ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

On the cross with Jesus were two men. Both had similar backgrounds. Both were thieves. Yet one repented, and the other mocked. Why?

Because both were free and called. Just as Peter repented and Judas did not.

I admit, there are times we are victims of our environment.... but I use the word victim loosely, because with God, we can overcome causality. Even with a strong will, or a strong desire to do good, causality is nothing.

I'm not sure why you insist that causality causes victimization. We are products of our environment. Our society, parents, friends, church, and even God cause us to be who we are. These causes which our conscious is based on become us, depending on which causes we adopt as our own. Our decisions are based upon our knowledge of appropriate response to stimilus.

It's true, that God, through application of Grace is able to free us from our own natures which drives us towards damnation and seperation from Him. Only, however, if we choose His cause in our life(faith).

But causality can be used against us. Scam artists use our tendencies and our environments to make us believe things that aren't true. With enough knowledge, someone can predict another's actions. God can predict too... I think he uses causality to do it at times.

This is true. The devil caused Eve to eat the fruit by strengthening her own desire to do so. This is the method of deception. God caused Pharoah's heart to harden by allowing his own natural proclivity to continue. See, God 'causes' evil events through allowance; whereas, Satan 'causes' evil events through positive participation. That's why God is not responsible for sin as Satan is.

But as I said, it is not perfect. Because we have freewill, our actions are not totally predictable.

We aren't as complex as you present. Allstate is able through incomplete knowledge. You are able through incomplete knowledge. God is completely able through complete knowledge. That's why we are wrong at times, but He is never wrong.

What makes a man change? His free choice, and that choice is unknowable until it happens. God can foresee events when they involve choices we have already made. But not in great detail because even in the details are decisions that are unknowable.

I know you probably don't know this, but by the time you become consiously aware of a decision, it's already been made. Listen closely --- Your conscious awareness comes AFTER the decision not before. Your choices are merely you rationalizing what you want to do. They aren't you deciding through two courses of action. Your freely chosen nature compels you to act in a specified way.

Adam's decision to leave God was unseeable.

Then why didn't God put a guard on the tree of life to begin with. Adam could have eaten there first.

But if you are right, that God "just knows" the future, suddenly causality is key to making things go the way you want. Then, as creator, every little thing you did is a push for things to go a certain way, a way you determine is good. But God again and again shows that he is not pleased with this world.

This is an assertion on your part. Let's not forget that God desires for ALL to be saved. It's His sincere desire, from my perspective. Traditional Christianity requires that ALL scripture is true, not just the part which makes me happy. Causality is the key to understanding the way things will go, despite how happy those things make God. It doesn't make God happy for any to be lost, but foreknowledge of causes means that God knows some will be lost despite His desires.

See causality isn't the key to make things go the way God wants as you suggest above. It is simply a method of informative knowledge. With that knowledge God is able to influence the outcome as He did with Jonah, Hezekiah, Tyre, etc....; or to allow evil to bring about His good purposes as He did with Pharoah, Joseph, Jesus, Judas, etc.

FOR IF GOD COERCED CREATION TO HIS OWN DESIRED END THEN ALL WOULD BE SAVED, BUT NOT THROUGH LOVE.

It is good you think God is good. But you try to reconcile that this world, with evil lurking around every corner, as a necessity to the good God intends. When pressed, you try to come up with excuses.

I'm not coming up with excuses. The world was created good and remains so. 'For God so loved the world' is not a lie. God loves His creation and man His created because God recognizes that His act was righteous from the beginning. Creation wasn't a mistake.

How can we claim God made a mistake in creating us, His own sons, despite what happens to the sons of His enemy?

When I tried to show you why foreknowledge is the same as foreordination for a creator God, you gave an answer that side stepped the problem without facing it. Now we are debating about causality again.... where else are we going to go?

It didn't side step the problem. Foreknowledge acted upon is foreordination, but not in the sense you're using it. God foreordained the good outcomes, despite the bad outcomes which would accompany them. God foreknew both good and bad, but his desire was for the good. Responsibility only occurs with intent. God's intent was for good and not evil. In the end God will remove the evil and keep His intended product.

God foreknew----->God decreed ---->Man decreed----->God foreknew

God foreknew He would create sons who loved Him------> God decreed man would exist -----> Man decreed to do good and evil -------> God foreknew man would do both good and evil through his own self determination.

Decrees are a use of power. Foreknowledge is a use of intelligence. God's intent was for good, despite man's intent to do both good and evil.

God made creatures capable of doing evil. Does that mean that God did evil? So my reply, is that God foreknew good and evil, but what God brought about through His own power was only good . For man, through his power, did evil.

God foreknew(knowledge, not action) good and evil.
God decreed(action) good.
Man decreed(action) evil, and not just good, in opposition to God's desire.
God foreknew(knowledge, not action) man's decrees, both the desired good and undesired evil.

I'm not sure how to explain the difference between intelligence and action to you, if elementary school was unable to achieve this in 12 years. Your opinions matter to me.

 

[RobE]

If I paint a picture, how have I changed? It was all inside me waiting to come out.

Lon,

It's hopeless to discuss change with open theists. They will claim that a change in environment, relationship, mind, or any other change is a change in essence, and isn't a change in essence in the same sentence. We know, that the only change which could apply to the argument is an 'essence' - tial change. A change in God's essential attributes is a change in what if not God's essence - by definition. Clete is at least honest in his assessment of the situation:

Originally Posted by Cleke
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 being true then Hilston's assessment that the o.v. god is the god of shifting sands is true. Our Lord is the Rock. The Cornerstone and Foundation. The Alpha and Omega. Our Faith is not built upon the sand, but is consistent, solid and never changing.

This doesn't mean that He isn't relational. God is God and asks us to relate to His never changing righteous nature. You point out that the changes (the o.v. are talking about) already exist within His essence, but if they accept that truth; then they would have to readily admit that God does NOT change. Process would again be shown as defunct in its thinking.

Is God vengeful and merciful already? Of course, so exhibiting one of these traits is not a change. They must claim that God reacts to 'new' things within creation. Something unknown and unexpected causes God to gain knowledge and react accordingly. As the creator and Lord of all things, what new things are these? There is nothing new under the Son --- nothing new for God to learn from. Who is able to instruct the creator? Who knows His mind? Are His ways so simple and easy to understand for open theists? I think not.

How could it be true that ALL things were placed under Christ, if some of those things are not yet known?

What was Satan's deception 'surely you won't die'. He said God didn't foreknow the outcome.

Forget it. Whitehead's, and Satan's, idea that God is still developing, learning, and growing(especially in knowledge) is one of the foundations for all of sin. A cornerstone of sin which states that God doesn't know exhaustively what He's doing. Let's not even entertain the idea as Eve did, but reject it outright as a heresy and deception in it's boldest form.

Your Brother in Christ,
Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: But in another place, Paul writes "and so all Israel will be saved," how can that be predicted, if the tendency is certain enough to predict infallibly that most will not repent?

Godrulz: This deals with Israel's corporate stumbling which is temporary, not permanent. Paul wanted the Gentiles to understand the choice of corporate Israel (just as He chose corporate Church, the people of God). Individual election is Calvinism, not Bible. God sovereignly put Israel aside for a time to show grace to Gentiles. Which individuals and the exact number who will make up Israel and the Church are not knowable as a certainty before individual responses to God's drawing.

Yet people have to choose, correct? First Israel has to mostly refuse, and the Gentiles come in, and then the Jewish people come in later, and how can this be predicted?

In the OT, 'saved' often means 'delivered'.

But in this case, it means salvation from sin: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins," and this involves most if not all of Israel turning to the Lord, see Zechariah, not simply establishing a covenant with those who have believed.

And if "only a remnant will be saved" is a prediction based on man's obstinancy, how then is this prediction God's sentence?

And you still have Rob's points to answer!

It's frustrating when people skip difficult questions, and then answer with assurance as if all pertinent questions had been addressed...

 

[lee_merrill]

Rob's questions being, to wit:

Your comments 'Even insurance companies can predict death rates and stats accurately' admits foreknowledge of future occurences in regards to free will agents.

Think past the surface. Those predictions are based upon present knowledge. That knowledge is not exhaustive, in the case of the insurance companies, so their predictions are merely accurate and not precise. God's knowledge is exhaustive, however, and He is able to predict future events precisely. According to your own knowledge presented over the last couple of days, God is able to foreknow the actions of free will agents. If Allstate can do it, why is it so difficult for God to do so?

Lee's point(s) is that some won't be saved since it's foreknown only a remnant will be saved; despite the possibility that all will be saved or all won't be saved. The future outcomes of free will agents are known in a universe where open theism claims those outcomes can't be known and free simultaneously. And yet we know them, nonetheless, through scripture which doesn't deceive.

This leaves open theology with a choice:

1) God foreknows free choices somehow.
2) God coerces the outcome through power because it's his will.

 

[themuzicman]

Rob's questions are based upon faulty logic, which has already been pointed out to him.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Rob's questions are based upon faulty logic, which has already been pointed out to him.

I might say the same of your replies! But Rob's questions need to be addressed specifically, saying "you have had faulty logic" is not an answer. It's frustrating when people skip difficult questions...

 

[themuzicman]

LOL... If you're still taking Rob seriously, I can't help you.

The questions aren't difficult. In fact, they aren't even valid, because they're based upon faulty assumptions. They're best ignored.

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

The future is like an all night diner. Open 24/7.

 

[lee_merrill]

The questions aren't difficult. In fact, they aren't even valid, because they're based upon faulty assumptions. They're best ignored.

I'll have to take that as a punt.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

Well, there was a moment before you painted, in which the painting did not exist. Then, you painted, and now you have a relationship with that painting. Engaging in that relationship is change for you.

Muz

With man, yes. Point noted. You'd have a much harder time convincing me about the painting. It is just a painting. Relationship is a key word. I don't like to call it change persay because we are created similarly to the painting. It is already in God's nature to have relationship with us or we'd not have been created.

Possibly paintings bring out a little more emotion in you. 'Other's' paintings do this to me, but my own were already there to begin with (not exactly a painting, but it took me several months of piddling with a felt-tip pen ).

 

[Lon]

Rob's questions are based upon faulty logic, which has already been pointed out to him.

Muz

Alright, fair enough. "What other option "C" is there?

A. God knows the future
B. God coerces the future
C. ?

 

[patman]

I'm not sure how to explain the difference between intelligence and action to you, if elementary school was unable to achieve this in 12 years. Your opinions matter to me.

:sigh:

I don't get you Rob. You agree with everything, in your own words, then ignore the points you made yourself, and blame me.

See ya on the flip side.:wave2:

 

[themuzicman]

Alright, fair enough. "What other option "C" is there?

A. God knows the future
B. God coerces the future
C. ?

Actually, it;s:

A. The future has already been caused (by some unknown)
B. God coerces the future.
C. The future is unknowable

Muz

 

[patman]

If I paint a picture, how have I changed? It was all inside me waiting to come out.

Do you feel you changed after having children?

 

[Lon]

From here

Originally Posted by Lon concerning the OV understanding and definition of foreknowledge

I'll give a few specific questions that answers would help with understanding.

Here is how I see your answers at this venture:

Q.1) How is foreknowledge of God different than predictability?

"It is virtually the same. God cannot know future as it does not exist. The Bible speaks of foreknowledge much like our own predictable ability. God knows all there is to know, but He does not know future except as He determines something much like we."

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

"The nonOV definition isn't the same as ours. We see foreknowledge as limited for God much the same way it is for man. The future has not happened so we understand foreknowledge more as 'determinism.' That is to say, what God determines to happen will happen. This is what we mean by foreknowledge."

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

"Only what God determines to do in the future. Our definition of foreknowledge is determinism."

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

"He knows our minds and hearts. He can predict what we will do based on those thoughts and plans, but He does not ultimately know if we will change our mind about them. He knows us intimately but not that intimately."

Q.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).

"We are not able to predict as well as God. His knowledge of all things including the hearts and minds of man gives Him a distinct advantage in predictability, but He cannot foreknow what man does or will do until it happens."

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

"Yes, we have a reliable predictability that gives us certain knowledge of future. We know that we will have to do our taxes every year. We know that the sun will rise tomorrow."

The OV, as I understand it at this point defines foreknowledge as both predictability and determinism. The problem is that it negates the very words 'pro' (before) 'knosis' (knows-not guesses). A doctor makes a prognosis for a patient, but it is a misnomer. The doctor is making an educated guess. He would never say he 'knows' for sure. It is a best guess, that's why he ballparks figures for the patient.

Unlike the doctor or any other human, God 'knows' (by the very definition of the word. What OV says is impossible (future hasn't happened and it cannot be "Known") is a scripturally given. In other words, OV is wrong. I've been accused of being a card-carrying Klingon at the last Star Trek convention for my 'faulty logic' but foreknowledge is a Biblical term, not a science fiction one.
God knows not as determinism or predictability. That is NOT what pro'gnosis (knosis) means. It means literally "Knows before it happens." Not guesses before it happens, predicts before it happens, or reasonably sure before it happens. You cannot say you believe scripture and God knows the future then turn around and redefine the actual Koine word.

The second point of this discussion is that God knows ( not just His own determinism and predictability) the future actions of man.

David's Days numbered in foreknowledge

The number of silver pieces Judas would receive for betrayal

Jesus expresses foreknowledge both of the circumstance and the prophecy which it foretells.

He knows Josiah's name 300 years before he is born

Peter's denial which he adamantly rejects as prophetic and known future only to repent for later.

As Patman rightly said, God does know the future actions of men which negates the OV stance that the future can't possibly be known. It negates determinism and prediction as viable definitions of foreknowledge (as do the scriptures themselves). SINCE God knows even one future action of man, the OV position is untenable.

 

[patman]

As Patman rightly said, God does know the future actions of men which negates the OV stance that the future can't possibly be known. It negates determinism and prediction as viable definitions of foreknowledge (as do the scriptures themselves). SINCE God knows even one future action of man, the OV position is untenable.

Huh? Again, Lon, the OV Stance is he foreknows somethings, but some things are unknowable.

If you know that in the future I will reply to a post you direct at me, does that mean that because you know that ONE thing you also know the rest of the future too?

That is not logical....

 

[Lon]

Do you feel you changed after having children?

Good question, but the important component is that I AM a changing being by necessity. Everything does not extrude from me. God actually is the creator of my children so I could not draw a meaningful correlation here for you.

 

[themuzicman]

The OV, as I understand it at this point defines foreknowledge as both predictability and determinism.

Incorrect. OVT defines Exhaustive and Definite Foreknowledge as both predictability AND determinism. This is the first problem. God knows all the possible courses of the future, and knows what He will do, should a particular course of the future come to pass.

The problem is that it negates the very words 'pro' (before) 'knosis' (knows-not guesses). A doctor makes a prognosis for a patient, but it is a misnomer. The doctor is making an educated guess. He would never say he 'knows' for sure. It is a best guess, that's why he ballparks figures for the patient.

Correct. God foreknows what He will do at certain times because He choose to do them.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Good question, but the important component is that I AM a changing being by necessity. Everything does not extrude from me. God actually is the creator of my children so I could not draw a meaningful correlation here for you.

See, you're moving the goalposts. OVT never says that God's being or nature changes. However, your assertion about "doctrinal statements" said that God doesn't change in any way. Now you're limiting yourself to God's "being". The fact is that God does experience change in His relationship to creation (non-existence to existence), and in the incarnation.

Thus, atemporality simply isn't viable as a Christian doctrine.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Huh? Again, Lon, the OV Stance is he foreknows somethings, but some things are unknowable.

If you know that in the future I will reply to a post you direct at me, does that mean because you know that ONE thing you know the rest of the future too?

"The future hasn't happened so it is unknowable, it doesn't exist for you to 'know' anything about it."

Clete has said this to me several times. Again, if I can get you to grasp my premise: "Predictability nor determinsm is a proper definition of actual foreknowledge."

As long as there is a correlation in your mind between what you are able to do (guess, predict, determine) and what God is able to do (foreknowledge), you will continue to miss my point. We never have actual foreknowledge. We guess, predict, determine. None of these are a proper definition of foreknowledge. We don't have it.