ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

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.

It isn't a valid criticism of my theology though. It's your belief that cause and effect eliminates free will, not a proven fact.

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.

Why are you hung up on the term 'settled'? Are you presuppositions thwarting your reasoning?

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.

I challenge you to provide a scripture which states the work of God's hands(creation) was an evil act or the it has become evil in the sense that you mean.

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.”​

In response to the provided scriptures I post the following verses:

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.​

The underlined portion describes the existence of evil within a good creation.

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.​

However, you don't agree with David, Solomon, Paul, or those in heaven:

Psalm 33:11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

1 Timothy 4:4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."​

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

No. Evil exists within the world, but God didn't create it! All that God creates is good as exhibited by the knowledge that God does not do evil.

Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.​

Example

Yes. Abortion is an evil which has permiated our society and world. And a great example to continue our discussion with.

1 Samuel 1:5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the LORD had closed her womb.​

God allows those abortions when He is able to prevent them. Yes or no.

 

[Yorzhik]

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?

So how does this answer my question?

Because you ripped the quote to Balak out of context. God was speaking specifically about that situation. But even if you want to apply what God said in that instance to a general rule, you should be enough of a student of language to know that there may be exceptions that are not stated.

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

Um... lee... if you say it is impossible to thwart God (and I assume you mean our desire to thwart God, not physical ability), then you actually are saying that God makes every decision.

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.

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.

Lee, it's me refuting you on this particular point. It's you trying to refute my point that one can do other that what God says they will do. Peter's claim that he would never deny Christ was bravado. Peter didn't know what he was getting in to. It's a complicated story. Because of the complication, it cannot be used to refute a claim that one could put their palms in a way different from what God says.

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.

It's the same as God defeating the Jebusites "without fail". If God expects something to happen, with finality, then He will use language in line with what He expects.

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.

Your proof passage does not support your claim. It is like someone saying "I never miss a basketball shot" and then they take a shot and it goes in. Do you see how making that shot does not prove that the person never misses? Even if they make a thousand shots in a row, if they miss one, they cannot claim they "never miss a basketball shot". OR if you have record of them missing a shot in the past, their claim also cannot be literally true in every case.

And we have a number of cases where prophecy did not turn out as expected directly, and indirectly God did not get what he expected in general.

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.

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

No, I challenge the whole claim including "free will within the will of God". You still haven't explained the contradiction your claim makes. And whenever we ask for an explanation, you simply repeat your claim.

And further, your link says of God's knowledge of the future:
"Jesus is quite plainly confirming Peter's statement here that he knows all things, and including in this, Peter's future" What Jesus said does not show that He knows the future exhaustively any more than the previous passage. Again, showing some cases of knowing the future does not help you show the future is known exhaustively.

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

Well, shoot, lee, if that's how you can interpret scripture, then every prophecy, contradictory or not, is correct! Just say that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS the prophecy was fulfilled.

So, tell me lee, what could possibly have happened that you don't think would have been a fulfillment of prophecy? I'll bet you I can come up with an explanation no more ridiculous than the one you cite immediately above that can cover ANYTHING you come up with.


P.S. You never did tell us how you measured the amount of certainty I had the Pats would go undefeated.

 

[lee_merrill]

Because you ripped the quote to Balak out of context. God was speaking specifically about that situation.

But that is what I meant, it makes no sense to say "God will not change his mind in this instance" if God might change his mind in this instance. Which is what you seemed to be saying.

... if you say it is impossible to thwart God (and I assume you mean our desire to thwart God, not physical ability), then you actually are saying that God makes every decision.

Not at all, God might allow decisions to be made within his will. I believe he does!

If your children were fully obedient, your will with them would never be thwarted, and yet you would allow them various choices.

It's you trying to refute my point that one can do other that what God says they will do. Peter's claim that he would never deny Christ was bravado.

Right, and so is saying "I will put my hands a certain way" when God says you won't. Can God not bring such a simple effect about?

Your God is rather small.

It's the same as God defeating the Jebusites "without fail". If God expects something to happen, with finality, then He will use language in line with what He expects.

As here...

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."

A remnant will indeed be saved. But how could this be known? But this is God's sentence on earth, that a remnant will indeed be saved, and only a remnant.

... we have a number of cases where prophecy did not turn out as expected directly, and indirectly God did not get what he expected in general.

I address such here.

No, I challenge the whole claim including "free will within the will of God". You still haven't explained the contradiction your claim makes. And whenever we ask for an explanation, you simply repeat your claim.

This discussion is having such long intervals between posts! I no longer remember what the stated contradiction was, specifically.

... your link says of God's knowledge of the future:
"Jesus is quite plainly confirming Peter's statement here that he knows all things, and including in this, Peter's future." What Jesus said does not show that He knows the future exhaustively any more than the previous passage. Again, showing some cases of knowing the future does not help you show the future is known exhaustively.

Yet this prediction was in response to Peter saying "you know all things." Implying clearly that Jesus is confirming Peter's statement with another sure (truly, truly) prediction. Of what he will freely choose.

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.

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]".

Well, shoot, lee, if that's how you can interpret scripture, then every prophecy, contradictory or not, is correct! Just say that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS the prophecy was fulfilled.

No, I'm arguing that "live" and "die" here have two senses, within the passage--in context, these words have dual meanings.

So, tell me lee, what could possibly have happened that you don't think would have been a fulfillment of prophecy?

If Hezekiah had gone on his way unchanged and unaffected and quite lively.

You never did tell us how you measured the amount of certainty I had the Pats would go undefeated.

I'm not sure what you mean here, though.

Blessings, on you and on the not-so-undefeated Pats,
Lee

 

[Lon]

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?

Freewill in the OV discussion doesn't change anything, for God sees as things are happening. This logically means that foreknowledge is no significant factor in the problem with evil discussion. The problem of evil is as much a factor for OVers as anyone else. The question: when does God know evil is happening?
The answer: either before or during are equally problematic, so again OV escapes nothing and the discussion of evil has no gaining ground in OV. Concerning freewill, we are talking specifically about an ability to 'do otherwise' and ultimately are talking about the origin of freewill and what it means. For this discussion, we must determine whether we were ever really intended to have freewill choice. I believe it is a misnomer actually, for the will in bondage to sin is not free at all. When we discuss freedom, it is in light of doing the Father's Will that the will is truly free and 'to do otherwise' is a result of the fall. "Not my will, by Thine..."
"Whoever would keep his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."

A Christian's paradigm is not independent self-will but immersion in the will of the Father. Free-will discussion will either mean independent self-will (sin) or will inline with His will depending how we choose to define it. OV tends to go with the former in discussion purposefully or incidentally and it is to be cautioned against.

 

[Lon]

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

You are going down a rabbit trail that is obfuscating and doesn't address the actual.
Regardless of whether God is obliged or not, the problem of evil is the discussion topic and you have not skirted the issue. OV doesn't escape the same problematics in discussion. For instance: "The God of Calvinism is...." becomes jibberish obfuscation when OV realizes that we are talking about 'when' not 'if.'

God sees evil as it is occuring by OV standards or before by tradional understanding. The only point where the question might be avoided is 'after the fact' but this isn't an OV stance, therefore you are in the same boat. Nothing is gained by rejecting foreknowledge in the OV.

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.

I have no idea where your second assumption comes from and lump it with the first into obfuscation. I don't mind you answering the question, but the point is you are giving an answer just as I do and it substantiates my claim that foreknowledge has nothing to do with the discussion. My post wasn't to elicit an address to the concerns, but show they are equal concerns no matter how you slice it up into theological camps. Oddly enough, I agree with you and that proves again that OV enters the same discussion and EDF isn't a factor in the question. How that becomes "I'm Okay, you're Okay" I don't know. My point is that EDF doesn't enter the conversation and therefore is uneccesary for the discussion and obfuscating with threads like "The God of Calvinism is..." Those are mindless wastes of time by folks who don't know any better. You've demonstrated here that you probably do (know better).

Let's clear the dross from our discussions. OVer's are the one's who bring up these obfuscating points like they somehow ellude the same questions. We can start a thread that says "The God of OV is..." and have the same obfuscation. My point is that EDF is not a factor to the problem of evil and OVer's should understand this and concur. We can talk about the supposed logical absurdity, but it is erroneaos to attribute EDF with the problem of evil. Again, I don't believe OV has a major stake in the EDF discussion other than the logical problem. I do address that below.

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

Repeatedly, OV confuses Foreknowledge with determinism. There definitely are coincidal extrapolations, but one must not always be the other. I have no foreknowledge but predictive based on the past and our universal laws and physics.
This isn't foreknowledge by definition, it is predictive and repetitive.
I 'predicted' the Giants would win the superbowl. I had no way of actually knowing.

We don't have innate foreknowledge. What we know for certain about future comes from God given in His Word.

God has foreknowledge. Having your cake and eating it to in this case means that you play the determinism factor on His foreknowledge, but you should understand the logical problems on your side of the fence: God determines, and therefore decretively knows future. The Calvinist stance agrees, but I see this as coincidal rather than definitive of foreknowledge.
"You 'might' (will) deny me 3 times before the rooster crows." Such a statement is either decretive with no alteration possible OR it is a predictive guess. OV is inconsistent in it's assertation of which is which when the answer counts and therefore is illogical in the finger-pointing to traditional stances.

God is never wrong or mistaken.

 

[Lon]

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?

When He told Peter "You will deny me three times" EDF is set in stone for me. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either God made an accurate statement or He was possibly wrong. You seem to think God flings statements out there that leave Him vulnerable to falsehoods. This to me is what is at stake: God is either truthful, accurate, 'very smart,' and always right; or He is not.

EDF defines the perfect, right, accurate nature of God. OV has a Sander's defined God who can be wrong and make mistakes. Though most OVer's distance themselves from this statement, Sanders accurately takes the OV logic to its end result and conclusion: God, in order to be relational, must risk being wrong and mistaken. This is unacceptable theology as an alternative to EDF and no quarter can be given. An omnicompetent God in this scenario isn't omnicompetent for He cannot avoid the possibility of mistake. Once you make a mistake, you are incompetent (lacking power to act with...effectiveness). You have little at stake in denying or accepting EDF, but my theology rests on it as cornerstone.

 

[Adamhart]

This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 1

Which at the time of this posting had 6,788 replies and almost 74,000 views! yet because of the size of the thread it had grown sluggish therefore we shut it down and opened part 2 here!

Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

The future.... is it completely settled in advance or open to an extent?

Settled. I'll explain later.

 

[themuzicman]

When He told Peter "You will deny me three times" EDF is set in stone for me. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either God made an accurate statement or He was possibly wrong. You seem to think God flings statements out there that leave Him vulnerable to falsehoods. This to me is what is at stake: God is either truthful, accurate, 'very smart,' and always right; or He is not.

Give me a break, Lon. We've been through this. There are literally an infinite number of ways that this prophecy could have been fulfilled. Given group dynamics and the state of Peter's heart, God could be certain that this would happen without knowing the exact way in which it would occur.

EDF defines the perfect, right, accurate nature of God. OV has a Sander's defined God who can be wrong and make mistakes. Though most OVer's distance themselves from this statement, Sanders accurately takes the OV logic to its end result and conclusion: God, in order to be relational, must risk being wrong and mistaken. This is unacceptable theology as an alternative to EDF and no quarter can be given. An omnicompetent God in this scenario isn't omnicompetent for He cannot avoid the possibility of mistake. Once you make a mistake, you are incompetent (lacking power to act with...effectiveness). You have little at stake in denying or accepting EDF, but my theology rests on it as cornerstone.

The only reason that OVers distance themselves is that CVers equivocate on that term, rather than understanding what Sanders means, and most OVers just don't want to deal with the intellectual dishonesty.

The fact is that if God has EDF, then He's the author and cause of evil. That's not how my bible describes God.

Muz

 

[Adamhart]

:TomO:

Lee is also wondering still, how God knows that only a remnant will be saved, and then later, all Israel.

How do you know what God knows?

 

[Lon]

Give me a break, Lon. We've been through this. There are literally an infinite number of ways that this prophecy could have been fulfilled. Given group dynamics and the state of Peter's heart, God could be certain that this would happen without knowing the exact way in which it would occur.

The exact way? Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Literally an infinite number of ways? Your OV stance is scrambling here. I can't give a break when it is so clear. Jesus said it was the truth. Go figure.

The only reason that OVers distance themselves is that CVers equivocate on that term, rather than understanding what Sanders means, and most OVers just don't want to deal with the intellectual dishonesty.

The fact is that if God has EDF, then He's the author and cause of evil. That's not how my bible describes God.

Muz

Intellectual dishonesty? Give me the break. It is what Sanders said word for word.
God is sometimes mistaken and is sometimes wrong. How can I be dishonest with such a statement? Sanders is still correct, the OV taken to the logical conclusion believes exactly this. "Nobody's perfect" and apparently not God either. Very smart has plenty of room for mistakes. Brilliant people make them all the time, but God isn't just 'very smart' He is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes but this is where the rubber meets the road. No traditional theist is going to call that a logical belief. Your trade-off theology asks for way too much concession on scriptural truths. God does not give up relation in His perfection. It is the standard of relationship, not man-defined, but rising to God defined parameter. Relationship in this case is a two-way street when we recognize we are the one's who need to change, not God. We need to recapture our original design to be in His will, not our freely chosen mess of determinisms.

 

[Lon]

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.

It is saying that "The God of Calvinism is..." becomes meaningless. If God sees at the time of the incident, nothing is gained by OV other than saying "God knew beforehand and let it happen (ordination)." But it is no different than saying, "God watched it happen and didn't stop it (ordination). Same thing.

The future to God is both open and settled.

This has a totally random extrapolation. OV by definition says 'open' with nothing really settled or Open View is a misnomer for a theological stance.

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.

Think a little more deeply here. If God knows at the time of the event (and He surely does) the problem of evil is still in question. It makes no difference 'when' God knew as long as it coincides with the event. In OV, God still watches the attrocity and doesn't intervene. Now, read your statement below:

The question does not even apply to the OV.

Illusion, it certainly does apply or you haven't thought about this hard enough or are being dishonest (I believe the former).

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

Yes you can. Foreknowledge accounts for all determinisms regardless of who willed it. I've repeatedly explained this and what is perfectly clear and makes proper sense seems to elude the OV mindset. What you are calling 'freewill' I am seeing as bondage to sin. The will is either inline with the Father or inline with mammon. We continually will need to discuss what we mean by freewill for we will define it either as bondage to Christ's will or bondage to sin.

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

God ordains. Settled is a bit of a misconception or gloss over statement. We are not so much concerned about a 'settled' future, but one that is known intimately by God (EDF). OV tends to try to shoe-horn us into the hyperview and it isn't accurate. Ordaining is allowing things to happen and it falls within the parameter of the wheat/tare story. God allows so His own are not uprooted or destroyed. I believe the world goes on it's way by His grace and concern for His elect. There are two ways of looking at the scenario, one that logically fits with scriptures that God knows the future accurately (foreknowledge by definition). The other assumes the future isn't knowable and builds a paradigm on logic that rejects the notion. The logical contradiction occurs when you try to shoe-horn us into 'how' God knows and the implications of that knowledge. I do not believe your will and foreknowledge are at odds with each other logically.

 

[lee_merrill]

You're cuttin' some hay here, Mr. Lon! My, my... :thumb:

Blessings,
Lee <- Wishes he could write so clearly

 

[themuzicman]

The exact way? Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Literally an infinite number of ways? Your OV stance is scrambling here. I can't give a break when it is so clear. Jesus said it was the truth. Go figure.

This looks more like a lack of a real answer than anything, Lon. We're talking about hundreds or even thousands of people in that area all having interactions which create a huge number of possible courses of the future.

And, since I DO believe in an omnipotent God, I'm pretty sure God can get a rooster to crow when He wants.

Do you?

Intellectual dishonesty? Give me the break. It is what Sanders said word for word.

And then you equivocate on what he means by "mistake".

God is sometimes mistaken and is sometimes wrong. How can I be dishonest with such a statement? Sanders is still correct, the OV taken to the logical conclusion believes exactly this. "Nobody's perfect" and apparently not God either. Very smart has plenty of room for mistakes. Brilliant people make them all the time, but God isn't just 'very smart' He is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes but this is where the rubber meets the road. No traditional theist is going to call that a logical belief. Your trade-off theology asks for way too much concession on scriptural truths. God does not give up relation in His perfection. It is the standard of relationship, not man-defined, but rising to God defined parameter. Relationship in this case is a two-way street when we recognize we are the one's who need to change, not God. We need to recapture our original design to be in His will, not our freely chosen mess of determinisms.

And this is the very equivocation I'm talking about. Sanders doesn't mean that God is mistaken in that His wisdom fails or that His plans don't come to be or that His prophecies don't happen.

If you want an example go to Jeremiah 3:6-7. God thinks that Israel will return, and Israel doesn't. God is mistaken about what effect His actions will have on the nation of Israel. Did God err? No. God acted rightly and righeously, and Israel did not respond to Him. Is God imperfect? No, God was holy in his actions. God did not need to change, Israel did. But Israel did not.

And it is this kind of mis-portrayal of Sanders that makes this discussion difficult.

Muz

 

[Lon]

This looks more like a lack of a real answer than anything, Lon. We're talking about hundreds or even thousands of people in that area all having interactions which create a huge number of possible courses of the future.

And, since I DO believe in an omnipotent God, I'm pretty sure God can get a rooster to crow when He wants.

Do you?

Of course, the difference however, is that I see the possibility of nondeterminitive foreknowledge and you do not. Specifically, this is where OV makes a mistake in pigeon-holing the traditional stance. I believe the rooster had a will to crow therefore God didn't need to make it crow. It crows because He made it that way and He knew beforehand that it would. He tells Peter it is the truth. That isn't an educated 'very smart' guess, is it? You have to scramble to make that statement impotent "I tell you the truth..."

And then you equivocate on what he means by "mistake".

I do not. God cannot be omnicompetent if He makes mistakes. The mark of the successful is the ability to overcome failure, but it is error to believe this is how God accomplishes His will. You are reading into scripture to believe He is ever caught surprised or uncertain about expectations. You bring up a verse shortly that I will address and show that you are deducing rather than inducing the message.

And this is the very equivocation I'm talking about. Sanders doesn't mean that God is mistaken in that His wisdom fails or that His plans don't come to be or that His prophecies don't happen.

If you want an example go to Jeremiah 3:6-7. God thinks that Israel will return, and Israel doesn't. God is mistaken about what effect His actions will have on the nation of Israel. Did God err? No. God acted rightly and righeously, and Israel did not respond to Him. Is God imperfect? No, God was holy in his actions. God did not need to change, Israel did. But Israel did not.

And it is this kind of mis-portrayal of Sanders that makes this discussion difficult.

Muz

How has God made a mistake or been wrong then? I know Omnicompetent means He can work with anything, and I agree, but I believe His every move to be perfect. Again, in a chess game, even a master can make a mistake (rarely), but I don't believe any move God makes is ever wrong or mistaken. Again, as I understand the OV position, I am not equivocating. I do not believe it accurate or possible for God to be wrong or make a mistake.

Jeremiah 3:6-7

The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

To read this as hinting toward a mistake is problematic. God said 'return' and they did not. There is no hint that He was surprised or didn't know the outcome.

As in Isaiah 5:2-4, you read into it that God was mistaken in His expectation as He is caught unaware. I find the deductive reasoning counter-intuitive and strained.

As I first read through my Bible as a teen, I was like: "No way! Are they really this dense? Are they really this stiff-necked?" When I came to the Isaiah passage, it was intuitive for me to understand their history of rebellion. I was not surprised they had turned by the time I got to Isaiah. Their history was redundant, ad nausium. By the time Isaiah wrote this by the Spirit's guidance, I cannot believe God surprised at poor grapes. It is counter-intuitive to their continual outcome and I don't believe God the eternal optimist (nor pessimist). He sees accurately, specifically, and correctly. What we see is that sin is against the reasonable and logical. I walk away from that scripture with a totally different sense than you. I see that sin is entirely unreasonable and incorrectable and marvel anew at the cross where sin is effectively dealt with from the foundations of the world. To see this passage any other way is a detriment to the cross. God knew all along His plans. Isaiah is the journey toward the cross. God gives the perplexing dilemma of sin in the grapes analogy, but Isaiah is all about the cross. You and I should not stop at chapter 5-10. Chapter 11 is all about redemption. God was not done with His sour grapes. He knew all along what would make good grapes. He knew all along what He had to reveal. I see God as more than a master chessman. He is unfolding a carefully laid plan of redemption in the O.T. Furthermore, He knows exactly what will finally produce the grapes He desires. He is not caught surprised or unaware. He is not haphazardly working out a plan in hopes it will work. He is unfolding a divine story and masterplan that is perfect.

Isaiah 11

1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of power,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD -

3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;

4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.

 

[RobE]

Freewill in the OV discussion doesn't change anything, for God sees as things are happening. This logically means that foreknowledge is no significant factor in the problem with evil discussion. The problem of evil is as much a factor for OVers as anyone else. The question: when does God know evil is happening?
The answer: either before or during are equally problematic, so again OV escapes nothing and the discussion of evil has no gaining ground in OV.

The way I interpret it, the OV loses ground in this argument. In the classic perspective where God foreknows good will come from evil, the OV position is impotent.

According to the OV, God allows evil for no greater purpose than the hope of some non-determined outcome(hopefully good).

Traditional Christianity would state that God allows evil for a foreknown, certain, and good outcome.

This would seem to make the problem theodicy a bit more severe for the OV.

Rob

 

[Clete]

In the OV, God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him.

Yeah, RobE is right, the idea that people actually have to make a choice in order to be able to love anyone, including God, must surely be completely impotent garbage.

There is no theodicy problem in the Open View at all. In fact, the issue of theodicy is one of the primary reasons the OV makes sense!

How can any of you stand to read Rob's abject stupidity?!

 

[Lon]

The way I interpret it, the OV loses ground in this argument. In the classic perspective where God foreknows good will come from evil, the OV position is impotent.

According to the OV, God allows evil for no greater purpose than the hope of some non-determined outcome(hopefully good).

Traditional Christianity would state that God allows evil for a foreknown, certain, and good outcome.

This would seem to make the problem theodicy a bit more severe for the OV.

Rob

Agree. Despite Clete's explanation, it is still built upon mistakes and rather haphazard. God's plans become contingent to the 'best we can do' rather than 'all things work for good.'

The outcome is based on making the best of a situation rather than a perfect plan of redemption unfolding.

Lest I misconstrue, OV believes God has no ability to do other than making the best out of a situation because conditions are unknowable. If there is another logical explanation, I'm unaware of it from the OV corner.

 

[godrulz]

The way I interpret it, the OV loses ground in this argument. In the classic perspective where God foreknows good will come from evil, the OV position is impotent.

According to the OV, God allows evil for no greater purpose than the hope of some non-determined outcome(hopefully good).

Traditional Christianity would state that God allows evil for a foreknown, certain, and good outcome.

This would seem to make the problem theodicy a bit more severe for the OV.

Rob

What good comes from the rape and murder of an infant?! You blur the distinction between heinous evil and holiness if you think all evil can be mitigated. Jesus opposes evil and never affirms it as good or God's will. Just because God can mitigate much evil does not mean he desires or intends it for a higher good.

Traditional Christianity has a variety of views on this. You are giving a Catholic or Calvinistic view, not a view held by all Church Fathers or denominations.

Your theodicy is more problematic in that it makes God responsible for evil. The OT view calls a spade a spade and reminds us of issues such as free will and love, not omnicausality (indefensible).

 

[godrulz]

Agree. Despite Clete's explanation, it is still built upon mistakes and rather haphazard. God's plans become contingent to the 'best we can do' rather than 'all things work for good.'

The outcome is based on making the best of a situation rather than a perfect plan of redemption unfolding.

Lest I misconstrue, OV believes God has no ability to do other than making the best out of a situation because conditions are unknowable. If there is another logical explanation, I'm unaware of it from the OV corner.

Possibilities are knowable. Don't underestimate God's infinite intelligence (not knowing a non-existent future is not a handicap for an omnicompetent God).

A risk-free model of sovereignty is a deterministic one and compromises love, freedom, relationship, and makes God responsible for evil. Sanders "The God who risks" upholds self-evident concepts without attributing evil to a holy God. God is able to respond to any contingency. An omnicausal view actually makes God insecure and impotent if this is the only way He can govern (The Matrix model; blueprint vs warfare theodicy).

 

[RobE]

What good comes from the rape and murder of an infant?!

The point is that God allows it for a reason in my way of thinking. In your way of thinking why does God allow it? Is it for the following?

Clete: Yeah, RobE is right, the idea that people actually have to make a choice in order to be able to love anyone, including God, must surely be completely impotent garbage.​

If so, then I agree. Furthermore, I'm able to state without pause that God will bring good out of what was meant for evil. Are you able to say the same?

You blur the distinction between heinous evil and holiness if you think all evil can be mitigated.

Christ did just that!

Jesus opposes evil and never affirms it as good or God's will. Just because God can mitigate much evil does not mean he desires or intends it for a higher good.

Sure it does. Evil is a bi-product of free will. Another product of free will is love. In order to achieve the later, we all agree He allows the former.

Traditional Christianity has a variety of views on this. You are giving a Catholic or Calvinistic view, not a view held by all Church Fathers or denominations.

Are you speaking of the Catholic church fathers or did you have other church fathers in mind?

Your theodicy is more problematic in that it makes God responsible for evil.

Prove it or quit believing it.

Your theodicy is more problematic in that it makes God responsible for evil.

How so?

Your theodicy is more problematic in that it makes God responsible for evil.

I've heard the claim, but haven't seen the proof.

If you're claiming that God made everything and is therefore responsible for what happens, then how is your position different?

If you're claiming that God gave man free will, and man does evil; then how is your position different?

If you're claiming that God created foreknowing evil would occur and that makes Him responsible, then how is your position where God stands by and allows it to happen different?