ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

The problem is in saying the future is unknowable because it is not actual. Then there is Rob's question about creation out of nothing, your logic says this is a contradiction to know creation, because it did not exist.

Knowing what does not exist is knowing a nothing, correct?

And I notice you skipped one question...

I stabbed your question before. Muz has given perspective. You will not be happy until you here your answer to it, so drop it.

The future is correctly known as possible, not actual. Are you saying we make choices to be known before we are born?! This cannot be defended. Our choices occur in the present after we are born. They are not objects of actual/certain knowledge before they are made. This fits the language of Scripture which is a picture of reality. Your view is sci-fi.

Is is illogical to imagine a finished car before it is made when we have the drawings, clay models, and millions of other actualized cars? Just because the car does not exist yet does not mean we cannot imagine its existence in great detail. The issue is that you cannot touch and drive it based on plans. It must be actually built to be functional. God can envision great detail of creation and know it as such. When it becomes actual, then even man can touch, feel, smell, see. Your view makes matter co-eternal with God (Mormonism). I can picture myself in a coffin someday. I could even have a mock funeral now. But the reality is that my actual death and burial is not reality and is not a an object of certain knowledge yet. God knows reality as it is, distinguishing past, present, future, contingent and certain. This is the plain language of Scripture and logic. Anything else is a preconceived idea being read back into things without self-evident proof or reality.

Again, if the future is foreseen as fixed, God has no ability to change it, so there is no providential advantage, but a disadvantage. Prayer and our stewardship becomes nul and void leading to passivity and fatalism. The Living God is reduced to a Matrix-bound mechanistic machine instead of the creative Creator that He is.

 

[Nang]

Again, if the future is foreseen as fixed, God has no ability to change it, so there is no providential advantage, but a disadvantage. Prayer and our stewardship becomes nul and void leading to passivity and fatalism. The Living God is reduced to a Matrix-bound mechanistic machine instead of the creative Creator that He is.

Wrong.

The future is fixed (determined) according to God's perfect wisdom.

There is no reason for a "fix" and no reason for God to change.

Our prayers and granted stewardship are meant to harmonize and work in accord with God's perfect plan, purposes, and will.

That is not "fatalism"; that is freedom to live in peace with our Maker.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Why would God fix and predetermine Hitler killing millions of Jews, contrary to His will. Calvinism talks about secret wills, but this is not biblical. God's revealed will would be consistent with His hidden will and character.

Determinism is worthy of Islam or Behavioralism, not biblical Christianity.

 

[Nang]

Why would God fix and predetermine Hitler killing millions of Jews, contrary to His will. Calvinism talks about secret wills, but this is not biblical. God's revealed will would be consistent with His hidden will and character.

Determinism is worthy of Islam or Behavioralism, not biblical Christianity.

Are you blaming Hitler's crimes on God?

 

[godrulz]

Are you blaming Hitler's crimes on God?

Are you? You are the omnicausal defender, not me. My God is omnicompotent and does not have to be a micromanaging control freak to bring about His purposes. He can allow love, freedom, relationship, and risk without compromising true sovereignty.

 

[Nang]

Are you?

Not me!

You are the omnicausal defender, not me.

I believe God is the first cause of all things. God created Hitler. Hitler committed his own sins. God ordained Hitler would sin, as a vessel of wrath.

The bottom line explanation of these events is found in Romans 9:22.

My God is omnicompotent and does not have to be a micromanaging control freak to bring about His purposes. He can allow love, freedom, relationship, and risk without compromising true sovereignty.

Your language insults God Almighty.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Second Coming is under God's control and knowable, among many other things.

You clearly stated God cannot know the non-existent future, so you cannot say God knows the exact date and time of the escahton. Make up your mind. Know? Knowable? You are all over the map.

gjo[ergheo[rigjer[ohjeo[ihjoei[jgeor[ihjeori[ghoir[ghoijoioi[ghis is under my control, by His sovereign choice, and was known as possible until I actualized it (at which point it becomes part of God's certain knowledge).

Again you show your lack of understanding of the nature of a perfect being, God. God does not acrete knowledge. God does not learn discursively. If God does, He is something greater than He was before. Thus, He was thus less than before, all of which is nonsense if God is eternally perfect. But, naturally, you have redefined perfection, just as you have omniscience, into a non-perfect perfection, a no-thing.

Stick with what you know. We are not discussing JWs and Mormons and your misunderstanding of weighty matters lacks credibility.

 

[Varangian]

Are you? You are the omnicausal defender, not me.

And yet the Open Theist must acknowlodge every bit as much as the Calvinist that God allowed the Holocaust to happen. Even without exhaustive foreknowledge, God saw the gas chambers and the ovens being built before they were ever used and watched them used without intervention.

The difference though is that the Calvinist can say, as hard and painful as it may be, that even grossest evil which God allows is going to be used to some greater purpose even if he must equally acknowledge that he cannout really hope to understand how such evil events may play a role in that greater good. The Open Theist can merely shrug and respond with platitudes about the importance of "free will".

My God is omnicompotent and does not have to be a micromanaging control freak to bring about His purposes.

And yet the more we understand about the nature of complex systems, the more we are faced with the reality that if even the tiniest part of existence is out of God's control today, then He has no real ability to bring about his will tommorrow.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It is impossible to know a contingency as a certainty if it may or may not happen.

Prove it. What Scripture do you appeal to for this fallacious assumption? You are confusing contingencies in the created realm with God's knowledge. Moreover, you are confusing contingencies as implying uncertainties.

God’s knowledge is not based on anything outside Himself. God does not say to Himself, "If gr types more of his inane gibberish, I will do this, but if instead gr actually writes something coherent, I will do that." God knows what you will do, and you will not refrain from doing what God knows you will do.

More simply, the actions of gr, a moral free agent, do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions of gr are foreseen because your actions are certain to take place.

That you do what you do is often contingent on things around you, including mundane things, like whenever you see a post of mine you hop on over to the thread and dribble out assertions. In other words, my post was a contingency that led to your jibber-jabber. But God already knew I would make a post, and as a result of my so doing, that you would not refrain from responding. The contingencies were all temporal events of moral free agents, that is, our contingencies. But nothing in God's knowledge of these events was contingent.

‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’
God is not subject to other's for His will - He is not subject to contingencies by His creatures!

If God's knowledge is contingent, then God is contingent. If God is contingent then we are unable to argue that either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. You like to toss out the phrase 'modal logic', so here is your chance to demonstrate that you actually understand modal logic, by explaining how contingencies can be made part of God's nature and yet the modal ontological argument remains valid.

The contingencies you appeal to exist only within God's creation, not within the very knowledge of God.

Repeat after me:
Just because God foreknows x, it does not follow that x must happen, only that x will happen.

 

[godrulz]

I believe God is the first cause of all things. God created Hitler. Hitler committed his own sins. God ordained Hitler would sin, as a vessel of wrath.

The bottom line explanation of these events is found in Romans 9:22.


Your language insults God Almighty.

Nang

How did God cause my computer to be built? Why cannot God give humans limited self-determination to actualize things through their own choices? Humans can procreate by God's design, but that does not make Him the cause of freely chosen intercourse leading to conception. He is involved with conception, but using your logic, does He cause the rapist to impregnate the Christian teen?!

God did not create Satan nor Hitler. They became these evil entities through their own choices (you cannot accept this because you fail to see that God gives us free will as part of the image of God). Lucifer and baby Hitler were products of God and did not have to become evil. You impugn the character of God, but my language does not insult God because it attributes holiness, not evil, to Him.

Rom. 9-11 deals with national issues of election, not God supposedly creating evil (contrary to His will!) for His glory?!:noway: Individuals who choose against Him are objects of His wrath (though He desired and intended for them to choose for Him). Those who choose for Him are the elect, destined to be conformed to the image of Christ, not condemnation. The choosing is ours; the determined consequences of our choices is God's choice. He cannot chose for us or we would not be culpable and He would be responsible for evil, which He is not. The First Cause can choose to have other causes. In His sovereignty, He choose to not be the only factor in the universe. This is revelation and I do not know why you try to reason it away (pride to keep your wrong ideas at all costs).

 

[godrulz]

You clearly stated God cannot know the non-existent future, so you cannot say God knows the exact date and time of the escahton. Make up your mind. Know? Knowable? You are all over the map.

Again you show your lack of understanding of the nature of a perfect being, God. God does not acrete knowledge. God does not learn discursively. If God does, He is something greater than He was before. Thus, He was thus less than before, all of which is nonsense if God is eternally perfect. But, naturally, you have redefined perfection, just as you have omniscience, into a non-perfect perfection, a no-thing.

Stick with what you know. We are not discussing JWs and Mormons and your misunderstanding of weighty matters lacks credibility.

Why are you trying to defend refuted Platonic arguments? You assume what you try to prove and dismiss those who see things differently and more correctly with an arrogant brush off.

Jesus grew in knowledge (Lk. 2:52). Jesus is the God-Man. Using your logic, Jesus was not perfect. Get a clue.

I can know that I have a piano tuner and appliance repairman coming tomorrow. This does not mean they are actually here or that my house will not blow up tonight. It is not certain knowledge yet, but the possibility should be actualized.

God may or may not have set the date of the Second Coming yet (Scripture does not give a date; Jesus did not know the date; God may be flexible and the exact millisecond has nothing to do with prophetic fulfillment). If God did set the exact millisecond, He would come back at that moment due to His ability to do so. Perhaps someone is about to respond to the gospel, so He could delay the Coming by 5 minutes to accommodate this contingency. In your view, God settles everything in advance, contrary to the face value reading of Scripture. God can know and set the exact moment in both our views. The question is if He in fact has done that and when (could have been 1000 years ago or 1 week ago; the timing of determination does not affect the certainty of it happening; this knowledge based on intention and ability still does not make the non-existent reality past tense for us or God). Your view leaves no history for God or us. It compresses things into an eternal now simultaneity (try explaining that from Scripture...can't be done).

You are misapplying my statement. God cannot know with certainty some things that He has not settled nor intends to settle in advance. I can freely do this nowiehtj3q=ht3oh3oigh and He now knows about it. It does not mean that He knew the letters from before creation or that it was certain that I was going to do that. There is no reason to think He caused me to do that for some secret purpose (use some common sense if you have any). Based on two motifs, remember that God can and does know what He will settle (but it still does not make the future the past yet). The key is that He leaves some things contingent, unsettled, and known as such. They may or may not obtain. You are left watering down 'free will'. I am left without EDF because God voluntarily gave up this unnecessary issue in order to create loving creatures in relationship, not mechanistic robots. I see this clear as a bell now. You are still stuck in an ivory tower and can't see the fatal flaws of your own view and mock those who can see the problems with it.

You are dismissed. Be gone from my sight:singer:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You should not mock what you do not understand.

In post after post I have clearly shown that you do not understand what you assert, including your own added mockery, e.g., "sock puppets", etc, etc. You have no grasp of the ontological arguments for a Supreme Being, so much so that your own views would negate many of them. In effect, you hand the non-believer much ammunition because of your lack of understanding of philosophical and theological concepts regarding the doctrine of God. You lack credibility when you make uninformed and dangerous assertions without treating them substantively.

You are a man who has superficially read many things, yet has never mastered any of them. A master of a topic can defend the topic from all sides, and is capable of even learning from their opponents. One who has not mastered a topic is reduced to merely parroting the masters. You have labeled yourself as one who is 'theology-lite' yet you persist in holding yourself out as an expert through your many unsubstantiated assertions. One would think such a person would be in no position to mock others who are clearly more versed in the subject matter or to pretend to possess more knowledge than the evidence suggests.

 

[godrulz]

And yet the Open Theist must acknowlodge every bit as much as the Calvinist that God allowed the Holocaust to happen. Even without exhaustive foreknowledge, God saw the gas chambers and the ovens being built before they were ever used and watched them used without intervention.

The difference though is that the Calvinist can say, as hard and painful as it may be, that even grossest evil which God allows is going to be used to some greater purpose even if he must equally acknowledge that he cannout really hope to understand how such evil events may play a role in that greater good. The Open Theist can merely shrug and respond with platitudes about the importance of "free will".



And yet the more we understand about the nature of complex systems, the more we are faced with the reality that if even the tiniest part of existence is out of God's control today, then He has no real ability to bring about his will tommorrow.

You totally underestimate God's great ability. It is a bad parent who controls a child rather than raises them to make responsible choices (the parent will not always be around).

God does allow many things, but they are contrary to his will (warfare vs blueprint model). In your view, God's character is impugned as an evildoer. In my view, He judges, opposes, mitigates, and allows evil. There is no good from a child being raped and murdered. Don't you dare try to comfort the grieving parent with Calvinistic nonsense. God did not take the child home; an evil person killed them prematurely. There are good answers for the problem of evil apart from hyper-Calvinism. Theodicy cannot be resolved by trying to negate God-given free will.

In both views, God does everything possible to mitigate evil and its consequences. In free will views, things can be contrary to his will and are not what He desires or intends. There are reasons He does not always intervene despite being able to. The reasons should not default to an idea that all evil can be turned for the good. Somethings will simply incur the wrath of God and the devastating consequences will remain. People may be turned from vs to God when evil happens to their loved ones. This is not the desired outcome.

One bottom line is if God created a tightly controlled universe with no risk (no evidence for this; much evidence against it) or if His universe has the possibility of love and hate, good and evil, heaven and hell, Lucifer and Satan, Billy Graham and Hitler, etc. (i.e. risk). The fact of hell, the fact of God being grieved to the core when man fell, the fact of Jesus opposing things contrary to God, not affirming them as part of His blueprint will, etc. shows that the God who risks is more loving and glorious than we can imagine (evidenced by His self-sacrifice on the cross because of evil that was not necessary nor intended).

 

[godrulz]

In post after post I have clearly shown that you do not understand what you assert, including your own added mockery, e.g., "sock puppets", etc, etc. You have no grasp of the ontological arguments for a Supreme Being, so much so that your own views would negate many of them. In effect, you hand the non-believer much ammunition because of your lack of understanding of philosophical and theological concepts regarding the doctrine of God. You lack credibility when you make uninformed and dangerous assertions without treating them substantively.

You are a man who has superficially read many things, yet has never mastered any of them. A master of a topic can defend the topic from all sides, and is capable of even learning from their opponents. One who has not mastered a topic is reduced to merely parroting the masters. You have labeled yourself as one who is 'theology-lite' yet you persist in holding yourself out as an expert through your many unsubstantiated assertions. One would think such a person would be in no position to mock others who are clearly more versed in the subject matter or to pretend to possess more knowledge than the evidence suggests.

One of your problems is that you have a superstructure of Thomistic philosophy, Augustinian philosophy influenced by Plato, not the Bible, etc. propping up your preconceived theology that includes compatibilism (wrong view of free will), wrong views of perfection, sovereignty, etc. You assume you are inductively pulling it from Scripture, when you are actually reading it back into it leading to proof texting and sloppy exegesis. I do not understand all the wrong philosophical views that influence your thinking, but that does not mean I do not understand the simple meaning and motifs of Scripture. I believe in godly philosophy for some of these issues that are not explicit in Scripture. I do not believe you have all the answers or are infallible. If I must say you are in order to get you to back off, I cannot compromise my convictions. :bang: I am tempted to ask you to put me on ignore again, but that goes against my convictions of learning and testing with the insight of others.

In the mean time, you just lost all hope of getting my Calvinistic books. I will donate them to an Arminian college first (yes, we did use and value Calvinistic books and had doctorate profs who went to your colleges for their degrees).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You should not mock what you do not understand.

Are you? You are the omnicausal defender, not me. My God is omnicompotent and does not have to be a micromanaging control freak to bring about His purposes.

You clearly do not understand and are apparently double-minded, too. You lack credibility.

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by RobE
And I wonder how God created if it's impossible to know what is non-existent.

What are you talking about. Even man can create non-existent things by thinking about it and bringing it about through ability. God can imagine and think infinitely. He can contemplate and then has the power to bring it about.

God can imagine the non-existent animal kingdom and then actualize it with His power.

So, is it possible to have certain knowledge about uncertain things?

 

[lee_merrill]

I stabbed your question before. Muz has given perspective. You will not be happy until you here your answer to it, so drop it.

God can and does (at times, according to Muz) determine who will be saved, and who will not be saved. This however, I expect you will not agree with, nor any other Open Theist.

Our last exchange on this was here:

Any judicial hardening is related to man's initial hardening. Israel rejected the Messiah instead of receiving Him. In the future Tribulation, circumstances and the witness of the 144,000 will result in a restoration of Israel.

But the question remains, how does God know that many, or even every individual here, will be saved? This cannot be known according to the Open View.

Unless you want to quote the Calvinist view here like Muz, in which case I will agree with you.

Are you saying we make choices to be known before we are born?!

Sure, "Cyrus will give a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."

Your view makes matter co-eternal with God (Mormonism).

No, my view is that God is outside time (traditional).

Again, if the future is foreseen as fixed...

No, just known--God knows what we will freely pray, and includes this in his plans.

"Before they call, I will answer..."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

You are simply assuming your view is correct and using ad hominem to dismiss any challenging views. To say God knows reality as it is (distinguishes past, present, future, contingent, actual, etc.) is NOT humanizing or limiting God. His sovereign choice to create significant others necessitated a voluntary self-limitation (not an ontological one) in the exercise of His power and the possible objects of certain knowledge. Just because you cannot see this yet does not mean competing views are limiting God, the usual knee-jerk reaction of Calvinistic determinists to defend their preconceived nonsense.


I can list verses too. None of your verses are inconsistent with OT (that also exalts God's glorious attributes and character).

You are not the heavy weight that you think you are. I am disappointed that you do not grasp the issues as much as you think you do.

The Second Coming is under God's control and knowable, among many other things. gjo[ergheo[rigjer[ohjeo[ihjoei[jgeor[ihjeori[ghoir[ghoijoioi[ghis is under my control, by His sovereign choice, and was known as possible until I actualized it (at which point it becomes part of God's certain knowledge). The fact you think I am a sock puppet and that God cannot give limited, genuine freedom to creatures shows that you do not believe in your gut that He is omnicompetent, but must be a dictatorial control freak to be sovereign and in control of His project for the universe. THAT is a limitation of God, not my view.

Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word,

A predictable sock puppet is glued to his jibberish to try to express something meaningful, but I haven't a clue what that something is other than a predictable sock-puppet irritant. It is like you are jamming the key-board in frustration for lack of a proper response: Chaos ensues. Is God aware that chaos occurse and the occassion of it?

1Ki 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

300 years before he is born.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw

Your contradiction is right there in scripture "things to come about" (future) and "saw" (like it already happened-past).

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Again, an event 'seen' (future). Before you explain it away, let's take the warning also:

Rev 22:16 I, Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Either I'm right and the future is knowable to God, so much so that John can 'see' it, or I'm adding or taking away from this book.

So there is the contradiction in bold print. The future is 'seen' and explained exactly and equivocally as if it has already happened. I find it VERY troubling to be a prediction or guess when simply adding or taking away one fragment of a word is condemnable.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

Whose voice? Was it all an elaborate precurtain rehearsal?

Rev 5:13 Then I heard every creature — in heaven, on earth, under the earth, in the sea, and all that is in them — singing:
"To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever!"
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures were saying "Amen," and the elders threw themselves to the ground and worshiped.

What did he see? Who did he hear? When did it happen? Has it happened yet?

You tell me the future is unknowable. I say it is apparently not a hurdle to God. I do not see a contradiction between EDF and man's decisions. I have no problem with God knowing I chose to eat pizza for dinner last night. I have no problem with any other choice. I ate pizza, I decided pizza. End of story, end of discussion. It is a done deal. It really doesn't matter if I had another decision I could have made. We can't change the past.

I believe God to have already watched the movie. He watched, produced, and distributed the movie. We had (have-using the same verb change as Revelation) a hand in it. It doesn't mean we don't write our portion, it means He's already seen it (future) like it has already happened. He allowed (allows) it to proceed (ordination). This doesn't mean anything for your and my choices other than life is a gift, and we need to seize the day and live for Him.

 

[lee_merrill]

So, is it possible to have certain knowledge about uncertain things?

"As in truly, truly, this very night..."? And the future is not inherently unknowable just because it doesn't yet exist?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There is no good from a child being raped and murdered.

When desperate from the lack of ability to form a reasoned response, cue the 'molester', 'rape', and 'Hitler' analogies. To assert "there is no good from {insert the openist's favorite atrocity here}" necessarily implies omniscience since one would have to know everything leading towards and following onwards from such an event to claim "no good" can come from it. I can think of dozens of scenarios where good comes from an evil act perpetrated by a bad person. So can you. How much more can God, who is the One in control, able to bring good out of something terrible? So knock it off with the emotionally-laden arguments that do nothing but show desperation.

...shows that the God who risks is more loving and glorious

Sentimentalities are no substitute for properly understanding that God's love is in no way related to what you and I think love means for you ignore God's holiness. What the world calls love is exactly the opposite of God's love. God's love is a sovereign love (see Deut. 7:7-8, Ephesians 1:3-11), "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us" (1 John 4:10). Without God’s love (“in this is love”) there would be no love. Moreover your liberalism would have God's love and goodness ultimately nullifying His justice, holy wrath, and righteousness. Once a person begins to see himself as a sinner in the hands of an angry God (Psalm 38:1-3), only then will a person glimpse the magnitude of God’s love towards even the sinner.

The love of God and His wrath worth to the same end—to God’s glory. Yes, despite your sentimentalities, God is glorified when the wicked are rightfully condemned and God is glorified in all expressions of His love for all persons (no exceptions!). Lastly, God is glorified in His particular love for His chosen. The full glory of God is displayed by expressions of His love and His wrath. You ignore these aspects of God’s character and you magnify one at the expense of the other, thereby distorting the Scriptural balance, the true nature of God, and ultimately diminishing God’s true glory. This is why your view of the love of God cannot be allowed to stand, for there is very little in what we call ‘love’ that can be equated to God’s love. Our view of love is but a shadow of the true love of God. One need only look to the state of human relations, marriage, etc., to see clear evidence that we do not fully understand what ‘love’, Godly love, truly means. It is the very risk taking attitude you espouse that undermines any of our feeble attempts at love. For we can always have a means to escape, a means to violate, and a means to demean the objects of our feeble love. To use our notions of love to cast God in that image is to commit a grievous error and to assume Scriptural warrants that are not in evidence.