ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

The only reason you can "say" that is because you ignore the rest of the arguments I've made...

You guys say God actively steps in. Agree?

Yes, I agree God steps in on occassion. Otherwise God allows things(which He could stop) to happen.

You guys also say he steps in by foretelling warnings, to keep some bad thing from happening? Right?

Yes. God has intervened to establish the desired course for history.

I agree with those two things. I just think he does it on intelligence, and not exhaustive foreknowledge...

Exhaustive foreknowledge is complete intelligence. Without it then we would be speaking of limited intelligence.

If God sees some things as worthy of preventing and stepping in using exhaustive foreknowledge, why not use this power to step in with the fall of man?

First of all, God did intervene in the fall of man through His atoning act. If you feel His intervention was lacking, then you should take it up with Him.

Second, if you're asking why didn't God stop Adam from sinning, remove Lucifer from the Garden, make Eve a deaf/mute, or some act similar that. I would have to say that I don't know, but could make an educated guess.

God placed the tree of knowledge(of good and evil) and the tree of life in the garden. One tree would provide man a choice or freewill if you prefer. So what Lucifer meant for evil, God always intended for good. There is no moral choice without knowing good and evil......

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.​

Preventing the fall of man would save the entire world!

Yes preventing the fall would have made man into a creature with no moral foundation and all men would have lived on in ignorant bliss. However, God had a greater purpose....

Patrick: He let(s) it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill),​

If man never knew evil it could not be rejected or refused. Even God knows good and evil while refusing to partake in the latter. This was the first moral choice. The law which God gave....

Genesis 3:3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "​

....gave birth to transgression. Does this mean that God's law was evil? No, as Paul illuminates.....

Romans 7:7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.​

....the law is good in that it produces death in man. This death is good in that it provides a way to be born again into a new life - a spiritual life.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.'​

So if God had prevented the fall then that rebirth of water and Spirit could not occur. Flesh begets flesh, Spirit begets the sons of God! Those who are the fruit of the greater purpose which He foreknew ---

Patrick: He let(s) it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill),​

Romans 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.​

Scripture makes it clear that God's will is that none should perish... what better way than use his exhaustive future knowledge and prevent a few key elements from happening that lead to the fall of man?

This would also have eliminated the chance for love through freedom.

That said, we can deduct a few things. If God made the tree a little taller, or didn't make snakes, or didn't make woman until a week later.. or whatever, in order to change the future, we MUST assume that the way he made things was to lead to the fall of man.

Why would He do this if it is true? Perhaps, unless death occurs; rebirth is impossible.

God made the woman when he did, he made the tree where he did, he put snakes on earth, all for the purpose of getting man to fall. So freewill is meaningless. We are really cogs in a huge complex system that is destroying itself.

No. We are truly free agents and became so through the only means possible. Without moral choices, our choices are meaningless. Is there meaning when a wolf kills and eats a rabbit? Why is there meaning when man kills, but not when an ignorant animal does so?

Your theology, when thought to its end, makes God responsible for sin, removes freewill, and depicts God as unloving- dooming millions to hell.

How so? God provided the means(belief in Christ's acts) for all to be saved. They doom themselves. Whether He foreknew of their free actions or not doesn't assign responsiblity to Him. If you feel that it does, then would you consider that He paid the price on the cross and made the 'fall of man' meaningless for any who want redemption?

If God refused to create for the sake of those who doom themselves, wouldn't He also have done an injustice to those who would freely love Him? Choices result in some making the wrong choice.

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

 

[patman]

First of all, God did intervene in the fall of man through His atoning act. If you feel His intervention was lacking, then you should take it up with Him.

You still do not understand. You say how things should be with no logical reason why they are as they are and at the same time God is as he is.

You are big on causality. You use it as a means to show future knowledge. But God is the first cause. He provided the setting, the rules, the limitations, the means, everything.

If God knew the entire future, he would have known the cause and effects of countless endless events. Including the first cause of sin, the eating of the tree.

This means freewill is impossible! We are trapped in an endless game of cause and effect determined by our nature (programed by God) and desires (Programed at times by sin, set in motion by God) and, and many other things.

Even the cause of our salvation, even our choice to accept it, is only meant for a lucky few, who causality blessed... or, as you understand it, not causality, but God.

If God knew the entire future, and is actively participating with us so his will will be accomplished, we are left with no other alternative but that freewill is an illusion.

The people who go to hell? God's will. The people who go to Heaven? God's will. But that is not very loving. The idea that he would set into motion a set of cause and effect actions to condemn endless numbers of souls is quite the opposite of love.

God's higher purpose, as you call it, is contrary to love. We are told nothing is greater than love. Yet somehow THIS evil world is?? Not only is the evil his will, he uses it to condemn people who he caused to fall? That is justice?

We are told God wills for none to perish but all come to salvation, yet God set into motion THIS?

How can it be so?

 

[RobE]

You still do not understand. You say how things should be with no logical reason why they are as they are and at the same time God is as he is.

I provided reasons according to logic in the previous post.

You are big on causality. You use it as a means to show future knowledge. But God is the first cause. He provided the setting, the rules, the limitations, the means, everything.

That's true. Lest you forget, one of the things He provided was your ability to make decisions independent of Him.

If God knew the entire future, he would have known the cause and effects of countless endless events. Including the first cause of sin, the eating of the tree.

True again.

This means freewill is impossible!

Why?

We are trapped in an endless game of cause and effect determined by our nature (programed by God) and desires (Programed at times by sin, set in motion by God) and, and many other things.

I would say that we are programmed by ourselves through our own free choices. We decide what actions we are willing to take, we choose some desires over others, and we reject other ideas. This makes us unique individuals. We aren't clones of each other, but our life and abilities were created, enabled, and foreknown by God. And yes, external forces act upon our will and offer the choices to begin with. At birth we have no will other than that which instinct drives us towards. Later, as we begin to think 'for ourselves' we act in a morally accountable way by learning what effects our actions have on others and ourselves. These actions are driven by culture, family, environment, and our own natural proclivities.

Even the cause of our salvation, even our choice to accept it, is only meant for a lucky few, who causality blessed... or, as you understand it, not causality, but God.

My position would say that Grace is offered universally, but is not accepted universally by mankind.

If God knew the entire future, and is actively participating with us so his will will be accomplished, we are left with no other alternative but that freewill is an illusion.

Unless, of course, it is God's will to allow us to act freely as a necessary component of a greater purpose.

Patrick: He let(s) it happen for the sake of freewill and thereby love (for love requires freewill),​

The people who go to hell? God's will. The people who go to Heaven? God's will. But that is not very loving. The idea that he would set into motion a set of cause and effect actions to condemn endless numbers of souls is quite the opposite of love.

Well it is God's will for mankind to freely act. This would mean that some use their freedom inappropriately towards their own destruction. As far as God's love goes.....

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.​

As you see. Men don't parish according to God's acts. God loves them, offers them salvation, and died for all men per His desire. God loves His enemies and through scripture, the law, and evangelism begs them to repent. You might claim that they have no choice, but I tell you God has enabled them to choose by His decree.

Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.​

What greater love is there than to lay down your life for your enemies?

God's higher purpose, as you call it, is contrary to love. We are told nothing is greater than love. Yet somehow THIS evil world is?? Not only is the evil his will, he uses it to condemn people who he caused to fall? That is justice?

The world is not evil. It is good and that's why He loves it. It's the devil who thinks it evil and sought to destroy mankind. What was meant for evil, was turned to good through the efforts of Our Lord Jesus Christ! The mar or blemish within creation was removed on the Cross, forever. If providing free will which chooses evil is contrary to love; then how do you maintain free will is necessary for love to exist?

We are told God wills for none to perish but all come to salvation, yet God set into motion THIS?

How can it be so?

I'm not sure what has been taken from you, of your loss, or of the darkness within your being; but I tell you, as a brother in Christ: If evil exists because of free will and free will is necessary for love to exist; then God's desire for love must have been greater than His hatred of evil. In other words, God's desire for you is greater than His sorrow for those who reject Him.

Eternity, which began for you once you accepted and loved Him, is a good and glorious thing. His creation and all of His acts are good in nature. Jesus Christ made the fall of man insiginificant by removing the sting of death; so what was marred by God's enemy, was made perfect once more through Christ's perfect act!

 

[Philetus]

John Sanders said that God does not fake history. The Bible shows God acting sequentially in history. It takes bizarre mental gymnastics to try to make timelessness, eternally knowing prayers to answer them in real time, etc., fit Scripture and common sense. God and man, together, are making history, by His free/sovereign choice. All things were not settled in advance (except what God chose to settle)

very well said!

 

[nonNicene]

I have a few questions. Now as I have heard the trinity explained; it
is one God with three persons ie. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All three
co-equal, co-eternal, and the same forever. I think that this is a
cantradiction to what the bible says. If this was true then the bible
is a lie. So I think the inconsistancy rests in the concept. I think
that viewing the bible through the preconcieved notion of the
trinity, gives one a scewed view. And the devils purpose for
inspiring the concept of the 'trinity' was to set Jesus aside as only
the third person of God when it is in Jesus the the fullness of the
Godhead dwells. When thinking of how God is viewed by the jews, it is
plain that one of the main reasons that the jews dont accept Jesus is
because the jews worship the One God of heaven and earth, not the
third person of anything. Imagine if you will trying to envision the
God of all creation, the God that spans the universe, the one when
asked who he was just simple said "I AM THAT I AM" because he just
was. Without begining and without ending. Not subject to the tieriney
of time with all its restrictictions, but spanning all time and
space. So when you think of God what do you see? How could we ever
see or envision that God. The answer is plain; we couldnt. This was
the reason God had to come in the flesh. This was the reason we
needed Jesus. Jesus was not only the mediator between God and man He
was God and Man. He is the access point In the flesh, And what we are
accessing in the Spirit. Repeatedly Jesus refears to himself in the
third person(pun not intended ;}). When Jesus reffears to himself as
the Son of man, he is reffearing to his flesh which was human. But
when we see Jesus Sat at the right hand of God. It is not saying that
he was sitting next to God the Father, what it is saying is that he
is Set(fixed)as the power and authority, who through which all things
are done. Remember, the right hand is the term used as reffearance to
how anything would get done. The flesh of Jesus is Gods right hand,
But it is the spirit of God that is in control. Remember is Daniel
where it talks about the Son of Man being offered up to the Ancient
of Days? If the Son was a co-equal, co-eternal member of the trinity,
then he wouldnt be offered up to the Greater in this situation. God
was in christ reconciling the world to himself. Hebrews1:1-4 tells us
that Jesus was the express image of Gods Person. So to envision God
we have only Jesus as an expression of who he is. It is only Jesus
that we can see. Jesus is not the third person of anything. He is the
totallity of Everthing.

 

[godrulz]

There are other threads attacking the Trinity, the biblical, historical, orthodox position. It is frowned upon to distract from the thread topic for your pet hobby horses, especially when they are extra/contrabiblical.

Your post is too long and not formatted for clarity. It will be ignored by many. Are you modalist/oneness/Jesus only/Sabellian/Monarchian? Your denomination?

 

[Philetus]

This is not elect vs non-elect Calvinism. It is based on 1000s of years of human history that gives God predictable insight into man.

Will someone please answer this broken record once and for all (I thought we did)?

9mm, maybe?

How's it going Lee. Which of the dozens ... perhaps hundreds ... of remnants alluded to in the scripture do you have in mind?


Lee can't move past this because his entire understanding of God dysfunctions due to his addiction to omnis.

You guys are doing good.

 

[Andy Curry]

There are other threads attacking the Trinity, the biblical, historical, orthodox position. It is frowned upon to distract from the thread topic for your pet hobby horses, especially when they are extra/contrabiblical.

Your post is too long and not formatted for clarity. It will be ignored by many. Are you modalist/oneness/Jesus only/Sabellian/Monarchian? Your denomination?

From what I read and talking to him he has the same doctorine as of me... hes Oneness Pentecostal AKA Apostolic!

 

[nonNicene]

There are other threads attacking the Trinity, the biblical, historical, orthodox position. It is frowned upon to distract from the thread topic for your pet hobby horses, especially when they are extra/contrabiblical.

Your post is too long and not formatted for clarity. It will be ignored by many. Are you modalist/oneness/Jesus only/Sabellian/Monarchian? Your denomination?

Sorry for the long post but its kind of a long subject that I barely began to address in that post. If you want me to open it up to you we can start a new thread. And what exactly was "extra biblical" about what i said?

 

[themuzicman]

Sorry for the long post but its kind of a long subject that I barely began to address in that post. If you want me to open it up to you we can start a new thread. And what exactly was "extra biblical" about what i said?

This is OFFTOPIC and not related to Open View Theism. Take your heresy elsewhere.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

How's it going Lee.

Pretty well--despite spending last night on a hospital cot! Not the place for beauty rest.

Which of the dozens ... perhaps hundreds ... of remnants alluded to in the scripture do you have in mind?

The one Paul and Isaiah referred to, that only a remnant of Israelites, descendants of Abraham, would be saved. But how could this be known? For this is God's sentence on earth, that a remnant will indeed be saved, and only a remnant.

And how is this just, to decide only a remnant will be saved, and then carry this out?

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Andy Curry]

This is OFFTOPIC and not related to Open View Theism. Take your heresy elsewhere.

Muz

Do you live anywhere near Clawson Michigan? I see your in michigan and if you ever wanna visit a church on fire come to ours GACClawon.org

 

[Yorzhik]

For future reference questions end with this symbol ------> ?(<Notice )
Questions are hard to answer when they aren't there.
Why do you say this?(<Notice:angel: )

You are correct. I should have said "dilemma" and not "question"

Anyhow. Your dilemma still remains.

I'll try to speak slowly from now on..... Part of God's decree might be that He will, in the future, influence mankind's outcome. Just as He decreed to become the incarnate Christ(see previous post).

You don't understand the dilemma. The problem is not that God "He will, in the future, influence mankind's outcome". The problem is that God will, in the future, influence changes in God's decrees. Remember, all of man's outcomes are already decreed by God.

So, the question is, since God's decrees are by definition unchangeable, how do you explain changing the unchangeable? Why don't you just admit that God can do the logically contradictory?

What other wills.....know.....and are able.....to change God's decrees?(<Notice:angel: )

Any person with a will that knows; directly a prophecy of God, or indirectly what God expects.

O...K. I should note: if God 'decreed' Hezekiah would not recover, if Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, etc.... then your own logic proves this is a contradiction.

Right. That's how we know God did not decree it.

RobE continues:

I should also state that my thinking is that God 'decreed' Nineveh and Hezekiah would repent because of God influencing the situation. Anyway......

RobE, don't you even understand what you write? You didn't complete your thought. What you wrote here was "I should also state that my thinking is that God 'decreed' Nineveh and Hezekiah would repent because of God influencing the situation. Even though my last sentence said God 'decreed' that an unchangeable 'decree' would change, I invoked the influence of God as a reason even though I'm not willing to say that God can do the logically contradictory."

Unless... of course... you ARE willing to say that God can do the logically contradictory.

Let's show this by example: God has decreed your palms will be up, but your will has determined that your palms will be the opposite of whatever God has decreed. God tells you his decree, and you change the decree because it is known... but changing a decree is a contradiction.

Doesn't this assume that God was lacking the knowledge of your free acts before He made His decree?(<Notice:angel: )

Of course it assumes God was lacking the exhaustive knowledge of your free acts before He made His decree. If we assume God had knowledge of your free acts exhaustively before He made His decree, He would either prove that you have no will (of any kind), or that He could do the logical contradictory.

I cannot imagine you could have understood the last sentence despite how straightforward and simple it is. Let me see if I can say it again in a more simpler form.

God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up.

Or, God has decreed to intervene and takes the steps necessary for you to freely choose to turn them up when the time comes.

Both the inaction and the action require foreknowledge to yield the specific result.

We might ask why a decree was necessary at all. The simple fact is God had to decree your existence, that you would have hands, palms, and a will. Furthermore God had to decree the other factors which would allow you to excercise your free will uncoerced.

Does this clear it up?(<Notice:angel: )

No, it doesn't clear it up. Let's look at your two possibilities:

"God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up."
If your will is to do the opposite of whatever God says, then your palms would be turned down. Or are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?

"Or, God has decreed to intervene and takes the steps necessary for you to freely choose to turn them up when the time comes."
You don't realize what you are saying. You're saying even if we have the will to NOT cause a sin event, every sin event was caused by an intervening of God to insure that sin event.

You see, God cannot influence the exhaustively known future to change without doing the logically contradictory.

This might also presume that God might not foreknow His own action of bringing His decrees about.

RobE... God doesn't know His own actions? Is that a joke?

 

[RobE]

No, it doesn't clear it up. Let's look at your two possibilities:

"God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up."
If your will is to do the opposite of whatever God says, then your palms would be turned down. Or are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?

You're implying that God wills you to turn them up or down. What you obscure is that God has simply decreed to allow you to act independently of Him in turning them up or down. God hasn't decreed they will be up, God has decreed a creation in which you choose to turn them up.

"Or, God has decreed to intervene and takes the steps necessary for you to freely choose to turn them up when the time comes."
You don't realize what you are saying. You're saying even if we have the will to NOT cause a sin event, every sin event was caused by an intervening of God to insure that sin event.

I'm saying that God has either decreed 1. to allow the event or 2. He will intervene to influence the event to be carried out by you freely.

RobE... God doesn't know His own actions? Is that a joke?

The joke per se is that creation is an action of God, so if God has no idea as to the outcomes of His own actions then.........

 

[Lon]

You still do not understand. You say how things should be with no logical reason why they are as they are and at the same time God is as he is.

You are big on causality. You use it as a means to show future knowledge. But God is the first cause. He provided the setting, the rules, the limitations, the means, everything.

If God knew the entire future, he would have known the cause and effects of countless endless events. Including the first cause of sin, the eating of the tree.

This means freewill is impossible! We are trapped in an endless game of cause and effect determined by our nature (programed by God) and desires (Programed at times by sin, set in motion by God) and, and many other things.

Even the cause of our salvation, even our choice to accept it, is only meant for a lucky few, who causality blessed... or, as you understand it, not causality, but God.

If God knew the entire future, and is actively participating with us so his will will be accomplished, we are left with no other alternative but that freewill is an illusion.

The people who go to hell? God's will. The people who go to Heaven? God's will. But that is not very loving. The idea that he would set into motion a set of cause and effect actions to condemn endless numbers of souls is quite the opposite of love.

God's higher purpose, as you call it, is contrary to love. We are told nothing is greater than love. Yet somehow THIS evil world is?? Not only is the evil his will, he uses it to condemn people who he caused to fall? That is justice?

We are told God wills for none to perish but all come to salvation, yet God set into motion THIS?

How can it be so?

I'm glad you asked this in such a way. It gets to philosophically dealing with troubling concepts that we all must not avoid. OV must address these to be valid and reasonable. OV never escapes these troubling questions with the rest of us. If you believe it does, you haven't dwelled deeply enough on the ramifications. We all have to understand how God can see attrocity and not stop it.

For me, the answer is in Scripture. God isn't willing that any should perish. He doesn't stop it all for the sake of the elect. The wheat/tare story gives us an understanding that God has purposes that aren't easily seen by the creatures next to the ground. We don't have a field vantage point to understand everything but denying Omni's doesn't do anything to deal with these problems, and therefore is a non-essential OV stance. You get nothing by denying the traditions but a short breather and side-step. The issues remain regardless and OV, while initially relieved must come to terms with the same difficult questions for understanding. Pointing fingers at causuality and Calvinism has a circular blame. God sees attrocity in OV. God interjects in the OV system and His Will is still effective. In fact, God is intermittently very Calvinistic in the OV mindset.

 

[Lon]

You are correct. I should have said "dilemma" and not "question"

Anyhow. Your dilemma still remains.


You don't understand the dilemma. The problem is not that God "He will, in the future, influence mankind's outcome". The problem is that God will, in the future, influence changes in God's decrees. Remember, all of man's outcomes are already decreed by God.

So, the question is, since God's decrees are by definition unchangeable, how do you explain changing the unchangeable? Why don't you just admit that God can do the logically contradictory?


Any person with a will that knows; directly a prophecy of God, or indirectly what God expects.


Right. That's how we know God did not decree it.

RobE continues:

RobE, don't you even understand what you write? You didn't complete your thought. What you wrote here was "I should also state that my thinking is that God 'decreed' Nineveh and Hezekiah would repent because of God influencing the situation. Even though my last sentence said God 'decreed' that an unchangeable 'decree' would change, I invoked the influence of God as a reason even though I'm not willing to say that God can do the logically contradictory."

Unless... of course... you ARE willing to say that God can do the logically contradictory.


Of course it assumes God was lacking the exhaustive knowledge of your free acts before He made His decree. If we assume God had knowledge of your free acts exhaustively before He made His decree, He would either prove that you have no will (of any kind), or that He could do the logical contradictory.


No, it doesn't clear it up. Let's look at your two possibilities:

"God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up."
If your will is to do the opposite of whatever God says, then your palms would be turned down. Or are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?

"Or, God has decreed to intervene and takes the steps necessary for you to freely choose to turn them up when the time comes."
You don't realize what you are saying. You're saying even if we have the will to NOT cause a sin event, every sin event was caused by an intervening of God to insure that sin event.


RobE... God doesn't know His own actions? Is that a joke?

Circular reasoning. Even in the OV, God knows before we choose at the moment of choosing. You agree that He knows the thoughts of David before he speaks them (as Psalms tell us). Take the logic as your own. What do you mean by this? Does even moments before eliminate David's freewill to speak? I hope this is a warning bell for OVer's. There is a logical clarification needed, but it doesn't exist between OV and tradition. That is an illusion made to make OV look like it has all the answers. It has the exact same problem no matter how you slice it and an illusion of 'solve.' It has solved nothing: Think about it.

 

[patman]

I'm glad you asked this in such a way. It gets to philosophically dealing with troubling concepts that we all must not avoid. OV must address these to be valid and reasonable. OV never escapes these troubling questions with the rest of us. If you believe it does, you haven't dwelled deeply enough on the ramifications. We all have to understand how God can see attrocity and not stop it.

For me, the answer is in Scripture. God isn't willing that any should perish. He doesn't stop it all for the sake of the elect. The wheat/tare story gives us an understanding that God has purposes that aren't easily seen by the creatures next to the ground. We don't have a field vantage point to understand everything but denying Omni's doesn't do anything to deal with these problems, and therefore is a non-essential OV stance. You get nothing by denying the traditions but a short breather and side-step. The issues remain regardless and OV, while initially relieved must come to terms with the same difficult questions for understanding. Pointing fingers at causuality and Calvinism has a circular blame. God sees attrocity in OV. God interjects in the OV system and His Will is still effective. In fact, God is intermittently very Calvinistic in the OV mindset.

Intermittently is the key word. That shows us nothing as to the correctness, or the error of any theology or idea. It is like living in the desert and saying the entire earth is hot, and then someone else living up north saying the entire earth is cold. Instead areas are both hot and cold.

The future to God is both open and settled.

You are going to have to expound on how the OV doesn't address the question. The idea a loving God, foreseeing all that would come and all the souls whom would be condemned by his creation plan yet goes forth with it anyway is contradictory, to say the least.

The question does not even apply to the OV.

The problem of evil is answered by freewill. Another thing the S.V. can't logically explain within the confounds of a settled future.

If the future is settled, who settled it? If the answer is God, why is there still freewill?

 

[patman]

Why?

......

The world is not evil. It is good and that's why He loves it. It's the devil who thinks it evil and sought to destroy mankind. What was meant for evil, was turned to good through the efforts of Our Lord Jesus Christ! The mar or blemish within creation was removed on the Cross, forever. If providing free will which chooses evil is contrary to love; then how do you maintain free will is necessary for love to exist?

Rob, Did you read my post before you answered? Or did you answer it while you were reading? You asked "why?" right before I gave the answer. It is almost like you think I actually believe the things I write to you, but they are criticism of your theology taken to it's logical end.

I am in agreement with you about the nature of freewill, how it works, how we are unique. Just incase you didn't know..... it's just that you keep telling me what I believe, even quoting me, but offer no reason why a settled theist can think them.

However, I disagree with your view about the world. God sees it as evil... at first he saw it as good, but often he changes his mind (an attribute only an open future can allow) about the world's goodness/evil.

Genesis 1:31
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 6:5-6
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Romans 3:10-12
10 As it is written:
“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”

Regardless of how happy or sad my life is or has been, I will look to scripture to teach me about how good the world is. I agree with Paul, who agreed with David.

Psalm 14
2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

Even though Christ has come to redeem us, not all are redemed, and we still live in an evil world.

Example

 

[themuzicman]

I'm glad you asked this in such a way. It gets to philosophically dealing with troubling concepts that we all must not avoid. OV must address these to be valid and reasonable. OV never escapes these troubling questions with the rest of us. If you believe it does, you haven't dwelled deeply enough on the ramifications. We all have to understand how God can see attrocity and not stop it.

First, this assumes that God is obligated to DO SOMETHING on behalf of sinners. He is not.

Second, this assumes that the evil man perpetrates against Himself is unjust. However, if we become victims of the same evil (violating the law, regardless of how) we perpetrate, then God is just, in fact, His just nature may demand, that we endure evil because we are evil. (Unless you think you're inherently good...)

So, I think there's a lot of "I'm OK, You're OK" in your statement, here.

For me, the answer is in Scripture. God isn't willing that any should perish. He doesn't stop it all for the sake of the elect. The wheat/tare story gives us an understanding that God has purposes that aren't easily seen by the creatures next to the ground. We don't have a field vantage point to understand everything but denying Omni's doesn't do anything to deal with these problems, and therefore is a non-essential OV stance. You get nothing by denying the traditions but a short breather and side-step. The issues remain regardless and OV, while initially relieved must come to terms with the same difficult questions for understanding. Pointing fingers at causuality and Calvinism has a circular blame. God sees attrocity in OV. God interjects in the OV system and His Will is still effective. In fact, God is intermittently very Calvinistic in the OV mindset.

I don't think that OV says that Calvinism is wrong on every account. There are some very good things that Calvinism has to say. They're just not found in Soteriology, nor in their determinism, semi-determinism or compatiblism.

In that sense, your answer is correct, although the "field" doesn't have to include a fixed future. God can know that certain possible courses of the future will have bad or worse consequences. No EDF required for that.

In fact, having EDF would state that God causes the atrocities, and then says that it's OK because He could have made it much worse.

Unless you think this is the best God could do......

Muz

 

[godrulz]

EDF offers no providential advantage to God. Knowing the future without the ability to change it is useless.

The issue is the nature of reality, not so much omniscience. In order to have loving relationships, free will is necessary. Genuine contingencies results in a voluntary self-limitation on EDF (element of uncertainty if we can chose between alternatives). Determinism comes at a high price to love, relationships, freedom, theodicy, prayer, evangelism, sin, etc.

Is EDF true or not? If not, why cling to it if it offers nothing for an omnicompetent God who has ABILITY, not a crystal ball?