ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Again, this means God is much closer to a virtual EDF than OV would admit. There is nothing that would be a 'new' move if God knows all there is to know past and present. I'm arguing for a better OV position here.

Leaving the game analogies behind, 'Very smart' isn't good enough. He has to be able to bring about His intention (win). God cannot fail, both because of who He is and what He has determined. There is no greater strength that can defeat God. There is no smarter being that can outsmart Him at His own creation.

"Very Smart." How smart? If God never loses, He knows future intentions and actions of men as old hat. There is no move man can make that He isn't prepared for. There is nothing man can do to thwart His intentions. If you begin to follow this line of logic to its conclusion, you'll be very close to EDF logically.

I believe this is the argument Rob was trying to make for several days now.

How smart? Then how about extremely smart? Example: Only God knows what RobE is trying to argue.

Open Theism argues that in spite of God giving ground to free creatures to make their own decisions in the present, God ultimately will win. Decision made in the meantime present contingencies that leave the future open; most specifically open as to who will enjoy the future God has planed and who will suffer destruction. Grace isn’t irresistible. The devil is in the details and it remains to be seen just who will finally be deceived and who will ultimately be saved.

Open Theism argues there is NO future to know. Open Theism is totally incompatible with EDF. The future only exists in the minds of men AND God. There is no doubt GOD WINS, but it is equally certain that some men will lose. Men pursue their own futures and when those futures do not acknowledge God in Christ the paths lead to destruction. You are not improving on the OT position, you are muddling it beyond recognition; your starting place is all wrong. Argue against it all you want, but, please don’t try to help us until you understand it.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

So then God does speak and then not act, he does promise and not fulfill?


No, you are not telling the truth in the sense of a certain statement, but "truly, truly" means the statement is sure.


But I meant when God says "this will surely happen," then if it doesn't happen, that is a word the Lord did not speak. Contra Open Theism--see "I will surely drive them out" above.


But I meant when God says "this will surely happen," then if it doesn't happen, that is a word the Lord did not speak. Contra Open Theism.

Blessings,
Lee

God is relational, Lee. God relates to a world made imperfect by sin. Sin requires a holy God to adjust without compromising God's holiness or to destroy the whole damned thing. Love adjusts. Deal with it.

Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

God is relational, Lee. God relates to a world made imperfect by sin. Sin requires a holy God to adjust without compromising God's holiness ...

So then how am I to understand "Does he speak and then not act, does he promise and not fulfill?"

The answer is, "yes, indeed he does"?

How am I to read "that is a word the Lord has not spoken"?

How is it not a lie (remembering God's holiness) to say "truly, truly" when it might not be true?

 

[godrulz]

Rob's posts are making a lot of sense to me. What's your beef with him?

He is not an open theist:drum:

I think his view is inconsistent. It is a weak theodicy (problem of evil), is too deterministic, too Molinistic, too superkalafradgilistic x p al i dohshish (sic).

 

[Lon]

He is not an open theist:drum:

I think his view is inconsistent. It is a weak theodicy (problem of evil), is too deterministic, too Molinistic, too superkalafradgilistic x p al i dohshish (sic).

I don't want to accuse you of not having taken too much of a glance in the traditional direction before turning OV, but your extreme statements often leave me wondering. Of course you were from charasmatic persuasion and thus would have had a shallow inundation. By such statements, I assume a superficial knee-deep wade. There is no possible way, if I ever could be persuaded to OV theology, I could make such statements as you continue to make in derogatory.
I would never, for instance, say a derogatory thing toward Arminianism having come from there. Your nonchallant remarks leave me wondering, truly.

 

[Philetus]

So then how am I to understand "Does he speak and then not act, does he promise and not fulfill?"

The answer is, "yes, indeed he does"?

How am I to read "that is a word the Lord has not spoken"?

How is it not a lie (remembering God's holiness) to say "truly, truly" when it might not be true?

I understand your frustration with Open Theism, Lee. I really do. God never promises and then not deliver. But you are trying to grasp (or not) Open Theism from a starting point that is foreign to Open Theism ... a settled future. Open Theists believe your reading of scripture is tainted by hundreds of years of assuming that God never changes. According to classical theism God can't change. He is as fixed as the future they claim he determines and knows. Our view is that in order to relate to a fallen world, the world God created good but that is now marred by sin, God must change, not in character, but must adjust to the free decisions made by creatures created in his image and given a great deal of say-so in how they live their lives.

Your frustration is in your starting place and the way you read all of scripture and then expect Open Theists to adjust their thinking mid-stream. It won't work for either of us. So all I can say is you continue to trust in your reading of "truly, truly" and I'll trust in a God with infinite wisdom to always do the right (loving and holy) thing even if I misread a verse here and there. Because even if you haven't picked up on it yet, Lee, we have reached an impasse.


Philetus

 

[Lon]

How smart? Then how about extremely smart?

Open Theism argues that in spite of God giving ground to free creatures to make their own decisions in the present, God ultimately will win. Decision made in the meantime present contingencies that leave the future open; most specifically open as to who will enjoy the future God has planed and who will suffer destruction. Grace isn’t irresistible. The devil is in the details and it remains to be seen just who will finally be deceived and who will ultimately be saved.

Open Theism argues there is NO future to know. Open Theism is totally incompatible with EDF. The future only exists in the minds of men AND God. There is no doubt GOD WINS, but it is equally certain that some men will lose. Men pursue their own futures and when those futures do not acknowledge God in Christ the paths lead to destruction. You are not improving on the OT position, you are muddling it beyond recognition; your starting place is all wrong. Argue against it all you want, but, please don’t try to help us until you understand it.

Philetus

Er, if God wins, the future is closed more than you are conceding. Again, it isn't as incompatible as you imagine for you to make that assertation. Frankly, you guys just don't like the traditional terms, but in order to take God at His word, you have to logically incorporate traditional stances more than you'd imagine or like to admit. Omnicompetence leads into the other omni's as a package logically. If God is omni-anything, your theology is logically and necessarily built on the others as well.

God is almighty. His name Jehovah Jireh means God can do it (no matter what 'it' is). If God can do it, His declaration that it will be done naturally follows. Whatever God says will happen will happen. This means each and every declaration concerning future is already set. With God, there is no contingency to these coming about because nothing can oppose God. Do you have wiggle room? Yeah, but it isn't free will as liberated as you imagine. You and I make not a wit of difference in the overall picture of things. It is a will submitted to Christ's will that makes any impact, thus it is always God who makes happen what He wishes. He sets up governments. He uses man as He wills. Because God determines, the future is exactly as He plans it. It is predetermined and therefore God knows future by His omnipotence and decrees. You agree to this point, but I say that what God knows about future is at least virtual EDF in the OV whether you see it or not. What God determines and the way He accomplishes it is as good as done in the OV, it is infinitely known for the rest of us, not just virtual. We embrace the logical necessity without the OV hangups.

 

[Philetus]

I don't want to accuse you of not having taken too much of a glance in the traditional direction before turning OV, but your extreme statements often leave me wondering. Of course you were from charasmatic persuasion and thus would have had a shallow inundation. By such statements, I assume a superficial knee-deep wade. There is no possible way, if I ever could be persuaded to OV theology, I could make such statements as you continue to make in derogatory.
I would never, for instance, say a derogatory thing toward Arminianism having come from there. Your nonchallant remarks leave me wondering, truly.

Don't ever apologize for being pejorative again. The apology doesn't become you.

Just let er rip and quit pretending to be nice and quit taking others to task for it. It's hypocritical of you and your looking thin right now.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Er, if God wins, the future is closed more than you are conceding. Again, it isn't as incompatible as you imagine for you to make that assertation. Frankly, you guys just don't like the traditional terms, but in order to take God at His word, you have to logically incorporate traditional stances more than you'd imagine or like to admit. Omnicompetence leads into the other omni's as a package logically. If God is omni-anything, your theology is logically and necessarily built on the others as well.

God is almighty. His name Jehovah Jireh means God can do it (no matter what 'it' is). If God can do it, His declaration that it will be done naturally follows. Whatever God says will happen will happen. This means each and every declaration concerning future is already set. With God, there is no contingency to these coming about because nothing can oppose God. Do you have wiggle room? Yeah, but it isn't free will as liberated as you imagine. You and I make not a wit of difference in the overall picture of things. It is a will submitted to Christ's will that makes any impact, thus it is always God who makes happen what He wishes. He sets up governments. He uses man as He wills. Because God determines, the future is exactly as He plans it. It is predetermined and therefore God knows future by His omnipotence and decrees. You agree to this point, but I say that what God knows about future is at least virtual EDF in the OV whether you see it or not. What God determines and the way He accomplishes it is as good as done in the OV, it is infinitely known for the rest of us, not just virtual. We embrace the logical necessity without the OV hangups.

You don't get it.

 

[lee_merrill]

God never promises and then not deliver.

So where in Scripture example where "Sin requires a holy God to adjust", as in "Like if God says 'surely I will drive them out'. Like that kind of certainty..."?

So then sin requires God to change his mind, and what was sure was overturned. Well, no, he does not speak and then not act, nor promise and not fulfill (Num. 23:19).

But you are trying to grasp (or not) Open Theism from a starting point that is foreign to Open Theism ... a settled future.

Actually, I want an explanation from the Open Theists. Saying "God never promises and then does not deliver" and "God didn't drive them out after saying he surely would" entails some difficulties even if the future is open, such as God saying "truly, truly," while knowing it might not be true.

... all I can say is you continue to trust in your reading of "truly, truly" and I'll trust in a God with infinite wisdom to always do the right (loving and holy) thing even if I misread a verse here and there.

How is it holy to say "this is true" and know it isn't? This is not dependent on the future being open or not, for I don't know the future, yet if I say "I know this will surely happen" when it might not, then I lied.

Hosea 5:9 Ephraim will be laid waste on the day of reckoning. Among the tribes of Israel I proclaim what is certain.

Because even if you haven't picked up on it yet, Lee, we have reached an impasse.

I agree that there is a gap, but I think it is between the questions and the answers here. What you say is not explaining how to resolve the difficulty, even from an OVT perspective.

Blessings,
Lee <- Still wondering how it can be known that only a remnant will be saved (and not estimated with high probability with group dynamics).

 

[lee_merrill]

Er, if God wins, the future is closed more than you are conceding. Again, it isn't as incompatible as you imagine for you to make that assertation. Frankly, you guys just don't like the traditional terms, but in order to take God at His word, you have to logically incorporate traditional stances more than you'd imagine or like to admit.

Ooo, good point.

What God determines and the way He accomplishes it is as good as done in the OV, it is infinitely known for the rest of us, not just virtual. We embrace the logical necessity without the OV hangups.

:stuck: You know, I don't believe in a closed future! I believe in a known future, there is a difference.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

And thank God you don't. We don't need a loss of credibility like that.

Muz

I guess you already have enought credibility problems as is, so you needn't worry.

I think his view is inconsistent. It is a weak theodicy (problem of evil), is too deterministic, too Molinistic,....

This doctrine is in perfect harmony with the dogmas of the gratuity of grace, the unequal distribution of efficacious grace, the wise and inscrutable operations of Divine Providence, the absolute impossibility to merit final perseverance, and lastly the immutable predestination to glory or rejection; nay more, it brings these very dogmas into harmony, not only with the infallible foreknowledge of God, but also with the freedom of the created will.​

Well, I think you speak to quickly on Molinism since it is your belief. Two motifs. Here's the complete description....

Molina and Man's Free Will

There is no logical proof that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. All such arguments either assume foreknowledge within their proof or have a modal error which AMR has eluded to; and is, commonly known amongst compatibalists. Foreknowledge is not incompatible.

As far as Theodicy I would submit that God foreknew of Judas' reprobation; whereas, Clete and Muz have concluded that God coerced it. Muz says God witheld sufficient Grace from Judas and Clete says that God orchestrated the events. I, alone, have stated that God simply foresaw or foreknew through calculation.

Open theism has no answer for these questions since the belief that, "No free act is for certain, except those which are for certain.", doesn't eliminate the problem of incompatibility.

It assumes foreknowledge and free will are indeed compatible when it assumes some free acts are known beforehand.

 

[RobE]

I wanted to share this with you folks....

The physical evils and sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to come. Should one object that it would be better to have glory both in this world and the next, one might answer that this is not certainly true. Only by the endurance of suffering and sorrow do we attain to the true strength and glory of our manhood. That which we acquire by the sweat of our brow is earned and truly our own. That which comes to us by inheritance is but loaned and possessed by us for a time, till we can hand it on to another. What is true of the individual is true of the human race as a whole. It seems to be the Divine plan that it should work its way on, from little beginnings, with great toil and suffering, to its final goal of perfection. When all things are fulfilled in eternity man can then look back upon something as his own. Perhaps this will then seem to us much more beautiful and glorious than if God had allowed us to remain forever in a garden of paradise, happy indeed, but lifting nothing with the strength He gave us.

 

[lee_merrill]

Perhaps this will then seem to us much more beautiful and glorious than if God had allowed us to remain forever in a garden of paradise, happy indeed, but lifting nothing with the strength He gave us.

:up: How can there be rewards, with nothing to overcome?

Open theism has no answer for these questions since the belief that, "No free act is for certain, except those which are for certain", doesn't eliminate the problem of incompatibility.

Nor do such statements state a position. All acts are free, except those that are not free!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

Don't ever apologize for being pejorative again. The apology doesn't become you.

Just let er rip and quit pretending to be nice and quit taking others to task for it. It's hypocritical of you and your looking thin right now.

Philetus

Oh for crying out loud. He's being perjorative and you are trying to read my mind.
I believe what I said or I'd not have said it. Let him stick up for himself. It was meant to get him to own up to his continued comments. Mine was an assessment of those comments. Challenging? I hope so, but perjorative?

What did you think I meant by shallow inundation? Knee-deep wade? I could have been clearer, but you tend to read a lot into my statements.

Specifically I was talking about the nonchallance at which he treats his own former camp and the reformed camp.

You seem to be looking under every bush to nail me on this. I've been pos repping GR for days now for standing up for his tradition and background. This specific point is a concern of mine or I'd not have said it.

If you feel guilty about slamming Rob or Lee all the time, don't drag me into your guilt. Seeing GR's comments as a shallow understanding for their perjorative nature is an assessment on his words. Would you expect my wade through charismatic doctrine to be deep? (It may be hip-deep, as my wife is from that background and I've spent 5 years in their churches).

 

[Lon]

Ooo, good point.


:stuck: You know, I don't believe in a closed future! I believe in a known future, there is a difference.

Blessings,
Lee

My only point on 'set' at that point is that God has made determinations. When we read Revelation, the book is closed and a new one opens. The end of that book alludes to the other. I don't mind 'closed.' There are other chapters, other books. God's plans are infinite.

I used 'set', you used 'closed'

 

[godrulz]

Rob, I am not a Molinist. William Lane Craig is one, but he is not Open Theist like I am.

Molinism (middle knowledge), Calvinism (determinism), Arminianism (simple foreknowledge) all support exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but for different reasons. Only OT has the two motifs of a partially open/partially settled future.

 

[RobE]

Rob, I am not a Molinist. William Lane Craig is one, but he is not Open Theist like I am.

Molinism (middle knowledge), Calvinism (determinism), Arminianism (simple foreknowledge) all support exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but for different reasons. Only OT has the two motifs of a partially open/partially settled future.

"in the light of which God infallibly foresees from all eternity what attitude man's will would in any conceivable combination of circumstances assume if this or that particular grace were offered it. And it is only when guided by His infallible foreknowledge that God determines the kind of grace He shall give to man. If, for example, He foresees by means of the scientia media that St. Peter, after his denial of Christ, shall freely co-operate with a certain grace,"​

Well only the ot has a contradictory beginning point. You should put Boyd and Sanders away for a while and read a little Molina. If only to see what those you believe are in opposition to you have to say. I've actually listened to quite a few of the ots sermons for this reason. Molina says that God predetermines your existence, but simply knows through calculation what your free choices will be. It's worthwhile taking a serious look at.

Rob

 

[Philetus]

So then how am I to understand "Does he speak and then not act, does he promise and not fulfill?"

The answer is, "yes, indeed he does"?

How am I to read "that is a word the Lord has not spoken"?

How is it not a lie (remembering God's holiness) to say "truly, truly" when it might not be true?

Like I said, Lee. I don't have any idea how you are to understand it.

 

[Philetus]

My only point on 'set' at that point is that God has made determinations. When we read Revelation, the book is closed and a new one opens. The end of that book alludes to the other. I don't mind 'closed.' There are other chapters, other books. God's plans are infinite.

I used 'set', you used 'closed'

and we used 'open'.

How infinite?