rather than be witty and all.:sigh:

I never said anything about nature of the clay. You are clouding the issue. I hate to say it but you are.

God makes the clay in to vessels of glory or destruction depending on the clay's sins, or lack there of. It is not the nature, it is the decision for righteous, to follow God's instructions.... i.e. the willingness to be molded by the potter.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by Lon:
Creation didn't coexist, but my point is it proceeds from Him. He created it from and by Himself. By Him it holds together. The premise of our discussion points back to original original-sin. Whether it was with Satan or wherever it came from is a difficult doctrinal point. It utimately leads to our discussion on free-will etc. I value your free-will discussion here for the answer, but it has as many problems as any other theological position. This is simply a very perplexing dilemma.

"If God is perfect and only makes that which is perfect, how could there ever have been original sin?"

That is the focal point of our discussion. Did God purposefully create us with a faulty wire? Did God plan every attrocity?

The converse is: God made a mistake. Something went wrong because He is not perfect.

This is classically the Armenian/Calvinist debate through the centuries where OV has also picked up the ball. It is how we answer this that strings the rest of our theology into place, but I try to be careful here. It is a philosophical discussion and I try to remember that I need to build my theology on scripture rather than a philosophical question if it isn't answered directly by that scripture. I believe the Calvinist perspective like the potter/clay analogy and the book of Job to be scripturally founded answer. The answer is "Shall the pot say to the potter, 'why have you made me like this?'" A question that has the answer as a question. In other words, it is not directly answered save that we are not given the answer and challenged to leave it in God's hands. Calvinists are accused of believing in a God who creates evil, but that takes the question too far past the demand that God is not to be questioned and tries to dig for an answer where we are specifically told not to challenge God. I caution OV here for trying to get an aswer because God's answer is "I am God, you are not, therefore your question is not wise."

Can you define prefect in regard to a living being?

No, the converse is that God IS perfect, makes NO mistakes and God created us innocent and gave us freedom to live life. We misuse that freedom. It ain’t perplexing at all.

What the heck is a faulty wire?

Calvinism says God cannot change because to change is to become either more or less perfect. That whole premise is philosophically based and supported by your long list of proof texts in order to disprove other texts that clearly state that God occasionally does change His mind, adjust to contingencies and repented that He had even made man. (Understandable! Not at all perplexing.)
Calvinism has the most convoluted answer to the question, “Why am I this way?” that has ever been spouted in the name of religion. Calvinism asks, “Why, God? Why have you made me this way, with freedom and accountability, dominion over your creation, and the ability to live as if you do not exist?” and then denies the reality of their existence by reading texts as doctrine and ripping them from their narrative context.

Who said God made us perfect? God just made us innocent.
"Something went wrong" because God gave us freedom and we abuse it.

This may come as a shock but God IS perfect and can change His mind. You are NOT perfect and need to change yours so God will change His about you like He promised He would if you do. (Don't we all.)

The caution goes both ways. You need to let God live His divine life whatever your narrow doctrinal reading of scripture dictates. Let Him out of your box ... or more accurately: get out of your self imposed prison and enjoy the relationship God offers.

"Salvation is the gift of God" just might mean that God giving Himself to us is our salvation.

What a proof text? "God so loved the world that he gave us salvation."???? No. God gave His Son ... Himself.

Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

The problem that SVers always seem to have is understanding that a prophecy may be fulfilled in a variety of ways, and that any prophecy must only be fulfilled in all the possible futures, rather than one specific one.

But knowing a future free choice is indeed foreknowledge of a free choice.

By definition!

 

[lee_merrill]

How's anyone to know who you're insulting if you don't spell my name right.

Would one of the mods please ban Clete for a while? It may bring him to his senses, somewhat, but this has gone too far, and I have enough Clete-marks in my back to testify of his unremitting anger and contempt.

Enough with the double standard--please.