ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

First of all, I never said that time does not have sequence. I said that the fullest scope of time is not measurable because it stretches towards the infinite in each direction.

Secondly, a measurable period (duration) is only one of many definitions of time you’ll find in a dictionary. Another is that time is a continuum; one that is nonspatial and has events in sequence. When you do bother to pick up a dictionary I'm sure you will notice that this is one of its definitions.


I've been patient with you to this point. You cannot goad me with the ridiculousness of your assertation. I wouldn't have said as much regarding time if I hadn't looked it up. Show me. The preponderance and evidence from the dictionary are wholly against you without exception.



A line continues on and on and is not measured. A clock only measures between points within time. Measuring the difference between two points on a line is not complicated at all - and that's all a clock does.

In the same way you cannot measure God with a ruler (because He is infinite), you cannot measure Him with any other measuring device, including a sequence where you have no start, and no end to measure by. God is measureless, God is timeless.


Both you and I agree that there are certain things God can’t do. God can’t make adultery into a virtue. God can’t make himself not exist. God can’t change his truest attributes (even if we disagree on what these are, we both agree God can’t). I hold that time is an attribute of God, so of course God cannot rework himself.

Time as an attribute is an interesting thought but He has never given this definition of Himself. Every scripture reference I see is set to His eternal nature which I believe must be timeless because of my understanding and the constraints of the definition of time.

 

[Lon]

Did Patman ever reply to the similar point you made along these lines?

Blessings,
Lee

The first was this (very brief objection), and the second was to attack the traditional stance instead of dealing with the question.

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.

Which is talking about objection to traditional views, but not giving an OV answer other than "your's doesn't work for me."
And the third post

The contrast isn't complete without the OV side of the picture. So far, I'm seeing that 'the traditional view of this isn't reasonable' but it doesn't give a clear picture of the OV position to pair it up.

I believe possibly that the OV stance "God knows some, but not all future acts of man" hasn't come up with a definitive answer yet any more than Lee's remnant question(same topic).

GR and a few others negated that by saying God doesn't know any action of free decision, just predicts. He only knows future contingency He is determined to bring about (equating foreknowledge with determinism to whatever extent God is determined to bring something about).

 

[godrulz]

Time as an attribute is an interesting thought but He has never given this definition of Himself. Every scripture reference I see is set to His eternal nature which I believe must be timeless because of my understanding and the constraints of the definition of time.

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed expressions about God. Like us, He has a history. The incarnation is not simultaneous with the Second Coming. God has a past, present, and a future. Eternal now simultaneity cannot be found in any proof text. It is a mere assumption. Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27 also shows tensed relationships between the eternal God (no beginning; no end; uncreated) and creation.

 

[godrulz]

GR and a few others negated that by saying God doesn't know any action of free decision, just predicts. He only knows future contingency He is determined to bring about (equating foreknowledge with determinism to whatever extent God is determined to bring something about).

Isaiah 46 and 48 talk about His ability, not His simple foreknowledge, to support this motif. One should not extrapolate these specific e.g. to support EDF or SFK.

 

[RobE]

GR and a few others negated that by saying God doesn't know any action of free decision, just predicts. He only knows future contingency He is determined to bring about (equating foreknowledge with determinism to whatever extent God is determined to bring something about).

My only question is why would Godrulz think God would pre-(fore) dict-(say) something which He didn't foreknow?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

My only question is why would Godrulz think God would pre-(fore) dict-(say) something which He didn't foreknow?

Great question!!!

And God gives us the answer....
“And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. - John 14:29

In other words... God uses prophecy as a mechanism to alter the future (i.e., influence our will to believe in Him), therefore prophecy itself is meaningless unless the future is open.

You may want to read this.

 

[godrulz]

Thx. This would be true of conditional vs unconditional prophecies (one is contingent, while the other is ensured by God's ability, not supposed simple FK).

 

[RobE]

Great question!!!

And God gives us the answer....
“And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. - John 14:29

In other words... God uses prophecy as a mechanism to alter the future (i.e., influence our will to believe in Him), therefore prophecy itself is meaningless unless the future is open.....

.....and of course foreknown. Otherwise no change is possible. The question becomes--- 'When' did God make the decision?

You may want to read this.

Already did when it was written, but I will again.

 

[Lon]

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed expressions about God. Like us, He has a history. The incarnation is not simultaneous with the Second Coming. God has a past, present, and a future. Eternal now simultaneity cannot be found in any proof text. It is a mere assumption. Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27 also shows tensed relationships between the eternal God (no beginning; no end; uncreated) and creation.

Yes, but don't forget, our's is a double-motif. God is apart from, but relational to our time constraints. Time has no restraint upon God, I see revelation, visions, and prophecy as all very clear indicators if not blatant (it is for me) of this fact. This does not mean God is unable to relate to us in time any more than you couldn't FF or rewind your remote. God is able, easily. Anyone that can hear and discern a million prayers all at once, know the instant thoughts of billions is in no way restricted by forward momentum. Our disagreement isn't upon His relation to us and our physical restraints. Christ ascended into the clouds, defies gravitational restraints, heals without medicine, is aware of all His creation etc. etc. etc.

You say 'illogical' but so is a nonbeginning yet the truth is apparent so you readily accept it regardess of the problematic logical considerations. If God has the power to remake the past in any way He sees fit (and He does scifi or not, it is a logical-given) then you must concede that time has no limitations upon God.

 

[Lon]

You may want to read this.

The problem with that thread is that it has no traditional presence, amounting to inquiring minds and backpatting. When and if a well-informed theologian addresses the points in question it will cease to be self-congratulatory.

I've more than presented strong evidence to the contrary upon the points mentioned. God can have EDF and retain relationship without a problem.

You are defining relationship by the 'surprise.' I have relationship that grows stronger daily with my spouse specifically because we 'know' each other better and are more adept than the newlyweds to meet each other's needs. Knowledge nor EDF are negations of relationship.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

.....and of course foreknown. Otherwise no change is possible.

Huh??? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The problem with that thread is that it has no traditional presence

Oh no.... well then... it can't be true can it?

I've more than presented strong evidence to the contrary upon the points mentioned. God can have EDF and retain relationship without a problem.

Good luck with that. :thumb:

You are defining relationship by the 'surprise.' I have relationship that grows stronger daily with my spouse specifically because we 'know' each other better and are more adept than the newlyweds to meet each other's needs. Knowledge nor EDF are negations of relationship.

You and your wife do not have EDF therefore your comparison is asinine.

 

[RobE]

The problem with that thread is that it has no traditional presence, amounting to inquiring minds and backpatting. When and if a well-informed theologian addresses the points in question it will cease to be self-congratulatory.

I've more than presented strong evidence to the contrary upon the points mentioned. God can have EDF and retain relationship without a problem.

You are defining relationship by the 'surprise.' I have relationship that grows stronger daily with my spouse specifically because we 'know' each other better and are more adept than the newlyweds to meet each other's needs. Knowledge nor EDF are negations of relationship.

God interacts with man for a reason, I assert that divine interacting for the purpose of altering the course of history is only rational and logical if the course of history is truly alterable and not perfectly foreknown.

It would have to be foreknown to be altered wouldn't it? I think Knight meant that the future was not settled or determined as it was not yet in existence.

Said another way . . .
If there are two possible choices a man can make and God would prefer that we pick one of those choices above the other choice, He would only interact with us if He knew He could possibly influence that choice.

Sure, but alter that choice to what? Another foreknown act perhaps. Let's say that I know in the future that you will eat an apple and I want to change that future. What are the steps I must go through to do so.

First, of all I must know that in the future you will eat the apple.

Second, I must know in the future what your reaction would be to every interaction that I may have with you.

Finally, I must choose which interaction to have with you and carry that through resulting in you not eating the apple.

It seems as though the first two steps require EDF. The third is simply me coercing you into a different future, one which I desired instead of the one you desired.

Several questions remain such as when did I foreknow this and make my decision on how to intervene? Was it yesterday, 1000 years ago, or before time began? How are you acting freely if I foreknew your act? How are you acting freely if I intervene and cause you to not eat the apple which is what you were going to do initially? Why are my desires more important than yours?

My conclusion would be that the future is only completely open if I never intervened in man's decisions because everytime I did; then it would be my desires and not man's which were enacted.

EDF is required for every step of the process.

Also, I should note that this is exactly why Traditional Christianity says that God is the cause of all good. When I wish evil and God intervenes and creates good it is not I who does it, but Him. God intervenes so we might not be doomed to destruction. His act, not ours.

Knight's whole argument is that God changes what He foreknows the natural outcomes will be. We all agree to that. We just claim that God foreknew before He created to achieve this good. The future is not unchangeable as Knight portrays our position to be. The future changes have already been decreed and will come to be. To say that the future will change from what was decreed, well that would take a power greater than the One who decreed the future to be, wouldn't it?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It would have to be foreknown to be altered wouldn't it? I think Knight meant that the future was not settled or determined as it was not yet in existence.

Foreknown, as in predicted or expected yes. Yet exhaustively foreknown? Impossible.

Knight's whole argument is that God changes what He foreknows the natural outcomes will be. We all agree to that. We just claim that God foreknew before He created to achieve this good. The future is not unchangeable as Knight portrays our position to be. The future changes have already been decreed and will come to be. To say that the future will change from what was decreed, well that would take a power greater than the One who decreed the future to be, wouldn't it?

:noway:

Say what?????

Hey Rob welcome to open theism. Saying the future is changeable as you just have is no different than saying you believe the future is open (open to change), and that my friend is open theism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The future changes have already been decreed and will come to be.

:rotfl: Did you really just type that sentence? :rotfl:

 

[patman]

Let me count the ways...

Let me count the ways...

Which is talking about objection to traditional views, but not giving an OV answer other than "your's doesn't work for me."
And the third post

No, I gave much more answers than these...

Did Patman ever reply to the similar point you made along these lines?

Like I said, yes.............

You might tell us then in a concise manner how some free acts are known while foreknowledge and free action remain incompatible?

Long History eh? Where were you for it all?

Please Read These Posts:

For those who are lazy, here are some highlights:

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


"So there are times that God knows, because he understands us, and there are times that he does not know where we stand because we have never made a stand on the issue. There are also times that God has made it so"(Patman)

This one comes from a post titled "How God Knows the Future Sometimes And Not Others"
"You do not need extensive foreknowledge to predict the future for an individual if you understand their habits. However, if you do not understand someone's habits, you may not be able to predict the future."

"With enough present knowledge, and enough knowledge about a person's habits, their future can be predicted."

This one was a little complex for those in remedial math:
∏r²=A
"If we have a million circles and want to know their area, we can use this equation to find all of them. If a circle is not yet drawn yet, we cannot know it's area until we know it's radius..... if we were to watch a circle start, we would need a certain amount of the circle to be drawn before we could tell what the radius would be. Until then, r and A are unknown...the second enough information is available, don't doubt for a second that God can know the future area of a still undrawn circle in an instant."


"God is always planning. Why plan when he is supposed to already know? And why change plans if they are already determined? I think it is because God allows us to shape the future along with him, but will soon step in to give us a new creation as he promised, and us christians will have a joyful home in heaven."(Patman)

This is common since stuff! How can men foreknow if it will rain tomorrow without exhaustive foreknowledge? How can economy analyst know when the price of Gas will raise without exhaustive foreknowledge? How did my mom know I would get married and proclaim it 10 years before it happened without exhaustive foreknowledge?

You guys think that we humans can predict and foreknow all these things and have no exhaustive foreknowledge yet for some reason God can't do what we do and not be WAY better at it? Or it is impossible for God to plan things, and proclaim that the things he plans will happen and make it so?

You guys are freewill agents, do you assert you wouldn't do what God asked you to do simply because you have free will? Did God not have the final say with Pharaoh even though he wasn't a dedicated follower?

God can do amazing things, even with us freewill agents. How much credit do you give us? Are God's hands tied that he can't deal with us? Who is the God, us or him? Why would any lack future knowledge take that title away from him???

:dunce:

 

[RobE]

Foreknown, as in predicted or expected yes. Yet exhaustively foreknown? Impossible.

Predicted is foretold. Foreknown, well, is to know beforehand; not to guess or speculate beforehand.

Hey Rob welcome to open theism. Saying the future is changeable as you just have is no different than saying you believe the future is open (open to change), and that my friend is open theism.

I think we had this discussion in the thread entitled "A discussion between Clete and Hilston", but maybe not.

This is not open theism in its entirety. Open theism claims God is evolving, changing, learning, growing, etc......

I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that it's impossible for God to change something in the past, present, or future if He so desires according to Traditional Christianity. The question becomes, why should He? Will a different plan be better than the perfect plan which He decreed before time began?

Your claiming that open theism has discovered the creator might unmake creation if He so desires. So what? No one has said differently. However, God is not a man where He changes His mind with a change in the wind. God's word is eternal and holds true to fulfillment.

No, the god of open theism is the god of the shifting sands; not the Rock of Christian thought.

IF open theism would simply state God could change the future if He wanted to and adhere to free will being compatible with that which is known beforehand; THEN there would be no problem with it from any Christian perspective.

The problem is that open theism isn't as simple as you state. Would it be fair to state that the God of open theism is in a process of accomplishing the work which He as already deemed finished? That God is evolving in His thoughts and actions? Learning knew things and responding as He acquires new knowledge?

 

[themuzicman]

It has become clear to me that Rob has no idea what foreknowledge means.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Oh no.... well then... it can't be true can it?

Good luck with that. :thumb:

You and your wife do not have EDF therefore your comparison is asinine.

LOL!

You catch me by surprise sometimes. This rebuttal is all reactionary. Debate the material please

It has become clear to me that Rob has no idea what foreknowledge means.

Muz

Muz, same. Debate, we are in the business of bringing glory and honor to Christ, so our disagreement is important. Perhaps we'll never agree, but the material we are debating is essential for understanding the difference.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Predicted is foretold. Foreknown, well, is to know beforehand; not to guess or speculate beforehand.

Rob, when I tell my wife that I am going to go to Big-O Tires at 8:30AM tomorrow to get the brakes fixed on the van, is that:

- Foreknowledge
- A Guess
- Speculation

Which is it?