ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

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?

Your answers. They are dragging you down, Rob. You are making excuses for your beliefs about a closed future.

Freewill is our ability to love God or not. That is the one true freedom we have. Causality has it's barring on the choices we make, we are victims of it sometimes. If God knew the future, he could use it to guide creation into sin (which my point), and there would be no true freewill.

However, if the future is open, the causality that occurs and that coupled with the dynamic (changing) unpredictable choice of how to deal with it, gives us true freewill.

 

[patman]

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).

Hi Lon

I am a software developer. I liked your example using that. Whenever I make a game, or a web page, I know what my program is doing. I can see exactly what it will do because I made it.... unless I throw something random into the program. When I do that, even though I understand how my software works, and I know every aspect behind how it thinks, that random element gives it a life of its own.

Look at this

http://www.christian-revolution.net/stickman.swf

There is a monster attacking the stick figure. There are three "random" events. The first is the monster, when he is going to pick up a rock and throw it. The second is where the rock actually falls, and the third is you, controlling the stick figure.

There are certain things that I know that I know that I know will happen (foreknowledge), because I programed it. But there are a lot of things that I have a clue on, but no absolute answer.

God has made creation like this. There are things that he has made happen, and he knows they will happen. But freewill is the "random equation" he has given to us that allows our actions to be a surprise.

As a programer, if I told the rocks exactly where to fall, and told the monster exactly where to move, and made the stickman run himself, it is no longer a program so much as a movie.

You describe God more like a movie maker.

If I made a movie, I know exactly what is going to happen, even before the movie is made. While my characters seem to react to each other and their environment, they are really doing what I want them to do. That means no freewill. My creation does only what I imagine, and never changes.

 

[lee_merrill]

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.

Yet knowing one definite, future free choice undoes the Open View, there are many examples.

 

[lee_merrill]

Freewill is our ability to love God or not. That is the one true freedom we have.

So the people in heaven, they can choose not to love God? there could be another fall?

But then there would be no second redemption, the writer in Hebrews states.

 

[patman]

So the people in heaven, they can choose not to love God? there could be another fall?

But then there would be no second redemption, the writer in Hebrews states.

Lee

Once you make the choice to love someone, the choice is made. If someone is in heaven who has never made that choice (for example, an child who was killed before reaching the age of accountability) they still have a choice to make, and could choose otherwise.

If love were conditional, it wouldn't truly be love

 

[lee_merrill]

Once you make the choice to love someone, the choice is made.

Then people in heaven don't have real freedom?

"Freewill is our ability to love God or not. That is the one true freedom we have."

 

[themuzicman]

We have freely chosen to engage in covenant with God to receive eternal life. Thus, living eternally in this relationship with God is something we have freely chosen to do, and will live with the (positive) consequences of that choice for eternity.

Muz

 

[RobE]

A hypnotist can influence human thought and behavior. God knows us inside out and can do this.

Which means that our nature is reactive and causal.

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.

Focus for a moment and realize that if God foreknows one free act through any means then the open view is defunct.

Muz realizes this and adamantly denies foreknowledge of future free acts. You can't have it both ways.

 

[patman]

Then people in heaven don't have real freedom?

"Freewill is our ability to love God or not. That is the one true freedom we have."

Lee,

If someone in heaven did not truly love God, they could choose to leave heaven. Satan did it.

However, by definition, found in 1 Cor 13 love is never ending. If your love has an end, it wasn't love to begin with.

The freedom comes by if a person enters into that love or not.

 

[RobE]

Most of the things foreknown are based on God's ability to make the things come to pass.

If God has the ability to make things come to pass, don't you see the relationship between that and the fact that God's power is the force which brought all things into existence? Open theism isn't able to escape its dilemna by saying that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

Again, proximal knowledge of some things is not identical to remote, exhaustive knowledge of all contingencies.

In my examples, proximal knowledge wasn't sufficient towards the outcomes. The naming of Cyrus, the enslavement in Egypt; and the acts of Judas, Peter, Jesus' death, and myriad other examples were specific foretellings of free will actions.

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).

It's nice that you feel this way because this 'feeling' is the basis of your beliefs. The scriptures have two motifs working together on this subject. Specifically, free will working within foreknowledge.

 

[RobE]

Your answers. They are dragging you down, Rob. You are making excuses for your beliefs about a closed future.

Explain yourself. I've asked three times what you're talking about. Re-stating your objection isn't clarifying it.

Freewill is our ability to love God or not. That is the one true freedom we have. Causality has it's barring on the choices we make, we are victims of it sometimes. If God knew the future, he could use it to guide creation into sin (which my point), and there would be no true freewill.

Well, your view of God's foreknowledge is the same as the view which Calvin had. Foreknowledge is caused by your actions, not the other way around. God does know the future and has a purpose to bring good from man's evil to achieve it. Much like the story of Joseph.

However, if the future is open, the causality that occurs and that coupled with the dynamic (changing) unpredictable choice of how to deal with it, gives us true freewill.

If the 'dynamic, changing, unpredictable choice' exists then how would God know the results of His own actions in His relationships with other free will agents?

What's your reasoning for causality not affecting your free will?

I know open theist's claim they don't have reasons for their actions, but then turn out pages and pages of reasons. They deny causality and then use it to prove their points. How about a little personal honesty? I haven't called Clete a liar because lying requires intent. Ignorance alone isn't sufficient cause.

 

[Lighthouse]

What am I going to wear today? Not even God knows.

 

[godrulz]

Yet knowing one definite, future free choice undoes the Open View, there are many examples.

No it does not since we recognize two motifs in Scripture: knows and settles some things; leaves somethings unsettled and thus known as possible vs actual.

I do not deny that some things are predictable to a high degree of accuracy, but that still does not prove incoherent EDF.

 

[godrulz]

So the people in heaven, they can choose not to love God? there could be another fall?

But then there would be no second redemption, the writer in Hebrews states.

Factors will be different in heaven and there are limitations to our freedom which is more significant in this probational period. Once our destinies are fixed at death, there is no change. The Bible does not reveal details of why we will not fall away, but the problem applies to your view also. Boyd has given reasons relating to the nature of freedom as to why God can ensure we will not fall away in heaven.

 

[godrulz]

Which means that our nature is reactive and causal.



Focus for a moment and realize that if God foreknows one free act through any means then the open view is defunct.

Muz realizes this and adamantly denies foreknowledge of future free acts. You can't have it both ways.

There is a difference between exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies and knowing something predictable with almost perfect certainty (some vs all things). It is not hard to predict I would go to work today, but I could have stayed home and thwarted this almost certain prediction. This is why God expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they produced bad grapes in the end. This is why He was grieved when man Fall rather than saying 'no sweat, I knew this moment far in advance'.

 

[godrulz]

If God has the ability to make things come to pass, don't you see the relationship between that and the fact that God's power is the force which brought all things into existence? Open theism isn't able to escape its dilemna by saying that God has the ability to make things come to pass.



In my examples, proximal knowledge wasn't sufficient towards the outcomes. The naming of Cyrus, the enslavement in Egypt; and the acts of Judas, Peter, Jesus' death, and myriad other examples were specific foretellings of free will actions.



It's nice that you feel this way because this 'feeling' is the basis of your beliefs. The scriptures have two motifs working together on this subject. Specifically, free will working within foreknowledge.

God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. If you affirm the latter, then a holy God is responsible for evil. Just because God uses His ability sometimes (He can predict Messianic issues because He directly controls them; He cannot know random lottery and bingo outcomes trillions of years before the numbers are played), does not mean He micromanages all the time. You are proof texting one theme while ignoring the other theme. You think you are disproving OT, but all you are doing is agreeing with part of what it and Calvinism teaches.

God providentially works within free will. He is able to ensure creation, Flood, First/Second Coming of Christ, etc. and predict it because He brings these things to pass. As long as He gives others freedom, He cannot know exhaustively what we will eat, wear, when we will pick our noses, whom we will marry, etc. trillions of years before these were possible objects of certain knowledge. You are affirming one side of the coin, but ignoring the other equally valid side of the coin.

 

[Philetus]

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/Ehyart, I have never read a published Open Theist who adds your problematic caveat.

Me too.

It does. When you extract a verse from the narrative you can make it say something entirely different than what the text means.

Me neither.

 

[Philetus]

Yet knowing one definite, future free choice undoes the Open View, there are many examples.

Lu 1:63
59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, 60 but his mother spoke up and said, "No! He is to be called John." 61 They said to her, "There is no one among your relatives who has that name." 62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone's astonishment he wrote, "His name is John." 64 Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue was loosed, and he began to speak, praising God. 65 The neighbors were all filled with awe, and throughout the hill country of Judea people were talking about all these things. 66 Everyone who heard this wondered about it, asking, "What then is this child going to be?" For the Lord's hand was with him.​

Did Zechariah have any freedom in naming his son John?
Is this an exception or the rule?
Did God or your mom and dad name you Lee?
I think I know your answer, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind it.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

"IF"

"IF"

Originally Posted by RobE

If God has the ability to make things come to pass, don't you see the relationship between that and the fact that God's power is the force which brought all things into existence? Open theism isn't able to escape its dilemna by saying that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

When we claim that God is transcendent/separate/distinct from His universe, isn’t that the same as claiming that the universe is also separate/distinct from God? How can that be? :think: Even though we owe our existence to God we can live as if God doesn't exist ... we can refuse to receive Him even if and when He draws near ... :think: :think: ... we can be spiritually dead, separated from God and still suck air and eat ice cream ... :think: :think: :think: ... we can refuse to yield our allegiance to our creator; refuse the power to become children of God. :think: Is God weak or just generous?

You invent your own catch 22 and you can’t escape it. Your dilemma is of your own making and is inherent in your own theology. The objections you raise are at least consistent and endless. But, they say nothing of Open Theism.

With all its randomness and contingencies, the physical universe works. Deal with it. God created a universe that sustains physical life even when it is spiritually dead. Go figure. God has the power to destroy it, yet in patience God restrains the use of His power ... for now at least. Better deal with that too it won't last forever. There is hope however! God is actively engaged in recreating, making spiritually dead creatures in to spiritually alive creatures ... new creatures if you will. Open Theism doesn't have a dilemma to escape. Every human being alive (sucking God's free air) has a spiritual dilemma to overcome. It is only overcome by grace through faith in Jesus, not coercion. It is the gift of God.

Open Theism recognizes that God (often) works in contingencies. The most meaningful word in God's vocabulary for the human dilemma is 'IF'.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

There is a difference between exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies and knowing something predictable with almost perfect certainty (some vs all things).

That difference would be in irrelevant detail only. It would also depend on the amount of present and past knowledge available to you. With perfect present and past knowledge then the extrapolation of future acts, free or not, would be exact. Wouldn't you agree?

It is not hard to predict I would go to work today, but I could have stayed home and thwarted this almost certain prediction.

Yet you wouldn't stay home for no reason other than a chaotic impulse. You would stay home for a reason(cause). That's why you would go to work as well. Acts don't exist without influence.

This is why God expected good grapes from Israel and was surprised when they produced bad grapes in the end. This is why He was grieved when man Fall rather than saying 'no sweat, I knew this moment far in advance'.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."​

How would the responsibility for sin be assigned without the knowledge of good and evil? Are those ignorant of sin, i.e. infants, responsible for their sin in the same way we are? If so, then the Catholics certainly have a case for infant baptism.

A precarious situation for justice occurs without the knowledge of good and evil.

Was the knowledge of good and evil necessary for making those free choices which are important in our lives? If so, then was the fall of man necessary to being 'born again'?

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."​

Did the ultimate goal of being 'born again' into the supernatural require the fall which ultimately precipitated sinful acts as well as righteous acts?

I say righteous acts because how are righteous acts performed without knowing good and evil? The righteous aspect in them is choosing one over the other.