ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Open Theism and Arminianism are free will theisms vs Calvinism. I have many books on OT, but I thought this would be of interest on soteriological issues (since that is not the main issue with OT).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Watch out or . . .
Pretty soon GR will be asking you if you dye your hair and how much you weigh!
Watch out or . . .
Pretty soon GR will be asking you if you dye your hair and how much you weigh!
Oh, don't worry. My userpic clearly shows I don't have nearly enough hair to be worth dyeing.
Watch out or . . .
Pretty soon GR will be asking you if you dye your hair and how much you weigh!
That's funny, but I forgot the context of my joking comments to you.
lee_merrill
New member
He who speaks in tongues should also interpret!
If you mean God doesn't know what you will type, then I wonder how he knows only a remnant will repent...
Tongues and interpretation is for the corporate setting. Devotional tongues do not need to be interpreted.
God did not know for certain that I would type this ioewthw=hoitjo[gj from trillions of years ago (that would be saying I made the choice to do that before I was born?! or that God made me do that so He could foreknow it?! I did it freely, so it was not a possible object of certain knowledge until just now).
I answered your remnant verse many moons ago. You don't like the answer. Next dummy can try for you.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not at all. You presume to know more than God about the matter, no? For all you know, to stop an evil act may bring about an even greater evil act. You are not privy to the full chain of events antecedent and following the act, but God is, and the fact that He does not stop evil clearly means He has a perfectly moral sufficient purpose for allowing it.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
More nonsense. By what standard do you decide what is gratuitous? More humanistic reasoning?
No believer's suffering is ever wasted. Just as Joseph, Job, Stephen, Paul, etc., and any other believer that, as did Christ, experience evil in this world, we may take hope and are confident that our sovereign God is working out His good and wise purposes through our suffering.
RobE
New member
I confuse nothing. God's necessary knowledge is certain about your contingent action.
Knowledge of contingent events, such as creation or the development of mechanical airflight, might very well be certain prior to the objects of that knowledge becoming certain.
I would even say that the knowledge was necessary if God is able to do all that is possible. However the action wasn't certain until it was enacted. This speaks to the logical error which non-compatibalists rely upon.
You're right. The scriptures don't say that the actual future pre-exists. The scriptures say that God's knowledge of the future exists before the events exist.
Some examples:
God knew the non-existent outcomes of His own actions....
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light,"(the light was non-existent) and there was light(the event became certain).
God knew the non-existent outcomes of the actions of others.....
2 Kings 20:16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD : 17 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. 18 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."
Matthew 26:33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."
34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.
John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Hezekiah: - Isaiah 38:17 Surely it was for my benefit
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.
Matthew 26:33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."
34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
BTW: Lee was wondering, "How can God know that only a remnant will be saved? and afterwards, "all Israel.""
Godrulz said:
The proof falls apart in #2. Did Peter's choice exist? Did Judas' choice exist?
The bottom line is that knowledge of the event might exist prior to the event.
lee_merrill
New member
I wasn't actually serious, in this instance!
So I'm not sure how this relates to God knowing a remnant will be saved.
Well, I don't think your answer addressed my question--to say that "all Israel" will come in in the millennium does not explain for me how God knows this.
There is no possibility that most will repent? If there is this possibility, then it is not sure that only a remnant will be saved.
But the question remains, how does God know that many, if not 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.
Blessings,
Lee
The words are different, and the term "lesser evil" makes my point more obvious to someone who might not be following closely.
I wasnt getting at total depravity, and I tend to jump ahead with my thoughts when I write which makes me hard to follow sometimes. Bad habit, sorry
I was getting at the idea I hold, that if God knows the future, He must have planned it, which If I'm correct means all choices were His and none were truly ours.
Ok, so does Calvinism affirm that God knows the entire future?
If so, the only options I see are that the entire future is planned, or God has a crystal ball.
So who planned it if not God? For the Crystal ball to work, the future must exist outside of Him to be discovered by Him thru whatever means, and reworked. If God planned it, He becomes the author of sin. If it's the crystal ball I surrender, not even going to try to figure that one out. Try to picture the actual mechanics of that world. Say God used shock collars to carry this idea out. Just how evil does He allow us to be before we get shocked? Do we actually ever hurt anyone, or does the slightest tempting thought activate the shock collar? Any slack at all on His part would be too much, no? Since God is more righteous than we are, and omnipotent, He would be offended by our thoughts much quicker than we would. We would end up being shocked faster than we realized we were thinking wrongly. I'm picturing a whole planet full of people being constantly shocked because they end up cursing God for such a silly plan. Our sin hurts us and others around us. If we could never be a bad parent, a bad leader, a bad citizen, nobody would see the "bad" in sin.
On both sides we must presuppose that God has sufficient justification for the evil that exists. On my side I say it is to allow the existance of true relationship with His creation, which requires free will, and therefore the opportunity for evil to occur outside His will. Your side says (at least in my understanding) that God has a higher purpose that we may not understand for allowing/(planning?) evil to occur. My main problem with your view is I cannot separate God knowing the future from God planning the future logically.
Not in every case, agreed.
Ultimately God allows everything to happen, true. He made the universe in such a way that evil can occur will while He remains righteous. I think we both must affirm this. I disagree that nothing contrary to His will can happen, in any sense. We see over and over in the Bible, and today's newspaper, cases of men doing things contrary to His will. I have no problem saying this because I believe the plain reading of the Bible shows that God made men to be able to make choices and be fully accountable for them. Giving us free will separates God from the problem of evil. If you want to say that nobody can over-power God and start mucking around with the universe contrary to the way God made it to run, I'm with you on that.
God knows many events are going to take place, and makes His plans accordingly.
You qualified God's knowledge of the future with "knows many events". Does that mean He doesnt know "all" events? Also, it seems to me that the "chain of future knowledge" (if I may
) is broken at any point where God actually reacts to some future knowledge by being caused to make plans accordingly. That would suggest God predicts some of the future based on the current condition and effects it if He sees it necessary to His ultimate plan. Actually that is basically the way I look at it.
Lon
Well-known member
Ignorant/diversionary. Tell me how OV escapes the same and I'll buy it. God ordains in OV, Arminian, and Calvinist viewpoints alike. OV, at best, is ignorant in poor systematics, or at worst is purposefully side-stepping concerning the topic.
We 'all' have God allowing evil as it happens. Step up to the plate and quite booing from the crowd: engage.
*****Parroting response, parroting response, parroting response*****
Who sinned? Jesus or the Father? They don't have 'true' relationship?
Think man. Think, think, think, think.
*****Parroting response, parroting response, parroting response*****for any of His creation to be deemed righteous there has to be the choice to be unrighteous. (and yes I see the trap... righteous by grace thru faith of course,
Sorry, I'm not being condescending here. We've been over and over and over this and I and others have shown this to be faulty thinking.
Is Jesus a sock-puppet or robot? Did He ever have a choice to sin? I say His nature would make this impossible. It isn't that He wasn't tempted in every way we are, as scripture tells us, it is rather that He had/has no inclination for it, being perfect and holy.
'Planned' and 'ordained' are separate ideas that mean something quite different. I find this argument, again, either ignorant (purposefully or otherwise) or malignant (purposefully or otherwise).
The only thing I assert here is that we are making a story, movie, life-script, and that God is at the other end of the process: He's seen it already. This does nothing but ordain the choices we make as though they are already made. It does not write the story. It just prints it and distributes it. In this analogy, God would be seeing a rerun. He can change anything He likes. I have no problem with the Creator creating. I implicitly trust Him. It seems to me, you are questioning His interaction with us and finding it distasteful for autonomy.
"Whoever would find life must 'deny' himself, take up his cross, and follow me."
I believe the Christian life to be self-abnegating. Freewill is nothing I wish to defend. It is against my christian paradigm.
No, we believe all is open to God, not for man. This is why we are not OV.
We are the constrained beings. We have absolutely no autonomy as created beings sustained, blessed, and directed by our creator. Without scripture we'd be crawling blind in the darkness like when we were born in sin. We are fully dependent upon Him for our righteousness and must follow His directions. We are in a struggle against our flesh. That isn't freedom, it is between a rock and a hard place. We joyfully desire the hard place where we deny ourselves and take up our cross to follow Him daily. My will is in bondage to be like my Savior. Gladly the cross we bear.
Lon
Well-known member
What the hell planet are you on? This first blurb is such an insanely stupid accusation Im not going to even read the rest of your post. I have "engaged" in my last two posts and many many others here on TOL in the past for posterity. You just come off as stupid here. Are you drunk?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes!
Exactly!
God is free because He has no alternative "choices" between being wicked or less than totally righteous.
God is righteous. Not by choice, but by essence.
Such righteousness is the biblical interpretation of righteousness.
God is good because He cannot be anything else.
So where does this suggestion, notion, or premise come . . .that man cannot be free, or righteous unless he has a choice to be enslaved to sin?
If the truth of Jesus Christ has made His people free, they are free indeed . . .certainly from such twisted humanistic philosophies that teach the will of man can only be free by volition.
Freedom is being known (elected by the Father) to be saved in Jesus Christ.
Nang
(S'cuse my appearance.)
Lon
Well-known member
It appears I hit a nerve. I'm not a drinking man but for very rare occassions, I prefer coffee.
Let me substantiate if possible:
In OV, God sees attrocity as it is happening and does not stop it. He is fully aware of all going on. He sees the man buying the gun. He sees the gas chambers in construction. So, explain please how OV escapes evil pulling up a chair in the OV stance. Explain, please, how Calvinism is more implicated here.
My point is that this isn't a Calvin vs OV topic. The 'when' disagreement is entirely beside the point. When God knows doesn't make a difference. The prosecutor may ask 'when' we knew, but the one standing by and watching it happen with the power to stop it, is just as implicated as the man who knew two hours ago.
If you don't agree, please explain why. I don't see 'when' as a viable question for removing implication. I would expect, along with you, that neither of us see God implicated with atrocity, but isn't our answer to 'why' and 'how come' about the same? Why are you trying to implicate the Calvinist with 'when?' Ultimately, I see 'when' as extenuating rather than the crux of OV prosecution and both of our respective concerns.
Can you substantiate "insanely stupid" and "drunk?"
I believe my stance cogent and appropriately meaningful to your assertations.
Lon
Well-known member
No, I really didn't there was nothing else in the fridge. Of course I could have put on my shoes and coat and went out for fast food. The point is, I was determined to eat pizza, not go out. Was there a choice? I grant that there was a hypothetical, but again, I believe it was rather deterministic that I'd eat pizza (Canadian bacon/pineapple- it was good). I don't have a problem with a script as much as you seem to. I understand that you emphasize LFW and I, EDF.
With pizza, it is really hard to get to the black and white of the discussion. I believe God was pleased with the choice for I didn't allow it to rot. I took care of my temple etc.
In the end, I don't think it matters for our discussion if I had freewill to do so or had no choice. It really isn't a big enough issue to have us at odds. Rather, it is when we are discussing election and the eternality of choice that it elevates but is also a bit easier to see starkly. I believe a director does have responsibility over his film. He isn't judged until the final product, but I believe God to know exactly as if He is watching our lives all unfold again in hindsight. This not to explain a theological stance as necessity, but rather how I see who He is and what is innate in His character. I see EDF more naturally rendered in scripture and OV explanations of those passages as forced rather than a natural read.
You recognize that I see no contradiction between EDF and our responsibility.
In part, OV holds to a similar stance regardless. God still allows us to write our script where we are responsible for the product of our lives. I cannot point to the mechanism of His character that allows EDF, but I believe the scriptures we bring to the table support EDF. In both of our positions, God knows our choices and allows us to make the poor ones. I'm not sure that 'when' is as huge of a disagreement when the why's and how's are still left for both of us to try and address.
How important is LFW really? If you didn't actually have it, would you be troubled?
Other than an inclination and perception, what really tells us we have LFW? How do we know it isn't illusion? I used to esteem it much higher than I do now as I once was rather against Calvinist doctrine to the contrary. It was the primary roadblock to my acceptance. Verses that call for us to deny ourselves and take up our cross repeatedly bombarded that sensibility. The verses themselves constantly challenged my view of LFW. Initially, I knew I needed to wade through this without considering LFW. I needed to look at scripture and leave that perception out as I considered truths. As I've spoken before, there are still remnants of Arminian thought I continue to wrestle with and LFW in particular. I don't see it as important as I once did and I've come to redefine it in light of Christ.
Jeffrey Dahmer's specific acts of torture were heinous evil and gratuitous. Does torture while someone is alive have more merit in God's detailed plan than killing them quickly? Does God really give people desire to cut off people's genitals for a higher good?!
Rob: An event or knowledge cannot be a necessity and contingent at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot say the same event is necessary in God's knowledge, but contingent for us. It is one or the other objectively from God and man's perspective.
- Status