ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

One post! One post and you don't even know the question?

You can't.

THE REAL question is "Why did I think for one second you could offer any content?"

Here's you post. Questions are denoted by this symbol -----> '?'

Only thing bad about the ignore button is that you have to be signed in for it to work. And even though I asked first, let’s have another go at it, RobE, and see what happens. I hope we can do this without loosing it in fewer than 10 posts.

The farmer hopes it will rain next Friday. I hope it won't. Will it?

Unless you have exhaustive foreknowledge, you don't know. But you can hope. If you know for absolute certain ... then it ain't hope. If you can make it rain and do so ... it ain't hope ... its intention and control. Will you? When did you decide?

Hope isn't a delusion either way; unless you think just hoping guarantees results and then you are really setting yourself up for disappointment. But, the word of God says that Hope does not disappoint us. We can distinguish from contingencies (at least Open Theists can) and what God has said God will do and have complete confidence in that future because (to use a recent phrase thrown at OT) God is God and can do anything. It may or may not rain. That’s a contingency built into the very fabric of the environment. It isn’t going to affect God’s ultimate intentions for the future either way, but it may wreck my planned picnic. My hope may have been misdirected, and I may be disappointed that it rained, but my HOPE in the future God has planned (not seen) isn’t shaken in the least bit because I know God is able to do what God has said God will do. And as far as I can tell, God hasn't said a thing about next Friday's weather. We will all have to wait and see.

By faith, I hope in the future God in Christ is now preparing. My neighbor doesn't. That shapes the future to some degree. It's called Open Theism, Open View, Free Will Theism and probably is held by many who simply don't call it anything. They just accept it as reality.

Your turn ... answer the question.

Philetus

I highlighted all the questions you asked. I answered it. Now, what is your real question? If you are going to leave the sidelines and participate, then it's best that you do so without insult.

 

[godrulz]

I choose the VCR analogy.

Nang

Since time is unidirectional, the VCR analogy is the wrong choice.


The potential future is fundamentally different than the fixed past. Only the present is actual (presentism vs eternalism).


"Eternal now' simultaneity is Platonic, not biblical.

 

[Philetus]

Here's you post. Questions are denoted by this symbol -----> '?'

I highlighted all the questions you asked. I answered it. Now, what is your real question? If you are going to leave the sidelines and participate, then it's best that you do so without insult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus:
How does one use the word HOPEFUL in the context of a settled future?

Total idiot's response: What does it mean in open theism. Hope for the unknown? Doesn't there need to be something to hope for? Without results from action there is no hope, only delusion.

So I responded and invited you to do the same. :bang:

You never did address the question.:dunce:

Back to ignore RobE, so don't even try it again. You don't exist.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

So I responded and invited you to do the same. :bang:

You never did address the question.:dunce:

Back to ignore RobE, so don't even try it again. You don't exist.

Philetus

Well, kind sir:

I see no scripture which states God hopes. Are you able to provide one? Also, I had no idea as to what you were replying to. I assumed you were replying to my post, not your own.

Here's the reply you wanted to your original post:

How does one use the word HOPEFUL in the context of a settled future?

What does it mean in open theism. Hope for the unknown? Doesn't there need to be something to hope for? Without results from action there is no hope, only delusion.

Explanation of my response:

According to open theism the future is unknown. Without cause and effect, hope is imaginary. Doing 'A' doesn't guarantee a specific outcome. Without cause and effect we are at the mercy of fate. We might hope that things turn out all right, but what is that hope based upon when nothing is for sure? I might hope to sprout wings, but it means nothing. I might hope to be saved, but it means nothing when salvation isn't guaranteed with certain knowledge. Hopelessness is what open theism leaves me with.

My hope is in a God who is capable and intelligent, not in a God who 'hopes' to bring about my redemption. A God who knows what is required to guarantee a specific foreknown outcome for my soul. My God is the 'Rock', not the god of the shifting sands.

Philetus' response to himself.

I apologize for not responding to your post which I already responded to....

Here's my position to your ideas about hope:

God does not 'hope', God knows. Man 'hopes' because we don't know.​

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Philetus]

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. ​

 

[lee_merrill]

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. ​

But this is not God hoping, "we wait for it patiently." We hope, clearly, is the meaning, and the words.

 

[Lon]

That sure is filled with hope.

Read it again, this time without your shades Bo)

You do know the definition of "fatally," do you not?

God's BIG plan includes the fate of all men; which is predetermined by Him, not by our choices.

Man is NOT "the captain of his fate". . .

Nang

Q1: When is it wrong to trust a perfectly competent Lover of our souls?

Q2: When is it appropriate to set off on our own without consulting our Father's perfect will?

Q3: What is the difference between wanting to be like our Savior and wanting to be within His will?

Q4: What does an OVer hope to actually gain by jettisoning His sovereignty?

Why would there be objection at this particular point? "Not my will, but thine." Doesn't it hit you as strange, that the goal of the Christian life is summed up in this prayer by Christ in Gethsemane and yet we are debating the fine points of exactly this? When Christ was giving His sermon on the beattitudes, He poignantly brings to focus that we are slaves: "You cannot serve two masters, for you will love one and hate the other..." (Matt 6)

Our discussion repeatedly centers around this concept and I'd suggest all peripheral discussion (EDF, Omni's, etc.) are directly affected by this one question:

Are we or are we not slaves?

Are our choices ever liberated? Some have argued that any other choice but one is liberating. I suggest that it is not. It is rather within the same limitation of our slavery. "I am free to walk around my cell." There is truth to that statement, however discouraging the reality.

Tradition would state it thus: "I am free to peruse my Father's will where the limits are only that I stay out of the cell of sin."

 

[Lon]

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. ​

...that the creation,in hope, itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Remember that the NASB and KJV will line up with the greek in order, and also that verse numbers and separations are not divinely inspired nor are they always correct (one day I hope somebody renumbers and properly separates chapters and verses correctly- I'm buying that Bible).

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty, but rejects a distorted view of hyper-sovereignty. In His sovereignty, He chose to make us significant others with a say-so. We are not sock puppets (TM), but free moral agents. We can be a slave to God or sin, but this does not mean we have no volition or responsibility. Love relationships are not caused or coerced, so we do have a choice to obey or disobey (hence the biblical exhorations to obey and warnings about disobeying e.g. Deuteronomy and Ephesians).

 

[Lon]

One post! One post and you don't even know the question?

You can't.

THE REAL question is "Why did I think for one second you could offer any content?"

You are right Mus, Sorry I slipped a cog there.
Philetus

Rob is a global thinker. I am too btw. It can and is frustrating discussing with a global thinker (and we are thankfully few in discussions like this).

I have to work really hard to be concrete sequential in my presentation. It is not an easy hurdle to jump and it might help cut slack to realize this about us GT's.

 

[Lon]

Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty, but rejects a distorted view of hyper-sovereignty. In His sovereignty, He chose to make us significant others with a say-so. We are not sock puppets (TM), but free moral agents. We can be a slave to God or sin, but this does not mean we have no volition or responsibility. Love relationships are not caused or coerced, so we do have a choice to obey or disobey (hence the biblical exhorations to obey and warnings about disobeying e.g. Deuteronomy and Ephesians).

You are merely elucidating the choice of two masters with your love scenario.

Sock puppets are not able to choose between two masters. I ask again, are you, or are you not a slave?

Affirming sovereignty means either accepting or rejecting it between those two choices. If you wore a red shirt today, it was either in recognition of His sovereignty or it was not. Just two choices.

 

[godrulz]

There are various possible models of rulership or sovereignty such as providential, omnicausal, dictatorial, responsive, etc. A wrong view of free will or sovereignty will lead to wrong conclusions about how God has chosen to rule creation.

A slave can obey or disobey and even run away, with consequences. Moral creation is governed by a law of love and freedom (relational), not cause-effect (inanimate) or instinct (animate). Love is not coerced. We can chose between alternatives (ultimate choice: God or self) and our subordinate choices can be in line or contrary to this (Christians sometimes sin, contrary to God's will...e.g. adultery).

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee still is wondering how God knows only a remnant will be saved.

 

[Philetus]

But this is not God hoping, "we wait for it patiently." We hope, clearly, is the meaning, and the words.

... so, God subjected all creation to frustration so we alone could have hope? ...
Sorry, Lee. That's not what it says:

"NIV not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope"
RSV "for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;"
ASB "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope"
KJV "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,"​

Put the comma in or leave it out. And maybe it is a matter of how we interpret it. We disagree because of our base line.

Lon:
...that the creation,in hope, itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Remember that the NASB and KJV will line up with the greek in order, and also that verse numbers and separations are not divinely inspired nor are they always correct (one day I hope somebody renumbers and properly separates chapters and verses correctly- I'm buying that Bible).

I get that - I do.

godrulz: There are various possible models of rulership or sovereignty such as providential, omnicausal, dictatorial, responsive, etc. A wrong view of free will or sovereignty will lead to wrong conclusions about how God has chosen to rule creation.

A slave can obey or disobey and even run away, with consequences. Moral creation is governed by a law of love and freedom (relational), not cause-effect (inanimate) or instinct (animate). Love is not coerced. We can chose between alternatives (ultimate choice: God or self) and our subordinate choices can be in line or contrary to this (Christians sometimes sin, contrary to God's will...e.g. adultery).

God hopes you get that. And so do I.

If God meticulously controls everything and exhaustively knows the future, then I agree there is no reason for God to hope. If however we have the freedom to make decisions that affect the future and God doesn't have a VCR with tapes of the future playing, (as OV claims) then God must have hope that not only will God's people come to there senses, but that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Hope isn't a bad trip or delusional as some global tinkers have suggested. Hope is as much a divine attribute as love. Love always hopes for the best.

Love .... 1Cor 13:7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

God is love. God hopes.

Philetus

I think that you are indeed global in your thinking or at least are trying hard to be.

 

[Philetus]

Lee still is wondering how God knows only a remnant will be saved.

Let us know when you figure it out. :shut:

 

[Nang]

God hopes.

God does not need to hope. God knows.

You are just making this up . . .
by inserting commas, yet!

:ha:

Nang

 

[Lon]

... so, God subjected all creation to frustration so we alone could have hope? ...

"NIV not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope"
RSV "for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;"
ASB "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope"
KJV "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,"​

Put the comma in or leave it out. And maybe it is a matter of how we interpret it. We disagree because of our base line.

It isn't just a disagreement over our doctrine. It is part of the structure of the sentence, the creation is the subject of hoping. As you perused those versions, I 'hope' it didn't escape your notice that they all used a comma to set the idea apart clearly. However, even if you disagree with that point, it would also be important to show God hoping in other passages and we don't see it. Further is a logical problem with God hoping even in OV thinking.

So to the 2nd and 3rd objections: We do not see God hoping elsewhere (nor, as I contend here).
Let me then procede to the logical problem. If you look up 'hope' in the dictionary, there are all kinds of problems with the various definitions:

-to feel that something desired may happen
-to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence
-to believe, desire, or trust

Hope in this sense is not secure, 'may,' 'desire,' have 'reasonable confidence' and 'trust' are problematic qualifiers.

Here is why: Will creation be made right? Your answer as well as ours is "absolutely yes." There is nothing God must depend on to make this come about. If God hopes it comes out alright, He is no longer omnicompetent (or confident). I do not 'hope' I can make a pizza. I've done it about 100 times. I simply make a pizza. God doesn't hope He'll be able to fix creation's groaning. He is able and hope doesn't enter the equation (again, if as OV says, He is omnicompetent).

God hopes you get that. And so do I.

I say "God knows." He knows because He knows me. He knows exactly how my mind works and whether I'd pick up on your point. God knows, He doesn't hope.

If God meticulously controls everything and exhaustively knows the future, then I agree there is no reason for God to hope. If however we have the freedom to make decisions that affect the future and God doesn't have a VCR with tapes of the future playing, (as OV claims) then God must have hope that not only will God's people come to there senses, but that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

I disagree with GR here. We do not have an assundry of choices. We have one. If I eat eggs, I eat them following one of two masters and nothing else. We are in bondage always. There is never a time when I am my own master, never.

Hope isn't a bad trip or delusional as some global tinkers have suggested. Hope is as much a divine attribute as love. Love always hopes for the best.

Love .... 1Cor 13:7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

God is love. God hopes.

Philetus

God is love but don't equate God and hope.
God --> Love
Love--> hopes.
I am human
Me--> human
Women are humans
Woman-->human

I think that you are indeed global in your thinking or at least are trying hard to be.

It isn't a bad thing. It is different. I'm very capable of carrying on a concrete sequential discussion but it doesn't come naturally. Read the strengths and weaknesses of both thinking processes(among others). Many of our brilliant artists, scientists, etc. were global thinkers.

 

[Lon]

Let us know when you figure it out. :shut:

He does have it figured out.

He could make it very precise for you:

"Lee is wondering how God knows a remnant will be saved from an OV mindset."

It makes very clear sense from his own theology, not yours.

He uses it to dig into the hole he is seeing in OV logic, repeatedly uncovering the deadfall and 'looking for the dirt' to fill it up or leave it a gaping hole.

 

[Yorzhik]

Lee still is wondering how God knows only a remnant will be saved.

I answered this a long time ago. If you ignore the answers, I can't help you.

 

[RobE]

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself

will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

"....will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom...."​

Sounds like a prophecy.

As to your point, are you now saying that God 'hoped' that Jesus Christ would be sufficient to achieve His mission on Earth? Would it be logical to assume that God not only 'hoped', but also knew beforehand the outcome of His own self sacrificing act? You forgot the opening statement....

Romans 8:19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.​

It's creation which hopes to be liberated from the 'bondage of decay'.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Your underlined portion is speaking of our hope, not God's hope. Perhaps there is another verse which might speak of God's hope. If so, I gladly welcome you find and share it.

God = Love
Love = Hopes
God = Hopes

Animal = Zebra
Zebra = Stripes
Animal = Stripes