ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Group dynamics are not certain--and this is the Lord's sentence, not his observation--nor his estimate. And the Open View cannot explain how God knows this--What, they cannot all repent?

What do you mean, "Group dynamics are not certain?" It's MATH. Given a particular circumstance, a given percentage are going to choose a given way, even if we do not know which individuals may do so.

And if it is ever like the days of Noah, there must be a remnant, so Noah cannot refuse?

Then I wonder how Noah is a group!

How do you know that God wasn't working seek out and turn others to Himself? Why must Noah be the ONLY option?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

The invincible chessmaster does not always get His way.

I would therefore not call him invincible, especially if his purpose in a critical area such as salvation is usually thwarted.

And you say free choices are not inherently unknowable--but the Open View holds that they are, this is why the future is open.

I have even been told that knowing a future free choice made it fixed, and this was a contradiction. If EDF and free will are logically incoherent, how is knowing one free choice coherent with free will?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

What do you mean, "Group dynamics are not certain?" It's MATH.

As in probability and statistics, have you studied such matters, may I ask? Intuition in the area of probability is often mistaken.

Given a particular circumstance, a given percentage are going to choose a given way, even if we do not know which individuals may do so.

Not necessarily, it's always possible the trend may change, or even that everyone will buck the trend.

How do you know that God wasn't working seek out and turn others to Himself? Why must Noah be the ONLY option?

Note however that for all God's efforts, according to the Open View, only Noah found grace in the Lord's eyes. So how is a remnant preserved by group dynamics, when it can come down to one person being faithful? If the group tendency at times is on average for one person to be righteous, then there will be a number of times when no one is righteous (due to statistical variation) and thus there will sometimes be no remnant at all.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

In all views, many perish. We should not define invincible based on man's rejection of God's will for them. Hyper-sovereignty divorced from free will leads to confusion.

 

[themuzicman]

As in probability and statistics, have you studied such matters, may I ask? Intuition in the area of probability is often mistaken.

back in the day, Computer Science was part of the Math department, and a year of statistics along with some Calculus was required.

Not necessarily, it's always possible the trend may change, or even that everyone will buck the trend.

Just like in the case where you have a 2% chance of error on every part, that all 100,000 parts could be bad. In reality, they won't, since the machine does produce good parts 98% of the time.

It's the difference between theory and reality, and the difference between individual and group views. Each individual part may be bad, and thus, theoretically, all could, but in reality, the percentage will hold.

Note however that for all God's efforts, according to the Open View, only Noah found grace in the Lord's eyes. So how is a remnant preserved by group dynamics, when it can come down to one person being faithful? If the group tendency at times is on average for one person to be righteous, then there will be a number of times when no one is righteous (due to statistical variation) and thus there will sometimes be no remnant at all.

Noah wasn't based upon group dynamics. Had there been no one, the text pretty clearly tells us that God was going to wipe out the whole thing. Fortunately, Noah did respond.

When you get over the thought that Noah is remnant, it'll get clearer.

Muz

 

[RobE]

No. Molinism requires middle knowledge,where God knows what each posssible agent would choose in any given circumstance. That's how Molinism gets from all possible worlds to actualizing one with EDF.

Muz

Not to rain on anyone's parade. It seems that if God knows all possible worlds(per Muz), and God chooses to actualize one(per historical fact); then Molinism would hold true.

 

[RobE]

In all views, many perish. We should not define invincible based on man's rejection of God's will for them. Hyper-sovereignty divorced from free will leads to confusion.

"Fish sticks divorced from a cardboard box leads to indigestion."

God is sovereign over all including free will and cardboard boxes.

 

[RobE]

You're the only one who is missing the point, you moron.

What's the point?

 

[Philetus]

What's the point?

:rotfl::dunce::rotfl:

There is always a remnant.

 

[lee_merrill]

In all views, many perish. We should not define invincible based on man's rejection of God's will for them.

Then what does invincible mean?

back in the day, Computer Science was part of the Math department, and a year of statistics along with some Calculus was required.

You should certainly know therefore that a given percentage is not guaranteed, and that any possibility is possible.

Just like in the case where you have a 2% chance of error on every part, that all 100,000 parts could be bad. In reality, they won't, since the machine does produce good parts 98% of the time.

In reality, they probably won't--please stop making this mistake.

When you get over the thought that Noah is remnant, it'll get clearer.

So what would God do differently so it won't possibly come down to just Noah again? Note--possibly...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

What's the point?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8)

Is the point--sad to say.

 

[Clete]

After thinking about my recent negative rep comment I left for Lee, I realize that it must sound much more insulting than I intended for it to be. My apologies, Lee. Next time I'll think about how I want to say what I want to say more thoroughly. At my first opportunity, I'll send you some positive rep to make up for my silliness.

I would, however, prefer that you not speak for me. RobE doesn't get the point because he cannot get the point. He is deaf, dumb, poor, blind and naked and is so willfully. His every word invites the ridicule he deserves and if he doesn't get the point, he deserves to remain the ignorant moron he has decided to be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

As though Lee here has what it takes to speak for me.

That was Scripture, my friend. Clete, you mock and post insults continually.

Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. (Proverbs 9:7)

 

[Clete]

That was Scripture, my friend.

So is this...

Joshua 4:19 Now the people came up from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and they camped in Gilgal on the east border of Jericho.​

Clete, you mock and post insults continually.

I try to limit it to only when it is appropriate.

Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. (Proverbs 9:7)

This passage has about as much to do with the point RobE is missing as does that one I quoted above.

Be sure to see my edited post above.

 

[godrulz]

Not to rain on anyone's parade. It seems that if God knows all possible worlds(per Muz), and God chooses to actualize one(per historical fact); then Molinism would hold true.

God does not actualize the details of our world in advance. This would negate self-determining freedom. The myriad of issues would be mind blowing and would essentially default to brutal determinism to pull it off. EDF is simply not possible if there is any semblance of genuine love, relationship, freedom. Molinism, like determinism, falls short (it is also virtually impossible to understand or comprehend...way too philosophical...also refuted by Open Theists who point out some logical shortfalls dealing with counterfactuals of freedom...Molinism accounts for some types, but forgets about other types that need to be factored in).

 

[godrulz]

"Fish sticks divorced from a cardboard box leads to indigestion."

God is sovereign over all including free will and cardboard boxes.

I just had fish and chips that tasted like the cardboard box because they were hot and went cold before I could eat them leading to moisture/cardboard issues.

In His sovereignty, He voluntarily limited His absolute control to delegate some things to us as we walk together to actualize the potential future. We are significant others with a say so. Hyper-sovereignty as control negates freedom; God-given freedom limits the extent of God's control (though He can and does intervene if and when and as much or little as He wants to) without loosing control of final issues. Every time someone sins, they are rejecting God's will and having negative consequences for themselves and others. The alternative is to have robots, which is not the world God actualized. To actualize a non-deterministic world does not lessen His sovereignty, but it certainly does not mean He micromanages everything (nor does He need to).

 

[godrulz]

Lee: God decided to have a people (Israel/Church) and is patient and influential and will do whatever it takes, however long it takes, for there to be a people. The same can apply to the remnant. If the Second Coming is not fixed in the first century (why not?) then he can orchestrate things for centuries and pull the plug when things line up and there is a remnant open to Him. The same principle applied for the first coming when God waited until the fullness of time for conditions to be right before He incarnated to fulfill OT prophecies (Gal. 4:4)....part of your answer in addition to other thoughts you have been given.

 

[lee_merrill]

Be sure to see my edited post above.

Apology accepted, I wasn't trying to speak for you, by the way, I was trying to speak to you. And do please refrain from insulting Rob, he is gracious and willing to grapple with issues, and is not actually the person you perceive him to be.

Best wishes to you, and each one,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

God decided to have a people (Israel/Church) and is patient and influential and will do whatever it takes, however long it takes, for there to be a people.

They cannot all refuse?

The same can apply to the remnant.

Well, again, they cannot all refuse? What if again it came down to one person like Noah, and he went after idols?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

They cannot all refuse?


Well, again, they cannot all refuse? What if again it came down to one person like Noah, and he went after idols?

Blessings,
Lee

It is already evident that some have refused, but many have not. You are talking a remote theoretical possibility. How big is a remnant? Can God wait long enough for more to come in (that is what He is doing now 2 Peter 3:9)? What are the odds? Based on perfect knowledge of past and present history and human nature and God's ability to influence, the probability is virtually certain that it will happen as predicted. Again, it does not name each individual trillions of years in advance nor give exact times of everyone's conversion (more general than you are willing to admit, like much of Revelation).

I find this plausible and it is usually not brought up as an objection against OT. Where did you dig it up?

I find this more problematic: how could God know I would do this igherogihoighjoighogjjdffgdndfjnbjknda right now from trillions of years ago if I freely did it without a deterministic explanation?

AMR: We miss you.