RobE
New member
Evoken,
Where did you go? I was following this story with rapt attention. Must I wait until next season to see the next installment?
Evoken said:
Evoken said:
Not how, but will they answer seems to be the pending question.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Evoken,
Where did you go? I was following this story with rapt attention. Must I wait until next season to see the next installment?
Not how, but will they answer seems to be the pending question.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes and no. Yes, they could, but no they won't. It is like me knowing the color of shirt you wore last week. It was red. You said 'no, I'd never wear red.'
I took a picture and showed you and you were incorrect. This doesn't negate your freewill and I had nothing to do with your red shirt choice. It isn't 'foreknowledge' but this scenario illustrates logically why foreknowledge does not take away your decision. You chose a red shirt, even if you thought it was blue in the dark before leaving the house that morning.
This analogy is flawed. The video is still rolling and being recorded. We have the past and present on tape, but the future is still being filmed. 2009 is not here yet for it to appear on tape like the past and present.
patman
Active member
What if God knew that if he made an axe in the garden of eden that Adam would cut down the tree of good and evil? Then by creating that axe it would prevent Adam from eating of the tree and getting us in this mess.
What If God knew that making the tree 10 feet higher would make eve less tempted?
What if God knew that putting the tree on the west side instead of the east would make them not eat of the tree?
There are a million and one hypothetical situations that "could" have prevented the "freewill" choice that lead to this. So let us suppose these 2 were options to God.
God, who saw the future knew how to keep them righteous by reconfiguring creation could have aided man and help him come to the choice on his own not to sin.
So then we can conclude any action he took/takes will influence creation in the exact way he wants man to go.
This means that for an all future knowing God, whatever setup he initiated and how he influenced afterwards would lead by cause and effect to the future we are at now because he set this up. Thus, freewill is only an illusion. We are only puppets who's strings are the environment he saw fit to put us in to achieve a goal he saw fit.
lee_merrill
New member
As Rob asked, what about an all-present-knowing God? can he predict all of the next split second? then how about all the foreseeable future, by just extending this?
lee_merrill
New member
Evoken has gotten hold of an important point, certain judgments do require definite knowledge of the future in order to be really just. Open Theists it seems are skipping difficult questions, or responding with objections such as "you closed-future theists have this difficulty," as if an evident hole in another ship fixed the hole in their own? But this thread is about Open Theism, which needs to be defended when questions about OVT are raised here, challenging the other view is simply clouding the discussion.
So a defense is needed such as in answering for us how God can know that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and then later all Israel. Such as answering how God can say "he will bring you a message by which you and your household will be saved," if decisions such as repentance are free and essentially unknowable before they occur.
Blessings,
Lee
ApologeticJedi
New member
Hmmm ... I actually believe a (c), that God has sufficient knowledge to bring about whatever He chooses to bring about so long as His wishesdo not change at some point, and a (d) to predict with a fair degree of accuracy (though He may be wrong from time to time) what will happen.
I reject (a) as wild conjecture, and (b) as too much assumption.
I've thought of an (e) and an (f) option as well, but I'm a bit selfish and don't want to draw attention away from my clever (c) and (d) options. :wave:
I know some free acts too. I accurately predicted that once our Army stopped advancing in Iraq that a suicide bomber would attempt to strike at them. I also accurately predicted that some of them would fail in their attempt and only blow themselves up.
Strangely, I did not require anything to make these predictions other than common sense. It would be impossible to tell exactly who would carry out these missions with absolute certainty (since as freewill agents they could always turn away at any moment), but I could be fairly sure that if any one terrorist did not fulfill my prophecy, some other terrorist would have.
We find at least three types of prophecy in the Bible.
1) He makes things happen. Most prophecy comes under this banner.
2) He predicts things that happen. Educated guesses mostly.
3) He predicts things that do not happen. The universe's best guess goes awry.
That all three of these seem to exist tell us a lot about the nature of God.
lee_merrill
New member
Well, this would be your conclusion, but if future free decisions can to some degree be known, we have part of the tape that we can see already.
Hosea 5:15 "Then I will go back to my place until they admit their guilt. And they will seek my face; in their misery they will earnestly seek me."
So we find here part of a tape of the future, involving what the Open View would say are free decisions.
ApologeticJedi
New member
Why must this be a "tape" of the future? Why couldn't this be a guess or a statement of unforgiveness? How can you tell the difference?
God occasionally in the Bible says "They will do this," and then we see they do not. What should we do with those passages? Was the tape broke?
Evoken
New member
I think that verses cited in isolation can be misleading and tend to give the wrong impression of what is actually being said. Not saying that you in particular are intending to mislead, of course. I think that beyond looking at the verse in context, we must also draw from the whole set of Scriptural data that relates to the issue in question in order to gain an accurate understanding of what is being said. That said, here is a parallel verse that states the same thing as the one you cited:
Matthew 24:34
"Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."
Right after saying this Christ adds: "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36) and he tells them this because it is not for them to know it (Acts 1:7). And then proceeds to explain them why he leaves them in uncertainty about this (Matthew 24:46-51). However, before these verses in the same chapter he says: "And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come." (Matthew 24:14).
Then in the same chapter he speaks about great tribulations, false Christ and false prophets, nation raising against nation and kingdom after kingdom, among many other things. From all this it is made clear that by the word "generation" here Christ does not means a single, literal generation but rather, the meaning he has in mind is one he uses constantly across the gospels:
• "generation of vipers" (Matthew 23:33)
• "unbelieving and perverse generation" (Matthew 17:16)
• "sinful generation" (Mark 8:38)
• "wicked generation" (Luke 11:29)
There are more but I am not going to flood you with too many verses
But note that Christ always uses the word "generation" tying it to unbelief and sin. Thus the meaning of the word "generation" as used by Christ here is broader than a single literal generation limited to the persons living at that present time. It encompasses the actual state of the human race as it was then, is now and as it will remain till he comes again in his glory to judge the living and the dead.These verses like the two above, refer to a similar event. First note the difference in the wording of these two verses "some who are standing here" and compare to the wording "this generation" used in the prior two verses. These verses speak about Lord Jesus' passion and resurrection not about the second coming (which is what the first two verses above speak of), which, as I pointed above Lord Jesus himself says to the disciples that only the Father knows (Matthew 24:36) because this is not something for the them to know (Acts 1:7). That this is the case can be seen when we look at the context in which the verses are found (Matthew 16:21-28 and Luke 9:20-27). The first verse sets the theme: "From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again." (Matthew 16:21). But most importantly, that by the phrase "the kingdom of God" he is referring to his passion and resurrection in this context can be seen here:
Luke 22:15-18
"And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come."
And we see that he did drink and eat with his disciples right after his resurrection (John 21:4-13). Some say that instead of the resurrection these verses refer to his transfiguration, which takes place immediately after that and only some of the apostles get to see (Matthew 17 and Luke 9:28-36). I don't see a problem with that explanation either.
Well, by posting those verses you sort of obliged me to comment on them
The verses don't really pose any problem. It is not a matter of explaining them away but of looking at the context, and as I said drawing from the whole set of related Scriptural data in order to truly understand things. The Scriptures are not incomprehensible but St. Peter warns us that in them there "are certain things hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16). So, care must be taken and we must not draw conclusions before carefully examining things.The issue is not what is "required" but what is true and real. If by what is "required" we go, we can do without many books and parts of Scripture which are not "required". The issue is not wether God can do better than we do without knowing the future. I don't think that is the correct approach to this issue. God's knowledge of the future is not something we determine on pragmatic grounds but on truth.
While dropping the "future is partly settled" phrase certainly makes things clearer, I think that the core problem remains. As I said, God's plans are, as openism maintains, not only dependent upon creatures with libertarian free will, but can also be thwarted by them and since God does not knows the future and cannot tell for certain what all these creatures with libertarian free will do, then his plans are always in flux. God also responds to prayers and is open to "input" from his creatures, so in principle there can really be no certainty to anything.
More verses!
I'll let them stand without commend for now as to not make this post too long nor spread our present discussion too broadly but if you would like to discuss these let me know.
Evo
lee_merrill
New member
A good question here! I would say we can tell this is a definite prophecy because this has details such as you find in history when we see descriptions of events that are past:
Hosea 6:1-2 "Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence."
Dialog such as this, quotes are not what you expect in an estimate of probable repentance.
Right, we have to see where conditions may be intended, this is part of rightly dividing the word of truth. There are good ways to make these interpretations, I believe, which (this is important) preserve the general statements we read, where God does not change his mind, he says, nor does he speak and then not act, nor promise, and not fulfill.
Blessings,
Lee
patman
Active member
More verses!
I'll let them stand without commend for now as to not make this post too long nor spread our present discussion too broadly but if you would like to discuss these let me know.
Evo
Evo, have a look at my website:
Daniel 11
This directly relates to what Jesus was saying. The world was to end 7 years after Christ's resurrection.
Daniel 9
24 "Seventy 'sevens' [c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish [d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. [e]
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [f] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [g] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. [h] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' [j] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [k] " [l]
Jesus referenced the Abomination that causes Desolation in the same passages he quoted. He was giving more details on that last week. Of course, you may know the week represents 7 years. Jesus was telling his generation to watch for these things, that some standing there would see all this happen. Why?
Because Daniel 9 tells us exactly when it was supposed to happen.
From the "decree" until Christ was 483 years (about 173,880 days)! It is true.
6. When was the commandment given? Neh 2:1-8 And it came to pass in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, 4 Then the king said to me, “What do you request?” “[Send me to] Judah, to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it. ” 8 “and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he must give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel which pertains to the temple, for the city wall, and for the house that I will occupy.” And the king granted them to me according to the good hand of my God upon me.
7. Who was Artaxerxes? Astyages of Herodotus and Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia). He came to the throne in 465 BC. His 20th year would be 445 BC. Therefore, the commandment was given on Nisan 1, 445 BC.
8.When was Messiah's triumphal entry into Jerusalem? Christ came to Bethany 6 days before Passover, John 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. Passover was eaten on Thursday that year. So, He came to Bethany Friday and entered Jerusalem Nisan 10 = April 6, AD 32.
9. Time in days predicted by Dan 9:25 was 173,880 days. Now, how many days were there between Nisan 1, 445 BC and Christ's entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday? We figure that as follows:
445 + 32 - 1 = 476
476 x 365
(biblicalanswers.com)
7. Who was Artaxerxes? Astyages of Herodotus and Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia). He came to the throne in 465 BC. His 20th year would be 445 BC. Therefore, the commandment was given on Nisan 1, 445 BC.
8.When was Messiah's triumphal entry into Jerusalem? Christ came to Bethany 6 days before Passover, John 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. Passover was eaten on Thursday that year. So, He came to Bethany Friday and entered Jerusalem Nisan 10 = April 6, AD 32.
9. Time in days predicted by Dan 9:25 was 173,880 days. Now, how many days were there between Nisan 1, 445 BC and Christ's entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday? We figure that as follows:
445 + 32 - 1 = 476
476 x 365
= 173,740
Nisan 1 was March 14, 445 BC.
March 14-31 inclusive and 6 days in April is how many days? 24
Days for leap years, AD 1-32 8
Days for leap years, BC 445-1 111 111 + 8 = 119
Julian year is 129th of a day longer than a solar year, therefore, 3 extra days in 400 years which we subtract 3
Therefore 476 x 365 = 173,740
Days from March 14 to April 6 24 +24
Add for leap years 119 +119
Subtract for too many leap years -3 -3
Actual days from the command to Christ’s entry. 173,880
Therefore the time predicted and the days between Nisan 1, 445 BC and Christ's entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday are exactly the same, 173,880.Nisan 1 was March 14, 445 BC.
March 14-31 inclusive and 6 days in April is how many days? 24
Days for leap years, AD 1-32 8
Days for leap years, BC 445-1 111 111 + 8 = 119
Julian year is 129th of a day longer than a solar year, therefore, 3 extra days in 400 years which we subtract 3
Therefore 476 x 365 = 173,740
Days from March 14 to April 6 24 +24
Add for leap years 119 +119
Subtract for too many leap years -3 -3
Actual days from the command to Christ’s entry. 173,880
(biblicalanswers.com)
The full prophecy was for 70 "weeks", aka (7 years), until the world would end from that decree! And as we can 69 were completed just exactly as foretold! Jesus was cut off that very year, in the 69'th week. What about that last week? What about week 70? The last 7 years didn't happen?
Yet Jesus did speak about it! It originally planned that 70 weeks after that decree the world would end, and Jesus confirmed it. He told them what would happen during that last week, he mentioned the abomination that causes desolation, then he tells them they will see it happen, and when they see it they will know the end is near!
No one knows the hour, true, but we know that God was going to cut those day short, so it was actually going to be just prior to 70 weeks. So no one knows exactly when God would come, but we know the maximum that was planned...
Scripture verifies this. Jesus' clear talk confirms it. 7 years after his death he was to return and put an end.
We further know this is true because of all the details in daniel 11. We know the last king did not come, the antichrist, who was foretold to come with in that chronological order was somehow skipped.
What do you think? I know I threw a lot at you, but this is a complex issue. Maybe pick one aspect and we will work in smaller posts?
RobE
New member
Good morning AJ. Long time no hear from.
First of all, what possible reason would render God 'wrong from time to time'?
Good. I'm glad to see that you've accepted the compatibility of foreknowledge(yours) and free will.
Well, if you still adhere to incompatibility then I would say that your knowledge must have rendered the U.S. Army and the suicide bomber unable to act freely; so they mustn't be held accountable for their actions.
Unfortunately for you, according to open theism your knowledge of them 'blowing themselves up' makes you responsible for the outcome. Do you feel any guilt over their evil outcome?
Yes. Natural knowledge of behaviors allows you to tell beforehand what you know beforehand. Common sense must have rendered these acts unfree; according to open theism and all other incompatibalists out there. I know that you are still an incompatibalist; yet, I insist that you are so freely: despite you believing my own knowledge limits your ability to do otherwise.
Yes.
#1 is true.
#3 is true in God foretells of things that do not happen such as Hezekiah, but false in stating "the universe's best guess goes awry." The 'best guess' would be an accurate foretelling.
This leaves us with #2. Complete educated guesses require complete knowledge of the present to make. Those so called guesses would render certain knowledge of outcome. Would the hearts and minds of men be able to conceal themselves from God or would this be contradictory to scripture?
Which type of prophecy was the following(remember --- your knowledge that I won't accept #3 above renders me incapable of doing so):
John 17:12
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Here's a few definitions since we'll need them later.
predict : praedicere; prae: fore; dicere: say
fore·tell : to tell beforehand : predict
prophesy :
1 : to utter by or as if by divine inspiration
2 : to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge
foresee : to see (as a development) beforehand
foreknow : : to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation
fore·tell : to tell beforehand : predict
prophesy :
1 : to utter by or as if by divine inspiration
2 : to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge
foresee : to see (as a development) beforehand
foreknow : : to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation
themuzicman
Well-known member
ROFL! You think that something different might happen the next time you watch a movie? You're a LOONY!
The problem is that the choice to wear the red shirt was already made before I came to a place where I would have chosen, therefore, it cannot have been my choice, thus I do not have free will.
Muz
Robe: I am not sure why you take mundane e.g. of specific proximal 'foreknowledge' and extrapolate it to EDF or all remote moral and mundane contingencies.
You thump your chest like you have disproved OT, but your points do not accurately reflect what it teaches. You jump to conclusions based on inadequate assumptions point by point in your last post.
In the end, I think incompatibilism vs compatibilism wins the day. Your idea of free will is too causal rather than libertarian. There are sound refutations of Molinism, so I would not accept it uncritically.
You thump your chest like you have disproved OT, but your points do not accurately reflect what it teaches. You jump to conclusions based on inadequate assumptions point by point in your last post.
In the end, I think incompatibilism vs compatibilism wins the day. Your idea of free will is too causal rather than libertarian. There are sound refutations of Molinism, so I would not accept it uncritically.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The elect are:
1. Those God handpicked to have eternal life. To hell with everyone else. (Calvinism)
2. A bulk corporate body of people of whose members freely choose to believe.
(OT)
3. A bulk corporate body of people of whose members freely choose to believe.
The individual members of that collection were foreknown by God. He foreknew
who would believe the gospel. (STP)
Taking the scripture literally and at face value leads to #3.
The only way to believe that we are literally identified by the Spirit with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is #3.
1. Those God handpicked to have eternal life. To hell with everyone else. (Calvinism)
2. A bulk corporate body of people of whose members freely choose to believe.
(OT)
3. A bulk corporate body of people of whose members freely choose to believe.
The individual members of that collection were foreknown by God. He foreknew
who would believe the gospel. (STP)
Taking the scripture literally and at face value leads to #3.
The only way to believe that we are literally identified by the Spirit with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is #3.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Unless, of course, we are identified with His death, burial and resurrection when we believe...
Muz
Muz
RobE
New member
Yet you have defeated incompatiblism with your abandonement of your two motifs. Either knowing free will actions in advance is impossible or it is possible.
Motif 1: God brings events about.
Motif 2: This motif claims that God does not know free actions in advance as in the case of Judas Iscariot.
Your new claim is that God knows events in advance as in the case of Judas Iscariot's free choices; rendering motif 2 and incompatibility defunct.
You have rejected the only line of thought which would possibly allow you to hang on to motif 2. That being the positive reprobation of Judas according to Muz's answer with John 6:44 .
However, I should note that if Judas was a victim of positive reprobation then his actions were indeed not free according to all definitions of free acts. Muz in essence rejected the idea that Judas acted freely in remaining unrepentent. If Muz(and Clete) is correct then we must accept that fact that God desires ALL except Judas Iscariot to be saved.
I, being a free will theist, reject this notion. My claim is that God simply foreknew the outcome before the event through a) a supernatural divination(outside of time) or b) calculation based on perfect present knowledge(see Laplace's Demon).
You're right. All created things have causes. I welcome any proof to the contrary. 'All things' includes me and my free will. The causes which propel me forward are unique, just as I am in existence. Also, I believe God created me, you, and everyone else with purpose, desire, and out of love for us. I abhor the idea of evolution, disorder, and spontaneous generation which is exactly what the libertarian idea is.
I embrace the idea that God is wiser than my parents and nature itself. Free will is the ability to act without coercion while knowing that I will act according to my own God given nature. What we call our nature actually is many different competing desires so let's not try to pigeon hole the idea of 'our nature' to mean we are able to do only one thing. We are free to act within our own natural abilities, but we are not free to act supernaturally since we are natural beings.
Yours is the common simple foreknowledge/Arminian view. It is better than Calvinism's decretal/determinism view, but it is still problematic.
Your understanding of the 'atonement' is not perfect, so you are trying to fit foreknowledge/free will views to match it. As muz points out, we become elect when we believe. The corporate body of believers is foreknown and predestined and individuals become part of it after they believe, not before they were born, in the mind of God. There is no compromise of essential soteriological truths in rejecting EDF.
Lon
Well-known member
Conjecture? God has no beginning. "Before Abraham was I AM." Two truths: Jesus is God, He exists in the past. This much is clear from that statement.
Proof: Start your duration/progression: When did God start to exist?
Boom! Your conjecture myth explodes past zillions of pieces into eternity.
Hmmm, strangely... "Before the rooster crows you will deny me three times."
All not most. Even with conditional prophecy, the condition met is the outcome met.
"God is very smart." Understatement one and two of last year. "You will deny me three times." ("No I won't, I'll die with You." -all the rest of the disciples said the same thing -my paraphrase).
Like "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my Words will never pass away."
That would be heresy Ps 119:160 Jn 14:6 He is always right and that is the truth.
- Status