Post 6512 you seem to think it is a limitation on the POWER of God to not know the non-existent future. In fact, this is about knowledge, so I pointed out that power is not knowledge.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Post 6512 you seem to think it is a limitation on the POWER of God to not know the non-existent future. In fact, this is about knowledge, so I pointed out that power is not knowledge.
Lon: Issues of believers being righteous or unbelievers only doing bad is not the issue about free will. If we do not talk about moral choices, we can demonstrate mundane choices that are free and not knowable as a certainty before they are made. EDF must include moral and mundane choices, so arguing about being free to sin or not will not prove your point in light of chocolate, vanilla, and iewhjo3igh[wg[oeirjg[owh[oden dkafnvdknveknvpenpiewh
TM (trademark-rulz)
TM (trademark-rulz)
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Lon
Well-known member
Read my response to Muz (#6520) and tell me:
1) If the contingency doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. I do believe God knows 'if' (like there would be one) I would ever choose chocolate over vanilla (the answer is 'no' and not only predictable, but assured).
Even as we disagree, what eternal ramifications are affected? God 'knows the desires of our hearts' THEREFORE knows our future decisions (I'll never opt chocolate over vanilla).
2) If God does not know every move, He can lose. I'm not saying this to malign God through OV lenses, I'm saying it is a huge theological stance problem. I am honestly, truthfully, humbly: very uncertain that I could trust God if I adopted OV perspective. It isn't that I would malign God, I just couldn't be certain He's arrived to the point where He can "Do all things." My dad was my hero, but I didn't trust him for everything. My dad was relational, but this isn't enough when my Salvation is at stake. God not only has to be the best, He has to be at that master level where He cannot lose. If He can make a mistake, then another can end the game with my stakes losing. It isn't a game of chance, it is my life and my Salvation. I don't believe God to be competent, I believe Him to be unbeatable. There is a huge difference. Omnicompetence means He 'can' win. Unbeatable means He 'cannot' lose and can get no better in His game, the best of the best with no challenger, not even freewill contingency.
As I argued with Muz, either He arrives, or He is there already, or He was always there. In my estimation, the Creator of all things was, is, and always shall be 'there already.' You either have God learning and not completely competent or already there.
I've argued before, if God is omnicompetent, He has virtual EDF already before you even start the argument or He isn't 'omni' competent either.
OV MUST argue for something so nearly EDF that it is indistinguishable from the classic position or it loses the whole proposal. God is either omnicompetent or He is not.
lee_merrill
New member
Well, again I agree the two are not equivalent, but to know the future would be to have more power, correct? Which is why people make projections and study processes, if you even know what will probably happen (instead of what will really happen) that helps a lot in choosing a course.
Blessings,
Lee
EDF offers no providential advantage because God would not have the ability to change the future, even if He wanted to (Arminian simple foreknowledge). In Calvinism, EDF is because God determines and controls everything in advance, again, not the same as responsive, creative omnicompetence. Knowing possibilitites and having the ability to respond to any contingency is superior to omnicausality or simple foreknowledge without the ability to alter that foreknowledge.
Lon
Well-known member
You are making God subject to Foreknowledge, not the way it actually is.
God, in foreknowledge, ordains (allows to happen with appropriate response).
He IS the factor in what is foreknown, and as AMR has said, this makes what is foreknown foreordained. For these discussions, it is always very important that we look at what this means to us, and then again at what this means to God.
If one is a master, cannot be beaten, always wins; he knows every contingency or he cannot win with any surety, nor can he project that confidence truthfully-(as God does).
Foreknown is that He will be victorious. Not like the dead gunslinger or the Patriots.
God does not convey His actions to us as calculations or predictions or over-confidence. He doesn't come back to us and say "Well, I was mostly right."
When we read that all sickness, sadness, disease, strife, and the ilk will be wiped away, we don't have confidence like "The Patriots are going to win the Superbowl."
We have a confidence like no other. Nothing in this world is entirely dependable. We know even the sun will one day cease. Scientists predict the inevitable.
What we have in the promises of God are nothing like accurately predicting or the power of positive thinking. God doesn't win because He is not a quitter (although that is certainly a true understatement).
God wins because He is the best. Being Creator and sustainer of all things make His will certain. There is no freewill contingency that keeps these from happening.
If God is learning as OV says, He isn't learning anything but what is ultimately very trivial. In reality, if you understand this, freewill contingency really isn't contingent to God by any means. It wouldn't make a difference in His plans any more than an ant choosing a different path up the hill in Africa to me.
That being said, I don't believe OV correct here. It is only mentioned that what you are arguing for is insubstantial and not a good enough reason to become an Open Theist. On the otherhand, you, specifically, lose much appreciation for who God is by rejecting the truths preferred here.
God is not only capable (competent), He is the best and there is no better. In the freewill discussion, even if I were somehow wrong in my assessment, freewill isn't as big of a factor as you'd imagine to God, nor sufficient to deny EDF.
When God tells of Josiah existing 300 years later (by name) and what He will do. We have no indication when we read those events that God made it happen or it would not have. This is a bit precarious in reasoning because I already believe God has a hand in all we do and use it to argue against contingency.
Does Josiah lose freewill by doing as God says? I do not believe so. My wife has a favorite restaurant and so do I. Neither of us feel slighted when the other makes a reservation for us on special occassions. My will is not hindered upon in any way. I mean it is, but the problem with your thinking is that this should somehow be disturbing. It is not. I feel loved, cherished, and known.
For some reason, if I become 'unpredictable' or 'unknowable' this is supposed to give me personality, individuality, or make me somehow free?
If I ever grow tired of my love for seafood, I'll simply tell my wife and we'll go someplace else. I believe this too is not only predictable, but inevitable depending on how often we eat at these kinds of places (I'm not tired of seafood, we don't go nearly often enough).
I made a covenant with my wife "till death do us part."
Am I in bondage? Some people feel that way, but for me it is according to my desire and choice. I was made for marriage that lasts. Married, I am free to live as I was made.
As God knows every decision I will ever make, there is no constraint like you are applying here. I'm perfectly happy to be in His will and perfectly miserable when caught in sin.
Here is a question for you: When am I truly free then? When am I truly in bondage and have no freewill? What kind of freedom is meaningful here?
This is an assumption that 'God knows every decision I will ever make'. This is true, but when does He know it? I would argue that He know them as possible/contingent when they are so, and then knows them as certain/actual when they become so. He knows reality as it is. If He foreknows because He causes or predestines, then it is not free will. If He foreknows due to simple foreknowledge or magic or whatever, then we have a logical problem. How do you foreknow something that does not exist yet and may or may not be actualized?
Freedom must include the possibility of doing or not doing. We can have limitations to freedom and degrees of bondage, but in the most simple choices, there is an element of uncertainty, even for an omniscient God who knows everything.
Either I am not explaining clearly enough or you are not grasping the obvious. You need a 'eureka' moment.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, only your definition of 'freedom' assumes full autonomy from God.
"there is an element of uncertainty, even for an omniscient God who knows everything" -- ahh, a non-omniscient omniscient God. Now that makes lots of sense. :dizzy:
Indeed. :squint:
We both agree that God is omniscient but differ as to the nature of His creation as fully settled or not. The contents of His omniscience are the debate, not whether He knows everything knowable (He does). You should understand OT better than that. Just because God does not know where Yoda is right now does not mean He is not omniscient. The future is like yoda. It is not there to know yet.
Freedom does not mean full autonomy from God. It is finite and limited due to various constraints. The fact that many perish in hell shows that we can have autonomy from God in a sense, by His sovereign choice (love does not coerce, except in your hyper-deterministic world view, which you assume without proving). God can squish us like a bug at any time. He can limit parameters, but we genuinely chose option A or B in many cases. Just because God sustains our being does not mean he makes choices that He has delegated for us to make. No one is making me type today. Whether I type coherently or iot=03uh=0ejhejetj0ethjthj is under my control. Does that make me self-determining in some sense? Yes. Does that mean I can overthrow God or keep God from taking my breath away? No.
You are making silly straw men either out of ignorance or just to try to make things absurd. Finite godism, humanizing God, etc. are lame arguments from Calvinists who cannot understand the basics of the issue. I am not impressed. At times you are intellectual; other times you are pseudo-intellectual and no better than what you accuse the rest of us of doing.
themuzicman
Well-known member
This IS OVT omniscience. This is NOT EDF. EDF must say that the Chess Master already knows what his opponent will do.
OVT doesn't pick #2. It picks #1. That is your error. #1 ISN'T EDF.
It's not an OVT falsehood because #2 doesn't describe OVT. #1 does.
Let's say that the Chess Master is playing an old nemesis. He arrives at a place where he expects that his moves will dictate that the old nemesis will move his knight to the center of the board. However, his old nemesis moves his bishop to the left edge instead. The Chess Master is wrong with respect to what he thought his old nemesis would do.
Does that mean that the Chess Master will lose? Of course not. He knows all the possible moves from here, and knows how he will act in each case.
But he was mistaken about what the old nemesis would do along the way.
Thus, we have #1 omniscience with being mistaken about what a free will agent will do.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
lee_merrill
New member
This Calvinist does not believe God makes every decision, though, so then there is real responsiveness, and real relationship, within the will of God--where there is real freedom: where the Spirit of the Lord is...
"If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Blessings,
Lee
Lon
Well-known member
What is locked in for one, is eureka, serendipitous, and discovery for another.
God already knows what we are still discovering. He knows how many stars are in the sky while scientists still estimate. He knows what creatures have not been discovered. He knows what happened to the dinosaurs. He's been to Mars.
This all to say that we need be very careful in extrapolating that knowledge equates 'no choice.' If I knew the Giants would win the superbowl by vision and exactly how the game plays out in vision, it does not by any means lock 'you' into boredom enjoying the game in 'discovery.' Perspective is everything here.
Could I change the outcome though I know the end result of the superbowl? Maybe if I was a violent man, but to what effect? God is directly involved with us. He knows exact outcomes like a boy named Josiah who will destroy atars to foreign gods 300 years later. He knows one is a betrayer. He knows one will deny 3 times. He knows a brother sits under a tree. He knows a colt waits for His triumphal entry.
He also knows what He will do to direct outcomes. This doesn't mean you aren't in discovery and enjoying it.
Question: does the fact that a movie cannot be changed keep you from discovering as it progresses or keep you from enjoying it?
Does the fact that you cannot change the movie disturb you at all?
I don't know all the ins and outs of this discussion, but I highly doubt that eureka moment can happen, even with you. God's ways are higher than ours and He does not give all answers, even in begging. I don't believe I can get to a point where it all makes perfect sense because I am missing a large part of the equation: I'm not God. I extrapolate meaning to and for Him, but your extrapolation leaves Him yet to arrive at the master level with nothing assured until He gets there, because your contingencies are entirely too meaningful in your mind. Again, like an ant climbing a hill, it effects my plans not at all. When it comes to dealing with the ant hill, whatever 'I' do will greatly effect the colony.
"Let us offer confession to Lon, for he must be angry with us."
"Let us give thanks to Lon for allowing us this bountiful meal."
Their freewill decisions do not effect the way I deal with them unless I choose it to be so. This analogy only goes so far in discussion. I do not possess even simple foreknowledge (but my own determinisms). Unlike the classic view, OV has God in the same position as I over the ants with very little difference. In OV,God is just a big enough to do whatever with the ant hill, but not really competent enough nor relational enough to really know each and every ant.
EDF is huge in this part of the discussion. I do not know if anty 'M' will have a 'Z' who will turn the colony upside down 3 days from now. If I had some power to make it happen, they become pawn-like robots and the very freewill you argue for disappears altogether in doing so. You assume God has invasive control over individuals and singular events. I assume He has the same control over all individuals in every event as Author, Creator, Owner, and Sustainer.
God gave man discovery and joy in witnessing His work.
God's joy is in man's response to the event and discovery.
That is relationship. While you are watching the movie, He is watching you and I.
Lon
Well-known member
And here is why you are categorized on #2. If the move catches Him surprised, then He is still learning. Sure He can 'then' determine what to do, but you are suggesting that it is a move he is not aware of. #1 has him already aware of the move and knowing what to do before it ever gets there. Both 1 and 2 are dealing with simple foreknowledge. EDF would be that he knows the move the opponent is going to make of the choices possible. You are even denying simple foreknowledge in your understanding (that he would be surprised or wrong).
If he is #1, (or an arrived #2) he is never surprised or wrong because every move is already known and his response already known and calculated. You argue for omnicompetence, this is what it means, but you don't really believe omnicompetence if you don't realize that as a master, he cannot be surprised or he doesn't know every contingency response. Even Sanders suggests God can lose. Even Bob Enyart says God is a 'risk' taker. I really wonder sometimes if you are truly OV. I still believe you have one foot in, not both.
- Status