ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

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.

The perfect plan of redemption has already been unfolded and accomplished flawlessly.

Ephesians 3:8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship[a] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.​

Notice the past tense used in this passage.

 

[Nang]

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

Evil (natural calamities, and all spiritual damnations) prove to be Godly judgments against those who do not love Him.

Nang

 

[RobE]

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.

Thank you for affirming my position. See, I've always said, "God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him". We are in agreement. So let's quit making false accusations claiming that the ov is the only minority sect which doesn't make God into an evil-doer. It's always been a ridiculous assertion by many around here.

 

[Clete]

Thank you for affirming my position. See, I've always said, "God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him". We are in agreement. So let's quit making false accusations claiming that the ov is the only minority sect which doesn't make God into an evil-doer. It's always been a ridiculous assertion by many around here.

I hate you more than any one else I can think of.

You don't know how to do anything but lie.

Why did I think it would be worth posting here again?

I will never post on this thread again, unless and until you are permanently banned from this site.

 

[Nang]

Thank you for affirming my position. See, I've always said, "God allows evil because He wants for it to be possible for people to love Him". We are in agreement. So let's quit making false accusations claiming that the ov is the only minority sect which doesn't make God into an evil-doer. It's always been a ridiculous assertion by many around here.

*Emphasis mine, and the exact reason I am not a Molinist and refuse to agree with any of the Molinist hypothetical.

God does not need to allow evil to receive love.

God is complete in love amongst the Godhead. Father loves Son, Son loves Spirit, Spirit loves Father and Son.

And it is this Godly love that is shared with an elect humanity, chosen in Christ.

Theodicy has all to do with God eliminating evil . . .and nothing to do with gaining love from his evil creatures.

Nang

 

[Lon]

The perfect plan of redemption has already been unfolded and accomplished flawlessly.

Ephesians 3:8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship[a] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.​

Notice the past tense used in this passage.

I was talking previously with Muz about the unfolding of His plan through the OT. Paul also said, "not that I have already arrived." While I agree the cross is accomplished, I want to make clear I was talking specifically to the Old Testament issue from the previous quote (understandable that you would correct here, however, not having most likely read it).

On the other hand, while the work of the cross is accomplished, He is ever making intercession for us and that is an ongoing work. The cross is the cure, the continuing work is the application and treatment. I tend to believe your theological stance is the same on this particular.

 

[Lon]

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).

Incorrect. You do this alot. You attribute erroneaus ideas to Catholicism and Calvinism. AMR has called you on the carpet for similar yet you continue to do this.

At this point I have to believe your are intentionally or unintentionally prejudice.

If intentionally, I'll note the bias as it continues to surface as purposeful and bigotted.

If not, you really need to deal with this prejudiced view. Few in either Catholicism or Calvinism would ascend to your conclusion about the existence of evil. Rapes and murders occur when a nation turns from God's principles and standards. I believe the cycle is the social result of sin and reminscent of Judges in cyclical pattern. We have barely been a nation for 200 years. The Judges cycle pattern was over a 400 year period.

If God cares about a sparrow, He certainly is aware and hurt over every attrocity. This however doesn't mean anything concerning EDF.

'When' God knows isn't ever the factoring question, while and before are equally hard to deal with when we ask the more pertinent question: "Why?"

Don't change the question. It is the same for OV and me and it is the real question needing address. God has given a few reasons. One is for the sake and love of the wheat and that all are brought in. Another is 'till the full measure.' I do not presume to know all of God's business here, but I do know evil isn't His desire or intent, and yep, I'm Calvinist. 'Why' is the question, not 'when.'

 

[RobE]

*Emphasis mine, and the exact reason I am not a Molinist and refuse to agree with any of the Molinist hypothetical.

God does not need to allow evil to receive love.

God is complete in love amongst the Godhead. Father loves Son, Son loves Spirit, Spirit loves Father and Son.

And it is this Godly love that is shared with an elect humanity, chosen in Christ.

Theodicy has all to do with God eliminating evil . . .and nothing to do with gaining love from his evil creatures.

Nang

Quite right. Love exists within God, but how might man learn to love. This was the point. I didn't mean to suggest love doesn't exist without evil, only that man who doesn't know how to love must learn. Learning requires an ability which might choose to reject love.

How've you been Nang?

 

[RobE]

I hate you more than any one else I can think of.

You don't know how to do anything but lie.

Why did I think it would be worth posting here again?

I will never post on this thread again, unless and until you are permanently banned from this site.

Just for the record, Clete: I love you and would ask you to repent of this 'open' idiocy you have adopted. It's confusing your entire theology.

You have not yet gone down the road many others here have placed their foot upon. A road which diminishes God's authority and power. So far you seem to only assert that He has limited knowledge which leads to mistakes. You're respected here and many will follow your lead. Remember that respect has a responsibility with it. A responsibility one might be held accountable for.

The perception that God's thoughts and plans might be mistaken will cause many to stumble on the narrow road.

Your Brother in Christ,
Rob Mauldin

 

[nonNicene]

This is a funny thread. This is the first I have seen this thread and it already has 422 pages so I can imagine that somebody has already covered what I am about to say but here goes anyways.
God is not subject to time. Time was made for us. God knows EVERYTHING, so that would by default mean that God knows all of our futures. He knows the end from the beginning.

The problem with this idea, of God not knowing the complete future, is that when something happens in our life we cease to see God in that issue and that it is just randomly acuring. When we know that ALL THINGS are working for the good.

The bible says that he would not put more on us than we could bare. The trials and tests we face as day to day Christians are put on us at the acceptance of God. Not a suprise to God. And in the same note when something good happens, is that just randomly acurring to? Every good gift and every perfect thing comes from the Father of lights.

God knew us from the foundation of the world.
To think otherwise lessens his powers as God.

 

[Lon]

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).

Your definition is contradictory: "Possibilities are knowable...not knowing a non-existent future..." (possibility)

A contradictory risk model is a problematic alternative. When the basic rejection premise against traditional views is based on logical contradictions, another logical contradiction isn't prefered.

The apparent contradiction actually does not exist in the classic view. God is not responsible for evil but allowing evil for His purposes. We are given a few good reasons why evil exists like 'unwilling that any should perish.' I don't believe God has to explain Himself as sin is our own dilemma and freewill is the blame. God gave us this kind of will, but it is misused in sinning and in bondage so no longer free. It is the cross that gives us freedom to be what we were designed and intended to be.

 

[lee_merrill]

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?

Certainly--why do Open Theists not see this? P'raps they need a more, erm, open mind.

And I admire your graciousness with Clete, Rob.

Blessings,
Lee <- Almost posted a tart reply

 

[godrulz]

God knew us from the foundation of the world.
To think otherwise lessens his powers as God.

Origen and Mormons believe we preexisted as spirit children. This is a false belief. Do not confuse intelligence, omnipotence, and omniscience. We are not eternal like God. We did not exist before we were born in this century. There is no evidence that God knows a nothing, a logical absurdity. He knew the Psalmist as he was formed in the womb, not from the foundation of the world.

God does know a corporate group (Israel/Church) from the beginning, but not which individuals will eventually be part of the group. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is imcompatible with self-evident freedom. You might want to get up to speed on this debate before you make simplistic assertions.

 

[lee_merrill]

Origen and Mormons believe we preexisted as spirit children. This is a false belief.

Yes, and yet God knew Cyrus before he was born, did he not?

Isaiah 44:28 Who says of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."

There is no evidence that God knows a nothing, a logical absurdity. He knew the Psalmist as he was formed in the womb, not from the foundation of the world.

How then did God know all the days appointed for him before any of them came to be?

God does know a corporate group (Israel/Church) from the beginning, but not which individuals will eventually be part of the group.

The problem is that groups will be made of individuals, so knowing none of a given group will repent and give God glory, requires definite foreknowledge of individual decisions.

Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

As does knowledge of an opposite response:

Revelation 11:13 ... and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is imcompatible with self-evident freedom.

And just definite foreknowledge too? Such as knowing all Israel will be saved.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. May I ask that you not pick the easy points and skip the more difficult ones? thanks...

 

[patman]

This is a funny thread. This is the first I have seen this thread and it already has 422 pages so I can imagine that somebody has already covered what I am about to say but here goes anyways.
God is not subject to time. Time was made for us. God knows EVERYTHING, so that would by default mean that God knows all of our futures. He knows the end from the beginning.

The problem with this idea, of God not knowing the complete future, is that when something happens in our life we cease to see God in that issue and that it is just randomly acuring. When we know that ALL THINGS are working for the good.

The bible says that he would not put more on us than we could bare. The trials and tests we face as day to day Christians are put on us at the acceptance of God. Not a suprise to God. And in the same note when something good happens, is that just randomly acurring to? Every good gift and every perfect thing comes from the Father of lights.

God knew us from the foundation of the world.
To think otherwise lessens his powers as God.

Hello nonNicene,

Welcome to TOL! This thread is a great topic to get started!

In case you haven't read my participation in this thread, I will let you know I am an open theist. It sounds like you are new to the idea, and therefore probably very quick to dismiss the idea. I hope you will at least open your mind to the idea, tho. I have found it to be the most scripturally accurate theology.

Here is your proofs:

"God is not subject to time. Time was made for us. God knows EVERYTHING, so that would by default mean that God knows all of our futures. He knows the end from the beginning. "

So you seem to say 1. God made time. 2. God made time for us. 3. God knows everything, even time. Therefore 4, God knows the end from the beginning.

The entire argument is based on #1. God made the future, but who said the future "exists?" You will not find any scripture to support this idea. You will also not find scripture that says time is a "thing" as in a part of creation.

Scripture says a lot about God making heaven, earth, stars, the moon, the sun, man, animals, ocean, land, birds, fish, and even women! But no where does it mention time.

Have a look. Try http://www.biblegateway.com to search for it.

:thumb:

The first thing I would point you to is to consider the idea that maybe we are reading the "exhaustive future knowledge" idea into scripture instead of out of it. Maybe then you could consider that it is an assumption.:thumb:

 

[patman]

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:

Lon,

Ordination proves my point about what you must believe as a settled theist. You try to make it sound nicer by saying "when God knew the fall would happen has nothing to do with the fall from happening," but even that is untrue.

If God knew the future perfectly, everything is as it is because he foresaw it, created it, and therefore ordained it.

My definition of freewill is the ability to freely chose God or to freely reject him. It is this love that allows this freedom. However, with ordination at the level settled theist assert, freedom to choose God is impossible. Instead, God chose who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell based on his own imagination.

Grace has nothing to do with it. It is all God's imagination that determined who would "appear" to ask for salvation. It is plan, not salvation.

But anyway.

I do not understand why you guys use the argument that "when he knew is irrelevant." If God can do anything, and he has complete and utter future knowledge, every action he takes or doesn't take with us, at the creation, determines the setting for the whole world.

God could have made the tree slightly taller so Eve couldn't reach it, but Adam could. How significantly could that have altered the future? Who knows? Yet these very setting variables could effect the future forever, and according to you, God foresaw what the variables would lead to. Therefore, we have no freewill. We are just following a program.

Not only are we a program, we are foreordained to follow it either to our predestined hell, or heaven, not of our will, but his.

Yet Scripture is pretty clear he wills everyone to go to heaven...

 

[patman]

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

Yes... if by 'allows' you mean 'does not prevent.' But according to your "SETTLED" theology, God ordained those abortions and thereby created the evil.

I am in agreement with the scripture you presented, and even your thoughts on them. I thought you knew I rejected that God created evil? It is my assessment of non-open theology that it puts God in the position of creating evil.

Yet I do not believe you can separate the creation from the evil it has become. Of course, I lump it together, but I really refer to man. Man has become evil, and this scripture shows that.

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because man is evil, he has made the world evil. We are all guilty of sin, we all are evil, but God has redeemed those of us who use our freedom provided by the Cross to return to God.

But Settled Theism is illogical because it does not even allow for that freedom.

I was not aware I was "hung" on the word settled. You guys are so varied, I can't just say "you Calvinist" because some of you aren't. I can't call you "arminians" because not all of you are. But you are all settled theist... It is a short cut for saying "you all-future-knowledge-settled-future-freaks":cheers:

But anyway... anyway.

The very idea that the future is settled, even if it can be changed, screams that the future, even the changed parts, are ordained because God created it. If John Doe the 3rd's future is in hell, God created it that way.

And if John Doe the 3rd is a real person who wasn't given a real choice on where he wants to go, that is not loving... I consider it evil and cruel if he is a real person. If you stand behind the scripture you quoted, that God is now down with the "making evil" in creation,...thing,... you should become an open theist and just end it.

 

[themuzicman]

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, if in God's omniscience, He sees all possible futures leading to Peter denying Christ three times before a rooster crow, then it is truth, even if the fulfillment may happen in a large variety of ways.

Thus, it is TRUTH, even if there isn't just one way that it will happen.

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.

So, you're in opposition to Scripture. Fine. I'll stay with the bible.

Your issue is that you forget that there is another free will agent involved who is not omnicompetent, but fallen! God did everything rightly with respect to Israel, and thought they would return, but they did not.

I think you're stuck in that Calvinist determinist mindset, where man has no real say in what happens.

God didn't prophecy that Israel would return.

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.

That's because you consistently misunderstand "mistake." I can believe that you will become an OVT because of my argument, and I may make all the right statements, but if you don't, I was mistaken. Not because I made a mistake, but because you did.

Jeremiah 3:6-7



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.

Get a better translation:

Jer 3:I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.[/quote]

The KJV just isn't as good in translating this stuff.

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.

Well, you'll have to take that up with God, then. Keep in mind that the prophets aren't back to back in the chronology, and many have overlapping events.

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.

Let's not go refuting Scripture with Scripture, now. Jeremiah says what it says.

I don't have any issue with saying that God has His plans and knows (regardless of how individuals choose) how to fulfill them.

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.

Again, no issue with this. But that doesn't mean we can throw Jeremiah 3:6-7 out of the bible, or refute it by calling other contexts. Jeremiah 3:6-7 is what it is, on its own, inerrant and inspired.

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.

And which of these is God unable to accomplish through His omnipotence, omniscience, and just nature?

None.

Muz​

 

[themuzicman]

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.

Repeat after me:

God knows all possible futures, and knows how His actions and the actions of individuals in certain cases will limit what futures come about.

Since God knows all the possible courses of the future, He is able to guide us into those that work for good.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Evil (natural calamities, and all spiritual damnations) prove to be Godly judgments against those who do not love Him.

Nang

So, these things never happen to the Elect^tm?

Muz