ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

I'm not impressed. The open view also affirms that God is infinite in wisdom and understanding. This is hardly a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

She misses the point about Cinderella and Yoda, showing how little she is conversant with the issues and how lame the refutations were. Of course God knows about Yoda and people who think about him. My point was that God does not know where the being Yoda is living and moving in the universe, because he is only science fiction in mind and film, not a real being who moves around like Satan. To not know where George Washington is right now playing piano in NY is not a limitation on omniscience. It is a logical absurdity, because He is dead.

Proof texts about omniscience can have EDF read back into them, but the most they say is that God is intelligent or knows the past and present exhaustively. They do not explicitly say God knows the future and other passages present two motifs (which she also fails to grasp thinking we want cake and eat it too). Since Scripture does not give great detail on these issues, we need to look at all the biblical evidence, use godly philosophy/reason, logic (modal), etc.

Eternal now is a philosophical assumption as is timelessness. It is not the only possible view of 'eternal' (everlasting to everlasting, endless duration, is just as eternal, but more coherent and biblical).

Just because someone asserts things that resonate with your view does not mean they should be accepted uncritically or there are not point by point answers to the objections.

Again, it is not POTD material, but another e.g. of someone who misunderstands and misrepresents the issues to maintain tradition and a preconceived theology.

Psalm 146
"Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no measure."
-But all that is knowable at present is measurable, so his wisdom is measurable, contrary to Scripture.
(come on, admit this was brilliant. You could have said "Not by us." Admit she stumped you for a minute. It was excellent)

So God had a beginning? What are you saying? Be clear and make it count. When is the starting point of duration? In order for God to be trapped in endless duration with us, He has to have a starting point. You can't have duration without at least a ray (never mind at the moment we can't measure a ray either and must have a finishing point for duration/segment).

 

[Lon]

Lon,

I remember a long time ago explaining Daniel 11 to you. You wouldn't make an opinion.

Your memory of me hasn't been good or accurate. You should stop recollecting my answers as you aren't recalling them well and misrepresent me.
I said I believed it was fulfilled in several ways.

Not to long ago I showed you the problem of the 400 years of slavery for the S.V.. You said you would study and.... still up in the air?

Up in the air? I told you I saw them as fulfilled. I told you that Paul and Stephen quoted them as accurate to what they understood to be true. I read and reread AMR's post simply because 'you' asked me to and for absolutely NO other reason. I was ready to just skip ahead remember? I wasn't even part of the conversation.
You are being blantanly disingenuous toward me here.

Remember talking about how Isaiah spoke of God expecting something that didn't happen, and you shewed it away?

Yes I do. I totally disagreed with Knight on that point.

How about Jesus' claiming to return to the generation he lived? You ignored it with an "I dunno, but the idea is scary."

What??? Link please.

Every time I give you something, you don't even consider it. How can I persuade you when you think you have all the answers and just ignore or wish away what I am saying?

Oh for Pete's sake. I bend over backwards for your every request and always have. I spend hours on your trails for only one reason: You asked me to. It is you who never listens to my answers and is convinced you are right.

The best S.V. has is twisted accusations against O.V. and big ear muffs over their ears that prevents them from listening and learning about scripture. With you theology, you will never know why the 70 weeks didn't occur, you won't know why Jesus didn't return when he said he would just to name a few.

A mistake or changed His mind...

I asked for a specific verse "God knows the entire future and speaks to us as if he didn't, so it doesn't look like he knows." You answer with 20 verses that said nothing close to what I asked for. God is eternal, God knows everything, and God made it and doesn't change all is a "no duh," but where is the future mentioned?

Evoken just gave more.

Psalm 146
"Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no measure."

1 John 3:20
"For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

Ecclesiasticus 42:21
"He hath beautified the glorious works of his wisdom: and he Is from eternity to eternity, and to him nothing may be added."

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
(His determinations are forever even into the future, they don't change, that is definite foreknowledge).

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love
(He couldn't even know of us let alone choose us before the foundation of the world in OV)

1Ki 13:2 With the authority of the LORD he cried out against the altar, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says, 'Look, a son named Josiah will be born to the Davidic dynasty. He will sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who offer sacrifices on you. Human bones will be burned on you.' "

That is just a sample of the verses you quoted. Where does it say God knows the entire future?

I have to stop here... You are afraid of what might be the truth, so you will not listen anyway. You think you already have the answers and cannot be corrected, hence you ignore the things that contradict it. But I digress.

We've been over and over this, but at least I remember how you respond and why or am decent enough to look it up and recall rightly when I don't.

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Why are you talking about hidden knowledge? If Frank says A will happen without fail, A fails to happen, and Frank knew before hand that A would never happen, frank lied.

Patrick,

Are you stating and standing by your words that God has revealed all that He knows to mankind?

If the future is unknown and Frank says A will happen without fail, A fails to happen, and Frank knew beforehand that A might not happen, Frank lied.

Do you see where stating that "A will happen without fail" is a lie even if God didn't know the outcome beforehand by your own definition of lying?

Only, replace Frank with God. Open Theism is the only theology that allows for the condition "God did not know A would not happen."

OK. By your definition then God lied when He said, "without fail".

Your only contribution to me is that you spin the issue, and twist my comments. Why would I be convinced by such arguments?

There is NO twisting in the way you mean. You should be convinced by the reduction to absurdity when we follow the logic of your words to their fruition. Godrulz and yourself have the same problem. Cake having and eating are common amongst 'ots'.

Don't you see the difference between concealed knowledge and misrepresentation of the known?

No. You are assuming that God revealed ALL that He knew of the forthcoming events and assuming that God concealed knowledge simultaneously. God didn't say that "Nineveh would be destroyed unless they repent". For some reason it's ok for you to claim this to be the situation without the statement "unless they repent" existing, but you are unable to apply this to my position as well. Why is that?

It exists in both of our views. The only difference is that God foreknew they would indeed repent in mine and God was mistaken about His own statement, "without fail" in yours. God simply didn't provide the condition in both views. God didn't lie, He ommitted a well known condition for averting His wrath.

Nineveh, Jonah, and God all knew of the condition. In open theism, only God was unable to know the outcome if the condition was met since He was 'playing it by ear' as time went on.

Are you saying Hezi did die in 15 days?

I'm saying that the story of Hezekiah is a great story in support of Traditional Christianity which you don't even understand:

God sent Isaiah to Hezekiah to say,"This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." This is what God left unsaid, 'unless you repent'.

Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."​

Hezekiah knew full well that he would die 'unless he repented'.

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.​

So Hezekiah knowing more about God than open theism does repented. God added 15 years onto His life, not by making Hezekiah live 15 more years, but by allowing Hezekiah to live out his natural lifespan which God knew would end in precisely 15 years.

4 Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: 5 "Go and tell Hezekiah, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.​

Why did God do this?

Isaiah 38:17 Surely it was for my benefit
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.​

And how did God accomplish this 'benefit' if not through sending Isaiah to Hezekiah to achieve the foreknown outcome?

2 Chronicles 32:24 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. He prayed to the LORD, who answered him and gave him a miraculous sign. 25 But Hezekiah's heart was proud and he did not respond to the kindness shown him; therefore the LORD's wrath was on him and on Judah and Jerusalem. 26 Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD's wrath did not come upon them during the days of Hezekiah.​

Was God right in His assumptions or is the o.v. correct in claiming that God made a mistake?

 

[nicholsmom]

I have one question, and I am quite unwilling to read through 395 pages of arguments to find this one. Will someone of the OT group tell me how it is that God, the Creator, and therefore Master of all Creation; the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God is subject to anything so trivial and insubstantial as time? If God is subject to time, then time is His master; if He cannot transcend the constraints of time, then we should be praying to Time, because It is above god.

I'm sure that there is someone here who can explain this.

 

[Lon]

Why does not a loving, impartial God give everyone the causative gift of faith unconditionally?

Physical death is analagous to, but not identical with, spiritual death (cf. birth/new birth). The analogy is flawed. A better case is made from all the relevant verses about the relationship between God and man in reconciliation.

Do some work. You are a commentator at this point and are progressively non-engaging.

Chart the verses out and make a case: engage. Commentators are unecessary, we know there is objection already.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The first and second coming of Christ were known with certainty because of God's ability and intention to bring them to pass unconditionally. As a deterministic with an omnicausal view of God, you should not have a problem with this. Open Theists affirm the predestination texts, but you ignore or make figurative the Open texts.

On the contrary, I agree with the position that God has determined all things that will occur. The issue is that the openist cannot have it both ways. If God has definitively settled some future events, then God has meticulously controlled all the contingencies leading to the ultimate outcome. You whine constantly about the micro-managing God, yet here you make a statement that clearly supports the view. How do you reconcile this? Do you not see the contradiction in your own thinking? You stand outside the mainstream of the group whose label you appropriate. The real openist will insist that God has settled nothing in the future for the future does not exist.

 

[Lon]

The first and second coming of Christ were known with certainty because of God's ability and intention to bring them to pass unconditionally. As a deterministic with an omnicausal view of God, you should not have a problem with this. Open Theists affirm the predestination texts, but you ignore or make figurative the Open texts.

You do not understand the two motif principle, apparently, yet you have no problem living with apparent contradictions or antimony.

I am becoming more skeptical of how smart you really are.

She also quotes Ecclesiasticus for support. Do you consider the Apocrypha and Book of Mormon to be authoritative? Is that solid refutation of my position to go to extra/contrabiblical sources?

The context of God 'knowing all things' relates to our hearts and need not be extrapolated to mean EDF (eisegesis). He truly knows all things knowable (works for you, but we differ as to what is logically knowable...I still say knowing where Yoda is meditating in the universe now is an absurdity, as is when Kermit the Frog last went to the bathroom is). What she does is proof text out of context and read a preconceived view into the text that is not self-evident from a face value reading of it.

It is similar to saying nothing is impossible for God. Can God create married bachelors, square circles, pink oranges (pink and orange at the same time), etc.? Omnipotence is doing the doable, not things that are logically impossible and absurd.

Kermit the frog and Yoda are fictional characters and will only do what a director wills. There is a distinct difference between my future and imagined ones. My future is assured in Christ.
I will be eating something in the future (If the Lord is willing). I will be typing another response in the future (If the Lord is willing). It isn't a logical absurdity. God knows and wills. My future will exist logically, truthfully, without doubt and assured as the Lord (does) will.

Jas 4:13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jas 4:14 You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jas 4:15 You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."
Jas 4:16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

LWF is meaningless in this passage, it is all based on "If the Lord is willing" that we can do anything.

Joh 15:5 I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Acts 17:28 '... in him we live and move and have our being.'
Colossians 1:16-17
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Huh? Just because God settles somethings like the first and second coming does not mean they actually exist yet.

Irrelevant. The issue is that when God ordains, what He ordains cannot not happen. The distinction, however, for the openist, is that God's ordaining does not entail the certainty required. For the openist, God's will is not immutable, God can change His mind, therefore, what God hold's as an ordained truth cannot a truth at all. The act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system. God’s immutability is that further property of God.

For something to be true and knowable there must be something we or God can access that makes the claims in question true. There are two aspects of this claim. First, truth requires a truthmaker. Second, by accessibility, I mean that whatever these truthmakers are, truthmakers must be knowable. Since God is infallible, what He knows He knows infallibly. So if God holds a belief about a certain event that is based upon something else, then the basis itself cannot leave open the possibility of the belief being mistaken, else God would be mistaken, and therefore, not infallible.

For truthmakers to function as knowable truthmakers, and thereby allow the unsettled theist to claim that some parts of the future are known, the features truthmakers possess would have to be something about God or about the world. I would assume that such a claim by unsettled theists would be something about what God ordains about the future. Let’s say that God ordains a certain event in the future will occur and this ordinance itself is a knowable truthmaker for the future truth. There is no problem to propose that God’s possesses the self-knowledge needed for Him to know what He ordains and what He does not ordain. That said, it is not easily defended that such ordinances are in fact truthmakers. Why? For a truthmaker to be a truthmaker, the thing in question must entail the truth in question. For example, if God ordains it will be windy tomorrow, it must logically follow that it will be windy tomorrow. That is, it is impossible for the ordinance of God with respect to a windy tomorrow to presently exist and it not rain tomorrow.

As a classical theist, I have a simple explanation and solid defense why the entailment is indeed present: God’s character is immutable, thus God cannot will one thing to occur at one time and then change His mind to will something else. But unsettled theists see God’s nature changing in response to the indeterministic unfolding of the world He has created. Thus, unlike the classical theist position, the ordinances of God have no such immutable character to the unsettled theist. Consequently, God’s ordinances cannot be functioning as truthmakers, for they do not entail the content of the ordinance. If God’s will is not immutable, God could very well ordain that it will be windy tomorrow and yet tomorrow it does not rain because God changed His mind in the meantime. Restating: the act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system. God’s immutability is that further property of God.

From this it should be apparent that from the unsettled theist’s position, no part of the future can be known as true.

 

[Lon]

I have one question, and I am quite unwilling to read through 395 pages of arguments to find this one. Will someone of the OT group tell me how it is that God, the Creator, and therefore Master of all Creation; the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God is subject to anything so trivial and insubstantial as time? If God is subject to time, then time is His master; if He cannot transcend the constraints of time, then we should be praying to Time, because It is above god.

I'm sure that there is someone here who can explain this.

They believe wrongly that the future hasn't happened and is unknowable because it does not exist. They fail to recognize that God said our future is assured as if it already happened. At any point that God wills (which is always according to James 4) our future is determined. It contradicts the OV position of logical absurdity and puts it in its place in the neglected corner of logical absurdities along with many other OV conundrums and mistakes.
Our future is determined by God so is therefore reliable, known, objective, and existent.

(AMR is addressing exactly this with GR at the moment)

 

[nicholsmom]

They believe wrongly that the future hasn't happened and is unknowable because it does not exist. They fail to recognize that God said our future is assured as if it already happened. At any point that God wills (which is always according to James 4) our future is determined. It contradicts the OV position of logical absurdity and puts it in its place in the neglected corner of logical absurdities along with many other OV conundrums and mistakes.
Our future is determined by God so is therefore reliable, known, objective, and existent.

(AMR is addressing exactly this with GR at the moment)

Thanks, Lon; you gave a fine answer, but not to my question. I'm asking OV proponents if Time is God's god. I'd love it if you would re-read my post, because I like the clarity of your posts in general & would like your view of this question.

 

[Evoken]

I'm not impressed.

Too bad, because your "response" is rather disappointing.

She misses the point about Cinderella and Yoda, showing how little she is conversant with the issues and how lame the refutations were. Of course God knows about Yoda and people who think about him. My point was that God does not know where the being Yoda is living and moving in the universe, because he is only science fiction in mind and film, not a real being who moves around like Satan.

Ah, so now you want to change things. Here is what you said: Where Yoda and Cinderella are right now are not possible objects of knowledge". You didn't say in the universe, nor did you qualify your statement in anyway. So, don't call the refutation of your statement "lame" because you didn't meant what you really said or because you wrote poorly.

But now since you realize that they are indeed possible objects of knowledge you want to shift the goal post. In the bolded sentence above you admit that they are possible objects of knowledge existing in the minds of people who think about them. Now you want to say that what you meant is that God cannot know where they are in the universe. But these sort of questions are misguided. One may as well ask where the laws of logic or the number 2 are in the universe. The question does not applies to such things, Cinderella and Yoda are intentionally fictional characters. I may find a drawing of her just as I may find the number 2 written on a wall, but that doesn't means that either is the real thing.

Wanting to use these examples to infer from them that the future of beings that exist in the universe cannot be known is a complete non-sequitur. It is comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.

To not know where George Washington is right now playing piano in NY is not a limitation on omniscience. It is a logical absurdity, because He is dead.

This is just another example of the misguided logic of these questions. George Washington is dead, that being the case he cannot be playing piano right now. But this does not applies to the future. Reversing somewhat your example, there is no logical problem in God knowing that George Washington, who is alive now, will be playing piano ten years from now in NY.

Proof texts about omniscience can have EDF read back into them, but the most they say is that God is intelligent or knows the past and present exhaustively.

Talk about reading things into the text! The verses place no limit on what they say about God's knowledge, it is all the contrary. They do not say that he only knows the past and present exhaustively. That is you just bringing your own assumptions into the text. The texts place no limitation on his knowledge.

They do not explicitly say God knows the future and other passages present two motifs (which she also fails to grasp thinking we want cake and eat it too). Since Scripture does not give great detail on these issues, we need to look at all the biblical evidence, use godly philosophy/reason, logic (modal), etc.

The Scriptures are very clear and explicit in saying that God knows the future, God himself says:

Isaias 41:21-24
"Bring your cause near, saith the Lord: bring hither, if you have any thing to allege, saith the King of Jacob. Let them come, and tell us all things that are to come: tell us the former things what they were: and we will set our heart upon them, and shall know the latter end of them, and tell us the things that are to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods. Do ye also good or evil, if you can: and let us speak, and see together. Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being: he that hath chosen you is an abomination."

Notice that God uses as proof for his divinity and for his claim of being the true God his ability to know the future. The false gods, whom he challenges here cannot do this, only God can. Note also that no limitation is placed on what God knows, see the bolded statement: all things. Here also an explicit distinction between the past and the future is made, saying that God not only knows the past but the future as well.

No distinction is made between some part of the future being settled and others not either. God is clear and says: all things.

Again, it is not POTD material, but another e.g. of someone who misunderstands and misrepresents the issues to maintain tradition and a preconceived theology.

Well, you failed to directly engage anything of what I posted and whatever you tried to raise here to defend your stance didn't really do anything.


Evo

 

[Evoken]

She also quotes Ecclesiasticus for support. Do you consider the Apocrypha and Book of Mormon to be authoritative? Is that solid refutation of my position to go to extra/contrabiblical sources?

We do not agree that Ecclesiasticus is apocrypha, I believe it is as inspired as any of the other books in the Scriptures. If you don't agree feel free to start a thread and make your case.

But, since it is almost new year and I am feeling generous I'll give you a text in replacement for the one I cited:

Ecclesiasticus 42:21
"He hath beautified the glorious works of his wisdom: and he Is from eternity to eternity, and to him nothing may be added."

James 1:17
"Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration."

Same thing, nothing may be added to God, he doesn't changes. The openist says that God changes and learns new things everyday. That he knows the future as it becomes the fixed past through the present, as you say. Still contrary to Scripture.

Your idea that God is limited, changes, is mutable, subject to time, etc, has several ramifications vis-a-vis his own existence. Have you considered them?


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Scriptures are very clear and explicit in saying that God knows the future, God himself says:

Isaias 41:21-24
"Bring your cause near, saith the Lord: bring hither, if you have any thing to allege, saith the King of Jacob. Let them come, and tell us all things that are to come: tell us the former things what they were: and we will set our heart upon them, and shall know the latter end of them, and tell us the things that are to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods. Do ye also good or evil, if you can: and let us speak, and see together. Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being: he that hath chosen you is an abomination."

And it is more than just knowing an event in the future. In commenting on Isaiah 41:22, Albert Barnes wrote:

"tell us the former things what they were- The idea in this passage seems to be, ‘Let them foretell the entire series of events; let them predict in their order, the things which shall first occur, as well as those which shall finally happen. Let them not select merely an isolated and unconnected event in futurity, but let them declare those which shall have a mutual relation and dependency, and whose causes are now hid.’ The argument in the passage is, that it required a far more profound knowledge to predict the serges of events as they should actually occur; to foretell their order of occurrence, than it did to foretell one single isolated occurrence. The latter, the false prophets of the pagan often undertook to do; and undoubtedly they often evinced great sagacity in it. But they never undertook to detail minutely a series of occurrences, and to state the order in which they would happen. In the Scriptures, it is the common way to foretell the order of events, or a series of transactions pertaining often to many individuals or nations, and stretching far into futurity. And it is perfectly manifest that none could do this but God (compare Isa. 46:10)."



(Emphasismine)

 

[Evoken]

Hi Evo,

I do not recall discussing Open Theism very often with you.

Hello there patman! I don't think we have discussed anything before

But open theists do not believe God ordained the entire future... i.e. he didn't create the future, the future does not exist, it is not a thing. There is only the present, the memory of the past, and God's plans for the future.

Open Theists do not believe everything that ever happened was God's idea, open theists do not believe in utter predestination. Instead, some things are predestined, and some things are open.

You say that God didn't create the future but go on to say that some parts of it are settled and others are open. As I said to godrulz, God may have plans, but if his plans involve creatures with libertarian free will then there is no certainty to them and the future cannot be said to be settled, even in part. If you are a dispensationalists, you believe that God has changed the "plot" a couple of times already, so ultimately nothing is really settled but contingent.

Take this verse as an example:

James 1:13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

God cannot tempt evil, which gives that neither can he create it, nor predestine it. Instead, sin comes from our own lusts and desires. So let no man say God caused it. These areas show how God has not fixed all of the future, in-particularly, not the sinful parts of it.

I would say that things are a bit more complex than that. With regards to temptation, the verse you cite tells us that we cannot accuse God for our failure to fulfill his precepts. But it doesn't means that God does not allows us to be tempted. Indeed, St. Paul states:

1 Corinthians 10:13
"Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it."

So, while God does not directly tempts us, he allows certain evils and temptations to fall upon us. But not to the extent that we can blame it on him for placing an impossible burden upon us. Only to such an extend that our failure is of our own doing and our success is thanks to his grace. This is what we see happening to Job when God allows Satan to temporarily ruin his life:

Job 1:8-12
"And the Lord said to him: Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a simple and upright man, and fearing God, and avoiding evil? And Satan answering, said: Doth Job fear God in vain? Hast not thou made a fence for him, and his house, and all his substance round about, blessed the works of his hands, and his possession hath increased on the earth? But stretch forth thy hand a little, and touch all that he hath, and see if he blesseth thee not to thy face. Then the Lord said to Satan: Behold, all that he hath is in thy hand: only put not forth thy hand upon his person."

Here we see that God permits evil things to happen even to the faithful and that he has plans that involve allowing evil. After all, God himself says:

Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things"

This doesn't means that God is the direct cause of evil, he is not, that is contrary to his nature. Rather, it means that God is in charge of his creation and that there is no good that he does not directly causes and no evil that he does not permits for the sake of some higher good. God brings good out of the evil that he permits and he permits this evil because some greater good would not obtain if he did not allow the evil that takes place. When it came to Job, we see:

Job 42:12
"And the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning."

After all the trials Job ended up being far more blessed than he was in the beginning. Another instance where God brings good out of evil we see in Genesis:

Genesis 50:20
"You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people."

Thus we see that God's plans for the future involve allowing certain evils to obtain. See Luke 21:8-13 for a vivid illustration of this. All this doesn't makes God the cause of evil, by no means (after all evil is not a something but a lack of something, it is the lack of a necessary good not some positive quality). It doesn't anymore than it makes the openist god the cause of evil because he knew someone would crash a plane into the WTC days before it happened and still allowed it. Why did he allow it to happen? My answer is that some greater good would not obtain had he prevented it. A good which I admit I don't know of, but I don't believe that respecting the free will of creatures is it and I find that particular defense rather unsatisfactory myself. But if God does not knows the future and we have libertarian free will, then God simply cannot know to what degree we can be tempted and could in fact allow us to be temped more than we are able to bear. Unless God knows the future, he cannot be certain that some greater good will come about out of the evil he permits.

This also raises another issue. We see in Scripture that God kills entire nations, including women, babies, and people of all ages as a form of justice against said nation. Now, for classical theists this does not presents a problem. The question “but how does God knows that these people would not repent and become believers at a later date?” is easily answered given God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. But how do the openists answer this question? How does God know that a four year old whom he killed when judging an entire nation would not turn out to be his most devout follower? How, in fact, would killing an entire nation as a form of judgment be just if God simply doesn't knows exactly how all people will eventually end up?

One answer may be that these people were already set in their ways and that there was no turning back. However, if we have libertarian free will, then these people are not necessarily set in their ways as they are not constrained in their acts by their nature or impulses so they can, at any time and no matter the circumstances or their state, choose to do good. This does not seems to sit well with God judgements.


Evo

 

[Nang]

God does not allows us to be tempted. Indeed, St. Paul states:

1 Corinthians 10:13
"Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it." . . .

. . . So, while God does not directly tempts us, he allows certain evils and temptations to fall upon us.

Sorry to be a troublesome layperson in the midst of this fine discussion . . .but I must intervene with my personal observation of a contradiction here along with an objection that God "allows" His children to be tempted by evil.

I believe the emphasis of Scripture teaches that God, in His grace, intervenes to offset the natural temptations even the sons of God experience, as natural offspring of dust.

It is my belief that any temptation issues, originate from the flesh, the curse of sin, and bondage to the devil . . . and never from the "allowance" of God.

Thus we see that God's plans for the future involve allowing certain evils to obtain.

Obtain, what?

The only purpose of evil, is to validate judgment against sin.

This notion of "evil obtaining " a good, can ultimately only apply to the Person of Jesus Christ, crucified on the cross.

(This cannot possibly be a spiritual application imposed upon His saved Elect!)

No more than the openist god is the cause of evil because he knew someone would crash a plane into the WTC days before it happened and still allowed it. Why did he allow it to happen? My answer is that some greater good would not obtain had he prevented it. A good which I admit I don't know of, but I don't believe that respecting the free will of creatures is it and I find that particular defense rather unsatisfactory myself.

There is no "greater good" than Christ crucified for the sins of those the Father gave Him to save. Current tragedies, such as the 911 attack, is not GOSPEL! Why did God allow 911? There is only one answer and that is . . . 911 was an evil calamity, created by God, as judgment against evil and unbelief.

But unless God knows the future, he cannot be certain that some greater good would come about out of the evil he permits.

I repeat. Your argument is not bad, but appropriated too broadly.

God does not "allow" or "permit" evil (judgments) against His elect . . .God created evil and the execution of His judgments to produce evil consequences upon unrepentant sinners.

Why? Because all judgment deserved by the elect of God has been suffered by Jesus Christ on the cross.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in
Christ Jesus . . ." Romans 8:1a

This also raises another issue. We see in Scripture that God kills entire nations, including women, babies, and people of all ages as a form of justice against said nation.

Indeed. This is closer to the truths of the Scriptures.

Now, for classical theists this does not presents a problem. The question “but how does God knows that these people would not repent and become believers at a later date?” is easily answered given God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. But how do the openists answer this question? How does God know that a four year old whom he killed when judging an entire nation would not turn out to be his most devout follower? How, in fact, would killing an entire nation as a form of judgment be just if God simply doesn't knows exactly how all people will eventually end up?

One answer may be that these people were already set in their ways and that there was no turning back. However, if we have libertarian free will, then these people are not necessarily set in their ways as they are not constrained in their acts by their nature or impulses so they can, at any time and no matter the circumstances or their state, choose to do good. This does not seems to sit well with God judgements.


Evo

Indeed. I have no argument with these descriptions of ungodly reprobates; assigned, designed, and prepared for destruction. (Romans 9:22)

Nang

 

[Evoken]

Sorry to be a troublesome layperson in the midst of this fine discussion . . .but I must intervene with my personal observation of a contradiction here along with an objection that God "allows" His children to be tempted by evil.

I believe the emphasis of Scripture teaches that God, in His grace, intervenes to offset the natural temptations even the sons of God experience, as natural offspring of dust.

It is my belief that any temptation issues, originate from the flesh, the curse of sin, and bondage to the devil . . . and never from the "allowance" of God.

See the story of Job where God is depicted as giving permission to Satan to do everything to him with the sole exception of taking his life. And yes, God does provides us the grace necessary to avoid temptations so that, as I said, he allows us to be tempted "Only to such an extend that our failure is of our own doing and our success is thanks to his grace."

Obtain, what?

I didn't mean obtain as if implying to get something but as in actualize or take place.

God does not "allow" or "permit" evil (judgments) against His elect . . .God created evil and the execution of His judgments to produce evil consequences upon unrepentant sinners.

The elect will ultimately persevere and will not be condemned, that much we agree on. However, what I am referring to are the events that take place in this life. See the verses from Luke that I cited, Lord Jesus says: "they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake." (Luke 21:12). Thus he allows temptations and evil things to happen even to the faithful. Again, see the story of Job.


Evo

 

[Nang]

Thus he allows temptations and evil things to happen even to the faithful. Again, see the story of Job.


Evo

Sorry, but I look upon the events in Job's life, not as evil imposed upon his person by God, but rather God working good out of all afflictions, on behalf of Job. For God works all things together for good for those who love Him. (Romans 8:28)

IOW's, I resist any hint or notion of Christian martyrdom


Evil is judgment against the ungodly. Grace is given by God to His spiritual children to counter the judgments that issue from sinful flesh.

So . . . Grace abounds much more in the Christians' life than the evils (judgments) of sin. (Romans 5:20)

(Any believer going through earthly sufferings may be comforted by this truth.)

Nang

 

[Lon]

Thanks, Lon; you gave a fine answer, but not to my question. I'm asking OV proponents if Time is God's god. I'd love it if you would re-read my post, because I like the clarity of your posts in general & would like your view of this question.

Thank you. Of course that address was part of the necessary discussion and you are correct, I didn't get to the whole of your question.

I believe they would say 'yes' God is ruled by time but unfortunately they have to deny God's eternal existence both future and past. They do not mind denying His future as it is a logical absurdity to know anything future because it doesn't exist (according to them), but they are unwilling at this point to deny an eternal past because it exists logically that something must have always existed.
You'd think the issue would be settled with that admission.

My problem with the time discussion with them has been to show uniquivocally that sequence requires a beginning place and and end place. Duration is a point A to point B concept. God being eternal has neither point to measure duration. It is difficult to get OVer's to realize that God has no A or B or Z to measure sequence and duration by. There is no starting point to mark time, therefore He is God of time as well. May you have better success with this than I have. Perhaps said another way and with more clarity it will sink home.

Here is a recent debate started on the topic btw (page 3)

 

[nicholsmom]

Oooh thanks! I have posted a question there. Thanks too for your added insight. It rather shocks me that any professing Christian would say that God is ruled. I've asked Nineveh this question, but she just avoided it.

 

[godrulz]

Oooh thanks! I have posted a question there. Thanks too for your added insight. It rather shocks me that any professing Christian would say that God is ruled. I've asked Nineveh this question, but she just avoided it.

Who says God is ruled or limited? God is love. This does not mean God is ruled by 'love' (which is not a 'thing' or person).

God thinks, acts, feels, and experiences duration because He is personal. It is an aspect of His experiences, not something that causatively 'rules' Him.