ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

Why do Open Theists repeat the same erroneous answers? and then say "your question has been answered many times."

Perspective. Assumptions. I have yet to see any of them tackle the knowledge of future free acts head on. They simply state that knowing isn't the same as knowing for sure, etc., etc., etc....(not much else to say, I guess)

They are right in one thing: An incorrect answer is an answer none-the-less. Sorry Lee, I agree they have answered the questions many times over - albeit erroneously(i.e. cake + eating).

Perhaps you should ask them to answer the question and logically explain their response. It's much like the swallow question in Monty Python's Holy Grail. Perhaps the right question will yield only the percieved correct answer despite the truth. Subjective objectivism wins the day since perceived truth trumps the willingness to provide reasons. :think:

A truth obscured by a falsehood. What's the falsehood which obscures the truth of your question from them?

I've considered this a few times and their are many things which might be probable. Perhaps it's the American emphasis on freedom, humanism which seeks to elevate man above our rightful position in the cosmos, or our society's opulence which leads man to question the very nature of the one who's name was once feared to be spoken. I'm guilty too.

Open Theism is nothing new to Christianity. It's ideas have existed from the beginning. What did the serpent offer to Eve if not freedom?

 

[patman]

I can affirm I am not the creator of everything, so that's settled for sure! :chuckle:

Seriously, if it's possible to foreknow free acts then who can do it?

What?

I am not following, Rob.

You can't say God can't foretell future events if unless he possess exhaustive foreknowledge.. To do so implies you think God isn't smart enough to figure out what's going to happen next unless he actually saw it..:think:

I think that is as "head-on" as ever.

 

[lee_merrill]

They are right in one thing: An incorrect answer is an answer none-the-less.

Well, yes, but extending this by implication to "satisfactory answer" is what I find, well, unsatisfactory.

Perhaps the right question will yield only the perceived correct answer despite the truth.

Quite so, I'd say here. When difficult questions meet with repeated different answers constantly, it's "group dynamics" or "probably means definitely" or "remnant means however many there are"--that means there is a problem--especially if each answer is stated strongly as the obvious answer.

So how does the Lord know that only a remnant will be saved?

Only because he knows the future.

How is this God's "sentence on earth"?

Because he decides who is saved, and who is not saved.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Freedom is part of the image of God; it is a gift of God, not a bad thing from Satan. The misuse of freedom is jumped on by Satan, but freedom is not inherently evil, Rob. Are you a determinist? Free will, relational theism is biblical, but determinism is not. I don't think you are a hyper-Calvinist, so you should appreciate OT-Arminianism more than Calvinism.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Well, according to open theism: Nineveh, King Saul, bad grapes, and Tyre; just to name a few. I've seen these examples of humans overcoming God's purposes.

The Open View portrays that God is able to accomplish His goals despite not knowing the future. Those are all undeniable examples that God doesn't know the future, but what I said was --- could anything stop God?

As far as the Biblical stories are concerned, they did not stop God from accomplishing His desire. So these are not examples of something that stopped God, they are only examples of things God has overcome.

Perhaps you have mis-heard. The future isn't settled because it doesn't exist yet. God's knowledge of the future is completely settled because He, unlike Jordan, is perfect.

As far as I am aware being perfect doesn't say anything as to one's knowledge of the future. This is a position you've decided to invent (as if you know what being perfect means). There is no logical conclusion that this must be so, and the Bible doesn't speak to it. In the end, all we really have is your own supposition which you ask us to adopt.

Are you saying it's unfair for God to be smarter than you. In other words, do you think it's wrong to assume that God knows more about your future actions than you do?

What do you mean "are you saying"? I said nothing even remotely like that. I didn't complain about anything being "unfair". I said that God is powerful enough to win on any playing field, responding to your notion that He couldn't win unless He knew the future (which is embarrassing for you).

Was this a poor attempt at changing the topic?

I portray God as not knowing every detail of the future mainly because that is how the Bible portrays God. Would it be "unfair" of God to know every detail of the future? I don't know. Unbiblical concepts are often typically unfair, though my main concern is that such knowledge is limiting to God's power.

Sure. Satan understood it completely. Unlike some, Satan has a firm understanding that ALL of creation is within God's domain, providence, and control.

As far as I know Satan has only asked God's permission twice. For you to imply that he asks everytime, is not only moot and irrelevant to the topic --- it's also unjustified speculation.

So there was no real loss in Saul's misconduct? He lost his soul, and misled many others--God wasn't regretful about such matters?

I already said that God was regretful. Do I need to repeat myself?
I said that Saul was a good example that God regrets things that happen, however God was able to overcome the situation with Saul.

If you had read my previous post, I think you would have found my answers to these questions already. Oddly, you even quoted it -- how is it that you didn't read it?

So no free choice in becoming a prophet for Jerry? It's all fixed before birth?

Why does the Settled View have such a hard time keeping whose argument is whose straight?

See, that’s your argument. Mine is that just because God predicted it, doesn’t mean that it always comes true. That it did come true doesn’t imply logically that it had to.

But he knows this will happen, how can this be known? Sure, you or I could estimate that this may well happen, and work to bring it about, but it's not therefore a sure outcome, as long as Cyrus has a real choice.

If not this Cyrus, then another, or another. And if not a Persian Cyrus, then a Greek Cryus, or a Roman Cyrus, or an English Cyrus. And if no Cyrus obeyed God at all, then maybe a George whose name is later changed to Cyrus. Whatever the method, I know that God is "longsuffering".

(Sorry, I guess that word is a problem for Calvinists too since it implies God is in time. Oh well --- it can't be helped.)

Basically your argument seems to be to doubt the ability of God to accomplish the task without interfering in free will. I don’t doubt that God is more resourceful than you give Him credit.

Calvinists are always saying …. “Without forknowledge God could never …. “ and by thus underestimating God, they reveal their own theological undoing.

 

[patman]

So how does the Lord know that only a remnant will be saved?

Only because he knows the future.

How is this God's "sentence on earth"?

Because he decides who is saved, and who is not saved.

Blessings,
Lee

If God loves the world, why do you say he is deciding who he doesn't want to save? Errr, why is he predestining people to hell?

 

[patman]

If not this Cyrus, then another, or another. And if not a Persian Cyrus, then a Greek Cryus, or a Roman Cyrus, or an English Cyrus. (And if not a Cyrus at all, then maybe a George.)

Basically your argument seems to be to doubt the ability of God to accomplish the task without interfering in free will. I don’t doubt that God is more resourceful than you give Him credit.

Calvinists are always saying …. “Without forknowledge God could never …. “ and by thus underestimating God, they reveal their own theological undoing.

They use the "name" problem only when convenient.

A long time ago Lee and I had this huge conversation about how Nebuchadnezzar failed to fulfill the prophecy about Tyre. Lee said that the prophecy was meant for Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzar, even though God named Nebuchadnezzar as the person to utterly destroy Tyre.

Soooo the "name" issue is interchangable for lee.

God can say "Nebuchadnezzar" when he means "Alexander," but boys we have a huge problem if God didn't get Cyrus right!!:nono:

There goes that sarcasm slipping in again...:devil:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

A long time ago Lee and I had this huge conversation about how Nebuchadnezzar failed to fulfill the prophecy about Tyre. Lee said that the prophecy was meant for Alexander the Great, not Nebuchadnezzar, even though God named Nebuchadnezzar as the person to utterly destroy Tyre.

:rotfl:
That's funny patman.

 

[RobE]

The Open View portrays that God is able to accomplish His goals despite not knowing the future. Those are all undeniable examples that God doesn't know the future, but what I said was --- could anything stop God?

As far as the Biblical stories are concerned, they did not stop God from accomplishing His desire. So these are not examples of something that stopped God, they are only examples of things God has overcome.

The open view claims that it's God's desire for all to be saved, that it was God's desire for Tyre and Nineveh to be destroyed, and that it was God's desire to bring forth good grapes. In all these instances the open view proclaims that human free will 'stopped' God in His plans and thwarted His desires. This was my answer. How did your post respond to my reply?

Are you able to remember the following:

Perhaps you have mis-heard. The future isn't settled because it doesn't exist yet. God's knowledge of the future is completely settled because He, unlike Jordan, is perfect.

As far as I am aware being perfect doesn't say anything as to one's knowledge of the future. This is a position you've decided to invent (as if you know what being perfect means). There is no logical conclusion that this must be so, and the Bible doesn't speak to it. In the end, all we really have is your own supposition which you ask us to adopt.

Being perfect is contrary to being mistaken. Have you ever taken a test and achieved a perfect score? Knowledge and action go hand in hand. Perfect results are achieved through the application of perfect knowledge.

An opportunity to answer one of your own objections:

How is an action to be considered righteous if the outcome produces evil?​

You can't say God can't foretell future events if unless he possess exhaustive foreknowledge.. To do so implies you think God isn't smart enough to figure out what's going to happen next unless he actually saw it..

If I foretell the Bronco's football team will win the baseball World Series, have I foretold a future event?

If I foretell the Broncos will win the superbowl in 2010 and the Bengals win, have I foretold a future event?

In foretelling, the event must occur. Pre-(fore) dict(say) ing requires foreknowing.

If God is smart enough to figure out the future actions of free agents, then free will is compatible with foreknowledge. If this is possible, then God (who is able to perform all things possible) does so.

Since we agree God is able to know the next instant perfectly based on present knowledge, then based on His perfect knowledge of the next instant - the following instance would be known by Him, etc., etc., etc.,....... Perhaps this chain of knowing began before creation.

Logic doesn't allow you to say that God knows the future without knowing it. Nor should you claim foreknowledge when convenient and attempt to deny it when it hurts your feelings.

Another tactic around here seems to claim that 'knowing' is equivalent to 'believing', 'speculating', or 'hoping'. What does 'knowing' mean to you?

 

[RobE]

Freedom is part of the image of God; it is a gift of God, not a bad thing from Satan. The misuse of freedom is jumped on by Satan, but freedom is not inherently evil, Rob. Are you a determinist? Free will, relational theism is biblical, but determinism is not. I don't think you are a hyper-Calvinist, so you should appreciate OT-Arminianism more than Calvinism.

I didn't say that freedom was evil. Eve was already free when Satan offered it to her. The deception occurred because Eve became convinced that freedom from God was freedom indeed.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.​

This act enslaved all of mankind. It was the idea that acting contrary to God's will was freedom and living according to God's will was enslavement.

Let's look at open theism. Freedom according to open theism is the ability to act according to God's will(doing) or to act contrary to God's will(doing otherwise).

Open theism proclaims, "Without the ability to act contrary to God's will you are not truly free." This is the idea I was speaking of. Nothing new. It's also the idea which caused Lucifer to fall. Lucifer desires this freedom over all things.

 

[Clete]

Wow! This page (of 40 posts) loads a lot faster with RobE on your ignore list! :BRAVO:

 

[themuzicman]

And your IQ goes up by 20 points

 

[Philetus]

Wow! This page (of 40 posts) loads a lot faster with RobE on your ignore list! :BRAVO:

:rotfl:
I took him off ignore for a few days and my computer slowed so much I thought it would crash.

Back up to speed.

Have you noticed that no matter how sarcastic, ridiculous, offensive or even trite one’s answer to RobE he takes it as fundamental to the whole debate? Seems the more bizarre the more he takes it seriously.

Go figure.

P

 

[Philetus]

And your IQ goes up by 20 points

:devil: :devil: :idea:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And your IQ goes up by 20 points

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699532&postcount=15

 

[lee_merrill]

If God loves the world, why do you say he is deciding who he doesn't want to save? Errr, why is he predestining people to hell?

Well, I do believe this, why does God create a world with such potential for evil, in your view, where most refuse to repent?

But I also hope that all will repent.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699532&postcount=15

Ad hominems here, yes, and why are there devils dancing? Strange you should pick that analogy, or maybe, not so strange.

 

[RobE]

Because he decides who is saved, and who is not saved.

Muz's idea that God gives grace according to desire (John 6:44) shows that at least some open theists agree with this.

The problem becomes - is this positive reprobation? I would say, "No." I base this on the presumption that God's knowledge of events and God's decree to create existed simultaneously. God, in effect, fulfilled His desire to produce the 'sons of God' despite those who would freely reject Him.

Open Theists, unfortunately, have no such luxury since they deny God foreknew if any good would come out of the creative act. God might, through power, intervene on their behalf; but, alas, that would require(according to their definition) the individual's decision was not made freely. A catch 22.

Either their definition of free will is wrong, or a man might save himself. Quite the conundrum.

 

[patman]

Well, I do believe this, why does God create a world with such potential for evil, in your view, where most refuse to repent?

But I also hope that all will repent.

Blessings,
Lee

I know you do. I wish you would realize this is not love.

In my view, God did not create it so "most refuse to repent part." And I know you didn't say it, but just so it is clear, he didn't create an evil world. He made a perfect word that turned evil on it's own accord.

The reason the ability, or potential as you put it, was given us is because of freewill. God did not give us freewill so we could sin, he gave it to us so we would chose not to sin.

If we chose not to sin, we then are capable of love. If we are forced to not sin, or if we are forced to repent, we do not truly love, instead we are robots doing as we are programed. No robot can ever love - they can only pretend to.

If God commands us to love him, he must mean a genuine love, right?

Again, to reiterate. If God did predestine everything, meaning we are just fleshy robots following God's script, God did not love all of us because he programed so many to be thrown out with the trash. And they are helpless to change.

I cannot call that loving. And I cannot align that with scripture. God asks us to "Chose now who you will serve," and "repent," or change. If he is really the one making us chose or change, why does scripture say the power is in us (of course the strength to do so comes from Christ)?

 

[patman]

If I foretell the Bronco's football team will win the baseball World Series, have I foretold a future event?

If I foretell the Broncos will win the superbowl in 2010 and the Bengals win, have I foretold a future event?

In foretelling, the event must occur. Pre-(fore) dict(say) ing requires foreknowing.

If God is smart enough to figure out the future actions of free agents, then free will is compatible with foreknowledge. If this is possible, then God (who is able to perform all things possible) does so.

Since we agree God is able to know the next instant perfectly based on present knowledge, then based on His perfect knowledge of the next instant - the following instance would be known by Him, etc., etc., etc.,....... Perhaps this chain of knowing began before creation.

Logic doesn't allow you to say that God knows the future without knowing it. Nor should you claim foreknowledge when convenient and attempt to deny it when it hurts your feelings.

Another tactic around here seems to claim that 'knowing' is equivalent to 'believing', 'speculating', or 'hoping'. What does 'knowing' mean to you?

Do you purposely ignore the parts of our discussions that prove us right?

God foreknows what he preordains, Rob. If he wants to make something happen, he can call it(foretell). Because it hasn't happened yet, and he proclaimed it will happen, it is prediction.

Ordination is the key for knowing the future with certainty.

But even God's ordinations can change if he wants them to if the conditions that provoked the ordination change (of course the ordination for his coming kingdom will never change).

God demonstrates that he doesn't predestine everything when he places conditions on future events. "If this, that; if that, this."

Conditions are only possible when there is room for them to occur.

If God is promising an alternative future based on a condition he knows will not happen, he is not predicting the future - doing that would be a lie.

I have shown several examples of God proclaiming the future and that prediction did not occur.

To name a few:
Israel was not slaves for as long as he said they would be.
Nineveh was not destroyed in 40 days.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar did not enslave Egypt for 40ish years.
Israel did not repent when hearing the words of Jeremiah.
Jesus did not return during his own generation's lifetime
Daniel 11's last king never presented himself as he said.

And you guys fret over if Cyrus's name wasn't "Cyrus."