ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Question: How does our God, who has enough intelligence to create the universe and everything within it(from nothing), become unsure of Himself; when trying to figure out whether you will eat Capt'n Crunch or Fruit Loops for breakfast?

I think you confuse modal issues like certainties/actualities, possibilities, probabilities, impossibilities, necessities, contingencies, etc. God is not unsure of Himself. He is infinitely intelligent. He is omniscient. He knows reality as it is. You have a wrong view of contingent reality and seem to confuse it with determinism? It is a matter of the nature of reality, not whether God is limited or not intelligent. He does not know what Dvorak is composing right now, because the dude is dead. This is not God being unsure of Himself or not being intelligent. It IS God knowing reality as it is. Until a mundance or moral choice is made, it is possible/probable (spectrum from uncertain to virtually certain), not actual. Once it is actual, it is known as such, not before.

Just because God or us are right about 'foreknowledge' (which is not a matter of seeing a crystal ball of the non-existent future or just being intelligent to know a nothing) does not mean it is exhaustive or definite (you are looking in the rear view mirror AFTER it has already become definite; before it was indefinite in many things, so correctly known as such).

 

[Evoken]

Mental habit when I type fast...

I did a search for all your posts that contain "chose" and the results went to the limit (500), I wonder how many it would have found if there was no limit. It seems you always type fast

 

[godrulz]

I do understand the issue. Did God know Judas' outcome or was it simply a lucky guess?

Reality changed. We are looking in the rear view mirror. God chose/choose (AMR vote now; I pick chose) Judas as an apostle. He correctly knew him as a disciple at time A. When Judas' heart changed at time B, God knew he was a betrayer heading to destruction. IF he would have repented, God would have called him a restored former apostate. Since this did not happen, we have our Bible, not a different one that would have been THE Bible if Judas repented, which He did not.

Eternal now views may be keeping you from seeing the chronology and God's changing knowledge (which is not a change of character or being).

God knows human character from experience with millions of people. He could also withdraw His influence in Judas' life making it almost certain that Judas would continue on the path of rejecting light for darkness. His destiny was becoming progressively sealed until death. If Judas would have been saved by the skin of his teeth at the last moment, our Bible would be different (cf. Adam/Israel were right with God, then fallen. God's knowledge changed to match reality vs a matter of being wrong).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...IF he {Judas} would have repented, God would have called him a restored former apostate.

A "restored former apostate"? Christ crucified once again, no? :bang:

You cannot appeal to Hebrews 6:4-6 to support your incorrect falling away doctrine while not accepting the same passage's teaching that apostates cannot regain salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

This is why your interpretation of the passage as speaking to believers is incorrect.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We are looking in the rear view mirror.

God isn't.

Eternal now views may be keeping you from seeing the chronology and God's changing knowledge (which is not a change of character or being).

God knows human character from experience with millions of people.

Gibberish that is unsupportable. Are you making it up as you write? Forget the 'eternal now' dismissal and just think for a minute.

With a wave of the hand you state God's acquisition of knowledge is unrelated to His essence, as if His necessary and free knowledge are somehow accreted. As in any of God's attributes, they inhere one another and God's essence is in His attributes, including God's omniscience (I Sam. 2:3; Job 12:13; Psalms 94:9; Psalms 147:4; Isa. 29:15; Isa. 40:27-28). Your fallacious view would separate God's knowledge from His essence, thereby introducing a potentiality to God's nature, implying He does not know Himself perfectly. As the efficent cause (whatever exists, pre-exists in the mind of God), God cannot possibly acquire knowledge discursively.

 

[lee_merrill]

IF he would have repented, God would have called him a restored former apostate. Since this did not happen, we have our Bible, not a different one that would have been THE Bible if Judas repented, which He did not.

But God makes firm predictions, therein lies the difficulty.

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously.

Even I can adjust my view to the outcome of the situation (per Godrulz), and estimate outcomes (per Apologetic Jedi), but if this is what God is doing in his predictions, then the above verse is meaningless.

Again I need to ask how God knows a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, this is "his sentence of earth" which he will carry out with finality, and it concerns salvation from sin.

And then later, "all Israel will be saved," when he turns away unrighteousness from Jacob, and takes away their sins.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Imagine if your world fell apart

Imagine if your world fell apart

Imagine your world changes suddenly. You go from ordinary life to being forced to flee your home. Your neighbors are running you out with axes, trying to kill you because you are a ___________. Whatever you are.

It is really happening in Kenya. Mobs are going on a killing spree, hunting people down who belong to a tribe of which is unwanted in the city.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130...c_cleansing;_ylt=Ap.iSao92hKjpk5xLCpIY3tvaA8F

People are being burned alive. Babies too.

All this chaos in he world, and this isn't even the tip of the iceberg. We live in a world rooted in a history of violence, hate, killing, hating, disease, and backwards superstitions.

With God, anything is possible. If he had perfect foreknowledge, he could have made man in such a way that he wouldn't be so destructive and cruel. He would have known people by the masses would sin, die and go to Hell, and with the ability to do whatever, could have saved them all.

How is the settled view of God also considered loving in light of the evil he authored?

 

[godrulz]

A "restored former apostate"? Christ crucified once again, no? :bang:

You cannot appeal to Hebrews 6:4-6 to support your incorrect falling away doctrine while not accepting the same passage's teaching that apostates cannot regain salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

This is why your interpretation of the passage as speaking to believers is incorrect.

Slow down, bubba louey. Arminian commentators do offer credible explanations that allow for a warning of apostasy and the possibility of being restored from any state of lostness. You are proof texting to the extreme. All relevant truths about perseverence of the saints are not in one verse. Just as Arians try to disprove the Trinity using a few verses, so you are trying to reject my views with YOUR interpretations of a verse to retain your understanding.

This passage is a stern warning about the possibility of falling away. The language is about true believers (you would not question this if the same words were used in a different context or you did not have a preconceived idea to retain). Likewise, the context is specific about those who embraced Christ but then reverted back to the shadow/types of Judaism. To say it is a warning against rejecting POTS/OSAS is nonsense. In this historical setting, the apostates were remaining in apostasy (even as security of believer passages are to those who were remaining in Christ and not falling away) and could thus not be restored in that state. As long as they rejected Christ, it was impossible for them to be saved since they were trusting the shadow, not the reality (Judaism vs Christianity). OTHER passages show that all who repent and trust Christ can be saved (we could debate unpardonable sin, a special exception). If a godless atheist or blasphemer can be saved, and they can (based on other passages), then an apostate can also be restored, BUT not while in a state of unrepentant apostasy. Once they renounce their error and return to Christ, they can be saved like any other believer. The reason most were not (watch arguing from silence with selective history) was that they had rejected great light and seared their conscience, dulling the voice of the Spirit, and being turned over to the lie as their hearts became hardened and judicially hardened. Even Judas could have returned, but there was a point of no return, where God ceased to strive with him as Satan was allowed to enter him.

Consider all relevant passages and principles of Scripture, not just a proof text out of context seen through the filter of our preconceived theology.

 

[godrulz]

God isn't.

Gibberish that is unsupportable. Are you making it up as you write? Forget the 'eternal now' dismissal and just think for a minute.

With a wave of the hand you state God's acquisition of knowledge is unrelated to His essence, as if His necessary and free knowledge are somehow accreted. As in any of God's attributes, they inhere one another and God's essence is in His attributes, including God's omniscience (I Sam. 2:3; Job 12:13; Psalms 94:9; Psalms 147:4; Isa. 29:15; Isa. 40:27-28). Your fallacious view would separate God's knowledge from His essence, thereby introducing a potentiality to God's nature, implying He does not know Himself perfectly. As the efficent cause (whatever exists, pre-exists in the mind of God), God cannot possibly acquire knowledge discursively.

Yikes, too much philosophy, not enough truth.

Are you a Thomist or what?

The issue is the nature of possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is omniscient (both views agree He is). An omniscient God cannot know unknowable things; an omnipotent God cannot do undoable things. We disagree as to what is knowable and what is doable. Possible is not actual; present is not past or future.

Just when I thought you were going to see the light and become an open theist, you default to indoctrination mode.:help: :doh: I don't think you really understand the issues like I had hoped. I think you are rejecting a straw man, as do most Calvinists.

I don't get your proof texts. Why quote verses about present knowledge to support EDF through unwarranted extrapolation (not resolving the inherent problems)?

 

[RobE]

How is the settled view of God also considered loving in light of the evil he authored?

Hi Patrick,

How is the open view of God considered loving in light of the evil which He allows?

Apply your answer to your own question above.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[RobE]

I think you confuse modal issues like certainties/actualities, possibilities, probabilities, impossibilities, necessities, contingencies, etc.

Are you saying I'm confused and then continuing to muddy the waters beyond belief?

Knowing and knowing beforehand aren't very confusing terms for me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Slow down, bubba louey. Arminian commentators do offer credible explanations

Two things. First you slow down, for nothing you said properly (exegesis!) answers the objection that the verse is speaking to believers. Second, I can read other commentators anytime, but nothing you said resembles exegesis of the passage to reconcile it with anything else you wrote. Do you do any heavy lifting on your own or must every answer be what 'so and so' said? Let me make it simple for you so I don't get another stream of consciousness response.

If you believe the passage is speaking to believers, then you must also believe the passage warns that there is no possibility of reconciliation once one rejects Christ. Thus your statement that Judas could be a 'restored former apostate' is nonsense. So, yes, you can try to go elsewhere in Scripture to make your case, but before you do, you must conclude that the passage in discussion is not speaking to believers. That is all that is in discussion. Slow down, focus, exegete.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The issue is the nature of possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is omniscient (both views agree He is). An omniscient God cannot know unknowable things; an omnipotent God cannot do undoable things. We disagree as to what is knowable and what is doable. Possible is not actual; present is not past or future.

Stop saying the words and never linking them to anything that remotely resembles a position about God's nature. You throw out the philosophy canard demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge of proper hermeneutics. Is God a composite? Do you even understand the implications and why these matters are not resolved within the usual methods?

I don't get your proof texts.

Go ask Sanders or Shanks, then, for you don't get anything anyone else has to say. I am tired of trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that most have long since ceased to do.

 

[themuzicman]

A "restored former apostate"? Christ crucified once again, no? :bang:

You cannot appeal to Hebrews 6:4-6 to support your incorrect falling away doctrine while not accepting the same passage's teaching that apostates cannot regain salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

This is why your interpretation of the passage as speaking to believers is incorrect.

Seeing as Judas was never a "partaker of the Holy Spirit", that's a non-issue.

Muz

 

[Yorzhik]

Lee, there's no obligation to answer soon or even answer it all, but this thread is so fast moving that you may not have seen these:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1659653&postcount=6174

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1660103&postcount=6177

 

[godrulz]

Classical theologians understood that if you reject one aspect of the package of attributes, the whole thing starts to unravel. AMR is being inconsistent by modifying some aspects of the package (softer view of immutability and impassibility) to account for reality and Scripture. Open Theists are being more consistent and understanding the attributes properly and coherently. Philosophical issues about aseity, simplicity, etc. do not stand up to a simple understanding of God's attributes and character. AMR is not a classical theologian, but has not followed his ideas through to their logical conclusion.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patrick,

How is the open view of God considered loving in light of the evil which He allows?

Apply your answer to your own question above.

Exactly, the Open View claims to get around this difficulty, when in fact it does not. God could not stop any given evil act? If the answer is that God must preserve free will, then what about the free will of the person being wronged?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee, there's no obligation to answer soon or even answer it all, but this thread is so fast moving that you may not have seen these:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1659653&postcount=6174

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

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

Yorzhik: 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?

So how does this answer my question?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1660103&postcount=6177

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

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

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

People are not able to thwart God, but that doesn't mean God makes every decision.

Lee: ... 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.

Yorzhik: 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.

And my point is that indeed Peter did just what God said he would do, while trying his best to do differently, saying we don't know how this came about does not refute me.

Yorzhik: ... communicating the future changes it if those who it is related to have a will. Therefore, that event cannot be known.

Then God cannot know that only a remnant will be saved? Why then did he tell us that this is his sentence which will be carried out thoroughly and with finality?

Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.

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, "_________"

He says how you will have your palms on the table, and indeed you will.

Mark 14:30-31 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today-- yes, tonight-- before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.

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

Yorzhik: 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.

Presumably you mean this second part, "God knows all the future," defended on this page here.

Yorzhik: So Hezekiah died a few days after the prophet told him to get his house in order?

Isa. 38:1 Isa. 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."

God meant "die" in two senses, physical death, or dying to self, as in this verse:

Rom. 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live...

It's "one or the other," though Hezekiah may have only understood physical death.

Gen. 2:17 "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

And there may well be two senses here: Die physically later on, and die spiritually, immediately.

John 11:25-26 He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

Now "live, even though he dies" would be referring to physical death, and "never die" would seem primarily to refer to, or at least include, spiritual death. Thus death in the story of Hezekiah could have meant "It will be physical death, or death like this":

Gal. 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.

Isa. 38:16 "O Lord, by these things men live; And in all these is the life of my spirit; O restore me to health, and let me live!

Life in two different senses here! "My spirit lives," "let me live [physically]".

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Exactly, the Open View claims to get around this difficulty, when in fact it does not. God could not stop any given evil act? If the answer is that God must preserve free will, then what about the free will of the person being wronged?

Blessings,
Lee

God could stop evil, but to do it justly, He would have to splat us all in a second all the time. There is a sense that freedom is irrevocable or it is not freedom at all. In either view, God is omnipotent, so there are other issues as to why God intervenes sometimes, but not all the time. In the end, justice will be done (delayed, not denied). Boyd specifically answers your objection in "Satan and the Problem of Evil". It merits more than a quick post, so he develops it over many pages.
Don't assume smugly that OT does not have a credible response to your objections.

 

[patman]

Hi Patrick,

How is the open view of God considered loving in light of the evil which He allows?

Apply your answer to your own question above.

Thanks,
Rob

But my answer is that God didn't foresee all the evil happening like it did. You guys say he did and created it anyway.
:up: