SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
They are part of the evil generation that has existed since the fall of Adam.
The evil generation will exist until the regeneration.
I really didn't mean to sidetrack the thread.
Back to Open Theism.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
They are part of the evil generation that has existed since the fall of Adam.
The evil generation will exist until the regeneration.
I really didn't mean to sidetrack the thread.
Back to Open Theism.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then you clearly don't understand proper interpretative matters. As I noted here,
"You regularly toss out the preconceived notions canard in hopes of invalidating anything you disagree with proposed by others.
Like most proper theologians, I disagree that anyone approaches Scriptural interpretation without pre-conceptualizations....
...interpretations that are in conflict and cannot be settled on one level of investigation must be considered on a higher level, or, more appropriately, a level more foundational to the present level of investigation. For example, if a conflict cannot be settled on the level of grammar, the exegete must consider the problem on the level of lexicography, or authorial style, etc. ...[if a pure level is not possible due to disagreement] it cannot be settled on the level of lexicography, grammar, style or even context alone.
Consequently, the efforts on the level of pure exegesis issue is an impasse, and since an exegetical impasse cannot be settled on a purely exegetical level, the question must be taken to a different level. But, the theological question of the nature of God rests on philosophical questions of the nature of time and eternity and their relation.
Therefore, the presence and inevitability of philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions does not condemn the interpreter to eisegesis. In fact, to assume that one’s presuppositions condemn one to eisegesis is itself an assumption that must, on the basis of this assumption, condemn one to eisegesis. Philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions are just as inevitable as other types of presuppositions. The question is not whether one approaches a text with philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions. Rather, the questions is, Is there a way to decide whether someone’s philosophy and metaphysics are right? I believe there are three ways to accomplish this."
And yes, the Platinga post is part of the problem...with you...for you do not have a sufficient grasp of the philosophical issues underlying your assertions.
What are the '3 ways' to determine correct philosophical views.
I thought Platinga was on OT's side?
I agree with the gist of your observation as I pointed out in mentioning Virkler's book on hermeneutics: there are grammatical, contextual, historical, etc. issues, but we also have to consider theological presuppositions, continuity (convenantal) vs discontinuity (dispensational) issues, for e.g.
I also feel the issues about eternity/time are more philosophical, but not divorced from some biblical evidence. One would not come up with 'eternal now' by reading the Bible apart from Plato and Augustine, etc.
I thought Platinga was on OT's side?
I agree with the gist of your observation as I pointed out in mentioning Virkler's book on hermeneutics: there are grammatical, contextual, historical, etc. issues, but we also have to consider theological presuppositions, continuity (convenantal) vs discontinuity (dispensational) issues, for e.g.
I also feel the issues about eternity/time are more philosophical, but not divorced from some biblical evidence. One would not come up with 'eternal now' by reading the Bible apart from Plato and Augustine, etc.
More thoughts on EDF/free will Michael Saia "Does God know the future?"
"Trying to claim an event in the future is both fixed and free is contrary to both logic and the Scriptures. One event cannot have two self-contradictory qualities at the same time, regardless of the perspectives of the observers....
Switching the argument from the future event itself to God's perspective of the event does not give the occurrence two natures at the same time. An event cannot be both future and present, both certain and contingent, simultaneously, and an appeal to God's timeless observation (rulz- theory) of the event will not change that fact. We must also keep in mind that these arguments do not prove God is timeless or that he has absolute foreknowledge. Rather, they assume both of these to be true about God and proceed from there...
In the Bible, our future choices are always presented as ours to determine freely- not fixed by some inescapable foreknowledge of a timeless being. And if we do not presuppose the timelessness and absolute foreknowledge of God, we do not have to defend philosophical absurdities and biblical contradictions."
(goes on to defend this throughout the book...as I conclude, EDF and free will are not compatible)
"Trying to claim an event in the future is both fixed and free is contrary to both logic and the Scriptures. One event cannot have two self-contradictory qualities at the same time, regardless of the perspectives of the observers....
Switching the argument from the future event itself to God's perspective of the event does not give the occurrence two natures at the same time. An event cannot be both future and present, both certain and contingent, simultaneously, and an appeal to God's timeless observation (rulz- theory) of the event will not change that fact. We must also keep in mind that these arguments do not prove God is timeless or that he has absolute foreknowledge. Rather, they assume both of these to be true about God and proceed from there...
In the Bible, our future choices are always presented as ours to determine freely- not fixed by some inescapable foreknowledge of a timeless being. And if we do not presuppose the timelessness and absolute foreknowledge of God, we do not have to defend philosophical absurdities and biblical contradictions."
(goes on to defend this throughout the book...as I conclude, EDF and free will are not compatible)
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No matter, the verse is clear in its teachings, which you apparently reject. You raised the issue that chance has no place in God's knowledge. I answered it with Scripture. You have no response to clear Scripture? I think you are trying to avoid actually admitting you are in error on this one point, no?
lee_merrill
New member
I'll bet the Open Theists here know what I am still wondering. 
Talk about proof texting. Do you use lots because God can exceptionally direct this in some vs all cases? A Proverbs couplet (reading determinism back into wisdom verse) is not the place to be making big doctrines.
Lon
Well-known member
It's as ordained as sin, brother
It's as ordained as sin, brother
Ordained as sin.
You argue for autonomy mostly. This is a misconception. We are NOT autonomous beings. Our life-line is Christ who sustains ALL things.
I do believe in a 'free' will, but I disagree as to the definition you purport, strongly.
What do you get by asserting this? What is at stake?
-Robot vs relationship:
You are a robot (follow a second because it is true). You are a cyborg of sorts, fashioned from clay. There is no pre-existent you. We are 'created' beings. Created things belong to the creator (Creator). If I make a figurine, it is mine, not question. I can put a battery into it so it walks away. I can put a protective fence around a perimeter so that it cannot get past. If the robot does get past, it is not part of the design intention. Somebody is to blame and it isn't me. A kid came over and lifted the robot to the other side or took part of the retaining wall away.
I agree that you and I are given a culpable role in the fall. We had a choice. That choice was external and not totally intrinsic. We were made with a 'creative' ability. We are creations that can make other creations. My wife and I made 3.
We are also able to create an environment whereby we do not have to follow God's intention. I believe that ability to not be a propensity to sin, but rather a power we were given for good: to relate with our Creator, to glorify and bless Him. We had the power to not choose sin by the way we were made.
I have power when I drive. It is not intended that I use that power to drive on the wrong side of the road. Auto-makers are not culpable if I do, in the least.
Nothing EDF yet.
-loss of individuality/personality
We are created beings. We are affected by social, economic, genetic, and other environmental influences. There is higher depression in states where winter lasts longer. There are language differences from region to region.
I'd maintain that it is still part of my individual personality despite where I live or the fact that everyone else speaks the same as I do. We are unique simply because there are many effects that produce who I am. I do not lose personality simply because I'm predictable to a certain degree. We are no less personal that God knows us better than we know ourselves (I have no idea how many hairs are actually on my head).
Still no EDF discussion.
-unbound freedom
We are never free, but it is a desire for autonomy that is usually heralded in freewill discussion. It is ludicrous. It is like a robot plugged into a cord wanting to sever the cord. He will cease to function or be. All things are sustained by Christ. We cannot sever or it ceases. In Him we live and move and have our being.
When you type jibberish, the power you are using is His. He could just cut the power. That is all it would take. In the same way, when we sin, God could just cut the power. You don't have to breathe. It isn't a right. It is freely given. There is no powerbill for you and I to draw the next breath. We were bound to sin, it is entirely gracious to allow us to exist as His enemies. In Christ, we have redemption. We are now, not to continue in bondage to sin. There is a stipulation (it isn't unbound freedom).
Redefining freewill. I believe desire to be in bondage. Sin keeps us from living freely. Original design is the perfect freedom. I could make a vase for flowers. If the vase had a will of its own and wanted to be a centerpiece without flowers, it'd be binding itself against its purpose. It is when it chooses to display flowers that it is truly free. It make no sense any other way and is misused for anything but displaying flowers. It is not being used the way it was made.
If I use my CD/radio as a hammer, it gets broken. It is no longer free to play music and it isn't even a good hammer. It is when we use things as they are intended that they are free to do what they are supposed to do. A radio disconnected or broken is no longer free. If it had a will of its own, it isn't fullfilling its purpose if it chooses not to play and wants to be a hammer. By it's own volition, it is in bondage of breaking and nonplaying. We, similarly, are ridiculous asserting freewill as anything but stupidity when we choose to not work the way we are made. There is no virtue in that choice (free or otherwise). Where is the glory in that kind of definiton of freewill? That we choose to play? Wow, what a gift. We actually choose to be what God intended and He gets something from that? It somehow becomes meaningful? I think not. It is rather the faithful unbroken creation that is favored and loved. We are created beings. It is in being bound to Him that we become pleasing and loved. Hang freewill when we get to that point, we are only doing what we were designed to do (which God loves).
As you can see here, I haven't addressed EDF. It isn't necessarily part of the freewill discussion. It supports the idea that God is in control and that He has a plan for making everything work out. Contingency isn't a huge factor here, either for the freewill discussion. We are talking about whether or not God has made us autonomous. We are, I believe, ignorant rather than autonomous. Ignorance isn't autonomy. A choice to do otherwise isn't free.
It's as ordained as sin, brother
Ordained as sin.
You argue for autonomy mostly. This is a misconception. We are NOT autonomous beings. Our life-line is Christ who sustains ALL things.
I do believe in a 'free' will, but I disagree as to the definition you purport, strongly.
What do you get by asserting this? What is at stake?
-Robot vs relationship:
You are a robot (follow a second because it is true). You are a cyborg of sorts, fashioned from clay. There is no pre-existent you. We are 'created' beings. Created things belong to the creator (Creator). If I make a figurine, it is mine, not question. I can put a battery into it so it walks away. I can put a protective fence around a perimeter so that it cannot get past. If the robot does get past, it is not part of the design intention. Somebody is to blame and it isn't me. A kid came over and lifted the robot to the other side or took part of the retaining wall away.
I agree that you and I are given a culpable role in the fall. We had a choice. That choice was external and not totally intrinsic. We were made with a 'creative' ability. We are creations that can make other creations. My wife and I made 3.
We are also able to create an environment whereby we do not have to follow God's intention. I believe that ability to not be a propensity to sin, but rather a power we were given for good: to relate with our Creator, to glorify and bless Him. We had the power to not choose sin by the way we were made.
I have power when I drive. It is not intended that I use that power to drive on the wrong side of the road. Auto-makers are not culpable if I do, in the least.
Nothing EDF yet.
-loss of individuality/personality
We are created beings. We are affected by social, economic, genetic, and other environmental influences. There is higher depression in states where winter lasts longer. There are language differences from region to region.
I'd maintain that it is still part of my individual personality despite where I live or the fact that everyone else speaks the same as I do. We are unique simply because there are many effects that produce who I am. I do not lose personality simply because I'm predictable to a certain degree. We are no less personal that God knows us better than we know ourselves (I have no idea how many hairs are actually on my head).
Still no EDF discussion.
-unbound freedom
We are never free, but it is a desire for autonomy that is usually heralded in freewill discussion. It is ludicrous. It is like a robot plugged into a cord wanting to sever the cord. He will cease to function or be. All things are sustained by Christ. We cannot sever or it ceases. In Him we live and move and have our being.
When you type jibberish, the power you are using is His. He could just cut the power. That is all it would take. In the same way, when we sin, God could just cut the power. You don't have to breathe. It isn't a right. It is freely given. There is no powerbill for you and I to draw the next breath. We were bound to sin, it is entirely gracious to allow us to exist as His enemies. In Christ, we have redemption. We are now, not to continue in bondage to sin. There is a stipulation (it isn't unbound freedom).
Redefining freewill. I believe desire to be in bondage. Sin keeps us from living freely. Original design is the perfect freedom. I could make a vase for flowers. If the vase had a will of its own and wanted to be a centerpiece without flowers, it'd be binding itself against its purpose. It is when it chooses to display flowers that it is truly free. It make no sense any other way and is misused for anything but displaying flowers. It is not being used the way it was made.
If I use my CD/radio as a hammer, it gets broken. It is no longer free to play music and it isn't even a good hammer. It is when we use things as they are intended that they are free to do what they are supposed to do. A radio disconnected or broken is no longer free. If it had a will of its own, it isn't fullfilling its purpose if it chooses not to play and wants to be a hammer. By it's own volition, it is in bondage of breaking and nonplaying. We, similarly, are ridiculous asserting freewill as anything but stupidity when we choose to not work the way we are made. There is no virtue in that choice (free or otherwise). Where is the glory in that kind of definiton of freewill? That we choose to play? Wow, what a gift. We actually choose to be what God intended and He gets something from that? It somehow becomes meaningful? I think not. It is rather the faithful unbroken creation that is favored and loved. We are created beings. It is in being bound to Him that we become pleasing and loved. Hang freewill when we get to that point, we are only doing what we were designed to do (which God loves).
As you can see here, I haven't addressed EDF. It isn't necessarily part of the freewill discussion. It supports the idea that God is in control and that He has a plan for making everything work out. Contingency isn't a huge factor here, either for the freewill discussion. We are talking about whether or not God has made us autonomous. We are, I believe, ignorant rather than autonomous. Ignorance isn't autonomy. A choice to do otherwise isn't free.
Lon
Well-known member
Accurate prediction or foreknowledge?
Accurate prediction or foreknowledge?
OV will need to argue very clearly that God has made inaccurate prophecies in the past to show a compelling reason not to see EDF here as with other passages.
To date, no proof has withstood scrutiny. God's promise to drive out the nations was always conditional and He says as much.
Accurate prediction or foreknowledge?
OV will need to argue very clearly that God has made inaccurate prophecies in the past to show a compelling reason not to see EDF here as with other passages.
To date, no proof has withstood scrutiny. God's promise to drive out the nations was always conditional and He says as much.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It has nothing to do with this diversion you are attempting. (You really should patent the technique.) It has everything to do with God's knowing the outcome. Get it now?
Your own words provide my response:
What were lots? How did they work? Are they parallel to bingo balls or lottery number balls?
Can God foreknow every chess game that has been played as to each contingent move made by each player? Could I have moved differently if it was foreknown? Did I move or did God move through me?
Lon, you are making a simple concept overly complicated to the point of confusion.
Can God foreknow every chess game that has been played as to each contingent move made by each player? Could I have moved differently if it was foreknown? Did I move or did God move through me?
Lon, you are making a simple concept overly complicated to the point of confusion.
lee_merrill
New member
They were like dice, as I understand it.
Sure he can, why limit the power of God? If the future doesn't exist, well, neither did the world, before he made it, and some of the future, involving free human choices, is definitely known. I have posted examples.
Sure you could have, just as past decisions can be known, and free.
Blessings,
Lee <- Still has a wonderment about only a remnant
The past, present, and future are fundamentally different.
Power is not knowledge.
Assuming something in a circular manner does not prove it is true.
themuzicman
Well-known member
This is patently false. Just because God hasn't fixed the game beforehand doesn't mean that God can't fulfill all of His prophecies. You're trying to impose something on OVT that simply isn't there.
The reason OVT exists isn't because of prophecy. OVT exists because we believe God desires real relationships with His creation, and we believe that mankind is the SOLE cause of evil. EDF does not permit these things.
So, why make conditional prophecy, if God already knows how it will come out?
Muz
RobE
New member
Acts 1:23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.
but the LORD determines his steps.
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.
Proverbs 21:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
Before you answer consider this:
Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke impresses a man of discernment
more than a hundred lashes a fool.
more than a hundred lashes a fool.
Proverbs 18:13 He who answers before listening—
that is his folly and his shame.
Philetus
New member
Godrulz
This may not completely answer, but might help.....
(This part’s a work in progress)
If everything is subject to change then it is the absolute that is the power over that which is subject to change.
The power to change that which is subject to change is the absolute. To deny the absolute does not change the absolute. In the view of the absolute that which is, remains. That which up holds that which is not, is not. Therefore that which is done in the view of the absolute is good. The which is subject to change and obeys that which is not. Does not remain.
***********
Something like in a chess game. He owns the board and the pieces on both sides. That which He chooses ( under and before their Sovereign's Throne) and that which opposes His choice (free willers, “my choicers”).
Or I could be way off base, if so sorry.
This may not completely answer, but might help.....
(This part’s a work in progress)
If everything is subject to change then it is the absolute that is the power over that which is subject to change.
The power to change that which is subject to change is the absolute. To deny the absolute does not change the absolute. In the view of the absolute that which is, remains. That which up holds that which is not, is not. Therefore that which is done in the view of the absolute is good. The which is subject to change and obeys that which is not. Does not remain.
***********
Something like in a chess game. He owns the board and the pieces on both sides. That which He chooses ( under and before their Sovereign's Throne) and that which opposes His choice (free willers, “my choicers”).
Or I could be way off base, if so sorry.
lee_merrill
New member
Certainly, the question is whether they share an aspect of interest.
And who here said it was?
Agreed. And giving general principles without applying them specifically does not somehow constitute an argument. You have implied I am doing the above, now you need to defend these statements.
And also please tell me how God knows only a remnant will be saved!
Lon
Well-known member
I'm sorry if you are confused and take that criticism, easily.
I'm not sure if you are saying you are confused, I'm confusing, am myself confused or a combination.
I do not believe I'm confused on this, but I admit it probable that I convey them in a confusing manner. I worked hard to clear that away because I believe this to be another central topic of meaning between us. We very much argue the difference between ordination and freewill. Between contingent preparedness and Exhaustive foreknowledge ('definite' would be our redundancy in EDF).
My whole premise was to explain that I see freewill for us ONLY because of the cross. The unregenerate, in my estimation, has no freewill. He can never make any decision that isn't bound already. In this respect, I disagree even with Catholicism that man is 'basically good.' I do believe they would explain their stance similar to mine. It isn't that there is nothing redeemable in man or that he is completely broken, it is rather that no decision he makes is free and he serves the purpose of sin if unregenerate. So we emphasize the truth of this a bit differently though we do agree when we discuss the matter. Man is infected and broken but redeemable and able to be fixed. A radio that can get AM is only half/broken, but if I have to have FM (as God has to have us completely holy), the radio is 'utterly useless' (totally depraved). This doesn't mean that it is without redemption, it means 'I,' needing FM, cannot use it at all. A lawful citizen is like the AM radio, it works in society and is good for us, but not for God.
The alternate emphasis has one placing value on his social goodness, and the other on God's righteousness. The ideas aren't opposed to each other, but rather looking at who the value belongs to (man/God).
God sees a broken people He 'can' fix and use.
The only freewill is one liberated by Christ. The slave must first be paid for in order to switch masters. We are still in bondage in Christ, but it is a very liberating restraint. We are 'free' to not sin. It doesn't mean that it will not cease to draw us in, it means it is no longer our master and we can live the way God created us without worrying about the former. This is why the Christian desires to be as his Savior: He wants to be used as he was created and to become more and more as He, on this earth, with the hope of being 'just' like Him in promise.
Lon
Well-known member
Patently false? I didn't say it had to be EDF. I said, rather, that "in order for it NOT to be EDF" you'd have to show that such passages demonstrate clearly that God is predicting. The only way to do that is to show unequivocally that God has made mistakes. I see MANY examples but I believe them to be deduction mistakes.
Let me give an example:
1) If you clean your room, we'll go get ice cream.
2) I promise we will go get ice cream.
3) We will get ice cream if you meet the conditions I've laid out.
4) Clean your room.
5) We are going to go get ice cream.
Upon these 5 assertations, what is your understanding here?
Are we going to go get ice cream? Yes or no?
Is there any condition in these promises?
Is any condition implied even if not overtly stated in each and 'every' one of the statements?
Did I make a mistake in writing these 5 statements?
Is there unclarity?
To change the outcome. If one never ever lost a chess game and is sure he will never ever lose one in the future, why go on playing?
I say, because he is passing on his greatness to another (at least that would be one good reason). He doesn't play for himself, he plays for the benefit of another. The opponent learns, grows, becomes better.
The master chessman has nothing to learn. He knows implicitly every single move and pattern and any combination.
There are two ways the master could have become invincible:
1) He has a natural ability. He just knows because of how he was made. His mind somehow already knows every existing combination. It is intrinsic.
2) He learned, through trial and error.
Only the first one has never lost a game. Only the first one is a real master, because before the second one gets to where he is, he was beatable by the first.
If God is an emerging champion, growing and learning, He isn't a champion. He can lose. The only point of meeting between these two masters is when the second reaches the first. The only time God could be a master and everything fall into place as He has foretold is if He is at the level of the first one, either by arrival or having innate ability.
REGARDLESS of how OV picks #2, it can only have confidence if He has already attained to that first level.
Scripture says God doesn't change, so I believe #2 to be incorrect and an OV falsehood. Regardless, you still have to acquiesce that He at that level right now or some unforseen event will have any one of God's plans come crashing down because He is still learning and though very good, hasn't arrived at perfection where He always wins. This is what contingency buys you. You can't escape that unknown. I believe OV to be quite incorrect and buying a premise that is inescapable to the conclusion.
- Status