ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

I have always differentiated knowledge this way. If we know something, it must by definition, be true. Forecasting, guessing, or ballparking are not part of knowledge.

I agree our listed definitons are virtually the same, but I believe Webster paints a much clearer picture with no wiggle-room for anything but what is actual.

You are very correct my understanding of the definition of knowledge is carried into my theology for I believe it is a biblically given concept.


EDF (Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge). It means God knows all of the future.

I said in my last post that the only time you can know something is when what you know is true. Maybe you could re-review my post.

Knowledge can be a journey. At point A we may say we know something that hasn't been proven yet, and then at point Z what we knew at point A was realized. Yet even though we had to wait until we got to Z, way back at point A we knew what would eventually become true.

I.E. Jonah KNEW they would be spared. He did know, because they were spared.

If what you say about knowledge is true, then none of us can know God is real!

If I said God had EDF (nice alphabet soup btw) the way he would know things would be definitive..... I just defined a "word" with a definition.

But without EDF, what God knows................

He knows by predestination

AND

By presumption/understanding of the past and present.

So I would say his foreknowledge is based EDCK....ahem.... Exhaustive Definite Current Knowledge, which always leaves room for freedom.

Do you understand?

 

[lee_merrill]

Your translation says the same thing as the one I quoted you...

Well, "he said to do" need not imply "he said he would do."

And somehow this went unaddressed, if God says "This will certainly happen," and it doesn't, then that's false prophecy, so his prophecies saying "this is sure," must be sure indeed.

Also, if God says "I tell you the truth" to Peter when he knows it might not be true, that is telling a lie. So prophecy when it's unconditional, cannot be an estimate.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

But the Open View directly contradicts this Scripture.

 

[godrulz]

Do the scriptures point to God knowing our 'minds' or thoughts?
Do the scriptures point to God knowing our 'desires' or wills?

1 John 3:20 whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.​

I found this scripture interesting because the words 'hearts' and 'minds' had the same meaning in ancient times.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.​

I'll restate my question: Would complete present knowledge(which includes thoughts and desires) yield exhaustive, proximal foreknowledge?

How proximal? Milliseconds or days? The verses prove exhaustive knowledge of past and present. You wrongly extrapolate this to mean exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know the thoughts that lead to words that lead to actions, etc., but that does not preclude the possibility of a split second change. He can see that I plan to eat cereal in a moment, but I could change my mind and eat eggs on a whim. I may plan to go out for supper, but my mother may suddenly die in a car accident leading to a change in plans. As long as there are contingencies (and there are), then there is an element of uncertainty possible. God knows reality as it is. You have a skewed view of reality and believe in a problematic, theoretical concept.

 

[patman]

Well, "he said to do" need not imply "he said he would do."

And somehow this went unaddressed, if God says "This will certainly happen," and it doesn't, then that's false prophecy, so his prophecies saying "this is sure," must be sure indeed.

Also, if God says "I tell you the truth" to Peter when he knows it might not be true, that is telling a lie. So prophecy when it's unconditional, cannot be an estimate.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

But the Open View directly contradicts this Scripture.

Obviously God's proclamations do not always come to pass. Jonah is one, so is the Gen 15 passage I showed earlier. He often leaves room for conditions. Everyone knows this Lee... If I contradict this, so does everyone else.

I think we should start with verse 19....

19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’

Whoever will not hear gets X..... do you see? Even here God shows us there are conditions(and we can see this principal at play all over scripture).

What the S.V. doesn't grasp is that conditions are ONLY possible if the future is open.

 

[Lon]

I said in my last post that the only time you can know something is when what you know is true. Maybe you could re-review my post.

I'm not arguing against all your points, only ones like the one below.

Knowledge can be a journey. At point A we may say we know something that hasn't been proven yet, and then at point Z what we knew at point A was realized. Yet even though we had to wait until we got to Z, way back at point A we knew what would eventually become true.

Knowledge is the 'end' of the journey. More specifically. We can 'add' to knowledge (1+1=2, 2+2=4, 3x -4m = 19). Your scenario is varification of unqualified truth. In the algebraic problem, we know the answer is 19 because "I" told you it is 19. It is unqualified until you figure out the values of x and m. Your goal is to make it equal 19 (rhetorical). Until you discover x and m values, the problem is unqualified truth. Your knowledge is unqualified second-hand knowledge (forecast). It isn't going to be actually known until you do the math.
X=7, m=1. Now you are closer, but we 'still' have to do the math, you don't know the answer is 19 yet. 3x7 - 4x1, 27 - 4 = 19. Double checking: 4 + 19 = 27; 27-19=4. Now. At this point, you know the answer is 19 by discovery. It is now 'qualified.' It is absolute knowledge. If you didn't know how to do algebra, you'd have to take somebody's word for it that the answer was 19.
Second-hand knowledge is a trust/faith issue. The only reason we 'know' anything second-hand is if it is varifiable OR if God tells us (because He is infallible-doesn't make mistakes).

I.E. Jonah KNEW they would be spared. He did know, because they were spared.

Before it happened, Jonah didn't know OR was exercising his prophetic office.

If what you say about knowledge is true, then none of us can know God is real!

The only reason we 'know' anything second-hand is if it is varifiable OR if God tells us (because He is infallible-doesn't make mistakes).

If I said God had EDF (nice alphabet soup btw) the way he would know things would be definitive..... I just defined a "word" with a definition.

But without EDF, what God knows:
by predestination

AND

By presumption/understanding of the past and present.

I'm saying 'no.' He knows as part of Himself. We are all His creation.


So I would say his foreknowledge is based EDCK....ahem.... Exhaustive Definite Current Knowledge, which always leaves room for freedom.

Do you understand? [/QUOTE]

Yes, I disagree completely, but I understand. When Jesus tells Peter "You will deny me three times, it is known according to my definition."

 

[Lon]

How proximal? Milliseconds or days? The verses prove exhaustive knowledge of past and present. You wrongly extrapolate this to mean exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know the thoughts that lead to words that lead to actions, etc., but that does not preclude the possibility of a split second change. He can see that I plan to eat cereal in a moment, but I could change my mind and eat eggs on a whim. I may plan to go out for supper, but my mother may suddenly die in a car accident leading to a change in plans. As long as there are contingencies (and there are), then there is an element of uncertainty possible. God knows reality as it is. You have a skewed view of reality and believe in a problematic, theoretical concept.

How about as proximal as "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."

 

[Philetus]

Maybe he means "know" in the biblical sense?

That is funny. :rotfl:

“Is there knowledge ... it will cease.”

 

[Philetus]

Well, I do need to see a verse or two that clearly shows God hoping. At this point, there are a few ramifications for the idea of 'hope' that need fleshed out for the OV stance. You don't want God 'hoping' that He can save us. I think your statement that God is competent is important for the OV stance (EDF kind of has the rest of us ignoring it as an improbable if not impossible scenario-especially given the unknown factor of hoping). It is a well stated point you make for clarifying.

Muz, pay attention to Philetus' posts. He is explaining the ramifications quite well here.

Blessing in Him

Lon

You really aren't asking me for 'proof texts' are you? lain:

I find it interesting (in a frustrating way) that the SV wants to make every characteristic, every classical attribute of God, universal and dominate except love. God is love, God loves us with perfect love. Love respects the other. God doesn't hope he CAN save us. God has done everything necessary so that we can be saved. What God will not do (though He certainly could) is save us against our will, i.e., without repentance. Love doesn't coerce. Love is patient, kind and hopeful. God doesn't 'foolishly hope' He can save us (as you so recklessly stated earlier). What we see in scripture is a Father who patiently waits.... hopes .... for the repentance and return of lost sons. The Spirit continues to convict and convince, but never force. God doesn’t know exactly who or if and when one might ‘come to himself’ and ‘remember Father’s house’ and repent. It isn’t hard to know (EDF???) that sadly some never will.

On a side note: If God in fact saves all Israel simply because they are Jews, what has that got to do with U.S. foreign policy? Or what has that to do with the preaching of the Gospel among Gentiles. If God dealt with Judas in a peculiar way under extreme circumstances, what has that to do with you and me? It is dangerous to extract a particular and universalize it and claim it as ‘doctrinal’ and cloud the essence of salvation history.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

How proximal? Milliseconds or days? The verses prove exhaustive knowledge of past and present. You wrongly extrapolate this to mean exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know the thoughts that lead to words that lead to actions, etc., but that does not preclude the possibility of a split second change. He can see that I plan to eat cereal in a moment, but I could change my mind and eat eggs on a whim. I may plan to go out for supper, but my mother may suddenly die in a car accident leading to a change in plans. As long as there are contingencies (and there are), then there is an element of uncertainty possible. God knows reality as it is. You have a skewed view of reality and believe in a problematic, theoretical concept.

The smallest unit of measurement suffices to destroy the idea that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible. Pick a length of time before a free act which God might exhaustively foreknow the outcome.

It burns: I desire to light a paper on fire and see it burn. If in the future I light a paper on fire it will burn. God knows that if, in the future, I light a paper on fire it will burn because God knows the present exhaustively. It will burn because there are no factors in the present which God does not exhaustively know in relation to it burning including knowing my desire to light it on fire. God knows I will watch it burn because there are no factors in the present which God does not exhaustively no in relation to me being able to see it burn. God allows(ordains, decrees, permits) me to light a paper on fire and see it burn for one of two reasons:

God brings the event about by power or God foreknows what I will do based on perfect present knowledge. Rewind this to before time began and understand.

1. God doesnt foreknow(coercion) --- SupraLapsarianism
2. God foreknows(simple foreknowledge = calculation{Molinism} or 'outside of time'{Thomist}) --- Free will theism.

Pick one. Or claim that nothing is foreknown whatsoever, in which case the laws of nature must be non-existent and reason is suspended. The dual motif: Molinism(free choices existing within decrees).

Judas?

 

[RobE]

You really aren't asking me for 'proof texts' are you? lain:

Yes. You made the claim now provide us with the proof.

I find it interesting (in a frustrating way) that the SV wants to make every characteristic, every classical attribute of God, universal and dominate except love. God is love, God loves us with perfect love. Love respects the other. God doesn't hope he CAN save us.

Well, you don't see us arguing any of the attributes which the o.v. hasn't rejected. The arguments come about because of the 'ots' rejection of some of God's attributes. Don't complain to us if you caught yourself half-way down the slope of slipperyness.:chuckle:

Do you see a conflict between these two statements:

God doesn't hope he CAN save us.

God has done everything necessary so that we can be saved. What God will not do (though He certainly could) is save us against our will, i.e., without repentance. Love doesn't coerce. Love is patient, kind and hopeful. God doesn't 'foolishly hope' He can save us (as you so recklessly stated earlier). What we see in scripture is a Father who patiently waits.... hopes .... for the repentance and return of lost sons.

So God CAN save us, but refuses to do so because He's hoping we will save ourselves? Do you know what's at the bottom of the slope?

The Spirit continues to convict and convince, but never force.

Correct from my perspective. God provides sufficient Grace(means to believe), but not effecacious Grace(the gift of faith) unless a man responds freely to the Spirit.

God doesn’t know exactly who or if and when one might ‘come to himself’ and ‘remember Father’s house’ and repent.

Then the Book of Life is empty and the scriptures about the elect are untrue. What other scriptures might this idea reject?

If God dealt with Judas in a peculiar way under extreme circumstances, what has that to do with you and me?

Nothing. The questions would be --- Who was sacrificed to accomplish God's salvation; if Judas was made to be reprobate through though being coerced to betray? Is this an act of a God who's primary characteristic is Love? God would be within His rights to do so, but how does a free will theist claim that He did it?

It is dangerous to extract a particular and universalize it and claim it as ‘doctrinal’ and cloud the essence of salvation history.

The same is true if we try to extract a particular as an exception to a universal. Does God desire ALL, including Judas Iscariot, to be saved or not?

 

[godrulz]

How about as proximal as "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."

Still not the same as declaring this eventuality as certain from before the foundations of the world. Don't underestimate God's power and intelligence, but don't buy into the absurdity of EDF based on this scenario (which is proximal, not remote, specific, not exhaustive).

 

[lee_merrill]

Obviously God's proclamations do not always come to pass. Jonah is one, so is the Gen 15 passage I showed earlier. He often leaves room for conditions.

But I'm talking about when God says the outcome is sure.

"And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die."

Whoever will not hear gets X..... do you see? Even here God shows us there are conditions(and we can see this principal at play all over scripture).

Conditions for speaking in the Lord's name, yes, but not conditions in every case on what the Lord says.

What the S.V. doesn't grasp is that conditions are ONLY possible if the future is open.

Well, no, you can talk about past acts and their conditions. The past being known doesn't mean there were no conditions, and the future being known need not imply that there are no conditions, either.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

But the Open View says there are words that fail, wasn't someone here just recently saying that the proclamation, "Nineveh will be overthrown" failed? They were not saying that a condition was met that changed the outcome, but that the statement was wrong.

 

[Philetus]

Yes. You made the claim now provide us with the proof.



Well, you don't see us arguing any of the attributes which the o.v. hasn't rejected. The arguments come about because of the 'ots' rejection of some of God's attributes. Don't complain to us if you caught yourself half-way down the slope of slipperyness.:chuckle:

Do you see a conflict between these two statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus
God doesn't hope he CAN save us.

Quote:
God has done everything necessary so that we can be saved. What God will not do (though He certainly could) is save us against our will, i.e., without repentance. Love doesn't coerce. Love is patient, kind and hopeful. God doesn't 'foolishly hope' He can save us (as you so recklessly stated earlier). What we see in scripture is a Father who patiently waits.... hopes .... for the repentance and return of lost sons.

So God CAN save us, but refuses to do so because He's hoping we will save ourselves? Do you know what's at the bottom of the slope?



Correct from my perspective. God provides sufficient Grace(means to believe), but not effecacious Grace(the gift of faith) unless a man responds freely to the Spirit.


Then the Book of Life is empty and the scriptures about the elect are untrue. What other scriptures might this idea reject?



Nothing. The questions would be --- Who was sacrificed to accomplish God's salvation; if Judas was made to be reprobate through though being coerced to betray? Is this an act of a God who's primary characteristic is Love? God would be within His rights to do so, but how does a free will theist claim that He did it?



The same is true if we try to extract a particular as an exception to a universal. Does God desire ALL, including Judas Iscariot, to be saved or not?

You sure are shallow for a 'global thinker.' :yawn:

So OK, one point:

Once again you shifted the emphasis from God 'hoping' to God's ability as if God hoping in some instances renders God impotent, even as you do when you try to render God more powerful by preserving EDF and freedom. That God hopes men repent has nothing to do with God's ability. It has everything to do with reciprocal loving relationships, a concept which obviously totally escapes you.

Notice my original statement places the emphasis on 'CAN'

"Love respects the other. God doesn't hope he CAN save us. God has done everything necessary so that we can be saved."​

Do you believe it is necessary for an individual to repent in order to be saved? You seemed to agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't coerce, so who makes the decision to repent? Is it made freely?


Philetus



Besides RobE, My response was to and for Lon. So, to quote a famous movie line, "When you talk to me shut up."

 

[Lon]

That is funny. :rotfl:

“Is there knowledge ... it will cease.”

Whoo HOo! Welcome to my side of the fence!

 

[Lon]

Hiya Philster

Hiya Philster

You really aren't asking me for 'proof texts' are you? lain:

No, I was telling Muz that you were 'actually' discussing the topic. He called it 'yomen's work.' I hope he didn't mean so derogatorily for at least you are discussing it. He is entrenching.

I find it interesting (in a frustrating way) that the SV wants to make every characteristic, every classical attribute of God, universal and dominate except love.

Duh, we agree on that point and so avoid it between us. (duh was kidding btw).

God is love, God loves us with perfect love. Love respects the other. God doesn't hope he CAN save us. God has done everything necessary so that we can be saved. What God will not do (though He certainly could) is save us against our will, i.e., without repentance. Love doesn't coerce. Love is patient, kind and hopeful.

We discussed these fine points already. 1Corinthians 13 is one of my favorite passages. I have to memorize it again. Are you up to taking that challenge with me? "Last one is a rotten egg."

God doesn't 'foolishly hope' He can save us (as you so recklessly stated earlier).

My statement wasn't reckless at all. If God 'hopes' according to OV He must do it recklessly for He cannot know any man's decision. I call that reckless, but forgive me, it wasn't meant as a complete slam, but meant to convey real problems with the logic of God hoping. I see it as a reckless position. I'll hopefully be corrected here below...

What we see in scripture is a Father who patiently waits.... hopes .... for the repentance and return of lost sons. The Spirit continues to convict and convince, but never force. God doesn’t know exactly who or if and when one might ‘come to himself’ and ‘remember Father’s house’ and repent. It isn’t hard to know (EDF???) that sadly some never will.

Some? Many. I call it reckless further because God couldn't have known according to OV that Christ's death would be effectual at all. When OV says "God is very smart" it is almost an admission that He has EDF, almost.

On a side note: If God in fact saves all Israel simply because they are Jews, what has that got to do with U.S. foreign policy? Or what has that to do with the preaching of the Gospel among Gentiles. If God dealt with Judas in a peculiar way under extreme circumstances, what has that to do with you and me? It is dangerous to extract a particular and universalize it and claim it as ‘doctrinal’ and cloud the essence of salvation history.

Philetus

This 'side note' lost me. I'm not following it. The only connection I see is Lee's question: How does God know only a remnant will be saved?
If that is in fact where you are going, I'm still not sure how to read your side note in context. The point is eluding me.

In Christ

Lon

 

[Lon]

Still not the same as declaring this eventuality as certain from before the foundations of the world. Don't underestimate God's power and intelligence, but don't buy into the absurdity of EDF based on this scenario (which is proximal, not remote, specific, not exhaustive).

That is already a concession in the correct theological direction whether you realize it or not. You are 'almost' OV, almost Arminian. You are caught in the middle with this statement.

 

[RobE]

You sure are shallow for a 'global thinker.' :yawn:

Thanks, Forrest. Have you searched through every translation of God's Word and found a scripture which presents God hoping?

Once again you shifted the emphasis from God 'hoping' to God's ability...

Hoping is an ability.

....as if God hoping in some instances renders God impotent,...

Are you able to perceive any situations which might prove this true?

...even as you do when you try to render God more powerful by preserving EDF and freedom.

I don't 'try' to do any such thing. God is more powerful than man. This includes being infinitely more intelligent than man. Man hopes, God knows.

That God hopes men repent has nothing to do with God's ability. It has everything to do with reciprocal loving relationships,....

I would suggest that man has a very limited capacity to truly 'love' God in return. The sense of 'relationship' you speak of is one between equals, not one between mortal and Almighty. Modernism, me thinks. I encourage you to look at the 'relationships' between men and God in the Bible and discern the humbleness and humility of those who approached Him. I'm sure your personal relationship with Our Father is often lacking in these qualities because you deem that He has indeed made you His equal out of 'love'.

Notice my original statement places the emphasis on 'CAN'

Rightly so, since anything is possible for Him.

Philetus: "Love respects the other."

God respects us in this sense?

Philetus: "God doesn't hope he CAN save us."

True, which is the direct denial of your whole 'hope' idea.

PHiletus: "God has done everything necessary so that we can{might} be saved."

Are you using the word 'can' subjectively again(o.t.)?

Do you believe it is necessary for an individual to repent in order to be saved?

No. I believe it is necessary for an individual to believe in Christ to be saved; whether the believer repents for every sin committed or not. If repentence guaranteed salvation, then those who are suddenly killed would have no hope.

You seemed to agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't coerce, so who makes the decision to repent{believe}? Is it made freely?

In my opinion, God provides sufficient Grace for mankind to believe freely. The question you must answer is: if God 'provides' sufficient Grace for ALL mankind to believe freely, then.....

1. Why aren't all men saved?
2. How, since foreknowledge does not exist, does God know some will be saved and not all?
3. How did Christ know that Judas Iscariot was 'doomed to destruction' without foreknowledge?
4. How does God know anything will occur unless God directly coerces events---unless foreknowledge is real?

My answers:
1A. All men are provided with sufficient Grace instead of effecacious(coercive) grace.
2A. God foreknows who will accept this sufficient Grace and who by their own rebellion will refuse the gift offered.
3A. God foreknew that Judas Iscariot would betray and refuse to repent, because of unbelief, of the sin which He committed.
4A. God has foreknowledge.

Besides RobE, My response was to and for Lon. So, to quote a famous movie line, "When you talk to me shut up."

"He who has ears, let him hear."--- Too much time watching, not enough time reading.

 

[godrulz]

Lon and Rob are becoming increasingly hard to understand. Perhaps it is because their views are not water-tight.

 

[RobE]

Lon and Rob are becoming increasingly hard to understand. Perhaps it is because their views are not water-tight.

I'll be more than happy to clarify any statement to you. I know you work many threads at once and sometimes following the thinking becomes rough. How have you been, Godrulz?

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

A couple of questions might help....

1. Where in scripture does it state that God 'hopes'?
2. How does proximal foreknowledge escape your ideas about foreknowledge in general concerning free will decisions?

Rob