ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

But you asked the question about why we should follow Him. I'm asking "what's a better alternative?" We follow God because He's God.

Again I must ask if God can be wrong, how can we trust in him and not be disappointed in any way? If we have no alternative, then we have no alternative, but that does not address the fact that Scripture says those who hope in God will not be disappointed or dismayed, period.

I'd say that most of mankind being condemned to eternal wrath is a loss from any perspective.

I agree, my point here was that it is better to have no disappointments in this life when obeying the Lord, even given that eternal life will follow.

Except that you've been reduced to having to say that you believe you'd be as wise as God, if God didn't have EDF. You're the one being absurd.

No, I'm asking whether we need to take what God says specifically so very seriously, if God can be mistaken. I'm not saying I would necessarily be wiser than God.

Human beings can do this. Group dynamics is something we study and people in groups do act in predictable manners, even if we do no know which individuals will make what choices.

But there is no certainty, is the point.

Marketing is based upon group dynamics. Are you saying that God isn't as able as advertising executives?

A reductio ad absurdum argument, excellent--and no, my point is that God says he knows there will be a remnant, that this is even his sentence on earth. But how can this be known, if free choices are unknowable?

And you already have your answer. Given a group of people exposed to the gospel in a way that appeals to their culture and history, some will respond.

What if Noah had gone after idols?

Why not just look for ourselves. I've already provided an exegesis that shows what "so" means, and how it impacts the text. Paul is working to save as many Jews as possible by preaching to the Gentile, because he knows they will come out of jealousy. Thus, as all the Gentiles that are coming have come in, in this way, all Israel will be saved. Those that aren't saved aren't part of the remnant which is now all Israel.

I again ask for you to show me this view in a commentary please.

Where does it refer to Israel's fullness?

It's in the context, which alas, you are manifestly ignoring.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Again I must ask if God can be wrong, how can we trust in him and not be disappointed in any way? If we have no alternative, then we have no alternative, but that does not address the fact that Scripture says those who hope in God will not be disappointed or dismayed, period.

Let's gain a little perspective, here, because I think you're starting to engage in some "scope creep" in using "wrong." If God says that He will do something, He will do it. If God promises something, it's going to happen. God only promises that which is within His power to deliver, and He does. It's not as though we cannot trust in what God promises, or that God fails in achieving His goals. He may be mistaken about things along the way, just as we see in Jeremiah 3:6-7, but God knew it was possible, and already know how He'd still accomplish His goal.

Think about this: Do you think Adam and Eve's decision to eat from the tree was disappointing and dismaying? I certainly think so.

Do you think child rape is disappointing and dismaying? I would say that's a huge understatement.

Yet, these things happen. But they are human failures, not God's. In the same way, when God draws Israel, He expects that they will return, but they do not. That's not God's failure, but Israel's. They failed to fulfill God's expectation.

So, how can we trust God, if He can be mistaken about free will? God already knows all the possible outcomes, and knows what He will do to accomplish His purpose.

Why should we trust Him? Again, because He's GOD.

To be honest, Lee, if the reason you believe is that you think you'll never experience disappointment or dismay in life, you're in for a rough trip. Maybe you should read about the trials of the early church and ask whether they experienced disappointment and dismay.

The difference between you and me is that you claim that all this is God's will. I say that it's man's sin in rebellion against God's will.

I agree, my point here was that it is better to have no disappointments in this life when obeying the Lord, even given that eternal life will follow.

LOL... I hate to interject some reality, Lee, but for many Christians, disappointments, dismay, and persecution follow becoming a Christian. Adversity, as it were, brings purity. I'm sure both Paul and Peter say something of that sort.

No, I'm asking whether we need to take what God says specifically so very seriously, if God can be mistaken. I'm not saying I would necessarily be wiser than God.

We need to take what God says seriously because.. .Uhh... Uh.. He's GOD? Isn't that what faith is all about?

Are you saying that you're unwilling to put your faith in God, if God hasn't already fixed the whole of the past and future beforehand? That's a pretty weak faith.

But there is no certainty, is the point.

Ah, but in the right circumstance, with the right knowledge, there is. If you study statistics, you know that there is a certain % of error in any given test. Is it certain that when you run 100,000 parts in a given statistical model that each part won't be faulty? No, there's a 2% chance on each one. But will around 98,000 of them be good? Yes. That much is certain. We just can't know which 2,000 will be bad.

Human beings are a bit more complex than a stamping machine, but God is a bit more sophisticated in His knowledge, too. Statistically speaking, God knows about what percent will respond to the gospel of those He draws, and can be certain that around that number will respond, even if He doesn't know which ones.

A reductio ad absurdum argument, excellent--and no, my point is that God says he knows there will be a remnant, that this is even his sentence on earth. But how can this be known, if free choices are unknowable?

Group dynamics. Statistics. I know you don't like the answer, but there it is.

What if Noah had gone after idols?

God only know what His response would be. But He does know.

I again ask for you to show me this view in a commentary please.

I prefer to do my own thinking...

Muz

 

[godrulz]

I think Lee is getting hung up on a prooftext and has a logical issue somewhere. His thought is not a common objection to Open Theism, so I assume it is really not a big issue.

 

[themuzicman]

In order to make his point, he's trying to reduce God to be dumber than people. Maybe that's what he thinks God would be without EDF

Muz

 

[godrulz]

In order to make his point, he's trying to reduce God to be dumber than people. Maybe that's what he thinks God would be without EDF

Muz

God's infinite intelligence and omnicompetence is sufficient. EDF offers no providential advantage since one cannot change what is fixed in the future (no ability or EDF would be wrong).

EDF is only possible in a deterministic universe which God did not actualize. Introducing love, relationship, and freedom led to a voluntary limitation in possible knowledge (EDF).

 

[RobE]

I think Lee is getting hung up on a prooftext and has a logical issue somewhere. His thought is not a common objection to Open Theism, so I assume it is really not a big issue.

The issue is compatibalism. If God foreknows future free acts then foreknowledge is compatible with free will. Muz's answer below and your post above proves an inability to grasp the obvious within Lee's arguments. It isn't unexpected since it has remained uncomprehended for months now; even after being explicitly revealed on this thread.

In order to make his point, he's trying to reduce God to be dumber than people. Maybe that's what he thinks God would be without EDF

Muz

Perhaps, in Muz's view, God is equal in intelligence with people and is able to foreknow future free choices of individuals with certainty. We know many future free choices based on understanding behaviors, needs, compulsions, etc.... Why limit God to group dynamics. Might He understand the psychological aspects of His own creatures within creation?

First, we're talking, again, about group dynamics. If you understand the group, then you'll know how they'll react in general without knowing how any individual will choose.

With enough intelligence the actions of the individual might well be known without interfering with the individual's free will. It isn't Lee who is 'dumbing God down' here, it's open theism. After all, groups and their dynamics are created by indivual personalities.

By taking into account Muz's own ideas....

But there is no certainty, is the point.

Ah, but in the right circumstance, with the right knowledge, there is. If you study statistics, you know that there is a certain % of error in any given test. Is it certain that when you run 100,000 parts in a given statistical model that each part won't be faulty? No, there's a 2% chance on each one. But will around 98,000 of them be good? Yes. That much is certain. We just can't know which 2,000 will be bad.

....we might learn how intelligent God is. If He knows some group dynamics and some personal decisions; why would He be limited in understanding the other dynamics of groups or individuals?

 

[nonNicene]

God is God and he knows everything because he is God.
To say he knows less than the end from the beginning is just your own issues as a control freak. Furthermore this is a foolish and unlearned question and debate. Which can only gender strife and not edify the body of Christ.
God is a being that lives outside of time. Time is his creation for us to have, in our preglorified state, something to associate to.
So for us our actions and choices and problems that we come across we are subject to time and we see things as being our choice. We are not God.

 

[godrulz]

God is God and he knows everything because he is God.
To say he knows less than the end from the beginning is just your own issues as a control freak. Furthermore this is a foolish and unlearned question and debate. Which can only gender strife and not edify the body of Christ.
God is a being that lives outside of time. Time is his creation for us to have, in our preglorified state, something to associate to.
So for us our actions and choices and problems that we come across we are subject to time and we see things as being our choice. We are not God.

God knows everything knowable; God can only do what is doable. To not know a nothing or to not be able to do contradictory things is not a limitation on omniscience or omnipotence.


It is also a wrong assumption to think God is timeless, eternal now simultaneity. He is from everlasting to everlasting experiencing an endless duration of time.

This debate has practical implications. We should also desire to worship Him in spirit and truth as He really is.

The issue is really about creation, not His great attributes which we all affirm, but understand differently.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God knows everything knowable; God can only do what is doable. To not know a nothing or to not be able to do contradictory things is not a limitation on omniscience or omnipotence.


It is also a wrong assumption to think God is timeless, eternal now simultaneity. He is from everlasting to everlasting experiencing an endless duration of time.

This debate has practical implications. We should also desire to worship Him in spirit and truth as He really is.

The issue is really about creation, not His great attributes which we all affirm, but understand differently.

It is your birthday today, so I will let you get away with this nonsensical jibber-jabber. Robo-post assertions to your heart's content. Happy birthday, gr! :squint:

 

[godrulz]

It is your birthday today, so I will let you get away with this nonsensical jibber-jabber. Robo-post assertions to your heart's content. Happy birthday, gr! :squint:

His post was no more substantial than mine and equally assumptive. At least my ideas are correct:dunce:

It was to remind us that there are alternate views that are expanded on in my threads and academic literature. Should I post all the evidence in light of preceding pages and pages of OT topic?

 

[nonNicene]

Jesus says that before Abraham was "I AM"...He is still there.
Not subject to time.
We as humans are subject to time.

 

[godrulz]

Jesus says that before Abraham was "I AM"...He is still there.
Not subject to time.
We as humans are subject to time.

This Jehovahistic identity shows that Jesus is from everlasting to everlasting, the eternal God. It is not a proof text for or against timelessness vs endless time.

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed expressions about the eternal God.

Ps. 90:2 shows that He existed before creation, not that He lacked any sense of sequence/duration/succession (time) in His personal being (will, intellect, emotions require duration, even for the eternal God).

Ps. 102:27 says his years are without end (endless time, not timelessness).

In Revelation, time phrases (half hour, etc.) are used several times in eternity/heaven.

There are a variety of possible Christian theories on the nature of time/eternity (godly philosophy since not explicitly resolved in Scripture; timelessness is Platonic, Augustinian, not biblical).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-Ganssle/dp/0830815511

(click search inside for contents)

How is that for robot posts? Sorry I don't have time to think for him and spoon feed him. I am sick as a dog, and its my berfday.

 

[lee_merrill]

[God] may be mistaken about things along the way, just as we see in Jeremiah 3:6-7, but God knew it was possible, and already know how He'd still accomplish His goal.

But the Open View says God may not accomplish every goal, is the problem. So then how can we hope in God and experience no disappointment whatsoever, in the areas where we trust in him and diligently do what he tells us?

So, how can we trust God, if He can be mistaken about free will? God already knows all the possible outcomes, and knows what He will do to accomplish His purpose.

My question is not about God's purposes, though. My question is about God's advice in a given situation, which the Open View says may be wrong.

Why should we trust Him? Again, because He's GOD.

Certainly, I'm only wondering if this may entail some disappointment.

To be honest, Lee, if the reason you believe is that you think you'll never experience disappointment or dismay in life, you're in for a rough trip.

Did I say I expected no disappointment at all in life, though? What I am asking is if we trust in God's advice, and diligently obey, if this may result in less than the best outcome.

If so, we need not take what God says specifically to do, so very seriously.

Is it certain that when you run 100,000 parts in a given statistical model that each part won't be faulty? No, there's a 2% chance on each one. But will around 98,000 of them be good? Yes. That much is certain.

Actually, there is always a probability that you will get any given result, some approximate number being usable is not certain.

God only know what His response would be. But He does know.

If Noah had not had faith, what possible response on God's part could have preserved a remnant?

Unless, of course, you are one who believes God ordains who is saved, that this depends entirely on his choice, not man's.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

Define what you mean by "apart from His will." It's certainly a phrase that can be equivocated.

Muz

I'll let you. I agree with your concern and it is needed for this discussion because of precisely this.

We have to come to terms with His will and our will.

The theology terms are ordination, will, etc.

The problem of evil is just as much a part of the OV world as it is any other because we are Christians and cannot fathom God allowing attrocity.

God said "Let the weeds grow with the wheat." His concern is for the wheat. The wheat next to the weeds doesn't ever produce fruit. Some are choked out. The real scenario is playing out as we watch and see in the news every day. God hates the weeds and their works. In one sense, I'm with OV. God is making the best out of a horrific event (enemy planting weeds among all the wheat). God could have plowed the field for a 'do-over' scrapping it until next season. He could pull weeds regardless of what happens to some wheat and have a full harvest yet. His concern isn't sociological as it is individual in His decision. The analogy He gives doesn't convey all the truths we are looking at here, but it does convey the plan for dealing with the dilemma. In this scenario, we can offer up all kinds of ideas: Bugs that only eat weeds, chemical sprays, pulling weeds so the damage is minimized.

As we look to the actual circumstance concerning our world and evil, we have similar ideas. The problem with analogy is that it doesn't get to the level you and I have to try to get to just to get an inkling of understanding. In Kings, some of the wicked horrific kings had righteous sons. Wiping them out would eliminate the righteous coming after. Weeds never produce wheat, so with that part of the analogy it doesn't fit.

What we do know, is that God is more than predictive with Josiah 300 years before he is born. I have to believe God knows ahead of time what is going to happen whether OV chooses to accept it or not.

 

[themuzicman]

But the Open View says God may not accomplish every goal, is the problem. So then how can we hope in God and experience no disappointment whatsoever, in the areas where we trust in him and diligently do what he tells us?

Incorrect. God accomplishes every goal. OVT does not deny that. OVT says that God knows all the possible ways to accomplish the ends He sets out to do, and how His actions will accomplish them. This is a straw man.

My question is not about God's purposes, though. My question is about God's advice in a given situation, which the Open View says may be wrong.

I disagree entirely. God knows what possibilities arise out of our potential decisions, and thus would know which path would bring the best outcomes. You're trying to strip God of His present knowledge, His wisdom, and His concern for those who call upon Him.

Certainly, I'm only wondering if this may entail some disappointment.

I think Adam and Even were disappointed. I'm pretty sure that Bathsheba was disappointed. Disappointment as a result of sin is part of being fallen. The only part of this that has anything to do with OVT is that OVT is the only view that puts this disappointment at the feet of men and not God.

Did I say I expected no disappointment at all in life, though? What I am asking is if we trust in God's advice, and diligently obey, if this may result in less than the best outcome.

I think we can safely say that the fall is less than the best outcome of creation. Again, the key is that "less than the best outcome" is the fault of mankind, and not God.

Yes, I know that some Calvinists and even Molinists say that this is the best God could do. I guess I have a higher view of God than that.

If so, we need not take what God says specifically to do, so very seriously.

Again, you're attempting to strip God of His present knowledge, His wisdom, and His compassion. Of course we ought to take what God says seriously. Who else are you going to put your faith in?

Actually, there is always a probability that you will get any given result, some approximate number being usable is not certain.

And the only results we can certainly expect are those that God brings about and prophesies: Salvation, Resurrection, Eternal life.

If Noah had not had faith, what possible response on God's part could have preserved a remnant?

I find it hard to believe that you haven't found in your bible reading examples of those who were not serving God that were brought to believing in Him through extraordinary events. See Saul of Tarsus.

Unless, of course, you are one who believes God ordains who is saved, that this depends entirely on his choice, not man's.

That would mean that God's decretive and intentional will and purpose for creation included sending most of mankind to hell, and that it is God's will and purpose for creation for children to be raped, people to be murdered, and all evil to be perpetrated.

I don't find that to be biblical in the least.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I'll let you. I agree with your concern and it is needed for this discussion because of precisely this.

We have to come to terms with His will and our will.

The theology terms are ordination, will, etc.

The problem of evil is just as much a part of the OV world as it is any other because we are Christians and cannot fathom God allowing attrocity.

God said "Let the weeds grow with the wheat." His concern is for the wheat. The wheat next to the weeds doesn't ever produce fruit. Some are choked out. The real scenario is playing out as we watch and see in the news every day. God hates the weeds and their works. In one sense, I'm with OV. God is making the best out of a horrific event (enemy planting weeds among all the wheat). God could have plowed the field for a 'do-over' scrapping it until next season. He could pull weeds regardless of what happens to some wheat and have a full harvest yet. His concern isn't sociological as it is individual in His decision. The analogy He gives doesn't convey all the truths we are looking at here, but it does convey the plan for dealing with the dilemma. In this scenario, we can offer up all kinds of ideas: Bugs that only eat weeds, chemical sprays, pulling weeds so the damage is minimized.

As we look to the actual circumstance concerning our world and evil, we have similar ideas. The problem with analogy is that it doesn't get to the level you and I have to try to get to just to get an inkling of understanding. In Kings, some of the wicked horrific kings had righteous sons. Wiping them out would eliminate the righteous coming after. Weeds never produce wheat, so with that part of the analogy it doesn't fit.

What we do know, is that God is more than predictive with Josiah 300 years before he is born. I have to believe God knows ahead of time what is going to happen whether OV chooses to accept it or not.

Given your use of Scripture, and it's introduction:

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field (my emphasis)​

How are you defining "the Kingdom of Heaven?"

Because, once upon a time, God DID wipe out the tares, saving the wheat. Perhaps you remember Noah?

Muz

 

[Nang]

Because, once upon a time, God DID wipe out the tares, saving the wheat. Perhaps you remember Noah?

Muz

Are you saying that all three of Noah's sons and their wives were "wheat?"

Hint: Deliverance is not alway salvific.

 

[themuzicman]

Are you saying that all three of Noah's sons and their wives were "wheat?"

Hint: Deliverance is not alway salvific.

I'm using Lon's use of the parable, not the proper one.

Are you saying that Noah didn't inherit eternal life?

Muz

 

[Lon]

I'm using Lon's use of the parable, not the proper one.

Are you saying that Noah didn't inherit eternal life?

Muz

Your theology is often knee-deep to a wade. You must think beyond your 'proofs' for these discussions. I prefer to travel a bit before hitting the cement wall, if I must.

You often are left scrambling after your ascertations. A few suggestions:

1)Try to be a bit less dogmatic in discussion, that way when the wallpaper is pulled down there is actually sheet rock, insulation, studs, and an outside wall behind your words (it is thought out and sustainable).

2)Use real building materials. I know you have some language helps and these are substantive for language, but you appear to be loosely tying them into your theological arguments and not seeing the big pictures on a lot of your reasoning and conclusions.

3)Do your homework. It isn't good to reject all tradition outright. There is a rich history on these doctrines that a superficial glance will not take care of. OV will 'never' be able to convince if all you see are your misconceptions about the traditional stances. You can argue that Greeks built my house, but all I am seeing is a very sturdy house, I don't really care 'who' built my house as it is a proper house of doctrine that stands up quite well and has for centuries.

4) Be gracious. When someone like Nang comes along behind you with a good refutation, it is wise to acknowledge the good argument. This isn't a game. It isn't 'who wins the debate.' That is too narrow for the existence of TOL. Either we are in this for truth or we are just playing semantic games. Keep the goal in mind always. It is always about Him and His truth or we are missing not only the big picture, but His presence and truth in these discussions. Our driving force is His glory, or nothing significant at all.

5) Look for the truths. You tend to throw babies out with your bathwater too often. You look for a reason to chuck the whole thing. If I were to do that, TOL would be history. You do not have to agree with the wheat and the tares leading to EDF discussion, but to say the analogy doesn't support the ideas I've presented is disingenuine.

The Noahic story is a different plan than the wheat tares analogy of what is presently going on. For this discussion I would bring in covenant and dispensational points. Both see God working differently and so should we.

What is your hang-up with the wheat/tares that I'm not seeing? Honestly, I don't know why you are taking this tack other than just to argue. I'm not seeing your point and this specifically is why the 5 suggestions. I'm trying to decide if you are just arguing to argue, if you have an OV concern, or if it truly is something substantial that I must address.

I'm endeavoring to be honest, forthright, and transparent here.

 

[lee_merrill]

Incorrect. God accomplishes every goal. OVT does not deny that.

From this source:

God Experiences Frustration​

"At numerous points Scripture shows God as striving with people only to be frustrated at their lack of willingness to do what is right. Ezekiel records God saying 'I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it: but I found no one' (22:30)." (from "The Open View of God" here)

I find this also in more well-known authors such as Boyd and Sanders.

God knows what possibilities arise out of our potential decisions, and thus would know which path would bring the best outcomes.

Why then does God sometimes regret his decisions, according to the Open View?

Disappointment as a result of sin is part of being fallen. The only part of this that has anything to do with OVT is that OVT is the only view that puts this disappointment at the feet of men and not God.

Certainly Saul sinned, and God (we are told by OVT) regretted his decision to make him king.

The question then is, how can we avoid corresponding disappointment, when following God's advice?

"When Samuel caught sight of Saul, the Lord said to him, 'This is the man I spoke to you about; he will govern my people.'" (1 Sam. 9:17)

I think we can safely say that the fall is less than the best outcome of creation. Again, the key is that "less than the best outcome" is the fault of mankind, and not God.

So then when following God's advice, we may have regrets--God regretted making man on the earth, according to the Open View.

Of course we ought to take what God says seriously. Who else are you going to put your faith in?

My point is not that there would be better alternatives, but rather that God's advice is not to be taken as seriously as some now do, who think that if they diligently obey the Lord, what he said will happen, will happen--and they will not be dismayed or disappointed.

And the only results we can certainly expect are those that God brings about and prophesies: Salvation, Resurrection, Eternal life.

I thought God had other goals too, surely this is not an exhaustive list. For instance, did Jesus come to seek and save all lost people?

I find it hard to believe that you haven't found in your bible reading examples of those who were not serving God that were brought to believing in Him through extraordinary events. See Saul of Tarsus.

So both positive and negative ordaining of salvation I have heard from you now, you will make a fine Calvinist--but I think the Open View says if any decision must be free, salvation must be--love must be free, just check here with Godrulz...

That would mean that God's decretive and intentional will and purpose for creation included sending most of mankind to hell, and that it is God's will and purpose for creation for children to be raped, people to be murdered, and all evil to be perpetrated.

And the worst sin, the cross, we must not leave that out. But if God is able to bring the greatest good out of the greatest sin, I do not think he will be unable to overcome all evil, even these you mention. Why do you limit God's power?

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.' " (John 1:29)

And I recall also Rob's question, how does the Open View avoid a difficulty here, if God sees a rape in progress, and chooses not to stop it? If he must preserve free will, what about the free will of the person being violated?

Blessings,
Lee