ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

God Himself said Hezekiah would die, then changed His mind and added 15 years to his life in response to believing prayer.

Some prophecies are predictive, foretelling, forthtelling, conditional, unconditional, etc.

Did God not know what He was going to do?

Let's work through this a bit.

2Ki 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was stricken with a terminal illness. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz visited him and told him, "This is what the LORD says, 'Give your household instructions, for you are about to die; you will not get well.' "
2Ki 20:2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD,
2Ki 20:3 "Please, LORD. Remember how I have served you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion, and how I have carried out your will." Then Hezekiah wept bitterly.

Hezekiah, in his old life, had neglected the Lord. There was a need for him to return and his imminent death was impetous for his prayer (probably the first in a long time). As I believe God had foreknowledge of how Hezekiah would respond, I see the message as relational for the outcome. His spiritual death was immanent and it required interjection to be set to right.

2Ki 20:4 Isaiah was still in the middle courtyard when the LORD told him,
2Ki 20:5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people: 'This is what the LORD God of your ancestor David says: "I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Look, I will heal you. The day after tomorrow you will go up to the LORD's temple.
2Ki 20:6 I will add fifteen years to your life and rescue you and this city from the king of Assyria. I will shield this city for the sake of my reputation and because of my promise to David my servant." ' "
2Ki 20:7 Isaiah ordered, "Get a fig cake." So they did as he ordered and placed it on the ulcerated sore, and he recovered.
2Ki 20:8 Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, "What is the confirming sign that the LORD will heal me and that I will go up to the LORD's temple the day after tomorrow?"
2Ki 20:9 Isaiah replied, "This is your sign from the LORD confirming that the LORD will do what he has said. Do you want the shadow to move ahead ten steps or to go back ten steps?"
2Ki 20:10 Hezekiah answered, "It is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps, but not for it to go back ten steps."
2Ki 20:11 Isaiah the prophet called out to the LORD, and the LORD made the shadow go back ten steps on the stairs of Ahaz.

Notice here also the shadow moving back. Is God really not able to restart the clock of the world? This seems an obvious no-brainer from scripture that time as we know it is no matter for God. I see the OV point of duration, but I'm not one to step beyond revelation and try with my limited conception to constrain what God can and cannot do. It is not logically impossible no matter how it is sliced.

 

[godrulz]

How does God know how to create the universe if it does not exist and God learns?

How did the inventor of light bulbs, cars, planes, computers, etc. know how to create if they did not exist and had to learn things?

God is infinite intelligence, omnipotent, and omnisicient. He is creative, personal, Living. I procreated and had children before I had them (duh). I learned things as new realities about them and my relationship with them grew, but this did not affect my previous ability and intelligence to make it all happen.

Don't underestimate God's great character and attributesatrol:

 

[rehcjam]

How did the inventor of light bulbs, cars, planes, computers, etc. know how to create if they did not exist and had to learn things?

God is infinite intelligence, omnipotent, and omnisicient. He is creative, personal, Living. I procreated and had children before I had them (duh). I learned things as new realities about them and my relationship with them grew, but this did not affect my previous ability and intelligence to make it all happen.

Don't underestimate God's great character and attributesatrol:

If God learns, then wouldn't He have had to learn how to create the universe and how could He have learned how to create the universe when the universe did not exist? If the universe did not exist then there would have been nothing to learn and it would be impossible to learn how to create the universe.

 

[godrulz]

If God learns, then wouldn't He have had to learn how to create the universe and how could He have learned how to create the universe when the universe did not exist? If the universe did not exist then there would have been nothing to learn and it would be impossible to learn how to create the universe.

I don't get your question then, but believe I have answered it.

Is your question like did Adam have a belly button, how many angels on a pin, who did Cain marry, etc.?

 

[RobE]

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. --- Hezekiah​

It is a straw man to say OT reduces God to being surprised as if He is not intelligent and omnipotent. There is a difference between possible, certain, actual, probable, etc. God's best guesses (poor terminology similar to wrongly saying that God makes mistakes) are better than our near certainties or knowledge for sure.

What makes humans so complex that God is confounded by our actions? Your position makes man more complex than the entire universe. Rehcjam's post is on point and brings the focus of my argument into focus. Things which we might do are simple for God to accomplish.

Each issue must be looked at separately. Certainly God knowing Peter and Judas' heart and character exhaustively allows for proximal knowledge. This is different than God knowing all contingencies, like random bingo and lottery numbers, from before creation (or all chess games ever played, move by move, trillions of years before chess was even invented by man, not God).

Your argument seems to state that God knew Peter and Judas' heart and character, but somehow God is unable to know our heart and character in the same way. If I'm reading it wrong then why don't you tell me why God is able to foreknow their actions based on His knowledge and our actions remain 'hidden' from Him.

God is the ultimate Chessmaster, omnicompetent, not omnicausal. Bobby Fischer would not stand a chance against the risen Christ in chess (yet possibly could have beat Him when Jesus was a child...hey, this could be a good thread or thesis).

This is a good analogy if God is limited by time, but it still fails to address that if Bobby Fischer is able to know 12 moves ahead, then how far ahead does a being who's infinitely more intelligent than Bobby Fischer foresee?

Might we agree that if it's possible, then God is able to do it?

 

[themuzicman]

If God learns, then wouldn't He have had to learn how to create the universe and how could He have learned how to create the universe when the universe did not exist? If the universe did not exist then there would have been nothing to learn and it would be impossible to learn how to create the universe.

Your error, here, is that God has to learn everything. This is incorrect, and a failure on your part to understand what OVT says.

When we say that God "learns", it's akin to the way that we "learn" of Heath Ledger's demise. It's not as though we don't know what death is, or that he was alive, or that we can't find the cause of death, but that this fact, which did not exist before, has come to our attention.

In the same way, God "learns" of our decisions as we make them, since He is omniscient. However, before we make a decision, it is logically unknowable, if we assume that we have free will, which OVT does.

So, don't confuse "learning" in the academic sense with "learning" in the new facts become known sense.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

If God learns, then wouldn't He have had to learn how to create the universe and how could He have learned how to create the universe when the universe did not exist? If the universe did not exist then there would have been nothing to learn and it would be impossible to learn how to create the universe.

:doh:
I see we are making great progress.

 

[Philetus]

Your error, here, is that God has to learn everything. This is incorrect, and a failure on your part to understand what OVT says.

When we say that God "learns", it's akin to the way that we "learn" of Heath Ledger's demise. It's not as though we don't know what death is, or that he was alive, or that we can't find the cause of death, but that this fact, which did not exist before, has come to our attention.

In the same way, God "learns" of our decisions as we make them, since He is omniscient. However, before we make a decision, it is logically unknowable, if we assume that we have free will, which OVT does.

So, don't confuse "learning" in the academic sense with "learning" in the new facts become known sense.

Muz

Good reading, Muz.

 

[godrulz]

Rob: Jesus and chess (see my thread http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45704 )

The issue is our understanding of the incarnation and humanity of Christ. In His preexistence, Jesus would never lose. As a 12 year old learning temporal facts, he very well could lose.

Proximal vs remote knowledge is a valid distinction. When does He know things? There is a difference between God knowing I just typed this in 2008, and somehow knowing or seeing what I typed from even before I was born! As possible objects of knowledge come into existence or move from possible to actual, God's knowledge includes this, so He is never ignorant of things that are knowable (omniscient; not knowing where a real vs puppet Yoda is right now is not a deficiency in omniscience).

 

[RobE]

Rob: Jesus and chess (see my thread http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45704 )

The issue is our understanding of the incarnation and humanity of Christ. In His preexistence, Jesus would never lose. As a 12 year old learning temporal facts, he very well could lose.

Just as a twelve year old wouldn't have sufficient knowledge to teach at the Temple. Where you state this as fact, I might want to reserve judgement since I simply don't know whether logic(the basis of chess) was perfect in the 12 year old Christ child. I assume that it was advanced since He taught at the Temple which wouldn't have been received well from a 12 year old.

Proximal vs remote knowledge is a valid distinction. When does He know things? There is a difference between God knowing I just typed this in 2008, and somehow knowing or seeing what I typed from even before I was born!

This is true. It would take an immense intellect to know a human action. We would have to know the heart and mind(nature) of the human. We would have to know the variables in the human's environment(other hearts and minds; sociology; etc.). We would have to know how all of these things interact and what they would produce when put together.

It is also true: It would take an immense intellect to create a functioning universe from nothing. We would have to know and establish the basic principles of (m)atter, (e)nergy, (t)ime, (s)pace, etc.. We would also have to know how the motions and actions of these items would interact with one another. As well as, the product of these interactions. An important question would be: Is it easier to track and understand the actions of 6 billion humans or the billions upon billions of atoms? God knows both since His understanding is complete.

As possible objects of knowledge come into existence or move from possible to actual, God's knowledge includes this, so He is never ignorant of things that are knowable (omniscient; not knowing where a real vs puppet Yoda is right now is not a deficiency in omniscience).

Yes, but as you stated God's knowledge includes all that is knowable including those things which are not in existence right now and those things which will never exist. God could have known that a creature would make a puppet Yoda at some point in history; since God created the materials, intellect, and nature from His own knowledge unaided. In other words, God(if temporal) created Adam without knowing Adam in person; but could have accurately predicted(foretold of) Adam's actions since God did create Adam's nature and environment.

 

[RobE]

Rob: Jesus and chess (see my thread http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45704 )

Proximal vs remote knowledge is a valid distinction.

It is a valid distinction, but not the most significant issue.

The most significant issue is:

Is it possible to foreknow free acts?​

If so, then.....

1. God has an infinite capacity to do so --- omnicapable.
2. Free will is indeed compatible with foreknowledge.

 

[godrulz]

The issue is whether the future is like the past, whether the future exists yet, whether the future is all definite, or partially indefinite, etc. The issue is not whether He is omniscient or not (HE IS!). We differ on what are possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is ignorant of knowable things (He is not).

 

[godrulz]

It is a valid distinction, but not the most significant issue.

The most significant issue is:

Is it possible to foreknow free acts?​

If so, then.....

1. God has an infinite capacity to do so --- omnicapable.
2. Free will is indeed compatible with foreknowledge.

It is possible to know free acts. We all have limited knowledge of this every day. The question is if exhaustive definite foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian free will. I believe it is not, logically and biblically. You wrongly extrapolate from some proximal foreknowledge to exhaustive remote foreknowledge. Again, OT does believe some of the future is settled by God (and known as such), but not that ALL of the future is thus settled (does not know I will do thisiewgojer9g jeioq-rgjnoi-erjg-ioerje before I was born).

 

[Yorzhik]

Differently than what? Differently than what He was going to do if the other condition took place?

Yes.

Here you say God changes. Since you don't believe God changes, then you need to add qualifiers or explanations.

If the conditions are right, He will speak and not act, He will promise and then not fulfill - as He promised.

But then the question to Balak makes no sense, if the answer is "Yes, he can change his mind if conditions are right."

Lee, almost anything won't make sense when ripped out of context. What's the matter with you? Aren't you a student of language even a little?

You still haven't dealt with Jer 18.

Well, I indeed have thoughts on this chapter, see here please.

Your thoughts on the topic are so disconnected it almost deserves a thread for itself. Here are a couple things you say: "So I think we have to read "planned" as "devised" in verse 8, and we can note that "fashioning calamity" is parallel with "devising a plan" in verse 11, and that would explain the meaning, God is "taking off his belt," getting ready to punish them, that is part of his plan, but the actual planned outcome is not mentioned."
It is mentioned. It's mentioned so clearly that the only way to miss it if if you trained yourself not to see it.

Your thoughts on the chapter are so disjointed there simply isn't a productive comment one can make about them. Trying to explain how your logic doesn't follow when you attempt to make the connection between the beginning of chapter 19 to verse 10 of chapter 18 would do no good. If you don't see the elephant in front of you, it will do no good to try and convince you it's there.

Change from what he would do under the previous circumstances.

You are saying here that God can change, but I know you don't believe God can change. So how do you reconcile what you say with what you believe?

I said it was certain... was I lying?

Yes, because it wasn't certain.

No, lee, I was certain. What... did you measure my thoughts and determine I wasn't really certain? What exactly did you measure?

Are you saying that no one can be certain about anything? How about 2+2?

 

[RobE]

We differ on what are possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is ignorant of knowable things (He is not).

It is possible to know free acts.

The question is if exhaustive definite foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian free will. I believe it is not, logically and biblically.

Hypothesis(above): Free will is incompatible with foreknowledge.

Given 1(from above): God is able to foreknow all things knowable.
Given 2(from above): It is possible to foreknow free acts.​

"Law of the Exluded Middle" --- second law of logic.

What might we conclude from your statements?

 

[RobE]

But let's assume you are saying that God can figure out the future like we can figure out 2+2. Your example is poor. When multiple wills are involved, knowing the future exhaustively is a logical contradiction. Because knowing the future changes the future.

How does knowing the future change the future?

 

[Yorzhik]

Are humans not capable of determining to will their palms the opposite of whatever God says?

No, they are not.

If humans don't have the will to put their palms the way they want, then they don't have will to do anything.

Not at all, if God says I will do X, that doesn't mean he makes every decision.

"Not at all"!?!?! You JUST said "No, they are not." Which is it lee?

Because people are complex. We have conflicting desires. You prefer to continue to discuss Peter because it's hard to see exactly what he was thinking at the time. You need this complexity to uphold your Settled View, because looking at the situation clearly would hurt your pride.

I must say that what I read here does not explain how Peter did just what God said he would, when he was trying his best not to do it.

Well, if you'd employ some reading comprehension, you would have read that Peter had a number of conflicting forces that caused him to override his love for Jesus. Things like peer pressure, arrest, and maybe even some strategic thinking about living to fight another day may have entered the equation. We don't really know. And that's my point. You don't really want to know. If the context is clear, you cannot stay within your comfortable cognitive dissonance.

There is only a contradiction if the future is knowable. You didn't think this through.

Where is the contradiction, please?

If the future is knowable, it can be communicated before any particular event in that future takes place. But communicating the future changes it if those who it is related to have a will. Therefore, that event cannot be known.

Then He will have to say the opposite of what He says at the same time as He knows the effect will cause the opposite reaction.

I do not understand what you mean here.

Exactly. Trying to describe a contradiction is nonsense. i.e. like describing a square circle. So maybe you can describe what God could say without it being nonsense: God knows you don't want to put your palms the way He says you will have them, so when He actually says (according to His decreetive will) how you will have your palms He says, "_________"

Are you saying that man does not have will or that God does not know the future exhaustively?

I say people have free will within the will of God, and that God knows all the future.

Yes, that is your claim. But we are challenging you to explain how it creates a contradiction and so far repeating your claim is the best you've been able to do.

So there are conditional prophecies where God does not know which condition will take place?

He knows, and so he can say what will happen if I do X, or not, this requires real knowledge of the future, you know, to be able to say what will definitely happen if I do X or refrain from it.

Definite knowledge of the future is also required in order to make an unconditional statement about the future, especially in the realm of human choices:

Matthew 26:33-34 Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

Blessings,
Lee

"He knows" lee says. So Hezekiah died a few days after the prophet told him to get his house in order?

Lee, the bible says exactly the opposite of your claim. You are going to have to find some humility, pray to God, and ask Him to give you the strength to admit the truth that He does not have you within His exhaustive decrees, but expects you to respond to Him in real love. He asks you because He doesn't know. If He knew, He wouldn't ask.

 

[Yorzhik]

How does knowing the future change the future?

Because the knowledge of the future can influence another will to oppose that future, changing it.

 

[godrulz]

Hypothesis(above): Free will is incompatible with foreknowledge.

Given 1(from above): God is able to foreknow all things knowable.
Given 2(from above): It is possible to foreknow free acts.​

"Law of the Exluded Middle" --- second law of logic.

What might we conclude from your statements?

Wait...don't put words in my mouth.

Jesus is God and Man. Using your logic, you could make a list to deny these truths.

 

[RobE]

How does knowing the future change the future?

Because the knowledge of the future can influence another will to oppose that future, changing it.

So, God might influence the future based upon His knowledge. I agree that God has done this through His decrees. There is no better way to carry out a plan. A great example is the incarnation of the Christ. All of us would be doomed without God's interference in our natural course.

This wouldn't presuppose that God need influence the future in every instance. I would ask you to state how knowing the future makes the knower act upon His knowledge in each instance?