ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

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.

Judas was not prophecied by name in the OT. After the fact, the Spirit applied illustrative verses to him. If Judas would have repented rather than betrayed, someone else could have fulfilled the prophecy or the Spirit would not have applied the OT contexts to anyone in the NT. The original context had a different fulfillment.

Joseph was proximal knowledge and does not prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge from trillions of years ago.

Cyrus was an exception in that God influenced this fulfillment beyond the normative unfolding of free will choices. God can and does intervene when He wants to, but this does not mean He micromanages every moral and mundane choice exhaustively. You are extrapolating from a specific, explainable situation to a generic principle that is contradicted by other normative principles/passages. Just because the naming of Cyrus was influenced does not mean God intervenes in the naming of billions of kids. This is left to the parents and is similar to Adam, not God, freely giving names to all the animals.

 

[godrulz]

Hey Cleke,


Foreknowledge of free decisions obliterates the OTS position.

It is a leap to say that proximal foreknowledge of a few free decisions proves remote, exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all free will decisions.

Proving that all dogs have 4 legs (though I have a 3-legged dog) does not prove that all men have 4 legs. OK...that was lame. I don't even know what example I am trying to use.

 

[Lon]

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

All of them narrative, but I have a lot of back posting to catch up on so I'll try and be brief.

OV must stop posting narrative for their theology. It will never be taken seriously for narrative offers many extrapolations and until they are doctrinally varified, they are mere suppositions. God doesn't make mistakes as Sanders suggests. You seem to disagree with Sanders so are a bit more traditional orthodox than he (I'm not sure if that is a compliment or a a negative in the OV book-Sanders is an embarrassment to say such a thing).

God makes changes according to our imperfection. Does He have anything to learn? Apparently He does in the OV because He cannot know future or man's choices too far into it. That is very close to Mormon doctrine btw. According to OV, they must have a few more things right than I would give them credit for.
Because He doesn't seem to be the author of everything that exists and Solomon was full of brass, God can write a new song according to OV.

No, it is a very slippery slope if I discount His full knowledge of future (definition of foreknowledge). It mattes not at all if we discuss it as exhaustive or not, it is a scriptural truth that I believe goes much further than OV understands.

If man was made with a perfect will that was good, noble right, etc. What went wrong? How could we have any inclination to sin? Where could that inclination have come from? God is perfect, what He makes is perfect and good. How could anything become imperfect?

 

[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).

This places the doctrine of foreknowledge in OV mysteriously glass darkly vague for me. It does seem to be vague, but clearly OV doesn't take the definition of foreknowledge at face value 'fore' (before/future) and 'knowledge' (knows).
Predictive is a guess (not knowlege) and determinism qualifies but isn't quite the same. It is a good strong word 'determinism' and is used in Scripture, but so is foreknowledge, something different.

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.

So basically, like I stated, it isn't possible in OV. I can eliminate those occassions from my Bible if I am OV and substitute predictability or determinism?

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.

Again, I think I answered my understanding of OV similarly here. "Only what God determines to do in the future. Our definition of foreknowledge is determinism."

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

Huh?

I was trying to see what you'd see as the mechanism for knowing? If God siimply knows, it has extrapolation for future. I'm pointing out the fact that God knows because He created. Every synapse responds the way He made it. There are foundational truths that suggest future knowledge is not only possible but probable.
To me it is like a programmer. His software does what He wrote it to do. It is completely not only predictable, but known. A mechanic who designed his own car would know how it ticks after years of monkeying with it. There would be nothing unknown about it at all.

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.

This is what that previous question meant to help clarify. If God truly knows anybody's thoughts or actions in the future (and He does), then it negates this.
Samuel predicted a poor king. Mannaseh's son was named 300 years before he was born. Peter denied his Savior 3 times. God knows the future of men. He even knew how many days David would live "You know the number of my days."

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.

I believe there is a difference between determinism/predictability and foreknowledge by definition. Our only foreknowledge is what God has given as definite (He will come again. He will judge).

 

[Lon]

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

He said that is vague "not black and white." But this is not pick on Patman. You and others have stated the future does not exist therefore cannot be known. If you want to clear this up once and for all, I welcome that. How is the OV definition of knowing the future (foreknowledge) compatible with the definition when you say that future is non-existent and cannot be known?

How could you know something that doesn't exist? If you want to call it reading comprehension or whatever, but if you really wanted to clarify or make a good point, you could answer the same question he did. I'm seeing a lot of discrepancy on the OV definition of foreknowledge.

 

[Edmond_Dantes]

Judas was not prophecied by name in the OT. After the fact, the Spirit applied illustrative verses to him. If Judas would have repented rather than betrayed, someone else could have fulfilled the prophecy or the Spirit would not have applied the OT contexts to anyone in the NT. The original context had a different fulfillment.

gr,

With regards to the bold, either you're saying God could just hope someone else does what needs to be done for fulfillment ?(which seems extremely problematic and unlikely) or, God 'prompts' someone else to do what needed to be done? (this also seems problematic, as they could repent and He would just have to keep prompting new candidates, with a narrowing window of opportunity)

With regards to the italicized, I don't follow you're meaning, specifically the "The original context had a different fulfillment.". Could you clarify?

 

[themuzicman]

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.

So, now YOU are saying that "changing" only means what YOU want it to mean? Using the narrative interpretive to make it say what you want? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

OVT doesn't say that God changes in His being. It says that God chooses to change His mind. The perfect Nuclear physicist is able to change his mind, is he not?

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?

No. God already knows all that is knowable. God is already all-wise. God's knowledge only increases as what is knowable increases, because He is omniscient.

Muz

 

[Clete]

So, now YOU are saying that "changing" only means what YOU want it to mean? Using the narrative interpretive to make it say what you want? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

OVT doesn't say that God changes in His being. It says that God chooses to change His mind. The perfect Nuclear physicist is able to change his mind, is he not?

This Open Theist not only says but downright insists that God changes in His being. God does not change in character nor in personality but His being changes a lot!

God the Son became a human being - and remains one to this day, by the way.

God the Son died and was separated from the Father.

God the Son resurrected from the dead and took on a glorified body.

If these are not changes in God's being, I don't know what you would call them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "being". If so, please clarify.

No. God already knows all that is knowable. God is already all-wise. God's knowledge only increases as what is knowable increases, because He is omniscient.

Muz

This is indeed what most Open Theists believe. I however insert the caveat that God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. God repeatedly talks about forgetting our sin and Genesis talks about Him investigating the truth of Sodom's wickedness and there is tons and tons of minutia that God would have no need to keep track of. In short, I see no Biblical reason to strap God down with information which He neither needs nor wants.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

This Open Theist not only says but downright insists that God changes in His being. God does not change in character nor in personality but His being changes a lot!

God the Son became a human being - and remains one to this day, by the way.

God the Son died and was separated from the Father.

God the Son resurrected from the dead and took on a glorified body.

If these are not changes in God's being, I don't know what you would call them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "being". If so, please clarify.

This isn't open theism. This is some other theology. Don't attribute things that aren't OVT to OVT.

God the Son took onto Himself a human body. This didn't require a change in God, per se, but an addendum, if you will.

Also, Christ was forsaken by the father. This is a relational term, not a state of being term.

Finally, Christ was resurrected in the same body in which He died. He was glorified because He came, lived a sinless life, and fulfilled the will of the Father in doing do. If you'll recall, Jesus still had the holes in His hands, feet, and side after He was resurrected.

This is indeed what most Open Theists believe. I however insert the caveat that God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. God repeatedly talks about forgetting our sin and Genesis talks about Him investigating the truth of Sodom's wickedness and there is tons and tons of minutia that God would have no need to keep track of. In short, I see no Biblical reason to strap God down with information which He neither needs nor wants.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I wouldn't deal with the Sodom verse in that way, but that's an interpretive thing.

Muz

 

[Clete]

He said that is vague "not black and white." But this is not pick on Patman. You and others have stated the future does not exist therefore cannot be known. If you want to clear this up once and for all, I welcome that. How is the OV definition of knowing the future (foreknowledge) compatible with the definition when you say that future is non-existent and cannot be known?

Finally! You know you could have asked this days ago. My point being that you are married to your misconceptions about Open Theism perhaps more than you think you are.

The events of the future that God foreknows have nothing to do with the free will actions of other persons. They are such things as the second coming of Christ, the setting up of Israel's Kingdom, the glorification of the Body of Christ, Judgment Day, the casting of death and hell into the Lake of Fire, the destruction of both Heaven and Earth by fire and the creation of a new Earth and a new Heaven. And if I spent some time really thinking about it, I'm sure I could come up with several more. These are the one's that just come straight off the top of my head at the moment.

How could you know something that doesn't exist?

Well if you are God and you have the power and authority to bring your plans to pass then you could know.

If you want to call it reading comprehension or whatever, but if you really wanted to clarify or make a good point, you could answer the same question he did. I'm seeing a lot of discrepancy on the OV definition of foreknowledge.

That's because you want to see a lot of discrepancy. Patman didn't say a word in the post you quoted that contradicts a single syllable of what I've said here. You need to pay closer attention to what is actually said and stop trying to read things into people's post based on your own preconceived ideas.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

He said that is vague "not black and white." But this is not pick on Patman. You and others have stated the future does not exist therefore cannot be known. If you want to clear this up once and for all, I welcome that. How is the OV definition of knowing the future (foreknowledge) compatible with the definition when you say that future is non-existent and cannot be known?

How could you know something that doesn't exist? If you want to call it reading comprehension or whatever, but if you really wanted to clarify or make a good point, you could answer the same question he did. I'm seeing a lot of discrepancy on the OV definition of foreknowledge.

Lon, that may be the only really viable question or challenge you put to the Open Theists posting here. It is one that needs careful response and to say that God only ‘knows’ the future ‘in part’ is a bit misleading. The future does not exist. There is nothing to know in the sense that the past and present are knowable as observed/observable fact. When Open Theists say God knows the future in any sense, they refer only to what God knows He will do regardless of any contingencies associated with human freedom. To say God knows the future is a bit of a misnomer. Better to say that God does and will determine (settle) some aspects of the future.

A good example is that God does not know specifically who will and who will not respond favorably to His offer of salvation. God knows who has and who hasn't. His grace is not irresistible. God has given us freedom to resist. His atonement is not limited. His knowledge isn’t immeasurable but is all inclusive of what is knowable. The future is not knowable. It is yet to be determined in many aspects. God knows what has and is happening and is able to determine whatever He chooses to settle of the future. Christ has come. He has established his kingdom. His reign is being resisted. And Christ will eventually rule without opposition. God has determined it. What God has not determined and therefore cannot know is exactly who will repent and surrender and who will ultimately be destroyed by the reign of Christ when the Spirit no longer strives with mankind ... when God's patience runs out for the last time.

If you continue to read 'prophecy' as future telling you can't begin to grasp Open Theism. Or at least you fall into some of the same traps that even we Open Theists do here. But if you read 'prophecy' and apocalyptic literature not as written from the future or mainly about the future, but rather as written from God's "other worldly" point of view or simply from God’s perspective as separate/distinct from creation, then the objections disappear. All scripture was written after the fact and in a present context of divine and human history for the purpose of shaping the future as God determines its future goal. Even the Book of Revelation was written to seven historical churches. Its theme is faithfulness in hard times and it tells us where that faithfulness will get us. It is trustworthy as a discipleship manual because God is faithful, able and patient.

Philetus

 

[Clete]

This isn't open theism. This is some other theology. Don't attribute things that aren't OVT to OVT.

It is Open View theism! It's Christian theism! Can you name a single Open Theist who doesn't believe that God BECAME a man and dwelt among us?

God the Son took onto Himself a human body. This didn't require a change in God, per se, but an addendum, if you will.

No sir! God became a man! He did not simply indwell a shell of flesh, He became a man.

How would an addendum, not be considered a change anyway?

Also, Christ was forsaken by the father. This is a relational term, not a state of being term.

Either way, for a Triune God, that's a whopper of a change.

Further, Jesus went to the place of the righteous dead which was while a paradise still in separation from God because the sins of those there had not yet been atoned for. Abraham's bosom is not the same thing as Heaven. And what's more is that Jesus Himself stated that He had not yet ascended to His Father.

Finally, Christ was resurrected in the same body in which He died. He was glorified because He came, lived a sinless life, and fulfilled the will of the Father in doing do. If you'll recall, Jesus still had the holes in His hands, feet, and side after He was resurrected.

So then you think that Jesus still has to feed that body and trim His beard from time to time and go to the bathroom a couple of times a day?
Of course it was the same body but I'd say it a pretty safe bet that there's been some significant modifications made, not the least of which is the fact that it is immortal, thus the term "glorified". Another significant change in the state of being of God.

I wouldn't deal with the Sodom verse in that way, but that's an interpretive thing.

Very well.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

It is Open View theism! It's Christian theism! Can you name a single Open Theist who doesn't believe that God BECAME a man and dwelt among us?

The point is that this isn't specific to OVT.

No sir! God became a man! He did not simply indwell a shell of flesh, He became a man.

This is true, but not expressed as clearly as the church has expressed it historically. Historically, Christ took to Himself a human nature.

How would an addendum, not be considered a change anyway?

Think if it like a house. When you add on a room, the house that already exists doesn't change, per se, but the room is added to the house.

Either way, for a Triune God, that's a whopper of a change.

Actually, it's not.

Further, Jesus went to the place of the righteous dead which was while a paradise still in separation from God because the sins of those there had not yet been atoned for. Abraham's bosom is not the same thing as Heaven. And what's more is that Jesus Himself stated that He had not yet ascended to His Father.

Again, there's no foundation for ontological separation of God the Son from God the Father. "Forsaken" is a relational term.

So then you think that Jesus still has to feed that body and trim His beard from time to time and go to the bathroom a couple of times a day?

Is this what human bodies do?

Of course it was the same body but I'd say it a pretty safe bet that there's been some significant modifications made, not the least of which is the fact that it is immortal, thus the term "glorified". Another significant change in the state of being of God.

Safe to say based upon the fact that you don't want Jesus to have to use the bathroom?

Not exactly Scriptural. Did Adam have to excrete waste?

Muz

 

[RobE]

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.

If it's the 'willingness to be molded' then it's within the nature of the clay to be molded or not.

Also, it means that the 'willingness to be molded' determines the actions of the potter.

You really don't see the road you are going down?

What road is that?

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

 

[godrulz]

gr,

With regards to the bold, either you're saying God could just hope someone else does what needs to be done for fulfillment ?(which seems extremely problematic and unlikely) or, God 'prompts' someone else to do what needed to be done? (this also seems problematic, as they could repent and He would just have to keep prompting new candidates, with a narrowing window of opportunity)

With regards to the italicized, I don't follow you're meaning, specifically the "The original context had a different fulfillment.". Could you clarify?

Some OT verses had historical and eschatological (dual) fulfillment.

Some of the verses applied by the Spirit to NT situations seem out of context. When the Spirit does it, we accept it. We should be slow to read things back into verses otherwise. Sometimes an apparent predictive prophecy is really just an illustrative parallel or application to a NT scenario.

Without the NT, the verses about Judas (supposedly) in the OT would not be obvious nor demanding fulfillment by him in particular. Unlike Cyrus, they do not mention him by name.

It is more problematic to assume that Judas was predestined from eternity past (fatalism) to betray Christ. In fact, like us, he could have remained faithful. He started out as a disciple in Christ's inner circle and became a betrayer and son of perdition later. Calvinism/determinism is not the best explanation of things. Besides OT, the other alternative is simple foreknowledge/Arminian, but the point we are trying to make is that this is still logically not possible (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) if free will is genuine, not illusory.

Christ could have died as the Lamb of God without a specific betrayer. The mob or the leaders could have brought it to pass without Judas or someone else could have betrayed Christ. God works influentially, creatively, providentially. He can orchestrate things (He ensured that Christ was not killed before His time off a cliff) without coercion and causation in every detail. You are looking at things in retrospect and assuming a predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge or determinism. The alternate explanation is possible, if not plausible. Judas was simply not named in the OT, but verses were applied to him by way of illustration after the fact. Elsewhere in the NT we see the same application where an OT verse does not seem to have anything to do with the way it was used and did have a primary OT fulfillment. It was applied by the Spirit in a non-normative way, something He can do, but we should not. Sanders gives further examples of this principle and verses. In Galatians, even Paul stretched things with an OT illustrative allegory to make a point/application that was not technically sound hermeneutics.

 

[RobE]

Judas was not prophecied by name in the OT. After the fact, the Spirit applied illustrative verses to him. If Judas would have repented rather than betrayed, someone else could have fulfilled the prophecy or the Spirit would not have applied the OT contexts to anyone in the NT. The original context had a different fulfillment.

John 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.​

The length of time it was foreknown is unimportant. If foreknowledge of free actions exists, in any time frame, then it is wrong in its conclusions. However, Jesus prayer presents a different story than your explanation.....

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.​

Joseph was proximal knowledge and does not prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge from trillions of years ago.

Again, your 'proximal knowledge' is the same as Molina's middle knowledge. Joseph's story began before his brothers decided to sell him...

Genesis 37:5 Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. 6 He said to them, "Listen to this dream I had: 7 We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it."

8 His brothers said to him, "Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?" And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.

9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."

10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, "What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.​

The story of Joseph began a while before Joseph was even born.....

Genesis 15:13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

Just because the naming of Cyrus was influenced does not mean God intervenes in the naming of billions of kids. This is left to the parents and is similar to Adam, not God, freely giving names to all the animals.

How was God able to 'influence' the naming of Cyrus unless human wills are able to be 'caused' within nature?

 

[godrulz]

This is indeed what most Open Theists believe. I however insert the caveat that God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. God repeatedly talks about forgetting our sin and Genesis talks about Him investigating the truth of Sodom's wickedness and there is tons and tons of minutia that God would have no need to keep track of. In short, I see no Biblical reason to strap God down with information which He neither needs nor wants.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I still have a problem with this Enyart twist. By definition, an omniscient being knows all that is logically possible to know. To say man and Satan know things that God does not, does not help our cause. The biblical idea of forgiving and forgetting our sins involves not bringing them up again, not divine amnesia (impossible without compromising omniscience...we can remember our sins, but God cannot? Does he know our thoughts? If so, we would remind him of our sins?).

Even Open Theists admit some vs all passages are anthropomorphic or figurative. We should consider Hebraisms, figures of speech, etc. even in the open view. God does change his mind literally (unlike our critics, we do not say this is anthro.), but God having to come down like a man to learn something may not be a wooden literalism. The sun does not rise, but the Bible uses phenomenological language (appearance vs literal). Context does determine literal vs figurative.

The exact nature of omniscience and omnipotence is not clear. I agree that God does not have to dwell on what is happening in hell or a gay bar, but that does not mean he misses a rape and murder that He must judge because He decides He does not want to know about these bad things today. God can handle seeing and knowing all that Satan and man can see and know. He cannot turn off His omniscience, as it were. He knows all past and present knowledge perfectly, the good and the bad. He does not chose to not know the future, per se. He did chose to create contingencies, so the future is inherently unknowable as a certainty. It is not a matter of choosing to not know something he can know, but whether things are a possible object of knowledge. Our past sins are a possible object of knowledge to us, so God does not literally forget them, but chosing to not bring them up again or dwell on them. This is the same for human forgiveness which is not forgetting or amnesia, but a relaxation of claims of justice and pound of flesh. It is letting go of the offense and releasing the offender, not a memory/knowledge issue.

For what its worth, apart from TOL/Enyart, I have never read a published Open Theist who adds your problematic caveat.

 

[RobE]

It is a leap to say that proximal foreknowledge of a few free decisions proves remote, exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all free will decisions.

Proving that all dogs have 4 legs (though I have a 3-legged dog) does not prove that all men have 4 legs. OK...that was lame. I don't even know what example I am trying to use.

Are all things which aren't logical absuridities possible for God?

If so, then when it becomes possible to foreknow ONE future free act; then KNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE ACTS IS NO LONGER A LOGICAL ABSURDITY! It's a proven quantity.

 

[godrulz]

Rob: Free will is irrevocable, probational, and limited. God can exercise exceptional, unusual influence at times, but does not do this normatively. He ensured that John the Baptist and Jesus would be named as such. A hypnotist can influence human thought and behavior. God knows us inside out and can do this.

Just because Cyrus' name was influenced does not mean all naming of children is the same thing. Just because God foreknows some things does not mean he foreknows all things.

If you study 'fulfill', it does not have to mean predictive prophecy, but can be understood to be illustrative. The verse illustrates the betrayal, not predicts in literally.

 

[godrulz]

Are all things which aren't logical absuridities possible for God?

If so, then when it becomes possible to foreknow ONE future free act; then KNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE ACTS IS NO LONGER A LOGICAL ABSURDITY! It's a proven quantity.

Most of the things foreknown are based on God's ability to make the things come to pass. Again, proximal knowledge of some things is not identical to remote, exhaustive knowledge of all contingencies. This is an unwarranted extrapolation Is. 46 and 48 ability vs foreknowledge; brings some vs all things to pass; knows some vs all things about the future= two motifs).