ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Logic is simply a systematic way of presenting a proof. There's propositions and antecedents and contrapositives and conclusions and inductive and deductive reasoning and such, and using that system we frequently can demonstrate proofs to be logically consistent.

However, that's also highly technical, and you wind up with things like this which, to the untrained eye, seems a bit strained and pedantic, but just is the way that logic works.

Before I saw the logic based proof, I intuitively knew that free will and EDF were incompatible simply by applying some critical thinking and application of reality. Not that this would be sufficient to demonstrate it to someone who disagrees, but it's sufficient for me.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's really simple....

If exhaustive foreknowledge exists..... NOTHING can ever happen that isn't contained in that knowledge. Therefore no agent is free to do anything other than what is contained within that foreknowledge.

I'm having Open Theism 101 flashbacks! :chuckle:

The actions contained in the foreknowledge were still free will decisions.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm having Open Theism 101 flashbacks! :chuckle:

The actions contained in the foreknowledge were still free will decisions.

Not if the exhaustive knowledge comes before the action, and that's why we call it FOREknowledge instead of just knowledge.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Not if the exhaustive knowledge comes before the action, and that's why we call it FOREknowledge instead of just knowledge.

I still see it as just like the videotape of the future. It contains details of
future free-will decisions that people will make.

 

[themuzicman]

Do the pictures on a video tape have free will? If you play it back again, can they choose not to do what they did?

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do the pictures on a video tape have free will? If you play it back again, can they choose not to do what they did?

Muz

Doesn't matter? It's just a record of the free will decision they will make
when the time comes...

 

[themuzicman]

Doesn't matter? It's just a record of the free will decision they will make
when the time comes...

Again, that's not logical. A video tape records what happened in the past, not in the future. You can't go back and change past decisions, so if there is a video tape of the future, then there can't be free will there.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Again, that's not logical. A video tape records what happened in the past, not in the future. You can't go back and change past decisions, so if there is a video tape of the future, then there can't be free will there.

Muz

I'm not arguing that a person will do differently than the tape of the future shows them doing. If the tape is accurate, they will do what the tape shows.
But, not because they didn't choose to do it.

 

[themuzicman]

But how can the tape show things that they haven't chosen, yet?

Say I'm going to stand in front of my freezer and decide whether to eat Ice Cream tonite? How does this video tape know whether I will choose to eat or not?

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I still see it as just like the videotape of the future. It contains details of future free-will decisions that people will make.

Then you see Arminianism and a reason for the individual to boast of their salvation, after all, they "chose" to believe.

Yet, we read in 1 Cor. 1:27-30: “But God chose… so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

Or in John 1:13 “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Where is the volitional element to assent to faith that these passages clearly demonstrate the unsaved cannot possibly possess or claim, for they are spiritually dead and in need of re-birth? We are not “born again” as a result of something we did, but solely on the basis of God's sovereign will and power. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, in the same sense that life must come before activity. "..not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

The regenerated person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10; I Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24).

What is the source of this new birth?
“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition.

The gift of the new birth can only be from the unchanging God above:

“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

What is the nature of this new birth?
“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:4-6).

Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the labor and delivery process. But note that Christ uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. Christ focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Christ referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul. Christ states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then Christ concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.

A new birth is a necessity.
In John 3:7, Christ says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”

The unsaved possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

As Christ states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. Christ uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation.

Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Christ, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Christ is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.

One may complain that Christ telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, Christ’s objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but Christ clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.

 

[Mystery]

Yet, we read in 1 Cor. 1:27-30: “But God chose… so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

This is speaking of God choosing how, not who.

 

[themuzicman]

Typical Mr. Religion exegesis...

Typical Mr. Religion exegesis...

Yet, we read in 1 Cor. 1:27-30: “But God chose… so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

:readthis:

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.​

Notice that Mr. Religion has taken what Paul intended to be God choosing the things no man would choose, and made it into God choosing man, so that none may boast.

What a horrible abuse of scripture!

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.​

Notice that Mr. Religion has taken what Paul intended to be God choosing the things no man would choose, and made it into God choosing man, so that none may boast.

What a horrible abuse of scripture!

Muz

More muzegesis!

So that all glory accrues to God and not man, it was God's purpose to choose those of no account in the eyes of man. God alone is worthy of praise since salvation is from God alone.

Verse 30, which you omit clearly emphasizes that everything we are comes from God and not from human reasoning or will such that there is absolutely no room for any human glory. As the concluding verse of the chapter reads

1 Cor. 1:31 Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

You know, muz, even if I were foolish enough to grant your poor interpretation, you seem to think that it invalidates the remainder of the discussion in my previous post. It does not and therein is the error of your narrow thinking.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is speaking of God choosing how, not who.

:readthis:

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.​

Notice that Mr. Religion has taken what Paul intended to be God choosing the things no man would choose, and made it into God choosing man, so that none may boast.

What a horrible abuse of scripture!

Muz

:up:

It's brutal what the closed theist must do to scripture to maintain their flawed theology.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is speaking of God choosing how, not who.

I am arguing that STP's thinking that God peeks ahead in time then rubber stamps those He sees choosing to believe is an erroneous view. I am arguing that God alone chooses. The question of who He chooses is not on the table...for now.

Where do you stand on this point? Do you believe God looks down the corridor of time, see who chooses to believe, then decrees these persons as the elect body of Christ? This is the essence of STP's post to which I responded.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am arguing that STP's thinking that God peeks ahead in time then rubber stamps those He sees choosing to believe is an erroneous view. I am arguing that God alone chooses. The question of who He chooses is not on the table...for now.

Where do you stand on this point? Do you believe God looks down the corridor of time, see who chooses to believe, then decrees these persons as the elect body of Christ? This is the essence of STP's post to which I responded.

So what you are saying is.... your belief that God "chooses" is even worse than STP's belief that God "sees". On this we agree! :thumb:

 

[RobE]

We can't put a blanket statement on free will agents and say all future actions are known just because a few are.

Law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
Law of noncontradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
Law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'​

Maybe so, but we can say that since 'a few are' then foreknowledge and free will are indeed compatible in some instances. This would disprove the idea that foreknowledge and free will are never compatible.

The particular instances we have been speaking about in this thread are future human free choices. So we at least know that they are able to be foreknown and remain free according to both of our conclusions.

The question now becomes: How is this so?

Free will theists claim God simply foreknows the future free choices because (a)He exists outside of time; or, (b)He is able to calculate the future based upon complete present knowledge.

SupraLapsarians and Muz claim that God decrees events and brings them about by His own power. John 6:44 .

In fact, I would bet that anyone who denies compatibility between foreknowledge and free will must ultimately claim that God brings all events about through power just as Muz has. It's the only defensible position once we discover that some future free acts are known.

Rob

 

[Mystery]

Where do you stand on this point? Do you believe God looks down the corridor of time, see who chooses to believe, then decrees these persons as the elect body of Christ?

No, I don't. I don't think it matters if God knows or not. Whosoever comes, will receive all that God has pre-determined for them.

 

[RobE]

I did not know the details of my children and their lives when I was 5 years old. It has no bearing on my love and knowledge of them now that they are born.

God did not specifically know me before creation, but He knew He would love all people once they came into existence. He put natural process in place, so our genes determine physical aspects. He was supernaturally involved in our spirits at conception, I imagine (unless procreation even births that reality by God's creative design).

I think we should ask if flesh begets spirit or if flesh begets flesh only. Do you know the Traditional Christian stance on this subject?

1 Corinthians 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?​

If we are correct in thinking that God was 'supernaturally involved in our spirits at conception' then we must consider that God knows the outcomes from His own acts.

Notice how this verse states 'who among men knows' which is telling, since God is able to know the hearts and minds. Is this because God instilled each and every one of us with our spirit which He crafted from His own desire?

Genesis 2:6 .....the LORD God formed the man...from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.​

God created Adam completely:both Adam's flesh and spirit. God was in complete possession of all present knowledge including Adam's thoughts and emotions. How accurate might God's proximal knowledge be concerning Adam? How accurate might God's proximal knowledge be concerning us if He instilled our spirits at the moment of our conception?

I'm asking this because Clete and a number of other open theists have suggested we are an unknown quatity to God. It seems that it is akin to evolution's idea of spontaneous generation.

Spending much of my existence on 'Life Issues' makes this type of discussion particularly interesting to me.

Thanks,
Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

I'm having Open Theism 101 flashbacks! :chuckle:

The actions contained in the foreknowledge were still free will decisions.

Welcome to the party, pal!:angel:

Not if the exhaustive knowledge comes before the action, and that's why we call it FOREknowledge instead of just knowledge.

What Knight omits is that God knows prior to the action, but God did not necessarily gain the knowledge prior to the action if God exists 'outside of time'. If God transcends time then it is just knowledge and not foreknowledge from God's perspective; but from Knight's perpective it still remains foreknowledge since Knight is temporal.

Knight's statement also precludes God from being smart enough to figure it out in advance if Knight believes that God does not exist 'outside of time'.